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

[Carla_Danger]

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.

Huh, whaaaa?

 

[Desperado]

Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases
A very simple way of the Supreme Court saying they want no part of this decision and are shamelessly avoiding their responsibility to make a decision.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fallacy of false comparison, Pop, try again.

 

[Czernobog]

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?

See? You hate the sterile. Not only are you making a distinction between homosexuals, and straight people, but, with this very post, you are pointing out "fertile" couples. Why do you hate the infertile? Why do you hate people who have had hysterectomies? Why do you hate people who have had vasectomies?

 

[Czernobog]

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?

Because we are a nation of moralistic busybodies. I thought we already established this...

 

[JakeStarkey]

The evangelical busy bodies of the far right think they have a moral right to make others live according to the very small minority standard.

 

[emilynghiem]

1.

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.

Yes, by your secular beliefs you are perfectly in line to set the legal definition on person as you did.
And equally for those with religious beliefs, they have the right to DEFEND their beliefs (as backed
scientifically that the DNA is UNIQUE upon conception if they choose to draw the line there).

I agree that such religious beliefs CANNOT BE IMPOSED through govt,
but likewise neither can the secular beliefs be imposed.

Where I find prolife people agree is on prevention.
Even without being forced by laws, the prolife believe in abstention, adoption, etc. to prevent abortion.
So this shows that preventing abortion can be achieved by FREE CHOICE and does not depend on bans by laws.

None of the prolife people depend on bans on laws to prevent abortion, but are opposed by free choice.
So that is the argument I make for prochoice, and it is hard to argue with because all the prolife people do so by free choice.
I point to their movement as PROOF that abortion can be stopped by education and free choice as they practice themselves.

Arguing about their beliefs will go in circles because that will not change and govt cannot force them to change their beliefs.
Working on prevention respect both prochoice and prolife equally, and does not discriminate by creed.
So that approach is more constitutionally inclusive and agreeable and able to be enforced across the lines.

I respect your views equally as those who believe otherwise,
which I include as protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendment.

If people choose to hear your reasoning and follow it, that's great,
but it is equal to people choosing to hear their beliefs and choosing to follow it or not;
it cannot be endorsed by govt but must remain a free choice since religious beliefs are involved.

When people agree to back down on their religious beliefs, I will back down from defending their equal religious defense.
As long as they believe those things, this has to be worked out by consensus where they choose to change their approach.

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.

Not according my understanding of the Code of Ethics for govt service:
1. people should NOT put partisan agenda before the Constitution (I consider this a violation of First and Fourteenth Amendments by counting political beliefs as a creed)
2. passing laws first then fighting to correct after is NOT the most efficient use of tax dollars and public resources
3. ex: the marriage bans were already unconstitutional and should not have been passed which wasted time and resources

So you can use this system to check overreaching and abuse of govt *in advance*
that doesn't meet Constitutional muster or Constitutional ethics.

Conflict resolution would catch and correct most errors in advance that can be corrected or prevented.

Also, someone recommended a Con amendment that before Congress passes any new laws especially
creating a new authority or system, that a vote must be taken if this is Constitutional or not.

I think that is a good idea.

Not only would it show if there is a consensus or not,
but allow people to show they are opposing it on Constitutional grounds (and I would require them to correct
the fault and not just block for the sake of objecting) and not opposed to the health care or content of the bill.

Ex:
I am not opposed to gay marriage but oppose the imposition of it using laws and language
that excludes other people's beliefs and is not secularly neutral enough to prevent religious issues or conflicts.

I am not opposed to health care reforms and believe in free choice, so if people want single payer
systems they should have a way to set that up for those who agree;
but I oppose imposing a system that denies and punishes equal choices of others to fund
and manage health care systems of their beliefs as well.

So this might help stop the fights over the content
and focus on the Constitutionality of how laws are written or how they can be corrected or separated
to allow equal beliefs to be protected from discrimination or imposition on each other.

 

[emilynghiem]

The evangelical busy bodies of the far right think they have a moral right to make others live according to the very small minority standard.

Ahem isn't this also said of the left by the right,
ie gay marriage, health care mandates, etc that reflect a leftwing bias toward THOSE political beliefs.

Or do you only count ONE side as having beliefs
and the other side doesn't because it is secular?

Like theists are prohibited from imposing their beliefs as a recognized religion
but Atheists are protected because that is secular and not considered a religion.

Are we really going to argue about this?

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

What about the argument that the partnership between male and female
complementary genders is necessary for social development of children.

And the issue is that not all people recognize the same sex partners
as "male/female" spiritual complements (some cases do consider themselves male/female in roles)

CZ if you are going to argue that legally a person's definition should not be changed
to something on a spiritual level in the case of a baby/fetus/right to life,
can you understand that some people cannot change definition of marriage
to recognize same sex couples on a spiritual level?

Some people cannot think that way, it goes against their inherent beliefs.
It may not make logical or legal sense to you and me,
but neither does our inclusion of same sex couples make sense to them.

Can we really expect to use govt to force a change
when it is religiously embedded as part of their beliefs?

NOTE this cannot be compared with race,
because some people are healed of unwanted attractions who change orientation
but I have never heard of someone changing spiritually to another race after going through healing transformation.

orientation is on a spiritual level
but race is physically born and cannot be exactly compared

 

[HenryBHough]

How many of your tax dollars are going toward government research into equality of fertility? That means allowing male/male or female/female couplings to produce offspring. The agenda already calls for inter-species fertility research when the #1 priority above is "mission accomplished".

 

[dcraelin]

Regarding private placement groups, thats not what I've read regarding the Catholic church in Massachusetts for example.

Massachusetts: Private Domestic Adoption Agencies
Catholic Charities of Somerville
270 Washington Street
Somerville, MA 02143
Phone: (617) 625-1920

Catholic Charities of Worcester
10 Hammond Street
Worcester, MA 01610
Phone: (508) 798-0191
Catholic Social Services of Fall River, Inc.
PO Box M South Station
1600 Bay Street
Fall River, MA 02724
Phone: (508) 674-4681
Adopting.com - Adoption Agencies and Attorneys
Catholic Social Services is committed to improving the quality of life for those in need by providing comprehensive social and human services including basic and emergency needs, homelessness, immigration issues, housing and residential services, disabilites, adoption, mental health counseling, elder health services, neighborhood rehabilitation, foreclosure help, and much more. (A Service of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Fall River, Massachusetts, United States of America)
Catholic Social Services - Southeastern MA s leading Multi-service human services provider
Catholic Charities, Diocese of Worcester (MA) Adoption Agency and Foster Care : Domestic Adoption Services
http://adoption-agencies-foster-car...96/Catholic-Charities-Diocese-of-Worcester-MA
****************************************
I don't know what you have been "reading" but Catholic Charity adoption is still active in Massachusetts.
Now what you may have read about is that Catholic Charities of Boston decided to suspend operations because they were not going to able to operate under a government contract. When they found they would loose $1,000,000 in taxpayer dollars they decided to suspend operations.
So that money went to other organizations.
>>>>

all that verbiage and you really didnt clear anything up.
For the ones still running, can they deny adoption to gay couples?.....for the one that closed did it do so in regard to gay marriage?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Regarding private placement groups, thats not what I've read regarding the Catholic church in Massachusetts for example.

Massachusetts: Private Domestic Adoption Agencies
Catholic Charities of Somerville
270 Washington Street
Somerville, MA 02143
Phone: (617) 625-1920

Catholic Charities of Worcester
10 Hammond Street
Worcester, MA 01610
Phone: (508) 798-0191
Catholic Social Services of Fall River, Inc.
PO Box M South Station
1600 Bay Street
Fall River, MA 02724
Phone: (508) 674-4681
Adopting.com - Adoption Agencies and Attorneys
Catholic Social Services is committed to improving the quality of life for those in need by providing comprehensive social and human services including basic and emergency needs, homelessness, immigration issues, housing and residential services, disabilites, adoption, mental health counseling, elder health services, neighborhood rehabilitation, foreclosure help, and much more. (A Service of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Fall River, Massachusetts, United States of America)
Catholic Social Services - Southeastern MA s leading Multi-service human services provider
Catholic Charities, Diocese of Worcester (MA) Adoption Agency and Foster Care : Domestic Adoption Services
http://adoption-agencies-foster-car...96/Catholic-Charities-Diocese-of-Worcester-MA
****************************************
I don't know what you have been "reading" but Catholic Charity adoption is still active in Massachusetts.
Now what you may have read about is that Catholic Charities of Boston decided to suspend operations because they were not going to able to operate under a government contract. When they found they would loose $1,000,000 in taxpayer dollars they decided to suspend operations.
So that money went to other organizations.
>>>>

all that verbiage and you really didnt clear anything up.
For the ones still running, can they deny adoption to gay couples?.....

From my understanding, yes they function and assist with private adoptions.

for the one that closed did it do so in regard to gay marriage?

Nope didn't have to do with same-sex marriage. It had to do with the fact that Catholic Charities received tax payer dollars under contract to function as a governmental entity. When informed they would have to accept homosexuals applicants to continue under contract, they decided not to take the contract. Which was of course was their right to do.

They also choose though that without close the agency instead of functioning as a purely private entity.


>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

The evangelical busy bodies of the far right think they have a moral right to make others live according to the very small minority standard.

Ahem isn't this also said of the left by the right,
ie gay marriage, health care mandates, etc that reflect a leftwing bias toward THOSE political beliefs.

Or do you only count ONE side as having beliefs
and the other side doesn't because it is secular?

Like theists are prohibited from imposing their beliefs as a recognized religion
but Atheists are protected because that is secular and not considered a religion.

Are we really going to argue about this?

You don't get it, do you? State and church are separated, period. Ethics and values, atheist and theist, inform the basis for individual philosophies of government, yes, which can triumph only by the vote or by the court.

No one has any moral obligation to build consensus with those who are wrong in law.

ACA is legal. Marriage equality is legal. No one has any obligation to carve out a "but corner" for those who disagree. That is not how our political system works.

 

[emilynghiem]

I think you misunderstand my position, Emily. the fact is from my perspective it is irrelevant whether homosexual is genetic, or a lifestyle choice. Either way, it is a behavior that is private, and personal, and has no business being regulated in any way. The abortion question is one of conflating words to mean things that they simply do not mean. But, I'm not gonna get into the pro-choice vs anti-choice, here, because that is an entirely different argument, an d would fill an entire thread all by itself.

So, let's just stick to homosexuality, and marriage, shall we?

Thanks CZ I agree to keep this private and out of govt.
And am even willing to offer the option of writing the state laws to be truly neutral
so that marriage and all the differences and conflicts stay in private hands and decisions and out of courts and legislatures,
except where people AGREE on the language and laws.

if it can be resolved without pushing it that far, that's fine,
but the people in each state have to agree. If any ONE person or group claims
their religious freedom or equal rights is abridged, to me, that is unconstitutional
and whatever is wrong with that law needs to be corrected before it is considered public.

I actually like your idea, except there is one small problem with the statement of your understanding of the positions:

Let the liberal/Democrat party be used to fund manage and endorse
gay marriages and health care through singlepayer insurance
that is mandated for all their members who choose to pay into it under those terms.
​

To the bold: You get that under "Single Payer" there would be no need for mandating, or "members paying into" anything, right? The whole point of single-payer is that healthcare is all government-funded. Now, it would mean raising taxes on the top 1%, and corporations. Well...boo-fucking-hoo. I am sick to death corporatists whining about how put out corporations, and CEOs are.​

And CZ the problem with public funding is not everyone agrees on public policies of what to fudn with health care:
* stem cell research
* abortion
* birth control
* euthanasia
etc.

You made it clear your beliefs about when does life begin clash with other citizens equally protected
under law who cannot be made to fund things against their beliefs or it runs into Constitutional violations and conflicts

So this is why it will not work without a consensus.
So why not separate by party so people can form a consensus.

As for Singlepayer, why not restrict the network and membership to just those people who agree
to that system. The Democrat party has levels of representation and democratic process on all levels
from local to state and national. Why not use that system to fund their own health care networks,
prove it works first, before selling the idea to others voluntarily participating and choosing to fund it.

Let the Republican/Tea party be used to manage free market
health care through church nonprofit and business programs through schools
and manage their members by voluntary participation and enterprise that way
without mandating things they believe are not govt jurisdiction.
​

To the bold: You see, this is the real problem between progressives, and so-called "Social Conservatives". We have fundamental, antithetical opinions on what "government jurisdiction" is. Thus, in order for this to work, you would need to spell out, exactly, what you think those are. For instance, on that abortion issue. I think that every Republican should be forced on the record, clearly, what his opinion is on abortion, and abortion clinic closing legislation If they had to do that, I think you would be surprised how many votes they lost from what they previously thought were "conservative women".

Yes i agree we need to come out and resolve this on each issue separately.
and not lump them together in a political war for one party over another.
hash out each issue and agree on solutions and limits on what we support govt to do or not.

I find more Republicans will respect the prochoice position as part of Constitutional freedom
provided this is not abused to promote abortion but more work is done to prevent abortion,
and for prolife people that means 100% prevention.

I agree to seek to enforce that standard of 100% prevention by free choice in order to keep it a legal chioce
and not rely on bans or other regulations that people do not agree with.

If we make the commitment to prevent abortion, that is the real goal.

if we work out each issue in full, we can reduce or prevent deadlocks over legislation that is missing the points.

I think this is VERY necessary to agree what is and what is not agreed upon by the public to be govt role and policy.

The decriminalization of marijuana,
the immigration policies depend on agreeing where to draw lines
and how to prevent infractions without overreaching.

other issues would benefit from recognizing we don't all "draw the lines in the same places,"
so we need to agree where do we focus to solve and prevent problems.

Thanks CZ
if they legalize cloning I'd like to clone you Dante and others
to have a citizens review and go through all these laws people argue over
and hash out where the lines are being crossed and how to untangle them.

We need this process x 1000!
Seriously thanks for your help to go through and sort this out, appreciate it!

 

[JakeStarkey]

" It had to do with the fact that Catholic Charities received tax payer dollars under contract to function as a governmental entity. When informed they would have to accept homosexuals applicants to continue under contract, they decided not to take the contract. Which was of course was their right to do."

That is why the LDS Social Services got out of the adoption business.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily, I admire you patience and your willingness to look for a conclusion that has a "consensus" that can be accepted by almost all citizens.

Our political system, however, creates winners and losers: always has, always will.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As to your comment, I suppose part of the problem is my fault. You get that nothing on that list is a "right", correct? Those are the benefits of marriage. The only "right" in question is, and has always been, that of marriage - specifically the right to marry the person of your own choosing, with no restriction.

No such right exists.
Marriage, as a legal institution, exists because state law created it.
Nothng requires a state to do so, and so, upon repealing the relevant laws, marriage as a legal institution would cease to exist.
Thus, marriage, as a legal institution, is a privilige granted by the state, not a right inherent to the people.

Except that according to Loving v Virginia marriage is a right.

Except that the legal institution of marriage exists only because the state created it.
What happens to the "right" of marriage when the state repeals its laws that created it? It goes away.
Thus, it cannot be a right as a right cannot be taken away by the repeal of legislation.

Okay. I propose putting that theory to the test. I want a state to attempt to pass a law which refuses to recognise marriage of any type. Let's see how well that works out for that state.

In other words... you do not have an effective response to the argument that marriage as a legal iinstitutiion is a privilege created by the state, not a right.
So noted.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, I admire you patience and your willingness to look for a conclusion that has a "consensus" that can be accepted by almost all citizens.

Our political system, however, creates winners and losers: always has, always will.

Like wise our class system has always created slavery.

But there are systems in place, such as microlendingl/business training
and building coops and schools that have wiped out poverty and trafficking one region at a time.

Likewise there are Many Many programs of conflict resolution, restorative justice and restitution/healing
that have saved relations from being lost to one side dominating the other and costing them more.

The only thing missing is taking the local solutions, which can be proven to work on a small scale,
and showing how this can be replicated to cover more cases collectively on the large scale.

In fact, this process is already happening.
For each case above, where one person or community breaks free from poverty and slavery,
this allows others to gain support to grow in that direction so it builds and multiplies.

JS even if we always have inequality, always have two year olds and teenagers
who are not equal to adults and senior mentors,
we can have a school type system set up to accommodate all levels and stages
of social and political development. So each person in each class can move up.

They don't have to waste resources fighting in conflict.
those same resources can be invested in a sustainable system
of growing independent citizenry and communities
just like microlending and fair trade coops have done in poorer countries than our own.

Thanks and I hope your efforts multiply as well as part of this progress!

 

[emilynghiem]

As to your comment, I suppose part of the problem is my fault. You get that nothing on that list is a "right", correct? Those are the benefits of marriage. The only "right" in question is, and has always been, that of marriage - specifically the right to marry the person of your own choosing, with no restriction.

No such right exists.
Marriage, as a legal institution, exists because state law created it.
Nothng requires a state to do so, and so, upon repealing the relevant laws, marriage as a legal institution would cease to exist.
Thus, marriage, as a legal institution, is a privilige granted by the state, not a right inherent to the people.

Except that according to Loving v Virginia marriage is a right.

Except that the legal institution of marriage exists only because the state created it.
What happens to the "right" of marriage when the state repeals its laws that created it? It goes away.
Thus, it cannot be a right as a right cannot be taken away by the repeal of legislation.

Okay. I propose putting that theory to the test. I want a state to attempt to pass a law which refuses to recognise marriage of any type. Let's see how well that works out for that state.

In other words... you do not have an effective response to the argument that marriage as a legal iinstitutiion is a privilege created by the state, not a right.
So noted.

Hey M14 Shooter
can we agree to address both issues
1. both the civil marriage institutions and process through govt
2. the spiritual beliefs about marriage and partnerships that is part of religious freedom
and not mandated or regulated by govt

Can we agree to respect #2 as inherent as part of human nature, where people cannot expect to use govt to
change or impose on people's private beliefs,
and then try to address how to deal with laws under #1
so it doesn't impose on #2 for any side or beliefs but all are respected equally without infringement one way or another

 

[M14 Shooter]

No such right exists.
Marriage, as a legal institution, exists because state law created it.
Nothng requires a state to do so, and so, upon repealing the relevant laws, marriage as a legal institution would cease to exist.
Thus, marriage, as a legal institution, is a privilige granted by the state, not a right inherent to the people.

Except that according to Loving v Virginia marriage is a right.

Except that the legal institution of marriage exists only because the state created it.
What happens to the "right" of marriage when the state repeals its laws that created it? It goes away.
Thus, it cannot be a right as a right cannot be taken away by the repeal of legislation.

Okay. I propose putting that theory to the test. I want a state to attempt to pass a law which refuses to recognise marriage of any type. Let's see how well that works out for that state.

In other words... you do not have an effective response to the argument that marriage as a legal iinstitutiion is a privilege created by the state, not a right.
So noted.

Hey M14 Shooter
can we agree to address both issues
1. both the civil marriage institutions and process through govt
2. the spiritual beliefs about marriage and partnerships that is part of religious freedom
and not mandated or regulated by govt

Can we agree to respect #2 as inherent as part of human nature, where people cannot expect to use govt to
change or impose on people's private beliefs,
and then try to address how to deal with laws under #1
so it doesn't impose on #2 for any side or beliefs but all are respected equally without infringement one way or another

Not sure how any of this relates to the point in question.
Do you know what that point is?