Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.

[JakeStarkey]

Consensus is that marriage equality is acceptable to majority of Americans, certainly to a super majority of millennials.

The issue is about marriage equality, not the philosophical nature of 'inalienable rights.'

You are correct that private suits often are placed under untenable costs

 

[JakeStarkey]

So procreation matters when we discuss THEM, but not when we discuss YOU.

Ok, got it

Now what's this equality you were speaking of?

Well. that is your thinking, anyway. "Procreation only matters when it is about them not us" That's why you keep insisting that procreation is the very reason for marriage, while with the next breath insisting that your argument has nothing to do with sterile heterosexual couples. Your argument is either stupid, or hypocritical. I'll let you decide which.

I'll ask again then, why are you compelled to bring the disabled into the discussion

Are gays disabled?

Why do you keep bring up incest and procreation?

Incest is icky

Procreation is something same sex couplings can't do.

Seems the demographic groups aren't equal to begin with.

Think a change of definition will change that?

Why do you keep bringing up procreation in marriage threads?

Because, as lame as that argument is, Pop has nothing else.

He is whining to whine is all.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear C_Clayton_Jones

And yet this substantive due process
does not apply to people of other parties who believe in free choice of paying and managing health care
without being forced to go through insurance or federal mandates.

Yes it did. The question of the "Individual Mandate" specifically made it's way through the courts to the Supreme court. You are confusing due process with agreeing with the court's decision after you had your day in court.

When one party pushes for the "right to marriage" or "right to health care"
as their political BELIEFS, this is justified as establishing through the govt as law.

But [fill in the blank] forbid if
people of OTHER beliefs push for
* right to life
* natural rights
and try to defend that. Suddenly there should be "separation of church and state"
to keep these beliefs out of govt.

I*sigh* I swore I wasn't going to get into this, but, okay. Here is the problem, Emily. It is a matter of definition. I could go through all seven of the process individually, but suffice to say that defending "right to life" is nothing more than misleading rhetoric. A fetus does not meet the criteria for being an independent life. it is a mass of living cells, but it is not, itself, a life. This is why "pro-life" is a misnomer, and why advocating for banning all abortions on the grounds of "right to life" is erroneous. In the case of a pregnant women there is only one life in question - the woman's. The fetus is nothing more than a potential life. I'm sorry, I am going to be more concerned over the natural rights of the actual life, than I am the potential life.

And, again, you can, and did have your right to defend these positions in court. You seem to be confusing being allowed to have your day in court with winning your argument. They are not the same thing.

But when liberals have beliefs, those are OKAY to establish through Courts and Congress as a nationalized belief.

Maybe if we address and change this paradigm,
we could address the issues of marriage, health care, etc. per se.

If we keep ignoring the bias going on, people will fight that
and we can't focus on the issues.

Same with abortion, gun rights, etc. that keep getting into political fights
over ideology and pushing biases or beliefs through govt.

Once again there is no bias going on. You have had your chance to bring every one of your issues before the courts, just like progressives have. The "bias" is that none of your positions was supported in the Constitution, so your side lost its argument every time. hat's not a problem with our political system; that is a problem with one side - who shall remain nameless - constantly choosing to support concepts that are antithetical to the Constitution.

Hey I have an idea.

Let's agree to make laws that reflect and represent/include/protect beliefs Equally.

let's agree to stop bullying back and forth by political force and majority rule to exclude the other beliefs.

And maybe we can stop fighting long enough to work out
solutions that neither impose or deny one side or the other.

How about that, actually respecting equal due process, representation
and protection of the laws for all beliefs, without discrimination by creed.

What a concept, sounds like it might even be Constitutional, you think?

Again, you can "make" any laws you want - as the marriage bans prove. However, once you are done making those laws, the Judicial Branch gets to do its job, and adjudicate whether those laws are Constitutional, or not. You seem to be suggesting that the "will of the people" has supreme authority", without restriction. Guess what? It doesn't. The authority of the "people" ends at the Constitution. The people do not get to enact laws that contradict the rights innumerated in the Constitution, regardless of how much some would like to.

Hi CZ sorry I cannot answer all this right now due to work schedule.
I will go back and reply so thanks for all your posts and detailed responses.

in short
1. if one recognizes that political beliefs need to be handled by consensus to prevent infringements or discrimination by creed by onesided rulings while the other side dissents,
then this process does not protect both beliefs equally. Only consensus decisions at each step of the way would not impose an unfair bias toward one side's beliefs over the other and discriminate by creed.

If people AGREED to use majority rule to decide their creed, that is one thing.
But here people did not. they are still dissenting and will never agree to give up their creed
their beliefs in natural rights not taken away by govt , when they committed no crime and had
no due process.

Inthe case of health care mandates, the citizens losing the right to pay for helath care in other ways besides insurance were never proven to be criminal to have any criminal intent of not paying for health care,
yet are now taxed and fined unless they pay for health insurance under mandates that restrict their choices!

so this is against the spirit of the law and just was not established or proven in courts.
just like SLAVERY used to be legal and the courts had no authority except to return Property back to their lawful owners.

Just because it took a lot more than court rulings to end SLAVERY
did not mean that during that time, slaves "had due process" when the rulings came out
in favor of slave owners to have their property returned.

the law and court system isn't perfect.

2. NO, there IS a check on the people's authority:
There must be consensus on law where there are religious beliefs involved so nobodyis infringed upon
more or less than someone else, and any such laws reflect the CONSENT o f thosepeople.

So if there are any unresolved dissension or objections,
the conflict resolution and consensus building process catches those and compels them to be redressed.

Especially those who believe in enforcing Constitutional laws will use those as the standard that such agreements must abide by. consensus would ensure that any conflicts that threaten the consent or beliefs/interests of one partyor another would be rsolved first before passing and enforcing a law. Same with writing legal contracts that have to be rviewed first, and make sure people agree to what they are signing if you want it to be enforceable. The more people agree in spirit before they write and finalize a contract, the greater chance of sticking to that agreement and enforcing it instead of fighting over it later because something was missed. Why would anyone tryto enforce a contract knowing it has some huge flaw in it causing the other to protest and refuse the contract? clearly something is wrong if one side is protestng. Where is our common sense?

Gotta go sorry later!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Religious opinion may never trump secular law in our constitutional legal system.

There is a wall between secular and religious, there is a wall between private and public.

 

[Carla_Danger]

You may not like it, but in most states incest is illegal, and there is no law that states two people must procreate in order to get married.

If you are unhappy with our laws, get your ass out there and try to change them.

My suggestion to you, is get over yourself. The fact is, gay marriage will soon be legal in every state. We're half way there.

So procreation matters when we discuss THEM, but not when we discuss YOU.

Ok, got it

Now what's this equality you were speaking of?

Well. that is your thinking, anyway. "Procreation only matters when it is about them not us" That's why you keep insisting that procreation is the very reason for marriage, while with the next breath insisting that your argument has nothing to do with sterile heterosexual couples. Your argument is either stupid, or hypocritical. I'll let you decide which.

I'll ask again then, why are you compelled to bring the disabled into the discussion

Are gays disabled?

Why do you keep bring up incest and procreation?

Incest is icky

Procreation is something same sex couplings can't do.

Seems the demographic groups aren't equal to begin with.

Think a change of definition will change that?

Lots of straight couples can't or don't want to have children. I don't see your point....or maybe you just thought you had one???

 

[Pop23]

So procreation matters when we discuss THEM, but not when we discuss YOU.

Ok, got it

Now what's this equality you were speaking of?

Well. that is your thinking, anyway. "Procreation only matters when it is about them not us" That's why you keep insisting that procreation is the very reason for marriage, while with the next breath insisting that your argument has nothing to do with sterile heterosexual couples. Your argument is either stupid, or hypocritical. I'll let you decide which.

I'll ask again then, why are you compelled to bring the disabled into the discussion

Are gays disabled?

Why do you keep bring up incest and procreation?

Procreation is something same sex couplings can't do.

Seems the demographic groups aren't equal to begin with.

And you again demonstrate your bigotry, and discrimination
. You insist that same sex couples are less valid than opposite sex couples, because they cannot procreate, and them insist, when it is pointed out that sterile opposite sex couples can't either, that this is different.

Why do you hate sterile people?

I don't hate sterile people

Are you claiming same sex coupling don't procreate due to sterility?

Crazy dood, absolutely crazy

 

[Pop23]

So procreation matters when we discuss THEM, but not when we discuss YOU.

Ok, got it

Now what's this equality you were speaking of?

Well. that is your thinking, anyway. "Procreation only matters when it is about them not us" That's why you keep insisting that procreation is the very reason for marriage, while with the next breath insisting that your argument has nothing to do with sterile heterosexual couples. Your argument is either stupid, or hypocritical. I'll let you decide which.

I'll ask again then, why are you compelled to bring the disabled into the discussion

Are gays disabled?

Why do you keep bring up incest and procreation?

Incest is icky

Procreation is something same sex couplings can't do.

Seems the demographic groups aren't equal to begin with.

Think a change of definition will change that?

Lots of straight couples can't or don't want to have children. I don't see your point....or maybe you just thought you had one???

Your not too bright, or in denial

 

[Czernobog]

Hi CZ sorry I cannot answer all this right now due to work schedule.
I will go back and reply so thanks for all your posts and detailed responses.

in short
1. if one recognizes that political beliefs need to be handled by consensus to prevent infringements or discrimination by creed by one sided rulings while the other side dissents,
then this process does not protect both beliefs equally. Only consensus decisions at each step of the way would not impose an unfair bias toward one side's beliefs over the other and discriminate by creed.

If people AGREED to use majority rule to decide their creed, that is one thing.
But here people did not. they are still dissenting and will never agree to give up their creed
their beliefs in natural rights not taken away by govt , when they committed no crime and had
no due process.

You get that the responsibility of the l branch is not to represent the desires of the "the people", but the integrity of the Constitution, right? The "need" the court isn't by consensus. That's the point of the formation of the Judicial Branch was the recognition that sometimes even the majority of citizens can "get it wrong". So, as a way to balance that to prevent discrimination by "rule of the mob" the Judicial Branch was designed to weigh laws against the constitution, and make sure they were in accordance. If you feel that the rulings have been unduly "one-sided", perhaps you should consider the possibility that the problem is not with the courts, but with the laws that you keep trying to enact. Just a thought...

In the case of health care mandates, the citizens losing the right to pay for health care in other ways besides insurance were never proven to be criminal to have any criminal intent of not paying for health care,
yet are now taxed and fined unless they pay for health insurance under mandates that restrict their choices!

You get that the individual mandate as not about "intent", right? No one criminalized not having insurance. This was about off-setting the cost of medical treatment due to treating the uninsured. The intent of ininsured to defraud the healthcare system is immaterial. Whether intended or not, treating the uninsured was costing billions.

so this is against the spirit of the law and just was not established or proven in courts.
just like SLAVERY used to be legal and the courts had no authority except to return Property back to their lawful owners.

Just because it took a lot more than court rulings to end SLAVERY
did not mean that during that time, slaves "had due process" when the rulings came out
in favor of slave owners to have their property returned.

the law and court system isn't perfect.

Actually slaves didn't "due process", because slaves had no standing as they were property, not people. A horse cannot sue its owner. That was kind of the point of the debates leading up to the Civil War - the personhood of slaves.

2. NO, there IS a check on the people's authority:
There must be consensus on law where there are religious beliefs involved so nobodyis infringed upon
more or less than someone else, and any such laws reflect the CONSENT o f thosepeople.

So if there are any unresolved dissension or objections,
the conflict resolution and consensus building process catches those and compels them to be redressed.

Especially those who believe in enforcing Constitutional laws will use those as the standard that such agreements must abide by. consensus would ensure that any conflicts that threaten the consent or beliefs/interests of one party or another would be resolved first before passing and enforcing a law. Same with writing legal contracts that have to be reviewed first, and make sure people agree to what they are signing if you want it to be enforceable. The more people agree in spirit before they write and finalize a contract, the greater chance of sticking to that agreement and enforcing it instead of fighting over it later because something was missed. Why would anyone try to enforce a contract knowing it has some huge flaw in it causing the other to protest and refuse the contract? clearly something is wrong if one side is protesting. Where is our common sense?

Gotta go sorry later!

You are committing a couple errors here. First, that consensus is always based on understanding of the Constitution. It isn't. I would submit that beyond the preamble, most Americans would have hard time even listing the seven articles of the Constitution without looking it up, let alone expressing a reasoned grasp of the concepts within those articles. And we haven't even gotten to the 27 amendments of the Constitution, and how each of them affects the concepts they are related to in the in body. So, to suggest that popular referendums are based on rational desire to protect the rights enumerated within the Constitution is naive, and badly overestimates the education, knowledge, and understanding of "the people".

Second you assume that everyone reads all of the contents of every measure that comes before them for public referendum. Hell, our legislators, whose only job is to pass legislation, don't even do that. What on Earth would make you think that average citizens, who are very busy living the lives - working, taking care of family, etc. - would take the time to do so?

And they aren't expected to. You are still missing the fact that the check on popular referendum isn't the political system itself - it is the Judicial Branch of the government. You see public referendum still part of the legislative process. And the Judicial Branch was designed to be the check on the legislative process. It's job is to ensure that any laws passed - whether by legislation, or by referendum - are, in fact, constitutional.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Well. that is your thinking, anyway. "Procreation only matters when it is about them not us" That's why you keep insisting that procreation is the very reason for marriage, while with the next breath insisting that your argument has nothing to do with sterile heterosexual couples. Your argument is either stupid, or hypocritical. I'll let you decide which.

I'll ask again then, why are you compelled to bring the disabled into the discussion

Are gays disabled?

Why do you keep bring up incest and procreation?

Procreation is something same sex couplings can't do.

Seems the demographic groups aren't equal to begin with.

And you again demonstrate your bigotry, and discrimination
. You insist that same sex couples are less valid than opposite sex couples, because they cannot procreate, and them insist, when it is pointed out that sterile opposite sex couples can't either, that this is different.

Why do you hate sterile people?

I don't hate sterile people

Are you claiming same sex coupling don't procreate due to sterility?

Crazy dood, absolutely crazy

What business is it of yours? If they want children, they can adopt.

 

[Czernobog]

Well. that is your thinking, anyway. "Procreation only matters when it is about them not us" That's why you keep insisting that procreation is the very reason for marriage, while with the next breath insisting that your argument has nothing to do with sterile heterosexual couples. Your argument is either stupid, or hypocritical. I'll let you decide which.

I'll ask again then, why are you compelled to bring the disabled into the discussion

Are gays disabled?

Why do you keep bring up incest and procreation?

Procreation is something same sex couplings can't do.

Seems the demographic groups aren't equal to begin with.

And you again demonstrate your bigotry, and discrimination
. You insist that same sex couples are less valid than opposite sex couples, because they cannot procreate, and them insist, when it is pointed out that sterile opposite sex couples can't either, that this is different.

Why do you hate sterile people?

I don't hate sterile people

Are you claiming same sex coupling don't procreate due to sterility?

Crazy dood, absolutely crazy

I'm saying that either procreation matters, or it doesn't. You don't get to pick and choose who procreation matters for, just because you happen to not like the behavior of one group. That is called discrimination.

Anyway you want to cut it, dood, you are a bigot.

That's your right. I just want you to be honest about it.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Well. that is your thinking, anyway. "Procreation only matters when it is about them not us" That's why you keep insisting that procreation is the very reason for marriage, while with the next breath insisting that your argument has nothing to do with sterile heterosexual couples. Your argument is either stupid, or hypocritical. I'll let you decide which.

I'll ask again then, why are you compelled to bring the disabled into the discussion

Are gays disabled?

Why do you keep bring up incest and procreation?

Incest is icky

Procreation is something same sex couplings can't do.

Seems the demographic groups aren't equal to begin with.

Think a change of definition will change that?

Lots of straight couples can't or don't want to have children. I don't see your point....or maybe you just thought you had one???

Your not too bright, or in denial

So sad. but gay people will eventually be allowed to marry in every state. You can continue to post bigoted threads, but I don't see you doing anything to change it.

Honestly, I don't know why you're so worried about something that's none of your business to begin with.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pop23 is a busybody is all.

 

[Pop23]

I'll ask again then, why are you compelled to bring the disabled into the discussion

Are gays disabled?

Why do you keep bring up incest and procreation?

Procreation is something same sex couplings can't do.

Seems the demographic groups aren't equal to begin with.

And you again demonstrate your bigotry, and discrimination
. You insist that same sex couples are less valid than opposite sex couples, because they cannot procreate, and them insist, when it is pointed out that sterile opposite sex couples can't either, that this is different.

Why do you hate sterile people?

I don't hate sterile people

Are you claiming same sex coupling don't procreate due to sterility?

Crazy dood, absolutely crazy

What business is it of yours? If they want children, they can adopt.

So can opposite sex fertile couples, but same sex coupling cannot make a baby

Hmmmmmm, yep, huge difference, would you not agree?

 

[Pop23]

Pop23 is a busybody is all.

Don't forget, your ignoring me

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why do you keep bring up incest and procreation?

Procreation is something same sex couplings can't do.

Seems the demographic groups aren't equal to begin with.

And you again demonstrate your bigotry, and discrimination
. You insist that same sex couples are less valid than opposite sex couples, because they cannot procreate, and them insist, when it is pointed out that sterile opposite sex couples can't either, that this is different.

Why do you hate sterile people?

I don't hate sterile people

Are you claiming same sex coupling don't procreate due to sterility?

Crazy dood, absolutely crazy

What business is it of yours? If they want children, they can adopt.

So can opposite sex fertile couples, but same sex coupling cannot make a baby

Hmmmmmm, yep, huge difference, would you not agree?

Not to an intelligence person, no.

I am ignoring the legal arguments, because you have none.

I am amused, however, by the types of your posts I just answered.

 

[Pop23]

I'll ask again then, why are you compelled to bring the disabled into the discussion

Are gays disabled?

Why do you keep bring up incest and procreation?

Procreation is something same sex couplings can't do.

Seems the demographic groups aren't equal to begin with.

And you again demonstrate your bigotry, and discrimination
. You insist that same sex couples are less valid than opposite sex couples, because they cannot procreate, and them insist, when it is pointed out that sterile opposite sex couples can't either, that this is different.

Why do you hate sterile people?

I don't hate sterile people

Are you claiming same sex coupling don't procreate due to sterility?

Crazy dood, absolutely crazy

I'm saying that either procreation matters, or it doesn't. You don't get to pick and choose who procreation matters for, just because you happen to not like the behavior of one group. That is called discrimination.

Anyway you want to cut it, dood, you are a bigot.

That's your right. I just want you to be honest about it.

Why do we make a daughter/father marriage illegal if procreation does not matter?

 

[bodecea]

Why do you keep bring up incest and procreation?

Procreation is something same sex couplings can't do.

Seems the demographic groups aren't equal to begin with.

And you again demonstrate your bigotry, and discrimination
. You insist that same sex couples are less valid than opposite sex couples, because they cannot procreate, and them insist, when it is pointed out that sterile opposite sex couples can't either, that this is different.

Why do you hate sterile people?

I don't hate sterile people

Are you claiming same sex coupling don't procreate due to sterility?

Crazy dood, absolutely crazy

What business is it of yours? If they want children, they can adopt.

So can opposite sex fertile couples, but same sex coupling cannot make a baby

Hmmmmmm, yep, huge difference, would you not agree?

What does "coupling" and procreation have to do with the topic of marriage?

 

[Carla_Danger]

Why do you keep bring up incest and procreation?

Procreation is something same sex couplings can't do.

Seems the demographic groups aren't equal to begin with.

And you again demonstrate your bigotry, and discrimination
. You insist that same sex couples are less valid than opposite sex couples, because they cannot procreate, and them insist, when it is pointed out that sterile opposite sex couples can't either, that this is different.

Why do you hate sterile people?

I don't hate sterile people

Are you claiming same sex coupling don't procreate due to sterility?

Crazy dood, absolutely crazy

What business is it of yours? If they want children, they can adopt.

So can opposite sex fertile couples, but same sex coupling cannot make a baby

Hmmmmmm, yep, huge difference, would you not agree?

I don't give a shit who wants to procreate, who doesn't, or who can't or won't. When it becomes the law that we must procreate, in order to marry, you let me know.

 

[emilynghiem]

You get that the responsibility of the l branch is not to represent the desires of the "the people", but the integrity of the Constitution, right? The "need" the court isn't by consensus. That's the point of the formation of the Judicial Branch was the recognition that sometimes even the majority of citizens can "get it wrong". So, as a way to balance that to prevent discrimination by "rule of the mob" the Judicial Branch was designed to weigh laws against the constitution, and make sure they were in accordance. If you feel that the rulings have been unduly "one-sided", perhaps you should consider the possibility that the problem is not with the courts, but with the laws that you keep trying to enact. Just a thought...

1. a. Yes I agree that the conflicts over unchangeable political beliefs
mean something is wrong with the law in that case and also
b. Something is missing from the Constitution
if we are not handling political beliefs with equal protection of the laws as a creed
under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, but allowing the govt to take one side and impose it on the other
in cases of unresolved conflict. Something IS inherently wrong with that
and DOES require either a public agreement to interpret the First and Fourteenth Amendments
to recognize and respect political creeds, OR a Constitutional convention or Amendment if needed.

Something has to change because this system is not solving this problem as is, and it keeps coming up,
in different forms and issues, where the common factor I find is political beliefs that are not equally accommodated.

You are committing a couple errors here. First, that consensus is always based on understanding of the Constitution. It isn't. I would submit that beyond the preamble, most Americans would have hard time even listing the seven articles of the Constitution without looking it up, let alone expressing a reasoned grasp of the concepts within those articles. And we haven't even gotten to the 27 amendments of the Constitution, and how each of them affects the concepts they are related to in the in body. So, to suggest that popular referendums are based on rational desire to protect the rights enumerated within the Constitution is naive, and badly overestimates the education, knowledge, and understanding of "the people".

Second you assume that everyone reads all of the contents of every measure that comes before them for public referendum. Hell, our legislators, whose only job is to pass legislation, don't even do that. What on Earth would make you think that average citizens, who are very busy living the lives - working, taking care of family, etc. - would take the time to do so?

And they aren't expected to. You are still missing the fact that the check on popular referendum isn't the political system itself - it is the Judicial Branch of the government. You see public referendum still part of the legislative process. And the Judicial Branch was designed to be the check on the legislative process. It's job is to ensure that any laws passed - whether by legislation, or by referendum - are, in fact, constitutional.

1. Doesn't it start with the people writing good laws and contracts first?
If we did this right, wouldn't we impose less burden on the judicial and leave that open to handle
real issues of govt that people cannot better resolve ourselves directly in private?
See Code of Ethics for govt service: ethics-commission.net

How can we avoid passing bad or burdensome laws to begin with
which then burden the legal and judicial system with reviewing and handling lawsuits after the fact?

by the code of ethics we should employ the most efficient means of getting tasks accomplished.

Wouldn't it cost less to mediate and resolve conflicts in advance, not wait until afterwards to sue?

Citizens don't need to be educated on every jot and tittle of the laws,
but just know the basic Bill of Rights plus 14th Amendment
and the Code of Ethics and their local police and city/county ordinances and process,
and they can participate equally. Most grievances or process of law should fall
within those basic guidelines i find to be the MINIMUM required of citizens to be legally responsible.

otherwise we backlog our system with crimes, abuses and lawsuits from violations
because people either don't know the laws and obligations or the cost of the process.
We would save more time, resources and damages/debts to the public
by mediating to resolve conflicts and prevent infringements including criminal and civil violations of laws.

By educating citizenry on the standards of law and what the process are and how much they cost.

2. Also note that the system of using the legal/judicial system to check against abuses
has been skewed by corporate interests and legal resources/connections being unequal.

Corporations or even private citizens who can afford legal resources
can buy their way out of accountability. Even lawyers have known this
and have been fighting their own system in an uphill battle where justice is for sale
financially and politically. This is well known the legal and judicial system is run by politics and money.

We cannot depend on that "after the fact" to resolve conflicts or restore/correct anything gone wrong.

The only way to guarantee equal protections is to work toward PREVENTION of violations
in the first place. if we PREVENT the infraction or conflict from imposing on one party's interests unequally
then those interests can be protected equally as the opponents interests.

There is no guarantee of correcting and restoring justice after the infraction occurs,
so the system is not equal.

this has long been a problem. Look at rape victims who get put on trial along with their offenders.
This is still considered the best justice system in the world,
but it doesn't prevent crime or abuses by relying on this "after the fact."

True protection of rights is going to come from
teaching people what the laws are, how to enforce standards consistently
and how to redress grievances and resolve conflicts directly to try to
curb, correct and prevent violations in advance and reduce damages after the fact.

We cannot keep expecting our judicial system to clean up afterwards.
Look at our courts backlogged, our prisons and our immigration system
for people waiting on due process.

We need to stop the backlog of unnecessary conflicts jamming up the system
so it can be reserved for the cases of public security and safety that govt is supposed to handle.

The civil conflicts need to be prevented and managed
by conflict resolution or we'll always have this backlog and people
getting away with injustice because it takes so long to address and doesn't act as a
guaranteed correction much less a deterrent.

Basing decisions and lawful conduct on "consent of the governed"
would act as an immediate check with immediate consequences
where both parties that agree to this standard get it protected for them,
instead of gambling on majority rule or court ruling where it is not guaranteed.

Agreeing to go by consensus would ensure that between those parties.

and yes I agree that consensus is based on Constitutional standards,
(and I also throw in the Constitutional ethics under the
Code of Ethics for Government service); I would base the standards
of laws on that and urge that all citizens be equally knowledgeable and
trained in this process in order to enforce their equal rights under law.

How can we be "equally protected under law"
if citizens don't even know how the laws and govt
work, and what the standards are for due process?

No wonder we are unequal and people can be taken advantage of politically
to depend on politicians in parties and govt to make decisions for them!

There is no shortcut to teaching people the laws in order to be equal under them.
Even to delegate authority to other people to govern, they would need to have basic knowledge
in order to check their own govt and hold lawyers, judges, leaders and other party/govt officials accountable.

I don't see a shortcut to that, because as soon as people depend on someone else,
they are not equal in power. They must at least be given the choice and access
to help to be legally and politically equal in power with equal voice in decisions
"in addition" to the choice to delegate or hire out this authority to another party to represent their interests.

 

[Pop23]

Procreation is something same sex couplings can't do.

Seems the demographic groups aren't equal to begin with.

And you again demonstrate your bigotry, and discrimination
. You insist that same sex couples are less valid than opposite sex couples, because they cannot procreate, and them insist, when it is pointed out that sterile opposite sex couples can't either, that this is different.

Why do you hate sterile people?

I don't hate sterile people

Are you claiming same sex coupling don't procreate due to sterility?

Crazy dood, absolutely crazy

What business is it of yours? If they want children, they can adopt.

So can opposite sex fertile couples, but same sex coupling cannot make a baby

Hmmmmmm, yep, huge difference, would you not agree?

I don't give a shit who wants to procreate, who doesn't, or who can't or won't. When it becomes the law that we must procreate, in order to marry, you let me know.

And the blind should be granted drivers licenses.

Okey dokey then.