Jesus “tells us to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”

[Avatar4321]

Not necessarily. I support gay rights and I am a Republican. I don't think the government has any business defining marriage at all. Marriage is between the individuals involved and their God, or lack thereof.

Exactly. I have been a conservative since the 60's and I have always held the prime factor of conservatism is to reduce governments control of our private lives. Laws denying SSM is government intrusion into private lives. One law applied to everyone equally, or get rid of the law entirely.

.....and forget the will of the people or States right to Govern, just impose your will which is based on political ideology and not protection of individual rights. High road here, you hold not...

The individual right to prevent another individual from enjoyment of the same right you insist for yourself? The individual right to tell someone else how they may or may not live their lives? No, I think between us I definitely hold the high ground. Which, again, is why your position keeps losing in the court system.

No, you hold the "carnal" ground........and if you believe the Courts are a barometer of what is or is not "high ground" in this country, then I suggest you do some research on what exactly the Courts have approved of since our Founding. You also are quite content to have the Federal Government absolve the results of the will of the people in a State election. Only ground there is the ground up right of a system "Of, For, and By the People." Judges are not given the power to Legislate from the Bench. This is in clear violation of the Separation of Powers. But, hey, as long as they are grinding up the Constitution and will of the people in YOUR FAVOR, it's all just fine...... right?

No. I hold the moral high ground, and the ethical high ground and the legal high ground. Your position is you want the right to impose your beliefs on others, to tell them how to live their lives. They just want to live their lives the way they wish, not tell you how to live yours. But you claim to be the victim. The hypocrisy of that position is indefensible. Which is why it keeps losing in the courts.

If you think our legal system is not to your liking, there are airports aplenty. There have been many decisions I have not liked, but that is the nature of law. One side is always going to lose and I don't claim foul just because I happen to be on the losing side. This is because, unlike you, I actually do believe in our system as set up under the Constitution.

In my experience, you don't need government force if you hold a moral high ground.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes, and the key difference is this is by FREE CHOICE and NOT imposed by the State.
THAT'S the point people seem to miss.

Even President Obama, when he finally CHOSE (by free will, not by force of law) to support gay marriage,
instead of protecting this equal choice for others to make FREELY as he did, he then made the political leap
that gay marriage should be endorsed by law. But that's NOT how HE made his choice by free will!

=========================
It is only fair to treat BOTH the beliefs for gay marriage and for traditional marriage only,
as equal beliefs. So it is NOT just a matter of the State "not imposing the traditional marriage through the State"
it is equally a matter of the State "not imposing gay marriage through the State."

I should be amazed by the number of people who can only see THEIR belief and can't respect the other.

But since this is so common, instead it amazes me when I actually find people who
treat BOTH beliefs equally as protected by law. For some reason, those people are rare,
which is sad, because that viewpoint is the one that is fair to both beliefs, and yet very few grasp that.

I'm not following your point. Are you saying that allowing gay marriage is imposing it? And if you don't allow it, how are you not imposing your own beliefs upon others?

Hi PratchettFan

RE: And if you don't allow it, how are you not imposing your own beliefs upon others?

1. because I don't believe in imposing an opinion on this, even my own, by abusing govt, majority rule or courts to impose.
I've said over and over that I believe in CONSENSUS if any law is going to be made that involves BELIEFS.
That way nobody is excluded or discriminated against.

Before I would call it constitutional,
All people with BELIEFS affected by that law would have to agree how it is written and enforced.
And if they say it doesn't respect their BELIEFS, then it has to be corrected until a consensus is reached.

That's my standard, but I offer it freely for those who consent to follow it. Because I believe in consent of the governed,
especially where religious or political beliefs are affected.

RE: Are you saying that allowing gay marriage is imposing it?

2. No, it is already protected by law to marry in private and/or through churches.

Where it is going to far is mandating marriage through state laws UNLESS all people of that state agree to the terms.

Otherwise, if they disagree on terms, then since marriage involves personal beliefs,
it should either be kept private so ALL beliefs are treated the same and NONE are endorsed publicly through the state,
or the laws must be written neutrally enough where all groups agree there is no imposition, bias, exclusion or discrimination.

 

[emilynghiem]

Can believe anything. Should we respect the beliefs of people who think Bigfoot's real and create wilderness areas where Bigfoot can thrive? Of course not.

Just because a stupid belief has been institutionalized doesn't mean it ceases to be a stupid belief.

Dear Delta4Embassy

We don't ban or penalize the group that wants to pay for their own wilderness project around their Bigfoot beliefs.

MANY people have argued in support of practicing gay marriage FREELY in private,
but just don't impose it publicly on people who don't believe in that.

 

[PratchettFan]

I'm not following your point. Are you saying that allowing gay marriage is imposing it? And if you don't allow it, how are you not imposing your own beliefs upon others?

Forcing to recognize a redefinition of marriage is imposing it. Especially when the state's have recognized they would not.

There were no laws preventing two people from creating whatever type of relationship they wanted in the first place.

You need recognize nothing. I could claim anyone who isn't married in a Catholic Church isn't married and refuse to recognize those marriages. Nothing stops me from doing that. However, if the state says the same thing, that is imposing.

The state not doing something is, by definition, a state not imposing itself in anyone's life.

The gay marriage movement is a movement to empower government into recognizing previously ungoverned relationships. As conservatives how can we encourage people to give the government more power?

All you are really saying is that you want the government to impose upon them but not upon you. Taking away your ability to force your beliefs upon others is forcing their beliefs upon you, and that is wrong. It is also why it is losing in the court system.

How do I force them to do anything by denying the government power to regulate their relationships?

By the very act of denying government power to act I am preventing government from forcing them

Refusing to allow them the same privileges as everyone else is regulating their relationships. No one is suggesting the government be given the power to force people to marry. The force is being applied in the opposite direction and you don't seem to have any difficult at all with the government doing it.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes, and the key difference is this is by FREE CHOICE and NOT imposed by the State.
THAT'S the point people seem to miss.

Even President Obama, when he finally CHOSE (by free will, not by force of law) to support gay marriage,
instead of protecting this equal choice for others to make FREELY as he did, he then made the political leap
that gay marriage should be endorsed by law. But that's NOT how HE made his choice by free will!

=========================
It is only fair to treat BOTH the beliefs for gay marriage and for traditional marriage only,
as equal beliefs. So it is NOT just a matter of the State "not imposing the traditional marriage through the State"
it is equally a matter of the State "not imposing gay marriage through the State."

I should be amazed by the number of people who can only see THEIR belief and can't respect the other.

But since this is so common, instead it amazes me when I actually find people who
treat BOTH beliefs equally as protected by law. For some reason, those people are rare,
which is sad, because that viewpoint is the one that is fair to both beliefs, and yet very few grasp that.

I'm not following your point. Are you saying that allowing gay marriage is imposing it? And if you don't allow it, how are you not imposing your own beliefs upon others?

Hi PratchettFan

RE: And if you don't allow it, how are you not imposing your own beliefs upon others?

1. because I don't believe in imposing an opinion on this, even my own, by abusing govt, majority rule or courts to impose.
I've said over and over that I believe in CONSENSUS if any law is going to be made that involves BELIEFS.
That way nobody is excluded or discriminated against.

Before I would call it constitutional,
All people with BELIEFS affected by that law would have to agree how it is written and enforced.
And if they say it doesn't respect their BELIEFS, then it has to be corrected until a consensus is reached.

That's my standard, but I offer it freely for those who consent to follow it. Because I believe in consent of the governed,
especially where religious or political beliefs are affected.

RE: Are you saying that allowing gay marriage is imposing it?

2. No, it is already protected by law to marry in private and/or through churches.

Where it is going to far is mandating marriage through state laws UNLESS all people of that state agree to the terms.

Otherwise, if they disagree on terms, then since marriage involves personal beliefs,
it should either be kept private so ALL beliefs are treated the same and NONE are endorsed publicly through the state,
or the laws must be written neutrally enough where all groups agree there is no imposition, bias, exclusion or discrimination.

The Constitutional protection involved in this is equal protection under the law, as laid out in the 14th amendment. This is not open for any consensus. Either we have Constitutional rights or we do not. If equal protection is only afforded to specific groups, then freedom of religion is only afforded to specific groups. You don't get to pick and choose. So I really don't care what the consensus might be. We either follow the Constitution or we do not.

 

[PratchettFan]

Exactly. I have been a conservative since the 60's and I have always held the prime factor of conservatism is to reduce governments control of our private lives. Laws denying SSM is government intrusion into private lives. One law applied to everyone equally, or get rid of the law entirely.

.....and forget the will of the people or States right to Govern, just impose your will which is based on political ideology and not protection of individual rights. High road here, you hold not...

The individual right to prevent another individual from enjoyment of the same right you insist for yourself? The individual right to tell someone else how they may or may not live their lives? No, I think between us I definitely hold the high ground. Which, again, is why your position keeps losing in the court system.

No, you hold the "carnal" ground........and if you believe the Courts are a barometer of what is or is not "high ground" in this country, then I suggest you do some research on what exactly the Courts have approved of since our Founding. You also are quite content to have the Federal Government absolve the results of the will of the people in a State election. Only ground there is the ground up right of a system "Of, For, and By the People." Judges are not given the power to Legislate from the Bench. This is in clear violation of the Separation of Powers. But, hey, as long as they are grinding up the Constitution and will of the people in YOUR FAVOR, it's all just fine...... right?

No. I hold the moral high ground, and the ethical high ground and the legal high ground. Your position is you want the right to impose your beliefs on others, to tell them how to live their lives. They just want to live their lives the way they wish, not tell you how to live yours. But you claim to be the victim. The hypocrisy of that position is indefensible. Which is why it keeps losing in the courts.

If you think our legal system is not to your liking, there are airports aplenty. There have been many decisions I have not liked, but that is the nature of law. One side is always going to lose and I don't claim foul just because I happen to be on the losing side. This is because, unlike you, I actually do believe in our system as set up under the Constitution.

In my experience, you don't need government force if you hold a moral high ground.

Then you have a very limited experience and you should be grateful you have had such a privileged life.

 

[BluePhantom]

You need recognize nothing. I could claim anyone who isn't married in a Catholic Church isn't married and refuse to recognize those marriages. Nothing stops me from doing that. However, if the state says the same thing, that is imposing.

The state not doing something is, by definition, a state not imposing itself in anyone's life.

The gay marriage movement is a movement to empower government into recognizing previously ungoverned relationships. As conservatives how can we encourage people to give the government more power?

Not necessarily. I support gay rights and I am a Republican. I don't think the government has any business defining marriage at all. Marriage is between the individuals involved and their God, or lack thereof.

So you support government intervention in gay relationships but you oppose government intervention in relationships. Seems inconsistent to me

No I oppose government intervention in any relationships

Then how can you support empowering government to regulate gay marriage and oppose intervening in any relationships?

Avatar...jeez this isn't too hard to grasp.The government should not regulate any marriage gay or straight. It's up to the church and should be left there. If people want to marry outside the church they can sign a contract of marriage (which is essentially what you do when you sign a marriage certificate). In my view the government should have no say on who can and can't enter into an agreement of marriage either through the church or through mutual contract.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes, and the key difference is this is by FREE CHOICE and NOT imposed by the State.
THAT'S the point people seem to miss.

Even President Obama, when he finally CHOSE (by free will, not by force of law) to support gay marriage,
instead of protecting this equal choice for others to make FREELY as he did, he then made the political leap
that gay marriage should be endorsed by law. But that's NOT how HE made his choice by free will!

=========================
It is only fair to treat BOTH the beliefs for gay marriage and for traditional marriage only,
as equal beliefs. So it is NOT just a matter of the State "not imposing the traditional marriage through the State"
it is equally a matter of the State "not imposing gay marriage through the State."

I should be amazed by the number of people who can only see THEIR belief and can't respect the other.

But since this is so common, instead it amazes me when I actually find people who
treat BOTH beliefs equally as protected by law. For some reason, those people are rare,
which is sad, because that viewpoint is the one that is fair to both beliefs, and yet very few grasp that.

I'm not following your point. Are you saying that allowing gay marriage is imposing it? And if you don't allow it, how are you not imposing your own beliefs upon others?

Hi PratchettFan

RE: And if you don't allow it, how are you not imposing your own beliefs upon others?

1. because I don't believe in imposing an opinion on this, even my own, by abusing govt, majority rule or courts to impose.
I've said over and over that I believe in CONSENSUS if any law is going to be made that involves BELIEFS.
That way nobody is excluded or discriminated against.

Before I would call it constitutional,
All people with BELIEFS affected by that law would have to agree how it is written and enforced.
And if they say it doesn't respect their BELIEFS, then it has to be corrected until a consensus is reached.

That's my standard, but I offer it freely for those who consent to follow it. Because I believe in consent of the governed,
especially where religious or political beliefs are affected.

RE: Are you saying that allowing gay marriage is imposing it?

2. No, it is already protected by law to marry in private and/or through churches.

Where it is going to far is mandating marriage through state laws UNLESS all people of that state agree to the terms.

Otherwise, if they disagree on terms, then since marriage involves personal beliefs,
it should either be kept private so ALL beliefs are treated the same and NONE are endorsed publicly through the state,
or the laws must be written neutrally enough where all groups agree there is no imposition, bias, exclusion or discrimination.

The Constitutional protection involved in this is equal protection under the law, as laid out in the 14th amendment. This is not open for any consensus. Either we have Constitutional rights or we do not. If equal protection is only afforded to specific groups, then freedom of religion is only afforded to specific groups. You don't get to pick and choose. So I really don't care what the consensus might be. We either follow the Constitution or we do not.

Hi PratchettFan
I agree, I am NOT saying the Constitution and its principles are open for debate.

I'm saying these are being NEGATED because beliefs are NOT being treated and included equally.
the Constitution is NOT being followed, but skirted by excluding some beliefs while protecting others.

I'm saying if we used CONSENSUS models for including ALL beliefs,
then ALL would be protected equally.

By abusing majority rule, this means overruling and excluding beliefs by political force.
I'm saying that violates the First and Fourteenth amendments.
It isn't treating political and secular beliefs equally as religious beliefs,
but favoring secular ones that exclude religious ones claiming separation of church and state.

 

[PratchettFan]

The state not doing something is, by definition, a state not imposing itself in anyone's life.

The gay marriage movement is a movement to empower government into recognizing previously ungoverned relationships. As conservatives how can we encourage people to give the government more power?

Not necessarily. I support gay rights and I am a Republican. I don't think the government has any business defining marriage at all. Marriage is between the individuals involved and their God, or lack thereof.

So you support government intervention in gay relationships but you oppose government intervention in relationships. Seems inconsistent to me

No I oppose government intervention in any relationships

Then how can you support empowering government to regulate gay marriage and oppose intervening in any relationships?

Avatar...jeez this isn't too hard to grasp.The government should not regulate any marriage gay or straight. It's up to the church and should be left there. If people want to marry outside the church they can sign a contract of marriage (which is essentially what you do when you sign a marriage certificate). In my view the government should have no say on who can and can't enter into an agreement of marriage either through the church or through mutual contract.

I am good with that. Churches can do what they please. This is entirely about what the government does.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes, and the key difference is this is by FREE CHOICE and NOT imposed by the State.
THAT'S the point people seem to miss.

Even President Obama, when he finally CHOSE (by free will, not by force of law) to support gay marriage,
instead of protecting this equal choice for others to make FREELY as he did, he then made the political leap
that gay marriage should be endorsed by law. But that's NOT how HE made his choice by free will!

=========================
It is only fair to treat BOTH the beliefs for gay marriage and for traditional marriage only,
as equal beliefs. So it is NOT just a matter of the State "not imposing the traditional marriage through the State"
it is equally a matter of the State "not imposing gay marriage through the State."

I should be amazed by the number of people who can only see THEIR belief and can't respect the other.

But since this is so common, instead it amazes me when I actually find people who
treat BOTH beliefs equally as protected by law. For some reason, those people are rare,
which is sad, because that viewpoint is the one that is fair to both beliefs, and yet very few grasp that.

I'm not following your point. Are you saying that allowing gay marriage is imposing it? And if you don't allow it, how are you not imposing your own beliefs upon others?

Hi PratchettFan

RE: And if you don't allow it, how are you not imposing your own beliefs upon others?

1. because I don't believe in imposing an opinion on this, even my own, by abusing govt, majority rule or courts to impose.
I've said over and over that I believe in CONSENSUS if any law is going to be made that involves BELIEFS.
That way nobody is excluded or discriminated against.

Before I would call it constitutional,
All people with BELIEFS affected by that law would have to agree how it is written and enforced.
And if they say it doesn't respect their BELIEFS, then it has to be corrected until a consensus is reached.

That's my standard, but I offer it freely for those who consent to follow it. Because I believe in consent of the governed,
especially where religious or political beliefs are affected.

RE: Are you saying that allowing gay marriage is imposing it?

2. No, it is already protected by law to marry in private and/or through churches.

Where it is going to far is mandating marriage through state laws UNLESS all people of that state agree to the terms.

Otherwise, if they disagree on terms, then since marriage involves personal beliefs,
it should either be kept private so ALL beliefs are treated the same and NONE are endorsed publicly through the state,
or the laws must be written neutrally enough where all groups agree there is no imposition, bias, exclusion or discrimination.

The Constitutional protection involved in this is equal protection under the law, as laid out in the 14th amendment. This is not open for any consensus. Either we have Constitutional rights or we do not. If equal protection is only afforded to specific groups, then freedom of religion is only afforded to specific groups. You don't get to pick and choose. So I really don't care what the consensus might be. We either follow the Constitution or we do not.

Hi PratchettFan
I agree, I am NOT saying the Constitution and its principles are open for debate.

I'm saying these are being NEGATED because beliefs are NOT being treated and included equally.
the Constitution is NOT being followed, but skirted by excluding some beliefs while protecting others.

Beliefs are not be affected in the least. Not even to a tiny degree. You can continue to believe whatever you like and nothing that has been proposed has even suggested you can't. What you can't do, and this really is the heart of it, is impose those beliefs upon others and demand they conform to them. If I believe Christians should not be allowed to vote, should they be denied the vote because to do otherwise negates my belief?

 

[BluePhantom]

Pay attention Nimrod. I asked for chapter and verse where God marries Adam and Eve. There isn't one (being a Jew I already knew that.)

And yet here it is:

And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, andflesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall beone flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

We have Adams marriage vows and a teaching on marriage in the garden before the fall.

I'm confident if you ask any rabbi they will agreen that this is a reference to Adam and eves marriage.

You should study the scriptures sometime if you've missed this in the very first chapters

It isn't a matter of the evidence your provide. It's that Delta4 chooses not to accept it.

He doesn't accept the scriptures and hasn't studied them. I hope someday he will study them

(glances over his shoulder checking to see if Avatar's there)

Nope.

I actually have studied the Scriptures. It's why I don't believe them. If I hadn't actually studied them I might be more inclined to believe them, but once you read them, read other faiths' texts you begin to notice how your's isn't exactly original or unique.

Yet you are unfamiliar with an event that happened literally immediately after creation ended. If you've studied and don't know that, I wonder what else you've missed

Well you are correct that Genesis 2:24 says "wife". The Hebrew word used is b'ashth 'u which appears several times in the Old Testament and from what I can tell is universally translated as "wife". If there is an alternate translation I don't know what it is.

However, Delta is absolutely correct that Christianity and Judaism borrow heavily from other earlier religions and cultures. Genesis 1-2:3 is the Hebrew version of the Enuma Elis, Genesis 2:4-3 is the Hebrew version of Enki and Ninhursag from ancient Babylon/Sumar. Noah and the flood came from the Epic of Gilgamesh (probably at least - there are so many flood myths it's hard to nail one down specifically). Sodom and Gomorrah has roots in the ancient Kingdom of Kush. There was a lot of that going around. Judaism and Christianity are unique in their monotheism but the stories and legends are very similar to many other religions from antiquity.

 

[BluePhantom]

Not necessarily. I support gay rights and I am a Republican. I don't think the government has any business defining marriage at all. Marriage is between the individuals involved and their God, or lack thereof.

So you support government intervention in gay relationships but you oppose government intervention in relationships. Seems inconsistent to me

No I oppose government intervention in any relationships

Then how can you support empowering government to regulate gay marriage and oppose intervening in any relationships?

Avatar...jeez this isn't too hard to grasp.The government should not regulate any marriage gay or straight. It's up to the church and should be left there. If people want to marry outside the church they can sign a contract of marriage (which is essentially what you do when you sign a marriage certificate). In my view the government should have no say on who can and can't enter into an agreement of marriage either through the church or through mutual contract.

I am good with that. Churches can do what they please. This is entirely about what the government does.

Exactly. People need to remember that what works for them today can be used against them tomorrow. If the SCOTUS decides the government can deny rights to one demographic of society it can essentially deny them to whomever it wishes. If we can deny homosexuals the right to marry, why can't we deny Democrats the right to marry? Or Republicans? Or immigrants? How about the handicapped? My brother has narcolepsy. We could eradicate narcolepsy easily by simply denying anyone who carries the gene the right to marry or procreate. No more narcolepsy.

All that may seem extreme, but if it is determined that constitutional rights only apply to certain segments of society we open the door for such situations

 

[emilynghiem]

Beliefs are not be affected in the least. Not even to a tiny degree. You can continue to believe whatever you like and nothing that has been proposed has even suggested you can't. What you can't do, and this really is the heart of it, is impose those beliefs upon others and demand they conform to them. If I believe Christians should not be allowed to vote, should they be denied the vote because to do otherwise negates my belief?

Yes and no
1. Klan members, NAACP, Democrats and Republicans all have rules of voting within their groups

2. with public voting, people have to agree on the rules.
and yes there is a debate about voter ID. People don't agree to those rules.
People are arguing it discriminates indirectly and in practice against poor minorities.
So we need a consensus on this. Otherwise the courts are clobbering these arguments and upholding voter ID
to prevent fraud. So what are other ways to prevent fraud?

Maybe if we held parties to fund their own programs and manage their members,
groups would be self-responsible. They would only effect policies that affect them (unless there is an AGREEMENT
on what to pass as a public law instead of private). so of course there would be accountability
for voting within the group that's affected! Of course they don't want waste and corruption if
it's coming out of their budgets.

This is already going on. There are already private groups that decide who gets to vote on inhouse policies.

With public policies and process, the public has to agree on voting.
and right now, we don't agree when it comes to certain political beliefs
* we don't want marriage rights left up to vote if it means our side loses. those are beliefs nobody agrees to compromise.
they only agree to compromise the other side's beliefs but not theirs. So there isn't an agreement on voting on this.
* people don't agree to gambling gun rights or voting rights away based on majority rule or court ruling.
these are rights people believe are sanctified and not to be diminished by political bias in govt.

this is already happening.
I'm just asking to recognize it is going on, because people DON'T agree to compromise on political beliefs
anymore than we would agree for govt to rule on our religious beliefs.

 

[emilynghiem]

So you support government intervention in gay relationships but you oppose government intervention in relationships. Seems inconsistent to me

No I oppose government intervention in any relationships

Then how can you support empowering government to regulate gay marriage and oppose intervening in any relationships?

Avatar...jeez this isn't too hard to grasp.The government should not regulate any marriage gay or straight. It's up to the church and should be left there. If people want to marry outside the church they can sign a contract of marriage (which is essentially what you do when you sign a marriage certificate). In my view the government should have no say on who can and can't enter into an agreement of marriage either through the church or through mutual contract.

I am good with that. Churches can do what they please. This is entirely about what the government does.

Exactly. People need to remember that what works for them today can be used against them tomorrow. If the SCOTUS decides the government can deny rights to one demographic of society it can essentially deny them to whomever it wishes. If we can deny homosexuals the right to marry, why can't we deny Democrats the right to marry? Or Republicans? Or immigrants? How about the handicapped? My brother has narcolepsy. We could eradicate narcolepsy easily by simply denying anyone who carries the gene the right to marry or procreate. No more narcolepsy.

All that may seem extreme, but if it is determined that constitutional rights only apply to certain segments of society we open the door for such situations

BluePhantom why can't marriage be allowed in private
and keep civil unions and contracts with the govt. So this keeps govt out of the terms of marriage.
it only applies to civil contracts of custody, property, estates, etc.and has nothing to do with the social relationships.

 

[emilynghiem]

Forcing to recognize a redefinition of marriage is imposing it. Especially when the state's have recognized they would not.

There were no laws preventing two people from creating whatever type of relationship they wanted in the first place.

You need recognize nothing. I could claim anyone who isn't married in a Catholic Church isn't married and refuse to recognize those marriages. Nothing stops me from doing that. However, if the state says the same thing, that is imposing.

The state not doing something is, by definition, a state not imposing itself in anyone's life.

The gay marriage movement is a movement to empower government into recognizing previously ungoverned relationships. As conservatives how can we encourage people to give the government more power?

All you are really saying is that you want the government to impose upon them but not upon you. Taking away your ability to force your beliefs upon others is forcing their beliefs upon you, and that is wrong. It is also why it is losing in the court system.

How do I force them to do anything by denying the government power to regulate their relationships?

By the very act of denying government power to act I am preventing government from forcing them

Refusing to allow them the same privileges as everyone else is regulating their relationships. No one is suggesting the government be given the power to force people to marry. The force is being applied in the opposite direction and you don't seem to have any difficult at all with the government doing it.

Dear PratchettFan
When an Atheist sues to remove a Cross from public property
NOBODY is forcing the Atheist to be Christian or accept those views.

The separation is based on principle, that there are beliefs being established or endorsed by govt.
Now if the Atheist chooses FREELY to allow the Cross to remain as "tolerating diversity of beliefs"
that is the choice of hte people. Many people tolerate gay marriage, some in the churches only some
as a public institution.

but it must remain a CHOICE.

I can find people arguing this way to defend the right to define marriage as traditional male/female only:
Ted Cruz Freedom won t survive unless we deny gay people theirs - Salon.com

But they go too far and insist on endorsing that through the State.
So this is the same mistake as taking gay marriage and endorsing that through the State.

Neither of those positions is neutral. They both exclude and offend the views of the other.
So that is why I recommend recognizing marriage as a private institution that everyone has equal rights to practice, and keep it out of the State unless people agree how to write the laws so neutrally that no beliefs are infringed on.

PratchettFan
There is no reason you can show me for why civil unions and contracts can't be kept with the State "for all people"
while keeping marriage private for all people.

Start with that common ground everyone can agree should be a choice.

Then if people or states want to take it a step further and allow marriage into state laws,
then AGREE on the terms. but if these can't be agreed upon, then keep them private.

 

[PratchettFan]

No I oppose government intervention in any relationships

Then how can you support empowering government to regulate gay marriage and oppose intervening in any relationships?

Avatar...jeez this isn't too hard to grasp.The government should not regulate any marriage gay or straight. It's up to the church and should be left there. If people want to marry outside the church they can sign a contract of marriage (which is essentially what you do when you sign a marriage certificate). In my view the government should have no say on who can and can't enter into an agreement of marriage either through the church or through mutual contract.

I am good with that. Churches can do what they please. This is entirely about what the government does.

Exactly. People need to remember that what works for them today can be used against them tomorrow. If the SCOTUS decides the government can deny rights to one demographic of society it can essentially deny them to whomever it wishes. If we can deny homosexuals the right to marry, why can't we deny Democrats the right to marry? Or Republicans? Or immigrants? How about the handicapped? My brother has narcolepsy. We could eradicate narcolepsy easily by simply denying anyone who carries the gene the right to marry or procreate. No more narcolepsy.

All that may seem extreme, but if it is determined that constitutional rights only apply to certain segments of society we open the door for such situations

BluePhantom why can't marriage be allowed in private
and keep civil unions and contracts with the govt. So this keeps govt out of the terms of marriage.
it only applies to civil contracts of custody, property, estates, etc.and has nothing to do with the social relationships.

So long as it applies to everyone equally.

 

[BluePhantom]

No I oppose government intervention in any relationships

Then how can you support empowering government to regulate gay marriage and oppose intervening in any relationships?

Avatar...jeez this isn't too hard to grasp.The government should not regulate any marriage gay or straight. It's up to the church and should be left there. If people want to marry outside the church they can sign a contract of marriage (which is essentially what you do when you sign a marriage certificate). In my view the government should have no say on who can and can't enter into an agreement of marriage either through the church or through mutual contract.

I am good with that. Churches can do what they please. This is entirely about what the government does.

Exactly. People need to remember that what works for them today can be used against them tomorrow. If the SCOTUS decides the government can deny rights to one demographic of society it can essentially deny them to whomever it wishes. If we can deny homosexuals the right to marry, why can't we deny Democrats the right to marry? Or Republicans? Or immigrants? How about the handicapped? My brother has narcolepsy. We could eradicate narcolepsy easily by simply denying anyone who carries the gene the right to marry or procreate. No more narcolepsy.

All that may seem extreme, but if it is determined that constitutional rights only apply to certain segments of society we open the door for such situations

BluePhantom why can't marriage be allowed in private
and keep civil unions and contracts with the govt. So this keeps govt out of the terms of marriage.
it only applies to civil contracts of custody, property, estates, etc.and has nothing to do with the social relationships.

I agree completely. Amen. Hallelujah! Let me give you the flip side though. My wife (TrinityPower) and I are not legally married. We both came from very bad first marriages that were completely ugly in how they split up. Neither of us want to go through that again. As people of faith we held our own ceremony where we held hands, looked into each others eyes, and each declared to God that we are husband and wife. The state doesn't recognize it but we don't care. It's between us and our God. We have both signed statements giving the other the right to make medical decisions according to our wills in the case of a medical emergency. We have covered our bases. For us, that is enough, but that is an arrangement we both freely entered into. To us, it is not important whether the government recognizes our union or not. Maybe someday we will change our minds..who knows.

But the thing is we have the right to make it "official" with the government whenever we want. We choose a spiritual union before God as our authority, but we have the freedom and right to make it civic as well. Homosexuals do not have that right. I agree with you completely that the government should recognize any civil union or marriage contract where all involved participants are willing and give consent. It's none of the government's business who we marry or bind ourselves to. In regards to a religious union before God, that's up to the church.

 

[PratchettFan]

You need recognize nothing. I could claim anyone who isn't married in a Catholic Church isn't married and refuse to recognize those marriages. Nothing stops me from doing that. However, if the state says the same thing, that is imposing.

The state not doing something is, by definition, a state not imposing itself in anyone's life.

The gay marriage movement is a movement to empower government into recognizing previously ungoverned relationships. As conservatives how can we encourage people to give the government more power?

All you are really saying is that you want the government to impose upon them but not upon you. Taking away your ability to force your beliefs upon others is forcing their beliefs upon you, and that is wrong. It is also why it is losing in the court system.

How do I force them to do anything by denying the government power to regulate their relationships?

By the very act of denying government power to act I am preventing government from forcing them

Refusing to allow them the same privileges as everyone else is regulating their relationships. No one is suggesting the government be given the power to force people to marry. The force is being applied in the opposite direction and you don't seem to have any difficult at all with the government doing it.

Dear PratchettFan
When an Atheist sues to remove a Cross from public property
NOBODY is forcing the Atheist to be Christian or accept those views.

The separation is based on principle, that there are beliefs being established or endorsed by govt.
Now if the Atheist chooses FREELY to allow the Cross to remain as "tolerating diversity of beliefs"
that is the choice of hte people. Many people tolerate gay marriage, some in the churches only some
as a public institution.

but it must remain a CHOICE.

I can find people arguing this way to defend the right to define marriage as traditional male/female only:
Ted Cruz Freedom won t survive unless we deny gay people theirs - Salon.com

But they go too far and insist on endorsing that through the State.
So this is the same mistake as taking gay marriage and endorsing that through the State.

Neither of those positions is neutral. They both exclude and offend the views of the other.
So that is why I recommend recognizing marriage as a private institution that everyone has equal rights to practice, and keep it out of the State unless people agree how to write the laws so neutrally that no beliefs are infringed on.

PratchettFan
There is no reason you can show me for why civil unions and contracts can't be kept with the State "for all people"
while keeping marriage private for all people.

Start with that common ground everyone can agree should be a choice.

Then if people or states want to take it a step further and allow marriage into state laws,
then AGREE on the terms. but if these can't be agreed upon, then keep them private.

We are not talking private, we are talking government. If you want to say all marriage is now called civil unions, I am fine with that. The key here is that it must apply to everyone, not just one segment. If you want to get the government out of the marriage business entirely, that is fine as well. But so long as the government is in the marriage business, then it should not be deciding who is entitled and who is not. So long as it involves competent adults, the decision should be theirs alone.

Of course, one of the problems with getting the government out of the marriage business is the issue of things such as alimony and child support. You had better have a very clear will, because your spouse will be entitled to nothing if you die without it. You can toss out the tax benefits, social security survivor benefits and a myriad of other benefits. All of which arises from a legal concept of marriage. Religion has nothing to do with any of that.

 

[emilynghiem]

If you want to say all marriage is now called civil unions, I am fine with that. The key here is that it must apply to everyone, not just one segment. If you want to get the government out of the marriage business entirely, that is fine as well. But so long as the government is in the marriage business, then it should not be deciding who is entitled and who is not. So long as it involves competent adults, the decision should be theirs alone.

T H A N K Y O U !
PratchettFan
A G R E E D

This is what I'm saying is being left out of the arguments.
This where I believe all people can agree.

The rest can be debated in private but NOT in public courts and legislatures on public tax dollars. Why should taxpayers be punished because of people dragging their personal political and religious beliefs into courts trying to make public laws against the beliefs of others?

 

[BluePhantom]

Of course, one of the problems with getting the government out of the marriage business is the issue of things such as alimony and child support. You had better have a very clear will, because your spouse will be entitled to nothing if you die without it. You can toss out the tax benefits, social security survivor benefits and a myriad of other benefits. All of which arises from a legal concept of marriage. Religion has nothing to do with any of that.

Yeah that's the big problem right there. Children, property, etc. The tax code should be re-written to eliminate the marriage benefit, social security and all that stuff....you know...those things are the real issue in my mind. You know, when I was a kid, my Mom had friends who were a gay couple named Charles and John. They had been together for 30+ years and were as happy together as a couple could be. Charles got sick and eventually died and John couldn't even go into Charles' room to sit with him because he was not family. That is seriously fucked up, man. Whether you agree with gay rights or not, someone who thinks that is ok has no heart at all and if their opposition is based on Christian belief they have seriously missed a huge part of what it means to be a Christian.

In my previous post I discussed by wife and I. It's easier for us because there will be no children for us (I am snipped) and both of us have our own children. We have both accepted the other's children as our own and the children have accepted that as well. We are both independently financially secure. It makes it easy for us to have that kind of arrangement, but that is not always the case. In such a scenario where the government gets out of the marriage business it will require an enormous amount of responsibility on each couple to get everything arranged legally