Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Syriusly]

Of course not- because the courts don't write law- they can only overturn illegal laws.

Just as they did in Loving v. Virginia- and just as they did in Obergefell.

That is one of the responsibilities courts have.

Yes Syriusly we agree on this
Where there is disagreement is whether it takes
WRITTEN laws or amendments to establish or "create" right to marriage
through govt, and it isn't just done by judges striking down other laws as unconstitutional.

Do we have a right to privacy? Do we have a right to marriage?

The Supreme Court says yes- we do- and what do they base that on?

The 9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Constitution doesn't mention 'privacy'- but we do have the right to privacy- and aren't we all glad we do?
Privacy

The Fifth Amendment does mention privacy. It is described and and defined based of of writs of assistance, John Wilkes and Number 45, and Charles Paxton.

The Ninth Amendment regarded state's rights by limiting the interpretation powers of Article I, Section 8.

Not one mention of privacy

5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Obviously I accidentally used the Fifth Amendment instead of the Fourth as the Fifth was the subject of my last post.

The Fourth Amendment does mention privacy. It is described and defined based of writs of assistance, John Wilkes and Number 45, and Charles Paxton.

The Ninth Amendment regarded state's rights by limiting the interpretation powers of Article I, Section 8.

Don't blame me for your mistake. A simple mea culpa would suffice.

 

[Syriusly]

Laws of the State of New York 1787:

BE it enacted by the people of the state of New-York, represented in senate and assembly, and it is hereby enabled by the authority of the same, That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery, committed with mankind or beast, shall be from henceforth adjudged felony; and such order and form process therein, shall be used against the offenders, as in cases of felony at the common law; and that every person being thereof convicted, by verdict, confession or outlawry, shall be hanged by the neck, until he or she shall be dead.​

Rhode Island's Public Laws of 1798:

That every person who shall be convicted of sodomy, or of being accessary thereto before the fact, shall, for the first offence, be carried to the gallows in a cart, and set upon the said gallows, for a space of time not exceeding four hours, and thence to the common goal, there to be confined for a term not exceeding three years, and shall be grievously fined at the discretion of the Court; and for the second offense shall suffer death.​

Once again- you cite a law against 'buggery'- how does that apply to lesbians? Or even gay men who do not engage in 'buggery'- it applies to any person- man or woman who engages in buggery.

You know for someone who loves to argue 'law' it is amazing how you make a legal claim- that laws against same sex marriage have existed since the 1600's and you still can't find any examples to support your claim.

You know- its okay to just admit you were wrong- that you were mistaken.

Your choosing to get an education in American history and constitutional law on an internet search engine is probably the reason you have failed to investigate my elementary production of pre-constitutional state laws and post-constitutional state laws. I really cannot help you with that handicap.

Perhaps someone can draw you a picture of how a man being with a man and a women being with a women being a capital offense would preclude same-sex marriage. My amusement with internet trolls quickly wanes.

Then why do you troll here?

The laws you listed applied to married couples and unmarried couples alike- but not two women having sex together.

My amusement with pointing out your fallacies and your inability to back up your claims just continues on.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Child Abuse Statistics

I hear conservatives constantly say "this is a Christian nation" and now the whole 'gay's can't marry or raise children it's dangerous'.

Apparently all these Christians and straight parents are harming millions of children without any help from anyone else.

Dear IsaacNewton The solution is still being censored from both sides.
The same spiritual healing that has been used to address, heal and even cure the causes
of sexual abuse and addiction
are rejected by the SECULAR media and politics that have demonized Christianity
but also censored by the Christians who reject medical research into these methods.

Christian doctors have been researching the process by which
spiritual healing is used to cure diseases, including mental criminal and sexual addiction that leads to abuse.
But the same doctors ran into as much opposition from Christians opposing the research
as I do with secular people opposing the practice of spiritual healing on its face.

So both sides and the "false division between faith and science"
have been cited for the reason these abuses continue
when the cure for them has already been found
and just can't get researched because of this divide.

And how does this in any manner address the fact that denying same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.

 

[emilynghiem]

Child Abuse Statistics

I hear conservatives constantly say "this is a Christian nation" and now the whole 'gay's can't marry or raise children it's dangerous'.

Apparently all these Christians and straight parents are harming millions of children without any help from anyone else.

Dear IsaacNewton The solution is still being censored from both sides.
The same spiritual healing that has been used to address, heal and even cure the causes
of sexual abuse and addiction
are rejected by the SECULAR media and politics that have demonized Christianity
but also censored by the Christians who reject medical research into these methods.

Christian doctors have been researching the process by which
spiritual healing is used to cure diseases, including mental criminal and sexual addiction that leads to abuse.
But the same doctors ran into as much opposition from Christians opposing the research
as I do with secular people opposing the practice of spiritual healing on its face.

So both sides and the "false division between faith and science"
have been cited for the reason these abuses continue
when the cure for them has already been found
and just can't get researched because of this divide.

And how does this in any manner address the fact that denying same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
If the laws are written where they introduce a faith based bias in belief
that not all people of that state believe in, then that is a violation of
Freedom of Religion and equal protection of the laws from Discrimination by Creed.

The laws must either be written neutrally where there is no objection due to faith based
bias from ANY person affected by that law,
or the people of that state can agree to enforce rights equally
such as right to marriage and right to prayer where neither side
feels the other group's beliefs are being established by the state to their exclusion.

When all the people and groups in a state are satisfied
that NOBODY's beliefs are being favored or established by govt,
then I'd say they have written or negotiated the laws in proper
balance where there is AGREEMENT there is EQUAL PROTECTION
of the laws and NOT any discrimination by creed going on.

As long as one side or the other is complaining,
something isn't right with the writing, interpretation or enforcement
and someone is saying it's not equally protecting the people of all beliefs
as the Fourteenth Amendment is supposes to protect religious freedom for all
(and the Civil Rights extensions added the language for "creed" where I include LGBT policies)

 

[Syriusly]

Child Abuse Statistics

I hear conservatives constantly say "this is a Christian nation" and now the whole 'gay's can't marry or raise children it's dangerous'.

Apparently all these Christians and straight parents are harming millions of children without any help from anyone else.

Dear IsaacNewton The solution is still being censored from both sides.
The same spiritual healing that has been used to address, heal and even cure the causes
of sexual abuse and addiction
are rejected by the SECULAR media and politics that have demonized Christianity
but also censored by the Christians who reject medical research into these methods.

Christian doctors have been researching the process by which
spiritual healing is used to cure diseases, including mental criminal and sexual addiction that leads to abuse.
But the same doctors ran into as much opposition from Christians opposing the research
as I do with secular people opposing the practice of spiritual healing on its face.

So both sides and the "false division between faith and science"
have been cited for the reason these abuses continue
when the cure for them has already been found
and just can't get researched because of this divide.

And how does this in any manner address the fact that denying same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
If the laws are written where they introduce a faith based bias in belief
that not all people of that state believe in, then that is a violation of
Freedom of Religion and equal protection of the laws from Discrimination by Creed.

The laws must either be written neutrally where there is no objection due to faith based
bias from ANY person affected by that law,)

What makes you think that?

Do you think that child abuse laws cannot be written to prevent beating of children even if someone's religious belief includes beating of children?

That laws regarding blood transfusions can't be written even though there are those whose religious beliefs are opposed to blood transfusions?

Hell- that laws that ensure that anyone regardless of their race can marry each other- even though there were those whose religious beliefs said that people of different races should not mix?

There is not a law that could be written that no one would not object to.

 

[emilynghiem]

Child Abuse Statistics

I hear conservatives constantly say "this is a Christian nation" and now the whole 'gay's can't marry or raise children it's dangerous'.

Apparently all these Christians and straight parents are harming millions of children without any help from anyone else.

Dear IsaacNewton The solution is still being censored from both sides.
The same spiritual healing that has been used to address, heal and even cure the causes
of sexual abuse and addiction
are rejected by the SECULAR media and politics that have demonized Christianity
but also censored by the Christians who reject medical research into these methods.

Christian doctors have been researching the process by which
spiritual healing is used to cure diseases, including mental criminal and sexual addiction that leads to abuse.
But the same doctors ran into as much opposition from Christians opposing the research
as I do with secular people opposing the practice of spiritual healing on its face.

So both sides and the "false division between faith and science"
have been cited for the reason these abuses continue
when the cure for them has already been found
and just can't get researched because of this divide.

And how does this in any manner address the fact that denying same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
If the laws are written where they introduce a faith based bias in belief
that not all people of that state believe in, then that is a violation of
Freedom of Religion and equal protection of the laws from Discrimination by Creed.

The laws must either be written neutrally where there is no objection due to faith based
bias from ANY person affected by that law,)

What makes you think that?

Do you think that child abuse laws cannot be written to prevent beating of children even if someone's religious belief includes beating of children?

That laws regarding blood transfusions can't be written even though there are those whose religious beliefs are opposed to blood transfusions?

Hell- that laws that ensure that anyone regardless of their race can marry each other- even though there were those whose religious beliefs said that people of different races should not mix?

There is not a law that could be written that no one would not object to.

Dear Syriusly
1. With abusing children, the abusers do not agree to be abused; so it violates their own natural laws they are under to treat others as they want to be treated. They do not consent to these laws.
Ironic you should bring this up, because I similarly argue that liberal secularists do not agree to abuse govt to establish biased faith based beliefs they disagree with -- ie when it comes to beliefs in right to prayer or public expression of Christian belief this is BARRED from public institutions to endorse through government as is the right to life REJECTED and kept out of laws where it imposes an unwanted bias in BELIEF.
THE liberal believers in separation of church and state DON'T agree to have abuses of government pushed on them, thus it contradicts abusing govt to push LGBT beliefs and bias on others through govt.

Ironic isn't it?

2. FALSE Syriusly the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed UNANIMOUSLY by Congress in 1980, and look how well it is written, read the 10 articles and tell me you don't agree these are well composed and comprehensive in scope:
www.ethics-commission.net

We CAN write and enforce laws in agreement when we define common goals and resolve conflicts and objections to reach those goals together. Ppl do this all the time, reach an agreed understanding first by mutual consent that is fully informed. Why not enforce that as common standard on law? Make sure ppl consent to a contract, how it's written and what it means, before we agree to finalize it uphold and enforce it. Common sense, right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Child Abuse Statistics

I hear conservatives constantly say "this is a Christian nation" and now the whole 'gay's can't marry or raise children it's dangerous'.

Apparently all these Christians and straight parents are harming millions of children without any help from anyone else.

Dear IsaacNewton The solution is still being censored from both sides.
The same spiritual healing that has been used to address, heal and even cure the causes
of sexual abuse and addiction
are rejected by the SECULAR media and politics that have demonized Christianity
but also censored by the Christians who reject medical research into these methods.

Christian doctors have been researching the process by which
spiritual healing is used to cure diseases, including mental criminal and sexual addiction that leads to abuse.
But the same doctors ran into as much opposition from Christians opposing the research
as I do with secular people opposing the practice of spiritual healing on its face.

So both sides and the "false division between faith and science"
have been cited for the reason these abuses continue
when the cure for them has already been found
and just can't get researched because of this divide.

And how does this in any manner address the fact that denying same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
If the laws are written where they introduce a faith based bias in belief
that not all people of that state believe in, then that is a violation of
Freedom of Religion and equal protection of the laws from Discrimination by Creed.

The laws must either be written neutrally where there is no objection due to faith based
bias from ANY person affected by that law,
or the people of that state can agree to enforce rights equally
such as right to marriage and right to prayer where neither side
feels the other group's beliefs are being established by the state to their exclusion.

When all the people and groups in a state are satisfied
that NOBODY's beliefs are being favored or established by govt,
then I'd say they have written or negotiated the laws in proper
balance where there is AGREEMENT there is EQUAL PROTECTION
of the laws and NOT any discrimination by creed going on.

As long as one side or the other is complaining,
something isn't right with the writing, interpretation or enforcement
and someone is saying it's not equally protecting the people of all beliefs
as the Fourteenth Amendment is supposes to protect religious freedom for all
(and the Civil Rights extensions added the language for "creed" where I include LGBT policies)

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence that prohibits the states from denying same-sex couples access to marriage law applies solely to state governments, not private persons or private organizations.

As private organizations churches are at liberty to refuse to accommodate same-sex couples with regard to religious marriage rituals, or interracial couples, or couples of another faith.

Private religious entities have the First Amendment right to associate freely, to refuse to afford marriage to same-sex couples with complete impunity.

No ‘beliefs’ are being ‘violated’ when same-sex couples marry in the context of state marriage contract law.

 

[emilynghiem]

Child Abuse Statistics

I hear conservatives constantly say "this is a Christian nation" and now the whole 'gay's can't marry or raise children it's dangerous'.

Apparently all these Christians and straight parents are harming millions of children without any help from anyone else.

Dear IsaacNewton The solution is still being censored from both sides.
The same spiritual healing that has been used to address, heal and even cure the causes
of sexual abuse and addiction
are rejected by the SECULAR media and politics that have demonized Christianity
but also censored by the Christians who reject medical research into these methods.

Christian doctors have been researching the process by which
spiritual healing is used to cure diseases, including mental criminal and sexual addiction that leads to abuse.
But the same doctors ran into as much opposition from Christians opposing the research
as I do with secular people opposing the practice of spiritual healing on its face.

So both sides and the "false division between faith and science"
have been cited for the reason these abuses continue
when the cure for them has already been found
and just can't get researched because of this divide.

And how does this in any manner address the fact that denying same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
If the laws are written where they introduce a faith based bias in belief
that not all people of that state believe in, then that is a violation of
Freedom of Religion and equal protection of the laws from Discrimination by Creed.

The laws must either be written neutrally where there is no objection due to faith based
bias from ANY person affected by that law,
or the people of that state can agree to enforce rights equally
such as right to marriage and right to prayer where neither side
feels the other group's beliefs are being established by the state to their exclusion.

When all the people and groups in a state are satisfied
that NOBODY's beliefs are being favored or established by govt,
then I'd say they have written or negotiated the laws in proper
balance where there is AGREEMENT there is EQUAL PROTECTION
of the laws and NOT any discrimination by creed going on.

As long as one side or the other is complaining,
something isn't right with the writing, interpretation or enforcement
and someone is saying it's not equally protecting the people of all beliefs
as the Fourteenth Amendment is supposes to protect religious freedom for all
(and the Civil Rights extensions added the language for "creed" where I include LGBT policies)

The 14th Amendment jurisprudence that prohibits the states from denying same-sex couples access to marriage law applies solely to state governments, not private persons or private organizations.

As private organizations churches are at liberty to refuse to accommodate same-sex couples with regard to religious marriage rituals, or interracial couples, or couples of another faith.

Private religious entities have the First Amendment right to associate freely, to refuse to afford marriage to same-sex couples with complete impunity.

No ‘beliefs’ are being ‘violated’ when same-sex couples marry in the context of state marriage contract law.

C_Clayton_Jones
Sure in states where Christian prayer can be established through govt and it's not challenged as violating any beliefs.
Otherwise discrimination by creed is going on, if laws recognize right to marriage including homosexual beliefs endorsed and established by govt as a protected class but not right to prayer and Christian beliefs about prayer equally protected from exclusion from public policy and institutions

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Child Abuse Statistics

I hear conservatives constantly say "this is a Christian nation" and now the whole 'gay's can't marry or raise children it's dangerous'.

Apparently all these Christians and straight parents are harming millions of children without any help from anyone else.

Dear IsaacNewton The solution is still being censored from both sides.
The same spiritual healing that has been used to address, heal and even cure the causes
of sexual abuse and addiction
are rejected by the SECULAR media and politics that have demonized Christianity
but also censored by the Christians who reject medical research into these methods.

Christian doctors have been researching the process by which
spiritual healing is used to cure diseases, including mental criminal and sexual addiction that leads to abuse.
But the same doctors ran into as much opposition from Christians opposing the research
as I do with secular people opposing the practice of spiritual healing on its face.

So both sides and the "false division between faith and science"
have been cited for the reason these abuses continue
when the cure for them has already been found
and just can't get researched because of this divide.

And how does this in any manner address the fact that denying same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
If the laws are written where they introduce a faith based bias in belief
that not all people of that state believe in, then that is a violation of
Freedom of Religion and equal protection of the laws from Discrimination by Creed.

The laws must either be written neutrally where there is no objection due to faith based
bias from ANY person affected by that law,)

What makes you think that?

Do you think that child abuse laws cannot be written to prevent beating of children even if someone's religious belief includes beating of children?

That laws regarding blood transfusions can't be written even though there are those whose religious beliefs are opposed to blood transfusions?

Hell- that laws that ensure that anyone regardless of their race can marry each other- even though there were those whose religious beliefs said that people of different races should not mix?

There is not a law that could be written that no one would not object to.

Dear Syriusly
1. With abusing children, the abusers do not agree to be abused; so it violates their own natural laws they are under to treat others as they want to be treated. They do not consent to these laws.
Ironic you should bring this up, because I similarly argue that liberal secularists do not agree to abuse govt to establish biased faith based beliefs they disagree with -- ie when it comes to beliefs in right to prayer or public expression of Christian belief this is BARRED from public institutions to endorse through government as is the right to life REJECTED and kept out of laws where it imposes an unwanted bias in BELIEF.
THE liberal believers in separation of church and state DON'T agree to have abuses of government pushed on them, thus it contradicts abusing govt to push LGBT beliefs and bias on others through govt.

Ironic isn't it?

2. FALSE Syriusly the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed UNANIMOUSLY by Congress in 1980, and look how well it is written, read the 10 articles and tell me you don't agree these are well composed and comprehensive in scope:
www.ethics-commission.net

We CAN write and enforce laws in agreement when we define common goals and resolve conflicts and objections to reach those goals together. Ppl do this all the time, reach an agreed understanding first by mutual consent that is fully informed. Why not enforce that as common standard on law? Make sure ppl consent to a contract, how it's written and what it means, before we agree to finalize it uphold and enforce it. Common sense, right?

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Prohibiting the states from violating the equal protection and due process rights of same-sex couples is not ‘forcing’ anything on anyone or anything.

No ‘beliefs’ are being ‘forced’ on anyone or anything when the states are appropriately and lawfully compelled to recognize the rights of same-sex couples as acknowledged and safeguarded by the 14th Amendment.

Private citizens retain the right to hate homosexuals, to oppose same-sex couples in the context of religious marriage, and to hold the belief that same-sex couples marrying is ‘immoral’ and a ‘sin,’ free from interference by the state.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear IsaacNewton The solution is still being censored from both sides.
The same spiritual healing that has been used to address, heal and even cure the causes
of sexual abuse and addiction
are rejected by the SECULAR media and politics that have demonized Christianity
but also censored by the Christians who reject medical research into these methods.

Christian doctors have been researching the process by which
spiritual healing is used to cure diseases, including mental criminal and sexual addiction that leads to abuse.
But the same doctors ran into as much opposition from Christians opposing the research
as I do with secular people opposing the practice of spiritual healing on its face.

So both sides and the "false division between faith and science"
have been cited for the reason these abuses continue
when the cure for them has already been found
and just can't get researched because of this divide.

And how does this in any manner address the fact that denying same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
If the laws are written where they introduce a faith based bias in belief
that not all people of that state believe in, then that is a violation of
Freedom of Religion and equal protection of the laws from Discrimination by Creed.

The laws must either be written neutrally where there is no objection due to faith based
bias from ANY person affected by that law,)

What makes you think that?

Do you think that child abuse laws cannot be written to prevent beating of children even if someone's religious belief includes beating of children?

That laws regarding blood transfusions can't be written even though there are those whose religious beliefs are opposed to blood transfusions?

Hell- that laws that ensure that anyone regardless of their race can marry each other- even though there were those whose religious beliefs said that people of different races should not mix?

There is not a law that could be written that no one would not object to.

Dear Syriusly
1. With abusing children, the abusers do not agree to be abused; so it violates their own natural laws they are under to treat others as they want to be treated. They do not consent to these laws.
Ironic you should bring this up, because I similarly argue that liberal secularists do not agree to abuse govt to establish biased faith based beliefs they disagree with -- ie when it comes to beliefs in right to prayer or public expression of Christian belief this is BARRED from public institutions to endorse through government as is the right to life REJECTED and kept out of laws where it imposes an unwanted bias in BELIEF.
THE liberal believers in separation of church and state DON'T agree to have abuses of government pushed on them, thus it contradicts abusing govt to push LGBT beliefs and bias on others through govt.

Ironic isn't it?

2. FALSE Syriusly the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed UNANIMOUSLY by Congress in 1980, and look how well it is written, read the 10 articles and tell me you don't agree these are well composed and comprehensive in scope:
www.ethics-commission.net

We CAN write and enforce laws in agreement when we define common goals and resolve conflicts and objections to reach those goals together. Ppl do this all the time, reach an agreed understanding first by mutual consent that is fully informed. Why not enforce that as common standard on law? Make sure ppl consent to a contract, how it's written and what it means, before we agree to finalize it uphold and enforce it. Common sense, right?

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Prohibiting the states from violating the equal protection and due process rights of same-sex couples is not ‘forcing’ anything on anyone or anything.

No ‘beliefs’ are being ‘forced’ on anyone or anything when the states are appropriately and lawfully compelled to recognize the rights of same-sex couples as acknowledged and safeguarded by the 14th Amendment.

Private citizens retain the right to hate homosexuals, to oppose same-sex couples in the context of religious marriage, and to hold the belief that same-sex couples marrying is ‘immoral’ and a ‘sin,’ free from interference by the state.

Okay great C_Clayton_Jones
So let's enforce the same with right to prayer that we enforce with right to marriage.

Let's enforce right to life as we enforce right to health care.

Let's enforce right to guns as we enforce right to vote, by agreement between parties

And YES I agree we can enforce equal protections of the law without violating anyone's beliefs. AGREED.

 

[Faun]

And how does this in any manner address the fact that denying same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
If the laws are written where they introduce a faith based bias in belief
that not all people of that state believe in, then that is a violation of
Freedom of Religion and equal protection of the laws from Discrimination by Creed.

The laws must either be written neutrally where there is no objection due to faith based
bias from ANY person affected by that law,)

What makes you think that?

Do you think that child abuse laws cannot be written to prevent beating of children even if someone's religious belief includes beating of children?

That laws regarding blood transfusions can't be written even though there are those whose religious beliefs are opposed to blood transfusions?

Hell- that laws that ensure that anyone regardless of their race can marry each other- even though there were those whose religious beliefs said that people of different races should not mix?

There is not a law that could be written that no one would not object to.

Dear Syriusly
1. With abusing children, the abusers do not agree to be abused; so it violates their own natural laws they are under to treat others as they want to be treated. They do not consent to these laws.
Ironic you should bring this up, because I similarly argue that liberal secularists do not agree to abuse govt to establish biased faith based beliefs they disagree with -- ie when it comes to beliefs in right to prayer or public expression of Christian belief this is BARRED from public institutions to endorse through government as is the right to life REJECTED and kept out of laws where it imposes an unwanted bias in BELIEF.
THE liberal believers in separation of church and state DON'T agree to have abuses of government pushed on them, thus it contradicts abusing govt to push LGBT beliefs and bias on others through govt.

Ironic isn't it?

2. FALSE Syriusly the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed UNANIMOUSLY by Congress in 1980, and look how well it is written, read the 10 articles and tell me you don't agree these are well composed and comprehensive in scope:
www.ethics-commission.net

We CAN write and enforce laws in agreement when we define common goals and resolve conflicts and objections to reach those goals together. Ppl do this all the time, reach an agreed understanding first by mutual consent that is fully informed. Why not enforce that as common standard on law? Make sure ppl consent to a contract, how it's written and what it means, before we agree to finalize it uphold and enforce it. Common sense, right?

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Prohibiting the states from violating the equal protection and due process rights of same-sex couples is not ‘forcing’ anything on anyone or anything.

No ‘beliefs’ are being ‘forced’ on anyone or anything when the states are appropriately and lawfully compelled to recognize the rights of same-sex couples as acknowledged and safeguarded by the 14th Amendment.

Private citizens retain the right to hate homosexuals, to oppose same-sex couples in the context of religious marriage, and to hold the belief that same-sex couples marrying is ‘immoral’ and a ‘sin,’ free from interference by the state.

Okay great C_Clayton_Jones
So let's enforce the same with right to prayer that we enforce with right to marriage.

Let's enforce right to life as we enforce right to health care.

Let's enforce right to guns as we enforce right to vote, by agreement between parties

And YES I agree we can enforce equal protections of the law without violating anyone's beliefs. AGREED.

They are enforced the same. People get to pray and they get to marry.

 

[Tennyson]

Dear IsaacNewton The solution is still being censored from both sides.
The same spiritual healing that has been used to address, heal and even cure the causes
of sexual abuse and addiction
are rejected by the SECULAR media and politics that have demonized Christianity
but also censored by the Christians who reject medical research into these methods.

Christian doctors have been researching the process by which
spiritual healing is used to cure diseases, including mental criminal and sexual addiction that leads to abuse.
But the same doctors ran into as much opposition from Christians opposing the research
as I do with secular people opposing the practice of spiritual healing on its face.

So both sides and the "false division between faith and science"
have been cited for the reason these abuses continue
when the cure for them has already been found
and just can't get researched because of this divide.

And how does this in any manner address the fact that denying same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
If the laws are written where they introduce a faith based bias in belief
that not all people of that state believe in, then that is a violation of
Freedom of Religion and equal protection of the laws from Discrimination by Creed.

The laws must either be written neutrally where there is no objection due to faith based
bias from ANY person affected by that law,)

What makes you think that?

Do you think that child abuse laws cannot be written to prevent beating of children even if someone's religious belief includes beating of children?

That laws regarding blood transfusions can't be written even though there are those whose religious beliefs are opposed to blood transfusions?

Hell- that laws that ensure that anyone regardless of their race can marry each other- even though there were those whose religious beliefs said that people of different races should not mix?

There is not a law that could be written that no one would not object to.

Dear Syriusly
1. With abusing children, the abusers do not agree to be abused; so it violates their own natural laws they are under to treat others as they want to be treated. They do not consent to these laws.
Ironic you should bring this up, because I similarly argue that liberal secularists do not agree to abuse govt to establish biased faith based beliefs they disagree with -- ie when it comes to beliefs in right to prayer or public expression of Christian belief this is BARRED from public institutions to endorse through government as is the right to life REJECTED and kept out of laws where it imposes an unwanted bias in BELIEF.
THE liberal believers in separation of church and state DON'T agree to have abuses of government pushed on them, thus it contradicts abusing govt to push LGBT beliefs and bias on others through govt.

Ironic isn't it?

2. FALSE Syriusly the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed UNANIMOUSLY by Congress in 1980, and look how well it is written, read the 10 articles and tell me you don't agree these are well composed and comprehensive in scope:
www.ethics-commission.net

We CAN write and enforce laws in agreement when we define common goals and resolve conflicts and objections to reach those goals together. Ppl do this all the time, reach an agreed understanding first by mutual consent that is fully informed. Why not enforce that as common standard on law? Make sure ppl consent to a contract, how it's written and what it means, before we agree to finalize it uphold and enforce it. Common sense, right?

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Prohibiting the states from violating the equal protection and due process rights of same-sex couples is not ‘forcing’ anything on anyone or anything.

No ‘beliefs’ are being ‘forced’ on anyone or anything when the states are appropriately and lawfully compelled to recognize the rights of same-sex couples as acknowledged and safeguarded by the 14th Amendment.

Private citizens retain the right to hate homosexuals, to oppose same-sex couples in the context of religious marriage, and to hold the belief that same-sex couples marrying is ‘immoral’ and a ‘sin,’ free from interference by the state.

Can you explain how a state can violate the equal protection and due process rights of same-sex couples when the equal protection clause and the procedural due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment were created to govern judicial proceedings and not the laws?

Can you also explain what common law is, what forced it to start being codified in the seventeenth century, 14th Amendment jurisprudence vis-à-vis a written constitution?

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
We CAN write and enforce laws in agreement when we define common goals and resolve conflicts and objections to reach those goals together. Ppl do this all the time, reach an agreed understanding first by mutual consent that is fully informed. Why not enforce that as common standard on law? Make sure ppl consent to a contract, how it's written and what it means, before we agree to finalize it uphold and enforce it. Common sense, right?

We define our highest common goals as the U.S. Constitution.

the people of State of Virginia agreed by 'mutual consent' to deny mixed race couples their right to marry.

That violated the U.S. Constitution- and was overturned.

Mutual consent cannot violate the Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

And how does this in any manner address the fact that denying same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
If the laws are written where they introduce a faith based bias in belief
that not all people of that state believe in, then that is a violation of
Freedom of Religion and equal protection of the laws from Discrimination by Creed.

The laws must either be written neutrally where there is no objection due to faith based
bias from ANY person affected by that law,)

What makes you think that?

Do you think that child abuse laws cannot be written to prevent beating of children even if someone's religious belief includes beating of children?

That laws regarding blood transfusions can't be written even though there are those whose religious beliefs are opposed to blood transfusions?

Hell- that laws that ensure that anyone regardless of their race can marry each other- even though there were those whose religious beliefs said that people of different races should not mix?

There is not a law that could be written that no one would not object to.

Dear Syriusly
1. With abusing children, the abusers do not agree to be abused; so it violates their own natural laws they are under to treat others as they want to be treated. They do not consent to these laws.
Ironic you should bring this up, because I similarly argue that liberal secularists do not agree to abuse govt to establish biased faith based beliefs they disagree with -- ie when it comes to beliefs in right to prayer or public expression of Christian belief this is BARRED from public institutions to endorse through government as is the right to life REJECTED and kept out of laws where it imposes an unwanted bias in BELIEF.
THE liberal believers in separation of church and state DON'T agree to have abuses of government pushed on them, thus it contradicts abusing govt to push LGBT beliefs and bias on others through govt.

Ironic isn't it?

2. FALSE Syriusly the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed UNANIMOUSLY by Congress in 1980, and look how well it is written, read the 10 articles and tell me you don't agree these are well composed and comprehensive in scope:
www.ethics-commission.net

We CAN write and enforce laws in agreement when we define common goals and resolve conflicts and objections to reach those goals together. Ppl do this all the time, reach an agreed understanding first by mutual consent that is fully informed. Why not enforce that as common standard on law? Make sure ppl consent to a contract, how it's written and what it means, before we agree to finalize it uphold and enforce it. Common sense, right?

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Prohibiting the states from violating the equal protection and due process rights of same-sex couples is not ‘forcing’ anything on anyone or anything.

No ‘beliefs’ are being ‘forced’ on anyone or anything when the states are appropriately and lawfully compelled to recognize the rights of same-sex couples as acknowledged and safeguarded by the 14th Amendment.

Private citizens retain the right to hate homosexuals, to oppose same-sex couples in the context of religious marriage, and to hold the belief that same-sex couples marrying is ‘immoral’ and a ‘sin,’ free from interference by the state.

Okay great C_Clayton_Jones
So let's enforce the same with right to prayer that we enforce with right to marriage.

Let's enforce right to life as we enforce right to health care.

Let's enforce right to guns as we enforce right to vote, by agreement between parties

And YES I agree we can enforce equal protections of the law without violating anyone's beliefs. AGREED.

We enforce all of those through both laws and the courts.

When States decide to violate gun rights or the right to prayer- the courts can overturn such laws or actions.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And how does this in any manner address the fact that denying same-sex couples access to marriage law violates the 14th Amendment.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
If the laws are written where they introduce a faith based bias in belief
that not all people of that state believe in, then that is a violation of
Freedom of Religion and equal protection of the laws from Discrimination by Creed.

The laws must either be written neutrally where there is no objection due to faith based
bias from ANY person affected by that law,)

What makes you think that?

Do you think that child abuse laws cannot be written to prevent beating of children even if someone's religious belief includes beating of children?

That laws regarding blood transfusions can't be written even though there are those whose religious beliefs are opposed to blood transfusions?

Hell- that laws that ensure that anyone regardless of their race can marry each other- even though there were those whose religious beliefs said that people of different races should not mix?

There is not a law that could be written that no one would not object to.

Dear Syriusly
1. With abusing children, the abusers do not agree to be abused; so it violates their own natural laws they are under to treat others as they want to be treated. They do not consent to these laws.
Ironic you should bring this up, because I similarly argue that liberal secularists do not agree to abuse govt to establish biased faith based beliefs they disagree with -- ie when it comes to beliefs in right to prayer or public expression of Christian belief this is BARRED from public institutions to endorse through government as is the right to life REJECTED and kept out of laws where it imposes an unwanted bias in BELIEF.
THE liberal believers in separation of church and state DON'T agree to have abuses of government pushed on them, thus it contradicts abusing govt to push LGBT beliefs and bias on others through govt.

Ironic isn't it?

2. FALSE Syriusly the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed UNANIMOUSLY by Congress in 1980, and look how well it is written, read the 10 articles and tell me you don't agree these are well composed and comprehensive in scope:
www.ethics-commission.net

We CAN write and enforce laws in agreement when we define common goals and resolve conflicts and objections to reach those goals together. Ppl do this all the time, reach an agreed understanding first by mutual consent that is fully informed. Why not enforce that as common standard on law? Make sure ppl consent to a contract, how it's written and what it means, before we agree to finalize it uphold and enforce it. Common sense, right?

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Prohibiting the states from violating the equal protection and due process rights of same-sex couples is not ‘forcing’ anything on anyone or anything.

No ‘beliefs’ are being ‘forced’ on anyone or anything when the states are appropriately and lawfully compelled to recognize the rights of same-sex couples as acknowledged and safeguarded by the 14th Amendment.

Private citizens retain the right to hate homosexuals, to oppose same-sex couples in the context of religious marriage, and to hold the belief that same-sex couples marrying is ‘immoral’ and a ‘sin,’ free from interference by the state.

Okay great C_Clayton_Jones
So let's enforce the same with right to prayer that we enforce with right to marriage.

Let's enforce right to life as we enforce right to health care.

Let's enforce right to guns as we enforce right to vote, by agreement between parties

And YES I agree we can enforce equal protections of the law without violating anyone's beliefs. AGREED.

You still don’t understand.

Just as 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to government, where private citizens and organizations remain at liberty to hate gay Americans and discriminate against same-sex couples, so too does Establishment Clause jurisprudence apply solely to government, where private citizens and organizations remain at liberty to worship however they see fit, to pray in any venue they so desire, or to be free from religious doctrine and dogma altogether.

For example, teachers and students in public schools are at liberty to pray and engage in religious expression with the understanding that such religious expression is not compelled by the government (schools are components of government), does not manifest as an excessive entanglement of government and religion, and is otherwise not disruptive of normal school proceedings.

What you fail to understand is that the Constitution places limits and restrictions only on government, not private persons – government is subject to Constitutional limitations, government is prohibited from violating citizens’ protected liberties, government may not seek to disadvantage a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are; private citizens are free to discriminate, free to exclude, free to be frightened, ignorant, hateful bigots and racists.

You need to stop confusing the two – restrictions on government are not restrictions on private persons.

And prohibiting private persons from using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.

 

[Tennyson]

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
If the laws are written where they introduce a faith based bias in belief
that not all people of that state believe in, then that is a violation of
Freedom of Religion and equal protection of the laws from Discrimination by Creed.

The laws must either be written neutrally where there is no objection due to faith based
bias from ANY person affected by that law,)

What makes you think that?

Do you think that child abuse laws cannot be written to prevent beating of children even if someone's religious belief includes beating of children?

That laws regarding blood transfusions can't be written even though there are those whose religious beliefs are opposed to blood transfusions?

Hell- that laws that ensure that anyone regardless of their race can marry each other- even though there were those whose religious beliefs said that people of different races should not mix?

There is not a law that could be written that no one would not object to.

Dear Syriusly
1. With abusing children, the abusers do not agree to be abused; so it violates their own natural laws they are under to treat others as they want to be treated. They do not consent to these laws.
Ironic you should bring this up, because I similarly argue that liberal secularists do not agree to abuse govt to establish biased faith based beliefs they disagree with -- ie when it comes to beliefs in right to prayer or public expression of Christian belief this is BARRED from public institutions to endorse through government as is the right to life REJECTED and kept out of laws where it imposes an unwanted bias in BELIEF.
THE liberal believers in separation of church and state DON'T agree to have abuses of government pushed on them, thus it contradicts abusing govt to push LGBT beliefs and bias on others through govt.

Ironic isn't it?

2. FALSE Syriusly the Code of Ethics for Govt Service was passed UNANIMOUSLY by Congress in 1980, and look how well it is written, read the 10 articles and tell me you don't agree these are well composed and comprehensive in scope:
www.ethics-commission.net

We CAN write and enforce laws in agreement when we define common goals and resolve conflicts and objections to reach those goals together. Ppl do this all the time, reach an agreed understanding first by mutual consent that is fully informed. Why not enforce that as common standard on law? Make sure ppl consent to a contract, how it's written and what it means, before we agree to finalize it uphold and enforce it. Common sense, right?

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Prohibiting the states from violating the equal protection and due process rights of same-sex couples is not ‘forcing’ anything on anyone or anything.

No ‘beliefs’ are being ‘forced’ on anyone or anything when the states are appropriately and lawfully compelled to recognize the rights of same-sex couples as acknowledged and safeguarded by the 14th Amendment.

Private citizens retain the right to hate homosexuals, to oppose same-sex couples in the context of religious marriage, and to hold the belief that same-sex couples marrying is ‘immoral’ and a ‘sin,’ free from interference by the state.

Okay great C_Clayton_Jones
So let's enforce the same with right to prayer that we enforce with right to marriage.

Let's enforce right to life as we enforce right to health care.

Let's enforce right to guns as we enforce right to vote, by agreement between parties

And YES I agree we can enforce equal protections of the law without violating anyone's beliefs. AGREED.

You still don’t understand.

Just as 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to government, where private citizens and organizations remain at liberty to hate gay Americans and discriminate against same-sex couples, so too does Establishment Clause jurisprudence apply solely to government, where private citizens and organizations remain at liberty to worship however they see fit, to pray in any venue they so desire, or to be free from religious doctrine and dogma altogether.

For example, teachers and students in public schools are at liberty to pray and engage in religious expression with the understanding that such religious expression is not compelled by the government (schools are components of government), does not manifest as an excessive entanglement of government and religion, and is otherwise not disruptive of normal school proceedings.

What you fail to understand is that the Constitution places limits and restrictions only on government, not private persons – government is subject to Constitutional limitations, government is prohibited from violating citizens’ protected liberties, government may not seek to disadvantage a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are; private citizens are free to discriminate, free to exclude, free to be frightened, ignorant, hateful bigots and racists.

You need to stop confusing the two – restrictions on government are not restrictions on private persons.

And prohibiting private persons from using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.

I am curious regarding your use of the term "jurisprudence" rather than intent. Jurisprudence and case law regarding constitutional matters is not separable from common law when there is no statute or a written constitution to rely upon. So I inquire again:

Can you also explain what common law is, what forced it to start being codified in the seventeenth century, 14th Amendment jurisprudence vis-à-vis a written constitution?

 

[emilynghiem]

And prohibiting private persons from using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.

Again C_Clayton_Jones this is what the Christians are arguing the LGBT are doing and abusing govt for:
when laws are enforced FORCING Bakers or Photographers to attend gay weddings
and to FINE and PENALIZE them by law for discrimination for seeking to defend and practice their beliefs not to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs,
that is
private persons ... using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

You still don’t understand.

Just as 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to government, where private citizens and organizations remain at liberty to hate gay Americans and discriminate against same-sex couples, so too does Establishment Clause jurisprudence apply solely to government, where private citizens and organizations remain at liberty to worship however they see fit, to pray in any venue they so desire, or to be free from religious doctrine and dogma altogether.

For example, teachers and students in public schools are at liberty to pray and engage in religious expression with the understanding that such religious expression is not compelled by the government (schools are components of government), does not manifest as an excessive entanglement of government and religion, and is otherwise not disruptive of normal school proceedings.

What you fail to understand is that the Constitution places limits and restrictions only on government, not private persons – government is subject to Constitutional limitations, government is prohibited from violating citizens’ protected liberties, government may not seek to disadvantage a given class of persons for no other reason than who they are; private citizens are free to discriminate, free to exclude, free to be frightened, ignorant, hateful bigots and racists.

You need to stop confusing the two – restrictions on government are not restrictions on private persons.

And prohibiting private persons from using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.

Then you'll have no problem allowing all mature willing companions to make marriage arrangements however they choose and with whoever they choose so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

After all we don't want to discriminate or violate the Constitution... like the 14th Amendment.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Syriusly]

And prohibiting private persons from using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.

Again C_Clayton_Jones this is what the Christians are arguing the LGBT are doing and abusing govt for:
when laws are enforced FORCING Bakers or Photographers to attend gay weddings
and to FINE and PENALIZE them by law for discrimination for seeking to defend and practice their beliefs not to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs,
that is
private persons ... using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.

And requiring 'Christians' to rent rooms to mixed race couples is using the government to require a business to provide services to persons regardless of their own personal religious beliefs.

Remember- if we allow a business to refuse to do business with a person because of the business owners personal religious beliefs- that means we allow business's to refuse to do business with Christians or Jews, Blacks or Chinese, handicapped or Veterans.

 

[DOTR]

What is left is limited. The Supreme Court has substituted its own fads for the law and the sycophants who vote Hillary have decided they are beyond even criticism much less being subject to any check or balance.
There are alternatives. Or should be. But it should be recognized than none of them will be allowed. For instance a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage licenses. Or a convention of the states. But would it do any good? If you found men with the courage to to do that and and restricted marriage to what the people wanted you have seen the way language is twisted.
If the people passed a constitutional amendment saying only one man and one woman would be recognized as married within a few years the Supreme Court would rule that a man has the freedom to call himself a woman and so get married under those auspices. Probably it is in the 14th amendment hidden and waiting.

The British are now finding out that voting for Brexit was a sham. Welcome to our world.