Marriage Beliefs: Honesty, can't we ADMIT we have political differences in bias and beliefs???

[bodecea]

I believe in equality.

No, you don't. Those of us who believe in equality oppose government marriage. Government marriage in itself is inequality. All citizens should be treated the same by government. The idea of having equal access to inequality is not equality.

Also, you don't believe in equality in anything else either

Have you done anything to actively eliminate government marriage yet? I mean, really besides posting on the internet?

 

[Syriusly]

I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property

So in a Southern town with 95% Christians they should be prohibited from putting a nativity scene in the town square?

Unless they want to open up the town square to any and all comers, for any displays, religious or not.

I suspect that they wouldn't want the "Gay Nativity" but without discriminating on the basis of religion, how would they deny it if they allow any other nativity?

Sure, Syriusly, in both cases let the residents decide democratically and by consensus.

If there happens to be a gay church in the area, why not allow that church to display a gay scene?
They could agree to localize this to each church or neighborhood having the display those members agree with,
so it is fair.
Why not?

Why preclude all displays because you don't trust people to work things out themselves in a reasonable fashion.
How can they ever learn if you ban them from even having these options available?

Any church is welcome to put up any display it wants on its own property or any private property with permission.

If the city is going to allow displays on public grounds- then the government has to do so fairly to anyone who wants to put up displays on public grounds- no allowing Christian displays but denying Hare Krishna displays.

As an atheist, I don't have a problem with that solution- though some would. Personally I think that the shit will hit the fan the first time the locals Wiccans want to put up their display....

And this is like saying anybody can practice their beliefs in gay marriage at their private church.
But not impose this or implement it through public policy because not everyone believes in that.

No- no it is not.

Any church is welcome to put up any display it wants on its own property or any private property with permission.

If the city is going to allow displays on public grounds- then the government has to do so fairly to anyone who wants to put up displays on public grounds- no allowing Christian displays but denying Hare Krishna displays.

As an atheist, I don't have a problem with that solution- though some would. Personally I think that the shit will hit the fan the first time the locals Wiccans want to put up their display

As an atheist I mostly really don't care about nativity scenes etc- there is no 'right' to promote or celebrate your religion on public ground- but I personally am fine with it as long as everyone is given the same opportunity. That way Christians are treated the same way as Jews and Muslims and Atheists and whoever else.

As a human, I believe gay couples should be treated legally the same way as my wife and I are treated.

Equally- both instances.

 

[Agit8r]

As arguments near Justice Ginsburg has already made up her mind on gay marriage

I find there are
1. people who believe in gay marriage
2. people who don't
3. people who don't believe in it but are willing to let other people have that through the state
4. people who believe in gay marriage, but not to the point of imposing it through the state when others don't believe in this

Why can't we admit there are DIFFERENT beliefs about this?

Is there any HONEST official in government willing to accept the REALITY that
everyone has a right to their beliefs, but GOVT CANNOT BE ABUSED to ESTABLISH any of these views
IN CONFLICT WITH OTHERS.

Because each person has equal right to their BELIEFS I agree with
A. Oklahoma's approach of removing marriage from the state and keeping it to the churches or private sector
B. Another state that neither made gay marriage banned or illegal, but didn't endorse it either.
C. Leaving it to the people of each state to find ways where both views can be equally accommodated.

But if the conflict can't be resolved per state, taking the same unresolved conflict of beliefs to federal govt
isn't going to solve the problem. Because both sides still have equal rights to their beliefs!

Oklahoma is ignoring the FACT that government may ONLY consider marriage as a civil matter, as ecclesiastical law is not any part of government's concern.

 

[bodecea]

5. Let each State decide. This is not a U.S. Constitutional issue.

If equal protection of the laws is not a constitutional issue, then neither is the right to bear arms and we should let the states decide about guns.

See how that works?

Gays have equal protection. Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay doesn't

You said that with a straight face, didn't you?

 

[bodecea]

Why do you insist on equating 'gay marriage' with 'nativity scenes"?

How did you possibly not get that?

Her point is that you want tolerance towards gays, do you actually believe in all tolerance? Such as Christian nativity scenes? Or is your tolerance selective?

Free expressions of religion are already legal.

HappyJoy
????

1. What about the case of removing crosses from memorials, such as one case where the Court fined the defense thousands of dollars per day that it wasn't removed. And the lawyers seeking removal even BLOCKED the sale of the property to a private group seeking to preserve the cross, since they argued that the govt was still favoring religion by selling the property to that group?

Isn't a fine as a penalty for NOT removing a cross making
that display a violation disobeying court order and thus violating law?

There are multiple cases like this. Sorry if I run them together but I will try to add links to specific cases: Mount Soledad cross controversy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

2. What about the case of a religious freedom group that threatened to sue to remove a cross design off a memorial to a teacher, because it was on public school property?

Atheist group threatens suit over angels on memorial to beloved teacher Fox News

Isn't this saying it is against the law to have a cross and angels on public property.
Or is it bullying and harassment if no lawsuit actually occurred?

I'm sorry, public property is

Why do you insist on equating 'gay marriage' with 'nativity scenes"?

How did you possibly not get that?

Her point is that you want tolerance towards gays, do you actually believe in all tolerance? Such as Christian nativity scenes? Or is your tolerance selective?

Free expressions of religion are already legal.

HappyJoy
????

1. What about the case of removing crosses from memorials, such as one case where the Court fined the defense thousands of dollars per day that it wasn't removed. And the lawyers seeking removal even BLOCKED the sale of the property to a private group seeking to preserve the cross, since they argued that the govt was still favoring religion by selling the property to that group?

Isn't a fine as a penalty for NOT removing a cross making
that display a violation disobeying court order and thus violating law?

There are multiple cases like this. Sorry if I run them together but I will try to add links to specific cases: Mount Soledad cross controversy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

2. What about the case of a religious freedom group that threatened to sue to remove a cross design off a memorial to a teacher, because it was on public school property?

Atheist group threatens suit over angels on memorial to beloved teacher Fox News

Isn't this saying it is against the law to have a cross and angels on public property.
Or is it bullying and harassment if no lawsuit actually occurred?

I guess you think the free expression of religion revolves around prodding up religious symbols on public lands. it doesn't, put it on your own property or find someone who has the space. This is applicable to everyone.

How does a nativity scene at Christmas prevent anyone from freely expressing their own religion?

How many of you leftists who think it does show up on December 25 at work?

So...you wouldn't mind if your tax dollars paid for my religious symbols on public property during Winter Soltice.

 

[Skylar]

A person can practice pro-life or pro-choice if they want to. What a person can't do is impose their pro-life views on someone else, or force a woman to have an abortion.

And that's the rub. Pro-lifers are trying to use the law to impose their views on an unwilling woman's body. The courts have said they lack the authority. It doesn't matter if the prolifer's 'believe' they have the authority to prevent a woman from having an abortion.

They don't. Mere 'belief' is not the basis of constitutional rights. Or authority.

Yes Skylar
So why are pro-healthers able to impose their beliefs in restricting choices through govt?
Because it saves lives and costs?

Well so would mandating Christianity and spiritual healing save lives, minds, costs, cut crime, etc.

Says who?

Again, Emily.....you're still working under the 'belief equals reality' paradigm. Where something is true because you believe it. And you believe it is because its true.

That's not necessarily the case. Not in 'mandatory spiritual healing' and not in conflict resolution. You've arbitrarily picked 'belief' as your basis of conflict resolution, democracy, redress, constitutionality, etc.

And it isn't. Your beliefs do not establish any of what you assume they do. Your entire basis of argument is invalid. People are going to disagree. And disagreement doesn't mean they're both right. Or either of them are. Nor is the validity of a given law predicated on your personal belief.

The same way you said people can practice prolife and not impose that on other people, why can't right to health care be practiced by those who believe in it, and not impose on other people who believe in free choice?

In gay marriage we already have that. You don't have to have a same sex marriage unless you want to. No one is forced into them. Instead, people choose to. Opponents of same sex marriage aren't trying to make the decision for themselves.

They're trying to make it for everyone. And that's where they run into problems.

 

[emilynghiem]

I believe in equality.

No, you don't. Those of us who believe in equality oppose government marriage. Government marriage in itself is inequality. All citizens should be treated the same by government. The idea of having equal access to inequality is not equality.

Also, you don't believe in equality in anything else either

Have you done anything to actively eliminate government marriage yet? I mean, really besides posting on the internet?

The first step is to form a consensus, especially on matters of private belief that belong to the people anyway.

The second step, once we form an agreement, is to decide how to reform whatever is going on with govt
where we AGREE what steps to take.

It seems pointless that if 50% believe in X and 50% believe in Y, to go fight it out in court or legislatures
to pushing the X belief and discriminate against Y, or push the Y belief and discriminate against X.

It makes more sense to me, as in the quote I found about the Supreme Court not making decisions that
belong to people, to form a consensus among the people.

And where it seems there can be consensus is to remove all marriage and beliefs about marriage from the state,
so nobody infringes or imposes on anyone else.

Start from that neutral viewpoint. Then whatever people can agree upon, those agreed points can be made
public policy without violating anyone's beliefs if everyone agrees to stick to where there is a public consensus.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I believe in equality.

No, you don't. Those of us who believe in equality oppose government marriage. Government marriage in itself is inequality. All citizens should be treated the same by government. The idea of having equal access to inequality is not equality.

Also, you don't believe in equality in anything else either

This is unsurprisingly ridiculous and ignorant.

State governments write the contract law that is marriage, administered by state courts, just as is the case with other aspects of contract law.

There's nothing to be 'gotten rid' of, as government and marriage contract law are one in the same.

And same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, in accordance with their states' laws, as required by the 14th Amendment.

 

[HappyJoy]

I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property

So in a Southern town with 95% Christians they should be prohibited from putting a nativity scene in the town square?

Unless they want to open up the town square to any and all comers, for any displays, religious or not.

I suspect that they wouldn't want the "Gay Nativity" but without discriminating on the basis of religion, how would they deny it if they allow any other nativity?

Sure, Syriusly, in both cases let the residents decide democratically and by consensus.

If there happens to be a gay church in the area, why not allow that church to display a gay scene?
They could agree to localize this to each church or neighborhood having the display those members agree with,
so it is fair.
Why not?

Why preclude all displays because you don't trust people to work things out themselves in a reasonable fashion.
How can they ever learn if you ban them from even having these options available?

Any church is welcome to put up any display it wants on its own property or any private property with permission.


(And to be fair to all people, you can follow Oklahoma's example of removing ALL marriages
from the state and delegating that to the churches. So people have free exercise of religion without any state interference or need for permission through the public.)

I just want to make sure I understand this.

I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property

So in a Southern town with 95% Christians they should be prohibited from putting a nativity scene in the town square?

Unless they want to open up the town square to any and all comers, for any displays, religious or not.

I suspect that they wouldn't want the "Gay Nativity" but without discriminating on the basis of religion, how would they deny it if they allow any other nativity?

Why would they have to do that?

How could they prevent it? No establishment of religion means that no religion can be given any preference- Chrisitians don't get special "Religion of America" status.

Personally I think that banning religious displays on public grounds is better for those who are religious- because if you are a Christian do you really want every religion under the sun shown on the public square- or even worse- the government deciding which religion is good enough for the public square?

Okay Syriusly so how can you justify favoring gay marriage established through the state
instead of no marriage through the state and all of the beliefs of marriage left to the private sector?

How did you possibly not get that?

Her point is that you want tolerance towards gays, do you actually believe in all tolerance? Such as Christian nativity scenes? Or is your tolerance selective?

Free expressions of religion are already legal.

HappyJoy
????

1. What about the case of removing crosses from memorials, such as one case where the Court fined the defense thousands of dollars per day that it wasn't removed. And the lawyers seeking removal even BLOCKED the sale of the property to a private group seeking to preserve the cross, since they argued that the govt was still favoring religion by selling the property to that group?

Isn't a fine as a penalty for NOT removing a cross making
that display a violation disobeying court order and thus violating law?

There are multiple cases like this. Sorry if I run them together but I will try to add links to specific cases: Mount Soledad cross controversy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

2. What about the case of a religious freedom group that threatened to sue to remove a cross design off a memorial to a teacher, because it was on public school property?

Atheist group threatens suit over angels on memorial to beloved teacher Fox News

Isn't this saying it is against the law to have a cross and angels on public property.
Or is it bullying and harassment if no lawsuit actually occurred?

I'm sorry, public property is

How did you possibly not get that?

Her point is that you want tolerance towards gays, do you actually believe in all tolerance? Such as Christian nativity scenes? Or is your tolerance selective?

Free expressions of religion are already legal.

HappyJoy
????

1. What about the case of removing crosses from memorials, such as one case where the Court fined the defense thousands of dollars per day that it wasn't removed. And the lawyers seeking removal even BLOCKED the sale of the property to a private group seeking to preserve the cross, since they argued that the govt was still favoring religion by selling the property to that group?

Isn't a fine as a penalty for NOT removing a cross making
that display a violation disobeying court order and thus violating law?

There are multiple cases like this. Sorry if I run them together but I will try to add links to specific cases: Mount Soledad cross controversy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

2. What about the case of a religious freedom group that threatened to sue to remove a cross design off a memorial to a teacher, because it was on public school property?

Atheist group threatens suit over angels on memorial to beloved teacher Fox News

Isn't this saying it is against the law to have a cross and angels on public property.
Or is it bullying and harassment if no lawsuit actually occurred?

I guess you think the free expression of religion revolves around prodding up religious symbols on public lands. it doesn't, put it on your own property or find someone who has the space. This is applicable to everyone.

How does a nativity scene at Christmas prevent anyone from freely expressing their own religion?

How many of you leftists who think it does show up on December 25 at work?

So...you wouldn't mind if your tax dollars paid for my religious symbols on public property during Winter Soltice.

And mine, which would be totally different. Maybe we should ask the Scientologists what they want, I'm sure we could all use a good auditing.

 

[Skylar]

I believe in equality.

No, you don't. Those of us who believe in equality oppose government marriage. Government marriage in itself is inequality. All citizens should be treated the same by government. The idea of having equal access to inequality is not equality.

Also, you don't believe in equality in anything else either

Have you done anything to actively eliminate government marriage yet? I mean, really besides posting on the internet?

The first step is to form a consensus, especially on matters of private belief that belong to the people anyway.

That's not a solution. As your conflict resolution method is to 'resolve conflict'. But HOW? That's the question. And you have no useful answers. Your conflict resolution methodology is predicated on there being no conflict.

Which is useless.

The second step, once we form an agreement, is to decide how to reform whatever is going on with govt
where we AGREE what steps to take.

And if we disagree? You can't get 12 people in a room to agree on pizza toppings. Yet 300,000,000 are going to agree on something as contentious as what our government should do?

Nope. Not gonna happen. There isn't agreement. That's the issue. And your 'solution' is to wish that the issue doesn't exist. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

It seems pointless that if 50% believe in X and 50% believe in Y, to go fight it out in court or legislatures
to pushing the X belief and discriminate against Y, or push the Y belief and discriminate against X.

That's what actual conflict resolution looks like sometimes. The 'how' that you can't possibly answer. We sometimes have winners and losers. And sometimes, there should be. As not every belief is equally valid.

It makes more sense to me, as in the quote I found about the Supreme Court not making decisions that
belong to people, to form a consensus among the people.

But how? That's where your argument breaks. As you've got nothing. There are always going to be people that disagree. For crying out loud, there are folks still pissed slavery ended. Others that women can vote.

And you can't fix stupid.

 

[emilynghiem]

[QUOTE="Skylar, post: 11282723, member: 4986
Says who?

Again, Emily.....you're still working under the 'belief equals reality' paradigm. Where something is true because you believe it. And you believe it is because its true.

That's not necessarily the case. Not in 'mandatory spiritual healing' and not in conflict resolution. You've arbitrarily picked 'belief' as your basis of conflict resolution, democracy, redress, constitutionality, etc.

And it isn't. Your beliefs do not establish any of what you assume they do. Your entire basis of argument is invalid. People are going to disagree. And disagreement doesn't mean they're both right. Or either of them are. Nor is the validity of a given law predicated on your personal belief.

No, I'm saying that if something is a faith based belief, then it can't be imposed by govt against people's beliefs,
unless there is agreement. We can CHOOSE FREELY to allow references to God, or gay marriage
or nativity scenes; and as long as the people affected AGREE that is free expression and not imposition, it is
can be treated as legal.

Also, the case of people AGREEING that murder should be illegal. Or the state has authority to govern
the process of determining guilt, innocence or punishment.

Those are also beliefs, but as long as the public AGREES to give state this authority, it can be enforced.

But places people don't agree by beliefs, there is religious dispute where you can see the difference:
1. people DON'T agree to prosecute abortion as murder, so this cannot be made law
2. people DON'T ALL AGREE on the death penalty, so arguments can be made to separate church and state
and allow people to fund alternatives who don't believe in funding executions (the same way prolife
people don't want to be forced to provide certain drugs they consider abortifacients)

So there are points you are misreading in my statements
A. What I mean by "someone's belief that they automatically have a right to"
are their personal beliefs that do not violate the beliefs of others or violate laws.

For example, NOT beliefs in man-boy sex that violate laws against rape since children don't have ability to consent.
Men can practice this among consenting men, but not with boys who cannot legally consent.

But someone's beliefs about homosexuality being natural or unnatural, where both beliefs are faith based,
are equal under law, and govt cannot impose one set of beliefs over the other. Even if this is proven,
people have the right to choose what beliefs to espouse or change, and no right to impose that on others.

B. And as for disagreeing
YES that's the whole point.

Because people don't agree on beliefs, GOVT CANNOT BE ABUSED to force anyone to change their beliefs.
That is why such beliefs are kept in private and not imposed in public.

So because we know we disagree, then we can agree to keep those beliefs in private
and respect a neutral policy in public that does not favor one over the other, but satisfies both as treating everyone equally.

 

[emilynghiem]

I believe in equality.

No, you don't. Those of us who believe in equality oppose government marriage. Government marriage in itself is inequality. All citizens should be treated the same by government. The idea of having equal access to inequality is not equality.

Also, you don't believe in equality in anything else either

Have you done anything to actively eliminate government marriage yet? I mean, really besides posting on the internet?

The first step is to form a consensus, especially on matters of private belief that belong to the people anyway.

That's not a solution. As your conflict resolution method is to 'resolve conflict'. But HOW? That's the question. And you have no useful answers. Your conflict resolution methodology is predicated on there being no conflict.

Which is useless.

The second step, once we form an agreement, is to decide how to reform whatever is going on with govt
where we AGREE what steps to take.

And if we disagree? You can't get 12 people in a room to agree on pizza toppings. Yet 300,000,000 are going to agree on something as contentious as what our government should do?

Nope. Not gonna happen. There isn't agreement. That's the issue. And your 'solution' is to wish that the issue doesn't exist. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

It seems pointless that if 50% believe in X and 50% believe in Y, to go fight it out in court or legislatures
to pushing the X belief and discriminate against Y, or push the Y belief and discriminate against X.

That's what actual conflict resolution looks like sometimes. The 'how' that you can't possibly answer. We sometimes have winners and losers. And sometimes, there should be. As not every belief is equally valid.

It makes more sense to me, as in the quote I found about the Supreme Court not making decisions that
belong to people, to form a consensus among the people.

But how? That's where your argument breaks. As you've got nothing. There are always going to be people that disagree. For crying out loud, there are folks still pissed slavery ended. Others that women can vote.

And you can't fix stupid.

Because people don't agree, that's why you leave it to the people and quit trying to impose one way through the state.
EXACTLY!

And Oklahoma and other states came up with ways to accommodate both
A. by removing marriage from the state and delegating to the private churches to work out directly with the people
B. by neither endorsing gay marriage through the state NOR making it illegal.
But allowing it to remain a choice for the people.

And my suggestion to offer to fellow Texans to consider
C. agreeing that if gay marriage is allowed in public, then all references to God, Christmas, Crosses, Bibles
etc. will be allowed in public without any further contest.
And have an agreement that any such lawsuit will be deemed frivolous or malicious and cost the complainant.
And yes, if you want to throw in other displays of Satanism and Wicca in there as well, be my guest.
But I don't think Christians will sign for that version, and you'll be back at square one with removing
all faith based beliefs.

If you are going to disallow gay marriage, remove all marriage.
That is one solution, which doesn't require anyone the right to their beliefs in private, but treats all couples the same!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As arguments near Justice Ginsburg has already made up her mind on gay marriage

I find there are
1. people who believe in gay marriage
2. people who don't
3. people who don't believe in it but are willing to let other people have that through the state
4. people who believe in gay marriage, but not to the point of imposing it through the state when others don't believe in this

Why can't we admit there are DIFFERENT beliefs about this?

Is there any HONEST official in government willing to accept the REALITY that
everyone has a right to their beliefs, but GOVT CANNOT BE ABUSED to ESTABLISH any of these views
IN CONFLICT WITH OTHERS.

Because each person has equal right to their BELIEFS I agree with
A. Oklahoma's approach of removing marriage from the state and keeping it to the churches or private sector
B. Another state that neither made gay marriage banned or illegal, but didn't endorse it either.
C. Leaving it to the people of each state to find ways where both views can be equally accommodated.

But if the conflict can't be resolved per state, taking the same unresolved conflict of beliefs to federal govt
isn't going to solve the problem. Because both sides still have equal rights to their beliefs!

Oklahoma is ignoring the FACT that government may ONLY consider marriage as a civil matter, as ecclesiastical law is not any part of government's concern.

Correct.

14th Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to government, not private persons or entities, such as churches.

And Oklahoma isn't 'taking government' out of anything – marriages in the state are still subject to marriage contract law as administered by civil courts, such as dissolution of marriage.

 

[Skylar]

No, I'm saying that if something is a faith based belief, then it can't be imposed by govt against people's beliefs,
unless there is agreement.

And why are you putting 'faith based' beliefs at a premium above any other? And if any belief can invalidate any law.....then there is no law. Our system of laws is essentially voluntary suggestions.

Which isn't our system of law. Nor ever has been. Your 'should be' is a 'never ever has been'.

Also, the case of people AGREEING that murder should be illegal.

If only they could agree what 'murder' is. Which they obviously can't. Again, can't agree on terms universally. So the law does and establishes more objective definitions that we're subject to.

Even if you 'believe' differently. Remember, your 'belief' isn't actually a standard of law. Or legality. Or constitutionality. Or conflict resolution. Or any of the myriad of topics you suggest it is a panacea for.

But someone's beliefs about homosexuality being natural or unnatural, where both beliefs are faith based,
are equal under law, and govt cannot impose one set of beliefs over the other. Even if this is proven,
people have the right to choose what beliefs to espouse or change, and no right to impose that on others.

'Faith based'? You're equating religious belief with any other system of morality or ethics. Regardless of basis. And they aren't' the same thing. For example, you can believe murder is wrong because your holy book has the words 'thou shall not kill'. And if your holy book says it, it must be so.

Or you can reason that murder is wrong because it takes everything from a person and amounts to the ultimate theft.

One is the product of unreasoning faith. The other the product of reason. The processes are not the same. Nor are they mutually exclusive.

Because people don't agree on beliefs, GOVT CANNOT BE ABUSED to force anyone to change their beliefs.That is why such beliefs are kept in private and not imposed in public.

Again, for the 4th time, the government doesn't regulate beliefs. You can believe whatever you want. Government regulates action. And you can't do whatever you want. There are some rules that limit what you can do.

You can believe in driving at 100mph. And you're free to without censure or fine if you're actually driving below speed limit.

 

[emilynghiem]

I believe in equality.

No, you don't. Those of us who believe in equality oppose government marriage. Government marriage in itself is inequality. All citizens should be treated the same by government. The idea of having equal access to inequality is not equality.

Also, you don't believe in equality in anything else either

This is unsurprisingly ridiculous and ignorant.

State governments write the contract law that is marriage, administered by state courts, just as is the case with other aspects of contract law.

There's nothing to be 'gotten rid' of, as government and marriage contract law are one in the same.

And same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, in accordance with their states' laws, as required by the 14th Amendment.

C_Clayton_Jones
A. If there is no difference between govt contracts and marriage,
then why can't you substitute the term CIVIL UNION for the govt contracts.
If it's the same to you, it shouldn't matter if you use this neutral term.

But to people who define marriage to be man-woman only, it makes a difference.
So why not substitute the problem word, and use the CIVIL UNIONS or DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP,
and define that to have all the benefits?

If you are just as attached to using the word Marriage then there is something more going on that just the govt contracts.

 

[Agit8r]

As arguments near Justice Ginsburg has already made up her mind on gay marriage

I find there are
1. people who believe in gay marriage
2. people who don't
3. people who don't believe in it but are willing to let other people have that through the state
4. people who believe in gay marriage, but not to the point of imposing it through the state when others don't believe in this

Why can't we admit there are DIFFERENT beliefs about this?

Is there any HONEST official in government willing to accept the REALITY that
everyone has a right to their beliefs, but GOVT CANNOT BE ABUSED to ESTABLISH any of these views
IN CONFLICT WITH OTHERS.

Because each person has equal right to their BELIEFS I agree with
A. Oklahoma's approach of removing marriage from the state and keeping it to the churches or private sector
B. Another state that neither made gay marriage banned or illegal, but didn't endorse it either.
C. Leaving it to the people of each state to find ways where both views can be equally accommodated.

But if the conflict can't be resolved per state, taking the same unresolved conflict of beliefs to federal govt
isn't going to solve the problem. Because both sides still have equal rights to their beliefs!

Oklahoma is ignoring the FACT that government may ONLY consider marriage as a civil matter, as ecclesiastical law is not any part of government's concern.

Correct.

14th Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to government, not private persons or entities, such as churches.

And Oklahoma isn't 'taking government' out of anything – marriages in the state are still subject to marriage contract law as administered by civil courts, such as dissolution of marriage.

And yet, they are giving the exclusive right to a governmental franchise to churches? That is nothing less than theocracy.

 

[emilynghiem]

And why are you putting 'faith based' beliefs at a premium above any other? And if any belief can invalidate any law.....then there is no law. Our system of laws is essentially voluntary suggestions.

Which isn't our system of law. Nor ever has been. Your 'should be' is a 'never ever has been'.

Right, laws are based on consent of the governed. They are based on people AGREEING on beliefs
of truth, justice and protecting freedom, peace and security.

I'm not putting "faith based beliefs above others" I'm saying that all faith based creeds should be treated equally.

The Constitutional laws specify that govt cannot establish religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof.

If anything, I am interpreting the laws to the broadest most inclusive extent possible,
by including secular and political beliefs equally as religious ones, and saying NO CREEDS should be discriminated against.

We all have equal rights to dissent or consent,
except where someone commits a crime or abuse and owes restitution or correction for causing a debt or damage to another. And still, in the "due process" of establishing wrong and how to make it right, I still protect people's right of defense equally even when they committed the wrong, to the same degree that they respect the same rights of others.

In short, the law of reciprocity, the natural Golden Rule still applies.

If you want your beliefs and right of defense and equal protection respected,
then you protect and defend the rights of others.

If you go around restricting or banning the practice of others, don't be surprised when they do the same to you.
That's a natural law that all people are under. We get the justice we give. What comes around goes around.

So even though IN WRITING it's just govt and public institutions requires to provide "equal protection of the laws"
I find that the broader rule in real life is reciprocal.

If you practice and enforce equal respect for CONSENT of others, you tend to get the same in return.

If you want govt to respect equal rights, then if you respect those rights, you exert greater influence in invoking that authority to ENFORCE that standard. It is similar to police who follow the laws are respected but police who don't are going to be fought against and not obeyed. Or parents who are abusive of power are not going to be respected the same as parents who are consistent and live by the standards they teach their kids who learn by following EXAMPLES.

If you want equality enforced by govt, it makes a HUGE difference for people to enforce those same standards. This isn't required by Constitutional laws, but I found it is true by natural laws.

That's why I find Christians and Constitutionalists who take personal responsibility for upholding the laws to invoke more authority and influence than people who don't follow the laws and just expect govt to enforce them anyway.

The citizens who are more consistent, and accept equal responsiblity as we ask of Govt tend to have more influence and authority. So that is why I urge all citizens to learn the laws and accept equal responsibility for enforcing them. Otherwise, you may always feel a victim or less in power than citizens who have taken on this authority.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

EMILYNGHIEM SAID:

“Because people don't agree, that's why you leave it to the people and quit trying to impose one way through the state.”

Nonsense.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, where citizens of the Republic are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are in capable of ruling justly – measures intended to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in are proof of that.

Moreover, one's civil rights are not subject to majority rule, one does not forfeit his rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, as the people have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights.

And when the state acts in a manner intended to deny citizens their civil rights in violation of the Constitution, those adversely effected have the right to file suit in Federal court and seek relief; indeed, had the states simply followed the Constitution, and allowed same-sex couples access to marriage law in accordance with the 14th Amendment, this would never had manifested into a controversy in the first place.

 

[emilynghiem]

EMILYNGHIEM SAID:

“Because people don't agree, that's why you leave it to the people and quit trying to impose one way through the state.”

Nonsense.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, where citizens of the Republic are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are in capable of ruling justly – measures intended to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in are proof of that.

Moreover, one's civil rights are not subject to majority rule, one does not forfeit his rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, as the people have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights.

And when the state acts in a manner intended to deny citizens their civil rights in violation of the Constitution, those adversely effected have the right to file suit in Federal court and seek relief; indeed, had the states simply followed the Constitution, and allowed same-sex couples access to marriage law in accordance with the 14th Amendment, this would never had manifested into a controversy in the first place.

C_Clayton_Jones: BELIEFS are NOT up to the govt to decide,
whether democratic or representative democracy.

People don't agree on Protestant or Catholic BELIEFS.
People don't agree on following Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist BELIEFS.

These are NOT areas that federal govt has jurisdiction to decide through representative democracy.

There is a LIMIT on govt authority, and BELIEFS is one area that it cannot establish without consent of people.

We AGREE to let people exercise their Buddhist, Christian or other beliefs in private.
Why can't we agree to let people exercise their marriage beliefs in private, or health
care beliefs, if we KNOW that we have conflicting beliefs just like Muslims and Hindus?

Why this need to force the Hindu beliefs in favor over the Muslims with different beliefs?
That's what is happening with forcing right to health care but not allowing right to life
to establish their beliefs through federal gov they believe will save lives, too!

If we don't agree on beliefs, why can't we agree to leave them to private choices
as we do with other religious beliefs we don't agree on either?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As arguments near Justice Ginsburg has already made up her mind on gay marriage

I find there are
1. people who believe in gay marriage
2. people who don't
3. people who don't believe in it but are willing to let other people have that through the state
4. people who believe in gay marriage, but not to the point of imposing it through the state when others don't believe in this

Why can't we admit there are DIFFERENT beliefs about this?

Is there any HONEST official in government willing to accept the REALITY that
everyone has a right to their beliefs, but GOVT CANNOT BE ABUSED to ESTABLISH any of these views
IN CONFLICT WITH OTHERS.

Because each person has equal right to their BELIEFS I agree with
A. Oklahoma's approach of removing marriage from the state and keeping it to the churches or private sector
B. Another state that neither made gay marriage banned or illegal, but didn't endorse it either.
C. Leaving it to the people of each state to find ways where both views can be equally accommodated.

But if the conflict can't be resolved per state, taking the same unresolved conflict of beliefs to federal govt
isn't going to solve the problem. Because both sides still have equal rights to their beliefs!

Oklahoma is ignoring the FACT that government may ONLY consider marriage as a civil matter, as ecclesiastical law is not any part of government's concern.

Correct.

14th Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to government, not private persons or entities, such as churches.

And Oklahoma isn't 'taking government' out of anything – marriages in the state are still subject to marriage contract law as administered by civil courts, such as dissolution of marriage.

And yet, they are giving the exclusive right to a governmental franchise to churches? That is nothing less than theocracy.

It's political smoke and mirrors.

Marriage in Oklahoma will still be subject to the state's marriage contract laws, each marriage can be sanctioned by the state only if it conforms to state law, and divorces granted only if they likewise conform to the law.