martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 82,901
- 34,276
Gay Americans are marrying in Kentucky and across America, in accordance with the Constitution and its case law, where the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriage contracts is recognized and safeguarded from attack by the 14th Amendment, having nothing whatsoever to do with the First Amendment, and in no way 'violating' the First Amendment rights of those hostile to the due process and equal protection rights of gay Americans.The First Amendment had nothing to do with the Obergefell ruling, it concerned solely the 14th Amendment.See previous message Skylar C_Clayton_Jones Agit8r about understanding the First Amendment
and not abusing Govt to establish nationalized beliefs, religious or faith-based issues for the rest of the population, much less requiring this by law, much less penalizing people of other beliefs.
Hi C_Clayton_Jones
As per your comment that you don't even believe my views apply to the real world
(while many conservatives live in the world where natural rights come from God/Nature
and not from Govt, and believe it is the Liberals who don't understand human nature and the real world)
EVERY political decision involves the First Amendment because people, like you and me, are Projecting our BELIEFS which BIAS our opinions and perceptions.
The Judges and legislators are also either Limited or Biased by their BELIEFS.
Examples:
A. As above, if people BELIEVE rights are already inherent and come from human nature/God
and don't depend on Govt to establish them by imposing ON the people, but rather people affirm
and agree on rights and freedoms and use the Democratic system to establish that AGREEMENT
like drawing up contracts that reflect what people ALREADY AGREE on and BELIEVE in.
This is a REFLECTION of public consent.
NOT an imposition of policy ON the people with or without consent.
This BELIEF affects people's relationship with govt and the useage of the political, legal and legislative process.
Whereas people who believe in depending on Govt to establish political rights, freedoms and laws
will fight to legislate more on the collective level using Govt
while the other group fights to liberate and to do more by individual free choice and to minimalize Govt.
So people's BELIEFS bias everything they think, say, do, propose, endorse, oppose, execute, fund, vote for or veto, write up or implement politically.
B. Another Example C_Clayton_Jones
if people believe consensus is possible
or people do not,
this affects the standard of consent one will seek in making decisions.
the Greens seek a consensus based inclusive process where objections are taken and resolved
BEFORE the final decision is made cooperatively as a group.
If you don't believe this is possible, if you believe the only way to defend your rights
against the opposition is to beat them politically, this AFFECTS what laws you will seek to pass,
what you will fund, which candidates you will endorse for office.
Political Beliefs affect that also.
C. If you believe in Due Process before punishing or rejecting someone or something.
For example, many people assume
1. spiritual healing is the same as false faith healing
healing homosexuality is the same as fraudulent abusive conversion therapy
so people seek to negate, attack, and deny knowledge and access to helpful therapy
WITHOUT going through the proper DUE PROCESS of distinguishing WHICH parties/practices
are guilty of the fraud or abuses. Instead, ALL groups and methods are ASSUMED to be guilty
of fraud/abuse by ASSOCIATION.
2. similar to assuming all gays are unnatural, sick and enabling pedophiles to abuse others.
Where is the due process to prove which people are spreading sickness and which are
natural and not imposing some agenda, denial, or abusive relations on others?
3. or gun rights. if the violent crimes of one person causes someone
to pass laws depriving even LAW ABIDING citizens of rights, where is the due process
to prove those people were going to abuse their rights and freedoms and needed the same
restrictions as a criminal does?
4. or health care mandates
If someone chooses not to buy insurance yet, where is the due process to prove they
were going to push the costs on the public instead of paying another way?
If the freedom to buy and consume drugs is being pushed for legalization and not declared a crime
to be punished, why punish the free choice of paying for health care other ways besides insurance?
Where is the due process to prove someone did criminal actions or had criminal intent
BEFORE depriving law-abiding citizens of freedom to pay and provide health care OTHER WAYS
BESIDES INSURANCE.
C_Clayton_Jones I am guess you understand "due process" in terms of not punishing and depriving ALL Muslims of equal rights and religious freedoms just because of the Jihadists who need more policing.
You understand that before Muslims are deprived of liberty, there must be due process to prove
THOSE MUSLIMS committed a crime and lost their privileges of freedom when duly convicted of breaking laws.
And you understand "due process" in terms of not accusing and punishing/persecuting
ALL gays, transgender, or others as "sick and spreading social perversion" when many
people are naturally that orientation, and do not deserve to be treated as sick criminals if that doesn't apply.
You understand that guilt by association is not justification to deprive/deny equal rights and protections to people.
What you don't seem to grasp is the same way YOU have beliefs about govt,
and whether courts/congress can makes laws involving religious bias or faith based beliefs,
other people do, too.
This is not "outside the real world" C_Clayton_Jones
this is the REALITY for those people the same way your beliefs ARE your reality, it defines
how you relate to and live day to day. Same with people of Constitutional views that Govt
is limited and cannot just pass any law as long as there is majority rule, or court ruling,
that follows the letter of the law procedure. None of that can supercede the Bill of Rights
and religious freedom from establishment by Govt.
If you don't believe that is reality, you are leaving out people whose reality this is!
So if you are leaving out half the nation, how is that reality?
C_Clayton_Jones
To define reality only based on your beliefs and experiences?
While leaving out people you disagree with so much you don't even think it is real or applies?
How is that reality if it doesn't include all people's views.
Can you have a real number system if you only count the even numbers you use,
and leave out the odd numbers? Or only count the positive numbers and leave out the negative?
Wouldn't the real and complete set include ALL numbers in their proper context.
Can you see how you mimic the fundamentalist who says only the Bible counts
and no views that aren't in there, that's not reality to them. Fine but what about
people who define their reality using Buddhism or natural science. You don't have
to agree with any of that, to recognize that is necessary to communicate their reality.
I challenge you to look deeper into this.
And understand why Conservatives don't believe Liberals are looking at the same reality either!
If both groups cover different realms of experience, don't you think we need BOTH sets to cover
the collective reality and broader range spectrum of all views from left to right?
Can you really define what is reality, and cut out certain knowledge views or perceptions as not counting?
Wouldn't you be missing that part of reality?
No, the attacks on first amendment rights come next.
The courts have never found that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. Not the USSC, not any federal court, not any state court.
You do. And you're not nearly enough.
The courts found segregation to be OK, and until just recently never found a right to SSM, so your appeal to precedent means jack squat.