Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[warwulf]

Fag weddings are the epitome of irony. The bible and Nature both condemns fags yet some fags are alleged xtians and AIDS is a direct result of degenerate sexual non-natural activities brought forth by Nature to nip it in the bud.
Shouldn't they be getting married in some circus with the rest of the freaks? But I digress and back to the original poast: hell yes, let the fudge packers and carpet munchers get married in a church! Make those straight, hetero hypocritical churcher haters turn the other cheek, suck it up and do what their idiot god tells them to do.

 

[RKMBrown]

Well Gaydawg - you're finally right about something - Congratulations !

- Government forcing churches to marry gays is a myth - Now if you could kindly get your head out of your ass and face the music on the subject you ran away from with your tail betweenst your legs .

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/361541-gays-have-won-so-what-s-next-14.html#post9361289 <<< What are you Afraid of ?

I am a heterosexual flannel shirt wearing, former football playin, huntin, fishin, tobacco chewin, southern drawl talkin white male 59 almost 60 with 3 grown college educated kids and 2 grand kids.

I have never run away from anything at 6'5" and 280 lbs. Chasing QBs and cracking heads of fugitives was my hobby for 10 years. Got a full ride for 5 and paid big $$$ the other 5.

Am not scared of the gay boogeyman like milk weak sissies are.
Govern yourself accordingly.

Bullying people around might work on the football field, but it's not gonna work out so well in the courts I think.

Yeah, cause I was the one deflecting here.... Oh and I see you still don't understand the use of the term bully off your playground use of the term.

 

[RKMBrown]

How are your liberties "bullied" or "affected" by the courts ruling gay folk can marry?

That claim would be "leaning libtard" wimpy.
Unlike you, I can articulate my opinions without guessing.

>> How are your liberties "bullied" or "affected" by the courts ruling gay folk can marry?

They are not. FYI I'm a libertarian leaning conservative. Thought you knew that. My opinion is that the laws restricting gays marriages should be thrown out by the court.

>> That claim would be "leaning libtard" wimpy. Unlike you, I can articulate my opinions without guessing.

Again, not my fault you don't know how to use the word bullying. But it is apparent that you are practiced at the art of bullying. For example, by using terms like wimpy, and telling people they can't articulate their opinions without guessing. You're not the only one that played football and can carry themselves.

"But it is apparent that you are practiced at the art of bullying"
You are full of shit and do not know me.
I have never, ever bullied anyone in my life. Defended myself apprehending felon criminals fleeing the justice system. You may support them but someone has to go get them. And when they attacked me I defended myself.
And never bullied anyone on the football field also. Not even a late hit 15 yard penalty in 15 years on the field.
So stick to the subject Brown because you are an Ofer bust in your weak attempts to bash me.
I do not know you and do not make childish claims about you.

How do you play football without applying force? You think late hits are the only way to apply force on the football field? Are you mentally handicapped?

 

[emilynghiem]

You are dead wrong.

Change what interpretation? nah that's not what happened..

They looked at the mandate and decided, correctly that the so called mandate was not a mandate in the literal sense, it was a tax in the literal sense. They could have called the mandate a marriage license. The name of the thing does not matter it is merely a name. To many people look at names and associate meaning. Unfortunately the ass hats in congress pulled one over the media and most republicans.

The people who named it a mandate and said it was not a tax were effing liars who were attempting to redefine the english language to confuse the media, citizens, and other fools.

Congress is in charge of themselves, it's not the courts job to teach them the english language, and tell them how to enforce their own rules. Irregardless, the house originated the final bill throwing the point out the door that only the house can originate a taxing bill. The republicans caved.

And you were lied to. Both in what the mandate was, which was a tax, and also as to whether or not the house originated the final bill which they did. If the house originates the final bill it does not matter whether it has taxes or not. Thus for every reason the whole mandate thing was just a red-herring.

Additionally, you are also wrong with regard to your statement that "the Courts can only answer arguments as presented." They also do their own investigations and their own reading and draw their own conclusions and make their own arguments and answers to the issue presented. The issue presented however was not whether or not the ACA is constitutional. The issue was one minor point in the ACA. For example, it had nothing to do with the other minor point that they just struck down, regarding whether the ACA can force a private company to provide contraceptives in general, and abortifacents in particular against the owner's personally held religious beliefs.

Marriage is a part of the right to life protected by the first amendment. This has already been ruled by the courts. The issue, thus has been whether the states have used due process (see 14th amendment) in taking away the right to life of gays. I honestly don't think the states have, nor do I think the federal laws have. I really don't see how the laws restricting life of gays can stand to any reasoned honest scrutiny.

Access to health care is a part of the right to life. The question thus, is can our government(s) restrict access to health care through legislation. Note I said access not free health care. No one ever said life would be fair or free or accommodating. That is not a right. That is a pipe dream.

[MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]
1. Yes Marriage is protected under the First Amendment as part of religious freedom, I agree. So that is why I do not endorse Govt regulating Marriage in ways that other people do not believe in either. You have the right to your beliefs about Marriage, and likewise with other people who do not come to the same conclusions about Marriage.

If people cannot agree about Marriage, just like Religion, keep Govt out of it
and don't make a law at all that imposes some kind of bias unfair to any person's beliefs.

2. As for the ACA

It does not work to nitpick where the violation or problem occurs with the bill or process

You and I both know that is not going to solve the problem. Why? Because the whole thing violates people's beliefs. I also do not believe in govt mandating that I buy private insurance. I believe in a number of better ways to provide more health care for more people without violating any beliefs, and just using free choice.

But my choice is not allowed under this law and would be fined by tax penalty.

So no I do not agree that such taxation is constitutional as it violates my beliefs and I do not consent. the mandate penalizes people who would choose spiritual healing, or build teaching hospitals and other means, that are discriminated against as not an equal choice.

The whole FLAW could be prevented by writing and passing the law by consensus and not imposing it this way, where it divided along political beliefs.
So I'm sorry I cannot explain it better to you why the whole thing is flawed.
all the nitpicky points you and I could argue about are symptoms of the problem.

If it wasn't passed by consent of the people affected, and it violates beliefs about law and choice and due process, it is not fully Constitutional.

RKMB you cannot make anyone who doesn't believe it is constitutional
change their minds because it violates their beliefs, on principle regardless of the points.

The political belief that govt does not have jurisdiction to mandate such a system of health care, regardless of taxation or not, without consent of the people, using a Constitutional Amendment and/or other means of representation as needed; and the belief that the vote in Congress demonstrates a PARTISAN bias in political beliefs, is enough to argue that the ACA is unconstitutional and violates the Code of Ethics for govt service.

Anyone like you is free to follow it, but not impose on others whose beliefs are violated.
I support consent of the governed as part of my Constitutional beliefs protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendment.

So no I do not approve of anyone violating the consent of others by imposing this law or its fines. People must consent to a law as a contract, especially if it contains business requirements such as buying something or paying a fine or tax to government.

that is my belief, and it is protected by Constitutional law as EQUAL to yours.
You cannot impose your belief on me nor mine on yours. so you are free to follow ACA but I will not consent to it being imposed on those who do not believe the same as you.

Thank you! You are very kind, patient and thoughtful and I appreciate your points.
but the principles still apply and no opponent I know is going to be convinced otherwise.

 

[emilynghiem]

My opinion is that the laws restricting gays marriages should be thrown out by the court.

Yes I also agree that since Marriage is spiritual/religious, the state cannot enforce laws that impose on people's beliefs about marriage.

On that same note, neither can the state endorse laws that impose beliefs or bias
that violate other people's beliefs.

So that is why the laws must be written carefully to be neutral
and passed by consent of the people to ensure no biases are imposed.

If people object because their beliefs are violated, that means to go back and
revise them to remove the bias causing objection. If this cannot be resolved
through the state, then keep it private for the churches and people to decide.
If they can reach an agreement, the state can endorse that; but cannot
impose marriage laws that impose or discriminate against anyone's beliefs
affected in that state.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Windsor's finding is that the states cannot violate civilian civil liberties.

14th trumphs, Sil.

Wrong. It says the opposite.

They can't violate civil liberties without first providing for due process. IOW we were better off wrt liberties before the 14th amendment.

Backwards, thinking. None of the last 20 courts finding for marriage equality agree with you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only a hater of liberties writes this garbage: "Any violation of the Constitution harms all citizens, that particular judicial legislation directly harms me is irrelevant, it harms be because it further establishes that the courts can decree anything they want based on nothing but their own politics."

You wish to punish inoffensive folks who want their liberties that don't hurt you in any way or fashion, only wishing to live their lives quietly. But you hetero-fascists wish to judge them and damn them in the public's eye.

What you don't get is that you have been damning yourselves in the public's eyes for some time now.

You will lose because truth, justice, and the American way will prevail.

 

[RKMBrown]

1. Yes Marriage is protected under the First Amendment as part of religious freedom, I agree. So that is why I do not endorse Govt regulating Marriage in ways that other people do not believe in either. You have the right to your beliefs about Marriage, and likewise with other people who do not come to the same conclusions about Marriage.

If people cannot agree about Marriage, just like Religion, keep Govt out of it
and don't make a law at all that imposes some kind of bias unfair to any person's beliefs.

2. As for the ACA

It does not work to nitpick where the violation or problem occurs with the bill or process

You and I both know that is not going to solve the problem. Why? Because the whole thing violates people's beliefs. I also do not believe in govt mandating that I buy private insurance. I believe in a number of better ways to provide more health care for more people without violating any beliefs, and just using free choice.

But my choice is not allowed under this law and would be fined by tax penalty.

So no I do not agree that such taxation is constitutional as it violates my beliefs and I do not consent. Your consent is not needed, the constitution states that they just have to provide due process as they are screwing you over. No different than taking your income for roads, or taking your home for the public good. Welcome to the 14th amendment due process clause. We are all slaves to our government. You should be grateful they let you keep some of your stuff or start voting for libertarians.

the mandate penalizes people who would choose spiritual healing, or build teaching hospitals and other means, that are discriminated against as not an equal choice.
I don't believe this to be a factual statement. My understanding is that there are a significant number of various types of co-ops forming, up to and including ones that include spiritual healing, use of teaching hospitals etc. What you need to do is find a co-op that fits you.

The whole FLAW could be prevented by writing and passing the law by consensus and not imposing it this way, where it divided along political beliefs.
So I'm sorry I cannot explain it better to you why the whole thing is flawed.
all the nitpicky points you and I could argue about are symptoms of the problem.
I disagree. The way to solve obama care is to throw it out not write more federal laws.

If it wasn't passed by consent of the people affected, and it violates beliefs about law and choice and due process, it is not fully Constitutional.

That's not how our system of government works. You have the freedom to complain about the tyrants but that does not mean you are free from the tyrants we have elected to take our income and use as they see fit. We (right after the civil war) allowed them to pass amendments to the constitution that allow this soft tyranny we are living under.

RKMB you cannot make anyone who doesn't believe it is constitutional
change their minds because it violates their beliefs, on principle regardless of the points.
Your belief is not relevant to the constitutionality. Your vote does not count. You might aw well be telling me you don't believe the sun rises.

The political belief that govt does not have jurisdiction to mandate such a system of health care, regardless of taxation or not, without consent of the people, using a Constitutional Amendment and/or other means of representation as needed; and the belief that the vote in Congress demonstrates a PARTISAN bias in political beliefs, is enough to argue that the ACA is unconstitutional and violates the Code of Ethics for govt service.

There are elements of the ACA that are unconstitutional that have not yet come to the court. This is because ACA is not fully implemented yet and all the harms have not been seen. Until there is harm the court does not look at a case.

Anyone like you is free to follow it, but not impose on others whose beliefs are violated.
I support consent of the governed as part of my Constitutional beliefs protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment does not use consent of the governed. Just the opposite. You have it backwards. The Fourteenth Amendment is the amendment that provides for soft tyranny without consent. You are confused.

So no I do not approve of anyone violating the consent of others by imposing this law or its fines. People must consent to a law as a contract, especially if it contains business requirements such as buying something or paying a fine or tax to government.
No, consent is not asked for nor required. You think Obama asks citizens for consent before he kills them with a drone attack?

that is my belief, and it is protected by Constitutional law as EQUAL to yours.
You cannot impose your belief on me nor mine on yours. so you are free to follow ACA but I will not consent to it being imposed on those who do not believe the same as you.

Thank you! You are very kind, patient and thoughtful and I appreciate your points.
but the principles still apply and no opponent I know is going to be convinced otherwise.
Your belief is not backed up by our current laws. Change your belief to wish or desire or goal or should be and you have a point. However, as stated your beliefs are, respectfully, a fantasy. You might as well be believing in unicorns.

in blue

 

[Howey]

I am a heterosexual flannel shirt wearing, former football playin, huntin, fishin, tobacco chewin, southern drawl talkin white male 59 almost 60 with 3 grown college educated kids and 2 grand kids.

I have never run away from anything at 6'5" and 280 lbs. Chasing QBs and cracking heads of fugitives was my hobby for 10 years. Got a full ride for 5 and paid big $$$ the other 5.

Am not scared of the gay boogeyman like milk weak sissies are.
Govern yourself accordingly.

I know you're on our side, but....

I've known quite a few homos that fit that description, even with kids.

No offense to anyone but I am not gay as I was not born that way.

lol...and I didn't mean to imply you were. I just wanted to point out that many, many gays are "flannel shirt wearing, former football playin, huntin, fishin, tobacco chewin, southern drawl talkin white male 59 almost 60 with 3 grown college educated kids and 2 grand kids."


And they're not lesbians before some smartass says something.

 

[RKMBrown]

Windsor's finding is that the states cannot violate civilian civil liberties.

14th trumphs, Sil.

Wrong. It says the opposite.

They can't violate civil liberties without first providing for due process. IOW we were better off wrt liberties before the 14th amendment.

Backwards, thinking. None of the last 20 courts finding for marriage equality agree with you.

Huh? Nah you just don't understand my statement. Due process is anything government says it is. If they say due process is they pay you fair market value for your home when they take it, that's due process. If they say due process is a public vote on gay marriage when they take that away from you then that's due process. If they say due process is Obama makes the decision to kill you with a drone attack then that's due process. It sucks, but that's where we have been.

It's not the same type of due process we have for our criminal system.

 

[RKMBrown]

My opinion is that the laws restricting gays marriages should be thrown out by the court.

Yes I also agree that since Marriage is spiritual/religious, the state cannot enforce laws that impose on people's beliefs about marriage.

On that same note, neither can the state endorse laws that impose beliefs or bias
that violate other people's beliefs.

So that is why the laws must be written carefully to be neutral
and passed by consent of the people to ensure no biases are imposed.

If people object because their beliefs are violated, that means to go back and
revise them to remove the bias causing objection. If this cannot be resolved
through the state, then keep it private for the churches and people to decide.
If they can reach an agreement, the state can endorse that; but cannot
impose marriage laws that impose or discriminate against anyone's beliefs
affected in that state.

Wrong. It happens all the time. If your beliefs on marriage are in opposition to the tyrannical majority you are screwed.

 

[emilynghiem]

Wrong. It happens all the time. If your beliefs on marriage are in opposition to the tyrannical majority you are screwed.

B I N G O !! We have a winner! [MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]

YES it happens all the time and doesn't make it right

YES it means the minority gets screwed

You are proof you are advanced and not backwards (as Jake got it backwards?)

Very few are willing to admit the system isn't perfect and is screwing some things up.
Even fewer are willing to try to fix those flaws.

The marriage equality advocates are willing to challenge the laws
because it leaves out gays

Is the public ready to enforce that both sides need to be represented.
Most people are saying this, but just for their own side.
Many people are saying it for both sides.

How many are ready to change govt to start recognizing BOTH sides?

 

[emilynghiem]

Only a hater of liberties writes this garbage:

"Any violation of the Constitution harms all citizens, that particular judicial legislation directly harms me is irrelevant, it harms be because it further establishes that the courts can decree anything they want based on nothing but their own politics."

You wish to punish inoffensive folks who want their liberties that don't hurt you in any way or fashion, only wishing to live their lives quietly. But you hetero-fascists wish to judge them and damn them in the public's eye.

What you don't get is that you have been damning yourselves in the public's eyes for some time now.

You will lose because truth, justice, and the American way will prevail.

??? What [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]?
I read this the other way.

I read this as equally defending you and other minority beliefs you support!

So YES if YOU also believe YOU are being infringed upon or threatened
by some other group that is "overreaching,"
this interpretation would include YOUR right to equal protection
and not have Courts going with what is politically popular that is infringing on you,
knowingly or not.

What is being said here that doesn't also apply to Equally Protecting YOU
and all other minority beliefs, seen or unseen, from overreaching?

Am I reading this wrong?

 

[RKMBrown]

Wrong. It happens all the time. If your beliefs on marriage are in opposition to the tyrannical majority you are screwed.

B I N G O !! We have a winner! [MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]

YES it happens all the time and doesn't make it right

YES it means the minority gets screwed

You are proof you are advanced and not backwards (as Jake got it backwards?)

Very few are willing to admit the system isn't perfect and is screwing some things up.
Even fewer are willing to try to fix those flaws.

The marriage equality advocates are willing to challenge the laws
because it leaves out gays

Is the public ready to enforce that both sides need to be represented.
Most people are saying this, but just for their own side.
Many people are saying it for both sides.

How many are ready to change govt to start recognizing BOTH sides?

I don't think the answer is to recognize both sides, I think the answer is to have our government leave both sides alone.

The only valid restriction is that the marriage be between consenting adults. Two consenting adults of the same sex, consenting adults of opposite sexes, three consenting adults, ten consenting adults. Whatever.

Further there should be no advantages thrown at the feet of married people to the exclusion of single people. Why should we shower riches on people who get married and thus punish people who do not get married?

Less is more here.

 

[emilynghiem]

When the state seeks to impose its will upon the churches of the land, bloodshed is a heartbeat away.

No. In our country, the state does not have the authority to dictate what the church must *allow*.

The people running churches must still abide by and cannot violate civil laws.
Being a 'religious institution' with its own rules for disciplining the members and leaders
does NOT justify
* covering up child abuse
* violating due process
* forbidding members from seeking medical help for a child, etc.

Because churches, like any other collective organization, have "greater influence and authority" than a single individual, we still have to make sure that "justice is not obstructed" if a civil or criminal violation occurs, or complaints of abuse or threats that still warrant SOME process of resolving the issue to prevent or correct any abuse by anyone.

I believe there should be more clear standards and process to address
religious, political and corporate abuses, where people are trained to
respect civil process and conflict resolution to prevent abuses of power,
especially by collective institutions. Not just churches or corporations,
but also political parties and media.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't think the answer is to recognize both sides, I think the answer is to have our government leave both sides alone.

The only valid restriction is that the marriage be between consenting adults. Two consenting adults of the same sex, consenting adults of opposite sexes, three consenting adults, ten consenting adults. Whatever.

Further there should be no advantages thrown at the feet of married people to the exclusion of single people. Why should we shower riches on people who get married and thus punish people who do not get married?

Less is more here.

YES! More Bingo! Across, up and down!
We should open up a casino. This looks like a winning streak!

 

[JakeStarkey]

I read this as equally defending you and other minority beliefs you support!

Yes, you are reading it wrongly.

No one is constitutionally guaranteed to not be offended by others' opinions.

No citizen has the constitutional right to prevent marriage equality, whereas SCOTUS does, if it so wishes.

Marriage equality injures no one, has not injured or harmed anyone's civil or personal liberties on this Board. No one on the Board has posted a compelling interest or reason that marriage equality will harm or injure the citizenry. The statistics that have been posted indicate that adults sexually assault children, whether heterosexual or homosexual, at almost the same rate, while, in fact, the overwhelming number of assaults are by heterosexual adults.

No constitutional issue of civil or personal liberty exists to deny marriage equality.

 

[Kosh]

I don't think the answer is to recognize both sides, I think the answer is to have our government leave both sides alone.

The only valid restriction is that the marriage be between consenting adults. Two consenting adults of the same sex, consenting adults of opposite sexes, three consenting adults, ten consenting adults. Whatever.

Further there should be no advantages thrown at the feet of married people to the exclusion of single people. Why should we shower riches on people who get married and thus punish people who do not get married?

Less is more here.

YES! More Bingo! Across, up and down!
We should open up a casino. This looks like a winning streak!

Gee that is what I have been saying all along!

Get the government out of the business of "Marriage".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why? Call it marriage or civil union, the govt will still be involved.

And marriage equality is open to hetero and LGBT.

It is not the sole purview of ultra social conservative religion.

There are Christian churches that wed LGBT now: can't take 'marriage' away from them.

 

[Kosh]

Why? Call it marriage or civil union, the govt will still be involved.

And marriage equality is open to hetero and LGBT.

It is not the sole purview of ultra social conservative religion.

There are Christian churches that wed LGBT now: can't take 'marriage' away from them.

Ok I realize that your racist far left Obama drone programming will not let you see anything other than government involvement.

How will the government be involved if they get out of the business of "Marriage"?