Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Sneekin]

[Q

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? )
.

Why do you believe that only married couples have children?

No. But you have just confirmed, gays no need official marriage to organize their life how they want

Not what I said at all. You asked how gay parents could have children before gay marriage was allowed. I told you how. Could you quit lying about what I said?

No one needs a license to raise children - however, as Syriusly pointed out to you, there are benefits derived from marriage. Seeing how I gave you an example of 4 generations where children were not affected by gay parents/grand/great grandparents, I guess I'm missing your point. There are 1138 rights granted by being married. Why are you claiming gays don't deserve those same rights as straights?

 

[Sneekin]

[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?

Gays have the same rights as conservatives. PERIOD. There are no differences in rights when either a gay couple or straight couple gets married. In the United States, we don't vote on civil rights. Would you find it acceptable if we told you that you could only have red hair, green eyes, could only marry a man, could only have one chld, you must attend the Church of Satan down the Street, etc? We can't vote on any of those rights - because they ARE RIGHTS. There is no gay marriage and conservative marriage. There is just marriage in the eyes of the law. Understand now?

 

[Sneekin]

[Q

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? )
.

Why do you believe that only married couples have children?

No. But you have just confirmed, gays no need official marriage to organize their life how they want

No more than straights have a need for official marriage to organize their life how they want.

Again- my wife and I have been married for over 20 years. We didn't need to get married- we wanted to get legally married.

Just like the gay couple that gets married.

Of course marriage is a benefit- a legal protection for children. Which is why children whose parents legally marry have more legal protections- and why preventing gay parents from marrying harms their children.

Why would you want that?

I don't want that I think only from position of children. If, as you saying, children feel comfortable in same-sex family and they only need to be legally married to be more happy - so, let them do it as fast as we can.

But I have serious doubts, living in homosexual families is really good for children. Much statistics, I've seen, usually said:
1. Homosexualist are in risk group of venereal diseases, including aids. Most of this diseases are dangerous for children.
2. Children in homosexual families are at high risk of sexual abuse and sexual violence.
3. What about psychology and gender orientation of growing children?

So, is it nesessary to open legal way to increase of unhappy children, to legalize SSM?

We already do allow gay people to get married "as fast as they can". Doctors, professionals, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, etc all agree - not harmful.
1. Heterosexuals are also in the risk group of veneral diseases, including AIDS. Black female heterosexuals are the fastest growing group, according to the NIH.
2. Children in gay families are at less risk of sexual abuse and violence. That too is well documented.
3. Sex (male/female) is different than gender. However, neither of these change because of the sexual orientation of their parents. It's not a choice, and it's not a disease - you can't catch gay. Do you think if your father and I raised you (saying we were a Same Sex Couple), that it would make you gay? That's completely false as well.

Read documentation not by Ben Carson, who might be a brilliant surgeon, but knows nothing about gender, sexual identify, orientation, etc, and he has proven it more than once. Try reading medical journals and text books if you want to know, not some fly by night website that tells you what you want to hear.

 

[Sneekin]

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

And it does. If I'm pro gay marriage and you are anti- gay marriage - neither one of us can force our opinion on each other's religion. I can't make your pastor marry a gay couple, and and you can't tell my pastor that he can't marry a gay couple.

If two people can get married, based on the 14th amendment, please tell me who is being discriminated against?

 

[Sneekin]

[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?

No - the law is the law - you are stating opinions, I am quoting the law. It's not just my point of view. I don't have to consider a christian point of view, or a gay point of view. Christians and gays have the same laws they must abide by. That's the LAW. You are speaking of their opinions (some, not all Christians prohibit gay marriage). That's their freedom under the 1st amendment. People that attend can share that opinion, it's their right under the law. What you cannot do is impose your religious beliefs onto me.

 

[Sbiker]

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're wrong, just use Google First Christian state - an Armenia. And Roman Empire took Christianity as official religion during Constantine - and his capital was Constantinople Rome is not a head of first Christian Church - it's a head of heretics after Great Schism )) East–West Schism - Wikipedia

You might just be confused, as Rome is still there, and the CAPITAL of Italy.

But not Roman Empire

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.

Ha-ha-ha Knowing this way of discussion.. "If you don't like ..., you're just hidden ..." Could I call you a "hidden Trump", for example? )

 

[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?

No - the law is the law - you are stating opinions, I am quoting the law. It's not just my point of view. I don't have to consider a christian point of view, or a gay point of view. Christians and gays have the same laws they must abide by. That's the LAW. You are speaking of their opinions (some, not all Christians prohibit gay marriage). That's their freedom under the 1st amendment. People that attend can share that opinion, it's their right under the law. What you cannot do is impose your religious beliefs onto me.

"The law is an ass where - turned, there and left"

 

[Faun]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holyfuckingshit!

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

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

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

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

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

Wait a second I'm not afraid of be an idiot, but where did I discussed WHY some Jews don't eat pork? Maybe almost of your "facts" to prove your position are "frying" too?

Aren't you the one who said...

"I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable... "​

 

[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......

Rome became the head of the first Christian Church.......do you have a point, there?

You're wrong, just use Google First Christian state - an Armenia. And Roman Empire took Christianity as official religion during Constantine - and his capital was Constantinople Rome is not a head of first Christian Church - it's a head of heretics after Great Schism )) East–West Schism - Wikipedia

You might just be confused, as Rome is still there, and the CAPITAL of Italy.

But not Roman Empire

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.

Ha-ha-ha Knowing this way of discussion.. "If you don't like ..., you're just hidden ..." Could I call you a "hidden Trump", for example? )

You are using "google" as a source? Let me see - Rome is not the head of the Christian State - Vatican City is a dream. The Pope doesn't exist. Wow - into the wacky tobacky I see. Google is a search engine, foolish person. You have to quote reputable sources. And wikipedia are articles anyone can change.

The Roman empire is no more, fool. However, you changed from Rome to Roman Empire when you were proven to be a liar, so quiet down, child.

Hidden trump? Could you please use english phrases and the english language, and run it through spell check? I don't speak garbled broken english. Worst case, use your native tongue - because based on your writing skills, english is your second or third language.

Actually, trolling sbiker, it's another documented fact from many psychologists - most homophobes like yourself ARE repressed homosexuals. How that makes someone a Hidden Trump (English translation, please)? Now back down to your mommy's basement for you - back to your video games. And get professional psychiatric help - you obviously need some meds - simple counseling by itself more than likely will not help.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Sneekin
A. I was responding to your statement that the Amendments could not be "petitioned" to change by individuals or states:
(Sneekin: There is no constitutional concept of a state or individual petitioning the federal government over the Bill of Rights.)
I brought up the Prohibition Amendments which you and I agree was changed correctly using the given process:
(Sneekin: 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).
This is what I meant.
The Amendments can be changed by the same process it takes to Amend the Constitution.
Sorry if we were talking past each other, because apparently we do agree there is a set process for doing so.

B. Back to this issue of the First Amendment.
Given the environment we have now, where people cannot even make sense of each other's political beliefs,
I think it is LONG OVERDUE that we have an open conference on the issue of Political Beliefs and the role of parties and govt
in social legislation that not everyone agrees belongs on federal, state or local levels.
I see no reason we cannot separate these tracks and let the public choose to what extent to go with
govt and what to manage privately.

To me, it's just as wrongful and damaging for people who want govt run health care and social programs
to impose that on free market believers, as it is for the free market advocates to force privatization on people who
want to go through govt!

Sneekin this battle has be en going on since the beginning, but the arguments about socialization and
dependence on govt kicked in during key stages, following the Great Depression and using govt to support
recovery, and also later with more Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and now ACA.

We have BEEN in a long process already of trying to hash this out.

And now, we have the INTERNET that can speed up and organize the process by
helping represent groups by party which will streamline the process into maybe a dozen major groups.
So if we go through that system, we can better organize the factions that are within each state
and help states represent their full populations by party as well.

Yes, it has taken a long time to get to this point.

That's more reason to go ahead and plow through this to get to resolution,
rather than fear the process won't get there and thus drag it out.

It's like a couple that would be better friends, partners and parents
if they quit arguing over the same bank account, and agreed to
split into 3, one for each partner, and one that they use for agreed shared expenses.

The relationship would be healthier and more productive if we didn't bog it down
with unnecessary conditions imposed by one side or the other, but agreed to
counseling to sort it all out.

And whatever is to o much trouble or cost to separate, Of Course,
we can keep that in the joint account.

But if people are going to strangle and censor each other for control of that account,
I say no, that's not worth it and not working!

I believe even by OFFERING the opportunity to work through these issues,
and give people a choice, a lot of the political pressure can be removed that
is STRAINING relations and communications. Take the FEAR and FORCE out
of the equation and foster mutual RESPECT and INCLUSION.

And it changes the nature and spirit of the process to be collaborative not hostile.

That will speed things up and focus on solutions we can develop.

Thank you Sneekin you have renewed my faith there are
intelligent articulate people out there adept in the process and knowledge of the laws
that we could work this out as efficiently as possible, and NOT waste time on things that won't work.

I hope you and others like you will come out and help
facilitate a process by which we can address these longstanding issues
for purpose of resolution. Because it will change how we address conflicts
to a more user-friendly constructive approach, it will be worth the time and effort.

Thank you!!!

 

[emilynghiem]

Sneekin as for the part I think deserves better clarification

For political beliefs that people hold at a deeper level,
I would argue that those who believe that laws and decisions touching religious and political beliefs
should be based on consensus, should have that right to defend that as the standard,
and not be overrun by others who believe that majority rule can change these without consent of
minority opinions dissenting.

* I have proposed to expand the Justice Dept into the Dept of Justice and Peace
adding the option of conflict resolution and mediation to reach consensus,
in addition to just trial by judge or trial by jury. If any Complaints of bias in laws or agenda
ie "political conflicts of interest" could be reported as obstructing equal representation and democratic due process, then the public could receive assistance with mediation and facilitation to resolve the conflicts so policies can be made or reformed accordingly.

* For ACA mandates, I tried to propose to recognize equal political beliefs on both
sides in petitioning party and govt leaders to separate and offer BOTH choices
of the govt mandated health care insurance and the free market approach without mandates,
as EQUAL options for taxpayers to choose, where their representatives who believe in that
choice would take on responsibility for making the terms and conditions work for those members.

* I have partnered with two Libertarian advocates willing to put together a Grand Jury process
by which citizens can complain of abuses by govt at any level, and then incorporate a grievance
and correction process that is accessible by all citizens, similar to the OSHA process of outlining
basic codes that must be followed, or else complaints and penalties can be issues per violation.
See www.ethics-commission.net for the minimum principles I would use to teach citizens to check their own govt against abuses.

* I tried to write up some proposed way to create an Amendment that DOES put "consent of the governed"
in writing in the Constitution, to cover political beliefs, but without allowing this to be abused to violate consent of others.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT
ON JUDICIAL FREEDOM

Pursuant to Articles I, II, and III and Amendment I, the separation of legislative, judicial, and executive powers of government, and of church and state authority, shall neither be applied nor denied to disparage the equal right of all citizens to protection of the laws.

The consent of the governed, being necessary for the just powers of government to represent the authority of the people, the right to seek mediation and consensus to resolve disputes by consent of the parties, shall not be denied, but shall be invoked by written oath of petitioning parties to abide by consensus decision with dissenting parties affected, where all participating parties agree to resolve all objections so that consensus can be reached.

Pursuant to the above, the judicial freedom to select counsel, mediators, and judges to resolve a dispute, to the satisfaction of all parties, shall neither be exercised nor denied to obstruct justice, deny equal rights, or abridge free and equal access to due process of law.

Pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments, political beliefs and differences in ideology shall be considered equal under law as religious beliefs and subject to the same rules of law and limitations; where Congress shall make no law construed or enforced to impose or deny political beliefs of individuals, nor shall obstruct the democratic process of resolving political conflicts by consensus to protect and represent all interests equally.

---------------------------------------------
RE: TEXAS CONSTITUTION

Article 1 Section 2
"All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation [and the consent of the governed], they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."

Pursuant to this Section, the right of the people to seek self-government or representation by party, and to mediate to resolve disputes with governing authorities and jurisdiction, shall not be denied to parties or persons agreeing to abide equally by the Code of Ethics for Government Service, Constitutional laws and procedures; and to resolve all conflicts and objections to reach a consensus on policies without coercion but fully informed consent.

 

[Sneekin]

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.

Dear Sneekin
A. I was responding to your statement that the Amendments could not be "petitioned" to change by individuals or states:
(Sneekin: There is no constitutional concept of a state or individual petitioning the federal government over the Bill of Rights.)
I brought up the Prohibition Amendments which you and I agree was changed correctly using the given process:
(Sneekin: 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).
This is what I meant.
The Amendments can be changed by the same process it takes to Amend the Constitution.
Sorry if we were talking past each other, because apparently we do agree there is a set process for doing so.

B. Back to this issue of the First Amendment.
Given the environment we have now, where people cannot even make sense of each other's political beliefs,
I think it is LONG OVERDUE that we have an open conference on the issue of Political Beliefs and the role of parties and govt
in social legislation that not everyone agrees belongs on federal, state or local levels.
I see no reason we cannot separate these tracks and let the public choose to what extent to go with
govt and what to manage privately.

To me, it's just as wrongful and damaging for people who want govt run health care and social programs
to impose that on free market believers, as it is for the free market advocates to force privatization on people who
want to go through govt!

Sneekin this battle has be en going on since the beginning, but the arguments about socialization and
dependence on govt kicked in during key stages, following the Great Depression and using govt to support
recovery, and also later with more Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and now ACA.

We have BEEN in a long process already of trying to hash this out.

And now, we have the INTERNET that can speed up and organize the process by
helping represent groups by party which will streamline the process into maybe a dozen major groups.
So if we go through that system, we can better organize the factions that are within each state
and help states represent their full populations by party as well.

Yes, it has taken a long time to get to this point.

That's more reason to go ahead and plow through this to get to resolution,
rather than fear the process won't get there and thus drag it out.

It's like a couple that would be better friends, partners and parents
if they quit arguing over the same bank account, and agreed to
split into 3, one for each partner, and one that they use for agreed shared expenses.

The relationship would be healthier and more productive if we didn't bog it down
with unnecessary conditions imposed by one side or the other, but agreed to
counseling to sort it all out.

And whatever is to o much trouble or cost to separate, Of Course,
we can keep that in the joint account.

But if people are going to strangle and censor each other for control of that account,
I say no, that's not worth it and not working!

I believe even by OFFERING the opportunity to work through these issues,
and give people a choice, a lot of the political pressure can be removed that
is STRAINING relations and communications. Take the FEAR and FORCE out
of the equation and foster mutual RESPECT and INCLUSION.

And it changes the nature and spirit of the process to be collaborative not hostile.

That will speed things up and focus on solutions we can develop.

Thank you Sneekin you have renewed my faith there are
intelligent articulate people out there adept in the process and knowledge of the laws
that we could work this out as efficiently as possible, and NOT waste time on things that won't work.

I hope you and others like you will come out and help
facilitate a process by which we can address these longstanding issues
for purpose of resolution. Because it will change how we address conflicts
to a more user-friendly constructive approach, it will be worth the time and effort.

Thank you!!!

Emily -
A) I never said there was a way to petition

What is this alleged "social" legislation? Removing parameters such as what 2 people can get married is not social legislation, it's removing a violation of the 14th amendment. That is no social legislation.

If you are referring to wedding cakes, pictures et al, that is also not social legislation, but (depending on how things shake out in Chicago and then SCOTUS) discrimination based on sex / or discrimination based on sexual preference. One lawsuit is pending, and while it is pending, 22 states, and multiple counties and cities (including some in Texas) have made discrimination based on sexual preference illegal. This legislation was voted on either by you, or your representative (depending if it were state, local or county). In this scenario, it is illegal to refuse to make wedding invitations (Phoenix), wedding cakes (numerous) catering, venue (the "Inn" in Illinois), etc. Period, end of discussion. It's not a violation of anyone's first amendment rights, according to the various state supreme courts. Apparently, no one is stupid enough to take this beyond the state level only to lose again. The only group allowed to legally discriminate would be a church/synagogue/temple/mosque.

B. what you are referring to is altering the first amendment - I'm unaware that the majority of states, and the majority of citizens within the states would be willing to alter the text - and it would be extremely difficult to alter text without violating the civil rights of others - invalidating your changes.

Rights cannot be negotiated away - and when it comes to insurance and certain social programs - passed into law, are non-negotiable by you. Your legislature can try and overturn Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Section 8, Food Stamps, Health Care. Expect for demands from you to answer how these programs will be replaced so we don't (once again) have people dying in the street. Churches have shown time and time again, they can't provide ANY of this. Some people are mentally or physically challenged - who have no families - are you simply going to let them rot in the streets? If you make exceptions for them, you're back to having social programs. If you don't, you have death - which is it?

 

[Sneekin]

Sneekin as for the part I think deserves better clarification

For political beliefs that people hold at a deeper level,
I would argue that those who believe that laws and decisions touching religious and political beliefs
should be based on consensus, should have that right to defend that as the standard,
and not be overrun by others who believe that majority rule can change these without consent of
minority opinions dissenting.

* I have proposed to expand the Justice Dept into the Dept of Justice and Peace
adding the option of conflict resolution and mediation to reach consensus,
in addition to just trial by judge or trial by jury. If any Complaints of bias in laws or agenda
ie "political conflicts of interest" could be reported as obstructing equal representation and democratic due process, then the public could receive assistance with mediation and facilitation to resolve the conflicts so policies can be made or reformed accordingly.

* For ACA mandates, I tried to propose to recognize equal political beliefs on both
sides in petitioning party and govt leaders to separate and offer BOTH choices
of the govt mandated health care insurance and the free market approach without mandates,
as EQUAL options for taxpayers to choose, where their representatives who believe in that
choice would take on responsibility for making the terms and conditions work for those members.

* I have partnered with two Libertarian advocates willing to put together a Grand Jury process
by which citizens can complain of abuses by govt at any level, and then incorporate a grievance
and correction process that is accessible by all citizens, similar to the OSHA process of outlining
basic codes that must be followed, or else complaints and penalties can be issues per violation.
See www.ethics-commission.net for the minimum principles I would use to teach citizens to check their own govt against abuses.

* I tried to write up some proposed way to create an Amendment that DOES put "consent of the governed"
in writing in the Constitution, to cover political beliefs, but without allowing this to be abused to violate consent of others.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT
ON JUDICIAL FREEDOM

Pursuant to Articles I, II, and III and Amendment I, the separation of legislative, judicial, and executive powers of government, and of church and state authority, shall neither be applied nor denied to disparage the equal right of all citizens to protection of the laws.

The consent of the governed, being necessary for the just powers of government to represent the authority of the people, the right to seek mediation and consensus to resolve disputes by consent of the parties, shall not be denied, but shall be invoked by written oath of petitioning parties to abide by consensus decision with dissenting parties affected, where all participating parties agree to resolve all objections so that consensus can be reached.

Pursuant to the above, the judicial freedom to select counsel, mediators, and judges to resolve a dispute, to the satisfaction of all parties, shall neither be exercised nor denied to obstruct justice, deny equal rights, or abridge free and equal access to due process of law.

Pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments, political beliefs and differences in ideology shall be considered equal under law as religious beliefs and subject to the same rules of law and limitations; where Congress shall make no law construed or enforced to impose or deny political beliefs of individuals, nor shall obstruct the democratic process of resolving political conflicts by consensus to protect and represent all interests equally.

---------------------------------------------
RE: TEXAS CONSTITUTION

Article 1 Section 2
"All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation [and the consent of the governed], they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."

Pursuant to this Section, the right of the people to seek self-government or representation by party, and to mediate to resolve disputes with governing authorities and jurisdiction, shall not be denied to parties or persons agreeing to abide equally by the Code of Ethics for Government Service, Constitutional laws and procedures; and to resolve all conflicts and objections to reach a consensus on policies without coercion but fully informed consent.

Your proposed amendment actually violates the first and 14th amendments, if you read carefully. You've deemed that church and state are equal, but they cannot be. You can't state churches can invalidate marriages under amendment 1 while validating them under amendment 14.

We are a nation of laws - we don't mediate everything - we use existing laws as applicable.

"political beliefs and differences in ideology shall be considered equal under law as religious beliefs and subject to the same rules of law and limitations; where Congress shall make no law construed or enforced to impose or deny political beliefs of individuals, nor shall obstruct the democratic process of resolving political conflicts by consensus to protect and represent all interests equally." - religious beliefs are not subject to the same rules of law, Emily. And not every conflict CAN be resolved by consensus. And definitely not represent all interests equally. If my church prohibits interracial marriage, tell me how that right will be represented equally, when it violates the 14th amendment....... Religiously, I can deny interracial marriage. Congress and the courts cannot deny such a thing.

 

[Sneekin]

Sneekin as for the part I think deserves better clarification

For political beliefs that people hold at a deeper level,
I would argue that those who believe that laws and decisions touching religious and political beliefs
should be based on consensus, should have that right to defend that as the standard,
and not be overrun by others who believe that majority rule can change these without consent of
minority opinions dissenting.

* I have proposed to expand the Justice Dept into the Dept of Justice and Peace
adding the option of conflict resolution and mediation to reach consensus,
in addition to just trial by judge or trial by jury. If any Complaints of bias in laws or agenda
ie "political conflicts of interest" could be reported as obstructing equal representation and democratic due process, then the public could receive assistance with mediation and facilitation to resolve the conflicts so policies can be made or reformed accordingly.

* For ACA mandates, I tried to propose to recognize equal political beliefs on both
sides in petitioning party and govt leaders to separate and offer BOTH choices
of the govt mandated health care insurance and the free market approach without mandates,
as EQUAL options for taxpayers to choose, where their representatives who believe in that
choice would take on responsibility for making the terms and conditions work for those members.

* I have partnered with two Libertarian advocates willing to put together a Grand Jury process
by which citizens can complain of abuses by govt at any level, and then incorporate a grievance
and correction process that is accessible by all citizens, similar to the OSHA process of outlining
basic codes that must be followed, or else complaints and penalties can be issues per violation.
See www.ethics-commission.net for the minimum principles I would use to teach citizens to check their own govt against abuses.

* I tried to write up some proposed way to create an Amendment that DOES put "consent of the governed"
in writing in the Constitution, to cover political beliefs, but without allowing this to be abused to violate consent of others.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT
ON JUDICIAL FREEDOM

Pursuant to Articles I, II, and III and Amendment I, the separation of legislative, judicial, and executive powers of government, and of church and state authority, shall neither be applied nor denied to disparage the equal right of all citizens to protection of the laws.

The consent of the governed, being necessary for the just powers of government to represent the authority of the people, the right to seek mediation and consensus to resolve disputes by consent of the parties, shall not be denied, but shall be invoked by written oath of petitioning parties to abide by consensus decision with dissenting parties affected, where all participating parties agree to resolve all objections so that consensus can be reached.

Pursuant to the above, the judicial freedom to select counsel, mediators, and judges to resolve a dispute, to the satisfaction of all parties, shall neither be exercised nor denied to obstruct justice, deny equal rights, or abridge free and equal access to due process of law.

Pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments, political beliefs and differences in ideology shall be considered equal under law as religious beliefs and subject to the same rules of law and limitations; where Congress shall make no law construed or enforced to impose or deny political beliefs of individuals, nor shall obstruct the democratic process of resolving political conflicts by consensus to protect and represent all interests equally.

---------------------------------------------
RE: TEXAS CONSTITUTION

Article 1 Section 2
"All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation [and the consent of the governed], they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."

Pursuant to this Section, the right of the people to seek self-government or representation by party, and to mediate to resolve disputes with governing authorities and jurisdiction, shall not be denied to parties or persons agreeing to abide equally by the Code of Ethics for Government Service, Constitutional laws and procedures; and to resolve all conflicts and objections to reach a consensus on policies without coercion but fully informed consent.

The ACA was enacted by congress it does not, and will not require your consensus. It will either stay or be struck down, by congress. It's currently been ruled on by the courts as constitutional. The current ACA offers government mandated and free market healthcare. Have you bothered reading it? It's almost 20 years old (written in the 90's). You don't have to go to the government website to purchase your health care insurance. You are perfectly free to get it through work, or even go to an insurance broker, and sign up on your own. The concept of the government option was to reduce costs - which it has. While costs have gone up (nationwide, combined percentage is under 5 percent increase). One had over 100 percent increase, another had 147 percent decrease in cost of services.

There already is a grievance and correction process available to all persons. Checklists are available (similar to OSHA Lists). We could proliferate more, but realize since laws vary state by state, and laws change daily, it's going to be a nightmare attempting to keep this list up.

 

[Sbiker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holyfuckingshit!

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

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

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

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

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

Wait a second I'm not afraid of be an idiot, but where did I discussed WHY some Jews don't eat pork? Maybe almost of your "facts" to prove your position are "frying" too?

Aren't you the one who said...

"I heared, Jews don't eat only pork, stepping on ground. They have special pig farm, where pigs are living at steel grids above the ground - and their meat is acceptable... "​

One minute...
It's a discussion about "which pork they eating" or "do they eating pork or no".... Where is the question "WHY"? :-\

 

[emilynghiem]

Sneekin as for the part I think deserves better clarification

For political beliefs that people hold at a deeper level,
I would argue that those who believe that laws and decisions touching religious and political beliefs
should be based on consensus, should have that right to defend that as the standard,
and not be overrun by others who believe that majority rule can change these without consent of
minority opinions dissenting.

* I have proposed to expand the Justice Dept into the Dept of Justice and Peace
adding the option of conflict resolution and mediation to reach consensus,
in addition to just trial by judge or trial by jury. If any Complaints of bias in laws or agenda
ie "political conflicts of interest" could be reported as obstructing equal representation and democratic due process, then the public could receive assistance with mediation and facilitation to resolve the conflicts so policies can be made or reformed accordingly.

* For ACA mandates, I tried to propose to recognize equal political beliefs on both
sides in petitioning party and govt leaders to separate and offer BOTH choices
of the govt mandated health care insurance and the free market approach without mandates,
as EQUAL options for taxpayers to choose, where their representatives who believe in that
choice would take on responsibility for making the terms and conditions work for those members.

* I have partnered with two Libertarian advocates willing to put together a Grand Jury process
by which citizens can complain of abuses by govt at any level, and then incorporate a grievance
and correction process that is accessible by all citizens, similar to the OSHA process of outlining
basic codes that must be followed, or else complaints and penalties can be issues per violation.
See www.ethics-commission.net for the minimum principles I would use to teach citizens to check their own govt against abuses.

* I tried to write up some proposed way to create an Amendment that DOES put "consent of the governed"
in writing in the Constitution, to cover political beliefs, but without allowing this to be abused to violate consent of others.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT
ON JUDICIAL FREEDOM

Pursuant to Articles I, II, and III and Amendment I, the separation of legislative, judicial, and executive powers of government, and of church and state authority, shall neither be applied nor denied to disparage the equal right of all citizens to protection of the laws.

The consent of the governed, being necessary for the just powers of government to represent the authority of the people, the right to seek mediation and consensus to resolve disputes by consent of the parties, shall not be denied, but shall be invoked by written oath of petitioning parties to abide by consensus decision with dissenting parties affected, where all participating parties agree to resolve all objections so that consensus can be reached.

Pursuant to the above, the judicial freedom to select counsel, mediators, and judges to resolve a dispute, to the satisfaction of all parties, shall neither be exercised nor denied to obstruct justice, deny equal rights, or abridge free and equal access to due process of law.

Pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments, political beliefs and differences in ideology shall be considered equal under law as religious beliefs and subject to the same rules of law and limitations; where Congress shall make no law construed or enforced to impose or deny political beliefs of individuals, nor shall obstruct the democratic process of resolving political conflicts by consensus to protect and represent all interests equally.

---------------------------------------------
RE: TEXAS CONSTITUTION

Article 1 Section 2
"All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation [and the consent of the governed], they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."

Pursuant to this Section, the right of the people to seek self-government or representation by party, and to mediate to resolve disputes with governing authorities and jurisdiction, shall not be denied to parties or persons agreeing to abide equally by the Code of Ethics for Government Service, Constitutional laws and procedures; and to resolve all conflicts and objections to reach a consensus on policies without coercion but fully informed consent.

The ACA was enacted by congress it does not, and will not require your consensus. It will either stay or be struck down, by congress. It's currently been ruled on by the courts as constitutional. The current ACA offers government mandated and free market healthcare. Have you bothered reading it? It's almost 20 years old (written in the 90's). You don't have to go to the government website to purchase your health care insurance. You are perfectly free to get it through work, or even go to an insurance broker, and sign up on your own. The concept of the government option was to reduce costs - which it has. While costs have gone up (nationwide, combined percentage is under 5 percent increase). One had over 100 percent increase, another had 147 percent decrease in cost of services.

There already is a grievance and correction process available to all persons. Checklists are available (similar to OSHA Lists). We could proliferate more, but realize since laws vary state by state, and laws change daily, it's going to be a nightmare attempting to keep this list up.

Dear Sneekin
A. First of all I'm not talking about changing the legislation yet, but talking about setting up separate means of supporting the existing programs where they don't impose on people who don't believe in funding or managing that through govt. Fine! Let those limited govt people pay for wars and military and capital punishment, and let social justice people pay our taxes into the social programs we d rather fund instead of wars and punishment systems that produce more mental illness crime and costs.

B. The choices I believe are Constitutional for paying for health care involve reforming the prison system. Those alternatives aren't set up yet. In the meantime Obama ACA imposes mandates on citizens I argue are unconstitutional for people like me who don't believe govt has that authority and thus our beliefs are violated and we are fined for not complying.

Sneekin the bill that passed through Congress was pushed as a public health bill or it would have failed as a tax bill. The courts ruled on it as a tax, as it did not get approved under the Commerce clause argument.
So technically it did not pass through Congress and Courts, but was presented in two different ways.

To be fair to both sides that's why I argue to make the mandates optional, so if people like you agree it's constitutional and doesn't violate your beliefs then you can follow it and pay for it (and again I'd recommend adding prison reform per state to open up the resources for exchanges to work sustainably with just the membership who agrees to be under that or is required if they owe penalties or restitution for convicted crimes) .

And let those who haven't committed crimes and don't believe the mandates are constitutional to opt out and into free market or VA solutions to health care they'd rather fund and manage that way.

Now Sneekin I know it would take work to reorganize the funding and mgmt.

I'm not saying these are the final answers, but asking to set up the process for finding what will work!

By the time we even address how to pay for health care by reforming prisons and VA, then the same solutions will resolve conflicts over mgmt of other medical social security marriage benefits etc etc.

You and I disagree on recognizing political beliefs where I say both sides have equal right to representing interests in negotiating without being censured by declaring something constitutional that one group says violates their beliefs or declaring something unconstitutional that another group requires for their equal exercise and representation.

I say we need to include both in order to work out plans

 

[emilynghiem]

BTW Sneekin the way to resolve different beliefs about marriage IS to keep just civil contracts under govt where those are public secular policies for everyone, and keep all the religious rules out of govt and in private for people or churches to follow their own policies and practices.

We already agree that govt should be for civil policies only, so that is the solution.

I'm talking about mediating with all the groups still arguing over terms and enforcement of laws, including public accommodations, so we resolve conflicts and keep it civil.

 

[Sbiker]

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

Why do you believe that only married couples have children?

No. But you have just confirmed, gays no need official marriage to organize their life how they want

No more than straights have a need for official marriage to organize their life how they want.

Again- my wife and I have been married for over 20 years. We didn't need to get married- we wanted to get legally married.

Just like the gay couple that gets married.

Of course marriage is a benefit- a legal protection for children. Which is why children whose parents legally marry have more legal protections- and why preventing gay parents from marrying harms their children.

Why would you want that?

I don't want that I think only from position of children. If, as you saying, children feel comfortable in same-sex family and they only need to be legally married to be more happy - so, let them do it as fast as we can.

But I have serious doubts, living in homosexual families is really good for children. Much statistics, I've seen, usually said:
1. Homosexualist are in risk group of venereal diseases, including aids. Most of this diseases are dangerous for children.
2. Children in homosexual families are at high risk of sexual abuse and sexual violence.
3. What about psychology and gender orientation of growing children?

So, is it nesessary to open legal way to increase of unhappy children, to legalize SSM?

We already do allow gay people to get married "as fast as they can". Doctors, professionals, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, etc all agree - not harmful.
1. Heterosexuals are also in the risk group of veneral diseases, including AIDS. Black female heterosexuals are the fastest growing group, according to the NIH.
2. Children in gay families are at less risk of sexual abuse and violence. That too is well documented.
3. Sex (male/female) is different than gender. However, neither of these change because of the sexual orientation of their parents. It's not a choice, and it's not a disease - you can't catch gay. Do you think if your father and I raised you (saying we were a Same Sex Couple), that it would make you gay? That's completely false as well.

Read documentation not by Ben Carson, who might be a brilliant surgeon, but knows nothing about gender, sexual identify, orientation, etc, and he has proven it more than once. Try reading medical journals and text books if you want to know, not some fly by night website that tells you what you want to hear.

Why don't you think, Ben Carson didn't read a medical journals? He is not a medic?

How many medical journals we can read, and how many ben Carson read, to form adequate understanding of problem?

 

[Sbiker]

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're wrong, just use Google First Christian state - an Armenia. And Roman Empire took Christianity as official religion during Constantine - and his capital was Constantinople Rome is not a head of first Christian Church - it's a head of heretics after Great Schism )) East–West Schism - Wikipedia

You might just be confused, as Rome is still there, and the CAPITAL of Italy.

But not Roman Empire

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.

Ha-ha-ha Knowing this way of discussion.. "If you don't like ..., you're just hidden ..." Could I call you a "hidden Trump", for example? )

You are using "google" as a source? Let me see - Rome is not the head of the Christian State - Vatican City is a dream. The Pope doesn't exist. Wow - into the wacky tobacky I see. Google is a search engine, foolish person.

Thanks Gods, you got! Offcourse, Google is a search engine. Where people could find any reputable sources to read. And about a fact of Rome falling - I'd better believe to Augustine Aurelius than you, sorry

Hidden trump? Could you please use english phrases

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Forget it

 

[emilynghiem]

Sneekin as for the part I think deserves better clarification

For political beliefs that people hold at a deeper level,
I would argue that those who believe that laws and decisions touching religious and political beliefs
should be based on consensus, should have that right to defend that as the standard,
and not be overrun by others who believe that majority rule can change these without consent of
minority opinions dissenting.

* I have proposed to expand the Justice Dept into the Dept of Justice and Peace
adding the option of conflict resolution and mediation to reach consensus,
in addition to just trial by judge or trial by jury. If any Complaints of bias in laws or agenda
ie "political conflicts of interest" could be reported as obstructing equal representation and democratic due process, then the public could receive assistance with mediation and facilitation to resolve the conflicts so policies can be made or reformed accordingly.

* For ACA mandates, I tried to propose to recognize equal political beliefs on both
sides in petitioning party and govt leaders to separate and offer BOTH choices
of the govt mandated health care insurance and the free market approach without mandates,
as EQUAL options for taxpayers to choose, where their representatives who believe in that
choice would take on responsibility for making the terms and conditions work for those members.

* I have partnered with two Libertarian advocates willing to put together a Grand Jury process
by which citizens can complain of abuses by govt at any level, and then incorporate a grievance
and correction process that is accessible by all citizens, similar to the OSHA process of outlining
basic codes that must be followed, or else complaints and penalties can be issues per violation.
See www.ethics-commission.net for the minimum principles I would use to teach citizens to check their own govt against abuses.

* I tried to write up some proposed way to create an Amendment that DOES put "consent of the governed"
in writing in the Constitution, to cover political beliefs, but without allowing this to be abused to violate consent of others.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT
ON JUDICIAL FREEDOM

Pursuant to Articles I, II, and III and Amendment I, the separation of legislative, judicial, and executive powers of government, and of church and state authority, shall neither be applied nor denied to disparage the equal right of all citizens to protection of the laws.

The consent of the governed, being necessary for the just powers of government to represent the authority of the people, the right to seek mediation and consensus to resolve disputes by consent of the parties, shall not be denied, but shall be invoked by written oath of petitioning parties to abide by consensus decision with dissenting parties affected, where all participating parties agree to resolve all objections so that consensus can be reached.

Pursuant to the above, the judicial freedom to select counsel, mediators, and judges to resolve a dispute, to the satisfaction of all parties, shall neither be exercised nor denied to obstruct justice, deny equal rights, or abridge free and equal access to due process of law.

Pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments, political beliefs and differences in ideology shall be considered equal under law as religious beliefs and subject to the same rules of law and limitations; where Congress shall make no law construed or enforced to impose or deny political beliefs of individuals, nor shall obstruct the democratic process of resolving political conflicts by consensus to protect and represent all interests equally.

---------------------------------------------
RE: TEXAS CONSTITUTION

Article 1 Section 2
"All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation [and the consent of the governed], they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."

Pursuant to this Section, the right of the people to seek self-government or representation by party, and to mediate to resolve disputes with governing authorities and jurisdiction, shall not be denied to parties or persons agreeing to abide equally by the Code of Ethics for Government Service, Constitutional laws and procedures; and to resolve all conflicts and objections to reach a consensus on policies without coercion but fully informed consent.

Your proposed amendment actually violates the first and 14th amendments, if you read carefully. You've deemed that church and state are equal, but they cannot be. You can't state churches can invalidate marriages under amendment 1 while validating them under amendment 14.

We are a nation of laws - we don't mediate everything - we use existing laws as applicable.

"political beliefs and differences in ideology shall be considered equal under law as religious beliefs and subject to the same rules of law and limitations; where Congress shall make no law construed or enforced to impose or deny political beliefs of individuals, nor shall obstruct the democratic process of resolving political conflicts by consensus to protect and represent all interests equally." - religious beliefs are not subject to the same rules of law, Emily. And not every conflict CAN be resolved by consensus. And definitely not represent all interests equally. If my church prohibits interracial marriage, tell me how that right will be represented equally, when it violates the 14th amendment....... Religiously, I can deny interracial marriage. Congress and the courts cannot deny such a thing.

YES Sneekin that's what I'm TRYING to say.
I'm trying to INCLUDE political beliefs in with Religious Beliefs
so these ARE TREATED EQUALLY CAREFULLY AS RELÌGIOUS BELIEFS ARE.


Sneekin I'm saying the BELIEFS about church and state authority
are equal as Religiously held BELIEFS.

So NEITHER can one side push church authority above or against state,
or the other push state authority against church, but in matters of BELIEFS
BOTH sides can represent their own beliefs, defend them against imposition,
but also must keep both out of govt to prevent from infringing on others.

It's an equal two way street, that's what I'm trying to get at.

to understand Political Beliefs as FORM OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF
that should WELL be policed by the First, Fourteenth, Tenth and other amendments and
laws defending citizens from abuses by govt to push religious agenda, political beliefs being a special class of those!