Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[emilynghiem]

Faun here are examples where people ARE losing liberties they had before
because of public accommodations laws crossing into BELIEFS about LGBT and
requiring people to respect them or else change their operations policies
(posted on separate thread Should businesses be sued or church adoption programs shut down over gay beliefs?):

A. A lesbian couple wanting to have a wedding reception, Kate and Ming Linsley, sued the Wildflower Inn after being turned away. The lawsuit was settled in August after the inn agreed to pay $30,000 and stop hosting weddings and receptions.

By signing the settlement agreement, the inn owners agreed that any future “disparate treatment of same-sex couples” is illegal, including “discouragement of the couples from using the accommodations, facilities, advantages and privileges of any place of public accommodation.”

Washington has a law already on the books that guarantees “the right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement” regardless of sexual orientation.

^ NOTE 1 Faun: the same way you are saying nobody is being forced to have a gay wedding,
well nobody is FORCING that couple to use that facility when many other gay friendly services would love to have that business!

NOTE 2 please note my offer of how to solve these issues where the facility can still be used without imposing on staff who don't have to be present:
"BTW how I would solve the business lawsuit cases
1. for the wedding sites, allow this to be rented but require the couple to bring in their own hired staff and pay for insurance to cover any damages to the site if the management does not want to be present at a gay wedding

2. have businesses and customers sign WAIVERS in advance protecting both from legal actions or costs
should there be disputes or conflicts for ANY REASON: require instead either mediation by mediator chosen by the customer, or if that fails, arbitration by arbiter chosen by the business; or else agree to REFRAIN from doing business if the dispute cannot be resolved by consensus of both parties to avoid legal issues or expenses.

This would protect both sides, regardless of the reason, and regardless what their beliefs are that may conflict."

B. RE Catholic adoption services:

"#1 - Catholic adoption agencies should not be "shut down" that don't accommodate gay couples. As private, privately funded, non-profit organizations they should be able to place children according to their religious doctrine. On the other hand if they are going to function under government contractors and function on the taxpayer's dime - then they need to comply with non-discrimination laws or not be eligible for the contract."

Unfortunately this policy HAS led to some adoption services shutting down that depended on govt support. so it has DEPRIVED people of ne eded services due to CLASHING beliefs that COULD have remained a private issue since BELIEFS are involved. [Govt COULD have adopted a NEUTRAL policy protecting ANY beliefs about LGBT orientation/identity from discrimination, instead of recognizing one position on this at the exception of the other, which I argue is biased.]

C. There are other cases of fines against bakers, photographers, and even florists
for not wanting to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs.
Some of these I agree with, some not.
If someone just buys flowers or a cake that is one thing,
but going TO a wedding off site to serve cakes or take photos is up to free choice.
Another business or vendor/contract staff can be sent, and not force people who don't believe in attending or witnessing or participating in certain activities that are BEHAVIOR -- not internal identity of the customer in the store buying or ordering something.

In these cases I would make a distinction between:
1. providing the goods or services to any customer regardless of beliefs or creeds
2. WITHOUT having to attend, witness or participate in the actual gay wedding service
which is BEHAVIOR and not the internalized identity/orientation that the customers have

I would also allow such services to be contracted out to staff who don't have those conflicts,
such as sending a photographer out to an adult party who doesn't mind the BEHAVIOR or THEME of the party
and not suing the people who don't agree to be there

In general I promote mediation and consensus as required to resolve conflicts over beliefs,
if any two parties are going to conduct business together, in order to save legal and public resources related to court actions.

None of that has anything to do with same-sex marriage. You can't make your case so you're continuously diverting to other topics.

The topic here is the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, not public accommodation laws.

Yes, and those are related Faun

If you don't want to affect other public institutions,
then "marriage" should be kept in private.

But if govt endorses certain beliefs about marriage
then this in turn affects other areas of public laws and institutions.

All the other examples I cited are related to govt endorsing BELIEFS about LGBT and marriage.
1. wedding sites and services affected
2. adoption services affected
in addition to what you and I do agree on which is
3. state laws needing to be neutral and void of faith based biases
that one side or the other objects to as not representing their beliefs equally

I guess you are saying these are separate cases,
but I'm saying the SAME arguments and solutions can be used
to resolve ALL of THESE. So why have 3-5 areas of disputes by imposing
one side or the other,
when we can have a resolution across all these cases by agreeing NOT
to discriminate against either sides beliefs?

No, they are not related at all. One is about equal protection and due process while the other is about public accommodation laws. Don't fool yourself into believing no one has noticed you can't prove your position on same-sex marriage, so you keep diverting in all sorts of directions.

Dear Faun
1. I already said that BELIEFS about same sex marriage are already protected from each other
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and Civil Rights policies against discrimination by creed

2. these are not diversions. I am saying the SAME concepts apply to all these other areas.

So solving one problem solves them all.
The problem is not recognizing political beliefs as equal.

You only want to defend your beliefs and rights
but you don't recognize the same of others.

Whose fault is that?
Why are you blaming me for your inability to accommodate others?

I am trying to accommodate you and your beliefs.
Your messages are about trying to debunk and EXCLUDE or dismiss my beliefs.

So who is doing the discriminating here?
You are arguing why you should exclude
"unless I prove to you why should something be included".

I am arguing how to include everyone equally!

You are basically assuming other positions are false until proven true,
while holding your position as true unless proven false.

I am assuming all beliefs are true, and trying to include them all.

Do you see the difference?

There is nothing in the First Amendment protecting same-sex marriage. That's where you go off the rails every single time and why you're perplexed over the legality of Obergefell.

Free exercise of religion includes beliefs for or against same sex marriage.
it should protect both sides from infringement by the other. Faun

 

[Sbiker]

[QU
I don't generally divide people by race, skin colour, religion or sexual orientation and here I'm just trying to understand, where in US is real border between rights of gays and rights of conservatives, and why..

There are no rights of gays or rights of conservatives here in the U.S.- we all have the same rights.
There are no special rights for Christians or Jews, or straights or gays.
There are just American rights.

Really? Gays want official marriage, conervatives - no. If there are no special rights for them both, why they could not solve this conflict by simple voting?

Really? You can't tell the difference between rights and opinions?

Why do you consider it as only "opinion"? It's "opinion" only from your point of view. Why don't you consider a Christian point of view, as well, as yours or gay's? Does the Christian have rights to consider this situation from THEIR point of view?

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes Faun that would be simple.
And so would declaring the Democratic platform
and beliefs about right to health care and right to marriage a
POLITICAL RELIGION
and be done with it.

We could AGREE to list out the political beliefs
that each person or group holds sacred,
agree to respect these as inviolate for those people
and requiring consent of the governed and consensus
on laws and reforms on any of these areas,
and stop the fighting over forcing one g roup's
beliefs over another's by domination or coecion.

I WISH it were that simple Faun I do!

But people like you see your stances as RIGHTS and not BELIEFS.
and so do the right to life,
and so do the right to choose
and so do the right to guns advocates.

So it goes in circles, each combating the sacred
cows that the other group draws a line in a sand for
and refuses to let govt cross that line.

We all have our beliefs, and until we agree
to treat them the same, we keep competing and
repeating the same patterns over and over,
taking turns trying to run over the other or
run them out of govt. But that doesn't make
that person's beliefs or rights 'go away" it just
makes them come back and try to defend them
again, back and forth.

Why don't we admit we have these sacred
rights and beliefs, and agree not to disparage them???

Seems simple to me Faun but
as you can see, it isn't easy to see when
it's YOUR beliefs that you are defending as rights.
When other people do that to you or me and take
something that isn't our beliefs and shove it in our
faces as law, then we can see that it should be a choice
and not forced by law. But not when
the shoe is on the other foot. Both sides are like that!

It is that simple. No one has to abandon marriage in America because some people oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage is here to stay and it now includes marriage between couples of the same sex.

Consensus on marriage might be reached if hypocrites like you admit you don't tolerate Christian practices in public as you are demanding people tolerate LGBT beliefs expressions and practices in public policy!

If you want equal rights and respect Faun that means to respect the same of others but you DONT. You insist that people's beliefs opposed to gay marriage, which cause them to reject "marriage" applied to gay couples, are due to some delusion or other deficiency. Thus Faun you are discriminating against the beliefs of others as inferior yet demanding equality for LGBT beliefs which is contradictory. You think you are not discriminating or excluding others but you keep putting them down as wrong instead of treating and respecting the beliefs as equal as I am trying to do.

And then you put me down also for trying to find ways to include all beliefs in a consensus on laws.

Simply not true, Emily. Nothing is shoved in your face. Your religion is not forced to acknowledge SSM, nor are you. Your religion isn't forced to like or approve of it, and neither or you. You want to name it something different, which violates the constitution. If you can't grasp this, call an attorney. Faun isn't discriminating against anyone, he's STANDING UP FOR THE RIGHTS OF EVERYONE. YOU are the one advocating discrimination. He's never once said other valid beliefs are delusions or deficient - he was referring to both your comments, and the others who claim religion trumps the Constitution, and separate but equal. There is no such thing anymore as SSM and Straight marriage. There is JUST MARRIAGE. Please, try and wrap your mind around it, Emily.

Dear @Sn e ekin and Faun
NO, that's NOT what I am saying.
And Faun is also saying that I am misconstruing and misstating also.
Sorry about this, and let's try again to get this straight

A. for Faun
it's NOT that Faun is TRYING to exclude or discriminate against beliefs of those who don't believe in gay marriage.
But Faun does not get how these laws are doing any such thing!
So if there is no perceived imposition or "forcing" anyone, how can that be affecting those other beliefs?

I am saying it IS affecting them just by passing laws where govt is endorsing marriage,
and there are terms that people don't agree on.
It does not have to affect them directly, as in the actual marriage laws,
to affect them; just the fact that it is going through govt as a public institution
is enough.

So this is like saying how can legalizing abortion be affecting people who aren't involved in that choice?
this is for other people, not those who don't want abortion, who can still choose to abstain or prevent from getting involved in any such situation.

Well, as long as it is going through govt, and laws are public,
then ALL people who have beliefs about this would rather laws be consistent with their values.
And anything inconsistent is seen as an imposition of bias, which is especially problematic with anything seen as faith based.

Now Faun also does not see anything "faith based" or 'religious" about civil marriage laws.

so Faun I understand you do NOT INTEND to discriminate or impose on anyone else
because you sincerely see no harm or imposition happening whatsoever!

that doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Sneekin pointed out that my using the term "traditional" loosely was offensive and biased
because it didn't count other things as equally "traditional' which is NOT what I meant.
But still, if that word means something different to someone else, of course, I would
have to change it and not expect them to change their thinking about it because that word "doesn't have to mean anything offensive"

B. for me,
Again I am NOT saying that the marriage beliefs are being forced onto people in that sense.

I am saying that if people do not believe or agree on terms of policies
that are being endorsed by govt,
then it's THAT bias regardless of content that is causing a problem.

The fact that a law that doesn't represent all the people, but only those who see things a certain way,
and leaves out the people who believe differently,
is being PASSED and ENFORCED through govt without reworking it to INCLUDE the consent
of the overruled people, then this is causing the imposition.

Regardless of the content, if there are such differences in beliefs
that people cannot even SEE what imposition is occurring, while the others DO and are OBJECTING,
something is REALLY wrong with how that law is being written or applied.

There is something wrong with the process if people don't even get what
the other side sees right or wrong with it.

So it is inadverdently causing an imposition of bias.

Do you also support churches doing away with marriages?

Dear Faun
???
this is going the opposite direction.
the whole point is to empower people to exercise marriage rights in their own ways that don't require imposing on others.
so the role of churches would help take on that responsibility so that govt does remain secular and civil only.

 

[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?

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

No, Faun
I'm saying the same thing I think you are saying
that govt handles the *civil* contracts and people and
churches handle the spiritual and social relations and beliefs about them.

Not trying to do away with marriage but reorganize
to make sure people aren't attaching more social beliefs to the
civil govt laws that really belong to people by religious freedom on their own.

 

[emilynghiem]

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




.

who is THEY rightwinger?

Because SOME people may abuse govt
does that give you the right to deprive ALL people of liberty
because of behavior of the wrongdoers?
where is the due process in that to punish only the wrongdoers?

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Oh, no problems, Muslim fastfood - shaurma - is really more tasty than burgers

Your propaganda in US now trying to mix Islam and Islamism - but really it's very different things, it could become an evil joke, if it will be continued...

p.s. 11-15 years is too few for world processes... I'm watching TV news - in 80th US used a terrible weapon against USSR - a freedom of info and opinion. USSR absorbs it as idea fully (instead of other states) - and fell. Now, after 30 years you have RT - and all your media screamed about "ideological diversion and so on" because now RT much close to truth than others ALL thing we invented and advanced - are returned to us after some decades...

Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food. Many Muslims don't eat it. It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions. It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all. It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims. The fact is, the meats used must be Halal. Not all shawarma is Halal. Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit. If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.

Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage? Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat?

11-15 years? Try thousands of years. Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember. Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.

Islam v Islamism? How racist of you. Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East? Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11. You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims. Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie? Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them? After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make. On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.

Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )
.

Yep- after existing for a thousand years, Rome fell after converting to Christianity.

I think the lesson is clear......

If Rome got corrupted and fell because of that, is falling a bad thing or good Syriusly
Did the Christianity help to bring out the need and process to reform?

Historically wasn't the point of the Reformation to liberate people from depending on third party
authority to decide laws for people, which got corrupted by exchange of money.
And to empower the people to read laws and govern themselves by that directly?
Can we learn from that lesson also?
where the reform the church authority went through, what if our govt authority is reformed also
to allow people to govern themselves and not depend on party politicians to act as middlemen which get bought out by corporate interests?

 

[emilynghiem]

[QU
I don't generally divide people by race, skin colour, religion or sexual orientation and here I'm just trying to understand, where in US is real border between rights of gays and rights of conservatives, and why..

There are no rights of gays or rights of conservatives here in the U.S.- we all have the same rights.
There are no special rights for Christians or Jews, or straights or gays.
There are just American rights.

Dear Syriusly then why are Christian beliefs and expressions sought to be REMOVED from public institutions,
while LGBT beliefs expressions and practices are sought to be recognized specifically and included in public policy
for TOLERANCE and inclusion that isn't extended to beliefs of other people that aren't universally shared either!

Aside from the interpretation of the First Amendment as only applying to organized religious beliefs,
is that the only reason?

If there is equal harassment and rejection and hatred of Christian beliefs
as there are against LGBT beliefs,
why this insistence on govt defending one while penalizing people of the other beliefs?

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Hi Sneekin I just referred a group of moderate left to read your msgs on this post, who were looking for more intelligent discourse instead of slamming back and forth on the boards. Please do not give up posting!!!
I have to catch up at two jobs, both with major deadlines I've been missing due to illness.
so that's why my responses are so spotty.

[With the contractors licenses, no, the master test has to be taken for each state.
It does not transfer; just because you pass the test in Texas,
doesn't mean you have a license to do the work in other states. I have a friend who
has traveled and passed tests in 20 states. there are some uniform codes across the board.
I have no problem if systems can be made uniform, but this has to represent all people and not be legislated from the top down where people argue it isn't representing them equally.]

I think I generally agree with the content of the rights and freedom and protections
that you and Faun are arguing should be for all people,
independent of any beliefs about LGBT.

What we disagree on is how these laws and rights are interpreted and implemented,
but we agree that nobody should be infringed upon because of beliefs by some other person or group. We just don't agree how to get there, and you and Faun think that what is set up is already there, but I'm saying people don't agree with that and changes are still needed.

I will get back to all this later.
Not trying to ignore, but just over my head when I have work to do, at two jobs I am
trying to hold onto, and there are 10 x as many msgs from each of you that I can't get to.

I don't know if you have seen my other msgs explaining that
the legal abuses in two districts in Houston where I was helping nonprofit
volunteers, to keep their community programs going that govt abuses evicted
and all but shut down, cost me over 60,000 in credit card debts from bailing out
these nonprofits that I believe were defending the rights of these communities to assemble
and to petition for correction of these abuses, had they not been censored for lack of
resources, legal defense, and equal protections of their rights and due process that was overridden by abuses.

so that's why I ended up working two jobs since 2008.
Since 2016 when one job ended and I tried to replace it, the extra
driving has caused my health to collapse over and over again.

So that's what I'm dealing with, and still trying to set up a community based process of
restitution for damages that is VOLUNTARY since the given system is too
expensive and only rewards covering up the wrongs but not correcting them.

I've been using this board to reach out and find people to organize around
solutions we can actually pitch to govt and parties. So I hope you will continue
here because your input and consultation on policies and process is exactly what we need!

Thank you!

 

[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

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?

For crying out loud....just get to the point

Both of you are like verbal diarrhea.

 

[Sneekin]

[
Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.

And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.

Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.

Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.

There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.

Dear Tennyson

If Muslims petition to change the wording because "Shariah Law" is overly broad
and unintentionally bans voluntary practice of prayer and charity by Muslims in private,
but the state does not accommodate this as a religious conflict or bias,
then the federal govt could be petitioned if it doesn't get resolved on a state level.

Emily,

There is no constitutional concept of a state or individual petitioning the federal government over the Bill of Rights.

Nonsense Tennyson how can prohibition be repealed if there wasn't a process?
if amendments can amend the Constitution, certainly they can clarify other amendments,
such as clarifying that free exercise of religion applies to ALL beliefs and creeds
not just members of organized religions.

Emily, as we learned in school, the 18th amendment instituted prohibition. The ONLY way it could be repealed was by passing the 21st amendment (Repeal of Prohibition).

Can you for ONCE give an example of free exercise of religion that's not applied properly? Native American Tribes can use "magic Mushrooms". SCOTUS ruled that two native Americans could be prosecuted for using peyote, which violated Oregon law. Just like FLDS can be prosecuted for Actual Plural marriage (Utah prosecuted in the past, even when only one marriage was a civil marriage, and others were just religious). Nevada, on the other hand, would not prosecute.

What do you think needs clarified? Don't you grasp some of these are intentionally broad? There won't ever be fine grain to your point, where Fred can marry Bob only on Wednesdays in a lean-to on public property by a man with top hat and cane, and must call it gayboy marriage. Note the topic. It's not prohibition. It's not the first amendment. It's the 14th. Do you think we are going to rewrite that amendment, or "clarify" it? Just how so?

You quite apparently aren't familiar with the process of amending the constitution. You can't just go through and tweak a word here and there. The 14th amendment, for example, covers abortion, marriage, Civil Rights of all Americans, equal rights and protections of former slaves, etc. The first amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. Do you really think a majority of people in the majority of the states are going to agree to your proposals (since you won't name them)? Do you realize that we the people could certainly challenge the procedural validity of the Amendment, and thus attempt to sever the Amendment from the Constitution, on the off chance it passed? Do you know how long it can take? One of the first amendments proposed (prohibits any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of Congress from taking effect until the start of the next set of terms of office for Representatives) - was proposed to Congress on September 25, 1789. It became our latest amendment, and ratified on May 5, 1992, completing a record-setting ratification period of 202 years, 7 months, and 10 days.The 26th amendment, lowering the voting age, was discussed since WWII, but actually was ratified in March of 1971. The 25th Amendment (succession of the President), supersedes the ambiguous wording of Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution took over 2 years to pass.

 

[Sneekin]

Equating two people of the same sex who cannot procreate with two people of different races is absurd and a misinterpretation of "separate but equal".

Marriage and sex are about procreation as far as society is concerned; the reason that states grant couples legal marriage privilidges is because it incentivites them to start a family which ideally will contribute to the economy and society.

Since gays cannot make children it defeats the whole purpose of offering them marriage incentives to begin with; therefore there is no reason for the state to do it; not to mention that allowing gays to adopt children puts the children in an unnatural environment which is likely harmful to them.

Therefore the Supreme court's ruling would best be overturned with a Constitutional amendment placing marriage solely in the hands of the states.

Hmmmm, I'll go with Thomas Jefferson who wrote in the Declaration of Independence that "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." See that "pursuit of happiness" bit? Yeah, right there. That covers gay marriage.

Dear westwall but also the Constitution includes not depriving liberty of persons without due process of laws to prove that a violation occurred first.
So if both sides feel the other is depriving them of representation, then both sides still have to answer to each other
before ASSUMING that it's the other side that is seeking to infringe or impose.

Neither side agrees to the arguments of the other.

This isn't settled or proven yet, and at this point it seems at least mutual.
So if both sides keep pushing for a policy that the other side objects to,
they are equally guilty of discriminating against the creed and representation of the others.

Already settled, and your statements are completely NOT TRUE. Otherwise, all one would ever have to do is frivolously claim they were deprived of representation......

Your statement is false - there is no marriage policy that your religion objects to. No one (but you and your fellow radical conservative fundamentalists) are pushing to 1) make changes that the other side objects to, and only you and YOUR group are guilty of discriminating by creed (we don't discriminate by representation). You ALWAYS have the right to representation when needed).

Gays are NOT asking for any policy changes. Gays are not discriminating. They in no way are guilty of discrimination. YOU, at the city/county/state level, passed equal protection for various groups. Some include sexual preference as one of the many protected groups. For some reason, that bothers you (living along a river, in a bi-state area, and not that many miles from 3 other states, we have these rules at either state or city/county level in most areas. So - yes, in Illinois, gays are allowed equal access to THEIR CHOICE of non-religious venue (ie, an Inn for service and/or reception). THEIR CHOICE of who makes their cake. THEIR CHOICE of photographer. THEIR CHOICE who makes their invitations. None of these fall under 1st amendment (religious freedom). None of this will be clarified by an amendment to the first amendment, because to do so would violate the 14th amendment....... Looking forward to hear your proposed amendment.

 

[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?

For crying out loud....just get to the point

Both of you are like verbal diarrhea.

I hope this is short enough for you. DEAL WITH IT and SKIP OVER IT IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ IT. It does get the points across to those asking questions.

 

[Sneekin]

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.

Hi Sneekin I just referred a group of moderate left to read your msgs on this post, who were looking for more intelligent discourse instead of slamming back and forth on the boards. Please do not give up posting!!!
I have to catch up at two jobs, both with major deadlines I've been missing due to illness.
so that's why my responses are so spotty.

[With the contractors licenses, no, the master test has to be taken for each state.
It does not transfer; just because you pass the test in Texas,
doesn't mean you have a license to do the work in other states. I have a friend who
has traveled and passed tests in 20 states. there are some uniform codes across the board.
I have no problem if systems can be made uniform, but this has to represent all people and not be legislated from the top down where people argue it isn't representing them equally.]

I think I generally agree with the content of the rights and freedom and protections
that you and Faun are arguing should be for all people,
independent of any beliefs about LGBT.

What we disagree on is how these laws and rights are interpreted and implemented,
but we agree that nobody should be infringed upon because of beliefs by some other person or group. We just don't agree how to get there, and you and Faun think that what is set up is already there, but I'm saying people don't agree with that and changes are still needed.

I will get back to all this later.
Not trying to ignore, but just over my head when I have work to do, at two jobs I am
trying to hold onto, and there are 10 x as many msgs from each of you that I can't get to.

I don't know if you have seen my other msgs explaining that
the legal abuses in two districts in Houston where I was helping nonprofit
volunteers, to keep their community programs going that govt abuses evicted
and all but shut down, cost me over 60,000 in credit card debts from bailing out
these nonprofits that I believe were defending the rights of these communities to assemble
and to petition for correction of these abuses, had they not been censored for lack of
resources, legal defense, and equal protections of their rights and due process that was overridden by abuses.

so that's why I ended up working two jobs since 2008.
Since 2016 when one job ended and I tried to replace it, the extra
driving has caused my health to collapse over and over again.

So that's what I'm dealing with, and still trying to set up a community based process of
restitution for damages that is VOLUNTARY since the given system is too
expensive and only rewards covering up the wrongs but not correcting them.

I've been using this board to reach out and find people to organize around
solutions we can actually pitch to govt and parties. So I hope you will continue
here because your input and consultation on policies and process is exactly what we need!

Thank you!

Emily - I did say licenses don't transfer between states for contractors - but marriages (ie, licensed civil marriages) are recognized between states).

Again, I ask you - what's not already set up? It really can't be any simpler than marriage is a contract between two people who meet the state criteria for marriage.

In regards to marriage, I challenge you to add anything else that needs added. It confers all rights afforded to ALL married couples, gay or straight. So there is no need to differentiate. I realize Texas (not you) think they are a special situation, but they aren't. In some cities, the whole wedding cake issue comes up. In others, it's illegal. If they don't act on it, then they don't need to complain when the feds do it for them.

 

[Sneekin]

All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights..

Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )

The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?

Dear Tennyson the passage of the Constitution was contingent on the agreement that a Bill of Rights would be added
to define the individual rights not protected in the body of the Constitution that only defined federal powers and duties.

so you cannot have the Constitution without the Bill of Rights
or it is like having the OT of the Bible without the NT!

In fact, the same way the Bible is summarized in 2-3 great commandments
1. love of God with all our heart mind and soul
2. love of neighbor as ourselves
3. love of one another as Christ Jesus loves us (ie with forgiveness and correction
that is Restorative Justice, not judgment and punishment or retributive justice)

I would say the First Amendment summarizes the whole of the law
that all other laws are based on
1. free exercise of religion as free will, equal executive power of each person
2. free speech and freedom of religion as equal judicial freedom of each person
3. free press and right to assemble as equal legislative or power of attorney of each person to authorize contracts
and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances
combines these as democratic due process of laws to resolve conflicts and establish agreed law and order.

All other laws come from these basic natural laws
that are inherent in human nature as combining
* Mind
* Body
* Spirit

where laws or contracts/agreements connect
* INDIVIDUAL to
* COLLECTIVE levels, based on the
* RELATIONSHIP between the two.

both religious and political/civil laws attempt to define the terms of that RELATIONSHIP
so you will see this same pattern of THREE levels
in any system of laws, religion, philosophy or govt.

So....hate to tell you, but if I'm Jewish, my bible (My book of sacred writings) is just the Old Testament. No Christianity for me. If I'm Muslim - then it's the Qu'ran - which again doesn't have the New Testament, but most of the old testament.

The first amendment doesn't summarize the whole of law - if that were the case, we'd still have slavery, ban interracial marriages, no divorces, the list just goes on and on.

 

[Faun]

Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority

The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.

Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief. Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.

Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .

Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?

Quite the opposite. People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make. Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion. We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in. Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex. Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity." This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.

Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right. Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage. Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.

Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs. They are ruling solely on the point of law. You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed. As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion. The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc. The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us). You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans. They do not choose who gets married. Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.

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

No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.

People on both sides are being forced to change terms of the contract without agreeing to the changes and how they are worded or applied.
Unless the process recognizes consensus, it is pressuring one side to defend itself against the other, which isn't fair to eiether side.
Faun

There is no new term. Marriage is still marriage.

 

[Sneekin]

Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
This business of courts deciding right to marriage is where we see a split in political creed and beliefs.
1. One is the Statist belief that judges can rule in cases of beliefs, including belief in right to marriage, right to life, right to health care, etc.
2. One is this is unconstitutional on 3-4 grounds: Amendment 1, 10, 14 and separation of powers that belongs to legislative authority

The Statist belief 1 can be seen as equal to the Constitutional belief 2 for people to choose freely and to exercise as long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of other beliefs; and as such, then neither side can impose on the other without violating amendment 1 both sides invoke to protect their beliefs.

Thus they either tie, and govt. cannot take sides without discrimination against the equal protection of the other belief. Or the parties agree how to resolve this consensually and not violate or coerce exclude or discriminate against each other's equal beliefs and protection of laws. But if govt gets used to impose one political belief on the other, we already know from experience and from our own beliefs, this is not constitutional but abuse of authority; either the nonstatist IS abusing govt to *establish* their political belief against statism, or the free choice person IS violating their OWN defense on grounds of freedom from someone else's religion. These are BOTH contradictory and thus they both fail, and both sides know this and complain. So clearly we aren't going to settle issues of belief or creed this way, and I suggest mediation, separation of policy, and consensus on alternatives to avoid the bullying coercion route.

Now, refute this statement and show me how this isn't fair to both sides .

Say what?? You think people don't have a right to marry?

Quite the opposite. People do have the right to marry, that is the point syriusly and I were trying to make. Emily thinks that you can't pass a law unless both sides are happy - because she claims that gay marriage violates someone else's religion. We've explained this to her before, and it didn't sink in. Obergefell didn't make SSM a requirement for any religion, it simply says the states cannot refuse to marry two people of the same sex. Windsor was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Justice Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity." This gave Edith Windsor the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.

Several people here are confused - they believe the government is usurping a religious right. Marriage, in both Windsor and Obergefell, addresses civil marriage. Several people claim SSM should be a civil union, and even civil ceremonies probably should be Civil Unions - which would violate the concept of separate but equal.

Emily - Government (SCOTUS) is not responsible for making people happy, nor are they imposing political beliefs. They are ruling solely on the point of law. You can be a devout evangelical that thinks SSM is perverse, damning, etc, and that everyone should be killed. As long as you don't kill (or threaten), it's your opinion. The government is not required to to make you happy in regards to religion, creed, etc. The first amendment grants us freedom of religion (ergo, also freedom from imposition of any religion upon us). You will never make the alt-right fundamentalist extremists happy unless SSM is overturned - which is a violation of the civil rights of all other americans. They do not choose who gets married. Just like the proposed FADA - it violates due process.

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

No one is forced to change their beliefs over gay marriage. No one is being forced to marry a gay person against their will and no one is being forced to accept other gay folks who wish to marry each other.

People on both sides are being forced to change terms of the contract without agreeing to the changes and how they are worded or applied.
Unless the process recognizes consensus, it is pressuring one side to defend itself against the other, which isn't fair to eiether side.
Faun

Contracts are invalidated if you detrimentally change the language. However, contracts can be unilateral (one party makes the decisions) or bilateral (must arrive at a consensus). In a case where illegal language is contained (for example, Texas stated marriage was only between a man and a woman), the courts struck (repeatedly) the language "only between a man and a woman". From a civil contract point of view, that does NOT pressure any one side to defend itself. You (Texas) doesn't get to agree to changes when the changes make the contract legal and binding, instead of ILLEGAL and INVALID. No consensus would be required - or would be legal. When Loving v Virginia struck down the prohibition of interracial marriage, no one in the state of VA got to vote, discuss, negotiate, come to a consensus. The verbiage was struck/rewritten to become LEGAL. The only "fair way" is what is legal. It's not what we think, it's what the law is. You can't put have a legal and binding contract with illegal terms and conditions. That's why you can't marry your cat, dog, or computer, and why there is no negotiating (putting aside the fact that all 3 can't give consent, nor meet ANY of the legal conditions).

 

[Sneekin]

There's no good [legal] reason to allow anyone, regadless of their race, creed, gender, or religion; to get married but then not call it marriage.

Marriage is "marriage" for everyone, not just for some.

Dear Faun
1. Civil unions can be for everyone and avoid the issue of marriage beliefs not everyone shares. You are free to exercise, teach and practice your beliefs about marriage, but not to impose them through govt on people of other beliefs about marriage.

To be fair to all people of all beliefs, civil unions are universal and secular.

2. If you want to impose further, that is like people who want prayer in schools to include Christian practice of invoking God through everyone joining in Christ Jesus name. I happen to understand GOD represents universal concepts that cover and include all people, but people do not agree on religious terms. It has to remain free choice where beliefs are involved.

Same with beliefs about marriage, not all people agree on religious terms, so out of respect for religious freedom it makes sense to stick with civil unions for the government to recognize as secular contracts and leave beliefs about marriage out of govt.

Again, if you believe otherwise, so do many Christians believe in integrating their beliefs through govt they believe are universal truth as well that includes all people.

3. If you all agree to open the doors of govt to endorse and incorporate all manner of beliefs into laws and public institutions, then that's fair and you are including all people.

But it's discrimination to tell Christians that references to Crosses, prayers to God through Christ, and teaching creation through God all have to be Removed from public institutions while insisting that beliefs about gay marriage and homosexuality as natural must be included for tolerance even when it violates beliefs of others that these are not natural.

It's discriminating by creed, so it violates other laws.

Faun would you agree to a resolution allowing all Christian beliefs and practices to be endorsed and implemented in public policies and institutions, including Christian healing prayer and right to life for unborn and teaching creation in schools, in exchange for allowing beliefs in gate marriage?

I'm sure an agreement can be worked out if all beliefs are included equally as you are asking.

Are you willing to incorporate and include all beliefs equally as yours? Are only the beliefs you happen to agree with? Thanks Faun

Even if we cannot agree how to accommodate all beliefs equally, at least we tried.

The courts already ruled on civil unions versus marriage. Marriage is a civil contract between 2 persons. civil unions are being eliminated in some states already. You are using the concept of separate but equal, which, in and of itself is also grossly illegal. Do you also agree we need different doors, restaurants, drinking fountains for minorities? Because that's what you say when you demand SSM must be called civil unions. That's separate but equal, illegal, and already ruled upon by the SCOTUS YEARS AGO, Emily!

Dear Sneekin
If you say marriage is different from prayer, how can you say it is like public accommodations?

And orientation is not like race and racial segregation.

1. Race is determined even before birth by the genetics of the two parents even before conception because their DNA is set. Orientation is spiritual either from birth by conditions in the womb, or environment such as homosexuality resulting from sexual or other abuse, or spiritual karma. Peope have changed their orientation similar to changing ones identity of faith, which can't be said of race which is fixed genetically.

2. Why are you taking it as insulting to treat LGBT beliefs as other beliefs or creeds that are someone s free choice and right to exercise freely without discrimination?

What is wrong with separate but equal political parties or religions?
Is it offensive to have Catholics practice closed communion and eucharist while Lutherans have open ones anyone can participate in?

1. Orientation is like race, color, creed, national origin, etc (segregation can occur for any of those, including orientation). Orientation is believed to occur NON-SPIRITUALLY prior to birth. It doesn't occur from sexual abuse, because close to 50 percent of the population (male and female) would be gay, based on abuse). People don't change their orientation, that's been disproven as well. Being gay is not the act of sex. You can be straight or gay, and never have sex. so wrong.... Changing one's faith is changing your philosophy, not the same as you changing who you love.
2. LGBT is not a free choice. Why do you claim it is? You can't just change it, that's been proven literally thousands if not millions of times. ex-gays become people that are still gay, not having sex, or sneaking around having same sex behind the back of their opposite sex partner. Seen it happen too many times.
3. What's wrong with "colored only" drinking fountains, entrances, restaurants, etc? Did you really ask? Different religious beliefs and political parties do not meet the criteria for separate but equal. Add that to your list of questions to ask an attorney.
Who are you asking about Catholic v Lutheran offensiveness? It has nothing to do with separate but equal, either. Really not cool.

Dear Sneekin
one area we disagree on
I find that with orientation with SOME it is not a choice and cannot change
but with others it is behavior or conditions only that can be changed.
If I had to guess, I'd say the majority cannot change and it's just the
minority that can; but as with LGBT and transgender being small
percentages, that doesn't justify excluding those either! Equal inclusion
means all, not just listening to the majority of LGBT and excluding the minority!

Like you said, if people are suppressing their natural orientation,
then the external behavior on top CAN be changed. So that applies
to homosexual behavior if the underlying default nature is heterosexual.

I do not agree with imposing either the belief that
* all cases are natural and not a choice
* all cases are unnatural and a choice of behavior

By the time we even agree to accept that it's not all one way or the other,
that same process will require the same openness and inclusion
needed to work through the issues to reach consensus or separation on policies.

Thanks for your help to sort through all the points.
I hope to outline these and present position statements
to party and religious leaders to work out these issues without
judging people for their differences in views and experiences.

All of them are valid from their viewpoints, and should be
included if we are going to represent all people in the outcomes.

You are still missing the point. Just because you repress a behavior, doesn't mean you are changing the fact that you still have the behavior, just not acting on it. It doesn't change the PERSON you love from a man to a woman, either. While a gay man can marry a straight woman, it doesn't mean he's suddenly straight. He's just a repressed homosexual (like several republican lawmakers to the north of Texas).

The underlying default nature of a gay man is homosexual. The underlying default nature of a straight man is heterosexual. Changing behavior is not changing the way brains are hard wired. It really makes no difference what you think you are going to impose or not, as that is not even up for discussion. If all heterosexual marriages were banned, and only gay marriages were legal, then many straight men would suddenly change behavior. Doesn't make them gay in real life.......just for getting tax benefits. Being gay is not behavior. It's the same love that you have for your husband - the gay man has for his husband. It's not behavior, any more than your husband is just acting like he loves women. It's not a choice - because I'm sure if you ask your husband at what age he chose to be straight (not realized it, but made an actual choice to be straight), he'll tell you you're crazy, and that he was always straight. Just like the majority of gays either knew they were gay (some as young as 3 and 4 years old) or knew they were different from other boys, they had different feelings for them. Being gay is not behavior, to really simplify, it's a feeling......hard wired feeling that doesn't change.

 

[Sneekin]

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.

Oh, no problems, Muslim fastfood - shaurma - is really more tasty than burgers

Your propaganda in US now trying to mix Islam and Islamism - but really it's very different things, it could become an evil joke, if it will be continued...

p.s. 11-15 years is too few for world processes... I'm watching TV news - in 80th US used a terrible weapon against USSR - a freedom of info and opinion. USSR absorbs it as idea fully (instead of other states) - and fell. Now, after 30 years you have RT - and all your media screamed about "ideological diversion and so on" because now RT much close to truth than others ALL thing we invented and advanced - are returned to us after some decades...

Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food. Many Muslims don't eat it. It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions. It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all. It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims. The fact is, the meats used must be Halal. Not all shawarma is Halal. Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit. If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.

Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage? Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat?

11-15 years? Try thousands of years. Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember. Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.

Islam v Islamism? How racist of you. Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East? Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11. You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims. Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie? Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them? After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make. On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.

Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )
.

Yep- after existing for a thousand years, Rome fell after converting to Christianity.

I think the lesson is clear......

After converting to Christianity, Constantinople lived for another thousand years

And Rome fell, continuing to practice homosexualism and other sexual perversions...

I think the lesson is clear......

Rome became the head of the first Christian Church.......do you have a point, there? You might just be confused, as Rome is still there, and the CAPITAL of Italy. Did it push the button "I've fallen and I can't get up"? Better check your DSM - homosexuality isn't a sexual perversion - in fact, every heterosexual couple has performed the same sexual acts.....you must have led a sheltered life. Try reading a book on psychology and educate yourself.

Constantinople was founded in 330 and renamed Istanbul. It's still standing. It's still alive.
Rome was founded in 753 BC and is still alive and standing.

What lesson is clear? You are living in the wrong century? Gays can marry, have children, and make 10 times the money you make and be a lot happier than you, because they don't harbor your hatred. Or are you the typical homophobic, who is really nothing more than a repressed gay man? It seems so, as you are always talking about your perversions.

 

[Sneekin]

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.

Oh, no problems, Muslim fastfood - shaurma - is really more tasty than burgers

Your propaganda in US now trying to mix Islam and Islamism - but really it's very different things, it could become an evil joke, if it will be continued...

p.s. 11-15 years is too few for world processes... I'm watching TV news - in 80th US used a terrible weapon against USSR - a freedom of info and opinion. USSR absorbs it as idea fully (instead of other states) - and fell. Now, after 30 years you have RT - and all your media screamed about "ideological diversion and so on" because now RT much close to truth than others ALL thing we invented and advanced - are returned to us after some decades...

Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food. Many Muslims don't eat it. It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions. It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all. It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims. The fact is, the meats used must be Halal. Not all shawarma is Halal. Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit. If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.

Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage? Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat?

11-15 years? Try thousands of years. Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember. Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.

Islam v Islamism? How racist of you. Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East? Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11. You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims. Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie? Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them? After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make. On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.

Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )

How racist of you.

Me? Are you really saying it after your own words about "marrying a large piece of dark meat"? Wonderful... At least, explain me a logic, how "Islam vs Islamism" related to racism... ))

Your logical arguments ended - so, you started psaking against me... Ok, now I see, there are no reasonable arguments for gay marriages, only a big piece of propaganda and irrational will to reach this target by all means...

I see history isn't your fine point.

.. saying you, continuing to translate VERY strange "historical" info...

The emperor was only in power until age 22.

WHICH emperor? For example, August became an emperor in the age of 36... What did you had to say?
And... just read it - Ben Carson: Gay Marriage Killed The Roman Empire - Joe.My.God. )

Tell me how the children I grew up with, who had same sex parents, had any impact on 4 generations following

How it can be, if same-sex marriages legal at the US territory only since 2004 year? )

Psaking? That's not a word in any language.

Really? Wanna link? Blog: Psaking it to State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki

You can have opinions. You are claiming them as fact.

Stop and point, where I claiming it I see, in your dreams I attacking all and everyone, for the meat eating, for the wrong religion, for the race... In reality - you attacking me, using periodically distorted info and being angry, when I'm trying to point on it, asking simple question. You saying, I don't have any education. Perfect, but if you don't able answer on my simple questions, referring on indefinite "22 age emperors" and claiming that "shawarma was invented in Turkey, so no one else can eat it" - do YOU really educated?

Apparently you are quick to make generalities about all Muslims

You're saying it, after YOU generalized all Muslim world as traditional marriage forcers (and I just offered to divide all this Muslim world at least on muslims and islamists). Wonderful! Now I see, why you don't want "to recognize" the word "psaking"...

if you want 'traditional marriage' to be forced on everyone- the Muslim world awaits you.
, all Gays, other religious, ethnic, sexual or social groups. The very definition of bigotry. The English noun bigot is a term used to describe a prejudiced or closed-minded person, especially one who is intolerant or hostile towards different social groups (e.g. racial or religious groups), and especially one whose own beliefs are perceived as unreasonable or excessively narrow-minded, superstitious, or hypocritical.

Sorry, only in your wet dreams...

I don't generally divide people by race, skin colour, religion or sexual orientation and here I'm just trying to understand, where in US is real border between rights of gays and rights of conservatives, and why..

1. Look up his name. At least two of the Roman Emperors were in same-sex unions; and in fact, thirteen out of the first fourteen Roman Emperors held to be bisexual or exclusively homosexual.

2, Ben Carson also said men that go to jail turn gay. We all know that's not true, either.

3. Not sure what world you live in, fool, but you don't have to be civilly married to have children. These ladies wrote their own vows and were married in a religious ceremony. That's how. I never said they had a same sex civil marriage IAW the laws of any state. They had a religious wedding - you do know the difference, don't you?

4. Really? Wanna link? Blog: Psaking it to State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki Proves me right - you don't reference a blog, and it's simply a bastardization of a woman's name from some state. Still doesn't make it a word. Look it up in ANY dictionary of ANY language. You really aren't too swift, are you....

5. I'm sorry if english isn't your first language, but your speech is bordering on unintelligible. I never said anything even close to what you claim I said about shawarma. It is YOU that is full of anger and hate. I've given you examples, and you refuse to admit your errors. I literally spelled out how you are wrong about shawarma being a muslim food. I pointed out that you are wrong about jews and being able to eat pigs raised in cages. The list goes on and on, however much you want to make a fool of yourself. that's not meant to insult you, it's a statement of fact. Angry at you? You aren't worth being angry at. I feel sorry for your lack of education and how gullible you seem to be.

6. You don't grasp Islamists and Islam. You are quoting from a right wing extremist website, and believe all the BS posted. I'm not saying there are not radical Muslims, just like I'm saying there ARE radical Christians. Muslims are Sunni and Shiite, not Islamists and Muslims.

7. I didn't say they were traditional marriage enforcers, I actually stated that there were gay Imams and they were performing gay Muslim weddings, quite the opposite of the lies you wrote.

8. I never said ANYTHING about FORCING Traditional Marriage on anyone. What I said was - Civil Marriage is a civil contract between two people IAW the laws of the state they get married in. They can be male/male, male/female, or female/female. that's quite the opposite of your definition of traditional Marriage.

9. There is no border. You said:

"I don't generally divide people by race, skin colour, religion or sexual orientation and here I'm just trying to understand, where in US is real border between rights of gays and rights of conservatives, and why..:"

Rights are the SAME between gays, conservatives, straights, liberals. Marriage is between two people, regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, or sexual preference. Why would you think there would need to be a border? Even when it comes to religious freedoms, it's still based on the law. If sexual preference is covered under public accommodations, then it is illegal to discriminate against gays - a business must make that cake, rent that hall, take that picture, make that invitation, cater the foods, etc. It has nothing to do with same sex marriage, or rights. Breaking a law is illegal. Discrimination is illegal. Not discriminating is a requirement to have a business license. It has NOTHING to do with religious freedoms, or rights of gays versus conservatives. It's as simple as following the law. The first amendment only comes into play if 2 people approach a church and they wish to be married, and the pastor refuses because it violates one of the tenets of the religion. A church can refuse to marry people of different religions, races, etc. Hopefully this answers all your questions and you understand everything you claimed I said was refuted, as well.

 

[Sneekin]

Wrong - schawarma is a Turkish (Islam is their main religion) food, not a Muslim food. Many Muslims don't eat it. It's made the same as gyro meat that the Greeks use (Greece was invaded by the Turks) - just different compositions. It's roasted up to a day - not fast food at all. It's the national food of Turkey, not Muslims. The fact is, the meats used must be Halal. Not all shawarma is Halal. Loosely translated, it means meat roasted on a spit. If you are that concerned, realize that commercial gyros, shawarma and Döner are normally Halal.

Want to share with us how this has anything to do with civil Marriage? Planning on marrying a large piece of dark roasted meat?

11-15 years? Try thousands of years. Even recently, I've given you examples dating back to the 60's, that I personally remember. Thousands of years ago, it didn't destroy the Roman Empire - quite the opposite.

Islam v Islamism? How racist of you. Do they all look alike, from Africa to Greece to the Middle East? Not one terrorist in the group of all the Muslims I've worked with - and they worked for the DoD, before and after 9/11. You seem to be confused. There are also gay Muslims. Why are you so full of hate, that you feel such a need to lie? Should I make the same comparisons, and claim that all Christians are psychopathic, snake handling, tongue speaking hate mongers that go around tying gays to fences and torturing and killing them? After all, that's what some Fundamentalists do - so I guess the world should make the same generalities that you make. On a factual note, there are more Christian Terrorists than there are Muslim Terrorists, both within the US, and internationally.

Roman Empire has fallen to the hordes of barbarians. Wanna the same destiny? Ok, no problems )
.

Yep- after existing for a thousand years, Rome fell after converting to Christianity.

I think the lesson is clear......

After converting to Christianity, Constantinople lived for another thousand years

And Rome fell, continuing to practice homosexualism and other sexual perversions...

I think the lesson is clear......

So you admit that Rome fell after it converted to Christianity.

Nope. I admit, Rome fell after continuing ot practice sexual perversion. And if you speaking about Roman Empire

And that the Roman Empire existed for 2,000 years while practicing sexual perversions.

so, I said "After converting to Christianity, Constantinople lived for another thousand years". Constantinople was a capital of Roman Empire for a centuries, when Rome fell. Have you got this fact during your education?

You do realize that Rome never fell and Constantinople (Istanbul) is also still around, and no one in either city practiced sexual perversions. Well, nothing more perverted than what you and your spouse have practiced as well. I think the lesson is clear - you don't know what you are talking about. And overly interested in sexual pervsions, as well as overly interested in gay sex. If you are claiming Rome fell, it was only after the introduction to Christianity - which, using your logic, shoots down your own statements. Constantinople fell? You mean when it fell under the ottomans? And apparently you are unaware that Rome was the Western Roman Empire, and Constantinople (Istanbul) was the Eastern Roman Empire

Some historians have blamed the collapse on hundreds of different factors ranging from military failures and crippling taxation to natural disasters and even climate change.

Amazing how a "good christian" like yourself fails to understand that Christianity has also been identified as responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire.......