Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Faun]

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?

You never answered my question -- do you believe Churches should do away with marriages?

 

[Sneekin]

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.

Emily, it's been pointed out to you repeatedly - There is no gay marriage. There is no way to outlaw gay marriage. And no, you can't do it by consensus. You have absolutely NO CLUE how laws work.

FIrst of all, it takes a majority (simple majority or more) to pass or change a law. It doesn't require the consensus of all the people - that is simply laughable. In fact, you are wrong on applicability - the jurisdiction is the entire US, and representation are ALL US CITIZENS.

Abortion probably won't, but could be outlawed. Again, it doesn't require the consent of the people affected by the law, it doesn't require a consensus, and it doesn't required everyone to agree to anything. WRONG AGAIN. When another abortion case makes it to the SCOTUS, the court can rule and restrict it, no matter what you said. It can also be banned by constitutional amendment - you need to read up on that process. That would probably take at least 10 years, and more than likely wouldn't have enough votes to pass. Sorry, this post of yours was wrong as well.

 

[Sneekin]

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.

Won't be addressed - this is so off topic it's not even funny. This is about marriage, you are babbling about the ACA.

 

[Syriusly]

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:.

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.

Marriage licenses are just about CIVIL contracts.

 

[Syriusly]

There are lots of societies allowing same sex marriage now.

Most of the western world as a matter of fact.

But hey- you are in luck- the Islamic world does not allow same sex marriage- but do allow polygamy(which is as ancient as marriage is).

First gay marriage was in Neitherlands, in 2001. Tell me about "no problems" from this marriages fifty years after

First gay marriage was in the Netherlands in 2001. First gay marriage in the United States was in 2004.
Tell me what problems has this caused in the last 11-15 years.

But don't worry- if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.

Syriusly, that's not even true any more. There are lots of gay Muslims, including Gay Imams - right here in the US of A - and gay Muslims get married either civilly or by an Imam.

Back story: Imam Daayiee Abdullah is the first America’s openly gay Muslim, and he performs same-sex marriages for gay Muslims. (published 2013)

I think you'll make his head explode though.

I was referring to the Muslim countries of the world. I am not aware of a single country where Islam is the official religion that allows 'gay marriage'.

Muslims, straight or gay, can marry who they choose in the United States.

Muslims can marry whoever they want in many other countries, however. What you are saying is the same as saying Catholics can only marry opposite sex Catholics in the Country of Vatican City. Any country that allows SSM allows the marriage between LGBT Muslims.

Not really- and while I generally agree with your points, please don't say what I am saying- I do say what I am saying

I was responding to the discussion on societies and gay marriage.

SSM marriage is now recognized in most Western countries- in most countries that we would consider the 'First world', the countries with the most religious freedom, with the highest standard of learning.

The countries that have moved to make SSM illegal- or keep it illegal- are among the most corrupt, repressive countries in the world- the ones with the least religious freedom and low standards of living.

Yet there are Americans who think that those countries are the ones America should emulate.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Abortion has been outlawed before- the only reason it is not banned in many states is because of the Supreme Court.

Just as mixed race marriages were outlawed and same gender marriages were outlawed.

All with the support of the majority.

Our system does not rely upon consensus for anything- and for good reason. While consensus is a grand idea- outside of relatively small groups it is virtually impossible to attain. There will always be those who oppose something or anything. There will always be contrarians. You know- the guys in every election who writes the 'con' arguments for even initiatives that are wildly popular with most voters.

We have a legislative process to make laws- that does not require a consensus- but a majority.
We have a judicial process to decide on the constitutionality of the laws- and that has nothing do with majority or consensus.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

If you can get everyone to agree to anything let me know.

I don't agree to change the name of my marriage. I don't agree to change our form of civil marriage. I like our marriage laws. I like that same gender couples can marry each other legally just as my wife and I are legally married.

If you can get everyone to agree with me- well then that works for me.

 

[rightwinger]

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:.

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.

That's all the government does....enforce the CIVIL aspects of a marriage license

If you agreed to raise your children Catholic (my father did) the government does not enforce it
If you reported to your minister that you are a virgin, the government does not enforce it if you are not

 

[rightwinger]

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.

.

Dear Emily

You are confusing personal Constitutional rights with business regulation

A person has a 14th amendment right to equal protection under the laws. If I am a married person, I am a married person in every state. Loving vs Virginia settled that

A business is obligated to follow the rules in the municipality in which they operate. Even town by town

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

If you can get everyone to agree to anything let me know.

I don't agree to change the name of my marriage. I don't agree to change our form of civil marriage. I like our marriage laws. I like that same gender couples can marry each other legally just as my wife and I are legally married.

If you can get everyone to agree with me- well then that works for me.

Dear Syriusly That's right.
And others are saying that also.
That nobody has the right to abuse govt to change
their definition of marriage either!
AGREED!

 

[rightwinger]

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?

If you can get everyone to agree to anything let me know.

I don't agree to change the name of my marriage. I don't agree to change our form of civil marriage. I like our marriage laws. I like that same gender couples can marry each other legally just as my wife and I are legally married.

If you can get everyone to agree with me- well then that works for me.

Dear Syriusly That's right.
And others are saying that also.
That nobody has the right to abuse govt to change
their definition of marriage either!
AGREED!

The ones who were abusing government were those insisting that the government enforce their hatred




.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Sneekin Faun rightwinger Syriusly
Thank you SO MUCH for all your intelligent responses
articulating exactly what is going on with this law and process.

I have be en out sick, and just cheating and replying by cell phone.
but when I have time I will go back, thank or info all your points
that are informative and appreciated, and outline all your points.
This is EXACTLY what should have been addressed in reforming laws.
BEFORE DOMA was written and passed, it should have already resolved all these things.

This would be a full time job to revise laws including ACA which at this point
has at least two separate versions. BOTH can be offered as equal tracks
and let TAXPAYERS decide which to enroll and pay into.

With marriage and civil unions, I think we could have a consensus at each state level
and possibly nationally instead of separating.

If only some fringe groups opt out due to religious beliefs, I think that is possible
also. I certainly do not believe in forcing anyone's marriage through the state who
wants to keep theirs private. But if people insist on having THEIR marriage through
the state, why shouldn't they be able to have that and not force everyone to do it that way?

I think this is similar to the issue over GUN regulations,
whether right to bear arms is an unrestricted right, or
how much does govt get involved in the regulations?

Because right to bear arms is written as an Amendment into the Constitution
as one of its founding principles, the right to marriage would also have to
be written as an Amendment to have the same weight.

So THAT'S why it seems so imbalanced to others looking at this
from the other perspective:
1. why do liberals insist on REMOVING a right or trying to regulate
it away if right to bear arms is WRITTEN into the Bill of Rights.
Why INSIST on the definition of "people" as "militia only"
2. Then COMPLAIN when people define marriage as "one man one woman only"
if it isn't govt's job to dictate that either!
There is no Amendment to the Constitution that state the right to marry
as a right that cannot be disparaged by the other rights by enumeration.
The right of states and persons is Amendment 10 so that can be used
to defend the BELIEFS in right to marriage, but the same standard
should also apply to BELIEFS in right to bear arms.

Faun does NOT get how one issue has anything to do with others.

But it is the whole CONTEXT of how we approach laws and govt
that is affecting how we interpret and WRITE laws.

The left and right don't even see the Second Amendment the same way
and that's a WRITTEN law.

Why not get THAT straight, and then maybe we can write an Amendment
to deal with right to marriage right to health care and other political beliefs.

If we haven't solved the issue of why people interpret the ability of govt
to regulate arms, when there IS a written Amendment on that, then
similar conflicts are happening with the ability of govt to regulate marriage.

there is something DIFFERENT in the basic core beliefs about govt
and the relation between people and authority of law that is causing
these "cross communications" preventing conflicts from getting resolved.

Lastly, the progressives have been pushing for a Peace
department that focuses on diplomatic solutions instead of war.
I have proposed to expand the Justice dept to the Dept of Justice and Peace
to work on MEDIATION and conflict resolution as a public service.

Since nobody wants other people to regulate or take away
either their right to marriage or right to bear arms, and we
don't interpret laws or govt the same way, I say this calls
for MEDIATION to work this out.

So if anything you have convinced me we need mediation
and the govt ought to incorporate that assistance in the process
of judicial rulings, legislative reforms, and crafting executive orders
where any objections or conflicts can be resolved to prevent from
passing and rejecting, passing and rejecting, ruling and appealing
over and over because there were flaws or issues left unaddressed.

Thank you!

 

[Syriusly]

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?

If you can get everyone to agree to anything let me know.

I don't agree to change the name of my marriage. I don't agree to change our form of civil marriage. I like our marriage laws. I like that same gender couples can marry each other legally just as my wife and I are legally married.

If you can get everyone to agree with me- well then that works for me.

Dear Syriusly That's right.
And others are saying that also.
That nobody has the right to abuse govt to change
their definition of marriage either!
AGREED!

Nobody can force anyone to agree on a definition of marriage. You can believe that marriage is the coming together of 3 women, two men and a yak- and the government cannot make you believe otherwise.

It is not an abuse of government to provide equal protection for regulations.
It is not an abuse of government to regulate slaughter houses, even though some Americans don't believe animals should be slaughtered.
It is not an abuse of government to license the marriages of Americans- even if they are mixed race or same gender.

Frankly I don't know what you think you are in agreement with me on. As I said- if you want complete agreement by everybody on marriage- all you have to do is get everyone to agree with me. Because I have no intention on agreeing on something else.

 

[Syriusly]

Dear Sneekin Faun rightwinger Syriusly
Thank you SO MUCH for all your intelligent responses
articulating exactly what is going on with this law and process.

I have be en out sick, and just cheating and replying by cell phone!

Frankly Emily I prefer short succinct answers from you- I can almost follow what point you are trying to make.

Your long responses- like this- go off on all sorts of tangents that I consider to be irrelevant and I don't bother to read.

 

[Sneekin]

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?

If you can get everyone to agree to anything let me know.

I don't agree to change the name of my marriage. I don't agree to change our form of civil marriage. I like our marriage laws. I like that same gender couples can marry each other legally just as my wife and I are legally married.

If you can get everyone to agree with me- well then that works for me.

Dear Syriusly That's right.
And others are saying that also.
That nobody has the right to abuse govt to change
their definition of marriage either!
AGREED!

No one has changed the definition of marriage. Your people in Texas wanted to violate the 14th amendment, and illegally have a law preventing two people from getting married, which is what the definition of civil marriage is. It was appealed through the court system, Texas fighting, all the way to the SCOTUS, where they (as other courts did as well) invalidated the phrase between "a man and a woman". If you bothered reading your own laws regarding marriage, you would realize that they themselves didn't change. The state DOMA had 5 words invalidated. Do you understand? Do you grasp that this only affected CIVIL marriage? Your church wedding and the weddings performed for your conservative friends were not impacted in the least. The state did not touch a single word of your church's rules. Try again.

Wait - I re-read your blather - you are claiming someone changed YOUR definition of marriage. That my dear, is impossible, as your definition is only your opinion. If the state of Texas adopted a state religion, abused government and changed the definition of marriage within the state, it certainly didn't make the news. None of my family down there was aware of these changes - perhaps you could reference what your state religion is? Could you tell us what your state directed to the religions within the state regarding marriage? I know some attorneys down there (I'm sure you do as well) that would be more than willing to file suit against the state for violations of our first amendment right of freedom of religion.

 

[Sneekin]

Dear Sneekin Faun rightwinger Syriusly
Thank you SO MUCH for all your intelligent responses
articulating exactly what is going on with this law and process.

I have be en out sick, and just cheating and replying by cell phone.
but when I have time I will go back, thank or info all your points
that are informative and appreciated, and outline all your points.
This is EXACTLY what should have been addressed in reforming laws.
BEFORE DOMA was written and passed, it should have already resolved all these things.

This would be a full time job to revise laws including ACA which at this point
has at least two separate versions. BOTH can be offered as equal tracks
and let TAXPAYERS decide which to enroll and pay into.

With marriage and civil unions, I think we could have a consensus at each state level
and possibly nationally instead of separating.

If only some fringe groups opt out due to religious beliefs, I think that is possible
also. I certainly do not believe in forcing anyone's marriage through the state who
wants to keep theirs private. But if people insist on having THEIR marriage through
the state, why shouldn't they be able to have that and not force everyone to do it that way?

I think this is similar to the issue over GUN regulations,
whether right to bear arms is an unrestricted right, or
how much does govt get involved in the regulations?

Because right to bear arms is written as an Amendment into the Constitution
as one of its founding principles, the right to marriage would also have to
be written as an Amendment to have the same weight.

So THAT'S why it seems so imbalanced to others looking at this
from the other perspective:
1. why do liberals insist on REMOVING a right or trying to regulate
it away if right to bear arms is WRITTEN into the Bill of Rights.
Why INSIST on the definition of "people" as "militia only"
2. Then COMPLAIN when people define marriage as "one man one woman only"
if it isn't govt's job to dictate that either!
There is no Amendment to the Constitution that state the right to marry
as a right that cannot be disparaged by the other rights by enumeration.
The right of states and persons is Amendment 10 so that can be used
to defend the BELIEFS in right to marriage, but the same standard
should also apply to BELIEFS in right to bear arms.

Faun does NOT get how one issue has anything to do with others.

But it is the whole CONTEXT of how we approach laws and govt
that is affecting how we interpret and WRITE laws.

The left and right don't even see the Second Amendment the same way
and that's a WRITTEN law.

Why not get THAT straight, and then maybe we can write an Amendment
to deal with right to marriage right to health care and other political beliefs.

If we haven't solved the issue of why people interpret the ability of govt
to regulate arms, when there IS a written Amendment on that, then
similar conflicts are happening with the ability of govt to regulate marriage.

there is something DIFFERENT in the basic core beliefs about govt
and the relation between people and authority of law that is causing
these "cross communications" preventing conflicts from getting resolved.

Lastly, the progressives have been pushing for a Peace
department that focuses on diplomatic solutions instead of war.
I have proposed to expand the Justice dept to the Dept of Justice and Peace
to work on MEDIATION and conflict resolution as a public service.

Since nobody wants other people to regulate or take away
either their right to marriage or right to bear arms, and we
don't interpret laws or govt the same way, I say this calls
for MEDIATION to work this out.

So if anything you have convinced me we need mediation
and the govt ought to incorporate that assistance in the process
of judicial rulings, legislative reforms, and crafting executive orders
where any objections or conflicts can be resolved to prevent from
passing and rejecting, passing and rejecting, ruling and appealing
over and over because there were flaws or issues left unaddressed.

Thank you!

You will note, this is not a 2nd amendment conversation, Emily. But as the SCOTUS (Scalia, even) points out, no right is absolute. Your 2nd amendment right does not allow you to have nuclear weapons, rocket launchers, most bombs, heavy artillery, etc. No liberal is trying to take your rights away. While you want the mentally ill to be weaponized (quite the outbreak of shootings in Texas from the mentally ill crowd), we want them to go through a background check to see if they psychologically are able to carry without harming themselves or others. We don't need another Texas mom shooting her small children.

You propose to change the DOJ to something else? You do realize that the DOJ is a cabinet position, established in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution. Do you know the requirements, even, to add to or remove from Cabinet positions established by the constitution?

You claim people are trying to take away their right to marry. The only ones that do are right wing conservative nut jobs. If there are others, PLEASE LIST THEM.

Emily, you do realize that the ACA was originally written in the mid 1990's by the conservative think tank (Heritage group), because Hillary Clinton, as first lady, was developing a health care system on it's own. Her's didn't get implemented, and it was shelved until Romney dusted it off, tweaked and implemented it. It was constitutional. Obama took the republican plan, gave it to the mixed Congress, and had them develop it out nationwide. It was done. It passed. It went to the SCOTUS. It was deemed constitutional, mandates and all. Why you think you can now just make changes to a law at your own whim, without going through lawmakers is pretty laughable. Taxpayers already can decide - they can pay cash for insurance, they can go through the exchanges, or, depending on their job, opt to keep their work insurance -so you are wrong on this point as well.

We still aren't going to have civil unions AND marriages, with SSM going under one name, and marriage other another. Nor, marriage by a JP/Judge/non-religious being called a civil union, and church being called marriage. That's not the legal definition, as set forth in law. Again, Marriage is a civil contract between 2 people. Your church, you, and I and everyone here do not have the power to change that. You keep claiming "the people" or "the states" can define marriage as between one man and one woman. You can't - we have that silly Fourteenth Amendment, that gets in your way. It established due process and equal rights for ALL, not SOME. Understand? To answer your question a 10th or 20th time, NO, a state does NOT have the right to change it.

We all recognize (apparently excluding you) that both the 2nd and 14th amendments are both Laws. You claim liberals don't, but that's not true. We tell you the same thing the SCOTUS said. Both are rights, and rights are not absolute. If you are a felon, or (in most states) mentally ill and locked away, NO GUNS FOR YOU. That's the second amendment. The 14th amendment says 2 people can get married. It's not absolute. You can't marry your father, son, or sister. Got it?

While I believe in the right to bear arms, I know it's not absolute, and I know it's open for interpretation. If you don't comprehend the Militia argument, it's time for you to go back to Junior High, when most people are first exposed to the concept.

The Government does have the rights to regulate arms. Call your local FBI office, and tell them you have 300 pounds of C4 in your garage, and see how fast you are arrested. Tell them you can have it because of your second amendment rights.

Department of Peace? From 2001? Bit of a stretch, and completely off topic.

 

[rightwinger]

Dear Sneekin Faun rightwinger Syriusly
Thank you SO MUCH for all your intelligent responses
articulating exactly what is going on with this law and process.

I have be en out sick, and just cheating and replying by cell phone.
but when I have time I will go back, thank or info all your points
that are informative and appreciated, and outline all your points.
This is EXACTLY what should have been addressed in reforming laws.
BEFORE DOMA was written and passed, it should have already resolved all these things.

This would be a full time job to revise laws including ACA which at this point
has at least two separate versions. BOTH can be offered as equal tracks
and let TAXPAYERS decide which to enroll and pay into.

With marriage and civil unions, I think we could have a consensus at each state level
and possibly nationally instead of separating.

If only some fringe groups opt out due to religious beliefs, I think that is possible
also. I certainly do not believe in forcing anyone's marriage through the state who
wants to keep theirs private. But if people insist on having THEIR marriage through
the state, why shouldn't they be able to have that and not force everyone to do it that way?

I think this is similar to the issue over GUN regulations,
whether right to bear arms is an unrestricted right, or
how much does govt get involved in the regulations?

Because right to bear arms is written as an Amendment into the Constitution
as one of its founding principles, the right to marriage would also have to
be written as an Amendment to have the same weight.

So THAT'S why it seems so imbalanced to others looking at this
from the other perspective:
1. why do liberals insist on REMOVING a right or trying to regulate
it away if right to bear arms is WRITTEN into the Bill of Rights.
Why INSIST on the definition of "people" as "militia only"
2. Then COMPLAIN when people define marriage as "one man one woman only"
if it isn't govt's job to dictate that either!
There is no Amendment to the Constitution that state the right to marry
as a right that cannot be disparaged by the other rights by enumeration.
The right of states and persons is Amendment 10 so that can be used
to defend the BELIEFS in right to marriage, but the same standard
should also apply to BELIEFS in right to bear arms.

Faun does NOT get how one issue has anything to do with others.

But it is the whole CONTEXT of how we approach laws and govt
that is affecting how we interpret and WRITE laws.

The left and right don't even see the Second Amendment the same way
and that's a WRITTEN law.

Why not get THAT straight, and then maybe we can write an Amendment
to deal with right to marriage right to health care and other political beliefs.

If we haven't solved the issue of why people interpret the ability of govt
to regulate arms, when there IS a written Amendment on that, then
similar conflicts are happening with the ability of govt to regulate marriage.

there is something DIFFERENT in the basic core beliefs about govt
and the relation between people and authority of law that is causing
these "cross communications" preventing conflicts from getting resolved.

Lastly, the progressives have been pushing for a Peace
department that focuses on diplomatic solutions instead of war.
I have proposed to expand the Justice dept to the Dept of Justice and Peace
to work on MEDIATION and conflict resolution as a public service.

Since nobody wants other people to regulate or take away
either their right to marriage or right to bear arms, and we
don't interpret laws or govt the same way, I say this calls
for MEDIATION to work this out.

So if anything you have convinced me we need mediation
and the govt ought to incorporate that assistance in the process
of judicial rulings, legislative reforms, and crafting executive orders
where any objections or conflicts can be resolved to prevent from
passing and rejecting, passing and rejecting, ruling and appealing
over and over because there were flaws or issues left unaddressed.

Thank you!

You will note, this is not a 2nd amendment conversation, Emily. But as the SCOTUS (Scalia, even) points out, no right is absolute. Your 2nd amendment right does not allow you to have nuclear weapons, rocket launchers, most bombs, heavy artillery, etc. No liberal is trying to take your rights away. While you want the mentally ill to be weaponized (quite the outbreak of shootings in Texas from the mentally ill crowd), we want them to go through a background check to see if they psychologically are able to carry without harming themselves or others. We don't need another Texas mom shooting her small children.

You propose to change the DOJ to something else? You do realize that the DOJ is a cabinet position, established in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution. Do you know the requirements, even, to add to or remove from Cabinet positions established by the constitution?

You claim people are trying to take away their right to marry. The only ones that do are right wing conservative nut jobs. If there are others, PLEASE LIST THEM.

Emily, you do realize that the ACA was originally written in the mid 1990's by the conservative think tank (Heritage group), because Hillary Clinton, as first lady, was developing a health care system on it's own. Her's didn't get implemented, and it was shelved until Romney dusted it off, tweaked and implemented it. It was constitutional. Obama took the republican plan, gave it to the mixed Congress, and had them develop it out nationwide. It was done. It passed. It went to the SCOTUS. It was deemed constitutional, mandates and all. Why you think you can now just make changes to a law at your own whim, without going through lawmakers is pretty laughable. Taxpayers already can decide - they can pay cash for insurance, they can go through the exchanges, or, depending on their job, opt to keep their work insurance -so you are wrong on this point as well.

We still aren't going to have civil unions AND marriages, with SSM going under one name, and marriage other another. Nor, marriage by a JP/Judge/non-religious being called a civil union, and church being called marriage. That's not the legal definition, as set forth in law. Again, Marriage is a civil contract between 2 people. Your church, you, and I and everyone here do not have the power to change that. You keep claiming "the people" or "the states" can define marriage as between one man and one woman. You can't - we have that silly Fourteenth Amendment, that gets in your way. It established due process and equal rights for ALL, not SOME. Understand? To answer your question a 10th or 20th time, NO, a state does NOT have the right to change it.

We all recognize (apparently excluding you) that both the 2nd and 14th amendments are both Laws. You claim liberals don't, but that's not true. We tell you the same thing the SCOTUS said. Both are rights, and rights are not absolute. If you are a felon, or (in most states) mentally ill and locked away, NO GUNS FOR YOU. That's the second amendment. The 14th amendment says 2 people can get married. It's not absolute. You can't marry your father, son, or sister. Got it?

While I believe in the right to bear arms, I know it's not absolute, and I know it's open for interpretation. If you don't comprehend the Militia argument, it's time for you to go back to Junior High, when most people are first exposed to the concept.

The Government does have the rights to regulate arms. Call your local FBI office, and tell them you have 300 pounds of C4 in your garage, and see how fast you are arrested. Tell them you can have it because of your second amendment rights.

Department of Peace? From 2001? Bit of a stretch, and completely off topic.

Why don't you two just get a room?

Both of your posts are so freak'n long

 

[12icer]

The individual right to keep and bear arms has already been established MANY TIMES, and MANY WAYS. It is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES does not give rights to anyone, it defines the power the US government has to regulate them, and it does not define any finite group of THE PEOPLE who hold those rights. If you can find a finite group in there other than WE THE PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES. Produce it so we may all bask in the knowledge.

 

[Faun]

The individual right to keep and bear arms has already been established MANY TIMES, and MANY WAYS. It is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES does not give rights to anyone, it defines the power the US government has to regulate them, and it does not define any finite group of THE PEOPLE who hold those rights. If you can find a finite group in there other than WE THE PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES. Produce it so we may all bask in the knowledge.

You sound thoroughly confused.

In your first sentence, you point out the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution gives people the right to bear arms.

In your second sentence, you claim the Constitution doesn't give us rights.

 

[Sneekin]

Dear Sneekin Faun rightwinger Syriusly
Thank you SO MUCH for all your intelligent responses
articulating exactly what is going on with this law and process.

I have be en out sick, and just cheating and replying by cell phone.
but when I have time I will go back, thank or info all your points
that are informative and appreciated, and outline all your points.
This is EXACTLY what should have been addressed in reforming laws.
BEFORE DOMA was written and passed, it should have already resolved all these things.

This would be a full time job to revise laws including ACA which at this point
has at least two separate versions. BOTH can be offered as equal tracks
and let TAXPAYERS decide which to enroll and pay into.

With marriage and civil unions, I think we could have a consensus at each state level
and possibly nationally instead of separating.

If only some fringe groups opt out due to religious beliefs, I think that is possible
also. I certainly do not believe in forcing anyone's marriage through the state who
wants to keep theirs private. But if people insist on having THEIR marriage through
the state, why shouldn't they be able to have that and not force everyone to do it that way?

I think this is similar to the issue over GUN regulations,
whether right to bear arms is an unrestricted right, or
how much does govt get involved in the regulations?

Because right to bear arms is written as an Amendment into the Constitution
as one of its founding principles, the right to marriage would also have to
be written as an Amendment to have the same weight.

So THAT'S why it seems so imbalanced to others looking at this
from the other perspective:
1. why do liberals insist on REMOVING a right or trying to regulate
it away if right to bear arms is WRITTEN into the Bill of Rights.
Why INSIST on the definition of "people" as "militia only"
2. Then COMPLAIN when people define marriage as "one man one woman only"
if it isn't govt's job to dictate that either!
There is no Amendment to the Constitution that state the right to marry
as a right that cannot be disparaged by the other rights by enumeration.
The right of states and persons is Amendment 10 so that can be used
to defend the BELIEFS in right to marriage, but the same standard
should also apply to BELIEFS in right to bear arms.

Faun does NOT get how one issue has anything to do with others.

But it is the whole CONTEXT of how we approach laws and govt
that is affecting how we interpret and WRITE laws.

The left and right don't even see the Second Amendment the same way
and that's a WRITTEN law.

Why not get THAT straight, and then maybe we can write an Amendment
to deal with right to marriage right to health care and other political beliefs.

If we haven't solved the issue of why people interpret the ability of govt
to regulate arms, when there IS a written Amendment on that, then
similar conflicts are happening with the ability of govt to regulate marriage.

there is something DIFFERENT in the basic core beliefs about govt
and the relation between people and authority of law that is causing
these "cross communications" preventing conflicts from getting resolved.

Lastly, the progressives have been pushing for a Peace
department that focuses on diplomatic solutions instead of war.
I have proposed to expand the Justice dept to the Dept of Justice and Peace
to work on MEDIATION and conflict resolution as a public service.

Since nobody wants other people to regulate or take away
either their right to marriage or right to bear arms, and we
don't interpret laws or govt the same way, I say this calls
for MEDIATION to work this out.

So if anything you have convinced me we need mediation
and the govt ought to incorporate that assistance in the process
of judicial rulings, legislative reforms, and crafting executive orders
where any objections or conflicts can be resolved to prevent from
passing and rejecting, passing and rejecting, ruling and appealing
over and over because there were flaws or issues left unaddressed.

Thank you!

You will note, this is not a 2nd amendment conversation, Emily. But as the SCOTUS (Scalia, even) points out, no right is absolute. Your 2nd amendment right does not allow you to have nuclear weapons, rocket launchers, most bombs, heavy artillery, etc. No liberal is trying to take your rights away. While you want the mentally ill to be weaponized (quite the outbreak of shootings in Texas from the mentally ill crowd), we want them to go through a background check to see if they psychologically are able to carry without harming themselves or others. We don't need another Texas mom shooting her small children.

You propose to change the DOJ to something else? You do realize that the DOJ is a cabinet position, established in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution. Do you know the requirements, even, to add to or remove from Cabinet positions established by the constitution?

You claim people are trying to take away their right to marry. The only ones that do are right wing conservative nut jobs. If there are others, PLEASE LIST THEM.

Emily, you do realize that the ACA was originally written in the mid 1990's by the conservative think tank (Heritage group), because Hillary Clinton, as first lady, was developing a health care system on it's own. Her's didn't get implemented, and it was shelved until Romney dusted it off, tweaked and implemented it. It was constitutional. Obama took the republican plan, gave it to the mixed Congress, and had them develop it out nationwide. It was done. It passed. It went to the SCOTUS. It was deemed constitutional, mandates and all. Why you think you can now just make changes to a law at your own whim, without going through lawmakers is pretty laughable. Taxpayers already can decide - they can pay cash for insurance, they can go through the exchanges, or, depending on their job, opt to keep their work insurance -so you are wrong on this point as well.

We still aren't going to have civil unions AND marriages, with SSM going under one name, and marriage other another. Nor, marriage by a JP/Judge/non-religious being called a civil union, and church being called marriage. That's not the legal definition, as set forth in law. Again, Marriage is a civil contract between 2 people. Your church, you, and I and everyone here do not have the power to change that. You keep claiming "the people" or "the states" can define marriage as between one man and one woman. You can't - we have that silly Fourteenth Amendment, that gets in your way. It established due process and equal rights for ALL, not SOME. Understand? To answer your question a 10th or 20th time, NO, a state does NOT have the right to change it.

We all recognize (apparently excluding you) that both the 2nd and 14th amendments are both Laws. You claim liberals don't, but that's not true. We tell you the same thing the SCOTUS said. Both are rights, and rights are not absolute. If you are a felon, or (in most states) mentally ill and locked away, NO GUNS FOR YOU. That's the second amendment. The 14th amendment says 2 people can get married. It's not absolute. You can't marry your father, son, or sister. Got it?

While I believe in the right to bear arms, I know it's not absolute, and I know it's open for interpretation. If you don't comprehend the Militia argument, it's time for you to go back to Junior High, when most people are first exposed to the concept.

The Government does have the rights to regulate arms. Call your local FBI office, and tell them you have 300 pounds of C4 in your garage, and see how fast you are arrested. Tell them you can have it because of your second amendment rights.

Department of Peace? From 2001? Bit of a stretch, and completely off topic.

Why don't you two just get a room?

Both of your posts are so freak'n long

So leave these posts, if it's too challenging for you. I'm simply answering every question she asks, or refuting literaelly every statement she makes. I back it up with fact or cases when possible. I see you just whine and complain it's too hard. Why don't you get a room - by yourself?