emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
"...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 Nor for a law to be repealed.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.
I AGREE with you we have never fully realized consensus, "equal justice under law"
and full and equal representation and protection of all interests.
But that IS the spirit of what our laws PRESCRIBE and ASPIRE to.
* Equal Justice Under Law
I agree the current system is bought out by the bigger bully
with more resources, and this isn't equal access to justice much less protection
I am arguing to defend the standards that WOULD
FULFILL "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
* Equal protections under law
Again, we don't have this yet.
That's why I am arguing to defend standards and principles
CONSISTENTLY THAT WOULD ALLOW EQUAL PROTECTIONS OF ALL PEOPLE'S CONSENT AND INTEREST
* our laws in the Bill of Rights (and Code of Ethics for Govt Service)
ALREADY PRESCRIBE THE STANDARDS that if we followed
would ensure all people are treated equally
See where I posted them here: http://www.ethics-commission.net
Just because we have never practiced or established this consistently
doesn't mean we shouldn't respect what are laws ALREADY claim to protect!
The problem is we aren't enforcing them equally.
We allow bigger bullies to get away with wrongs,
and don't hold them to correct those. So this pattern keeps happening.
But if you look at the pattern of behavior in RESPONDING to
these ongoing wrongs, you will always see people
* protesting or objecting
* petitioning (in one form or another)
* demanding restitution or "redress of grievances"
So that is an inherent part of the political process also.
Until people's consent is respected, this cycle will continue
to force reforms and corrections. That's justice at work.
As they say "no justice, no peace"
The process continues until objections/grievances are resolved.