Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[emilynghiem]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that as unconstitutional. Equal protection of our laws

How do you resolve married gay people moving between the states?
They are married or they are not

Dear rightwinger
States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state.

Some states don't require car insurance, if the driver has "ability to pay" and can prove it.
So in that state, the same driver with the same car is under different rules.

States like Nevada have legalized prostitution, that only applies in that state.

For national policies on health care and other social benefits,
I recommend to my fellow progressive Democrats and Greens
to organize by party. So people can have collective representation
and management of resources to fund policies that correspond
and represent beliefs in marriage, health care, prison alternatives,
educational priorities, etc.

if not everyone agrees on social policies through federal govt.
AND by the Platform of the Veterans Party of America
"ALL social legislation is Unconstitutional"
then why not manage it by party and have taxpayers
pay directly into the programs of choice?

I know tons of progressives who believe in paying
for education and health care instead of funding
war and the death penalty.

Why not give taxpayers that choice?

If it's organized by party then the responsibility
for all the terms and agreements is delegated
to one national group to represent its members,
similar to states being responsible for representing its citizens.

Just proportionally delegate federal budgets to allot
money to states, and states divide it by party by
proportion of taxpayers and taxmoney coming in.
so if GOP do not want to pay to federal govt
except for military, they don't get federal funds for health care
except for VA/vets if that's all they approve.
If Dems want singlepayer health care and no death penalty,
then that's where their tax money goes or doesn't go.

So each pays for their share and their members
work out their terms and conditions, from prolife
to gay marriage, whatever they believe or don't believe in.

If states can agree, then it's done by state.

This is if the population of states CAN'T agree,
why not create two separate tracks and let
taxpayers choose just like we do when we
donate to parties or vote for platforms and reps.

In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question

With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you handle gay couples traveling between states?

Try to answer in less than 50 words

I answered that already rightwinger
each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
civil marriage, civil unions.

And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.

What part of my answer did you not get
and I will explain it again.

I answered two different ways
1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
it can be national without going through state or federal govt

There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.

You still don't get it

First off...allowing same sex marriage by party or religious affiliation means gays can change religion or party in order to get married

You avoid the key issue. What happens when a married, same sex couple either travels or moves to a state where it is not recognized?

If a partner becomes seriously ill, does the spouse lose all marital rights?
What happens to the children of a same sex marriage when they move to a state that bans it?
If you move to a state that bans it....are you effectively divorced or just a non-person?

Emily, please address rightwinger - these sum up what we all have been saying in under 100 words.

Dear rightwinger and Sneekin
What happens if a contractor who follows the rules in Houston or Texas
moves to another state? Well, the other states may have different rules or regulations
on building codes and licensing master electricians or contractors to work on jobs.

The process is generally the same, but some of the terms and conditions may be different.
The main goals of SAFETY will be the same across the states, but not all terms and conditions
may be exactly alike unless all people across the nation AGREE to those.

When people switch schools, the credits at one school may be different than the one
they are transferring from. But the MAIN standards agreed upon for accreditation will be met.
It doesn't have to be perfectly the same for every school in ALL aspects,
just the main policies that matter.

That's why if all states stick to a common policy, such as secular civil unions as the neutral standard,
that part would be uniform across states and possibly the nation.
But the more you attach personal conditions and social relations into the equation,
that's going to make it harder if not impossible to come to an agreement.

What you are asking about "recognizing all marriages as the same" is
like asking what happens if a Christian who is baptized with sprinkling
is not recognized by another denomination that believes in full immersion?
Well that part is private.

Our national constitutional laws use GENERAL language like free exercise of
religion or no discrimination on the basis of CREED, but do NOT micromanage the details.

So if we keep the private practices that are relative out of the equation,
the default policy left is just the civil contracts and unions that deal with
legal and financial roles and terms in contracts, not anything to do with interpersonal relations
that are private and remain the free choice of individuals.

Sneekin I saw very frustrated sounding messages from you regarding
the term marriage. Sorry but if not all people agree to use that for civil marriage,
that's not my fault. That's how some people think.

So if you are going to ask people to be sensitive about using terms like
creation instead of universe, because creation insinuates a creator while universe does not,
that's just how some people prefer to use more neutral terms
and not terms that are associated with things you don't mean.

People's perceptions ARE TIED TO LANGUAGE.

You objected to the term "traditional" which I did not mean any offense by,
but it implied some negative things to you. That's not what I meant at ALL,
but as long as that word invokes different MEANINGS on your side of the fence,
then using that word is NOT effective and is NOT communicating the same thing to you that I mean.

So if I am going to communicate and reach an agreement with you,
yes,the words we use matter. They have to mean the same things on both
sides or people end up talking past each other.

It's almost like two different dialects or languages
when people don't mean the same things by the same words.

I notice this with religion and politics, that the issues of words
conveying different meanings causes a lot of offense when people don't realize it.

Sorry this is so frustrating to you, but believe me
the frustration is mutual. Most of my other friends who are conservatives
have plumb given up on liberals, cannot understand or communicate,
and have even decided liberalism must be a "mental disorder"
because they just can't make sense of the mentality.

So it's at least mutual.

 

[emilynghiem]

rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.

but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary

Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.

Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.

We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.

Let me put it another way.

I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire civil institution that I want- because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?

Hi Syriusly
for the analogy about pork and Muslims,
it's more like this:.

And you just ignored what I said.

As I am now going to ignore what you said.

We do not end government licensing just because a religious group doesn't believe in what the license is for.

• We do not stop driver's licenses just because the Amish think driving a car is wrong
• We do not stop licensing a pig slaughterhouse just because Jews and Muslims think eating pig is wrong.
• We do not close all slaughterhouses just because Hindu's think killing animals is wrong.
• We do not stop licensing bars because Southern Baptists and Mormons think drinking alcohol is wrong.

See the pattern here?

Right, we aren't "stopping" the licensing Syriusly but
refining it to be just about the CIVIL contracts, as Faun pointed out is the intent.

Emily, that's all marriage has been about - it's ALWAYS BEEN a civil contract. Why can't you just admit that? The fact that you or anyone else, of any religion wish to add an entire other ceremony on top of the CIVIL MARRIAGE is of no impact to ANYONE ELSE. It's JUST ABOUT THE CONTRACT. Feel free to read Texas law, if you think it's anything else.

That's great if we can get everyone to agree to that!

However Sneekin if there really were NO additional issues attached,
then people would have no problem substituting civil unions for marriage
if it truly is just the secular relationship.

Among my friends and their friends, there are many who are fine either way,
but since not everyone agrees, they are perfectly fine with sticking with civil unions
and not HAVING to call this marriage in the govt process. People are free to call themselves
married and that doesn't change.

In fact, in Texas, we'd have MORE freedom to declare married or not,
because right now if you announce or present yourself as married,
and that makes it formal, then the law requires you to go through the state to get divorced.
Even if you never FORMALLY got married. Certain things like announcing it can be
grounds for establishing common law marriage.

but if the declaration of marriage personally is separate from the civil licensing
through the state that requires dissolution if separating or divorcing,
then people would have MORE freedom to marry and unmarry WITHOUT going through the state.

The licensing and civil contracts and dissolutions and changes would remain through the state.
So if you never set those up, then you never have to go through a formal legal divorce.

Just like hooking up as boyfriend and girlfriend, and then separating when you both agree to,
you'd have more freedom without the state getting involved in when you joined and when you unjoined.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear rightwinger I'm saying to keep it out of govt if you want free choice.
Keep the language secular where everyone agrees to it.

I've found more common agreement to keep Civil Unions in govt
and manage contracts that way and NOT specify any conditions on
the social relationships between the partners who form a legal contract or domestic partnership.

If brother and sister, or two neighbors want to run a household together and share contractual
duties or legal guardianship, that has ZERO to do with if they are having romantic relations
much less if they have to be husband and wife.

And if people don't agree on benefits policies, those are social values also,
that can be separated by party if people cannot agree on state or federal laws for all people in that state or across the nation.

Not to worry rightwinger I already gave up trying to explain it.

I am happy enough to find the other people who get it,
and maybe that's enough to separate our beliefs from govt
and leave everyone else who believe in dominating one political belief "for all people"
every time majority rule decides an election. I don't believe in that,
but if you and others do, I cannot change your minds for you.

All I can do is sue or petition to separate my taxes and my representation
from people like you who believe in violating each other's by majority rule
and claim that gives you license to impose your beliefs, political or otherwise,
onto others who don't agree. and call them delusional, just like people
say that about liberals and try to censor them for it.

I believe this impositional bullying is a DANGER to the very liberal progressive
ideals I believe in regarding free choice, and protecting beliefs and creeds from
discrimination, exclusion, coercion, bullying, imposition, penalty, and deprivation of equal protection rights and liberties.

I understand you and others believe in protecting rights by establishing them through govt,
but I believe this still requires consensus where political beliefs differ.

I don't believe in forcing or imposing them without consent, or it's not
valid authority of law if not all people consent to that policy. I believe
in matters of belief, all objections and conflicts should be resolved to
ensure equal representation and protection of interests, regardless of creed.

But my standards are higher than even very intelligent articulate people like
you and Faun can handle.

so it's not fair to expect you to understand this and change your minds
if you are set on seeing opponents with other beliefs as "delusional."

That's why opponents of liberal beliefs say the same thing, give up
and just resort to voting liberals out of office.

You are danger to your own party principles and you don't even see it.
Where's the inclusion, the free choice.
Both sides have resorted to painting the other as delusional,
and that's where I have to leave you to your own devices if that's the best I can expect from you.

Thanks for your best efforts!

Just know that people say the same thing and think
liberals are "mentally ill" or "deluded" in depending on govt for rights when to them
that is a false and dangerous premise.

Or they want "everyone else" to pay for their programs
so when I advocate to separate tracks so taxpayers have a choice,
they say "liberals will never support that because they want OTHER people
to pay for their programs".

That makes no sense to me. If I and other Democrats believe in sustainable
health care, we should be able to fund it ourselves. And if it's not affordable,
something is wrong with the terms and conditions, and we'd have to change
them such as requiring all people get help for criminal illness abuse or addiction
if that's what driving costs up that could otherwise pay for health care.

I hope it's finally time to separate social programs and funding by party,
Because I'm sick of fighting back and forth when all parties have enough
resources to manage their own policies and not interfere with each other!!!

Government is in the marriage business...

They certify it and make it legal
They provide tax breaks
They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
They supervise the dissolution of marriage

What do you want them to stop doing?

Dear rightwinger
I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.

Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
due to their beliefs.

We don't make laws based on peoples' feelings or religious objections. If we did, capital punishment would be unconstitutional, pork would be banned, cotton/wool blends would be punishable, etc...

Yes Faun I also believe in separating funding for the death penalty
so people can have a free choice but it doesn't impose on other people's choice of funding.

This would take a lot of the "emotional hype" out of election campaigns
if all issues were resolved one by one instead of lumped together,
voting for one party to dominate while the other in the minority risks losing representation.

A lot of fear based bullying going on now would be eliminated
if we based laws on consensus or separation by party so everyone
is equally represented and not forced to fund the beliefs of others.

As for fabric, by the time the Greens Democrats and Social Workers
organize labor pools and worker owned coops and business networks,
maybe we will see more locally grown "hemp" fabric and/or whatever is more sustainable.
maybe we won't rely so much on foreign slave labor for clothing and electronic devices
if we organize labor and factories as campuses providing education, health care and housing
as part of work-study programs to ensure students and workers have protection from abuse,
even if working for barter or credit, or lower training wages in exchange for low cost housing and services.

Religious beliefs and objections are part of how people express consent or dissent.
I believe the right solutions will satisfy people's standards regardless if these are expressed religiously, politically, spiritually or by secular laws, business models, etc.
Faun

That is complete and utter nonsense. We don't have two sets of laws; one for Democrats and one for Republicans. Either laws are Constitutional or they're not. They're not Constitutional for one party but unconstitutional for another.

Dear Faun if the Democratic platform seeks to BAN reparative therapy but DEFEND the free choice of abortion and gender change procedures for minors; while the Republican platform seeks to DEFEND the free choice of reparative therapy and BAN abortion and gender surgery for minors,
then we ARE dealing with two polar opposite political BELIEFS.

collectively these can be considered Political Religions:
one in promoting social and general welfare through govt as its major focus and rule
AND
one in promoted LIMITED federal govt where national defense is its unique role (and most other social functions can or should be done outside so it doesn't bog down govt in bureaucratic waste interfering with govt duties)

So YES Faun it WOULD or SHOULD BE UNCONSTITITIONAL for one group to IMPOSE or ESTABLISH its BELIEFS as a national religion for ALL the public to be COMPELLED to pay taxes under and comply with!

But guess what, that's what Obama did in enforcing ACA mandates and declaring
the belief in "health care as right" as the "law of the land"
offending people who BELIEVE in putting the Constitution first as the law of the land,
and requiring state ratified AMENDMENTS before granting any such authority to federal govt.

(The federal exchanges and mandated insurance in essence constitute a FAITH BASED system that people either BELIEVE in or DON'T. these aren't proven or disproven, so both positions for or against this system are FAITH BASED. and yet our govt REQUIRES participation and funding, and this isn't a choice, even though it is AGAINST people's beliefs and faith in limited govt and free market health care!)

so yes, we ARE dealing with political beliefs and religions if you consider the whole set as one system,
and we ARE dealing with political leaders and lobbies seeking to IMPOSE THESE AS LAW
whether "right to life"
or "right to health care"
FOR THE WHOLE NATION

(AND YES I DO BELIEVE THAT SHOULD BE BARRED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!)

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Sbiker
1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.

So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?

Easy

If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it

If you love someone of the same sex......marry them

What is not fair about that?

rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.

but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary

Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.

Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.

We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.

Let me put it another way.

I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire civil institution that I want- because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?

Dear Syriusly it's not doing away with it. It's giving people the *choice* of either opening up the sake process for all people, or of changing it to just civil unions for all people and stick to just the secular contracts and remove the social attachments. People can CHOOSE to have marriage in addition, but there is no reason for govt to require a particular kind of social relationship in order to get a license and benefits for a civil partnership that is secular only.

At least give people that choice of how much to put into govt laws and language and how much to leave private. Either all people of a state agree, or they privatize the parts they don't agree to open up to all peopleas the policy thats going to be public..

Emily- nothing prevents a state from ending all civil marriage. States are not required to have legal marriage- only that if they do have legal marriage they must provide it equally to all.

If you want your state to end legal marriage and replace it with civil unions then of course you are free to pursue that.

I just want to point out that the vast majority of married people want to be legally married- not to be 'civilly united"- what you propose would not bring about consensus- but again someone imposing their decision on others- for example my legal marriage would end- and either be- or not be- replaced by something else i do not want.

I am quite happy with the state of marriage as it is with regards to access to marriage. Now if we can just get everyone- straight and gay- to treat marriage with more respect- as a life long commitment- rather than serial monogamy- that would be worthwhile.

But Sneekin according to Faun et al
the point of marriage through the state IS the CIVIL contracts only.

So that would continue through the state.

And the best way to teach people to respect relationships is
to treat ALL relationships as lifetime commitments.
That can't be mandated by govt, but has to be taught by
example experience and free choice. Totally a personal
responsibility and process that people must decide on their own.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Sbiker
1. To some people yes it's totally unacceptable if not blasphemous and offensive and imposing on them and their beliefs so this either should remain private or not practiced at all
2. To some they may not agree, but still accept it, and only oppose as a public policy endorsed through govt. Like people who don't oppose but who accept and support Christianity but not to be endorsed through govt.
3. Some accept gay marriage and agree to have govt endorse it, and are either neutral either way, or who favor inclusion.
4. And some absolutely HAVE to have marriage equality Through Govt and cannot have marriage taken out for everyone in order to be equal. For some it's required or its not an equal right for all people.

So Sbiker given these beliefs, about 4 major leanings with variations of reasons and degrees.
How do you suggest states implement laws to treat all these beliefs equally?

Easy

If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it

If you love someone of the same sex......marry them

What is not fair about that?

rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.

but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary

Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.

Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.

We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.

Let me put it another way.

I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire civil institution that I want- because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?

Hi Syriusly
for the analogy about pork and Muslims,
it's more like this:

1. Let's take something like the Jewish traditions of Kosher foods being embedded in business
and public policies. And some have argued this is violating separation of church and state,
but there are some practices in place, and people have accepted and tolerated them.

2. Now let's say a MUSLIM group says we want the same recognition as the JEWISH who
have their practices recognized in public policy.

So the court says sure, if Jewish laws are practiced so should Muslim laws be practiced.

And there are objections:
A. one group that favors Judeo-Christian beliefs but not Muslim rejects the new reforms.
B. one group says BOTH sets of rules should have be en removed from policy and kept private choice
if businesses want to follow them or not. but none should be forced or ENDORSED BY GOVT to begin with.
C. Muslims are yelling but if Jewish traditions get to be practiced, that's discrimination
if you don't let ours be practiced, too.

So again, the two choices are to remove all of them,
keep all of them as equal choices, or agree how to write laws
where both could be practiced by free choice without govt ENDORSING any one set of beliefs.

How it's been handled in the past (yes, these things have come up before) - Christmas is a good example - it's a secular holiday as well as a religious holiday - the ONLY reason it's a federal holiday. If there was a shellfish ban (originally Jewish, for example), and entrenched for the last 250 years, it would probably stay as is. But apparently you don't know any Muslims - they wouldn't push this onto everyone else (nor would Jews) in fact. In many cities, Jews and Muslims have banded together to defend each other's Mosques and Synagogues from Christian persecution. Your list isn't valid. They simply wouldn't do it. However, if you are talking about something as silly as say a hot dog, most people are proud to offer Kosher already. If you would have read up on Halal versus Kosher, observed the differences, and checked the rules, you would have seen it's not that big of a deal. Quite a bit of similarities in dietary restrictions (Halal being slightly more lenient). Kosher has a more strict religious aspect (yet minimal) than halal.

Other than food, they have the same rights as every american - and the food is religiously imposed.

In other words, Muslims and Jews would not let it progress to your options 2 and 3. Try and get out more, and meet jews and muslims. I'm friends with the most left wing Rabbi (or person) I've ever met. Burned his draft card, marched, you name it. Best friends with the local Imam. Best friends with most christians, except those that hate Muslims and Jews). He does pity them and tolerate them, however. You're grasping at straws, and failing miserably.

Dear Sneekin I think you misunderstand the example I was giving.
It's hypothetical for the construct only, not the content!
It is not about these groups literally.

What I was saying is the pattern of the laws that are being contested
a. marriage laws were already crossing the line with church and state
b. LGBT rights were introduced to change the terms of those laws
c. since not all people agree, it isn't fixed just by changing the terms.

I was comparing the same PATTERN to what if
a. food laws contain a tradition that is biased toward one group's beliefs
b. another group comes in to challenge and change the food laws to accommodate their beliefs
c. but the first group doesn't agree to open it up to the other group or groups and their members or beliefs

So in both cases, there is a THIRD group arguing NONE of those practices
or beliefs should be in govt in the first place. And if you'd stick to GENERIC
terms and not get specific about group a or group b, then neither has to end up
getting either "established or prohibited" to have beliefs represented.

The laws should be NEUTRAL and not incorporate EITHER group's practices
that the other group doesn't follow.

So that was the meaning I was trying to convey.
the raw pattern, not ANY of the content
which I think you took literally to mean I really
thought those groups are like that.

I'm just using it as the pattern to show the argument
that BOTH biases need to be removed and keep govt policy NEUTRAL.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Sneekin The point is about BELIEFS. The government is not in the business of deciding policy on faith based Beliefs or forcing people to change or comprise their beliefs. They may ask people to leave their beliefs out instead of pushing then through govt. So if Christians have to reduce prayer to something secular and neutral why not ask LGBT to do the same.

As for happiness, that follows from not violating people's equal religious freedom and protection from discrimination. That would take care of itself as a result. When people restore their faith in relations with govt and in due process and consensus, this brings peace as a result.

The issue is not pushing biased faith based creeds through govt.

It not only makes people "unhappy" but it violates natural laws and human nature to coerce ANYONE to change their beliefs because another group forced it through govt. That violation and abuse is contradictory to Constitutional limits and protections. The unhappiness caused is a natural expression of dissent that is otherwise denied if this isn't resolved inclusive lyrics of all people interests and beliefs

Sorry, Emily, but it's not about BELIEFS. You've been asked this before, and I don't remember your answer, so I'll ask again. Hypothetically, let's say your faith or your intellect or your policies are against SSM. The Government struck down (did not change the law, they struck down a law that violated the constitution, several amendments). How is this asking you to change your beliefs? Are you required to marry a woman? No. Is your church, group, intellect etc ordered by the government to change? Absolutely not. You are completely off base here. It never violated your religious freedom. You are still able to hate it or like it. If it's against your religion, it's STILL against your religion, and you will note, the government itself says it cannot demand your religion change it's beliefs.

Your nonsense about prayers is different - praying out loud violates my rights if I'm not of the faith professed in the prayers - it violates MY freedom of religion. Bring peace? Seriously? Try just reading what I said, and studying the matter. You want to violate my rights, and that's acceptable. I don't want to violate your rights, and that is unacceptable to you. My suggestion? Hire an attorney at this point, maybe at 200 an hour when the money actually changes hand will it sink in for you.

Dear Sneekin
1. I have stated consistently that the bans excluding gay marriage are equally unconstitutional *for the same reasons* and I agree that Doma and other faith based and biased laws DO need to be struck down
2. By that same standard, neither can govt pass laws that introduce Other Biases on marriage equally faith based, and relative to people's values and beliefs
3. I pointed out that Atheists are not "forced" to be or change to other beliefs to sue to Remove Crosses from public buildings. Where in the First Amendment does it require someone to be "forced"
It's by principle alone, on the left this principle is called separation of church and state, on the right it's called separation of federal jurisdiction from states rights
4. Yes it's about Political Beliefs.

The belief about LGBT orientation/identity/relations are NOT proven scientifically but remain FAITH based. It's a Spiritual belief if this is natural or unnatural, if it's a choice of behavior that can change or NOT a choice.

The Belief that marriage is a Constitutional right or a practice under free exercise of religion that belongs to people or states is a Political Belief.

While I agree with you that you and anyone has the right to your belief it is a civil natural right for gay couples equally, not everyone shares this belief. Since it is faith based, it's only fair not to impose it by govt against beliefs of others.

So Sneekin and also Faun
I propose to you to pass a Constitutional Amendment on recognizing Political Beliefs such as right to marriage that is faith based, so it is Constitutional and passed by consent of people and States; and in order to make it fair where people of all political beliefs support its passage, include ALL political beliefs such as the right to life protected at conception which is also faith based.

Then write this Amendment that allows free choice to recognize and fund political beliefs separately by party so it does not impose on taxpayers of other beliefs. That would be fair to people of all beliefs.

5. Lastly I'm sorry you don't get that your belief in marriage as a right is a belief. Neither do Christians who believe right to life is natural from conception.

There are many non-Christians and even gay people and gay couples who do NOT believe in gay marriage through govt!

So this matter of preference of belief is spiritual and or political, it's a free choice, it's not about discriminating against a class of people because even that is faith based, not proven, and a choice to believe it's a born trait or why or how and whether it can change.

I believe it is spiritual, so beliefs are protected individually and can't be mandated by govt.

I believe we can form a consensus on law that respects free choice ie is not mandated through govt without consent of the public

The same way you Obama and others choose to recognize and support gay marriage, it should remain a free choice. No law forced you or Obama, you chose freely. So please recognize the same right of ALL Americans to choose freely.

PS as for cost of lawyers
This is also in violation of my Constitutional beliefs in due process and the right to petition for redress of grievances. Why should mistakes made in passing unconstitutional laws such as DOMA and ACA be charged to the contesters to correct the problem? The cost and burden should be on the proponents.

I have proposed to sue members and leaders of the Democratic Party to cover the legal costs as part of the damage.

I could not find a lawyer wiling to take this on before because the work exceeds the ability to bankroll it on comtigency. But Sneekin that is part of the tactics of legal abuse and monopoly. If lawyers control the cost and the game, no laws can be challenged without resources.

So these are not inalienable rights, but depending on political lobbying and or money.

Now however, there may be enough support to demand Democrats responsible for passing biased faith based laws and rulings pay the costs of correcting these to be Constitutional instead of imposing that cost on people who argued it wasn't Constitutional to begin with.

One person suggested having a vote in Congress on whether a bill is Constitutional or not Before proposing and voting on it through the House and Senate, so we agree up front does this require an Amendment to expand and authorize federal government to make such a law. That would save time and money fighting over states rights and religious freedom or bias in laws.

Sorry if you don't see this as compelling interest. But I see the bigger pattern of political beliefs that should be managed by conflict resolution and consensus on laws that reflects the will and consent of all people regardless of creed and which side they're on

I believe that is natural law, Constitutional duty and Government Ethics. See www.ethics-commission.net

There are a handful of gays that don't believe in it. They, like you, fail to grasp the concept that civil marriage doesn't fall under separation of church and state. Already been ruled on. Read the Iowa Supreme Court decision that repeatedly upheld lower court rulings in Iowa that SSM on it's face, because it violates the 14th amendment of the US constitution, as well as other federal and State amendments.Gay marriage has technically been legal since the passage of the 14th amendment, try and grasp that concept. It's not faith based law. You continue to claim states can have laws on the books that grant people of separate race, sexual preference, etc different rights based on who they want to marry. Read Loving, even watch the movie - there are enough facts in the movie for you to grasp. Your religion can refuse to marry two people. It doesn't stop those people from going to a different church, city hall, or a justice of the peace and getting married. Focus, Emily, grasp the concept it's not 1st amendment. Lawyers aren't controlling the costs, you are. You are claiming LGBT needs to have different laws written for them than heterosexuals need, and that simply is not true. Laws are in place. You don't seem to comprehend that at this point, it would take a constitutional amendment. 38 states are NOT going to vote for an amendment to take away a civil right - because they know it would be challenged any way, and it would never pass, just as passing an amendment to not allow interracial couples to be able to marry would not pass. THINK.

Not to worry Sneekin
By proving spiritual healing works effectively to restore people's natural default status, that will solve both problems.

Once people get that spiritual healing is natural, and what is going on when people change orientation, that will solve both the faith based issue of how much is a choice spiritually and also resolve the conflicts between people over Natural rights and laws so we can reach a consensus by free choice!

Very good, I agree research to prove how orientation and spiritual healing works will solve multiple levels of conflicts and will result in consensus the right way by free choice not forced by govt.

People don't change their orientation. They suppress it. When confronted with choice, 99 percent stop suppression. Try reading the medical journals. It blows up any thoughts about "spiritual healing" changing someone's sexual orientation. Even those practicing conversion therapy these days will tell you they don't change the orientation, they show one how to suppress their attraction and feelings. READ.

Dear Sneekin
I don't know if we are talking about the same process.
When for example I walked and talked someone through this same spiritual healing process
of forgiving and receiving healing, that person ended coming out as transsexual after letting go
of all the resentment and layers "suppressing" that person's natural personality and identity as female.

According to you, the spiritual healing is just allowing this person to
SUPPRESS their male birth gender and associations with it,
and to act female unnaturally.

I think it is the other way!

The spiritual healing allowed the person to LET GO of the unnatural suppression
and restore their natural default identity spiritually which came out when that person finally felt freed.

I don't think you can be spiritually FREED and SUPPRESSING yourself at the same time.
That is contradictory.

I think you must be referring to something else.
Like if people are faking it, like telling themselves they can change their behavior
on the outside instead of working through the process on the inside.

Spiritual healing is not dictated from external or unnatural will or conditions.
It is about letting go of fear and unresolved issues
that otherwise obstruct the natural process the mind and body go through
for self-healing and harmonious balance.

You sound like you are talking about the opposite process
of suppression and external expectations to control or compel behavior.
But that's exactly what healing has to overcome in order to work!

 

[emilynghiem]

Here Faun
here is a response I posted to someone else
who argued that homosexuality is NOT proven scientifically to be a born innate fixed condition
[and who APPEARS TO CORRELATE homosexuality and transgender identity with "mental health problems"]

====================================
The other author is Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the leading psychiatrists in the world. He was psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore from 1975 to 2001. These scientists reviewed hundreds of peer reviewed studies on sexual orientation and gender identity from the biological, psychological and social sciences. Their conclusions were as follows:.........................

the belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property – that people are “born that way” – is not supported by scientific evidence.
The belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex – so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ – is not supported by scientific evidence........................

Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behaviour will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood...............

Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity............................... .............

The second bombshell was exploded by a top researcher for the American Psychological Association (APA), lesbian activist, Dr. Lisa Diamond, co-author-in-chief of ‘the APA Handbook’ of sexuality and psychology and one of the APA’s most respected members. She admitted that sexual orientation was “fluid” and not unchangeable. By doing so, Dr. Diamond confirmed that the myth that “homosexuals can’t change” is now a dead-end theory
===========================================================

Dear sec
Yes and no
1. studies on identical twins do not show correlation in orientation.
some studies were inflated to show higher than 50%, but it's definitely NOT 100% as a genetic cause would show
One source: Homosexuality Can it be Healed by Dr. Francis MacNutt
for interview of Judith MacNutt on 20 cases of homosexual clients healed by spiritual therapy
see: Interview - Francis & Judith MacNutt - Mastering Life

2. homosexual and transgender identity can still be attributed to factors in the WOMB.
studies on brains show a similarity between the brains of females and of gay males.
Even if not genetic, it could be a condition by birth and not someone's choice.

When I look at people who claim to be spiritual soulmates, is that something
either one of them chose? How they were incarnated as black or white, male or female?

3. my argument is to treat LGBT beliefs orientation and gender as SPIRITUALLY determined.
So this covers any and all beliefs equally, and does not discriminate against one or another.
No matter what someone believes, since both sides are faith based and neither proven nor disproven
by science, they remain free choice; and certain govt should never be abused to impose a faith-based bias
or force someone to change their beliefs. These should all be included equally, whether for or against gay marriage
or believing homosexuality is natural or unnatural, a choice of behavior or not, or it can or cannot change.

Some people can change, some cannot.
Some believe the change is merely reverting back to default natural status at birth, and not really changing orientation
So like someone's expression of identity as Muslim or Christian, atheist, liberal prochoice, or conservative prolife,
I believe in treating one's beliefs about LGBT as a CREED and not denying disparaging or harassing people regardless
what their views are, why, and if these change or not. Some people cannot help and cannot change how they believe.
And that goes for both sides!

McHugh is not one of the top psychiatrists, unless you follow that with one of the top most discredited. It most certainly is genetic - otherwise, feel free to explain how every mammal has a percentage of offspring that have same sex relations. Again, it's a straight up lie that anyone has actually been converted. The few people that "stuck", numbering under 5-10, were already determined to be bisexual, and just stopped sleeping with men for the time being. You seem to confuse the sex act with the sexual preference - they are not the same. Anyone can be forced into a SS act, it doesn't mean they are gay. Anyone can be forced into a heterosexual act, it doesn't mean they are straight. It's not spiritually determined - if it is, explain those gay mice. Or even beyond mammals, explain the gay ducks.. How do you explain atheist gays? You are too focused on making everyone happy - it has been proven (McHugh is about the last person of name standing, against the millions with the exact opposite opinion). No one can change, they can simply abstain - and what usually happens is one of two things - they "backslide", resuming SS relations, or two, they kill themselves. I lost a dear friend that way in high school.

Dear Sneekin
I believe it is spiritually determined and up to someone's process if they change or not.

No, it is not shown to be genetic because studies on identical twins may show a tendency
but not a correlation.

Whatever you cite about other mammals, the smaller % is argued as an anomaly and not natural.

Yes, I do believe people have changed, but what you are saying is anyone who has,
was always heterosexual to begin with and they weren't really homosexual.
And if they are naturally homosexual you are saying they don't change but suppress it.

What is your opinion about Chirlane McCray, is she bisexual and just "suppressing" her lesbian past or was it false and not her true self:
‘Are You Still a Lesbian?’ Bill de Blasio’s Wife Doesn’t Have an Answer

Here are more links to resources about people changing orientation.
So by your theory these were never gay to begin with or they couldn't come out as heterosexual:
How To Defeat Homosexual Activists 101 A Real Education
Obama has problem with this sex-identity group
Brothers Road | Brothers on a Road Less Traveled

That's fine, and I do hope the research on spiritual healing
will prove what is going on.

Neil Warren of eharmony wanted to team up with companies
to invest millions each to resolve this issue with research.
I think your angle is fair and proveable.
But I would apply the Christian Healing Ministries method that work internally to heal
people's spiritually, and not other forms of reparative therapy that work externally and fail.

Bill DeBlasio's wife is bisexual. McHugh has been discredited. If you have ever gone through this conversion therapy, or seen it performed, you would know better. It's illegal in most states because it leads to suicide in adults and mostly children. Are you pro suicide for gay children?

I've been intimately involved with the therapy, various treatments, and various researches as I worked on my undergrad and grad degrees, you have not. I find your comments ludicrous. To quote the most discredited man in history is sad. Neil had to do that - eharmony was sued for not allowing SS relations to be pursued when he founded the corporation. It took years and lawsuits.

You are lying now about what I said - I said they were BISEXUAL, not Heterosexual. You apparently are unaware of how frequent this occurs. You can have 2 boys that start having sex in their early teens, and consider themselves 100 percent gay, into their 30's and 40's. Then they have sex with a woman after too many drinks - and now, they are straight? Nope - bisexual. DeBlasio's wife only had sex with women. She was an outspoken lesbian. She met Bill, fell in love, the rest is history. Those people would go through conversion therapy and be "cured". Not that 15 year old boy that vomits every time he see's a naked female. You'll just have someone who doesn't have sex with anyone.

Hi Sneekin No, we are DEFINITELY not talking about the same thing.
Nobody "performs" or forces spiritual healing on anyone.

It is the same natural process by which people either come out gay or straight or transgender
or whatever is their NATURAL self. it is about letting go, forgiving and undoing all
that conditioning, certainly NOT imposing more conditions on someone!

You are talking about something FORCED unnatural and abusive, against
people's will, nature and natural process.

clearly these are opposites and not the same thing at all!

In fact what you are talking about causes so much damage
the people who are seeking spiritual healing and RECOVERY
have to let go and undo all that damage in addition as layers added on top!

 

[Faun]

Government is in the marriage business...

They certify it and make it legal
They provide tax breaks
They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
They supervise the dissolution of marriage

What do you want them to stop doing?

Dear rightwinger
I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.

Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
due to their beliefs.

We don't make laws based on peoples' feelings or religious objections. If we did, capital punishment would be unconstitutional, pork would be banned, cotton/wool blends would be punishable, etc...

Yes Faun I also believe in separating funding for the death penalty
so people can have a free choice but it doesn't impose on other people's choice of funding.

This would take a lot of the "emotional hype" out of election campaigns
if all issues were resolved one by one instead of lumped together,
voting for one party to dominate while the other in the minority risks losing representation.

A lot of fear based bullying going on now would be eliminated
if we based laws on consensus or separation by party so everyone
is equally represented and not forced to fund the beliefs of others.

As for fabric, by the time the Greens Democrats and Social Workers
organize labor pools and worker owned coops and business networks,
maybe we will see more locally grown "hemp" fabric and/or whatever is more sustainable.
maybe we won't rely so much on foreign slave labor for clothing and electronic devices
if we organize labor and factories as campuses providing education, health care and housing
as part of work-study programs to ensure students and workers have protection from abuse,
even if working for barter or credit, or lower training wages in exchange for low cost housing and services.

Religious beliefs and objections are part of how people express consent or dissent.
I believe the right solutions will satisfy people's standards regardless if these are expressed religiously, politically, spiritually or by secular laws, business models, etc.
Faun

That is complete and utter nonsense. We don't have two sets of laws; one for Democrats and one for Republicans. Either laws are Constitutional or they're not. They're not Constitutional for one party but unconstitutional for another.

Dear Faun if the Democratic platform seeks to BAN reparative therapy but DEFEND the free choice of abortion and gender change procedures for minors; while the Republican platform seeks to DEFEND the free choice of reparative therapy and BAN abortion and gender surgery for minors,
then we ARE dealing with two polar opposite political BELIEFS.

collectively these can be considered Political Religions:
one in promoting social and general welfare through govt as its major focus and rule
AND
one in promoted LIMITED federal govt where national defense is its unique role (and most other social functions can or should be done outside so it doesn't bog down govt in bureaucratic waste interfering with govt duties)

So YES Faun it WOULD or SHOULD BE UNCONSTITITIONAL for one group to IMPOSE or ESTABLISH its BELIEFS as a national religion for ALL the public to be COMPELLED to pay taxes under and comply with!

But guess what, that's what Obama did in enforcing ACA mandates and declaring
the belief in "health care as right" as the "law of the land"
offending people who BELIEVE in putting the Constitution first as the law of the land,
and requiring state ratified AMENDMENTS before granting any such authority to federal govt.

(The federal exchanges and mandated insurance in essence constitute a FAITH BASED system that people either BELIEVE in or DON'T. these aren't proven or disproven, so both positions for or against this system are FAITH BASED. and yet our govt REQUIRES participation and funding, and this isn't a choice, even though it is AGAINST people's beliefs and faith in limited govt and free market health care!)

so yes, we ARE dealing with political beliefs and religions if you consider the whole set as one system,
and we ARE dealing with political leaders and lobbies seeking to IMPOSE THESE AS LAW
whether "right to life"
or "right to health care"
FOR THE WHOLE NATION

(AND YES I DO BELIEVE THAT SHOULD BE BARRED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!)

You are free to believe anything you like; but fortunately for the rest of us, your beliefs, being counter to how laws are actually enforced, bear no resemblance to reality. There is only one law for everyone. We don't enforce laws differently based on personal beliefs but on constitutionality.

 

[emilynghiem]

rightwinger
And people have to AGREE what's right
Or it's back to govt imposing beliefs on values by "other groups"
Both sides view the other as imposing beliefs, that's why consensus on laws is necessary to address any perceived bias deemed faith based exclusive or discriminating against "one set of beliefs or the other"

OK...so now people have to AGREE what is right

Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?

What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?

.

Dear rightwinger with Faith-Based laws, yes, people would have to agree
or else all it takes is one atheist or nonbeliever in that thing to protest that
govt should not establish a faith based bias or belief, and by principle that bias should be removed.

A good example of a faith based concept people happen to agree on:
JUSTICE
Even though this is completely faith-based and never proven or established as existing,
people have faith in it and AGREE to use these terms in our laws
and even inscribe them on public buildings.
Nobody complains because we AGREE on this even though it is FAITH BASED.

But when it comes to retributive justice and restorative justice,
no, people do not agree. thus we have fights going on over
the death penalty and taxpayers funding life imprisonment instead of executions etc.
I am asking to separate funding on that issue also!

Similar with abortion.
We generally agree murder is unlawful and punishable as a crime.
but some people believe abortion is murder, and others do not.
Until we agree on how to write or separate laws,
groups have be en fighting over this to defend their beliefs from each other's.

How cruel is this suffering and how long are we going to let it go on,
knowing neither side agrees to biases in laws by the other?

That's why I argue to separate funding by party,
set up separate representation and programs where people
do not feel threatened by any other group dictating their beliefs.
If political and/or religious beliefs prevent agreement on public laws,
then set up separate means similar to private religious schools
and treat partisan programs like private religious programs.
So people can get the same tax breaks for investing in their
own policies if the rest of the public doesn't agree to fund them.

The US does not have faith based laws nor should it

Why can't you answer the simple questions I asked?
Why do I get a 300 word diatribe on something unrelated to what I posted?

Now.....
Does every person have to agree with your own marriage in order for it to be legal?
Did you have to obtain a consensus before you were allowed to marry?

What if we can't please everyone.....does that mean you are not allowed to marry either?

rightwinger they have to agree with each other
where marriage or other beliefs get mixed in with public policy

I don't have a say in other state laws, but I can have equal
voice in Texas law or Houston or Democratic Party if that's how we decide how to manage policies
and benefits. I prefer by party, but others may want it through state.

Even on this you are wrong. The Democratic Party can outlaw gay marriage, Emily can outlaw gay marriage, Houston can outlaw gay marriage, and Texas can outlaw gay marriage. Of course, you don't have an equal voice, if you think that your voice means anything in this case. It violates FEDERAL law. I don't care how you manage policies. If you are the lone voice in the wilderness, you "might" be heard (but not by the entire state, and probably not even by all of Houston), but it has ZERO effect on the outcome.

No, by natural laws, we make laws by consent of the governed.

So if people wanted to "outlaw gay marriage" it would have to be by consensus
of all the people under that law, and could not apply to people outside that jurisdiction and representation.

Or else it violates natural laws.
Sneekin

That's why we can't outlaw abortion because it would violate consent of people affected by those laws.
Only if there was a consensus and everyone AGREED what exactly to ban,
then we could make such a law as enforceable.
Otherwise it won't work because it's going against human nature.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear rightwinger
I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.

Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
due to their beliefs.

We don't make laws based on peoples' feelings or religious objections. If we did, capital punishment would be unconstitutional, pork would be banned, cotton/wool blends would be punishable, etc...

Yes Faun I also believe in separating funding for the death penalty
so people can have a free choice but it doesn't impose on other people's choice of funding.

This would take a lot of the "emotional hype" out of election campaigns
if all issues were resolved one by one instead of lumped together,
voting for one party to dominate while the other in the minority risks losing representation.

A lot of fear based bullying going on now would be eliminated
if we based laws on consensus or separation by party so everyone
is equally represented and not forced to fund the beliefs of others.

As for fabric, by the time the Greens Democrats and Social Workers
organize labor pools and worker owned coops and business networks,
maybe we will see more locally grown "hemp" fabric and/or whatever is more sustainable.
maybe we won't rely so much on foreign slave labor for clothing and electronic devices
if we organize labor and factories as campuses providing education, health care and housing
as part of work-study programs to ensure students and workers have protection from abuse,
even if working for barter or credit, or lower training wages in exchange for low cost housing and services.

Religious beliefs and objections are part of how people express consent or dissent.
I believe the right solutions will satisfy people's standards regardless if these are expressed religiously, politically, spiritually or by secular laws, business models, etc.
Faun

That is complete and utter nonsense. We don't have two sets of laws; one for Democrats and one for Republicans. Either laws are Constitutional or they're not. They're not Constitutional for one party but unconstitutional for another.

Dear Faun if the Democratic platform seeks to BAN reparative therapy but DEFEND the free choice of abortion and gender change procedures for minors; while the Republican platform seeks to DEFEND the free choice of reparative therapy and BAN abortion and gender surgery for minors,
then we ARE dealing with two polar opposite political BELIEFS.

collectively these can be considered Political Religions:
one in promoting social and general welfare through govt as its major focus and rule
AND
one in promoted LIMITED federal govt where national defense is its unique role (and most other social functions can or should be done outside so it doesn't bog down govt in bureaucratic waste interfering with govt duties)

So YES Faun it WOULD or SHOULD BE UNCONSTITITIONAL for one group to IMPOSE or ESTABLISH its BELIEFS as a national religion for ALL the public to be COMPELLED to pay taxes under and comply with!

But guess what, that's what Obama did in enforcing ACA mandates and declaring
the belief in "health care as right" as the "law of the land"
offending people who BELIEVE in putting the Constitution first as the law of the land,
and requiring state ratified AMENDMENTS before granting any such authority to federal govt.

(The federal exchanges and mandated insurance in essence constitute a FAITH BASED system that people either BELIEVE in or DON'T. these aren't proven or disproven, so both positions for or against this system are FAITH BASED. and yet our govt REQUIRES participation and funding, and this isn't a choice, even though it is AGAINST people's beliefs and faith in limited govt and free market health care!)

so yes, we ARE dealing with political beliefs and religions if you consider the whole set as one system,
and we ARE dealing with political leaders and lobbies seeking to IMPOSE THESE AS LAW
whether "right to life"
or "right to health care"
FOR THE WHOLE NATION

(AND YES I DO BELIEVE THAT SHOULD BE BARRED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!)

You are free to believe anything you like; but fortunately for the rest of us, your beliefs, being counter to how laws are actually enforced, bear no resemblance to reality. There is only one law for everyone. We don't enforce laws differently based on personal beliefs but on constitutionality.

by what you posed Faun I would agree
if that if the Republicans don't agree to a law because they say it's unconstitutional because it violates
their beliefs, then it IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL and that law should NOT be enforced but changed.
if the Democrats don't agree to a law because they argue it's unconstitutional because it violates
their beliefs, same thing, it should be struck down or changed until both sides AGREE it is constitutional!

the problem Faun is we have DEMOCRATS insisting ACA and health care laws are constitutional
because THEY BELIEVE govt should be the central default for managing health care "as a right"
while REPUBLICANS insist it ISN'T constitutional and needs to be revised.

So I agree with you, since there is only one law, then if people don't agree because of their beliefs,
that law CANNOT be enforced as "law for all people"

We SHOULD use that standard of satisfying ALL parties and people's beliefs
before claiming to establish a law that touches on those beliefs.

Then we WOULDN'T have one group saying it's the law
and the other saying it violates law. We've got that going on now
because we don't finish the process of resolving conflicts to AGREE on one law!

 

[emilynghiem]

Sneekin I looked everywhere and can't find your message
where you said it's impossible to sue the Democrats to repay costs and fix problems
caused by DOMA or ACA "because how can you tell who are members"

The reply I wanted to post is that corrections and reimbursement are
VOLUNTARY. the same way people choose affiliation freely, then
choosing to side with the corrections or not is up to people.

That will show who is really in charge of govt.
Whoever takes responsibility for fixing problems and managing the costs.

So this would separate the sheep from the goats.
The people who lead will lead and those who follow will follow.

 

[emilynghiem]

rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.

but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary

Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.

Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.

We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.

Let me put it another way.

I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire civil institution that I want- because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?

Hi Syriusly
for the analogy about pork and Muslims,
it's more like this:.

And you just ignored what I said.

As I am now going to ignore what you said.

We do not end government licensing just because a religious group doesn't believe in what the license is for.

• We do not stop driver's licenses just because the Amish think driving a car is wrong
• We do not stop licensing a pig slaughterhouse just because Jews and Muslims think eating pig is wrong.
• We do not close all slaughterhouses just because Hindu's think killing animals is wrong.
• We do not stop licensing bars because Southern Baptists and Mormons think drinking alcohol is wrong.

See the pattern here?

Right, we aren't "stopping" the licensing Syriusly but
refining it to be just about the CIVIL contracts, as Faun pointed out is the intent.

Emily, that's all marriage has been about - it's ALWAYS BEEN a civil contract. Why can't you just admit that? The fact that you or anyone else, of any religion wish to add an entire other ceremony on top of the CIVIL MARRIAGE is of no impact to ANYONE ELSE. It's JUST ABOUT THE CONTRACT. Feel free to read Texas law, if you think it's anything else.

Dear Sneekin and Syriusly
I think we must be talking past each other.
Here Faun and Sneekin are saying the same thing
that govt is only about the civil contract part of marraige.

So Syriusly how is this "ending marriage or taking rights away"
if it's just everyone AGREEING on language and terms that CLARIFY
govt licenses are only about the civil contracts and nothing to do with terms on the Social relationships?

 

[Sneekin]

Dear rightwinger
States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state.

Some states don't require car insurance, if the driver has "ability to pay" and can prove it.
So in that state, the same driver with the same car is under different rules.

States like Nevada have legalized prostitution, that only applies in that state.

For national policies on health care and other social benefits,
I recommend to my fellow progressive Democrats and Greens
to organize by party. So people can have collective representation
and management of resources to fund policies that correspond
and represent beliefs in marriage, health care, prison alternatives,
educational priorities, etc.

if not everyone agrees on social policies through federal govt.
AND by the Platform of the Veterans Party of America
"ALL social legislation is Unconstitutional"
then why not manage it by party and have taxpayers
pay directly into the programs of choice?

I know tons of progressives who believe in paying
for education and health care instead of funding
war and the death penalty.

Why not give taxpayers that choice?

If it's organized by party then the responsibility
for all the terms and agreements is delegated
to one national group to represent its members,
similar to states being responsible for representing its citizens.

Just proportionally delegate federal budgets to allot
money to states, and states divide it by party by
proportion of taxpayers and taxmoney coming in.
so if GOP do not want to pay to federal govt
except for military, they don't get federal funds for health care
except for VA/vets if that's all they approve.
If Dems want singlepayer health care and no death penalty,
then that's where their tax money goes or doesn't go.

So each pays for their share and their members
work out their terms and conditions, from prolife
to gay marriage, whatever they believe or don't believe in.

If states can agree, then it's done by state.

This is if the population of states CAN'T agree,
why not create two separate tracks and let
taxpayers choose just like we do when we
donate to parties or vote for platforms and reps.

In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question

With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you handle gay couples traveling between states?

Try to answer in less than 50 words

I answered that already rightwinger
each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
civil marriage, civil unions.

And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.

What part of my answer did you not get
and I will explain it again.

I answered two different ways
1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
it can be national without going through state or federal govt

There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.

You still don't get it

First off...allowing same sex marriage by party or religious affiliation means gays can change religion or party in order to get married

You avoid the key issue. What happens when a married, same sex couple either travels or moves to a state where it is not recognized?

If a partner becomes seriously ill, does the spouse lose all marital rights?
What happens to the children of a same sex marriage when they move to a state that bans it?
If you move to a state that bans it....are you effectively divorced or just a non-person?

Emily, please address rightwinger - these sum up what we all have been saying in under 100 words.

Dear rightwinger and Sneekin
What happens if a contractor who follows the rules in Houston or Texas
moves to another state? Well, the other states may have different rules or regulations
on building codes and licensing master electricians or contractors to work on jobs.

The process is generally the same, but some of the terms and conditions may be different.
The main goals of SAFETY will be the same across the states, but not all terms and conditions
may be exactly alike unless all people across the nation AGREE to those.

When people switch schools, the credits at one school may be different than the one
they are transferring from. But the MAIN standards agreed upon for accreditation will be met.
It doesn't have to be perfectly the same for every school in ALL aspects,
just the main policies that matter.

That's why if all states stick to a common policy, such as secular civil unions as the neutral standard,
that part would be uniform across states and possibly the nation.
But the more you attach personal conditions and social relations into the equation,
that's going to make it harder if not impossible to come to an agreement.

What you are asking about "recognizing all marriages as the same" is
like asking what happens if a Christian who is baptized with sprinkling
is not recognized by another denomination that believes in full immersion?
Well that part is private.

Our national constitutional laws use GENERAL language like free exercise of
religion or no discrimination on the basis of CREED, but do NOT micromanage the details.

So if we keep the private practices that are relative out of the equation,
the default policy left is just the civil contracts and unions that deal with
legal and financial roles and terms in contracts, not anything to do with interpersonal relations
that are private and remain the free choice of individuals.

Sneekin I saw very frustrated sounding messages from you regarding
the term marriage. Sorry but if not all people agree to use that for civil marriage,
that's not my fault. That's how some people think.

So if you are going to ask people to be sensitive about using terms like
creation instead of universe, because creation insinuates a creator while universe does not,
that's just how some people prefer to use more neutral terms
and not terms that are associated with things you don't mean.

People's perceptions ARE TIED TO LANGUAGE.

You objected to the term "traditional" which I did not mean any offense by,
but it implied some negative things to you. That's not what I meant at ALL,
but as long as that word invokes different MEANINGS on your side of the fence,
then using that word is NOT effective and is NOT communicating the same thing to you that I mean.

So if I am going to communicate and reach an agreement with you,
yes,the words we use matter. They have to mean the same things on both
sides or people end up talking past each other.

It's almost like two different dialects or languages
when people don't mean the same things by the same words.

I notice this with religion and politics, that the issues of words
conveying different meanings causes a lot of offense when people don't realize it.

Sorry this is so frustrating to you, but believe me
the frustration is mutual. Most of my other friends who are conservatives
have plumb given up on liberals, cannot understand or communicate,
and have even decided liberalism must be a "mental disorder"
because they just can't make sense of the mentality.

So it's at least mutual.

Emily, I'm through arguing with you. I really don't care what you or your conservative friends think about what civil marriage is called. The name of it legally is marriage, it's a civil contract between two people, end of discussion.

Next - workers moving from state to state is not the same as marriage. If you live in Wisconsin, you cannot marry your first cousin. If you live in Illinois, you can. So, Wisconsin residents had to go to Illinois. The current governor tried to block it by creating legislation, but their Supreme Court informed him he cannot undo a marriage done in another state.

I'm not asking anyone to be sensitive about creation versus science. I'm trying to get you to understand that legally, creationism isn't SCIENCE. Not on the SAT or ACT. Got it? Public schools MUST teach science. I really don't care what you or your private school teaches, because, as an employer, I simply would refuse to hire someone so blatantly incompetent (if they never learned science, reading, writing and math).

Even your contractor example is wrong. It's why we have licensing laws. Just because you can build a house, cut hair, or be a lawyer in Texas, doesn't mean you can do it in any other state - it requires in many cases, additional schooling, and definitely testing/exams/etc. I don't know of any contractor that's so ignorant as to think he could move from state to state and immediately start working without proper credentials. So again, very bad example, and completely off topic from marriage (it does transfer from state to state, all of them). Do you understand? If you don't, put one line down - that you are through with the discussion with me. You repeat yourself, you get discredited, you use the same arguments again, you get proven wrong again, ad infinitum. Then you obfuscate, drift off to completely unrelated topics (ie, contractors), and accuse us of saying things that we didn't say (but in fact, you have throughout this thread).

You don't get to rename it, neither do your friends. It's settled law. No one cares what you think, because YOU VOTED YOUR REPRESENTATIVES INTO OFFICE. THEY APPROVED THE SCOTUS JUDGES. So, to simplify it for you, you voted on it and agreed it was ok. deal with it.

 

[Sneekin]

Dear rightwinger
States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state.

Some states don't require car insurance, if the driver has "ability to pay" and can prove it.
So in that state, the same driver with the same car is under different rules.

States like Nevada have legalized prostitution, that only applies in that state.

For national policies on health care and other social benefits,
I recommend to my fellow progressive Democrats and Greens
to organize by party. So people can have collective representation
and management of resources to fund policies that correspond
and represent beliefs in marriage, health care, prison alternatives,
educational priorities, etc.

if not everyone agrees on social policies through federal govt.
AND by the Platform of the Veterans Party of America
"ALL social legislation is Unconstitutional"
then why not manage it by party and have taxpayers
pay directly into the programs of choice?

I know tons of progressives who believe in paying
for education and health care instead of funding
war and the death penalty.

Why not give taxpayers that choice?

If it's organized by party then the responsibility
for all the terms and agreements is delegated
to one national group to represent its members,
similar to states being responsible for representing its citizens.

Just proportionally delegate federal budgets to allot
money to states, and states divide it by party by
proportion of taxpayers and taxmoney coming in.
so if GOP do not want to pay to federal govt
except for military, they don't get federal funds for health care
except for VA/vets if that's all they approve.
If Dems want singlepayer health care and no death penalty,
then that's where their tax money goes or doesn't go.

So each pays for their share and their members
work out their terms and conditions, from prolife
to gay marriage, whatever they believe or don't believe in.

If states can agree, then it's done by state.

This is if the population of states CAN'T agree,
why not create two separate tracks and let
taxpayers choose just like we do when we
donate to parties or vote for platforms and reps.

In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple question

With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you handle gay couples traveling between states?

Try to answer in less than 50 words

I answered that already rightwinger
each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
civil marriage, civil unions.

And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.

What part of my answer did you not get
and I will explain it again.

I answered two different ways
1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
it can be national without going through state or federal govt

There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.

You still don't get it

First off...allowing same sex marriage by party or religious affiliation means gays can change religion or party in order to get married

You avoid the key issue. What happens when a married, same sex couple either travels or moves to a state where it is not recognized?

If a partner becomes seriously ill, does the spouse lose all marital rights?
What happens to the children of a same sex marriage when they move to a state that bans it?
If you move to a state that bans it....are you effectively divorced or just a non-person?

Emily, please address rightwinger - these sum up what we all have been saying in under 100 words.

Dear rightwinger and Sneekin
What happens if a contractor who follows the rules in Houston or Texas
moves to another state? Well, the other states may have different rules or regulations
on building codes and licensing master electricians or contractors to work on jobs.

The process is generally the same, but some of the terms and conditions may be different.
The main goals of SAFETY will be the same across the states, but not all terms and conditions
may be exactly alike unless all people across the nation AGREE to those.

When people switch schools, the credits at one school may be different than the one
they are transferring from. But the MAIN standards agreed upon for accreditation will be met.
It doesn't have to be perfectly the same for every school in ALL aspects,
just the main policies that matter.

That's why if all states stick to a common policy, such as secular civil unions as the neutral standard,
that part would be uniform across states and possibly the nation.
But the more you attach personal conditions and social relations into the equation,
that's going to make it harder if not impossible to come to an agreement.

What you are asking about "recognizing all marriages as the same" is
like asking what happens if a Christian who is baptized with sprinkling
is not recognized by another denomination that believes in full immersion?
Well that part is private.

Our national constitutional laws use GENERAL language like free exercise of
religion or no discrimination on the basis of CREED, but do NOT micromanage the details.

So if we keep the private practices that are relative out of the equation,
the default policy left is just the civil contracts and unions that deal with
legal and financial roles and terms in contracts, not anything to do with interpersonal relations
that are private and remain the free choice of individuals.

Sneekin I saw very frustrated sounding messages from you regarding
the term marriage. Sorry but if not all people agree to use that for civil marriage,
that's not my fault. That's how some people think.

So if you are going to ask people to be sensitive about using terms like
creation instead of universe, because creation insinuates a creator while universe does not,
that's just how some people prefer to use more neutral terms
and not terms that are associated with things you don't mean.

People's perceptions ARE TIED TO LANGUAGE.

You objected to the term "traditional" which I did not mean any offense by,
but it implied some negative things to you. That's not what I meant at ALL,
but as long as that word invokes different MEANINGS on your side of the fence,
then using that word is NOT effective and is NOT communicating the same thing to you that I mean.

So if I am going to communicate and reach an agreement with you,
yes,the words we use matter. They have to mean the same things on both
sides or people end up talking past each other.

It's almost like two different dialects or languages
when people don't mean the same things by the same words.

I notice this with religion and politics, that the issues of words
conveying different meanings causes a lot of offense when people don't realize it.

Sorry this is so frustrating to you, but believe me
the frustration is mutual. Most of my other friends who are conservatives
have plumb given up on liberals, cannot understand or communicate,
and have even decided liberalism must be a "mental disorder"
because they just can't make sense of the mentality.

So it's at least mutual.

Emily, we rerepeat - only YOU are trying to put changes/differences into effect.

You lost in in your opening sentence here:

"States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state."

That flies in the face of the law. There is NO SUCH THING AS GAY MARRIAGE. Wrap your mind around it. There is ONLY MARRIAGE. In your church, with your conservative friends, feel free to call it greens n chitlins or fatback and beans if you want. In your church, you can even claim they aren't really married (in the eyes of your church only). Just realize, once you walk through that door, the Constitution kicks in, full force and effect. Two people can get married. PERIOD. Comprende?

 

[Sneekin]

Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.

Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.

We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.

Let me put it another way.

I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire civil institution that I want- because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?

Hi Syriusly
for the analogy about pork and Muslims,
it's more like this:.

And you just ignored what I said.

As I am now going to ignore what you said.

We do not end government licensing just because a religious group doesn't believe in what the license is for.

• We do not stop driver's licenses just because the Amish think driving a car is wrong
• We do not stop licensing a pig slaughterhouse just because Jews and Muslims think eating pig is wrong.
• We do not close all slaughterhouses just because Hindu's think killing animals is wrong.
• We do not stop licensing bars because Southern Baptists and Mormons think drinking alcohol is wrong.

See the pattern here?

Right, we aren't "stopping" the licensing Syriusly but
refining it to be just about the CIVIL contracts, as Faun pointed out is the intent.

Emily, that's all marriage has been about - it's ALWAYS BEEN a civil contract. Why can't you just admit that? The fact that you or anyone else, of any religion wish to add an entire other ceremony on top of the CIVIL MARRIAGE is of no impact to ANYONE ELSE. It's JUST ABOUT THE CONTRACT. Feel free to read Texas law, if you think it's anything else.

That's great if we can get everyone to agree to that!

However Sneekin if there really were NO additional issues attached,
then people would have no problem substituting civil unions for marriage
if it truly is just the secular relationship.

Among my friends and their friends, there are many who are fine either way,
but since not everyone agrees, they are perfectly fine with sticking with civil unions
and not HAVING to call this marriage in the govt process. People are free to call themselves
married and that doesn't change.

In fact, in Texas, we'd have MORE freedom to declare married or not,
because right now if you announce or present yourself as married,
and that makes it formal, then the law requires you to go through the state to get divorced.
Even if you never FORMALLY got married. Certain things like announcing it can be
grounds for establishing common law marriage.

but if the declaration of marriage personally is separate from the civil licensing
through the state that requires dissolution if separating or divorcing,
then people would have MORE freedom to marry and unmarry WITHOUT going through the state.

The licensing and civil contracts and dissolutions and changes would remain through the state.
So if you never set those up, then you never have to go through a formal legal divorce.

Just like hooking up as boyfriend and girlfriend, and then separating when you both agree to,
you'd have more freedom without the state getting involved in when you joined and when you unjoined.

SIGHHHHHH.........EMILY, EMILY, EMILY.....
There really are no additional issues involved, no matter how much you lie, cajole, or try to mislead. A Good example of that is boyfriend / girlfriend - hint - you don't have a clue - remember those 1138 additional rights? You lost at least 1130 of them, if not 1135. And civil unions require civil divorces, just as marriage requires a divorce. You seem confused on this subject. If you are Catholic, and get your marriage annulled, you still have to go and get either a divorce or legal annulment. Even though, Emily, the subject is whether or not gay marriage is a civil right, it's not about what you and your friends think it is, or how you and your friends are hell-bent on trying to circumvent federal laws.

Declaration of marriage is a requirement. It's a matter of public record. There's a physical license for it. The exception is common law marriage, which has been banned in all but 8 states. Look for Texas to lose it soon, as Common Law Marriage in is allowed in only specific circumstances (Tex. Family Law §1.101; Tex. Family Law §2.401-2.402). Most of the other 7 states have specific rules for them to be valid as well. Even common-law marriages have been known to reek havoc with other state and federal laws, and still requires a legal divorce if it is recognized as a valid marriage. Yes, even in Texas.

 

[Sneekin]

Government is in the marriage business...

They certify it and make it legal
They provide tax breaks
They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
They supervise the dissolution of marriage

What do you want them to stop doing?

Dear rightwinger
I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.

Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
due to their beliefs.

We don't make laws based on peoples' feelings or religious objections. If we did, capital punishment would be unconstitutional, pork would be banned, cotton/wool blends would be punishable, etc...

Yes Faun I also believe in separating funding for the death penalty
so people can have a free choice but it doesn't impose on other people's choice of funding.

This would take a lot of the "emotional hype" out of election campaigns
if all issues were resolved one by one instead of lumped together,
voting for one party to dominate while the other in the minority risks losing representation.

A lot of fear based bullying going on now would be eliminated
if we based laws on consensus or separation by party so everyone
is equally represented and not forced to fund the beliefs of others.

As for fabric, by the time the Greens Democrats and Social Workers
organize labor pools and worker owned coops and business networks,
maybe we will see more locally grown "hemp" fabric and/or whatever is more sustainable.
maybe we won't rely so much on foreign slave labor for clothing and electronic devices
if we organize labor and factories as campuses providing education, health care and housing
as part of work-study programs to ensure students and workers have protection from abuse,
even if working for barter or credit, or lower training wages in exchange for low cost housing and services.

Religious beliefs and objections are part of how people express consent or dissent.
I believe the right solutions will satisfy people's standards regardless if these are expressed religiously, politically, spiritually or by secular laws, business models, etc.
Faun

That is complete and utter nonsense. We don't have two sets of laws; one for Democrats and one for Republicans. Either laws are Constitutional or they're not. They're not Constitutional for one party but unconstitutional for another.

Dear Faun if the Democratic platform seeks to BAN reparative therapy but DEFEND the free choice of abortion and gender change procedures for minors; while the Republican platform seeks to DEFEND the free choice of reparative therapy and BAN abortion and gender surgery for minors,
then we ARE dealing with two polar opposite political BELIEFS.

collectively these can be considered Political Religions:
one in promoting social and general welfare through govt as its major focus and rule
AND
one in promoted LIMITED federal govt where national defense is its unique role (and most other social functions can or should be done outside so it doesn't bog down govt in bureaucratic waste interfering with govt duties)

So YES Faun it WOULD or SHOULD BE UNCONSTITITIONAL for one group to IMPOSE or ESTABLISH its BELIEFS as a national religion for ALL the public to be COMPELLED to pay taxes under and comply with!

But guess what, that's what Obama did in enforcing ACA mandates and declaring
the belief in "health care as right" as the "law of the land"
offending people who BELIEVE in putting the Constitution first as the law of the land,
and requiring state ratified AMENDMENTS before granting any such authority to federal govt.

(The federal exchanges and mandated insurance in essence constitute a FAITH BASED system that people either BELIEVE in or DON'T. these aren't proven or disproven, so both positions for or against this system are FAITH BASED. and yet our govt REQUIRES participation and funding, and this isn't a choice, even though it is AGAINST people's beliefs and faith in limited govt and free market health care!)

so yes, we ARE dealing with political beliefs and religions if you consider the whole set as one system,
and we ARE dealing with political leaders and lobbies seeking to IMPOSE THESE AS LAW
whether "right to life"
or "right to health care"
FOR THE WHOLE NATION

(AND YES I DO BELIEVE THAT SHOULD BE BARRED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!)

You are wrong here as well. Abortion is legal. Reparative Therapy is currently banned for children under 18. How do you arrive that these two laws are establishing a religion? BTW, Gender Change isn't done on minors, normally, unless it's in the case of Intersexed children. HRT can start, puberty blockers can start. But that isn't gender change. This cannot be construed as political religions, as they are applicable to all. Conservatives want to ban abortion, and require reparative therapy (perhaps), Democrats want business as usual. Not a religion. In fact, you are once again making up facts. Fortunately, no one is imposing religion on anyone. Abortion is the law of the land for now. It would have to have the SCOTUS overturn the law, which is highly unlikely. Only more restrictive measures could be applied.

Obama didn't enforce anything - it's not his job. It's the job of the congressmen - which, YOU ELECTED. Health care is not faith based. Get over yourself. I wish I knew what article you read - I'd rip it up.

Free market health care has made millionaires into billionaires. It's made the poor more poor. And the upper middle is now the lower middle class. For some reason, you think that this would all magically work when the ACA went into effect. Things take time. I'd much rather have my tax bill cut in half, because I'm not paying for people to go to the ER for treatment (they now have Medicaid/MediCAL, etc), or some other ACA option, and have my tax bill at least twice as much. Do you even have a clue as to the costs of having that cough treated in the ER versus a Redi-Med facility? On the magnitude of 10-100 times more. But - I digress, as do you. Stay on topic.

 

[Sneekin]

Easy

If you believe same sex marriage is blasphemous......don't do it

If you love someone of the same sex......marry them

What is not fair about that?

rightwinger by keeping marriage out of govt,
yes, people are free to practice and don't have to answer to the public.

but if you are depending on licensing through govt,
that's where those terms should be as neutral as necessary

Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.

Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.

We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.

Let me put it another way.

I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire civil institution that I want- because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?

Dear Syriusly it's not doing away with it. It's giving people the *choice* of either opening up the sake process for all people, or of changing it to just civil unions for all people and stick to just the secular contracts and remove the social attachments. People can CHOOSE to have marriage in addition, but there is no reason for govt to require a particular kind of social relationship in order to get a license and benefits for a civil partnership that is secular only.

At least give people that choice of how much to put into govt laws and language and how much to leave private. Either all people of a state agree, or they privatize the parts they don't agree to open up to all peopleas the policy thats going to be public..

Emily- nothing prevents a state from ending all civil marriage. States are not required to have legal marriage- only that if they do have legal marriage they must provide it equally to all.

If you want your state to end legal marriage and replace it with civil unions then of course you are free to pursue that.

I just want to point out that the vast majority of married people want to be legally married- not to be 'civilly united"- what you propose would not bring about consensus- but again someone imposing their decision on others- for example my legal marriage would end- and either be- or not be- replaced by something else i do not want.

I am quite happy with the state of marriage as it is with regards to access to marriage. Now if we can just get everyone- straight and gay- to treat marriage with more respect- as a life long commitment- rather than serial monogamy- that would be worthwhile.

But Sneekin according to Faun et al
the point of marriage through the state IS the CIVIL contracts only.

So that would continue through the state.

And the best way to teach people to respect relationships is
to treat ALL relationships as lifetime commitments.
That can't be mandated by govt, but has to be taught by
example experience and free choice. Totally a personal
responsibility and process that people must decide on their own.

So - let me see - we just print more money to pay for your changes? You'll never get the laws changed to drop marriage - sorry. Marriage should be lifetime, but it doesn't have to be. Syrius, Faun and I all three told you the point of marriage through the state IS the CIVIL contracts only. You are obviously clueless as to rights granted at the state and federal level, that are leveraged by the poor, who need them, by the middle class, and even the 1 percenters. Yes, Even Donald Trump would file married.........Why are you so hell bent on making these changes.....it's really sad and pathetic. That and the fact it would never make it through the Supreme Court.....

 

[Sneekin]

Emily - you said:

"What I was saying is the pattern of the laws that are being contested
a. marriage laws were already crossing the line with church and state
b. LGBT rights were introduced to change the terms of those laws
c. since not all people agree, it isn't fixed just by changing the terms."

Sneekin said:
Pretty simple here, Emily
a. Give me an example of where civil crossed the line with church and state? That would mean that the state would be able to order churches to perform wedding that violate their religious beliefs. This is a lie.
b. LGBT rights were introduced to change the terms of those laws. WRONG. Prior to Obergefell/Windsor, the laws state Marriage was between two people, one male, one female (I'm paraphrasing, Emily). Those ruling found the phrase (one man, one woman) violated the 14th amendment of the constitution. This was REMOVED. NO LGBT RIGHTS WERE ADDED INTO Texas Law or any other's state law. You lied.
c. Since not all people agree, it isn't fixed just by changing the terms " - as someone else put to you, hows that no negroes sign working out for you? FIrst of all, we are NOT a democracy, but a constitutional republic. We don't vote on everything. Second: No law was made. YOUR LAW in TEXAS was found ILLEGAL, and the SCOTUS invalidated those words. It makes no difference whether or not you, your friends, or anyone else agrees. According to the US Constitution, it most certainly was fixed just by striking the invalid portion of the law. So, that statement was also a lie. You are wrong, 3 out of 3.

 

[Sneekin]

Jews and Muslims believe that eating pork is wrong.

Yet- pork slaughterhouses, and restaurants that serve pork are licensed by the government.

We do not stop licensing simply because some people's religious faith says something is wrong.

Let me put it another way.

I am an atheist- and I am happily married- I was civilly married. Why do you insist on doing away with an entire civil institution that I want- because some people of some faiths are opposed to gays having the same legal recognition as my wife and I have?

Hi Syriusly
for the analogy about pork and Muslims,
it's more like this:.

And you just ignored what I said.

As I am now going to ignore what you said.

We do not end government licensing just because a religious group doesn't believe in what the license is for.

• We do not stop driver's licenses just because the Amish think driving a car is wrong
• We do not stop licensing a pig slaughterhouse just because Jews and Muslims think eating pig is wrong.
• We do not close all slaughterhouses just because Hindu's think killing animals is wrong.
• We do not stop licensing bars because Southern Baptists and Mormons think drinking alcohol is wrong.

See the pattern here?

Right, we aren't "stopping" the licensing Syriusly but
refining it to be just about the CIVIL contracts, as Faun pointed out is the intent.

Emily, that's all marriage has been about - it's ALWAYS BEEN a civil contract. Why can't you just admit that? The fact that you or anyone else, of any religion wish to add an entire other ceremony on top of the CIVIL MARRIAGE is of no impact to ANYONE ELSE. It's JUST ABOUT THE CONTRACT. Feel free to read Texas law, if you think it's anything else.

Dear Sneekin and Syriusly
I think we must be talking past each other.
Here Faun and Sneekin are saying the same thing
that govt is only about the civil contract part of marraige.

So Syriusly how is this "ending marriage or taking rights away"
if it's just everyone AGREEING on language and terms that CLARIFY
govt licenses are only about the civil contracts and nothing to do with terms on the Social relationships?

SImply put, you've asked, we've all answered you - repeatedly.

 

[Faun]

We don't make laws based on peoples' feelings or religious objections. If we did, capital punishment would be unconstitutional, pork would be banned, cotton/wool blends would be punishable, etc...

Yes Faun I also believe in separating funding for the death penalty
so people can have a free choice but it doesn't impose on other people's choice of funding.

This would take a lot of the "emotional hype" out of election campaigns
if all issues were resolved one by one instead of lumped together,
voting for one party to dominate while the other in the minority risks losing representation.

A lot of fear based bullying going on now would be eliminated
if we based laws on consensus or separation by party so everyone
is equally represented and not forced to fund the beliefs of others.

As for fabric, by the time the Greens Democrats and Social Workers
organize labor pools and worker owned coops and business networks,
maybe we will see more locally grown "hemp" fabric and/or whatever is more sustainable.
maybe we won't rely so much on foreign slave labor for clothing and electronic devices
if we organize labor and factories as campuses providing education, health care and housing
as part of work-study programs to ensure students and workers have protection from abuse,
even if working for barter or credit, or lower training wages in exchange for low cost housing and services.

Religious beliefs and objections are part of how people express consent or dissent.
I believe the right solutions will satisfy people's standards regardless if these are expressed religiously, politically, spiritually or by secular laws, business models, etc.
Faun

That is complete and utter nonsense. We don't have two sets of laws; one for Democrats and one for Republicans. Either laws are Constitutional or they're not. They're not Constitutional for one party but unconstitutional for another.

Dear Faun if the Democratic platform seeks to BAN reparative therapy but DEFEND the free choice of abortion and gender change procedures for minors; while the Republican platform seeks to DEFEND the free choice of reparative therapy and BAN abortion and gender surgery for minors,
then we ARE dealing with two polar opposite political BELIEFS.

collectively these can be considered Political Religions:
one in promoting social and general welfare through govt as its major focus and rule
AND
one in promoted LIMITED federal govt where national defense is its unique role (and most other social functions can or should be done outside so it doesn't bog down govt in bureaucratic waste interfering with govt duties)

So YES Faun it WOULD or SHOULD BE UNCONSTITITIONAL for one group to IMPOSE or ESTABLISH its BELIEFS as a national religion for ALL the public to be COMPELLED to pay taxes under and comply with!

But guess what, that's what Obama did in enforcing ACA mandates and declaring
the belief in "health care as right" as the "law of the land"
offending people who BELIEVE in putting the Constitution first as the law of the land,
and requiring state ratified AMENDMENTS before granting any such authority to federal govt.

(The federal exchanges and mandated insurance in essence constitute a FAITH BASED system that people either BELIEVE in or DON'T. these aren't proven or disproven, so both positions for or against this system are FAITH BASED. and yet our govt REQUIRES participation and funding, and this isn't a choice, even though it is AGAINST people's beliefs and faith in limited govt and free market health care!)

so yes, we ARE dealing with political beliefs and religions if you consider the whole set as one system,
and we ARE dealing with political leaders and lobbies seeking to IMPOSE THESE AS LAW
whether "right to life"
or "right to health care"
FOR THE WHOLE NATION

(AND YES I DO BELIEVE THAT SHOULD BE BARRED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!)

You are free to believe anything you like; but fortunately for the rest of us, your beliefs, being counter to how laws are actually enforced, bear no resemblance to reality. There is only one law for everyone. We don't enforce laws differently based on personal beliefs but on constitutionality.

by what you posed Faun I would agree
if that if the Republicans don't agree to a law because they say it's unconstitutional because it violates
their beliefs, then it IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL and that law should NOT be enforced but changed.
if the Democrats don't agree to a law because they argue it's unconstitutional because it violates
their beliefs, same thing, it should be struck down or changed until both sides AGREE it is constitutional!

the problem Faun is we have DEMOCRATS insisting ACA and health care laws are constitutional
because THEY BELIEVE govt should be the central default for managing health care "as a right"
while REPUBLICANS insist it ISN'T constitutional and needs to be revised.

So I agree with you, since there is only one law, then if people don't agree because of their beliefs,
that law CANNOT be enforced as "law for all people"

We SHOULD use that standard of satisfying ALL parties and people's beliefs
before claiming to establish a law that touches on those beliefs.

Then we WOULDN'T have one group saying it's the law
and the other saying it violates law. We've got that going on now
because we don't finish the process of resolving conflicts to AGREE on one law!

Holyfuckingshit!

No, Emily, laws are not unconstitutional because either party believes they are. Even worse for your nonsense, laws are not deemed constitutional because both parties agree to that.

What country do you live in that you believe that nonsense.

At the state and federal level, both parties pass laws. Sometimes in agreement, sometimes not. Constitutionality of laws passed is not even in question. ALL laws are considered constitutional when passed and remain so until challenged within the judicial branch of our government. If a law is determined to be unconstitutional, that judgement is rendered by the presiding judge(s), not the political parties, as you asininely believe.

I believe Sneekin claims to be an attorney. He can correct me if I'm mistaken.

This post of yours fully explains why you're so wrong in your arguments and why you have failed miserably to convince anyone to accept your position -- you have no fucking clue what you're spouting. Like Sbiker's idiocy about why some Jews don't eat pork, I don't even know where you come up with this shit.