Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[emilynghiem]

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.

What I mean Sneekin
A. is if we followed what was already in the First Amendment,
ie free exercise of religion or free will for everyone
[within the bounds of right of all people PEACEABLY to assemble]
there wouldn't BE slavery or oppresion of any sort:
All conflicts would be resolved if we practiced fre e speech
press and right to petition to redress grievances.

B. and no I don't mean this voids the need for other laws
like due process and equal protections, but that the SPIRIT
of the Constitutional laws fulfills and includes those as well.
Under free exercise, all these other laws can be cited as well
as defenses to explain and petition for one's rights beliefs and interests to be accounted for.

so this INCLUDES citing Quran, Jewish or Christian principles, Buddhist teachings, etc.

C. As for the Bible this also INCLUDES Islam/Quran, Jewish laws,
and all forms of natural laws. By Colossians, all authorities are governed
under the same Lord or Law that Jesus represents as Universal JUSTICE for all.

Just because we express laws in different ways does not mean they are excluded.

They are all protected under Free exercise of religion, free choice or free will
which is naturally self-existent as part of human nature.

And the Bible also calls for obedience and submission to civil authority
and human institutions. So that includes respecting Constitutional law
and equal inclusion and protection for people of all faiths under religious freedom.

 

[emilynghiem]

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).

Yes and No Sneekin
Yes removing a ban as unconstitutional is one thing.

But what it takes to legalize something under terms that people agree represents them and the public
is a different process.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Republicans are against freedom. That most of them are against gay marriage makes it a fact.

 

[emilynghiem]

Republicans are against freedom. That most of them are against gay marriage makes it a fact.

No WheelieAddict
Are you going to say that not wanting to legislate God and Christianity through govt
means being antiChristian and antiGod?

Just because conservatives resist govt making decisions that belong to people
doesn't make them AGAINST those things!

the REAL conservatives and Constitutionalists want LIMITED govt
and MAXIMUM power to the people instead of being overregulated.

As for which party is against freedom,
the Democrats are argued as being more "antichoice"
if they are
AGAINST the free choice of how to pay for health care,
AGAINST the free choice to bear arms and to interpret the law as
recognizing right of people without requiring membership in a militia,
AGAINST the free choice of reparative therapy and the inclusion of
exgays and other people who believe in changing orientation.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Republicans are against freedom. That most of them are against gay marriage makes it a fact.

No WheelieAddict
Are you going to say that not wanting to legislate God and Christianity through govt
means being antiChristian and antiGod?

Just because conservatives resist govt making decisions that belong to people
doesn't make them AGAINST those things!

the REAL conservatives and Constitutionalists want LIMITED govt
and MAXIMUM power to the people instead of being overregulated.

As for which party is against freedom,
the Democrats are argued as being more "antichoice"
if they are
AGAINST the free choice of how to pay for health care,
AGAINST the free choice to bear arms and to interpret the law as
recognizing right of people without requiring membership in a militia,
AGAINST the free choice of reparative therapy and the inclusion of
exgays and other people who believe in changing orientation.

I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

Dear Sneekin
We basically
AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts

Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
agree with the beliefs.

There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.

They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!

I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.

So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.

It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
and on what level of govt, etc.

 

[Faun]

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"? :-\

Idiot.... no one said there was a question why.

So? Did you post this or not...?

"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... "​

 

[WheelieAddict]

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?

Dear Sneekin
We basically
AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts

Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
agree with the beliefs.

There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.

They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!

I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.

So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.

It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
and on what level of govt, etc.

I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.

Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.

 

[Faun]

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?

Dear Sneekin
We basically
AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts

Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
agree with the beliefs.

There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.

They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!

I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.

So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.

It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
and on what level of govt, etc.

It doesn't matter if there are folks who want thd government out of marriage since the government is involved in civil marriages. And as long as the government is involved in civil marriages, it must treat everyone equally with no prejudice against anyone's race, creed, religion, or gender.

I've asked this repeatedly and you still refuse to answer... do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Sneekin

A. What I posted was my first draft a LONG time ago when I first started looking into solutions to legal abuse, by focusing
on defending the right to conflict resolution, mediation and consensus to protect "consent of the governed" that otherwise isn't written into the Constitution.

I use that to "throw the IDEA out there" and try to troubleshoot and fix what it should focus on and how to word it.
From my experience, the process of reaching consensus will redefine the focus when others get involved if it is going to represent everyone.

B. Since the ACA was passed and contested as unconstitutional,
I was trying to focus on separating Political Beliefs by party.
If there is a specific goal, I figured that would help shape the language instead of being vague trying to cover all general cases of conflict.

This is what I came up with trying to word that:
http://acapetition.com/
Petition: Separate ACA by Party

Help! Best place to add to the TX Democrat platform?
Proposed Amendments 28 and 29 on Equality and Right to Health Care
Am I the only one who believes Political Beliefs should be included Equally by law?
WHEREAS all taxpayers, citizens and persons under Government jurisdiction have equal rights to defend individual beliefs from discrimination by religious or political creed; and
WHEREAS many citizens rely on Political Parties to represent their political beliefs equally as their religious beliefs and personal morals; and
WHEREAS government and public institutions are required to include and serve diverse citizens equally of all views and beliefs, without discrimination by creed otherwise infringing on equal religious freedom, representation, due process and protection of law;

The Democrat Party Principles and Platform shall defend the rights of all citizens to equal representation and inclusion of Political Beliefs without discrimination by Party, including but not limited to:
(a) beliefs for or against gay marriage
(b) beliefs in health care as a right ("singlepayer") or as a choice ("free market")
(c) beliefs for or against death penalty, abortion, euthanasia or other termination issues
(d) beliefs regarding federalism, anti-federalism, states' rights or Constitutionalism, including Constitutional reforms of the IRS, Federal Reserve, and other agencies
(e) beliefs in decriminalizing or legalizing drugs, prostitution, gambling or other policies
(f) beliefs for or against restorative justice or retributive justice, restitution, or amnesty in criminal justice or immigration reform
(g) beliefs for or against the preservation of environmental or historic value equal to the liberty to own and develop land and property

To prevent from enacting or enforcing laws that discriminate on the basis of creed, by imposing or excluding conflicting beliefs and values, the Democrat Party shall support reforms that equally respect, represent and include beliefs of all citizens, either (1) by passing laws by consensus of representatives voting, to ensure all views are included; (2) in cases where conflicts cannot be resolved, by separating systems by Party to create and fund equal access for members of shared beliefs to policies, practices and administration representing their choices without imposition; (3) by expanding Senate Judiciary Duties to mediate conflicts, grievances and complaints of partisan bias, including but not limited to the areas above, before laws are written and passed; and possibly (4) by reforming the position of Vice President to appoint and train key Mediators through the Justice Department to focus on Peace and Justice by conflict resolution, and to oversee a system of representation by Party on key issues of conflicting beliefs, for the purpose of reaching a consensus on laws, or separating systems by Party as needed for equal representation.

C. and now that LGBT policies are being contested as biased,
with the conflict over how much is natural born and not a choice
vs. unnatural choice of BEHAVIOR,
I agree with YOU that scientific research would help settle that
so it is clear how much is science and how much is faith based.

So that is where I would focus on the spiritual healing research
that also affects the conflict resolution and consensus process indirectly.

D. I also had Libertarians friends take up the idea of a conference
to organize support for a stronger more direct Grand Jury system.
So if you are saying there already is a grievance process, how can
we put more teeth into it, more direct and equal access where
citizens can use it not only for corrections but DETERRENCE to prevent abuses.

All these areas are angles to promote the same concept of
consensus based conflict resolution that recognizes and includes
people's beliefs instead of punishing people by overruling or outvoting them.

 

[Faun]

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?

Dear Sneekin
We basically
AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts

Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
agree with the beliefs.

There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.

They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!

I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.

So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.

It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
and on what level of govt, etc.

I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.

Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.

Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

Dear Sneekin
We basically
AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts

Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
agree with the beliefs.

There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.

They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!

I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.

So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.

It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
and on what level of govt, etc.

It doesn't matter if there are folks who want thd government out of marriage since the government is involved in civil marriages. And as long as the government is involved in civil marriages, it must treat everyone equally with no prejudice against anyone's race, creed, religion, or gender.

I've asked this repeatedly and you still refuse to answer... do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?

Dear Faun this is the THIRD TIME I have tried to answer that question!!!
I think this thread is t o o much with to o many people replying to each other so you
cannot find where I answered it TWICE.

I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction.
The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts
so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt.

Did you read my other two msgs saying this,
and it still wasn't clear? I am assuming you couldn't find them because they were shorter replies
since this is a simple NO.

 

[WheelieAddict]

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.

Dear Sneekin

A. What I posted was my first draft a LONG time ago when I first started looking into solutions to legal abuse, by focusing
on defending the right to conflict resolution, mediation and consensus to protect "consent of the governed" that otherwise isn't written into the Constitution.

I use that to "throw the IDEA out there" and try to troubleshoot and fix what it should focus on and how to word it.
From my experience, the process of reaching consensus will redefine the focus when others get involved if it is going to represent everyone.

B. Since the ACA was passed and contested as unconstitutional,
I was trying to focus on separating Political Beliefs by party.
If there is a specific goal, I figured that would help shape the language instead of being vague trying to cover all general cases of conflict.

This is what I came up with trying to word that:
http://acapetition.com/
Petition: Separate ACA by Party

Help! Best place to add to the TX Democrat platform?
Proposed Amendments 28 and 29 on Equality and Right to Health Care
Am I the only one who believes Political Beliefs should be included Equally by law?
WHEREAS all taxpayers, citizens and persons under Government jurisdiction have equal rights to defend individual beliefs from discrimination by religious or political creed; and
WHEREAS many citizens rely on Political Parties to represent their political beliefs equally as their religious beliefs and personal morals; and
WHEREAS government and public institutions are required to include and serve diverse citizens equally of all views and beliefs, without discrimination by creed otherwise infringing on equal religious freedom, representation, due process and protection of law;

The Democrat Party Principles and Platform shall defend the rights of all citizens to equal representation and inclusion of Political Beliefs without discrimination by Party, including but not limited to:
(a) beliefs for or against gay marriage
(b) beliefs in health care as a right ("singlepayer") or as a choice ("free market")
(c) beliefs for or against death penalty, abortion, euthanasia or other termination issues
(d) beliefs regarding federalism, anti-federalism, states' rights or Constitutionalism, including Constitutional reforms of the IRS, Federal Reserve, and other agencies
(e) beliefs in decriminalizing or legalizing drugs, prostitution, gambling or other policies
(f) beliefs for or against restorative justice or retributive justice, restitution, or amnesty in criminal justice or immigration reform
(g) beliefs for or against the preservation of environmental or historic value equal to the liberty to own and develop land and property

To prevent from enacting or enforcing laws that discriminate on the basis of creed, by imposing or excluding conflicting beliefs and values, the Democrat Party shall support reforms that equally respect, represent and include beliefs of all citizens, either (1) by passing laws by consensus of representatives voting, to ensure all views are included; (2) in cases where conflicts cannot be resolved, by separating systems by Party to create and fund equal access for members of shared beliefs to policies, practices and administration representing their choices without imposition; (3) by expanding Senate Judiciary Duties to mediate conflicts, grievances and complaints of partisan bias, including but not limited to the areas above, before laws are written and passed; and possibly (4) by reforming the position of Vice President to appoint and train key Mediators through the Justice Department to focus on Peace and Justice by conflict resolution, and to oversee a system of representation by Party on key issues of conflicting beliefs, for the purpose of reaching a consensus on laws, or separating systems by Party as needed for equal representation.

C. and now that LGBT policies are being contested as biased,
with the conflict over how much is natural born and not a choice
vs. unnatural choice of BEHAVIOR,
I agree with YOU that scientific research would help settle that
so it is clear how much is science and how much is faith based.

So that is where I would focus on the spiritual healing research
that also affects the conflict resolution and consensus process indirectly.

D. I also had Libertarians friends take up the idea of a conference
to organize support for a stronger more direct Grand Jury system.
So if you are saying there already is a grievance process, how can
we put more teeth into it, more direct and equal access where
citizens can use it not only for corrections but DETERRENCE to prevent abuses.

All these areas are angles to promote the same concept of
consensus based conflict resolution that recognizes and includes
people's beliefs instead of punishing people by overruling or outvoting them.

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?

Dear Sneekin
We basically
AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts

Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
agree with the beliefs.

There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.

They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!

I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.

So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.

It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
and on what level of govt, etc.

I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.

Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.

Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.

No substance when it comes down to it. Figures.

 

[WheelieAddict]

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.

Dear Sneekin

A. What I posted was my first draft a LONG time ago when I first started looking into solutions to legal abuse, by focusing
on defending the right to conflict resolution, mediation and consensus to protect "consent of the governed" that otherwise isn't written into the Constitution.

I use that to "throw the IDEA out there" and try to troubleshoot and fix what it should focus on and how to word it.
From my experience, the process of reaching consensus will redefine the focus when others get involved if it is going to represent everyone.

B. Since the ACA was passed and contested as unconstitutional,
I was trying to focus on separating Political Beliefs by party.
If there is a specific goal, I figured that would help shape the language instead of being vague trying to cover all general cases of conflict.

This is what I came up with trying to word that:
ACA Reforms - Constitutional Arguments and Petition to Separate by Party
Petition: Separate ACA by Party

Help! Best place to add to the TX Democrat platform?
Proposed Amendments 28 and 29 on Equality and Right to Health Care
Am I the only one who believes Political Beliefs should be included Equally by law?
WHEREAS all taxpayers, citizens and persons under Government jurisdiction have equal rights to defend individual beliefs from discrimination by religious or political creed; and
WHEREAS many citizens rely on Political Parties to represent their political beliefs equally as their religious beliefs and personal morals; and
WHEREAS government and public institutions are required to include and serve diverse citizens equally of all views and beliefs, without discrimination by creed otherwise infringing on equal religious freedom, representation, due process and protection of law;

The Democrat Party Principles and Platform shall defend the rights of all citizens to equal representation and inclusion of Political Beliefs without discrimination by Party, including but not limited to:
(a) beliefs for or against gay marriage
(b) beliefs in health care as a right ("singlepayer") or as a choice ("free market")
(c) beliefs for or against death penalty, abortion, euthanasia or other termination issues
(d) beliefs regarding federalism, anti-federalism, states' rights or Constitutionalism, including Constitutional reforms of the IRS, Federal Reserve, and other agencies
(e) beliefs in decriminalizing or legalizing drugs, prostitution, gambling or other policies
(f) beliefs for or against restorative justice or retributive justice, restitution, or amnesty in criminal justice or immigration reform
(g) beliefs for or against the preservation of environmental or historic value equal to the liberty to own and develop land and property

To prevent from enacting or enforcing laws that discriminate on the basis of creed, by imposing or excluding conflicting beliefs and values, the Democrat Party shall support reforms that equally respect, represent and include beliefs of all citizens, either (1) by passing laws by consensus of representatives voting, to ensure all views are included; (2) in cases where conflicts cannot be resolved, by separating systems by Party to create and fund equal access for members of shared beliefs to policies, practices and administration representing their choices without imposition; (3) by expanding Senate Judiciary Duties to mediate conflicts, grievances and complaints of partisan bias, including but not limited to the areas above, before laws are written and passed; and possibly (4) by reforming the position of Vice President to appoint and train key Mediators through the Justice Department to focus on Peace and Justice by conflict resolution, and to oversee a system of representation by Party on key issues of conflicting beliefs, for the purpose of reaching a consensus on laws, or separating systems by Party as needed for equal representation.

C. and now that LGBT policies are being contested as biased,
with the conflict over how much is natural born and not a choice
vs. unnatural choice of BEHAVIOR,
I agree with YOU that scientific research would help settle that
so it is clear how much is science and how much is faith based.

So that is where I would focus on the spiritual healing research
that also affects the conflict resolution and consensus process indirectly.

D. I also had Libertarians friends take up the idea of a conference
to organize support for a stronger more direct Grand Jury system.
So if you are saying there already is a grievance process, how can
we put more teeth into it, more direct and equal access where
citizens can use it not only for corrections but DETERRENCE to prevent abuses.

All these areas are angles to promote the same concept of
consensus based conflict resolution that recognizes and includes
people's beliefs instead of punishing people by overruling or outvoting them.

I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.

Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.

 

[WheelieAddict]

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?

Dear Sneekin
We basically
AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts

Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
agree with the beliefs.

There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.

They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!

I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.

So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.

It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
and on what level of govt, etc.

It doesn't matter if there are folks who want thd government out of marriage since the government is involved in civil marriages. And as long as the government is involved in civil marriages, it must treat everyone equally with no prejudice against anyone's race, creed, religion, or gender.

I've asked this repeatedly and you still refuse to answer... do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?

Dear Faun this is the THIRD TIME I have tried to answer that question!!!
I think this thread is t o o much with to o many people replying to each other so you
cannot find where I answered it TWICE.

I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction.
The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts
so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt.

Did you read my other two msgs saying this,
and it still wasn't clear? I am assuming you couldn't find them because they were shorter replies
since this is a simple NO.

I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.

Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.

 

[WheelieAddict]

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?

Dear Sneekin
We basically
AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts

Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
agree with the beliefs.

There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.

They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!

I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.

So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.

It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
and on what level of govt, etc.

I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.

Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.

Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.

Lots of words, mostly bullshit.

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

Dear Sneekin
We basically
AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts

Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
agree with the beliefs.

There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.

They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!

I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.

So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.

It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
and on what level of govt, etc.

I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.

Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.

Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.

No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?

I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.

I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
some ulterior motives or problems I have.

Do you really think I have time to do that?
You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
????

Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.

Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???

 

[WheelieAddict]

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?

Dear Sneekin
We basically
AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts

Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
agree with the beliefs.

There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.

They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!

I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.

So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.

It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
and on what level of govt, etc.

I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.

Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.

Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.

No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?

I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.

I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
some ulterior motives or problems I have.

Do you really think I have time to do that?
You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
????

Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.

Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???

I don't care. Answer.

I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.

Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.

 

[Faun]

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?

Dear Sneekin
We basically
AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts

Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
agree with the beliefs.

There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.

They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!

I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.

So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.

It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
and on what level of govt, etc.

It doesn't matter if there are folks who want thd government out of marriage since the government is involved in civil marriages. And as long as the government is involved in civil marriages, it must treat everyone equally with no prejudice against anyone's race, creed, religion, or gender.

I've asked this repeatedly and you still refuse to answer... do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?

Dear Faun this is the THIRD TIME I have tried to answer that question!!!
I think this thread is t o o much with to o many people replying to each other so you
cannot find where I answered it TWICE.

I said NO, that is going in the WRONG direction.
The point is to keep the govt focused on CIVIL contracts
so of course the marriages would stay with the people, churches, etc outside govt.

Did you read my other two msgs saying this,
and it still wasn't clear? I am assuming you couldn't find them because they were shorter replies
since this is a simple NO.

So you want churches to marry people but not the government marrying people??

That means gay people cannot marry the person of their choice. That sounds reasonable to you?

That means atheists cannot get married. That sounds reasonable to you?

Thanks for your answer but your answer is EXACTLY the reason why government must, and will, remain involved in civil marriages.

A vital role of government is to secure our rights. Everyone has the right to marry within certain limitations of the law (e.g., consent, non-consanguinity)

In your world, homosexuals and atheists would be denied their right to marry while all religious heterosexuals would still have their right to marry the person of their choice.

What utter sanctimonious bullshit, Emily.

The government is not divorcing itself from marriage precisely because of people like you who seek to deny certain folks their rights. The government will stay in the marriage business to secure everyone's rights from people like you who would deny folks their rights based on your religious beliefs.

 

[Faun]

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?

Dear Sneekin
We basically
AGREE that the point of secular govt is to handle the civil contracts

Where we disagree is on the process that you and Faun and others argue
is already secularized, but others are saying it is biased and they don't
agree with the beliefs.

There are people who do NOT want govt involved in anything to this extent,
including health care and managing welfare benefits and programs etc.
So that's where the argument of bias is coming from.

They don't believe it is constitutional govt authority to begin with!!

I'm saying if all these objectors were given equal voice and say in the process,
the laws or reforms would come out different from where they are now.

So I can't tell you what is going to fix the perceived biases.

It's up to the process of working it out with the camps that
don't agree on funding or cutting social medical and health care through govt
and on what level of govt, etc.

I am saying Republicans want to legislate their chosen religion on others, therefore they are anti freedom. That is a fact.

Care to answer or are you just going to avoid the truth.

Hi wheelie, meet Emily. It takes about 20 pamphlet long posts from Emily to answer direct questions.

No Faun it takes me too long to find and try to read responses by 4-5 people besides just you.
Did you think you are the only one worth replying to on this thread?
And rightwinger, Sneekin who has posted more in depth replies and feedback than you
I can't always get to either, Syriusly, they aren't just as important to reply to as you?

I am trying to keep two jobs I need to use to pay loans I made on my credit cards
to nonprofits volunteers that communities depend on to keep running after politicians abused govt
to cut and redirect funding, to evict and shut them down or shut them out.

I will send you a personal PM if that is what it takes for you to get my last two msgs.
It is insulting to me that you would assume my inability to reply to all msgs, because
I am behind at two jobs I can't afford to lose, is some reason to insinuate
some ulterior motives or problems I have.

Do you really think I have time to do that?
You didn't consider I have two full time jobs I'm behind on and that might be the reason???
????

Why do you INSIST on assuming the worst about why I
can't find and respond to all your msgs on here.

Do you not have a job, so you can't imagine I have TWO???

Emily, I'm not the only one here pointing out how you often don't answer questions.