Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Silhouette]

Pretty bold lies, saying there's not freedom of religion.

 

[Silhouette]

And you're more than welcome to your beliefs. But your religious beliefs won't be reflected in our laws...

Ahem.... You've heard of the 1st Amendment? Whereas nothing at all is said in the Constitution about gay marriage, or marriage at all for that matter (when marriage is a state-granted privelege; see: Windsor 2013), there is quite a bit in the Constitution said about freedom of religion. Windsor 2013 was clear: state's decide on lifestyle-marriage.

Good luck tweaking the Constitution to favor your cult forcing christians to abdicate their faith in daily life as individuals and congregated together at a building called "a church". Remember, the 1st doesn't grant "Freedom of Church"... it grants "Freedom of Religion". Religion is in the heart of each of the faithful. It's most hallowed ground is in day to day life as each christian faces off with temptation to evil.

Courtesy of "Keys" from the previous page:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The "exercise thereof" is the exercise of saying "NO" to promoting homosexual lifetyles. Jude 1 of the New Testament (Jesus' redaction, not the Old Testament) prohibits doing that under promise of eternal damnation for failing.

 

[Silhouette]

I've scanned the Constitution over and over and nowhere do I find marriage listed as a "right". Currently it's a privelege. So in order for the Supreme Court to say that marriage is a "lifestyle-right" it would have to change the power of the Constitution significantly to remove the power of states to regulate their own discreet communities with regards to human behavior, and instead grant sweeping powers to the fed to "approve or disapprove of behaviors" above the states.

It would fundamentally wreck the foundation of the local penal and civil law systems over time...using precedent. This would be the first time ever that behaviors got special treatment at the federal level...favoritism if you like.. What other behaviors currenlty repugnant to the majority will have their day in Court? "Equality"...don't forget.. Used improprerly, the application of that principle is poised to create great legal havoc.

 

[Paperman299]

I've scanned the Constitution over and over and nowhere do I find marriage listed as a "right". Currently it's a privelege. So in order for the Supreme Court to say that marriage is a "lifestyle-right" it would have to change the power of the Constitution significantly to remove the power of states to regulate their own discreet communities with regards to human behavior, and instead grant sweeping powers to the fed to "approve or disapprove of behaviors" above the states.

The Supreme Court has already said marriage is a right. From 14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
2. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
3. Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
4. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
5. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
6. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
7. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
8. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
9. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
   [*]Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
   [*]Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
   [*]Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
   [*]M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
   [*]Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
   

 

[WorldWatcher]

I've scanned the Constitution over and over and nowhere do I find marriage listed as a "right".

People that have actually read the Constitution understand that rights need not be enumerated in the Constitution to be held by people.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

I've scanned the Constitution over and over and nowhere do I find marriage listed as a "right". Currently it's a privelege. So in order for the Supreme Court to say that marriage is a "lifestyle-right" it would have to change the power of the Constitution significantly to remove the power of states to regulate their own discreet communities with regards to human behavior, and instead grant sweeping powers to the fed to "approve or disapprove of behaviors" above the states.

The Supreme Court has already said marriage is a right. From 14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights ...

For whom? Oh, that would be ANY man or woman to marry each other. What you have to understand is that when all those decisions were written, the word "marriage" is and was inseparable from the number "two" and the pairing "man/woman".

Those cases were about race. You cannot change the definition of a word without the permission of the general public. Otherwise, blind people could change the word "driver's license" to mean "the inaliable right to drive". And then they would go on to claim they have rights to drive because the defintiion of the words "driver's license" had changed..

Lawrence v Texas was about whether or not men could fuck each other in the ass and not get arrested. The Justices at the time warned the public that their decriminalization of sodomy was in no way an endorsement of "gay marriage".

Let's visit your dates and see in those years, what the definition was universally-understood as meaning "man/woman"

1888: man/woman
1923: man/woman
1942: man/woman
1965: man/woman
1967: man/woman
1971: man/woman
1974: man/woman
1977: man/woman
1977: man/woman
1978: man/woman
1992: man/woman
1996: man/woman
2003: man/woman

There was no other concept of what "marriage" meant in those years so there is no other interpretation of what the Courts were talking about except man/woman.

[BELOW vv]
Here's "Syriusly's" rebuttal when s/he has nothing to offer of substance: YOU'RE EVIL!

Hilarious. Go back to kindergarten Syriously, it's obvious you are in over you head here.. This is a legal discussion, not a mud-slinging contest, or high theater of the "victimized gays" or a spam festival. You and your derailing cohorts begone if you can't handle the debate civilly.

 

[Syriusly]

Christians opposed to equal marriage in this thread, apparently.

No I think Christians just want to keep traditional marriage between a man and a woman, and they want to keep it sacred in that way. Now they don't have a problem with people wanting something new and then calling it something new, because their job is not to control peoples lives or minds at all, but to freely accept those who have lived a hard and confusing life, and that might be ready to give their sinfulness up freely, and to join a good Church where their lives can be changed hopefully forever. I think that their are many Christians who are afraid of the slippery slope that these things are all sitting on now, and so they are asking for marriage to be preserved to a man and a woman in the traditional sense is all. The reasons the Christians feel they are under attack as in victims now also as you put it, is due to the heated debate that has caused people to go out and to try and set people up over the situation.

The Christians on this thread, including yourself, have made their own victimhood a core pillar of their argument. You've all spent nearly 700 pages arguing "lots of bad things are happening to Christians..."

That's not just false, it's absurdly false.

Recognizing abnormality as normal is delusion.

There's no upside to normalizing delusion scamp... nothing good can possibly come from it.

Now, maybe you would like to disagree with that.

Please, pray tell... what are the potential cultural upsides of normalizing delusion?

None at all. So if you want to help me tear down some normalized delusion, let's start with this thread and the delusion that Christians are under attack and it won't stop until the government is forcing churches to marry homosexual couples.

This thread is about evil... which must attack good.

Absolutely- this thread is about evil people attacking homosexuals simply because they are attracted to persons of the same gender.

And that is evil.

 

[Syriusly]

I've scanned the Constitution over and over and nowhere do I find marriage listed as a "right". Currently it's a privelege. So in order for the Supreme Court to say that marriage is a "lifestyle-right" it would have to change the power of the Constitution significantly to remove the power of states to regulate their own discreet communities with regards to human behavior, and instead grant sweeping powers to the fed to "approve or disapprove of behaviors" above the states.

The Supreme Court has already said marriage is a right. From 14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights ...

For whom? Oh, that would be ANY man or woman to marry each other..

Yet not one of those cases actually said 'any man or woman'.

Here let me give you some examples of what they actually said:

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

And this is my favorite:

In Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

 

[Syriusly]

Pretty bold lies, saying there's not freedom of religion.

Silhouette is talking to herself again.

 

[Syriusly]

If ever you actually want to stop feeling like you're in conflict with others, it's entirely in Christians' hands to end it. Just let other people live their fucking lives.

That goes for you too bro. Stop forcing other people to participate in your cult.

No one is being forced to participate in anything.

Other than to follow the law.

If Citizen's of Pennsylvania don't like the law- then they can change it.
Or if the business people feel like their rights are being violated- then just like gay couples who want to be able to legally marry each other- they can file a lawsuit to overturn the law.

But the law treats all business owners the same- no special treatment just because they are Christians.

 

[Silhouette]

Spammed another page...oh well...

 

[Silhouette]

I've scanned the Constitution over and over and nowhere do I find marriage listed as a "right". Currently it's a privelege. So in order for the Supreme Court to say that marriage is a "lifestyle-right" it would have to change the power of the Constitution significantly to remove the power of states to regulate their own discreet communities with regards to human behavior, and instead grant sweeping powers to the fed to "approve or disapprove of behaviors" above the states.

The Supreme Court has already said marriage is a right. From 14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights ...

For whom? Oh, that would be ANY man or woman to marry each other. What you have to understand is that when all those decisions were written, the word "marriage" is and was inseparable from the number "two" and the pairing "man/woman".

Those cases were about race. You cannot change the definition of a word without the permission of the general public. Otherwise, blind people could change the word "driver's license" to mean "the inaliable right to drive". And then they would go on to claim they have rights to drive because the defintiion of the words "driver's license" had changed..

Lawrence v Texas was about whether or not men could pretend each other's anuses were women's vaginas, and not get arrested. The Justices at the time warned the public that their decriminalization of sodomy was in no way an endorsement of "gay marriage".

Let's visit your dates and see in those years, what the definition was universally-understood as meaning "man/woman"

1888: man/woman
1923: man/woman
1942: man/woman
1965: man/woman
1967: man/woman
1971: man/woman
1974: man/woman
1977: man/woman
1977: man/woman
1978: man/woman
1992: man/woman
1996: man/woman
2003: man/woman

There was no other concept of what "marriage" meant in those years so there is no other interpretation of what the Courts were talking about except man/woman.

"Syriusly's" rebuttal when s/he has nothing to offer of substance: YOU'RE EVIL!
Hilarious. Go back to kindergarten Syriously, it's obvious you are in over you head here.. This is a legal discussion, not a mud-slinging contest, or high theater of the "victimized gays" or a spam festival. You and your derailing cohorts begone if you can't handle the debate civilly.

*********

From Syriusly's previously-spammed page (trying to derail the topic by disappearing pages, if not the entire thread with her buddies St.Mike and "Conservative"'s "Gay Bashing Theater" )

Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

With no father to look to as he grew up, Arfan Naseer fell into a life of drugs and gangs...He even spent time in prison after becoming involved with the wrong crowd, impressed by their expensive cars and gangster lifestyle...He believes that if he had had a father or male role model to look up to, he would have seen the error of his ways at a much earlier age.

 

[Syriusly]

So you mean Americans should never file lawsuits?

Do you think Christians should not file lawsuits if they think their rights are being violated?

Sounds like you're stumping for the lawsuits-to-come against churches as an LGBT 'right'....
.

Silhouette- you are such a fucking liar- and i so rarely use that word.

In this thread alone I have probably stated at least 30 times that Churches should not- and will not ever be forced to marry homosexuals- OR anyone else a church doesn't want to marry.

You have seen my posts before- and commented on them- so that makes you a big fucking liar.

Not that anyone is shocked by this.

Churches should not- and will not be forced to marry- or do any other ritual- with anyone- black-gay-Jewish-handicapped-Puerto Rican- Chinese- women(seriously how many women have successfully sued the Catholic Church for not allowing them to be Priests?).

Churches are exempt from PA laws- and should be. And will continue to be.

 

[Paperman299]

And you're more than welcome to your beliefs. But your religious beliefs won't be reflected in our laws...

Ahem.... You've heard of the 1st Amendment? Whereas nothing at all is said in the Constitution about gay marriage, or marriage at all for that matter (when marriage is a state-granted privelege; see: Windsor 2013), there is quite a bit in the Constitution said about freedom of religion. Windsor 2013 was clear: state's decide on lifestyle-marriage.

Good luck tweaking the Constitution to favor your cult forcing christians to abdicate their faith in daily life as individuals and congregated together at a building called "a church". Remember, the 1st doesn't grant "Freedom of Church"... it grants "Freedom of Religion". Religion is in the heart of each of the faithful. It's most hallowed ground is in day to day life as each christian faces off with temptation to evil.

Courtesy of "Keys" from the previous page:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The "exercise thereof" is the exercise of saying "NO" to promoting homosexual lifetyles. Jude 1 of the New Testament (Jesus' redaction, not the Old Testament) prohibits doing that under promise of eternal damnation for failing.

In the 60s many people objected to serving black people on religious grounds. Sauce Is Boycotted and Slavery Is the Issue - NYTimes.com

Mr. Bessinger spent much of the 1950's and 60's attacking race-mixing, running the National Association for the Preservation of White People and refusing to let blacks into his main dining room, long after most other restaurants had given in. The Supreme Court eventually forced him to comply with the law.

In fact, that decision was 8-0. You don't have the "right" to refuse goods and services to any demographic on religious grounds (and of course, the government has yet to take any steps to force churches to perform interracial marriages)

 

[Silhouette]

Blacks are a race. Lifestyles are behaviors. There is no provision in the Constitution for lifestyles. There is for race. Do make a note of that for setting up your future premises for argument...

 

[Syriusly]

I've scanned the Constitution over and over and nowhere do I find marriage listed as a "right". Currently it's a privelege. So in order for the Supreme Court to say that marriage is a "lifestyle-right" it would have to change the power of the Constitution significantly to remove the power of states to regulate their own discreet communities with regards to human behavior, and instead grant sweeping powers to the fed to "approve or disapprove of behaviors" above the states.

The Supreme Court has already said marriage is a right. From 14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights ...

For whom? Oh, that would be ANY man or woman to marry each other. What you have to understand is that when all those decisions were written, the word "marriage" is and was inseparable from the number "two" and the pairing "man/woman".
Those cases were about race..

Wow- you are an idiot.

No- those cases were not about 'race'- only Loving v. Virginia were about a couple that wanted to get married but were prevented by State laws against mixed race marriage.

The other cases had to do with among other things: regulations against prisoners marrying, laws preventing a parent with unpaid child support from getting married- by the way that is an interesting case- and not a good one for you.

Much like your bizarre theory about 'complimentary' parents- the State argued that preventing a parent from marrying who owed child support would 'incentivize' that parent to be a responsible parent.

The court noted that there is no indication that preventing a parent from marrying would work to get him or her to pay back child support- nor would it prevent him or her from having more children.

And threw out the State law.

 

[Syriusly]

Blacks are a race. Lifestyles are behaviors. There is no provision in the Constitution for lifestyles. There is for race. Do make a note of that for setting up your future premises for argument...

Silhouette is talking to herself again.

I wonder which side of the brain is trying to convince the other side?

 

[Paperman299]

I've scanned the Constitution over and over and nowhere do I find marriage listed as a "right". Currently it's a privelege. So in order for the Supreme Court to say that marriage is a "lifestyle-right" it would have to change the power of the Constitution significantly to remove the power of states to regulate their own discreet communities with regards to human behavior, and instead grant sweeping powers to the fed to "approve or disapprove of behaviors" above the states.

The Supreme Court has already said marriage is a right. From 14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights ...

For whom? Oh, that would be ANY man or woman to marry each other. What you have to understand is that when all those decisions were written, the word "marriage" is and was inseparable from the number "two" and the pairing "man/woman".

Those cases were about race. You cannot change the definition of a word without the permission of the general public. Otherwise, blind people could change the word "driver's license" to mean "the inaliable right to drive". And then they would go on to claim they have rights to drive because the defintiion of the words "driver's license" had changed..

Lawrence v Texas was about whether or not men could fuck each other in the ass and not get arrested. The Justices at the time warned the public that their decriminalization of sodomy was in no way an endorsement of "gay marriage".

Let's visit your dates and see in those years, what the definition was universally-understood as meaning "man/woman"

1888: man/woman
1923: man/woman
1942: man/woman
1965: man/woman
1967: man/woman
1971: man/woman
1974: man/woman
1977: man/woman
1977: man/woman
1978: man/woman
1992: man/woman
1996: man/woman
2003: man/woman

There was no other concept of what "marriage" meant in those years so there is no other interpretation of what the Courts were talking about except man/woman.

[BELOW vv]
Here's "Syriusly's" rebuttal when s/he has nothing to offer of substance: YOU'RE EVIL!

Hilarious. Go back to kindergarten Syriously, it's obvious you are in over you head here.. This is a legal discussion, not a mud-slinging contest, or high theater of the "victimized gays" or a spam festival. You and your derailing cohorts begone if you can't handle the debate civilly.

So you agree then that "marriage" (whose definition we currently disagree on) is a right, and not a privilege?

 

[Silhouette]

No- those cases were not about 'race'- only Loving v. Virginia were about a couple that wanted to get married but were prevented by State laws against mixed race marriage.

The other cases had to do with among other things: regulations against prisoners marrying, laws preventing a parent with unpaid child support from getting married- by the way that is an interesting case- and not a good one for you...

And all knew and understood at the time those decisions were made that the word "marriage" meant, without exception or even innuendo at anything else, "a lifelong union between a man and a woman for the benefit of a family in which children almost certainly will arrive".

 

[Silhouette]

So you agree then that "marriage" (whose definition we currently disagree on) is a right, and not a privilege?

Only for pairs of man/woman of any race, yes, it's a right. As long as they are old enough, not polysexual or all the other qualifiers. The structure of man/woman is not dissolvable by alternative lifestyles if it is set by the state as such. The fed limits the states to who they can exclude with regard to RACE. With regards to lifestyles however, the state defines marriage as a privelege; with the wellbeing of children in mind. The structure of man/woman isn't harmed by how well one of the spouses can tan at the beach. It is defined however by if the two or more people involved present zero complimentary-gendered adult/parent role model.