Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[C_Clayton_Jones]

View attachment 95419

Here Skylar
I drew you a diagram of the different ranges and realms of people's viewpoints.

Since govt and public institutions are supposed to include and protect people equally regardless of beliefs,
then people like you who believe marriage is a right on the level of other Constitutional rights are in one group.

How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?

Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally.

You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.

People who disagree and believe otherwise, even rejecting one form of marriage or another, are in other groups.
And I believe in treating and including all such beliefs equally.

And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.

You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.

So my goal is to work toward the OUTER SQUARE that accommodates all views even if they conflict with each other.

Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.

You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.

Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.

Dear Skylar
It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.

If people don't consent to a belief that's enough.
I cited examples of atheists or religious freedom groups
suing to "remove crosses" from public property.
Based on PRINCIPLE alone.

Nobody's religious freedom is "stripped" by having those crosses.
In one case, a group across the country sued to remove crosses from a teacher's memorial plaque
that they don't even look at. That image is not oppressing them or stripping anyone of rights.
But on principle alone, they argued that it couldn't be on public school property.

So I'm saying to be consistent.

If everyone practices the marriage beliefs of their choice
and agrees that the state can endorse "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships"
with NO references to social relationships at all,
then that is not stripping anyone of rights but recognizing everyone's freedom equally.

However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only"
to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."

No particular degree of harm is required to make this argument.
No stripping of rights or beliefs is needed to make this argument.

Sure it makes it worse if there are degrees of harm or damage, which add to the argument.
But the principle alone is enough to argue the state has no such authority.

BTW after hearing from people on both sides who just cannot tolerate or imagine
that the other belief/viewpoint has any validity whatsoever,
I am convinced that people cannot help having their beliefs about this.
and what I will recommend to the Governor and Senators of Texas (and party leaders)
is to call for a conference on this and a resolution:
* either agree to use neutral terms in public policies for "civil unions" "domestic partnership"
"custody or guardianship contracts" etc. and remove the term "marriage" if this
carries connotations that violate people's beliefs (similar to removing references to God or Jesus)
* or agree to SEPARATE funding by party, on health care, marriage benefits
and conditions on welfare (where people don't agree on the terms and conditions
due to religious and political beliefs) and only establish as public policy the
programs and conditions that all people agree on as representing everyone's values.
* or agree to "trade concessions" if it's too hard to separate and secularize everything:
such as if people are going to include same sex marriage in sex education
and in marriage and benefits, then ALSO let references to God, Jesus, creation,
spiritual healing, Bibles, crosses, heaven and hell, etc. be included in public institutions
and textbooks, public services, property, buildings, activities etc.

If people AGREE to a policy regarding beliefs, then it's okay to enact and endorse
that on a state level if all the people consent. SINCE BELIEFS ARE INVOLVED
THAT GOVT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE OR MANDATE, and which only
the people can choose freely to adopt endorse and enforce.

It's not okay to bully people into changing their beliefs or accepting things
against their beliefs by forcing that through govt. It has to be by the people's consent,
and/or to keep the policies local or private where consent and free choice can still be respected.

If consensus can be established on the collective level of city, party, state, etc.
then that's perfectly fine to endorse that for the members who agree to that.

So that's what I would recommend to heads of govt and parties.
To call for a truce on political beliefs, and agreement to respect consent and beliefs
of all people and parties without harassment, penalty or other duress/coercion,
and either to separate policies by party, agree on neutral and universally inclusive language
and points/principles that all parties AGREE is fair to enforce as public policy,
or agree to mutual concessions so that beliefs are treated equally (instead of
excluding/penalizing one set while endorsing and establishing the other which isn't equal).

Wrong.

You clearly have no understanding of the issue.

The 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying citizens who reside in the states access to state laws absent a rational basis, absent objective, documented evidence in support, and absent a proper legislative end.

The states cannot deny a given class of persons access to state law for no other reason than a majority of the state’s resident disapprove of that class of persons – be it race, religion, or sexual orientation.

In this case the law in question is marriage contract law, which same-sex couples are eligible to participate in.

Denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is devoid of a rational basis, there is no objective, documented evidence in support of doing so, and it pursues no proper legislative end – it seeks only to disadvantage gay American for no other reason than being homosexual.

“This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

 

[Skylar]

View attachment 95419

Here Skylar
I drew you a diagram of the different ranges and realms of people's viewpoints.

Since govt and public institutions are supposed to include and protect people equally regardless of beliefs,
then people like you who believe marriage is a right on the level of other Constitutional rights are in one group.

How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?

Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally.

You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.

People who disagree and believe otherwise, even rejecting one form of marriage or another, are in other groups.
And I believe in treating and including all such beliefs equally.

And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.

You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.

So my goal is to work toward the OUTER SQUARE that accommodates all views even if they conflict with each other.

Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.

You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.

Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.

Dear Skylar
It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.

How does gay marriage have a thing to do with the 'separation of church and state'?

Again, you can any belief you want. But it doesn't mean that your view must be represented anywhere. Let alone in public institutions, our law, or our constitution.

If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one. But denying a gay or lesbian couple the right to marry because *you* have a belief is ludicrous. As they have a right to marry. And your 'belief' doesn't have any authority over their rights.

However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."

There is no mandate that 'beliefs' be equally represented. Your entire argument is based on an imaginary, false, and fallacious premise.

Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.

1. RE How does gay marriage have a thing to do with the 'separation of church and state'?

Because some people believe in gay marriage and others do not.
Then these beliefs should not be established by govt.

So what? Why would some people disagreeing with gay marriage have a thing to do with 'church and state'?

And why would having a belief be an invalid basis for law? If I believe that there should be speed limits and you don't......if more people agree with me than you, we have speed limits.

That's how democracy works. There is no mandate that everyone agree or that all beliefs be equally represented. You've imagined it.

If you are going to treat all beliefs equally as you would Christianity and church/collective authority
that supports "faith based" policies and principles;
and ask that this authority NOT be imposed through govt on other people "of other faiths"

We don't treat all beliefs equally. We don't represent them equally. They don't equally reflect in our laws. They aren't equally protected in our constitution.

If you believe that interracial marriage is an abomination and I want to marry someone of a different race, I win. As your beliefs are insufficient to abrogate my rights. Nor must our laws reflect your beliefs.

C. In order to be consistent with the First Amendment
against either establishing religion or prohibiting free exercise thereof,
again,
either remove the contested faith-based references
change the language in the laws to be NEUTRAL and void of contested biases
or have all the people affected by the laws agree to concessions
(whereby they agree to compromise in one area in exchange for the opposite group conceding in another)

Nope. That marriage is religious *to you* means jack shit to me. Or to the law. Or the constitution. Or to anyone else's marriage.

You are free to practice your religion. But your religious belief doesn't create any mandate in someone ELSE'S marriage. Nor should it.

If your religion forbids gay marriage.....then don't get gay married.

 

[emilynghiem]

View attachment 95419

Here Skylar
I drew you a diagram of the different ranges and realms of people's viewpoints.

Since govt and public institutions are supposed to include and protect people equally regardless of beliefs,
then people like you who believe marriage is a right on the level of other Constitutional rights are in one group.

How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?

Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally.

You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.

People who disagree and believe otherwise, even rejecting one form of marriage or another, are in other groups.
And I believe in treating and including all such beliefs equally.

And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.

You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.

So my goal is to work toward the OUTER SQUARE that accommodates all views even if they conflict with each other.

Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.

You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.

Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.

Dear Skylar
It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.

How does gay marriage have a thing to do with the 'separation of church and state'?

Again, you can any belief you want. But it doesn't mean that your view must be represented anywhere. Let alone in public institutions, our law, or our constitution.

If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one. But denying a gay or lesbian couple the right to marry because *you* have a belief is ludicrous. As they have a right to marry. And your 'belief' doesn't have any authority over their rights.

However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."

There is no mandate that 'beliefs' be equally represented. Your entire argument is based on an imaginary, false, and fallacious premise.

Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.

RE: Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.

SORRY Skylar
but by the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs.

Those are for individuals to decide and not for govt to take one side "in competition" with another.

Our political system HAS been abusing party and media to bully and battle this way.

But it is AGAINST constitutional principles
AGAINST human nature to allow govt to oppress and force people to change their beliefs.

That has never worked, and people's conscience has always risen up to contest such oppressive abuse of govt.

I agree with you that this has been happening.
But the same way wars and genocides have happened,
doesn't make them right.

Coercion and oppression are only temporary means.
In the end, the human need for free choice overcomes these political shortcuts that
are not sustainable. People will fight against them until the cause of abuse and oppression is removed.
That's our nature to protect our free will from threat of tyrannical oppression.

Sorry Skylar but the same history that shows you this oppressive pattern of coercion
will also show you the people fighting back to restore natural freedom peace and justice
without that coercive abuse of collective authority. Our history is full of that trend also!

 

[Skylar]

View attachment 95419

Here Skylar
I drew you a diagram of the different ranges and realms of people's viewpoints.

Since govt and public institutions are supposed to include and protect people equally regardless of beliefs,
then people like you who believe marriage is a right on the level of other Constitutional rights are in one group.

How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?

Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally.

You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.

People who disagree and believe otherwise, even rejecting one form of marriage or another, are in other groups.
And I believe in treating and including all such beliefs equally.

And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.

You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.

So my goal is to work toward the OUTER SQUARE that accommodates all views even if they conflict with each other.

Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.

You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.

Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.

Dear Skylar
It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.

How does gay marriage have a thing to do with the 'separation of church and state'?

Again, you can any belief you want. But it doesn't mean that your view must be represented anywhere. Let alone in public institutions, our law, or our constitution.

If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one. But denying a gay or lesbian couple the right to marry because *you* have a belief is ludicrous. As they have a right to marry. And your 'belief' doesn't have any authority over their rights.

However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."

There is no mandate that 'beliefs' be equally represented. Your entire argument is based on an imaginary, false, and fallacious premise.

Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.

RE: Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.

SORRY Skylar
but by the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs.

The first amendment says no such thing. You've imagined it. And I defy you to cite the amendment indicating that the government lacks the authority to forward one belief over another.

You'll find there is no such passage.

Beliefs compete *constantly*. The entire idea of an election is predicated on people with different beliefs trying to convince a relevant majority of their fellow citizens that the laws and representatives who write it should reflect their beliefs rather than some other guy's.

Your entire conception of the 1st amendment is imaginary nonsense. Nor is there any mandate, anywhere, that all beliefs should be equally represented in our laws.

So far your entire argument has to been to restate the same nonsense premise, that all beliefs must be represented equally. And they don't. Nor have they ever.

So....what else have you got?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Govt is being used to endorse and REPRESENT a set of beliefs"

No, it is not.

'Government' is not being used to do any such thing.

State governments were being used to deny same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law and due process of the law by enacting measures hostile to gay Americans predicated solely on their sexual orientation.

The courts appropriately, consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, invalidated those measures.

That's it, nothing more.

 

[emilynghiem]

View attachment 95419

Here Skylar
I drew you a diagram of the different ranges and realms of people's viewpoints.

Since govt and public institutions are supposed to include and protect people equally regardless of beliefs,
then people like you who believe marriage is a right on the level of other Constitutional rights are in one group.

How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?

Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally.

You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.

People who disagree and believe otherwise, even rejecting one form of marriage or another, are in other groups.
And I believe in treating and including all such beliefs equally.

And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.

You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.

So my goal is to work toward the OUTER SQUARE that accommodates all views even if they conflict with each other.

Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.

You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.

Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.

Dear Skylar
It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.

If people don't consent to a belief that's enough.
I cited examples of atheists or religious freedom groups
suing to "remove crosses" from public property.
Based on PRINCIPLE alone.

Nobody's religious freedom is "stripped" by having those crosses.
In one case, a group across the country sued to remove crosses from a teacher's memorial plaque
that they don't even look at. That image is not oppressing them or stripping anyone of rights.
But on principle alone, they argued that it couldn't be on public school property.

So I'm saying to be consistent.

If everyone practices the marriage beliefs of their choice
and agrees that the state can endorse "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships"
with NO references to social relationships at all,
then that is not stripping anyone of rights but recognizing everyone's freedom equally.

However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only"
to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."

No particular degree of harm is required to make this argument.
No stripping of rights or beliefs is needed to make this argument.

Sure it makes it worse if there are degrees of harm or damage, which add to the argument.
But the principle alone is enough to argue the state has no such authority.

BTW after hearing from people on both sides who just cannot tolerate or imagine
that the other belief/viewpoint has any validity whatsoever,
I am convinced that people cannot help having their beliefs about this.
and what I will recommend to the Governor and Senators of Texas (and party leaders)
is to call for a conference on this and a resolution:
* either agree to use neutral terms in public policies for "civil unions" "domestic partnership"
"custody or guardianship contracts" etc. and remove the term "marriage" if this
carries connotations that violate people's beliefs (similar to removing references to God or Jesus)
* or agree to SEPARATE funding by party, on health care, marriage benefits
and conditions on welfare (where people don't agree on the terms and conditions
due to religious and political beliefs) and only establish as public policy the
programs and conditions that all people agree on as representing everyone's values.
* or agree to "trade concessions" if it's too hard to separate and secularize everything:
such as if people are going to include same sex marriage in sex education
and in marriage and benefits, then ALSO let references to God, Jesus, creation,
spiritual healing, Bibles, crosses, heaven and hell, etc. be included in public institutions
and textbooks, public services, property, buildings, activities etc.

If people AGREE to a policy regarding beliefs, then it's okay to enact and endorse
that on a state level if all the people consent. SINCE BELIEFS ARE INVOLVED
THAT GOVT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE OR MANDATE, and which only
the people can choose freely to adopt endorse and enforce.

It's not okay to bully people into changing their beliefs or accepting things
against their beliefs by forcing that through govt. It has to be by the people's consent,
and/or to keep the policies local or private where consent and free choice can still be respected.

If consensus can be established on the collective level of city, party, state, etc.
then that's perfectly fine to endorse that for the members who agree to that.

So that's what I would recommend to heads of govt and parties.
To call for a truce on political beliefs, and agreement to respect consent and beliefs
of all people and parties without harassment, penalty or other duress/coercion,
and either to separate policies by party, agree on neutral and universally inclusive language
and points/principles that all parties AGREE is fair to enforce as public policy,
or agree to mutual concessions so that beliefs are treated equally (instead of
excluding/penalizing one set while endorsing and establishing the other which isn't equal).

Wrong.

You clearly have no understanding of the issue.

The 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying citizens who reside in the states access to state laws absent a rational basis, absent objective, documented evidence in support, and absent a proper legislative end.

The states cannot deny a given class of persons access to state law for no other reason than a majority of the state’s resident disapprove of that class of persons – be it race, religion, or sexual orientation.

In this case the law in question is marriage contract law, which same-sex couples are eligible to participate in.

Denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is devoid of a rational basis, there is no objective, documented evidence in support of doing so, and it pursues no proper legislative end – it seeks only to disadvantage gay American for no other reason than being homosexual.

“This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

Yes Skylar
I agree that laws that give traditional couples and marriages benefits and rights
but which exclude same sex couples and beliefs in treating those equally
ARE AGAINST the equal protections laws.

HOWEVER the state endorsing same sex marriage is equally problematic.

What you think is the solution just introduced as many complications if not more.

If you are going to fix the inequality,
then at least work out a solution that all sides AGREES remedies the problems
without adding more complications or making it worse by multiplying the objections.

If you understand the CONCEPT behind
NOT DISCRIMINATING ON THE BASIS OF CREED

and if you understood that beliefs about homosexuality/transgender identity
are FAITH BASED

then you would see how the state endorsing bills with BIASED LANGUAGE
is still introducing problems on top of the ones it sought to address

The language in these laws should have been more neutral to avoid
the contested biases and complications.

Just because you are addressing a wrong and seeking to correct it
by the Fourteenth Amendment, doesn't mean the solution you passed with legislation or
court ruling with didn't violate OTHER Constitutional standards on beliefs and creeds incidentally.

People are not perfect. And here, there were huge misses
because we have not publicly recognized, addressed and
revolved issues of political beliefs.

these conversations over health care and marriage
are the first time I've seen this even brought up.

And you can see what a difficult issue it is to
come to an understanding, when people have
such different backgrounds and beliefs. People
cannot even see that their viewpoint is a belief.
(which is similar to Christians who think what
they believe is so universally true, it shouldn't be treated
as an optional belief but the laws/govt should be based on it as the standard)

Now the shoe is on the other foot,
where the sacred beliefs on the left are being challenged.

And we are having the same conversation, but people
coming from the opposite position as before.

Very intriguìng process and I hope it leads to understanding
that we cannot change each other's beliefs,
nor can we use govt to force that,
so we need to recognize include and managed these beliefs equally,
to be fair to all people of all groups.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"...the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs."

Nonsense - the issue has nothing to do with the First Amendment, no government is seeking to restrict or deny anyone's beliefs.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence that invalidated state laws denying same-sex couples access to marriage laws applies solely to government, not to private persons or organizations, such as churches.

Both individuals and religious entities are at complete liberty to discriminate against same-sex couples in the context of religious dogma, and private citizens are at complete liberty to hate gay Americans with impunity, to believe that homosexuality is 'immoral,' and to freely express their hostility toward gay Americans, free from unwarranted interference by any government.

 

[Skylar]

View attachment 95419

Here Skylar
I drew you a diagram of the different ranges and realms of people's viewpoints.

Since govt and public institutions are supposed to include and protect people equally regardless of beliefs,
then people like you who believe marriage is a right on the level of other Constitutional rights are in one group.

How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?

Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally.

You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.

People who disagree and believe otherwise, even rejecting one form of marriage or another, are in other groups.
And I believe in treating and including all such beliefs equally.

And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.

You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.

So my goal is to work toward the OUTER SQUARE that accommodates all views even if they conflict with each other.

Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.

You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.

Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.

Dear Skylar
It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.

If people don't consent to a belief that's enough.
I cited examples of atheists or religious freedom groups
suing to "remove crosses" from public property.
Based on PRINCIPLE alone.

Nobody's religious freedom is "stripped" by having those crosses.
In one case, a group across the country sued to remove crosses from a teacher's memorial plaque
that they don't even look at. That image is not oppressing them or stripping anyone of rights.
But on principle alone, they argued that it couldn't be on public school property.

So I'm saying to be consistent.

If everyone practices the marriage beliefs of their choice
and agrees that the state can endorse "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships"
with NO references to social relationships at all,
then that is not stripping anyone of rights but recognizing everyone's freedom equally.

However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only"
to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."

No particular degree of harm is required to make this argument.
No stripping of rights or beliefs is needed to make this argument.

Sure it makes it worse if there are degrees of harm or damage, which add to the argument.
But the principle alone is enough to argue the state has no such authority.

BTW after hearing from people on both sides who just cannot tolerate or imagine
that the other belief/viewpoint has any validity whatsoever,
I am convinced that people cannot help having their beliefs about this.
and what I will recommend to the Governor and Senators of Texas (and party leaders)
is to call for a conference on this and a resolution:
* either agree to use neutral terms in public policies for "civil unions" "domestic partnership"
"custody or guardianship contracts" etc. and remove the term "marriage" if this
carries connotations that violate people's beliefs (similar to removing references to God or Jesus)
* or agree to SEPARATE funding by party, on health care, marriage benefits
and conditions on welfare (where people don't agree on the terms and conditions
due to religious and political beliefs) and only establish as public policy the
programs and conditions that all people agree on as representing everyone's values.
* or agree to "trade concessions" if it's too hard to separate and secularize everything:
such as if people are going to include same sex marriage in sex education
and in marriage and benefits, then ALSO let references to God, Jesus, creation,
spiritual healing, Bibles, crosses, heaven and hell, etc. be included in public institutions
and textbooks, public services, property, buildings, activities etc.

If people AGREE to a policy regarding beliefs, then it's okay to enact and endorse
that on a state level if all the people consent. SINCE BELIEFS ARE INVOLVED
THAT GOVT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE OR MANDATE, and which only
the people can choose freely to adopt endorse and enforce.

It's not okay to bully people into changing their beliefs or accepting things
against their beliefs by forcing that through govt. It has to be by the people's consent,
and/or to keep the policies local or private where consent and free choice can still be respected.

If consensus can be established on the collective level of city, party, state, etc.
then that's perfectly fine to endorse that for the members who agree to that.

So that's what I would recommend to heads of govt and parties.
To call for a truce on political beliefs, and agreement to respect consent and beliefs
of all people and parties without harassment, penalty or other duress/coercion,
and either to separate policies by party, agree on neutral and universally inclusive language
and points/principles that all parties AGREE is fair to enforce as public policy,
or agree to mutual concessions so that beliefs are treated equally (instead of
excluding/penalizing one set while endorsing and establishing the other which isn't equal).

Wrong.

You clearly have no understanding of the issue.

The 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying citizens who reside in the states access to state laws absent a rational basis, absent objective, documented evidence in support, and absent a proper legislative end.

The states cannot deny a given class of persons access to state law for no other reason than a majority of the state’s resident disapprove of that class of persons – be it race, religion, or sexual orientation.

In this case the law in question is marriage contract law, which same-sex couples are eligible to participate in.

Denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is devoid of a rational basis, there is no objective, documented evidence in support of doing so, and it pursues no proper legislative end – it seeks only to disadvantage gay American for no other reason than being homosexual.

“This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

Yes Skylar
I agree that laws that give traditional couples and marriages benefits and rights
but which exclude same sex couples and beliefs in treating those equally
ARE AGAINST the equal protections laws.

HOWEVER the state endorsing same sex marriage is equally problematic.

No, it isn't. As recognizing same sex marriage strips no one of any right. While denying same sex marriage strips same sex couples of their right to marry.

They're literal opposites....which you strangely insist are 'equal'. I don't think 'equal' means what you think it means.

What you think is the solution just introduced as many complications if not more.

If you are going to fix the inequality,
then at least work out a solution that all sides AGREES remedies the problems
without adding more complications or making it worse by multiplying the objections.

Nope. People disagree all the time. Elections, laws and court rulings help sort those disagreements out.

Beliefs compete. Some lose. Some win. Your imaginary idea that all beliefs must be equally represented is simple nonsense. There is no such mandate.

Nor has there ever been at any point in our nation's history. That mandate exists exclusively inside your head.

and if you understood that beliefs about homosexuality/transgender identity
are FAITH BASED

Says who? You're throwing up another nonsense premise to support your previous nonsense premise. And its imagination all the way down.

There is no mandate that all beliefs be equally represented.

Just because you are addressing a wrong and seeking to correct it
by the Fourteenth Amendment, doesn't mean the solution you passed with legislation or
court ruling with didn't violate OTHER Constitutional standards on beliefs and creeds incidentally.

Save that your 'the first amendment prevents government from forwarding any belief' is imaginary nonsense. There is no such restriction. The very concept of democracy contradicts your assumption, as it it nothing BUT people using government to forward beliefs.

That's all laws are: codified belief. And not all beliefs are equally represented. Nor should be.

 

[emilynghiem]

View attachment 95419

Here Skylar
I drew you a diagram of the different ranges and realms of people's viewpoints.

Since govt and public institutions are supposed to include and protect people equally regardless of beliefs,
then people like you who believe marriage is a right on the level of other Constitutional rights are in one group.

How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?

Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally.

You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.

People who disagree and believe otherwise, even rejecting one form of marriage or another, are in other groups.
And I believe in treating and including all such beliefs equally.

And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.

You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.

So my goal is to work toward the OUTER SQUARE that accommodates all views even if they conflict with each other.

Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.

You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.

Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.

Dear Skylar
It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.

How does gay marriage have a thing to do with the 'separation of church and state'?

Again, you can any belief you want. But it doesn't mean that your view must be represented anywhere. Let alone in public institutions, our law, or our constitution.

If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one. But denying a gay or lesbian couple the right to marry because *you* have a belief is ludicrous. As they have a right to marry. And your 'belief' doesn't have any authority over their rights.

However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."

There is no mandate that 'beliefs' be equally represented. Your entire argument is based on an imaginary, false, and fallacious premise.

Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.

RE: Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.

SORRY Skylar
but by the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs.

The first amendment says no such thing. You've imagined it. And I defy you to cite the amendment indicating that the government lacks the authority to forward one belief over another.

You'll find there is no such passage.

Beliefs compete *constantly*. The entire idea of an election is predicated on people with different beliefs trying to convince a relevant majority of their fellow citizens that the laws and representatives who write it should reflect their beliefs rather than some other guy's.

Your entire conception of the 1st amendment is imaginary nonsense. Nor is there any mandate, anywhere, that all beliefs should be equally represented in our laws.

So far your entire argument has to been to restate the same nonsense premise, that all beliefs must be represented equally. And they don't. Nor have they ever.

So....what else have you got?

1. The First Amendment was written literally for Congress
and states that
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

which has been paraphrased by the left who call it
"separation of church and state"
which means the govt is not to be used to endorse or impose "religious beliefs"

Q:
do you and I agree on the MEANING of the First Amendment?

do we agree that Congress is not supposed to pass laws
that either "establish OR prohibit" beliefs (you can say just
religious beliefs if you want to take this literally; but to avoid
discrimination I interpret it to ALL beliefs so everyone's rights are
included and defended equally, regardless if they affiliate or identify with a religion or not.)

if that's all we disagree on -- whether this applies to ALL beliefs
or just established religions, that is normal to interpret the law as only applying to religious beliefs
due to established precedent and case history etc.)

2. the Fourteenth Amendment
expanded to the STATES
the protection of rights of people under state jurisdiction

so it isn't just Congress (or federal govt)
but STATE govt that cannot enforce any laws
that deprive people in their jurisdiction of protection of the laws:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Q: Do you and I agree that instead of just Congress/federal govt
held to not violate any of the rights of individuals in the Bill of Rights,
part of the meaning of the 14th Amendment is to hold STATES to the same Constitutional standards
(on religious freedom, due process of laws, etc as in the Bill of Rights so all persons have "equal protections" of these laws)

3. Civil Rights acts and movement

• Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Fair Housing Act, prohibiting discrimination in sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, creed, and national origin.

Do we agree that the Civil Rights Act and movement
added language on NOT DISCRIMINATING ON THE BASIS OF CREED
(along with race, etc.)

And this continued the expansion from
1. federal govt not abridging individual rights (as in the Bill of Rights)
2. to state govt (by the Fourteenth Amendment adding language on "equal protection of the laws")
3. to PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS (by the Civil Rights Act and movement adding language
on "not discriminating on the basis of _____________" <-- creed, race, gender, fill in the blanks

Even if not all policies SPECIFY creed as one of the areas,
do we agree it was the Civil Rights Act that expanded
individual rights and protections to PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS.

 

[emilynghiem]

View attachment 95419

Here Skylar
I drew you a diagram of the different ranges and realms of people's viewpoints.

Since govt and public institutions are supposed to include and protect people equally regardless of beliefs,
then people like you who believe marriage is a right on the level of other Constitutional rights are in one group.

How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?

Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally.

You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.

People who disagree and believe otherwise, even rejecting one form of marriage or another, are in other groups.
And I believe in treating and including all such beliefs equally.

And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.

You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.

So my goal is to work toward the OUTER SQUARE that accommodates all views even if they conflict with each other.

Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.

You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.

Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.

Dear Skylar
It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.

If people don't consent to a belief that's enough.
I cited examples of atheists or religious freedom groups
suing to "remove crosses" from public property.
Based on PRINCIPLE alone.

Nobody's religious freedom is "stripped" by having those crosses.
In one case, a group across the country sued to remove crosses from a teacher's memorial plaque
that they don't even look at. That image is not oppressing them or stripping anyone of rights.
But on principle alone, they argued that it couldn't be on public school property.

So I'm saying to be consistent.

If everyone practices the marriage beliefs of their choice
and agrees that the state can endorse "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships"
with NO references to social relationships at all,
then that is not stripping anyone of rights but recognizing everyone's freedom equally.

However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only"
to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."

No particular degree of harm is required to make this argument.
No stripping of rights or beliefs is needed to make this argument.

Sure it makes it worse if there are degrees of harm or damage, which add to the argument.
But the principle alone is enough to argue the state has no such authority.

BTW after hearing from people on both sides who just cannot tolerate or imagine
that the other belief/viewpoint has any validity whatsoever,
I am convinced that people cannot help having their beliefs about this.
and what I will recommend to the Governor and Senators of Texas (and party leaders)
is to call for a conference on this and a resolution:
* either agree to use neutral terms in public policies for "civil unions" "domestic partnership"
"custody or guardianship contracts" etc. and remove the term "marriage" if this
carries connotations that violate people's beliefs (similar to removing references to God or Jesus)
* or agree to SEPARATE funding by party, on health care, marriage benefits
and conditions on welfare (where people don't agree on the terms and conditions
due to religious and political beliefs) and only establish as public policy the
programs and conditions that all people agree on as representing everyone's values.
* or agree to "trade concessions" if it's too hard to separate and secularize everything:
such as if people are going to include same sex marriage in sex education
and in marriage and benefits, then ALSO let references to God, Jesus, creation,
spiritual healing, Bibles, crosses, heaven and hell, etc. be included in public institutions
and textbooks, public services, property, buildings, activities etc.

If people AGREE to a policy regarding beliefs, then it's okay to enact and endorse
that on a state level if all the people consent. SINCE BELIEFS ARE INVOLVED
THAT GOVT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE OR MANDATE, and which only
the people can choose freely to adopt endorse and enforce.

It's not okay to bully people into changing their beliefs or accepting things
against their beliefs by forcing that through govt. It has to be by the people's consent,
and/or to keep the policies local or private where consent and free choice can still be respected.

If consensus can be established on the collective level of city, party, state, etc.
then that's perfectly fine to endorse that for the members who agree to that.

So that's what I would recommend to heads of govt and parties.
To call for a truce on political beliefs, and agreement to respect consent and beliefs
of all people and parties without harassment, penalty or other duress/coercion,
and either to separate policies by party, agree on neutral and universally inclusive language
and points/principles that all parties AGREE is fair to enforce as public policy,
or agree to mutual concessions so that beliefs are treated equally (instead of
excluding/penalizing one set while endorsing and establishing the other which isn't equal).

Wrong.

You clearly have no understanding of the issue.

The 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying citizens who reside in the states access to state laws absent a rational basis, absent objective, documented evidence in support, and absent a proper legislative end.

The states cannot deny a given class of persons access to state law for no other reason than a majority of the state’s resident disapprove of that class of persons – be it race, religion, or sexual orientation.

In this case the law in question is marriage contract law, which same-sex couples are eligible to participate in.

Denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is devoid of a rational basis, there is no objective, documented evidence in support of doing so, and it pursues no proper legislative end – it seeks only to disadvantage gay American for no other reason than being homosexual.

“This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

Yes Skylar
I agree that laws that give traditional couples and marriages benefits and rights
but which exclude same sex couples and beliefs in treating those equally
ARE AGAINST the equal protections laws.

HOWEVER the state endorsing same sex marriage is equally problematic.

No, it isn't. As recognizing same sex marriage strips no one of any right. While denying same sex marriage strips same sex couples of their right to marry.

They're literal opposites....which you strangely insist are 'equal'. I don't think 'equal' means what you think it means.

What you think is the solution just introduced as many complications if not more.

If you are going to fix the inequality,
then at least work out a solution that all sides AGREES remedies the problems
without adding more complications or making it worse by multiplying the objections.

Nope. People disagree all the time. Elections, laws and court rulings help sort those disagreements out.

Beliefs compete. Some lose. Some win. Your imaginary idea that all beliefs must be equally represented is simple nonsense. There is no such mandate.

Nor has there ever been at any point in our nation's history. That mandate exists exclusively inside your head.

and if you understood that beliefs about homosexuality/transgender identity
are FAITH BASED

Says who? You're throwing up another nonsense premise to support your previous nonsense premise. And its imagination all the way down.

There is no mandate that all beliefs be equally represented.

Just because you are addressing a wrong and seeking to correct it
by the Fourteenth Amendment, doesn't mean the solution you passed with legislation or
court ruling with didn't violate OTHER Constitutional standards on beliefs and creeds incidentally.

Save that your 'the first amendment prevents government from forwarding any belief' is imaginary nonsense. There is no such restriction. The very concept of democracy contradicts your assumption, as it it nothing BUT people using government to forward beliefs.

That's all laws are: codified belief. And not all beliefs are equally represented. Nor should be.

Yes so we agree
that beliefs should be kept out of govt if they cannot be equally represented.

and yes I agree that banning same sex marriage strips people of rights
But the solution is not to have govt ENDORSE such marriage beliefs if not all people agre e to those beliefs either!

Two wrongs don't make it right.

You are making a leap in logic.

If a law was passed banning Hindu or Muslim beliefs from being practiced,
is the solution for govt to ENDORSE Hindu or Muslim beliefs?

No. Just because you strike down the ban does not mean the state has to endorse what was being banned.

 

[Skylar]

How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?

Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally.

You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.

And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.

You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.

Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.

You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.

Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.

Dear Skylar
It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.

How does gay marriage have a thing to do with the 'separation of church and state'?

Again, you can any belief you want. But it doesn't mean that your view must be represented anywhere. Let alone in public institutions, our law, or our constitution.

If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one. But denying a gay or lesbian couple the right to marry because *you* have a belief is ludicrous. As they have a right to marry. And your 'belief' doesn't have any authority over their rights.

However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."

There is no mandate that 'beliefs' be equally represented. Your entire argument is based on an imaginary, false, and fallacious premise.

Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.

RE: Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.

SORRY Skylar
but by the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs.

The first amendment says no such thing. You've imagined it. And I defy you to cite the amendment indicating that the government lacks the authority to forward one belief over another.

You'll find there is no such passage.

Beliefs compete *constantly*. The entire idea of an election is predicated on people with different beliefs trying to convince a relevant majority of their fellow citizens that the laws and representatives who write it should reflect their beliefs rather than some other guy's.

Your entire conception of the 1st amendment is imaginary nonsense. Nor is there any mandate, anywhere, that all beliefs should be equally represented in our laws.

So far your entire argument has to been to restate the same nonsense premise, that all beliefs must be represented equally. And they don't. Nor have they ever.

So....what else have you got?

1. The First Amendment was written literally for Congress
and states that
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

which has been paraphrased by the left who call it
"separation of church and state"
which means the govt is not to be used to endorse or impose "religious beliefs"

And where does it say a thing about beliefs? If I believe there should be same sex marriage......that's not 'establishing religion'. Or inhibiting anyone else's right to practice it.

Again, your mandate that all rights must be represented equally doesn't exist in our laws, our constitution, or our nation's history. Beliefs compete. And some lose. Those that lose are no represented in our laws. Those that win are.

And your beliefs grant you no authority to abrogate anyone else's rights.

Q:
do you and I agree on the MEANING of the First Amendment?

Of course not. As you've equated any belief with religion. The 1st amendment never so much as mentions beliefs. Let alone forbids laws based on them.

You've literally imagined your entire premise. And the 1st amendment makes no mention of anything you've argued. Not one thing.

do we agree that Congress is not supposed to pass laws
that either "establish OR prohibit" beliefs (you can say just
religious beliefs if you want to take this literally; but to avoid
discrimination I interpret it to ALL beliefs so everyone's rights are
included and defended equally, regardless if they affiliate or identify with a religion or not.)

No, we do not agree. As beliefs aren't even mentioned in the constitution. I can hold a belief that we should have speeding laws. Per your wildly bizarre interpretation of the 1st amendment, that somehow violates the separation of church and state.

Back in reality, there's no such violation. As a belief doesn't necessarily establish any religion. You merely calling anything you disagree with 'religion' doesn't magically make it so.

All you've done is switch to a useless false equivalency fallacy....insisting that any belief on any topic is religion.

Um, no. Its not.

if that's all we disagree on -- whether this applies to ALL beliefs
or just established religions, that is normal to interpret the law as only applying to religious beliefs
due to established precedent and case history etc.)

2. the Fourteenth Amendment
expanded to the STATES
the protection of rights of people under state jurisdiction

And recognizing same sex marraige violates no rights. While denying same sex marriage violates rights. They're literal opposites.

Opposites are not 'equal'. One would think this was obvious.

Again, you bizarrely insist that beliefs and right are the same thing. And you're obviously wrong.

 

[Skylar]

How does recognizing marriage for same sex couples strip anyone who disagrees of any right?

Having a different 'belief' doesn't mean you can strip people of their rights, Emily. This is the part you've never understood; a belief alone has no authority. So if you have a belief and I have a belief, there's no mandate that any public institution represent them both equally.

You keep pretending that such an imaginary mandate exists. And it never has. Not in the law, our history, our constitution. Just your imagination.

And your belief vs. someone else's rights has the same outcome: their rights win.

You having a 'belief' doesn't grant you any special power to strip anyone of any right.

Same problem as always: there is no such mandate for the representation of all beliefs in any democracy. Beliefs compete. Compete with each other, compete with rights. And rights trump belief.

You've never understood how democracy works, how rights work. And keep awkwardly trying to elevate 'belief' alone to some sacrosanct status that must be represented and given authority.

Um, no. If you have a stupid belief, we're not doing that. Stupid according to who? Our laws, our people and our constitution.

Dear Skylar
It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.

If people don't consent to a belief that's enough.
I cited examples of atheists or religious freedom groups
suing to "remove crosses" from public property.
Based on PRINCIPLE alone.

Nobody's religious freedom is "stripped" by having those crosses.
In one case, a group across the country sued to remove crosses from a teacher's memorial plaque
that they don't even look at. That image is not oppressing them or stripping anyone of rights.
But on principle alone, they argued that it couldn't be on public school property.

So I'm saying to be consistent.

If everyone practices the marriage beliefs of their choice
and agrees that the state can endorse "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships"
with NO references to social relationships at all,
then that is not stripping anyone of rights but recognizing everyone's freedom equally.

However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only"
to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."

No particular degree of harm is required to make this argument.
No stripping of rights or beliefs is needed to make this argument.

Sure it makes it worse if there are degrees of harm or damage, which add to the argument.
But the principle alone is enough to argue the state has no such authority.

BTW after hearing from people on both sides who just cannot tolerate or imagine
that the other belief/viewpoint has any validity whatsoever,
I am convinced that people cannot help having their beliefs about this.
and what I will recommend to the Governor and Senators of Texas (and party leaders)
is to call for a conference on this and a resolution:
* either agree to use neutral terms in public policies for "civil unions" "domestic partnership"
"custody or guardianship contracts" etc. and remove the term "marriage" if this
carries connotations that violate people's beliefs (similar to removing references to God or Jesus)
* or agree to SEPARATE funding by party, on health care, marriage benefits
and conditions on welfare (where people don't agree on the terms and conditions
due to religious and political beliefs) and only establish as public policy the
programs and conditions that all people agree on as representing everyone's values.
* or agree to "trade concessions" if it's too hard to separate and secularize everything:
such as if people are going to include same sex marriage in sex education
and in marriage and benefits, then ALSO let references to God, Jesus, creation,
spiritual healing, Bibles, crosses, heaven and hell, etc. be included in public institutions
and textbooks, public services, property, buildings, activities etc.

If people AGREE to a policy regarding beliefs, then it's okay to enact and endorse
that on a state level if all the people consent. SINCE BELIEFS ARE INVOLVED
THAT GOVT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE OR MANDATE, and which only
the people can choose freely to adopt endorse and enforce.

It's not okay to bully people into changing their beliefs or accepting things
against their beliefs by forcing that through govt. It has to be by the people's consent,
and/or to keep the policies local or private where consent and free choice can still be respected.

If consensus can be established on the collective level of city, party, state, etc.
then that's perfectly fine to endorse that for the members who agree to that.

So that's what I would recommend to heads of govt and parties.
To call for a truce on political beliefs, and agreement to respect consent and beliefs
of all people and parties without harassment, penalty or other duress/coercion,
and either to separate policies by party, agree on neutral and universally inclusive language
and points/principles that all parties AGREE is fair to enforce as public policy,
or agree to mutual concessions so that beliefs are treated equally (instead of
excluding/penalizing one set while endorsing and establishing the other which isn't equal).

Wrong.

You clearly have no understanding of the issue.

The 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying citizens who reside in the states access to state laws absent a rational basis, absent objective, documented evidence in support, and absent a proper legislative end.

The states cannot deny a given class of persons access to state law for no other reason than a majority of the state’s resident disapprove of that class of persons – be it race, religion, or sexual orientation.

In this case the law in question is marriage contract law, which same-sex couples are eligible to participate in.

Denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is devoid of a rational basis, there is no objective, documented evidence in support of doing so, and it pursues no proper legislative end – it seeks only to disadvantage gay American for no other reason than being homosexual.

“This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

Yes Skylar
I agree that laws that give traditional couples and marriages benefits and rights
but which exclude same sex couples and beliefs in treating those equally
ARE AGAINST the equal protections laws.

HOWEVER the state endorsing same sex marriage is equally problematic.

No, it isn't. As recognizing same sex marriage strips no one of any right. While denying same sex marriage strips same sex couples of their right to marry.

They're literal opposites....which you strangely insist are 'equal'. I don't think 'equal' means what you think it means.

What you think is the solution just introduced as many complications if not more.

If you are going to fix the inequality,
then at least work out a solution that all sides AGREES remedies the problems
without adding more complications or making it worse by multiplying the objections.

Nope. People disagree all the time. Elections, laws and court rulings help sort those disagreements out.

Beliefs compete. Some lose. Some win. Your imaginary idea that all beliefs must be equally represented is simple nonsense. There is no such mandate.

Nor has there ever been at any point in our nation's history. That mandate exists exclusively inside your head.

and if you understood that beliefs about homosexuality/transgender identity
are FAITH BASED

Says who? You're throwing up another nonsense premise to support your previous nonsense premise. And its imagination all the way down.

There is no mandate that all beliefs be equally represented.

Just because you are addressing a wrong and seeking to correct it
by the Fourteenth Amendment, doesn't mean the solution you passed with legislation or
court ruling with didn't violate OTHER Constitutional standards on beliefs and creeds incidentally.

Save that your 'the first amendment prevents government from forwarding any belief' is imaginary nonsense. There is no such restriction. The very concept of democracy contradicts your assumption, as it it nothing BUT people using government to forward beliefs.

That's all laws are: codified belief. And not all beliefs are equally represented. Nor should be.

Yes so we agree
that beliefs should be kept out of govt if they cannot be equally represented.

You're not even reading what you're replying to. For the 3rd time, NO, we do not agree. NO, there is no mandate that beliefs be equally representd in government. NO, rights and beliefs aren't the same thing.

Again, all you're doing is restating the same nonsense premise, backed by nothing but your imagination.....and then insisting that I agree with you.

And I obviously don't. Is there anything to you but restating the same nonsense premise and pretending that everyone agrees with you?

If no, then you're done. If yes, then by all means, present your argument.

 

[emilynghiem]

"...the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs."

Nonsense - the issue has nothing to do with the First Amendment, no government is seeking to restrict or deny anyone's beliefs.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence that invalidated state laws denying same-sex couples access to marriage laws applies solely to government, not to private persons or organizations, such as churches.

Both individuals and religious entities are at complete liberty to discriminate against same-sex couples in the context of religious dogma, and private citizens are at complete liberty to hate gay Americans with impunity, to believe that homosexuality is 'immoral,' and to freely express their hostility toward gay Americans, free from unwarranted interference by any government.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones and Skylar
while I AGREE with you that bans on same sex marriage
getting struck down as unconstitutional

I DISAGREE with your continued assertion that
state sanctioning and endorsing same sex marriage
isn't ALSO crossing the line and involving the
state in matters of private personal spiritual religious and political beliefs,
but I argue since the people in states DON'T agree yet on the polices
and how they are written, then no such laws should be endorsed or
enforced as public policy UNTIL and UNLESS the affected public agrees and consents.

They need to go back to the drawing board
and revise policies and programs so people DO agree
that it me ets Constitutional standards and ethics,
neither establishing or denying beliefs,
endorsing or excluding, discriminating or penalizing etc.

Then such a law can pass as Constitutional
if it lives up to equal protections of the laws for all people
WITHOUT discriminating on the basis of creed.

just because the bans that got struck down were
unconstitutional, and I agree with you they violate
the First and Fourteenth Amendment as well as other laws,
DOES NOT MEAN THE SOLUTION IS THE
STATE ENDORSING SAME SEX MARRIAGE

Just because people agree to "decriminalize" drugs
does NOT MEAN LEGALIZING THEM IS THE SOLUTION

You are making leaps in logic where
just because I agree with you
Part A was a Constitutional violation
does NOT automatically mean Part B is the Constitutional solution!

And just because you and I disagree on Part B
does not negate what we agree on in Part A!!!

 

[Skylar]

"...the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs."

Nonsense - the issue has nothing to do with the First Amendment, no government is seeking to restrict or deny anyone's beliefs.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence that invalidated state laws denying same-sex couples access to marriage laws applies solely to government, not to private persons or organizations, such as churches.

Both individuals and religious entities are at complete liberty to discriminate against same-sex couples in the context of religious dogma, and private citizens are at complete liberty to hate gay Americans with impunity, to believe that homosexuality is 'immoral,' and to freely express their hostility toward gay Americans, free from unwarranted interference by any government.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones and Skylar
while I AGREE with you that bans on same sex marriage
getting struck down as unconstitutional

I DISAGREE with your continued assertion that
state sanctioning and endorsing same sex marriage
isn't ALSO crossing the line and involving the
state in matters of private personal spiritual religious and political beliefs,
but I argue since the people in states DON'T agree yet on the polices
and how they are written, then no such laws should be endorsed or
enforced as public policy UNTIL and UNLESS the affected public agrees and consents.

Nonsense. If the public wants to pass a law that violates rights, the rights of the individual trumps that authority.

And bans on same sex marriage violated the right to marry and equal protection restrictions on state laws. Thus, they had no authority.

Universal consent is not necessary for a law to be enacted. Nor for a law to be repealed. Nor has it ever been.

They need to go back to the drawing board
and revise policies and programs so people DO agree
that it me ets Constitutional standards and ethics,
neither establishing or denying beliefs,
endorsing or excluding, discriminating or penalizing etc.

There is no constitutional standard about the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'.

You've made that up. And your imagination creates no constitutional crisis.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Skylar
It doesn't HAVE to "strip someone of their rights"
to be a violation of the principle behind separation of church and state.

How does gay marriage have a thing to do with the 'separation of church and state'?

Again, you can any belief you want. But it doesn't mean that your view must be represented anywhere. Let alone in public institutions, our law, or our constitution.

If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one. But denying a gay or lesbian couple the right to marry because *you* have a belief is ludicrous. As they have a right to marry. And your 'belief' doesn't have any authority over their rights.

However, if either group pushes for either "traditional marriage only" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that same sex couples should be included
or "same sex marriage" to be endorsed by the state against the beliefs of others that marriage is not for same sex couples,
then both groups rightfully argue that this "violates separation of church and state."

There is no mandate that 'beliefs' be equally represented. Your entire argument is based on an imaginary, false, and fallacious premise.

Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.

RE: Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.

SORRY Skylar
but by the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs.

The first amendment says no such thing. You've imagined it. And I defy you to cite the amendment indicating that the government lacks the authority to forward one belief over another.

You'll find there is no such passage.

Beliefs compete *constantly*. The entire idea of an election is predicated on people with different beliefs trying to convince a relevant majority of their fellow citizens that the laws and representatives who write it should reflect their beliefs rather than some other guy's.

Your entire conception of the 1st amendment is imaginary nonsense. Nor is there any mandate, anywhere, that all beliefs should be equally represented in our laws.

So far your entire argument has to been to restate the same nonsense premise, that all beliefs must be represented equally. And they don't. Nor have they ever.

So....what else have you got?

1. The First Amendment was written literally for Congress
and states that
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

which has been paraphrased by the left who call it
"separation of church and state"
which means the govt is not to be used to endorse or impose "religious beliefs"

And where does it say a thing about beliefs? If I believe there should be same sex marriage......that's not 'establishing religion'. Or inhibiting anyone else's right to practice it.

Again, your mandate that all rights must be represented equally doesn't exist in our laws, our constitution, or our nation's history. Beliefs compete. And some lose. Those that lose are no represented in our laws. Those that win are.

And your beliefs grant you no authority to abrogate anyone else's rights.

Q:
do you and I agree on the MEANING of the First Amendment?

Of course not. As you've equated any belief with religion. The 1st amendment never so much as mentions beliefs. Let alone forbids laws based on them.

You've literally imagined your entire premise. And the 1st amendment makes no mention of anything you've argued. Not one thing.

do we agree that Congress is not supposed to pass laws
that either "establish OR prohibit" beliefs (you can say just
religious beliefs if you want to take this literally; but to avoid
discrimination I interpret it to ALL beliefs so everyone's rights are
included and defended equally, regardless if they affiliate or identify with a religion or not.)

No, we do not agree. As beliefs aren't even mentioned in the constitution. I can hold a belief that we should have speeding laws. Per your wildly bizarre interpretation of the 1st amendment, that somehow violates the separation of church and state.

Back in reality, there's no such violation. As a belief doesn't necessarily establish any religion. You merely calling anything you disagree with 'religion' doesn't magically make it so.

All you've done is switch to a useless false equivalency fallacy....insisting that any belief on any topic is religion.

Um, no. Its not.

if that's all we disagree on -- whether this applies to ALL beliefs
or just established religions, that is normal to interpret the law as only applying to religious beliefs
due to established precedent and case history etc.)

2. the Fourteenth Amendment
expanded to the STATES
the protection of rights of people under state jurisdiction

And recognizing same sex marraige violates no rights. While denying same sex marriage violates rights. They're literal opposites.

Opposites are not 'equal'. One would think this was obvious.

Again, you bizarrely insist that beliefs and right are the same thing. And you're obviously wrong.

RE: Speeding laws
These are secular issues
and we all agree there are no religious beliefs involved there.
otherwise YES if it turned out this somehow DID involve
some inherent beliefs, that would be argued about with
no chance of resolving them IF BELIEFS WERE REALLY INVOLVED.
Apparently not, with this issue. Next?

If you are going to take up an issue that is in the realm of political beliefs,
at least pick a real one that many people DO hold as sacred beliefs:

* beliefs about death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, termination of life
* beliefs about voting rights as sacred and symbolic,
gun rights as outside govt regulations
* beliefs if people born in other countries have equal rights
as people born in America
* beliefs about sovereignty of states, of Puerto Rico or Hawaii,
of Native Americans
* beliefs about nonviolence, restorative justice vs war
* beliefs about environmental preservation (not just global
warming which is a huge issue about faith-based beliefs)

These all need to be addressed

There are PLENTY of REAL issues that get
into sacred deeply held beliefs that people
can't help and can't change without free choice to do so

Do you see the difference between
areas of laws and policies that
DO involve deeply held beliefs people cannot help
vs. group decisions on secular matters
that people AGREE to decide by "majority rule"

Do you see the difference
that this isn't just arbitrary or something people make up

People don't just fight randomly about "anything"
and that's why we DON'T see people raising
these arguments over speeding laws etc.

But if you look at the list above
there are DEFINITE issues
that fall in the category of political beliefs

some of the most vocal issues have been
* right to life "beginning at conception" (vs. free choice without govt imposing penalties)
* right to health care through govt (vs. free market without govt imposing mandates)
* marriage equality/transgender/homosexuality issues
* global warming caused by man
* gun rights and immigrant rights

The closest I have found to people with political beliefs
about speeding are some libertarians who don't believe
in driving licenses and related regulations,
or anarchists who don't believe in institutionalized authority
but might support syndicates where people of a community
form contracts among themselves unilaterally, just not imposed
by a top down hierarchy that doesn't respect direct consent by each person.

For those people, yes, I would support
them setting up their own campus communities
where they can manage themselves under policies they all agre e to.
But outside their perimeter, there would need to be security
so nobody enters who doesn't agree to live by the same laws.

So the state might still need to be involved in policìng AROUND
such a community, and/or they could agree to hire security
as part of the cost of supporting that lifestyle under their beliefs.

 

[Skylar]

How does gay marriage have a thing to do with the 'separation of church and state'?

Again, you can any belief you want. But it doesn't mean that your view must be represented anywhere. Let alone in public institutions, our law, or our constitution.

If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one. But denying a gay or lesbian couple the right to marry because *you* have a belief is ludicrous. As they have a right to marry. And your 'belief' doesn't have any authority over their rights.

There is no mandate that 'beliefs' be equally represented. Your entire argument is based on an imaginary, false, and fallacious premise.

Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.

RE: Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.

SORRY Skylar
but by the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs.

The first amendment says no such thing. You've imagined it. And I defy you to cite the amendment indicating that the government lacks the authority to forward one belief over another.

You'll find there is no such passage.

Beliefs compete *constantly*. The entire idea of an election is predicated on people with different beliefs trying to convince a relevant majority of their fellow citizens that the laws and representatives who write it should reflect their beliefs rather than some other guy's.

Your entire conception of the 1st amendment is imaginary nonsense. Nor is there any mandate, anywhere, that all beliefs should be equally represented in our laws.

So far your entire argument has to been to restate the same nonsense premise, that all beliefs must be represented equally. And they don't. Nor have they ever.

So....what else have you got?

1. The First Amendment was written literally for Congress
and states that
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

which has been paraphrased by the left who call it
"separation of church and state"
which means the govt is not to be used to endorse or impose "religious beliefs"

And where does it say a thing about beliefs? If I believe there should be same sex marriage......that's not 'establishing religion'. Or inhibiting anyone else's right to practice it.

Again, your mandate that all rights must be represented equally doesn't exist in our laws, our constitution, or our nation's history. Beliefs compete. And some lose. Those that lose are no represented in our laws. Those that win are.

And your beliefs grant you no authority to abrogate anyone else's rights.

Q:
do you and I agree on the MEANING of the First Amendment?

Of course not. As you've equated any belief with religion. The 1st amendment never so much as mentions beliefs. Let alone forbids laws based on them.

You've literally imagined your entire premise. And the 1st amendment makes no mention of anything you've argued. Not one thing.

do we agree that Congress is not supposed to pass laws
that either "establish OR prohibit" beliefs (you can say just
religious beliefs if you want to take this literally; but to avoid
discrimination I interpret it to ALL beliefs so everyone's rights are
included and defended equally, regardless if they affiliate or identify with a religion or not.)

No, we do not agree. As beliefs aren't even mentioned in the constitution. I can hold a belief that we should have speeding laws. Per your wildly bizarre interpretation of the 1st amendment, that somehow violates the separation of church and state.

Back in reality, there's no such violation. As a belief doesn't necessarily establish any religion. You merely calling anything you disagree with 'religion' doesn't magically make it so.

All you've done is switch to a useless false equivalency fallacy....insisting that any belief on any topic is religion.

Um, no. Its not.

if that's all we disagree on -- whether this applies to ALL beliefs
or just established religions, that is normal to interpret the law as only applying to religious beliefs
due to established precedent and case history etc.)

2. the Fourteenth Amendment
expanded to the STATES
the protection of rights of people under state jurisdiction

And recognizing same sex marraige violates no rights. While denying same sex marriage violates rights. They're literal opposites.

Opposites are not 'equal'. One would think this was obvious.

Again, you bizarrely insist that beliefs and right are the same thing. And you're obviously wrong.

RE: Speeding laws
These are secular issues
and we all agree there are no religious beliefs involved there.

So if YOU have a religiously based problem with anything....suddenly someone *else's* belief about it is religion?

That's ludicrous.

If I support a woman's right to choose....and you believe that abortion is a mortal sin based on your religion....then my belief about a woman's right to choose suddenly becomes religious?

Um, nope.

Nor does your belief grant you the authority to impose your will on another woman's body. Her rights trump your beliefs regarding the use of her own body. Your beliefs grant you no authority. Nor is there any constitutional crisis as there is no constitutional restriction about 'establishing or denying beliefs'.

You made that up. And your imagination has no constitutional relevance.

 

[emilynghiem]

"...the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs."

Nonsense - the issue has nothing to do with the First Amendment, no government is seeking to restrict or deny anyone's beliefs.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence that invalidated state laws denying same-sex couples access to marriage laws applies solely to government, not to private persons or organizations, such as churches.

Both individuals and religious entities are at complete liberty to discriminate against same-sex couples in the context of religious dogma, and private citizens are at complete liberty to hate gay Americans with impunity, to believe that homosexuality is 'immoral,' and to freely express their hostility toward gay Americans, free from unwarranted interference by any government.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones and Skylar
while I AGREE with you that bans on same sex marriage
getting struck down as unconstitutional

I DISAGREE with your continued assertion that
state sanctioning and endorsing same sex marriage
isn't ALSO crossing the line and involving the
state in matters of private personal spiritual religious and political beliefs,
but I argue since the people in states DON'T agree yet on the polices
and how they are written, then no such laws should be endorsed or
enforced as public policy UNTIL and UNLESS the affected public agrees and consents.

Nonsense. If the public wants to pass a law that violates rights, the rights of the individual trumps that authority.

And bans on same sex marriage violated the right to marry and equal protection restrictions on state laws. Thus, they had no authority.

Universal consent is not necessary for a law to be enacted. Nor for a law to be repealed. Nor has it ever been.

They need to go back to the drawing board
and revise policies and programs so people DO agree
that it me ets Constitutional standards and ethics,
neither establishing or denying beliefs,
endorsing or excluding, discriminating or penalizing etc.

There is no constitutional standard about the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'.

You've made that up. And your imagination creates no constitutional crisis.

For a law to have authority of the people,
consent is necessary.

* See Declaration of Independence
on the just powers of govt being DERIVED FROM CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED
* See Texas Bill of Rights

Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

This is a principle from NATURAL LAW, reflecting human nature.

All people I've ever met
only consented "SO FAR" to submit to govt for collective/representative decisions
and PEOPLE GENERALLY DO NOT CONSENT to put their BELIEFS in the hands of govt to mandate for them.

I've never ever met a person who agreed to give up their
beliefs to govt. And whenever that does happen,
such as in the case of people objecting to abortion,
the death penalty, gay marriage bans, or state endorsement of gay marriage,
they always fight and do not CONSENT.

Thus they push until laws change because they do not agree
where the govt goes against their beliefs. Thus the process
of petitioning continues until grievances are redressed.

I've never seen anyone who didn't protest
when their BELIEFS were infringed upon.

It's human nature to defend our free will and consent.

 

[Skylar]

"...the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs."

Nonsense - the issue has nothing to do with the First Amendment, no government is seeking to restrict or deny anyone's beliefs.

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence that invalidated state laws denying same-sex couples access to marriage laws applies solely to government, not to private persons or organizations, such as churches.

Both individuals and religious entities are at complete liberty to discriminate against same-sex couples in the context of religious dogma, and private citizens are at complete liberty to hate gay Americans with impunity, to believe that homosexuality is 'immoral,' and to freely express their hostility toward gay Americans, free from unwarranted interference by any government.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones and Skylar
while I AGREE with you that bans on same sex marriage
getting struck down as unconstitutional

I DISAGREE with your continued assertion that
state sanctioning and endorsing same sex marriage
isn't ALSO crossing the line and involving the
state in matters of private personal spiritual religious and political beliefs,
but I argue since the people in states DON'T agree yet on the polices
and how they are written, then no such laws should be endorsed or
enforced as public policy UNTIL and UNLESS the affected public agrees and consents.

Nonsense. If the public wants to pass a law that violates rights, the rights of the individual trumps that authority.

And bans on same sex marriage violated the right to marry and equal protection restrictions on state laws. Thus, they had no authority.

Universal consent is not necessary for a law to be enacted. Nor for a law to be repealed. Nor has it ever been.

They need to go back to the drawing board
and revise policies and programs so people DO agree
that it me ets Constitutional standards and ethics,
neither establishing or denying beliefs,
endorsing or excluding, discriminating or penalizing etc.

There is no constitutional standard about the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'.

You've made that up. And your imagination creates no constitutional crisis.

For a law to have authority of the people,
consent is necessary.

Consent by a relevant majority. Not universal consent. And the constitution is the highest law in the land. If a law passed by a given state violate this highest law, the constitution is given preference over the state law that violates it.

This is constitution 101. The relevant majority has every authority to impose its will on the condition that it doesn't violate rights.
When rights are violated, the laws of the relevant majority are invalid.

Your insistence on universal consent has nothing to do with our laws, nor ever has. We have always used the relevant majority as the basis of consent of the governed. Your views aren't reflected in our nation's history, our laws or our constitution.

You simply don't understand how our republic works, how democracy works, or the most fundamental tenets of governance. Universal consent and total agreement by the people is not, nor has ever been a requirement for ANY law.

Once again, you've imagined it.

Thus they push until laws change because they do not agree
where the govt goes against their beliefs. Thus the process
of petitioning continues until grievances are redressed.

The redress of greviances is simply a case being heard and adjudicated. You don't understand what such redress even is. You don't follow the meaning of the terms you're trying to use.

And its this fundamental misunderstanding of basic terms that is the heart of your profound misunderstanding on how democracy works.

It has NEVER been about universal consent. It has NEVER been about absolute consensus. There have ALWAYS been disagreements. And some beliefs win while others lose. With the will of the relevant majority expressed in our law as long as those laws don't violate individual rights.

 

[emilynghiem]

RE: Beliefs compete. Some win. Some lose. And in a contest between beliefs and rights, rights win. If you don't think that differing beliefs have winners and losers......then let the next election disabuse you of that misconception.

SORRY Skylar
but by the First Amendment the govt is not authorized to get involved in contests between beliefs.

The first amendment says no such thing. You've imagined it. And I defy you to cite the amendment indicating that the government lacks the authority to forward one belief over another.

You'll find there is no such passage.

Beliefs compete *constantly*. The entire idea of an election is predicated on people with different beliefs trying to convince a relevant majority of their fellow citizens that the laws and representatives who write it should reflect their beliefs rather than some other guy's.

Your entire conception of the 1st amendment is imaginary nonsense. Nor is there any mandate, anywhere, that all beliefs should be equally represented in our laws.

So far your entire argument has to been to restate the same nonsense premise, that all beliefs must be represented equally. And they don't. Nor have they ever.

So....what else have you got?

1. The First Amendment was written literally for Congress
and states that
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

which has been paraphrased by the left who call it
"separation of church and state"
which means the govt is not to be used to endorse or impose "religious beliefs"

And where does it say a thing about beliefs? If I believe there should be same sex marriage......that's not 'establishing religion'. Or inhibiting anyone else's right to practice it.

Again, your mandate that all rights must be represented equally doesn't exist in our laws, our constitution, or our nation's history. Beliefs compete. And some lose. Those that lose are no represented in our laws. Those that win are.

And your beliefs grant you no authority to abrogate anyone else's rights.

Q:
do you and I agree on the MEANING of the First Amendment?

Of course not. As you've equated any belief with religion. The 1st amendment never so much as mentions beliefs. Let alone forbids laws based on them.

You've literally imagined your entire premise. And the 1st amendment makes no mention of anything you've argued. Not one thing.

do we agree that Congress is not supposed to pass laws
that either "establish OR prohibit" beliefs (you can say just
religious beliefs if you want to take this literally; but to avoid
discrimination I interpret it to ALL beliefs so everyone's rights are
included and defended equally, regardless if they affiliate or identify with a religion or not.)

No, we do not agree. As beliefs aren't even mentioned in the constitution. I can hold a belief that we should have speeding laws. Per your wildly bizarre interpretation of the 1st amendment, that somehow violates the separation of church and state.

Back in reality, there's no such violation. As a belief doesn't necessarily establish any religion. You merely calling anything you disagree with 'religion' doesn't magically make it so.

All you've done is switch to a useless false equivalency fallacy....insisting that any belief on any topic is religion.

Um, no. Its not.

if that's all we disagree on -- whether this applies to ALL beliefs
or just established religions, that is normal to interpret the law as only applying to religious beliefs
due to established precedent and case history etc.)

2. the Fourteenth Amendment
expanded to the STATES
the protection of rights of people under state jurisdiction

And recognizing same sex marraige violates no rights. While denying same sex marriage violates rights. They're literal opposites.

Opposites are not 'equal'. One would think this was obvious.

Again, you bizarrely insist that beliefs and right are the same thing. And you're obviously wrong.

RE: Speeding laws
These are secular issues
and we all agree there are no religious beliefs involved there.

So if YOU have a religiously based problem with anything....suddenly someone *else's* belief about it is religion?

That's ludicrous.

If I support a woman's right to choose....and you believe that abortion is a mortal sin based on your religion....then my belief about a woman's right to choose suddenly becomes religious?

Um, nope.

Nor does your belief grant you the authority to impose your will on another woman's body. Her rights trump your beliefs regarding the use of her own body. Your beliefs grant you no authority. Nor is there any constitutional crisis as there is no constitutional restriction about 'establishing or denying beliefs'.

You made that up. And your imagination has no constitutional relevance.

No, it doesn't 'become' religious, randomly or suddenly.
Beliefs are already there, inherently, before the issues ever came up.

It is NOT random that people argue something affects their beliefs.

I spelled out a list of SPECIFIC areas I have found
where people have beliefs they cannot help and will fight to defend because it is inherent in their identity.

You cannot "make this stuff up"

People automatically go off about their gun rights, or right to choose,
or right to life.

It does not have to be "religious" to be on the level of BELIEFS.

They do not "randomly decide" they have this deep an issue with something.
I find people honestly cannot help their beliefs.
No more than atheists can help not seeing the world in terms of a personified God,
or a Christian who has found the Kingdom of God through healing and prayer in Christ
cannot help their beliefs either.

Transgender people cannot help that they experience a certain spiritual identity
and that's who they are.

All these boil down to faith based beliefs,
and although "theoretically or hypothetically" people "could" change,
when it comes to people's beliefs, they believe what they believe.

So I've just learned to recognize and respect where people have
these beliefs they don't believe govt has the right to force them to change.

And I agree to work with those preferences and identities
people have, out of respect for religious freedom,
consent of the governed, democratic process, and
equal protection, inclusion and representation.

I find all that is necessary for people to have
equal access to democratic process
and equal protection of the laws.

The first step is to recognize they have the right to their
beliefs and to exercise these, and the next steps involve
mastering the communicating and relations to resolve
any conflicts in the way of equal exercise protection and inclusion;
and the last steps involve the actual implementation and how
to work and coordinate with all groups and models, so all people maximize
and realize this equal fulfillment and manifestation of all our respective parts we play
in the process of establishing peace and justice in a sustainable society.

 

[Skylar]

The first amendment says no such thing. You've imagined it. And I defy you to cite the amendment indicating that the government lacks the authority to forward one belief over another.

You'll find there is no such passage.

Beliefs compete *constantly*. The entire idea of an election is predicated on people with different beliefs trying to convince a relevant majority of their fellow citizens that the laws and representatives who write it should reflect their beliefs rather than some other guy's.

Your entire conception of the 1st amendment is imaginary nonsense. Nor is there any mandate, anywhere, that all beliefs should be equally represented in our laws.

So far your entire argument has to been to restate the same nonsense premise, that all beliefs must be represented equally. And they don't. Nor have they ever.

So....what else have you got?

1. The First Amendment was written literally for Congress
and states that
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

which has been paraphrased by the left who call it
"separation of church and state"
which means the govt is not to be used to endorse or impose "religious beliefs"

And where does it say a thing about beliefs? If I believe there should be same sex marriage......that's not 'establishing religion'. Or inhibiting anyone else's right to practice it.

Again, your mandate that all rights must be represented equally doesn't exist in our laws, our constitution, or our nation's history. Beliefs compete. And some lose. Those that lose are no represented in our laws. Those that win are.

And your beliefs grant you no authority to abrogate anyone else's rights.

Q:
do you and I agree on the MEANING of the First Amendment?

Of course not. As you've equated any belief with religion. The 1st amendment never so much as mentions beliefs. Let alone forbids laws based on them.

You've literally imagined your entire premise. And the 1st amendment makes no mention of anything you've argued. Not one thing.

do we agree that Congress is not supposed to pass laws
that either "establish OR prohibit" beliefs (you can say just
religious beliefs if you want to take this literally; but to avoid
discrimination I interpret it to ALL beliefs so everyone's rights are
included and defended equally, regardless if they affiliate or identify with a religion or not.)

No, we do not agree. As beliefs aren't even mentioned in the constitution. I can hold a belief that we should have speeding laws. Per your wildly bizarre interpretation of the 1st amendment, that somehow violates the separation of church and state.

Back in reality, there's no such violation. As a belief doesn't necessarily establish any religion. You merely calling anything you disagree with 'religion' doesn't magically make it so.

All you've done is switch to a useless false equivalency fallacy....insisting that any belief on any topic is religion.

Um, no. Its not.

if that's all we disagree on -- whether this applies to ALL beliefs
or just established religions, that is normal to interpret the law as only applying to religious beliefs
due to established precedent and case history etc.)

2. the Fourteenth Amendment
expanded to the STATES
the protection of rights of people under state jurisdiction

And recognizing same sex marraige violates no rights. While denying same sex marriage violates rights. They're literal opposites.

Opposites are not 'equal'. One would think this was obvious.

Again, you bizarrely insist that beliefs and right are the same thing. And you're obviously wrong.

RE: Speeding laws
These are secular issues
and we all agree there are no religious beliefs involved there.

So if YOU have a religiously based problem with anything....suddenly someone *else's* belief about it is religion?

That's ludicrous.

If I support a woman's right to choose....and you believe that abortion is a mortal sin based on your religion....then my belief about a woman's right to choose suddenly becomes religious?

Um, nope.

Nor does your belief grant you the authority to impose your will on another woman's body. Her rights trump your beliefs regarding the use of her own body. Your beliefs grant you no authority. Nor is there any constitutional crisis as there is no constitutional restriction about 'establishing or denying beliefs'.

You made that up. And your imagination has no constitutional relevance.

No, it doesn't 'become' religious, randomly or suddenly.
Beliefs are already there, inherently, before the issues ever came up.

The constitution offers no restriction on the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'. You've made that up. The 1st amendment makes zero mention of it. No amendment does.

And your imagination has no constitutional relevance. Eliminating your entire argument.

I spelled out a list of SPECIFIC areas I have found
where people have beliefs they cannot help and will fight to defend because it is inherent in their identity.

None of which has a thing to do with religion. As I've addressed your 'specific area' directly: You believe that abortion is a religious sin. I think a woman should have the right to control her own body.

Q: What amendment in the constitution restrictions the establishment of the right to abortion based on the belief that a woman should have the right to control her own body?

A: There is none.

That YOU believe in a religious basis of abortion restriction has zero constitutional or rational relevance to another woman's right to have an abortion. There is no 1st amendment violation, as the 1st amendment doesn't even mention the 'establishment or denial of beliefs'. Let alone forbid either.

You've made that up. And your imagination is constitutionally irrelevant.

The first step is to recognize they have the right to their
beliefs and to exercise these, and the next steps involve
mastering the communicating and relations to resolve
any conflicts in the way of equal exercise protection and inclusion;
and the last steps involve the actual implementation and how
to work and coordinate with all groups and models, so all people maximize and realize this equal fulfillment and manifestation of all our respective parts we play in the process of establishing peace and justice in a sustainable society.

Nope. You having a right to your beliefs doesn't mean that you have a right for those beliefs to be equally represented in our laws.

If you believe that its a religious sin for interracial couples to marry, there is zero constitutional obligation that the law reflect your views equally with those who believe they should be able to marry inter-racially.

Your belief does not trump other people's rights.

And when a law violates rights, the law is invalid.