Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Faun]

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... "​

"Like Sbiker's idiocy about why some Jews don't eat pork"

If I, idiot, could simply re-read citations in this message - why don't you do it?

Idiot, I did not use the word, "why" in a question. I can't explain why you don't understand that except to say you're an idiot (and a troll).

Questions are sentences that end with question marks. If you weren't an idiot, you would have known I did not use the word, "why," as a question since there was no question mark on my sentence.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Faun

There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.

Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
with no time to eat or sleep in between.

^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
and were behind on both for about a month each and only
have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?

If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
to get you to acknowledge this?

B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.

Are you really going to
1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?

WHY would you do that?
Do you not believe me?
Or you don't care to consider there are other reasons?

????
Can you explain what you are really thinking
and why you are projecting that onto me?

Emily, I'm going to help you with your work/politics/life balance...

You need to self impose a 200 character limit to all of your responses (that's more generous than Twitter). Then maybe there will be hope of you salvaging your relationships with your mother, your boyfriend, your nephew, etc.... That will also free up your time to save both of your jobs.

Good luck!

You don't get it Faun
That is my way of communicating that is faster.

It takes longer to edit.

It's easier just to type what I can off the top of my head.

You are like saying instead of taking the time to search the Internet it's faster to "psychically" post a link by copying and pasting without searching. But in order to find that link it takes searching!!!

You want answers magically by mindreading but that's not how it works.

It takes time for me to read through all the messages and try to find the key points we can clear up. It takes time

If it were that easy Faun we'd have consensus by now. It's called process of elimination.

I'm not a magical mind reader, and sorry if that's what you expect of me

 

[emilynghiem]

No

Dear Emily,
You are blaming others for insulting and pressuring you when they have done nothing of the sort. It is apparent to everyone you are simply crying oppression to try and avoid answering rebuttals .
You see Emily, when you post paragraphs and paragraphs of statements and then refuse to reply to simple questions to them, and do your best to dance around it,. You become a troll. You have specifically avoided answering me.
If you are going to make strong statements you need to back them up. Stop crying about people asking for answers and we may start taking you seriously.

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.

No WheelieAddict
That is how I naturally talk!
Do you have any idea how insulting you are to accuse me of not answering and being a troll when that is how I think and talk????

What "troll" is trying to work with specific Congress people to set up mediation and restitution from damages from political bullying because govt didn't respect consensus.

I'm serious about this, and Sneekin is also posting longer msgs to delineate what is involved here.

If you don't believe consensus is possible, or legally necessary for equal protections as I argue, is that why you don't think I'm for real about pursuing this through govt?

How is it my fault of you don't believe this, when I've been working to sort out legal abuse and bullying issues since the 90s?

I've spent over 60k in credit bailing out struggling nonprofit community volunteers from damages caused by legal abuses the govt never checked or corrected.

What "troll" works on real problems in real life with govt?

WheelieAddict we can't even get elected officials to chip in and help solve these problems of govt. If you're saying I'm a troll, what does that make people in govt? ??

 

[Faun]

Then

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.

Dear Faun

There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.

Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
with no time to eat or sleep in between.

^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
and were behind on both for about a month each and only
have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?

If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
to get you to acknowledge this?

B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.

Are you really going to
1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?

WHY would you do that?
Do you not believe me?
Or you don't care to consider there are other reasons?

????
Can you explain what you are really thinking
and why you are projecting that onto me?

Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying fuck that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquies

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.

1. there is only one of me, and there are 4-5 of you.
Do you think I have time to answer 10 posts by Sneekin, you and rightwinger?

2. did you get my PM that I have two jobs, that i am behind on.
Does that register in your head that I don't have time in betwe en my two jobs
to even eat and sleep in a healthy manner?

Faun have you ever worked two jobs at the same time?
Do you have any idea how strenous it is?

I can't even call my own mother back for we eks to catch up.
I can't se e my nephews in California, I can barely se e my own boyfriend
once a we ek if I am lucky.

Why would I spend more time online answering questions
from you than I spend time with my boyfriend or talking with my family?

Are you that insulted that I don't have time to
answer all your messages when I can't even call my own mother back on time?

Oh, stop whining. I asked you a simple question which could have been answered in 2 seconds with "yes" or "no."

ARE YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN MOTHER???

WTF is wrong with you? I'm the one who suggested you spend less time here and more time with your mother.

Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.

I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?

Is this just your way of communicating?

If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!

If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun

Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you thought you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a "yes" or "no" answer and neither were forthcoming from you.

Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....

Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.

That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.

I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...

___________________________​

Faun: do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?

emilynghiem: 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.

... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...

___________________________​

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]

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.

Dear Faun

There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.

Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
with no time to eat or sleep in between.

^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
and were behind on both for about a month each and only
have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?

If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
to get you to acknowledge this?

B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.

Are you really going to
1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?

WHY would you do that?
Do you not believe me?
Or you don't care to consider there are other reasons?

????
Can you explain what you are really thinking
and why you are projecting that onto me?

Emily, I'm going to help you with your work/politics/life balance...

You need to self impose a 200 character limit to all of your responses (that's more generous than Twitter). Then maybe there will be hope of you salvaging your relationships with your mother, your boyfriend, your nephew, etc.... That will also free up your time to save both of your jobs.

Good luck!

You don't get it Faun
That is my way of communicating that is faster.

It takes longer to edit.

It's easier just to type what I can off the top of my head.

You are like saying instead of taking the time to search the Internet it's faster to "psychically" post a link by copying and pasting without searching. But in order to find that link it takes searching!!!

You want answers magically by mindreading but that's not how it works.

It takes time for me to read through all the messages and try to find the key points we can clear up. It takes time

If it were that easy Faun we'd have consensus by now. It's called process of elimination.

I'm not a magical mind reader, and sorry if that's what you expect of me

Then perhaps you should consider just taking a break from posting on the Internet altogether anf focus on getting your personal life in order. Aren't your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends and family members, your two jobs; more important than these back & forth exchanges with anonymous strangers?

You really do need to work harder on your priorities, Emily.

 

[Sneekin]

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"? :-\

The question is whether or not gay marriage is a constitutional right. It has nothing to do with eating pork or why.

 

[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.

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

To keep brief - what you propose is illegal. Criminals don't deserve health care? You make the decision that only the SCOTUS is empowered to do? Mandates ARE constitutional. As I told you, you don't have to sign up for government health care. Please try and comprehend this. You're wasting a lot of dollars to protest against something that doesn't exist. If you incarcerate a person, courts have ruled - you have to take care of them. We aren't barbarians, we don't let people bleed out when stabbed, nor die of infections etc. The VA already has funding - there are several other methods that I mentioned which have already been proposed in the past. Feel free to discuss, but you don't have a personal vote - the representative you elected would vote for any of these changes.

By definition, mandate is a requirement. There is no mandate - if you get your own insurance. You haven't explained how you will pay a 3 million dollar hospital bill based on a salary of a minimum wage job. (Hint- even now, people start at the ER because they don't get insurance). The ACA did pass the Congress, and did pass the SCOTUS - otherwise, your very own Senator Cruz would not have shut down the entire federal Government - he tried and failed to overturn the ACA.

 

[Sneekin]

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.

For Gosh sake, Emily - welcome to 2016 - that's the current state of marriage. Marriage (civil) contract are under government, where those are public secular policies for everyone (1138 rights granted by marriage).

Religious rules ARE out of government and in private for people IN churches (not OR, it changes intent to make a single person a stand alone religion, which is not how it works) to follow their policies and practices.

Your work is done.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Sneekin and Sbiker
1. I think it is clear that Sbiker doesn't consider the Pope and Vatican to be continuation or connection to the Roman Empire, but is going with historical terms that Rome fell when it split into separate groups taking over.
Including history of Ottoman Empire Muslims and Turks and the Catholic Church today also viewed in different ways, some seeing it as central others seeing it as fallen or just another institution among others but not the key to all Christendom.

2. To say that anti gay homophobe types tend to be suppressed LGBT gay or bisexual is like saying that liberals are the immature form of conservatives, and as soon as they have to become responsible for managing the resources to support their liberal policies then they come out as or become more conservative!

Yes and no. I see it goes both ways.

I have found equal *denial* on the right that LGBT is natural and not a choice for most, as I have found on the left with denying that some people have changed orientation that isn't natural for them, and it isn't done by external imposition of force of manipulation or suppression (which fails and causes worse damage, and is not the same as internal spiritual healing that is natural by freeing the will by voluntary choice).

I don't think people's beliefs will change per se, but it's our ability to include each other's approaches that can change mutually.


That's the first step I am seeking here is to set up an open and inclusive atmosphere, and then we can talk and share more freely without biases and assumptions getting in the way.

Thanks Sneekin for answering seriously.
I really have no choice but to continue working through this at whatever rate or process it takes, because the damage and conflicts from legal abuse and political bullying cost me every day. We need a solution and all your responses are a key to mapping out a path as to hits or misses.

I really want to know how legally to argue that consensus is needed for voluntary restitution and corrections to be pursued. It is one thing to argue this by Christian standards but what about by Constitutional laws and ethics.

How do we get the spirit of the laws, and agreement that we need to defend people from exclusion and bullying, to enforce the letter of the law so we can unite and establish that standard to protect all people from abuses?

That's what I'm trying to do in building a consensus starting with those around me.

Thanks for your help in this.
I'm not a troll, unless you consider me fishing online to find people like you who are equally able and serious, to be a form of trolling? I call it networking. And I am fishing for points of agreement, as well as points where we lose each other and this is causing splits in perception. I want to find terms to describe this in order to delineate a process for mediation

Yours truly, Emily

 

[Sneekin]

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?

I have no clue what you are rambling about. This information appears in peer reviewed Psychiatric and Psychological journals, Medical journals are the scientific literature of medicine: articles in journals and texts in books devoted to the field of medicine. Many references to the medical literature include the health care literature generally, including that of dentistry, veterinary medicine, pharmacy, and nursing. Not psychology/psychiatry. Source APA/AMA.

Carson is a brain surgeon, which is a medical profession. He would read medical journals (and write for) to better his job. APA articles would only be informational only. He's not a psychiatrist. He's a medical doctor. A medic is an umbrella term for a person involved in medicine. The following fall under this term: a physician, paramedic, medical student, and sometimes a medically-trained individual participating in the role of a medic such as an emergency medical responder. Calling him a medic is insulting to him. He had no training in psychiatry, his specialty is neurosurgery. He's no more qualified (and probably less qualified) than half the people here who have degrees in psychology, or majored or minored in psychology. Of all the people you talk about, he's the least qualified on the subject. Reading a journal from either the American Psychological/Psychiatric Association doesn't make Ben an expert. Especially the BS you claim he read, which was all disproven years and years ago. So, sbiker, just because you go to jail for a month, doesn't mean you'll come out gay, as Ben claims. Nor does conversion therapy works, even though Ben claims it does.

 

[Sneekin]

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

Yes, thanks for once again proving my point. Google is a search engine. I asked you for the actual source (wikipedia isn't a source, it's an article which can be changed by ANYONE). In wikipedia, it "might be" in the references at the end of the article. Just saying google is the source, or wikipedia isn't a valid source.

 

[emilynghiem]

Then

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.

Dear Faun

There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.

Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
with no time to eat or sleep in between.

^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
and were behind on both for about a month each and only
have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?

If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
to get you to acknowledge this?

B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.

Are you really going to
1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?

WHY would you do that?
Do you not believe me?
Or you don't care to consider there are other reasons?

????
Can you explain what you are really thinking
and why you are projecting that onto me?

Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying fuck that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquies

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.

1. there is only one of me, and there are 4-5 of you.
Do you think I have time to answer 10 posts by Sneekin, you and rightwinger?

2. did you get my PM that I have two jobs, that i am behind on.
Does that register in your head that I don't have time in betwe en my two jobs
to even eat and sleep in a healthy manner?

Faun have you ever worked two jobs at the same time?
Do you have any idea how strenous it is?

I can't even call my own mother back for we eks to catch up.
I can't se e my nephews in California, I can barely se e my own boyfriend
once a we ek if I am lucky.

Why would I spend more time online answering questions
from you than I spend time with my boyfriend or talking with my family?

Are you that insulted that I don't have time to
answer all your messages when I can't even call my own mother back on time?

Oh, stop whining. I asked you a simple question which could have been answered in 2 seconds with "yes" or "no."

ARE YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN MOTHER???

WTF is wrong with you? I'm the one who suggested you spend less time here and more time with your mother.

Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.

I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?

Is this just your way of communicating?

If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!

If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun

Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you thought you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a "yes" or "no" answer and neither were forthcoming from you.

Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....

Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.

That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.

I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...

___________________________​

Faun: do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?

emilynghiem: 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.

... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...

___________________________​

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.

I already said we AGREE that govt should be about the civil contracts part, which you call marriage but other people may not.
Faun so that it covers everyone equally!

And we disagree about who needs what language to be changed or not. I am open to people separating by party through state alternatives if necessary. My ways I need for me aren't set up either. Lots of people are being denied equal access to what they need, it isn't set up yet. So by the time it is set up why not make it work for everyone.

 

[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.

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!

Simply put - not how are government was designed to work. Our country was established to separate politics and religion, sorry. Your religious beliefs will never be treated equally (from a purely legal point) because of the first amendment. No one can put church above/against state, again, first amendment violation. State authority trumps your religiously held beliefs. You can NEVER impose your religious beliefs onto "The People".

You've yet to give an example of where government infringes on your religion. No one is forcing your church to marry gay people or straight people. Up to the Church itself. It's that pesky first amendment that keeps government out of your religion. But it's the 14th that requires in 22 (??) states / cities/counties that a public business (caterer, venue (the Inn), photographer, cake baker, invitations, wedding dress makers, etc) MUST do business both with gay couples and straight couples.

Odd that Zac Posen designed Portia De Rossi's dress and Ellen DeGeneres' suit without complaint, and had platinum wedding bands designed by Neil Lane (again no complaint), had an all vegan menu prepared by Ellen’s personal chef, David Silberkleit (again, no complaints), and of course, a cake - it was a red velvet vegan wedding cake created by Sweet Lady Jane (no complaints), with the wedding dance performed by Stevie Wonder (who didn't complain or refuse). The florist - MARK’S GARDEN didn't complain, and no complaint by LARA PORZAK PHOTOGRAPHY. So... that completely shoots your FADA/RFRA arguments all to hell. Even their officiant did not protest. Nor did anyone attending the wedding. There no massive demonstrations, etc. Their wedding didn't impact your wedding, my wedding, Faun's wedding (if he's married) nor anyone else's. No laws were violated, and this fits into everything you propose to do - is already DONE!.

 

[emilynghiem]

After converting to Christianity, Constantinople lived for another thousand years

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

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

Yes, thanks for once again proving my point. Google is a search engine. I asked you for the actual source (wikipedia isn't a source, it's an article which can be changed by ANYONE). In wikipedia, it "might be" in the references at the end of the article. Just saying google is the source, or wikipedia isn't a valid source.

Are you still arguing about the Fall of Rome and the Pope being head of the Catholic church?
Isn't that "common knowledge" to refer to both?
While acknowledging people do not all agree on how to recognize the Pope in what capacity.
Sbiker and Sneekin

If Sbiker is interpreting history by spiritual lineage and connections or disconnections,
that may not be found documented as you ask. That's a spiritual belief system and
Sbiker may just have to accept responsibility for believing and framing it that way.

I don't see the Constitutional history and principles in laws the same way as other people.
So that's my interpretation I use because I find it includes more people of different beliefs
by taking that approach.

You won't find my interpretation established by courts "literally" because it remains a free choice
to believe in consensus and higher universal laws.

I would be excluded and so would others if the laws are only applied literally and don't include
the spirit of the laws that apply to more people.

Do we really need to harangue or judge anyone for these differences?
I thought they came naturally with people, so I try to use whatever language people utilize to express their beliefs.

 

[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!

Simply put - not how are government was designed to work. Our country was established to separate politics and religion, sorry. Your religious beliefs will never be treated equally (from a purely legal point) because of the first amendment. No one can put church above/against state, again, first amendment violation. State authority trumps your religiously held beliefs. You can NEVER impose your religious beliefs onto "The People".

You've yet to give an example of where government infringes on your religion. No one is forcing your church to marry gay people or straight people. Up to the Church itself. It's that pesky first amendment that keeps government out of your religion. But it's the 14th that requires in 22 (??) states / cities/counties that a public business (caterer, venue (the Inn), photographer, cake baker, invitations, wedding dress makers, etc) MUST do business both with gay couples and straight couples.

Odd that Zac Posen designed Portia De Rossi's dress and Ellen DeGeneres' suit without complaint, and had platinum wedding bands designed by Neil Lane (again no complaint), had an all vegan menu prepared by Ellen’s personal chef, David Silberkleit (again, no complaints), and of course, a cake - it was a red velvet vegan wedding cake created by Sweet Lady Jane (no complaints), with the wedding dance performed by Stevie Wonder (who didn't complain or refuse). The florist - MARK’S GARDEN didn't complain, and no complaint by LARA PORZAK PHOTOGRAPHY. So... that completely shoots your FADA/RFRA arguments all to hell. Even their officiant did not protest. Nor did anyone attending the wedding. There no massive demonstrations, etc. Their wedding didn't impact your wedding, my wedding, Faun's wedding (if he's married) nor anyone else's. No laws were violated, and this fits into everything you propose to do - is already DONE!.

Yes Sneekin and I'm saying to take this one step FURTHER.
and recognize Political Beliefs are also crossing the line with religion and govt!!!

They are special category of religious beliefs that inherently involve govt.
so if these religiously held beliefs cannot be divorced from govt without violating them,
that's why we need consensus on how to incorporate them with govt if we cannot separate them, as we do other forms of religious beliefs.

It's like finding out certain life forms are both plants AND animals.
So they are classed specially.

 

[emilynghiem]

Then

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.

Dear Faun

There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.

Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
with no time to eat or sleep in between.

^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
and were behind on both for about a month each and only
have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?

If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
to get you to acknowledge this?

B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.

Are you really going to
1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?

WHY would you do that?
Do you not believe me?
Or you don't care to consider there are other reasons?

????
Can you explain what you are really thinking
and why you are projecting that onto me?

Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying fuck that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquies

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.

1. there is only one of me, and there are 4-5 of you.
Do you think I have time to answer 10 posts by Sneekin, you and rightwinger?

2. did you get my PM that I have two jobs, that i am behind on.
Does that register in your head that I don't have time in betwe en my two jobs
to even eat and sleep in a healthy manner?

Faun have you ever worked two jobs at the same time?
Do you have any idea how strenous it is?

I can't even call my own mother back for we eks to catch up.
I can't se e my nephews in California, I can barely se e my own boyfriend
once a we ek if I am lucky.

Why would I spend more time online answering questions
from you than I spend time with my boyfriend or talking with my family?

Are you that insulted that I don't have time to
answer all your messages when I can't even call my own mother back on time?

Oh, stop whining. I asked you a simple question which could have been answered in 2 seconds with "yes" or "no."

ARE YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN MOTHER???

WTF is wrong with you? I'm the one who suggested you spend less time here and more time with your mother.

Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.

I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?

Is this just your way of communicating?

If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!

If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun

Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you thought you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a "yes" or "no" answer and neither were forthcoming from you.

Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....

Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.

That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.

I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...

___________________________​

Faun: do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?

emilynghiem: 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.

... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...

___________________________​

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.

RE: 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.
NO, I'm saying to AVOID that by either:
A. if govt use marriage then ALL people get that
(and I'm suggesting that to reach agreement on inclusion, to treat LGBT beliefs
and Christian beliefs about spiritual healing prayer equally, neither imposing one while excluding the other)
B. if people cannot agre e on that, but for example ALL agre e to civil contracts,
then ALL people get that.
C. as for your concern that if that were to happen and this leaves out Atheists who don't have
a way to get married, I am saying to set it up -- by agreement BEFORE changing policies*. so if there needs to be separate CHOICE of funding for govt programs
that deals with "social" benefits that not all people agree to the terms of, that can be done while
setting up state alternatives to resolve ACA issues and requirements that are FACING this SAME ISSUE.

Sorry Faun if you don't like my full answer.
I am trying to address these things in context.
the solutions to one point (such as marriage issues) solve other problems as well (such as health care issues).

* NOTE to Faun: ACA required states alternatives to avoid penalty BEFORE setting these up. Did you complain about ACA being unconstitutional by requiring people to face fines for not choosing alternatives that weren't even allowed to be proposed to states yet much less set up?

 

[Sneekin]

Then

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

Dear Faun

There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.

Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
with no time to eat or sleep in between.

^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
and were behind on both for about a month each and only
have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?

If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
to get you to acknowledge this?

B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.

Are you really going to
1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?

WHY would you do that?
Do you not believe me?
Or you don't care to consider there are other reasons?

????
Can you explain what you are really thinking
and why you are projecting that onto me?

Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying fuck that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquies

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

1. there is only one of me, and there are 4-5 of you.
Do you think I have time to answer 10 posts by Sneekin, you and rightwinger?

2. did you get my PM that I have two jobs, that i am behind on.
Does that register in your head that I don't have time in betwe en my two jobs
to even eat and sleep in a healthy manner?

Faun have you ever worked two jobs at the same time?
Do you have any idea how strenous it is?

I can't even call my own mother back for we eks to catch up.
I can't se e my nephews in California, I can barely se e my own boyfriend
once a we ek if I am lucky.

Why would I spend more time online answering questions
from you than I spend time with my boyfriend or talking with my family?

Are you that insulted that I don't have time to
answer all your messages when I can't even call my own mother back on time?

Oh, stop whining. I asked you a simple question which could have been answered in 2 seconds with "yes" or "no."

ARE YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN MOTHER???

WTF is wrong with you? I'm the one who suggested you spend less time here and more time with your mother.

Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.

I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?

Is this just your way of communicating?

If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!

If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun

Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you thought you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a "yes" or "no" answer and neither were forthcoming from you.

Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....

Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.

That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.

I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...

___________________________​

Faun: do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?

emilynghiem: 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.

... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...

___________________________​

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.

I already said we AGREE that govt should be about the civil contracts part, which you call marriage but other people may not.
Faun so that it covers everyone equally!

And we disagree about who needs what language to be changed or not. I am open to people separating by party through state alternatives if necessary. My ways I need for me aren't set up either. Lots of people are being denied equal access to what they need, it isn't set up yet. So by the time it is set up why not make it work for everyone.

Emily, I'll ask again. What people are being denied equal access? And what are they being denied equal access to? What hey need is vague. Sounds like your are referring to religion, as secular/civil grants equal access. If you don't think it does, what doesn't grant access.

Not going to have party separations nor state separations on a "high level" for civil marriage. It always was marriage and will remain that. The one state that's trying to use domestic partnership for gays is in the process of 1) breaking standing law; and 2) about to pay out millions of dollars in lawsuits.

Civil marriage works with this definition. A Catholic's definition of marriage doesn't fit a Baptist's definition of marriage, which doesn't fit an Amish definition, which doesn't fit the Santeria definition - which is why they are not and will never be a part of civil marriage. And those were just Christian religions. Factor in the multiple branches of Judaism and Islam, Sikh, Buddhism and the thousands of other religions - it would be impossible AND unconstitutional. For those group to get the CIVIL benefits (1138), then they are required to get a civil marriage license and have the celebrant sign the license not as a pastor/bishop/Rabbi/Imam etc, but as a sworn representative of the state, with no more rights than a JP.

 

[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.

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!

Simply put - not how are government was designed to work. Our country was established to separate politics and religion, sorry. Your religious beliefs will never be treated equally (from a purely legal point) because of the first amendment. No one can put church above/against state, again, first amendment violation. State authority trumps your religiously held beliefs. You can NEVER impose your religious beliefs onto "The People".

You've yet to give an example of where government infringes on your religion. No one is forcing your church to marry gay people or straight people. Up to the Church itself. It's that pesky first amendment that keeps government out of your religion. But it's the 14th that requires in 22 (??) states / cities/counties that a public business (caterer, venue (the Inn), photographer, cake baker, invitations, wedding dress makers, etc) MUST do business both with gay couples and straight couples.

Odd that Zac Posen designed Portia De Rossi's dress and Ellen DeGeneres' suit without complaint, and had platinum wedding bands designed by Neil Lane (again no complaint), had an all vegan menu prepared by Ellen’s personal chef, David Silberkleit (again, no complaints), and of course, a cake - it was a red velvet vegan wedding cake created by Sweet Lady Jane (no complaints), with the wedding dance performed by Stevie Wonder (who didn't complain or refuse). The florist - MARK’S GARDEN didn't complain, and no complaint by LARA PORZAK PHOTOGRAPHY. So... that completely shoots your FADA/RFRA arguments all to hell. Even their officiant did not protest. Nor did anyone attending the wedding. There no massive demonstrations, etc. Their wedding didn't impact your wedding, my wedding, Faun's wedding (if he's married) nor anyone else's. No laws were violated, and this fits into everything you propose to do - is already DONE!.

Yes Sneekin and I'm saying to take this one step FURTHER.
and recognize Political Beliefs are also crossing the line with religion and govt!!!

They are special category of religious beliefs that inherently involve govt.
so if these religiously held beliefs cannot be divorced from govt without violating them,
that's why we need consensus on how to incorporate them with govt if we cannot separate them, as we do other forms of religious beliefs.

It's like finding out certain life forms are both plants AND animals.
So they are classed specially.

Emily - find a new example - In terms of composition, plants have cell walls and animals don’t. Plants make their own food while animals hunt or get their food. Please provide a life form that both does and does not have cell walls.

You cannot recognize political beliefs as you are calling out. Laws cover ALL people, not just conservatives, liberals, or independents, nor just black, white, red, brown, etc.

As was pointed out, we don't have consensus when we pass federal laws - unless you are talking a majority of congressmen.

Please provide what makes up this special category of religious beliefs that are inherently involving government - I would be more than happy to organize my state to implement an immediate ban as it would violate the US Constitution.Religious beliefs are not incorporated with government. Identify them, please.

 

[emilynghiem]

Then

Dear Faun

There is nothing I did that merited you assuming negative things
about me if I don't have time in between my two jobs
to answer all your posts when I don't even have time
to catch up on eating, sleeping, and deadlines at work and with bills.

Can you acknowledge the following so we don't have this misunderstanding again
A. Emily works two jobs and only answers posts in between trying to
catch up two job both with deadlines overdue for the past month
with no time to eat or sleep in between.

^ Do you acknowledge that if you were working two jobs
and were behind on both for about a month each and only
have 1 month to get one done and might lose the other job,
that you would focus on WORK and not answering posts on time?

If you cannot answer that, do I have to drag this into the bullring
to get you to acknowledge this?

B. That you, rightwinger, Syriusly Sneekin and others
have all been posting 5-10 message each that I cannot get to either.

Are you really going to
1. use that against me to try to JUDGE me
2. assume something negative about me if I can't get to all those msgs?

WHY would you do that?
Do you not believe me?
Or you don't care to consider there are other reasons?

????
Can you explain what you are really thinking
and why you are projecting that onto me?

Emily, pardon my English, but I don't give a flying fuck that you have two jobs. We're all on here expressing opinions and ideas but there is a certain expectation, at least from non-trolls (which includes you), that there is a back and forth between posters. I have seen almost everyone in this thread complain you're avoiding answering direct questions. And while you blame lack of time, the reality is you reply to posts containing questions with long drawn out soliloquies

1. there is only one of me, and there are 4-5 of you.
Do you think I have time to answer 10 posts by Sneekin, you and rightwinger?

2. did you get my PM that I have two jobs, that i am behind on.
Does that register in your head that I don't have time in betwe en my two jobs
to even eat and sleep in a healthy manner?

Faun have you ever worked two jobs at the same time?
Do you have any idea how strenous it is?

I can't even call my own mother back for we eks to catch up.
I can't se e my nephews in California, I can barely se e my own boyfriend
once a we ek if I am lucky.

Why would I spend more time online answering questions
from you than I spend time with my boyfriend or talking with my family?

Are you that insulted that I don't have time to
answer all your messages when I can't even call my own mother back on time?

Oh, stop whining. I asked you a simple question which could have been answered in 2 seconds with "yes" or "no."

ARE YOU MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN MOTHER???

WTF is wrong with you? I'm the one who suggested you spend less time here and more time with your mother.

Then why are you complaining Faun if you agree that there are reasons I don't have time to search and reply right away.

I answered your question multiple times and you didn't accept those posts as replies. How is this my fault that you don't count three attempts to answer your post?

Is this just your way of communicating?

If so don't complain about my way if yours is just as contrary!

If this is the best you can do, I accept that, and ask you hold the same courtesy to me when my replies seem off to you as well. Thank you Faun

Had you answered my question, I wouldn't have kept repeating it. Perhaps you thought you answered it in one of your many long-winded diatribes, but you didn't. My question prompted you for a "yes" or "no" answer and neither were forthcoming from you.

Which leads me to offering yet more assistance to you in your efforts to save your jobs and your relationships with your mother, boyfriend, nephew, other friends, family members, pets, whatever....

Stop wasting time on these posts which are unrelated to the forum topic. Stop wasting time whining about how others are treating you. You need to severely cut back on posting, so make every post count.

That said, you've now made many off-topic posts and sent me multiple PM's but you haven't addressed my response to you finally answering my question.

I'll repost it here to make it convenient for you to respond in order to save you time...

___________________________​

Faun: do you believe churches should also stop marrying couples?

emilynghiem: 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.

... now here's the part I'd like you to respond to...

___________________________​

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.

I already said we AGREE that govt should be about the civil contracts part, which you call marriage but other people may not.
Faun so that it covers everyone equally!

And we disagree about who needs what language to be changed or not. I am open to people separating by party through state alternatives if necessary. My ways I need for me aren't set up either. Lots of people are being denied equal access to what they need, it isn't set up yet. So by the time it is set up why not make it work for everyone.

Emily, I'll ask again. What people are being denied equal access? And what are they being denied equal access to? What hey need is vague. Sounds like your are referring to religion, as secular/civil grants equal access. If you don't think it does, what doesn't grant access.

Not going to have party separations nor state separations on a "high level" for civil marriage. It always was marriage and will remain that. The one state that's trying to use domestic partnership for gays is in the process of 1) breaking standing law; and 2) about to pay out millions of dollars in lawsuits.

Civil marriage works with this definition. A Catholic's definition of marriage doesn't fit a Baptist's definition of marriage, which doesn't fit an Amish definition, which doesn't fit the Santeria definition - which is why they are not and will never be a part of civil marriage. And those were just Christian religions. Factor in the multiple branches of Judaism and Islam, Sikh, Buddhism and the thousands of other religions - it would be impossible AND unconstitutional. For those group to get the CIVIL benefits (1138), then they are required to get a civil marriage license and have the celebrant sign the license not as a pastor/bishop/Rabbi/Imam etc, but as a sworn representative of the state, with no more rights than a JP.

Dear Sneekin
The whole SET UP of going through govt for these rights of marriage/health care etc.
is ALREADY in conflict with beliefs of people to keep these to a minimum and/or out of govt ALTOGETHER
as some extremists believe.

You are like saying "what is so imposing with a Cross on a public building" and nitpicking on what is
causing the actual effect of religious imposition. It's the PRINCIPLE that is already violated.

A. People who believe in limited govt and putting church and God authority first, which is a political belief,
have to set this aside for secular beliefs that don't agree, so that is seen as imposing already!
B. People who need govt or believe in using govt for establishing and exercising right to health care and right to marriage EQUALLY
require going through govt for these programs that others BELIEVE in keeping outside for full freedom control and choice by individuals and civil liberties.
So any attempt to limit or remove them is seen as imposing or excluding!

Because one wants to depend on and maximize govt
while the other wants to limit and not go through govt,
these political beliefs are competing to impose their will on each other and the rest of the nation.

So I propose that since these political beliefs are held sacred
and as inherent to people's innate identity as are religious beliefs,
they should be protected and policed the same way; however,
since these beliefs are different in that they touch govt, the solution is NOT to remove
them since that isn't possible, but to reach a consensus on how to accommodate both.

 

[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!

Simply put - not how are government was designed to work. Our country was established to separate politics and religion, sorry. Your religious beliefs will never be treated equally (from a purely legal point) because of the first amendment. No one can put church above/against state, again, first amendment violation. State authority trumps your religiously held beliefs. You can NEVER impose your religious beliefs onto "The People".

You've yet to give an example of where government infringes on your religion. No one is forcing your church to marry gay people or straight people. Up to the Church itself. It's that pesky first amendment that keeps government out of your religion. But it's the 14th that requires in 22 (??) states / cities/counties that a public business (caterer, venue (the Inn), photographer, cake baker, invitations, wedding dress makers, etc) MUST do business both with gay couples and straight couples.

Odd that Zac Posen designed Portia De Rossi's dress and Ellen DeGeneres' suit without complaint, and had platinum wedding bands designed by Neil Lane (again no complaint), had an all vegan menu prepared by Ellen’s personal chef, David Silberkleit (again, no complaints), and of course, a cake - it was a red velvet vegan wedding cake created by Sweet Lady Jane (no complaints), with the wedding dance performed by Stevie Wonder (who didn't complain or refuse). The florist - MARK’S GARDEN didn't complain, and no complaint by LARA PORZAK PHOTOGRAPHY. So... that completely shoots your FADA/RFRA arguments all to hell. Even their officiant did not protest. Nor did anyone attending the wedding. There no massive demonstrations, etc. Their wedding didn't impact your wedding, my wedding, Faun's wedding (if he's married) nor anyone else's. No laws were violated, and this fits into everything you propose to do - is already DONE!.

Yes Sneekin and I'm saying to take this one step FURTHER.
and recognize Political Beliefs are also crossing the line with religion and govt!!!

They are special category of religious beliefs that inherently involve govt.
so if these religiously held beliefs cannot be divorced from govt without violating them,
that's why we need consensus on how to incorporate them with govt if we cannot separate them, as we do other forms of religious beliefs.

It's like finding out certain life forms are both plants AND animals.
So they are classed specially.

Emily - find a new example - In terms of composition, plants have cell walls and animals don’t. Plants make their own food while animals hunt or get their food. Please provide a life form that both does and does not have cell walls.

You cannot recognize political beliefs as you are calling out. Laws cover ALL people, not just conservatives, liberals, or independents, nor just black, white, red, brown, etc.

As was pointed out, we don't have consensus when we pass federal laws - unless you are talking a majority of congressmen.

Please provide what makes up this special category of religious beliefs that are inherently involving government - I would be more than happy to organize my state to implement an immediate ban as it would violate the US Constitution.Religious beliefs are not incorporated with government. Identify them, please.

Yes, Sneekin and I AM asking for laws and mediation standards
on political beliefs to apply to ALL POLITICAL BELIEFS.
so it's EQUAL. And I'm asking that the public be allowed to directly represent and defend
what they all find to be POLITICAL BELIEFS so all people with these issues are
protected and have equal access and assistance with a process to mediate conflicts
they find is infringing or threatening their rights due to opposing BELIEFS of others!

INCLUSIVE where ALL people can express their beliefs and not be harassed or excluded for them.