Hello,

Yawn... I said so way back when, and I haven't changed my mind.. I KNEW the country would catch up. That is, except for our resident right wingers.. They're going to tell me WHY gay people shouldn't enjoy the very rights THEY enjoy, and they'll do it with a straight face..

I'd LOVE to be wrong about them..

excon

So when are the lefties going to stop discriminating against practitioners of Bestiality... and push for inter-species marriage?

How about standing up in support of Polygamy?

Or are they really not as all accommodating as they pretend to be...

DOMA is unconstitutional; because it violates Federalism and the 1st Amendment .It violates Federalism because States define the terms that a couple should become a union . It violates the 1st Amendment because marriage is a religious institution . States can define unions and their legalities .Religions define what marriage is... not the State... not the Federal Government .The only reason 'Marriage' is government regulated is for taxation and for wills, and parents rights regarding their children. That can easily be accomplished in union laws .Any other interference by the State in 'marriage ' is a repressive intrusion on what is properly a religious issue.

Hello wingers:


That can easily be accomplished in union laws The key word is CAN. I suppose it could, but you should have tried it, instead of saying it COULD be done.. Look.. Lots of great laws COULD be passed.. But, they ain't.


So when are the lefties going to stop discriminating against practitioners of Bestiality.. I'm surprised you didn't bring up the man on boy group. Are you saving it?

Let me just say to you, that the world is passing you by. Get on board, or get left behind.

Excon

Quote:
That can easily be accomplished in union laws

The key word is CAN. I suppose it could, but you should have tried it, instead of saying it COULD be done.. Look.. Lots of great laws COULD be passed.. But, they ain't.

So I'll change the word to SHOULD . It has tremendous impact on religious rights for the State (national or state governments ) to define what the word marriage means.

This amicus related to the DOMA case addresses specifically why Congress has absolutely no authority to make that definition because of the federalism issue .
http://www.robbinsrussell.com/sites/default/files/appellate_pdf/US_v_Windsor_Amicus_Brief_March_2013.pdf
But it doesn't go far enough in addressing the religious implications of the government intruding on a right for religions to protect their institutions from government intrusion.

Hello again, tom:

Apparently, you think the word marriage BELONGS to religious organizations.. It doesn't. Be that as it may, when DOMA goes down, it's NOT because of the 1st Amendment.. It'll be because of the 14th, and the 14th has NOTHING to do with religion. It has to do with CIVIL RIGHTS.

This is really simple.. IF, what you say COULD have been done, had actually been done, we probably wouldn't be here today.. But, it wasn't done.. It was TALKED about like you're talking about it here. BECAUSE it wasn't done, people who joined in civil unions DID NOT have the same rights as those who entered marriage... The challenge to DOMA is about THOSE rights...

excon

Marriage is a religious institution.. nothing more ;nothing less. It is no secret that has been the position I've taken since we started debating this . Nothing has been done or said to change my mind.
I don't want to go down the slippery slope that smoothy took . But ;without the 1st amendment protections ;the next step will be 14th amendment violations for churches that don't recognize the state sanctioned "marriage" of gays . You know that's true as you have seen in recent months the trampling of religious rights regarding contraception.

Hello again, tom:


the next step will be 14th amendment violations for churches that don't recognize the state sanctioned "marriage" of gaysYou got it exactly BACKWARDS.. The church isn't withholding rights from gays, it's the STATE. I have NO idea what you mean by the church not recognizing a gay marriage.. The ONLY thing a church could withhold from a gay couple is membership, and they can do that now. A repeal of DOMA isn't going to change that.

Excon

No the church isn't withholding rights from gays because gays have no right to a church marriage. How will that change when the state redefines the word for legal purposes ?

Hello again, tom:


How will that change when the state redefines the word for legal purposes ?I don't think it will. Church's can't be forced to perform weddings it doesn't want to. The 14th Amendment doesn't address that.

Besides, they're NOT redefining the word. Legally, a marriage comes with rights, and it will CONTINUE to come with rights. Nothing changes. Plus, from a legal standpoint, the state doesn't care whether a church thinks marriage is in its sole domain or not.

Excon

Hello again, tom:

I don't think it will. Church's can't be forced to perform weddings it doesn't want to. The 14th Amendment doesn't address that. .

Excon

But the church can be forced to dispense contraceptives . Hmmmm




"I honor the president’s concern for the equal dignity of every human being, including those who experience same-sex attraction, who, like everyone else, must be protected against any and all violence and hatred," wrote Archbishop Cordileone in an email to the Register.

"But the marriage debate is not about equality under the law, but, rather, the very meaning of marriage. Marriage is the only institution that unites children with their mothers and fathers."

"Protecting this understanding of marriage is not discrimination, nor is it some kind of pronouncement on how adults live out their intimate relationships; it is standing for the common good," he stated.
(San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, the chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage)

NCRegister | Obama's Collision Course With Religious Liberty (http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/obamas-collision-course-with-religious-liberty/#ixzz2N3ZJIXZo)

To religions marriage is a sacred institution To the state ,marriage is simply whatever judges, politicians or 51% of the majority think it is .

Hello again, tom:


But the church can be forced to dispense contraceptives . Hmmmm Sure. What? You think they're NOT bound by the Constitution?

Excon

Hello again, tom:

Sure. What? You think they're NOT bound by the Constitution?

excon

Here we go...

So they are bound by the 14th amendment of the Constitution to dispense contraceptives;but they won't be bound by the 14th to honor gay marriage . I see .

Hello again, tom:

The 14th Amendment protects peoples rights. It doesn't protect a church or force a church to do anything... But, you're playing dumb, aren't you? You know what it says. You just don't LIKE what it says.

excon

Still unsure of how forcing anyone to dispense free contraceptives is equal protection. It certainly doesn't protect the one being forced to buy them for someone else.

Oh I know what it says all right .Do you know what the 1st amendment says ? If you " separate church and state " ,then marriage should be defined by a church. Not a state. The state can deal with all the legalities of the contract between 2 indivduals ,but it cannot define what is a marriage (which is sacred as an institution ,or a sacrament ,a covenant between a man and a women to GOD).

what is a marriage (which is sacred as an institution ,or a sacrament ,a covenant between a man and a women to GOD).
I thought marriage was a legal contract. Non-Christians marry. And if marriage is the function of the church, then there should be no government benefits for being married, only ecclesiastical benefits.

That is the product of the state defining marriage for it's own purpose . In truth many religions have marriage ceremonies and are free to define the institution as they wish . Some Christian churches have same sex marriages.. That is their business. The state has NO business in the marriage business. Their concern is the legality of the contract.

that is the product of the state defining marriage for it's own purpose .
So if the state says same-sex marriage is okay by them, equality under the law, and grants it the same legal privileges as opposite-sex marriage, what's the problem?

The church can do whatever it wants, but the government has a vested interest in a definition of marriage that works for all religions, and classes of people simply because it means federal and state benefits and protections under the law that only marriage can bring.

Bestiality and polygamy are illegal, and if you want it changed so you can marry your horse, or a herd of them, then find someone to petition your government like the gay people, black people and woman have done.

If it offends your religion senses, don't do it, and write your religious leader not to do it, or sue the government not to make you do it. Once the court rules on it though you like every other citizen are bound to the same law.

Long story short, the judge(s), will decide. Good luck Smoothy, hope it works out with your horse, or the animal(s) of your choice.

oh I know what it says alright .Do you know what the 1st amendment says ? If you " separate church and state " ,then marriage should be defined by a church. Not a state. The state can deal with all the legalities of the contract between 2 indivduals ,but it cannot define what is a marriage (which is sacred as an institution ,or a sacrament ,a covenant between a man and a women to GOD).


Tom, you vehemently criticize the other side for saying the state should be able to define what a religion is when it comes to Obama Care. Yet you are doing exactly the same thing here. You want to apply a religious test to people who may want a civil marriage.

Why does marriage have to be strictly in the domain of religion in the first place? Who made that rule? What religion is a court house marriage?

Tom, you vehemently criticize the other side for saying the state should be able to define what a religion is when it comes to Obama Care. Yet you are doing exactly the same thing here. You want to apply a religious test to people who may want a civil marriage.

No I'm saying that the state sanction of unions ,either man /women or same sex is NOT marriage .it is setting civil law.

Why does marriage have to be strictly in the domain of religion in the first place? Who made that rule? What religion is a court house marriage?

A civil union... a contract..

So a Jewish couple who exchanges vows in a synagogue isn't really married? Or a Muslim couple in a mosque? My Hindu friends aren't really married? Do I even want to know about my agnostic friends who got married by a Unitarian minister in a park?

So a Jewish couple who exchanges vows in a synagogue isn't really married? Or a Muslim couple in a mosque? My Hindu friends aren't really married? Do I even want to know about my agnostic friends who got married by a Unitarian minister in a park?

I did not say marriage is Christian . I said marriage is religious.

I did not say marriage is Christian . I said marriage is religious.
So if my agnostic friends were united by a JP in the park, it wouldn't be a marriage? The difference between a marriage and a civil union is who unites the couple? Then you had better make sure those civil rights bestowed are exactly the same ones as the rights given at a marriage!

I have no problem with that. Let the contracts be equal under the law.. . that is a state issue. I stand by my definition of marriage.

I think you've aced this one tom.

I think you've aced this one tom.
Tom and I aren't in a contest.

So how does one do that? The rights that come with civil unions are vastly inadequate as compared to marriage rights.

no I'm saying that the state sanction of unions ,either man /women or same sex is NOT marriage .it is setting civil law.

I would say you are holding a contradiction.

You want to say that religion should be DEFINED by the church and not DEFINED by the state for the purposes healthcare.

Yet you also want to say:

"If you separate 'church and state', then marriage should be DEFINED* by the church. Not a state." ( * my emphasis )

You further go on to say that the state can deal with the legality of marriage, but it cannot define what marriage is.

You seems to believe that it is the role of the church to dispense the sanctity of marriage to people who don't believe that marriage can or should be defined in these terms.

Yet you complain when the state forces individuals to violate religious beliefs by supplying contraceptives.


Tut

Try to stay with me... marriage is a religious institution that the state has no business being involved in . The state's compelling interest is the contracts that come with the union... period

Tom and I aren't in a contest.

So how does one do that? The rights that come with civil unions are vastly inadequate as compared to marriage rights.

There is no contest, tom is right.

There is no contest, tom is right.
Not yet.

I think that laws against gay marriage will go the same way as sodomy laws. More and more states will legalize gay marriage until there are just a few holdouts in redneck states like the
South and Utah, then the supreme court will strike down the last state laws that ban gay marriage. It will take another few decades, but I think it is just a matter of time.

I still think they are being grossly unfair to polygamists. If these guys are gluttons for punishment and want more than one wife... and can afford it... why shouldn't they.

Hello again, tom:

Apparently, you think the word marriage BELONGS to religious organizations.. It doesn't. Be that as it may, when DOMA goes down, it's NOT because of the 1st Amendment.. It'll be because of the 14th, and the 14th has NOTHING to do with religion. It has to do with CIVIL RIGHTS.

This is really simple.. IF, what you say COULD have been done, had actually been done, we probably wouldn't be here today.. But, it wasn't done.. It was TALKED about like you're talking about it here. BECAUSE it wasn't done, people who joined in civil unions DID NOT have the same rights as those who entered marriage... The challenge to DOMA is about THOSE rights...

excon


So your saying sexual preference is a civil right? I guess that leaves the door open for anything and everything. That is not a place I would like to go. Is that what is going on here?

So your saying sexual preference is a civil right? I guess that leaves the door open for anything and everything. That is not a place I would like to go. Is that what is going on here?
So anyone who goes to a JP (non religious) to get married really isn't married, but is civilly united?

Sexual orientation is a preference, a choice? When did you choose to be straight? What age were you?

try to stay with me ... marriage is a religious institution that the state has no business being involved in . The state's compelling interest is the contracts that come with the union ...period


The states compelling interest is health care this is why the state wants to redefine religion for healthcare purposes.

Yet you want to say that the church's compelling interest is marriage. This is why you want to redefine marriage for relationship purposes.

Can anyone else besides Tom, see the contradiction?


Tut

So anyone who goes to a JP (non religious) to get married really isn't married, but is civilly united?

Sexual orientation is a preference, a choice? When did you choose to be straight? What age were you?

WHen I decided I was straight is not of any relevance. It's the practice of it that makes the difference. If a person were to remain celibate for their entire life does it matter? The only time it is in question is during the practice of it. So when you elevate sexual preference to a civil right then you also aloow anything through that door. Pedos can now marry as that is a sexual preference. Poligamy now has a place to flourish since it is a civil right.

Is that the argument your trying to push forward ?

WHen I decided I was straight is not of any relevance.
When did you decide TO BE straight, not was straight.

Pedophiles are usually straight and it is still classified as a mental illness. Polygamy is against the law.

When did you decide TO BE straight, not was straight.

Pedophiles are usually straight.

So you have no argument in favor you just want to argue the minutia of one part. The relevance of the decision and when it occurred does not matter. It is the argument for anything goes that your skipping over.

Pedophiles are usually straight and it is still classified as a mental illness. Polygamy is against the law.

It wasn't that long ago being gay was also a mental illness. It was considered deviant behavior. There are already mummers starting that pedophelia should be allowed.

So just because something is illegal at this time. Your jumping in on the argument that it is a civil right? So how's that working for you ?

So you have no argument in favor you just want to argue the minutia of one part. The relevence of the decision and when it occured does not matter. It is the argument for anything goes that your skipping over.
We have to deal with the minutia and define terms before we can deal with the larger issue.

We have to deal with the minutia and define terms before we can deal with the larger issue.

It is already well defined. Or is it that you do not believe anyone can be celibate for life?

It is already well defined. Or is it that you do not believe anyone can be celibate for life?
How did we end up with "celibate"?

How did we end up with "celibate"?

It is because anything after that is "choice". It doesn't matter what the inclination is.


So back to what your wanting to defend. That, that choice of sex is a civil right ?

It is because anything after that is "choice". It doesnt matter what the inclination is.
So you cognitively chose to be straight?

Maybe that's the whole problem. People are tired of others defining them, and want to define themselves for a change.

Orientation is not a choice, why would anyone choose a lifestyle that leads to ridicule, discrimination, shunning, and sometimes even violence?

So you cognitively chose to be straight?

I made a choice to act on it.

Orientation is not a choice, why would anyone choose a lifestyle that leads to ridicule, discrimination, shunning, and sometimes even violence?

Why do people rob, steal and kill?

I made a choice to act on it.
So you could have gone either way?

So you could have gone either way?

Nope, unless that was a choice I made but my orientaion doesn't work that way.


Care to defend how sexual preference or choice is a civil right or would you like to dance around a bit more?

Nope, unless that was a choice I made but my orientaion doesnt work that way.
I'm not finished with this yet. So sexual orientation is not a choice we make.

I'm not finished with this yet. So sexual orientation is not a choice we make.

It can be. Just like any other activity we as humans may participate in.

It can be. Just like any other activity we as humans may participate in.
How many of your straight friends made a choice to be straight? A conscious choice? The orientation of being straight, not the activity.

How many of your straight friends made a choice to be straight? a conscious choice? the orientation of being straight, not the activity.

I don't know as I don't grill my friends as you are attempting to do here. I accept them without having to question it. It is their choice. Not mine.

Sexual orientation is NOT a civil right. It's the way you are born. If all men are created equal, how can you define gay people as less. And how much less are they? 3/5ths, half, or LESS?

I dont know as I dont grill my friends as you are attempting to do here. I accept them without having to question it. It is their choice. Not mine.
So you consciously chose the sexual orientation to be straight. 0n your sixth birthday? When?

Sexual orientation is NOT a civil right. Its the way you are born. If all men are created equal, how can you define gay people as less. And how much less are they? 3/5ths, half, or LESS?

If it is not a civil right then you can't use the 14th amendment to defend being gay. That is the point of the argument. It was implied earlier that it was.

If it were elevated to a civil right then you open the door to anything goes based on preference.

So you consciously chose the sexual orientation to be straight. 0n your sixth birthday? when?

It goes further back then my memories take me. Before 6 years old.

It goes further back then my memories take me. Before 6 years old.
C'mon. You didn't choose anything. You were always straight. You were born straight.

C'mon. You didn't choose anything. You were always straight.

The choice to act upon it. Have you missed that part of the argument?

Are you still contending that sexual preference is a civil right?

The choice to act upon it. Have you missed that part of the argument?

Are you still contending that sexual preference is a civil right?
Preference or orientation? There's a difference.

Preference or orientation? There's a difference.

Preference. As it is a choice to participate.

Preference. As it is a choice to participate.
Participate in what? So a same-sex couple could marry as long as they don't consummate the marriage?

Participate in what? So a same-sex couple could marry as long as they don't consummate the marriage?

Nope. That is against the law.

Nope. That is against the law.
Well, then, as long as they don't "participate," it should be legal.

I'm with excon --

This is really simple.. people who joined in civil unions DID NOT have the same rights as those who entered marriage... The challenge to DOMA is about THOSE rights...

excon

Civil unions are NOT the same as marriage, do not convey nearly the same large number of rights.

Well, then, as long as they don't "participate," it should be legal.

Actually no. In many states that would be grounds for divorce. Also marriage under false pretense.

I'm with excon --

This is really simple.. people who joined in civil unions DID NOT have the same rights as those who entered marriage... The challenge to DOMA is about THOSE rights...

excon

Why didn't they have the same rights?

Why didnt they have the same rights?
Because conservative Christians said marriage is between a male and a female (never mind the OT record of mistresses and concubines -- one man and how ever many women).

Because conservative Christians said marriage is between a male and a female (never mind the OT record of mistresses and concubines -- one man and how ever many women).

But you didn't answer the question. Why didn't civil unions have the same rights?

But you didnt answer the question. Why didnt civil unions have the same rights?
Tell me.

Tell me.

I asked you first :)

I asked you first :)
I'm just a feeble-minded woman. :D Tell me.

I'm just a feeble-minded woman. Tell me.

Too late now. Maybe a trip to the library is in order for you.

Too late now. Maybe a trip to the library is in order for you.
Library's closed. I'll ask tal or excon.

Library's closed. I'll ask tal or excon.

Good choice.

The states compelling interest is health care this is why the state wants to redefine religion for healthcare purposes.

Yet you want to say that the church's compelling interest is marriage. This is why you want to redefine marriage for relationship purposes.

Can anyone else besides Tom, see the contradiction?


Tut

apparently only you see a contradiction in my position. I'm not the one redefining marriage .It always was and always will be a religious institution .In the case of my religion it is so sacred it is a sacrament . What I say is that the state violates the 1st amendment by trying to define marriage .
Now ,the state may indeed have a compelling interest in health care... in fact I'll concede the point . That is why it has the power to outlaw,unions between siblings or close family ;and age restrictions on marriage ;or this silly slippery slope about bestiality . That is way different than the state compelling religions to do something that violates their moral values . That is an unconstitutional line the state crossed.

The libertarian minded on this board should love my position . I am taking a position that I've heard from them for years . Get the state out of the bedroom. Let the state deal with the legal contracts and "rights " associated with the union of people.

One of the rare occasions we agree Tom the state should do nothing that affects the state of marriage which after all is a regilious rite, however the state may do whatever it likes about civil marriage as long as it doesn't attempt to have religious comply. So what you get is a two stage system, a religious ceremony and a civil ceremony

I'm suggesting that the state should do is call it like it is.. They sanction civil unions regardless of the gender pairing of the couple. By the way Smoothy is right about the discrimination against polygamy.

apparently only you see a contradiction in my position. I'm not the one redefining marriage .It always was and always will be a religious institution .In the case of my religion it is so sacred it is a sacrament .


Marriage is not just a religion it is a combination of both civics and religion. It is not the case that marriage was always a religious sacrament. In fact is probably only became a religious sacrament in the last 400 years. Western history has no such precedent for marriage being a religious undertaking.




What I say is that the state violates the 1st amendment by trying to define marriage .



Marriage is not a religion. Marriage has both religious and civil obligations.




Now ,the state may indeed have a compelling interest in health care ...in fact I'll concede the point . That is why it has the power to outlaw,unions between siblings or close family ;and age restrictions on marriage ;or this silly slippery slope about bestiality . That is way different than the state compelling religions to do something that violates their moral values . That is an unconstitutional line the state crossed.



Unlike OmabaCare- no one is compelling people not to undertake a religious commitment when they get married. People can choose a religious expression or a civil expression.



The libertarian minded on this board should love my position . I am taking a position that I've heard from them for years . Get the state out of the bedroom. Let the state deal with the legal contracts and "rights " associated with the union of people.

To use you favourite bottom line expression.

You rightly object to ObamaCare redefining the constituents of religion.Yet according to your formula the church should be able to define Civics. So there is no hypocrisy here?

Liberals are not Libertarians. No one in their right mind would be Libertarian.

No one in their right mind would be Libertarian. LOL I'll let others address that . 400 years of tradition ,yet you say there is no Western history for the precedent for marriage being a religious undertaking .ok then . We disagree . Let the state license ,tax or not tax ;define civil rights all it wants to the civil union. Tell me the western tradition for calling gay couplings a marriage ;where is the history for that ?

LOL I'll let others address that . 400 years of tradition ,yet you say there is no Western history for the precedent for marriage being a religious undertaking .ok then . We disagree . Let the state license ,tax or not tax ;define civil rights all it wants to the civil union. Tell me the western tradition for calling gay couplings a marriage ;where is the history for that ?


Tom, don't dismiss my claims so lightly. Our history has shown that you invariably get painted into a corner. We shall see if this is the case this time.

Try ancient Athens for a start. No it is not a disagreement. If Google the history of marriage you would see that marriage has always had some significant civil importance. Still has.

It is a nonsense to suggest that civil marriage violates the 1srt Amendment. The state can easily show a compelling interest when it comes to the institution of marriage.

Two questions for you, which you will probably not answer.

Do you agree that the state has no right to determine what constitutes a religious organization.

Do you agree, or disagree that religious organizations should define the civics of marriage? Not the legal aspect because this is not in dispute. Civics in terms of being married by someone who is not involved in religion.

Before you answer that I'll just remind you of your quote:

"If you 'separate church and state' the marriage SHOULD BE DEFINED by the church. NOT the state".

Tom, don't dismiss my claims so lightly. Our history has shown that you invariably get painted into a corner. We shall see if this is the case this time.

That's because you are a superior intellect and a master debater

Try ancient Athens for a start. Why so recent ? Why not go to Adam and Eve ,or the 10 commandments or the many passages in the Old Testament dealing with marriage . Perhaps you are one of those who deny the role of Judeo-Christian heritage in western culture. 400 years was your marker not mine... but that marker predates the United States by 2 centuries.

marriage has always had some significant civil importance. That is correct ;the marriage of man and women have had a very significant civil importance. But except for the legal power of the state ,and rights of the couple ,the state has no role or compelling interest in the otherwise religious institution.Again ;where is this cultural historical example of the state calling the coupling of homosexuals a marriage ?

It is a nonsense to suggest that civil marriage violates the 1srt Amendment. I did not say that .I said the state redefining what 'marriage ' is ,is a violation of the 1st amendment... The lefty's should be happy . In this aspect ,I agree that the Congress went too far in the DOMA law.

Do you agree that the state has no right to determine what constitutes a religious organization.

Do you agree, or disagree that religious organizations should define the civics of marriage? Not the legal aspect because this is not in dispute. Civics in terms of being married by someone who is not involved in religion.

Before you answer that I'll just remind you of your quote:

"If you 'separate church and state' the marriage SHOULD BE DEFINED by the church. NOT the state".
I stand by the last statement .The state can tax ,the state can confer licenses ,the state can dictate what the contract can contain. The state can guarantee enforcement of the terms of the contract . The state cannot call something that is not a marriage a marriage. Oh of course they will... But I will never will .A couple(heterosexual or homosexual) joined by the state without the sanction of a religion is a couple living in a civil union, not a marriage .

Hello again, tom:

Your entire argument rests on your belief that the term marriage is a RELIGIOUS term. You've been given some pretty good arguments WHY it's not, yet you remain steadfast. In fact, I've seen NO arguments from you showing how that word remains solely in the realm of the divine..

Wouldn't you think that if it were so, you'd strenuously object to the state co-opting it? But, you didn't. If you believed the state had NO involvement in marriage, it would seem that you'd REJECT all the benefits the state wanted to shower married people with.. But, you didn't. Frankly, you appear to be quite happy with the states involvement in marriage, until now.

And, by your above post, you appear to claim that ANYBODY who was "married" WITHOUT the churches sanction, isn't really married... I find that to be quite preposterous.

excon

So if the CHURCH marries gay couples (and some do) they have a religious union then right? And a civil marriage by a JP, or even a captain of a ship is a legal marriages, none of which has ever been referred to as a civil union, but as a legaly binding marriage. So how can a state government wipe out those legally binding marriages by banning gay marriage?

Isn't that stepping on the rights of those that are legally married, but not recognized by some state governments? How can states be allowed to discriminate because of church doctrine? Or even make discriminatory laws that favor one religions doctrines over another?

I contend that the state cannot force ANY particular religious practices, doctrines, or traditions on their constituents, be it school prayer, or marriage. If DOMA is indeed struck down as unconstitutional, and discriminatory, many states will be scrambling to adjust.

America is a republic, not a theocrisy, and the right of the citizen trumps the right of any church to make, and enforce religious laws, to both state and federal government. No state should be allowed to nullify federal law without dire consequences.

Banning gay marriages, be it church or civil, is a clear case of discrimination, and state over reach, as well as over reach of the church. Tell me how gay couples have less protection under the law than heterosexual couples. Then we can discuss Smoothy having the right to marry his horse(S).

it would seem that you'd REJECT all the benefits the state wanted to shower married people with..
I assume you mean tax benefits... as you are aware ,I am a flat tax no deduction kind of guy.


And, by your above post, you appear to claim that ANYBODY who was "married" WITHOUT the churches sanction, isn't really married... I find that to be quite preposterous.

You are free to your opinion. I did not say they did not have whatever benefits the state bestowed on them. But if they are not married ;sanctioned by religion... they are not married.. that's just the way it is.

I contend that the state cannot force ANY particular religious practices, doctrines, or traditions on their constituents,

but you are perfectly content for the state to force it's secular values down our throats .

I assume you mean tax benefits ...as you are aware ,I am a flat tax no deduction kinda guy.
Or these that civil unions do not have --

Marriage Rights and Benefits | Nolo.com (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html)

Hello again, tom:


I assume you mean tax benefits... I mean stuff like being able to visit your spouse in the hospital, having a say in the care of a disabled spouse, being able to be put on their insurance, having inheritance rights, and those are just the ones off the top of my head.. I assume there are TONS more. These are rights YOU have, but civil unions DON'T have...

Look. Gay people will NEVER be on your list of people who should enjoy FULL rights of citizenship. For the life of me, I don't know why. On the one hand, you guys LIKE freedom - but only for some..

Excon

Hello again, tom:

I mean stuff like being able to visit your spouse in the hospital, having a say in the care of a disabled spouse, being able to be put on their insurance, having inheritance rights, and those are just the ones off the top of my head.. I assume there are TONS more. These are rights YOU have, but civil unions DON'T have...
Yeah. Marriage Rights and Benefits | Nolo.com (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html)

but you are perfectly content for the state to force it's secular values down our throats .

Tom they may not be married according to a religious view, but that has nothing at all to do with equal protection under the LAW. Now if your position that the church rules are above those of federal government, you are wrong.

If you are say marriage is the exclusive domain of religion, again, you are just wrong. The state forces nothing on the church by allowing gay marriage, and you may not like it, or agree with it, but you are not harmed or hindered in the way YOU practice YOUR religion.

So tell me how gay marriage forces something down YOUR throat, and how it harms YOUR rights to practice YOUR religion? You cannot I bet! Not liking it is NOT a reasonable argument from you, or the church.

Hello again, tom:

I mean stuff like being able to visit your spouse in the hospital, having a say in the care of a disabled spouse, being able to be put on their insurance, having inheritance rights, and those are just the ones off the top of my head.. I assume there are TONS more. These are rights YOU have, but civil unions DON'T have...

Look. Gay people will NEVER be on your list of people who should enjoy FULL rights of citizenship. For the life of me, I don't know why. On the one hand, you guys LIKE freedom - but only for some..

excon
I'm in favor of all of that being equally applied . That is why I say the state has the right to set the terms of the contract .But they should get out of the marriage business. That should be a perfectly acceptable compromise for a libertarian like you.

Tom they may not be married according to a religious view, but that has nothing at all to do with equal protection under the LAW. Now if your position that the church rules are above those of federal government, you are wrong.

If you are say marriage is the exclusive domain of religion, again, you are just wrong. The state forces nothing on the church by allowing gay marriage, and you may not like it, or agree with it, but you are not harmed or hindered in the way YOU practice YOUR religion.

So tell me how gay marriage forces something down YOUR throat, and how it harms YOUR rights to practice YOUR religion? You cannot I bet! Not liking it is NOT a reasonable argument from you, or the church.

The deeper question is why do you want us to accept that the state sanctioned union is a 'marriage ' ? What do you gain by trying to force on us something we will never accept ? I am not married because the state says so . I am married because my religion sanctified it . Again ;I've addressed all the equal rights aspect of this .;but you still want me to call a homosexual union a marriage. Isn't going to happen.

Or these that civil unions do not have --

Marriage Rights and Benefits | Nolo.com (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html)

Obviously you have not read my position visa vis rights. I'm all for equal rights and application of the rights.

Obviously you have not read my position vis a vis rights. I'm all for equal rights and application of the rights.
With what limitations? OR a civil union will equal a marriage, and marriage will be the name given to the social institution conducted in a religious setting by a priest/minister (Hindu, Muslim, Wicca, Satanism, Christian), whereas civil union will be the name of the social institution created outside a religious body and performed by a JP, ship captain, etc. Therefore, some couples (male-female, male-male, female-female) will be married and some will be in a civil union, depending. All will receive the same benefits.

With what limitations? OR a civil union will equal a marriage, and marriage will be the name given to the social institution conducted in a religious setting by a priest/minister (Hindu, Muslim, Wicca, Satanism, Christian), whereas civil union will be the name of the of the social institution created outside a religious body and performed by a JP, ship captain, etc. Therefore, some couples (male-female, male-male, female-female) will be married and some will be in a civil union, depending. All will receive the same benefits.

Finally someone gets it . It may surprise you to know that my views are the same as Obama loyalist Cass Sunstein (husband of Special Assistant to President Barack Obama Samantha Power )

In a book he penned
,Sunstein proposes that government recognition of marriage be discontinued. "Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government," argues Sunstein. He continues, "the only legal status states would confer on couples would be a civil union, which would be a domestic partnership agreement between any two people." He goes on further, "Governments would not be asked to endorse any particular relationships by conferring on them the term marriage," and refers to state-recognized marriage as an official license scheme."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein#Marriage
Governments would not be asked to endorse any particular relationships by conferring on them the term marriage,” added Sunstein.

Sunstein slammed current government recognition of marriage as “an official license scheme.”

“When the state grants marriage it gives both material and symbolic benefits to the couples it recognizes. But why combine the two functions? And what is added by the term marriage?” he asked.

Sunstein explained terminating the issuance of state marriage contracts would not affect the commitments of those in the “partnership.”

“People take their private commitments serious,” Sunstein wrote. “Members of religious organizations, homeowners' associations and country clubs all feel bound, sometimes quite strongly, by the structures and rules of such organizations.”

Hello again, tom


the deeper question is why do you want us to accept that the state sanctioned union is a 'marriage ' It's NOT a question at all. I don't want you to accept ANYTHING.. I couldn't care less if you do because the law doesn't apply to you.. Call a gay marriage an abomination if you like. I'm FINE with that.

Excon

Banning gay marriages, be it church or civil, is a clear case of discrimination, and state over reach, as well as over reach of the church. Tell me how gay couples have less protection under the law than heterosexual couples. Then we can discuss Smoothy having the right to marry his horse(S).

Actually no it is not. As it is the States job to define what law is and any challenges to it go up the chian for a decision. So a state to define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman is not discrimination.

Without definition then anything goes. Poligimy being just one of them. Without the state saying not to then it must be allowed.

finally someone gets it .
So it's just a matter of words, of semantics, and how they ring your chimes. You call it a football; I call it a footellipsoid. Otherwise, it's same thing.

What was DOMA about in the 1st place. A word definition. It was always about the word .What got the gay communities panties in a knot?. That their relationship was called civil union and heterosexual relationships were called' marriage'. This gets rid of the distinction ,and both sides should be happy . I can live with the state calling my legal union a civil union .

What was DOMA about in the 1st place. A word definition. It was always about the word .What got the gay communities panties in a knot ? .....That their relationship was called civil union and heterosexual relationships were called' marriage'. This gets rid of the distinction ,and both sides should be happy . I can live with the state calling my legal union a civil union .
No, civil unions do not convey the rights that a marriage does. If they want all the rights, they want a marriage, not a civil union.

No, civil unions do not convey the rights that a marriage does. If they want all the rights, they want a marriage, not a civil union.

Yes they do if they guarantee the same right. More important ,if all state sanctioned unions are called civil unions then how are they not equal in every aspect ?

yes they do if they guarantee the same right. More important ,if all state sanctioned unions are called civil unions then how are they not equal in every aspect ?
They don't give all of these --

Marriage Rights and Benefits | Nolo.com (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html)

The whole point of civil unions, which is what they used to clamor for, was to grant the same rights.

They clamor for marriage, you want them to be happy with civil unions. Separate but equal didn't work with bathrooms and water fountains either.

It would NOT be separate but equal.. It would be one size fits all civil unions.

The whole point of civil unions, which is what they used to clamor for, was to grant the same rights.
They aren't the same thing, do not confer the same rights.

That means the gays want the "right " to the religious institution.. That isn't going to happen unless they are satisfied with the religions that recognize gay coupling . There is no way thatyou can tell me that the state can't construct the laws to recognize ALL the various couplings as equal in the eye of the state as civil unions .

that means the gays want the "right " to the religious institution .. That aint going to happen unless they are satisfied with the religions that recognize gay coupling . There is no way thatyou can tell me that the state can't construct the laws to recognize ALL the various couplings as equal in the eye of the state as civil unions .
No. The gays want the rights that come with marriage. Nothing else gives those rights, so marriage it is. And since non-religious ceremonies for secular couples are called marriage... Plus, some church bodies are already allowing same-sex marriages to be performed. The horses have already left the gate -- and the barn too.

So there it is... no compromising with the left. That's what I figured because it was the same with the right to murder babies.

If civil unions would also allow gay couples to file joint tax returns with deductions for kids and to adopt and get social secirity benefits as a surviving spouse, among other discrepencies, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If the federal and state governments would allow these benefits that only married can enjoy, there would be no issue.

Civil unions are not equal under existing law. Maybe your idea will reconcile those differences and make them equal. It has merit once we get past the semantics.

I will save he abortion issue for the proper thread.

so there it is ... no compromising with the left. that's what I figured because it was the same with the right to murder babies.
Compromise? What do you suggest?

Right, no compromise is acceptable to the left.

Right, no compromise is acceptable to the left.
Are the righties willing to make a civil union be the same as a marriage, with all of the same legal rights and privileges?

If civil unions would also allow gay couples to file joint tax returns with deductions for kids and to adopt and get social secirity benefits as a surviving spouse, among other discrepencies, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If the federal and state governments would allow these benefits that only married can enjoy, there would be no issue.

Civil unions are not equal under existing law. Maybe your idea will reconcile those differences and make them equal. It has merit once we get past the semantics.

I will save he abortion issue for the proper thread.

Hello?! What do you think I have been saying through the 115 postings on this topic ?
You call it semantics... I call it a minimal requirement . Stop calling the state sanction marriage... get the state out of the marriage business.

Are the righties willing to make a civil union be the same as a marriage, with all of the same legal rights and privileges?

Did you bother to read what I written since the beginning of this op ?

did you bother to read what I written since the beginning of this op ?
I've been reading all along, but it started when I was four and now I'm an old person. Guess I will go back to the beginning and read the whole thread, if you won't remind me.

Hello again, tom:

You want church wedding to be marriage, but let's call what the gays get something else... And, if we don't agree to change the name, we don't compromise...

How's this for compromise? NOBODY gets to call what they have marriage. Let's call it sarsaparilla.

excon

That would make it a beverage.

That would make it a beverage.
Compromise, remember?

I can't call something it isn't.

Hello again, Steve:


I can't call something it isn't.Exactly!

Excon

So when gays can procreate naturally let's talk.

Could a governmental retreat from "marriage" finally heal the deep schism that has divided and immobilized this country by an intractable values volley over gay relationships?

As many of you have read, since running for Congress I have emphasized that I want to move away from the great social-sexual battles that this country has engaged in over the past forty- odd years, which in my opinion has served to distract us from the real values challenges that confront us. The greatest threat to the future of the American family is not gay marriage but rather divorce. However, because we obsess over gay marriage, we rarely ever hear the word 'divorce' being uttered by political leaders. Now, with President Obama coming out to support gay marriage and Mitt Romney continuing to assert his opposition to gay marriage by continuing to define marriage as a union that can only take place between one man and one woman, I propose a truce.

What if government withdrew from the marriage business altogether, and provided only civil unions to two consenting adults wishing to unify their lives, leaving the spirituality of the union to other entities to recognize, name, sanctify and define? These civil unions would equally assure that all couples receive the legal entitlements that have previously been enjoyed by those who have been "married," such as hospital visitation rights, end-of life decisions, insurance benefits and tax benefits. After all, what business does the government have entering a church, synagogue or mosque to legitimize or define the spiritual nature of a person's marriage? We are supposed to have separation of church and state in America.

If the couple wishes to have their marriage consecrated to a more spiritual purpose, (e.g. "'til death do us part," "for all eternity," "in the name of Jesus Christ," "according to the laws of Moses and Israel," "in sickness and in health," fidelity, loyalty, etc.) they will choose to have a religious ceremony in addition to the civil ceremony. This additional ceremony would extend beyond just having legal rights conferred by civil unions, and would reflect the couple's individual spiritual or religious convictions. They would go before a rabbi, a priest, a minister or any other spiritual leader of their choice for a religious ceremony. The ceremony, and in fact the semantic definition of their union, would be defined by, and would be consistent with, that religious groups' values.

This proposal might just allow nearly everyone to win, a "one size fits all" solution to the gay marriage narrative that has hijacked the political landscape, created ever deepening divides in the nation, and has served to be only destructive and distracting from far greater social values issues facing this country. The benefits to this proposal are, first and foremost, that no one would receive either preferential treatment or any discrimination when it comes to the government's recognition of the legal rights of the union of any couple. Furthermore, there would be no need to redefine marriage, as each group would have the authority to define or expand the meaning of their union according to their particular religious tradition. This solution would reduce the role of government, which should not be involved in religious choices. People who want to have a spiritual component to their civil union can have whatever ceremony they desire within whatever religious context they choose, and name the union in spiritual terminology that best speaks to their religious convictions.

Far from harming religion, I believe that this change would even promote non-involved, non-religious people to entertain the concept of how religion can enhance and enrich one's life, and be an invitation to engage in further religious learning, traditions, communities and beliefs. I think that when people are forced to confront the choice of wanting merely a government-recognized civil union before a justice of the peace, which addresses only legal status issues, or the opportunity to imbue their union with a deeper, more eternal spiritual dimension, they would see the benefit of having something with greater holiness impact their union. And they would be forced to confront the difference between a mere legal synthesis versus a spiritual orchestration of two haves into one whole. In other words, once they are forced to start thinking about their "vows," they might just drift further into faith and religion.

The bottom line with this proposal is that we would remove the offense of those who can marry and those who cannot, the government would retreat further from our lives and one of the great battles that have raged in America could be put behind us so that we can focus, finally, on curbing divorce, keeping husbands and wives together, and keeping kids out of custody battles rather than just always fighting about gay marriage.

I recognize that for those who oppose gay civil unions this would still not be a solution. However, I vehemently disagree with their opposition. Who does it bother to have gay couples granted the decency to visit each other in hospital during serious illness, make end-of-life decisions and receive tax benefits as a couple? Is it not worthwhile for us to put behind the questions of dual insurance coverage in order to have this terribly divisive issue finally settled? By putting the gay marriage debate behind us we can finally focus on the real problem: straight people do not seem to either want to marry, and once they get married they find it difficult to remain married.

American marriage statistics tell a sad and increasingly grim story of the health of the marital institution that is at the heart of any healthy society and the national dialogue is currently unable to address the real roots of the unraveling of these unions because of the obsession of whether gay marriages are legal or legitimate. USA Today recently reported that forty percent of all American women have never been married. Something in the region of seventy percent of African-American births, 53 percent of Latino births and thirty percent of white births, are out of wedlock. And as is well known, about one out of two marriages end in divorce.

As we ruminate in this detail, we lose the bigger picture that we need to focus on healing these unions, prevent families from breaking apart, and address the impotence of romantic love in our time.

What if Government Recognized Only Civil Unions and Left Marriage to Religion? | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com (http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/05/14/what-if-government-recognized-only-civil-unions-and-left-marriage-to-religion/)

Hello again, Steve:


So when gays can procreate naturally let's talk.

The right wing mantra - freedom for me, but not for thee..

Excon

So when gays can procreate naturally let's talk.

Some married couples cannot procreate naturally so lets talk now.

I do not even understand why the issue of Gay marriages is even an issue. Marriage is not covered in the Constitution. Marriage Laws are state controlled. The Marriage Contract from a legal standpoint(civil) is harder to break than a business contract. That is why divorce costs so much money. No one should tell anyone who they can or can't marry. When the government does it, it is a step over the expected "Separation of Church and State that is implied in the First Amendment. There is only one area of the Bible that talks about homosexuality. ONE. Should that be the basis for all marriage laws? Absolutely not just as the Bible should not be the only guide to one's spirituality. The Government needs to stay out of marriage. It is not a tangible commodity for the Government to tax, sell or control. It is a spiritual union of two human beings no matter what their preferences are. IF you prohibit marriage between two men or two women because it is believed that the idea of marriage is to have children then wouldn't it be illegal if a man and a woman wanted to marry but had no intention of having children? That happens a lot. I want the Government to stay out of my life, My pocketbook, my telephone, my computer, my healthcare, my children's education and most of all, my connection with my closest partner.

I do not even understand why the issue of Gay marriages is even an issue.
They don't like the word "marriage" used. They claim it is a God-given uniting of two people of the opposite sex.

There is only one area of the Bible that talks about homosexuality. ONE.
And even that one is up for grabs, has been mistranslated and is misinterpreted.

And as for "multiplying" in marriage, what if two senior citizens want to marry or a man wants to marry a woman who has had a hysterectomy because of cancer or he has had a vasectomy or or or...

Some married couples cannot procreate naturally so lets talk now.

Brilliant comeback. NO same sex couples can, they don't have the necessary equipment.

Hello again, Steve:


NO same sex couples can, they don't have the necessary equipment.Wow.. That's an excellent reason to deny them civil rights. I never thought of that.

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

Wow.. That's an excellent reason to deny them civil rights. I never thought of that.

excon

The point was about compromise. Obviously you aren't willing.

I wish a gay person would weigh in on this to be honest.

Tom, before we go on any further lets straighten this point out.

Some people don't want to get married by way of religious ceremony. A man and a women who want to marry might regard religion as against their beliefs. Can be the case with atheists.

Under your formula they must settle for a civil contract, even though they might actually want to me married.

Is this correct from your point of view?


Tut

Yes ;EVERYONE would have a civil contract .Marriage would be between the couple and their church.

Hello again, tom:

You wingers live in a fantasy world.. Yesterday, Paul Ryan on FOX News Sunday, presented a budget with Obamacare REPEALED... Wallace, (here on earth) told him that that will NEVER happen. He looked at Chris Wallace and said it SHOULD happen and THAT'S what the House of Representatives Budget is based on - something that will NEVER happen.

Now you want everybody who didn't get married in a church NEVER to say they're married... I suppose that would be EVERYBODY in the world, too

Earth to the right wing... Earth to the right wing...

excon

yes ;EVERYONE would have a civil contract .Marriage would be between the couple and their church.


So It boils down to the church having the final say on what constitutes a marriage. "Marriage would be between couples and their church"


You complain when the state gets to define what constitutes a religious belief when it comes to health care. Yet, under your formula you advocating that the church can exclusively define marriage.


So atheists miss out. Alternatively if they really wanted a marriage and not a civil contract they could get married in a church and look like hypocrites. But this would be the price ones needs to pay.

This is like the price one needs to pay when one has their religious beliefs defined by the Healthcare Act.

Tut

Yet, under your formula you advocating that the church can exclusively define marriage. yes because marriage is a religious institution that the state coopted .


So atheists miss out. Alternatively if they really wanted a marriage and not a civil contract they could get married in a church and look like hypocrites. But this would be the price ones needs to pay.
or they could find a church willing to marry them .


This is like the price one needs to pay when one has their religious beliefs defined by the Healthcare Act. Nope the HHS is trying to force religion to do something against their belief... that is a HUGE difference.

yes because marriage is a religious institution that the state coopted .

or they could find a church willing to marry them .

Nope the HHS is trying to force religion to do something against their belief ... that is a HUGE difference.

This is religion trying to force people who believe in civics to go against their beliefs.

"I am not the only one redefining marriage. It always was and always will be a religious institution"

Tom, in this particular discussion I think you use too many universal quantifiers in many of your statements. There types of statements are impossible to defend. For example ,"always was" and "always will".

This is why it has led you to the position of saying that if people object to religion and still want to get married then it is too bad for them. They can always find a less than suitable alternative.

So long as your formula is correct then we don't have to worry about their beliefs.

Tut

Nobody wants to approcah the question of why they are still trying to deny the rights of Polygamists to marry multiple wives...

We aren't talking people hiding their spouces from each other... but wives that know there are others... and agree.

Nobody wants to approcah the question of why they are still trying to deny the rights of Polygamists to marry multiple wives.....

We aren't talking people hiding their spouces from each other....but wives that know there are others...and agree.


The short answer to that question is the ability of the state to show a 'compelling interest'
In preventing such arrangements. If a short answer to that question is possible.

Hello again,

I wasn't sure whether to put this in the war on women thread or this one..

If you live in Kentucky (http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/13rs/HB279.htm), and your religious belief is STRONG enough, you'll be able to discriminate against gays, women and black people too if this bill passes. And, who the hell does the federal government think it is, anyway??
Create a new section of KRS Chapter 446 to specify that government shall not burden a person's or religious organization's freedom of religion; protect the right to act or refuse to act on religious groundsCan I get my alimony back since I was never married?

Excon

Hello again,

I wasn't sure whether to put this in the war on women thread or this one..

If you live in Kentucky (http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/13rs/HB279.htm), and your religious belief is STRONG enough, you'll be able to discriminate against gays, women and black people too if this bill passes. And, who the hell does the federal government think it is, anyway???Can I get my alimony back since I was never married?

excon

I can't help you with your alimony but never fear, that famous (and hot) populist that winters in Scotland, Ashley Judd, is coming to the rescue of Kentuckians.

The short answer to that question is the ability of the state to show a 'compelling interest'
in preventing such arrangements. If a short answer to that question is possible.

WHich I have a problem with... because if civil unions aren't good enough for the gay community... and they plan to FORCE it down the troats of churches etc... then they should show the same respect to Polygamists too, and for the very same reasons.

There is no difference between "compelling interest" between those two groups.

WHich I have a problem with...because if civil unions aren't good enough for the gay community....and they plan to FORCE it down the troats of churchs etc....then they should show the same respect to Polygamists too, and for the very same reasons.

There is no difference between "compelling interest" between those two groups.
Then if polygamy is allowed, I insist on polyandry being allowed too.

From Same-sex marriage: They'll just never get it - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2013/03/10/same_sex_marriage_theyll_just_never_get_it/) --

Polygamous societies are almost always polygynous, where one husband has multiple wives. (Polyandry — one wife with multiple husbands — is, by contrast, quite rare.) The usual result is a sexist and classist society where high-status males acquire multiple wives while low-status males become virtually unmarriageable. Thus, from a social-policy point of view, there are reasons to be wary of polygamy. Perhaps those reasons could be overcome by further argument, but the central point remains: Arguments about the morally appropriate number of sexual partners are logically distinct from arguments about the morally appropriate gender of sexual partners.

Then if polygamy is allowed, I insist on polyandry being allowed too.

from Same-sex marriage: They'll just never get it - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2013/03/10/same_sex_marriage_theyll_just_never_get_it/) --

Polygamous societies are almost always polygynous, where one husband has multiple wives. (Polyandry — one wife with multiple husbands — is, by contrast, quite rare.) The usual result is a sexist and classist society where high-status males acquire multiple wives while low-status males become virtually unmarriageable. Thus, from a social-policy point of view, there are reasons to be wary of polygamy. Perhaps those reasons could be overcome by further argument, but the central point remains: Arguments about the morally appropriate number of sexual partners are logically distinct from arguments about the morally appropriate gender of sexual partners.

I've got no problem there... but personally I think one spouse is more than enough to deal with...

WHich I have a problem with...because if civil unions aren't good enough for the gay community....and they plan to FORCE it down the troats of churchs etc....then they should show the same respect to Polygamists too, and for the very same reasons.

There is no difference between "compelling interest" between those two groups.

What are they forcing down the churches throat? How will their having the rights to marry and the benefits to go with it harm the church?

What are they forcing down the churches throat? How will their having the rights to marry and the benefits to go with it harm the church?

No more or less than they would for Polygamy... less actually, because at least Biblicaly... polygamy was once accepted...

Because they are trying to force the church to pay for benefits in marriages the Church doesn't condone.. and pay for things the church doesn't condone... so much for any separation of church and state under Owebama.

No more or less than they would for Polygamy....less actually, because at least Biblicaly...polygamy was once accepted.................
And throw in some OT concubines too?

No more or less than they would for Polygamy....less actually, because at least Biblicaly...polygamy was once accepted.................

Because they are trying to force the church to pay for benefits in marriages the Church doesn't condone..and pay for things the church doesn't condone....so much for any separation of church and state under Owebama.

Pay for what benefits in marriage the church doesn't condone?

Abortions... birth control... anything relating to same sex partners... things the government has no business tell the church what they can and can't do... you know the Separation of church and state thing your side loves to toss around so much.

WHich I have a problem with...because if civil unions aren't good enough for the gay community....and they plan to FORCE it down the troats of churchs etc....then they should show the same respect to Polygamists too, and for the very same reasons.

There is no difference between "compelling interest" between those two groups.


The onus is on the state is to show a compelling interest. One could certainly argue that it is the interest of the state not to promote same sex marriages, or force churches to perform such marriages.

When it comes to polygamist there is also a good argument for it being in the interest of the state not to allow men to have more than one wife.

As for the state forcing same sex marriages? I would doubt that there is any potential for the state to do such a thing. I would also imagine there would be legislation, or proposed legislation to prevent such a thing.I don't know the answer when it comes to this aspect. I would imagine you would need to do some research to find the answer.

Tut

Yeah the state takes a wide latititude with that term 'compelling interest'. That is why many of the founders thought it necessary to spell out the specific right for religious liberty .

Also funny how "The State" can ignore the Constitution when it comes to Separation of CHurch and state... but we all know... if it's a liberal cause of the day they are trying to promote... the Constitution is just a piece of paper. Unless its something the Church wants to do then the same people wave around that "piece of paper" in a whole different way.

The separation of church and state is a concept, not a written law found in the constitution, but its clear that in the constitution the government cannot establish any religion, nor support one over another nor make any citizen belong to or support any religion. So good luck thinking any religion acting as a private entity can deny its employees their rights under the law, especially those reimbursed by the federal government for services rendered.

Specifically hospitals. Nor can the church define, or deny the rights of citizens the benefits under law that they are duly granted by the federal government of the US. Be it contraception, or gay marriage, the church has NO authority to deny anyone their rights to use or practice either.

Just as the church is compelled to obey and follow the rule of law in safety, and labor practice, so must they follow the rule of law and honor the individual free practice of the rights and freedoms they are due.

The separation of church and state is a concept, not a written law found in the constitution, but its clear that in the constitution the government cannot establish any religion, nor support one over another nor make any citizen belong to or support any religion.

You almost sounded like a conservative there.


Specifically hospitals. Nor can the church define, or deny the rights of citizens the benefits under law that they are duly granted by the federal government of the US. Be it contraception, or gay marriage, the church has NO authority to deny anyone their rights to use or practice either.

Just as the church is compelled to obey and follow the rule of law in safety, and labor practice, so must they follow the rule of law and honor the individual free practice of the rights and freedoms they are due.

And there you go with the straw man again. My church has never denied my rights or interfered in my private life. No one is arguing about the right to use contraception but you.

And free contraceptives are not a safety and labor law issue.

And free contraceptives are not a safety and labor law issue.
Contraceptives for females aren't free.

Exactly, the church will have to pay for them under the mandate and that's not only unconstitutional it's inherently immoral.

Actually Speech, woman pay for contraceptives through their premiums, and the accommodation being worked out, due at the end of the month, makes it possible to get contraceptive coverage as an additional insurance rider outside of insurance the church provides.

Why is that not a good solution to the churches concerns and the females concerns? The church pays nothing, and the burden is on a female to have extra or supplemental insurance. Much like seniors on medicare.

The latest 'accommodation' is a charade. It still requires the church to facilitate contraceptive access and still redefines what qualifies as a religious institution.

The latest 'accommodation' is a charade. It still requires the church to facilitate contraceptive access and still redefines what qualifies as a religious institution.

No it does not as a fact have anything to do with the church or its insurance because the burden is fully born by the employee, and if you think a toy store is a religious institution you are crazy. If they were indeed a religious institution they could file for exemptions with the IRS. Why haven't they?

They sell toys for profit, and pay taxes, therefore a business. But of course you think a religious person owning a for profit business makes it a religious business.

I don't think so. Neither will the courts. For all the lawsuits by forty or so religious institutions there are still thousands that have chosen not to sue, and have indeed gone about their business and still perform abortions within the law, as well as other female reproductive health services. I doubt if that changes no matter what the courts rule.

You apparently believe the only people who deserve any conscience protection are those who agree with you.


Cardinal Dolan said that, while the new proposal was presented as a solution to the narrow religious exemption, in reality, “the administration’s proposal maintains its inaccurate distinction among religious ministries.

“It appears to offer second-class status to our first-class institutions in Catholic health care, Catholic education and Catholic charities. HHS offers what it calls an ‘accommodation,’ rather than accepting the fact that these ministries are integral to our Church and worthy of the same exemption as our Catholic churches.”

Cardinal Dolan noted additional concerns prompted by the latest plan: “It appears that the government would require all employees in our ‘accommodated’ ministries to have the illicit coverage — they may not opt out, nor even opt out for their children — under a separate policy.”

Further, “because of gaps in the proposed regulations, it is still unclear how directly these separate policies would be funded by objecting ministries and what precise role those ministries would have in arranging for these separate policies.

“Thus, there remains the possibility that ministries may yet be forced to fund and facilitate such morally illicit activities.”

Read more: U.S. Bishops Say Latest HHS 'Accommodation' Falls Short | Daily News | NCRegister.com (http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/u.s.-bishops-reject-latest-hhs-accommodation#ixzz2NL0cpaqR)


The mandate does not allow for exemptions for non-profit religious organizations such as Catholic hospitals and schools, so there is nothing to apply for.

The 'accommodation' is a charade.

Not at all, the church and its members are entitled to their opinion, as are you also, and we are entitled to ours. It's the outcome of the policies and laws we are arguing about and for the record, I disagree with Cardinal Dolan.

The federal mandate does allow for exemptions because that's what they are working on whether Dolan likes it or not. Its in the court NOW!! We all await the outcomes despite the rhetoric and posturing.

The law only allows exemptions for places of worship, not schools, not hospitals, not soup kitchens or any other extension of the church. I'm well aware of the court decision, I'm the one who posted it here first and thus far this administration has just rearranged the chairs as it is won't to do. I see no reason thus far to believe their next 'accommodation' will be any more serious.

Hello again,

Two cases are being argued this week. One is DOMA and the other is California Prop 8. How will the court decide?

Me? I think it'll be UNANIMOUS for freedom.

excon

I think there will be a limitted ruling regardless of how they decide. The fact that the court CAN'T ignore is that whenever it has come to a vote ; gay marriage has been defeated . I think DOMA may lose over the federalism issues I've already brought up on this op ,and Prop 8 will be upheld .
The court will not decide the cases this week so we should have plenty of time to read the arguments (but as Obamacare proved ;that decides nothing ) .

Not sure because I haven't read any of the argument yet; but early reporting indicates that the court may have issues with standing on the prop 8 hearing .

Legalization of Incest.. and Polygamy is next on the agenda.

Here is the 1st link I found on this.
My Way News - Court could avoid ruling on gay marriage ban (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20130326/DA58SOM81.html)

The problem with Kennedy's position is that although he doesn't feel comfortable in over-turning prop 8... by not hearing the case ;the court would throw it back to the last court that heard the case... the 9th Circus. The 9th ruled to over-turn prop 8 .So by not ruling on a case for a law he thinks should be upheld,he in fact would rule against the law.

Legalization of Incest.. and Polygamy is next on the agenda.Good luck, I imagine it would give you piece of mind to pursue the things you love and not get arrested.

Good luck, I imagine it would give you piece of mind to pursue the things you love and not get arrested.

Should make people like you happy... your kind seems revel in those sorts of things.

Legalizing Horse brothels for size queens of either gender.. is on the Southern Poverty law centers agenda after those two.

your kindWhat is "my kind"?

What is "my kind"?

I thought maybe you could explain since you tossed that out first.

Transcripts of the oral arguments are here :
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/perry.transcript.pdf
Audio here :
Supreme Court of the United States (http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=12-144)

Read and listened to the oral arguments. Best guess is that Justice Kennedy will take the lead and lead from behind. He was clearly uncomfortable with over-turning prop 8 ;but openly questioned throughout the hearing why SCOTUS even accepted this case .

Two things can happen if that's the case . The cop out way would be to decide that since the State of California did not defend the law ;that the defendants have no standing .
But that was hotly debated by both sides of the bench.
The more likely outcome is the least satisfying for both sides ;but one that Kennedy seemed to support .The court would dismiss this case as one that should not have been accepted.
Should that be the outcome, it would have the effect of leaving the issue to be worked out in state legislatues ,and at the ballot box, one state at a time. A future SCOTUS would no doubt eventually have to rule on the issues brought up on the case.

Today SCOTUS hears the arguments for and against DOMA. I don't think they can side step this case.

Early reports is that DOMA is in trouble. Kennedy came right out and said it violated federalism.

The left I'm sure loves federalism today. Kennedy also asked the admin lawyers how they decided which laws to defend.

Yes ,I hear Roberts too was particularly peeved over how the administration decides which laws it chooses to defend and enforce.

This from SCOTUS blog


There did not appear to be a majority of Justices willing to strike down the 1996 law based on the argument that the Obama administration and gay rights advocates have been pressing: that is, the law violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee of legal equality in general.

If the House GOP leaders' lawyer had trouble on Wednesday, so did the federal government's lawyer, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. who was pushing for a wide-ranging ruling that might have the potential to outlaw any ban on same-sex marriage. It was not apparent that Verrilli was making much headway with his argument that any law that treats gays and lesbians less favorably, because of their sexual identity, should have to satisfy a stricter constitutional test.

The Court, although it has been dealing with gay rights cases for years, has never spelled out a specific constitutional standard for judging laws that allegedly discriminate based on sexual orientation. The indications on Wednesday were that the DOMA case might be decided without supplying such a standard, since a decision based on interference with states' prerogatives would not require the creation of a test based on equality principles.
Argument recap: DOMA is in trouble (FINAL UPDATE) : SCOTUSblog (http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/argument-recap-doma-is-in-trouble/#more-161880)

Hello again,

Whatever they base their decision that DOMA is unconstitutional, what becomes clear is that homosexuals HAVE constitutional rights and they CAN'T be voted away. The CONGRESS can't vote them away, and neither can the states.

I've been saying that for decades..

excon

PS> What I want to know is this.. After prop 8 is struck down, and gay marriage WILL be legal in California, what happens to a legally married California couple who moves to Texas?

Hello again,

Whatever they base their decision that DOMA is unconstitutional, what becomes clear is that homosexuals HAVE constitutional rights and they CAN'T be voted away. The CONGRESS can't vote them away, and neither can the states.

I've been saying that for decades..

excon

PS> What I wanna know is this.. After prop 8 is struck down, and gay marriage WILL be legal in California, what happens to a legally married California couple who moves to Texas?

Then Polygamists have the Constitutional right to marry as many women as they want too... because if you can't define WHO can marry who... you can't define how many can marry each other... or that a mother can't marry her son either...

Then the Cat women marry their cats... etc... etc... after all if you make is a RIGHT... you can't deny ANYONE their right...

Even for a 61 year old man to marry an 8 year old girl... Oh wait... they do that in the Muslim world don't they.

Hello again,

Whatever they base their decision that DOMA is unconstitutional, what becomes clear is that homosexuals HAVE constitutional rights and they CAN'T be voted away. The CONGRESS can't vote them away, and neither can the states.

I've been saying that for decades..

excon

PS> What I wanna know is this.. After prop 8 is struck down, and gay marriage WILL be legal in California, what happens to a legally married California couple who moves to Texas?

That was always why a national law like DOMA was needed . Now the next challenge is based on the 'full faith and credit' clause.

Hello smoothy:

I'll address the expected right wing claptrap. You DID leave off the sicko who wants to screw little children. HE has rights too, doesn't he?

IF the polygamists, as a GROUP, can show where their Constitutional rights have been trampled on, then I'll SUPPORT them too, just like I support ANY group who's Constitutional rights have been withheld.

Uhhh, I'm not going to address the stupidity that a person now has a right to marry his horse, or people can start screwing children...

excon

Uhhh, I'm not going to address the stupidity that a person now has a right to marry his horse, or people can start screwing children...
Because it is not a logical argument to this debate . But polygamy ,and other issues between consenting adults are wide open . If you have the "right " to "marry " anyone you want to then why the number restrictions ? Why the age of consent issues ? Why is incest off the table ? Clearly the state does have the power to define restrictions that impinge on "rights " or all these issues would be on the table.

Hello smoothy:

I'll address the expected right wing claptrap. You DID leave off the sicko who wants to screw little children. HE has rights too, doesn't he??

IF the polygamists, as a GROUP, can show where their Constitutional rights have been trampled on, then I'll SUPPORT them too, just like I support ANY group who's Constitutional rights have been withheld.

Uhhh, I'm not gonna address the stupidity that a person now has a right to marry his horse, or people can start screwing children...

excon

Hey.. if it's a Constitutional riught... you can't Deny it to anyone... Mothers HAVE to be allowed to Marry Sons... And Fathers their daughters, and you Can't deny the right of Polygamists... or even the right for cat women to marry their cats... because marriage would nop longer be defines as between a man and a woman as it has since before recorded History began.

IF the polygamists, as a GROUP, can show where their Constitutional rights have been trampled on, then I'll SUPPORT them too, just like I support ANY group who's Constitutional rights have been withheld.

excon

Ok, lets just look at this point for a sec. We have a right to religious freedom in this country. So followng that line of thinking if you're a muslim or morman of the sect that practices polygamy then you are being denied your right to religiouse freedoms if your not allowed to marry more then one person.

That shows both harm and intent with the law if it were to change. When states and governments set up laws they set them up so there are definitions and boundries as to what can go on. The State has a vested interest in a married couple (being man and woman) because of procreation aspect. Its not about making mandatory that children must be born. Its about the institution of marriage.

Hello again, tom:


If you have the "right " to "marry " anyone you want to then why the number restrictions ?
IF the polygamists, as a GROUP, can show where their Constitutional rights have been trampled on, then I'll SUPPORT them too, just like I support ANY group who's Constitutional rights have been withheld.

Excon

Rights are rights... if they are a RIGHT... then every group has them and you can't discriminate between anyone wanting to exercise them.

Why not toss out Incest laws and Pedophilia laws too... hell why not legalize Heroin and Meth... just because some people think they should have the RIGHT to do it.

You are not against a right of the citizens having reasonable common sense boundaries of good behavior are you? When common sense catches up to what's reasonable you may see change but I wouldn't run out and buy your horse an engagement ring just yet, or score a bag of heroin from an unlicensed dealer through a key hole.

I am not against you beasty boys petitioning the courts for the right to marry your beloved pet or farm friend. GO FOR IT!

You are not against a right of the citizens having reasonable common sense boundaries of good behavior are you? When common sense catches up to whats reasonable you may see change but I wouldn't run out and buy your horse an engagement ring just yet, or score a bag of heroin from an unlicensed dealer thru a key hole.

I am not against you beasty boys petitioning the courts for the right to marry your beloved pet or farm friend. GO FOR IT!

We HAD common sense and boundries... its the left that's trying to take them down... they have been up for thousands of years...

Now don't try and pretend if its not fair to keep it the way its ALWAYS and literally ALWAYS been... then whine that you can allow same sex marriage and discriminate against heterosexual marriage... where polygamy actually has existed throughout time... and still does in parts of the world.

Hello again, wingers:

Tell me, how does all this liberalism happen in a center right country?

Exocn

How often has gay marriage been passed in a ballot ?

The rights of a minority should never be left to the vote of a majority.

The rights of a minority should never be left to the vote of a majority.

Marraage isn't a "RIGHT" and it never has been.

Then not allowing them to marry makes no sense and is a blatant form of discrimination, and open bigotry.

They do have a right to the pursuit of happiness, and is within reason under law.

Then not allowing them to marry makes no sense and is a blatant form of discrimination, and open bigotry.

They do have a right to the pursuit of happiness, and is within reason under law.

Oh get real... they have NO right to getting married... any more than a serial wife beater has a RIGHT to get married... or an incestuous parent to marry one of their children... or for Polygamists to marry as many as they want or can afford.

Nobodies denying them a right to happiness... exactly where does getting married guarantee anyone happiness, and not being married prevent it... I guarantee you every married person here is laughing hysterically over that one...

The rights of a minority should never be left to the vote of a majority.

I was answering this question

excon's Avatar excon Posts: 20,922, Reputation: 15445
Expert #195 Report
Today, 10:35 AM

Hello again, wingers:

Tell me, how does all this liberalism happen in a center right country?

Exocn


Let me elaborate... gay marriage has happened in this country by court order or legislative action of the people . When put to a vote it has been defeated... even in California where prop 8 overturned a court decision . That is how it happens in a center right country.
Progressives have never been satisfied with the will of the people if it opposes their agenda

Hello tom:

I'm a believer in the will of the people.. When the votes were taken, the will was one way.. Several years later, the polls indicate the will is the OTHER way.

In ANY case, we're talking about Constitutional rights here, and they CAN'T BE voted away, as I've said over and over, and over again. Yes, some say it's NOT a civil rights issue, but I don't see how it can be viewed any other way.

It is that you don't believe the polls?? Ahhh, that's right. Republicans DON'T believe in polls. Well, there ain't nothing I can do about that.

excon

Hello tom:

I'm a believer in the will of the people.. When the votes were taken, the will was one way.. Several years later, the polls indicate the will is the OTHER way.

In ANY case, we're talking about Constitutional rights here, and they CAN'T BE voted away, as I've said over and over, and over again. Yes, some say it's NOT a civil rights issue, but I don't see how it can be viewed any other way.

It is that you don't believe the polls??? Ahhh, that's right. Republicans DON'T believe in polls. Well, there ain't nothing I can do about that.

excon

Constitutional Rights?. exactly where in the constitution does it say specifically marriage is a right for anyone but a man and a woman? Hell for that matter where does it say marriage is a right at all.

Rights are rights.....if they are a RIGHT...then every group has them and you can't discriminate between anyone wanting to exercise them.

Why not toss out Incest laws and Pedophilia laws too....hell why not legalize Heroin and Meth.....just because some people think they should have the RIGHT to do it.

Rights are not actually rights. It's not that simple.

When it comes to marriage we are taking mainly about civil rights. If you are part of a civil union then you have certain civil rights under that contract. For example, if the union allows for the government to issue some sort of health care card, then both heterosexual and same sex couples get the same government benefit. Perhaps we can say that everyone in the same situation has an equal right.

This has nothing to do with legalization of pedophilia or drugs. Such activities are against civil law and have nothing to do with, "a right to do so". In other words, there is no civil or natural right to pursue such activities.

Yes. Natural rights may be a factor when it comes to OTHER issues raised when it comes to civil contracts such as marriage. But again, you are confusing natural rights and civil rights.

Rights are not actually rights. It's not that simple.

When it comes to marriage we are taking mainly about civil rights. If you are part of a civil union then you have certain civil rights under that contract. For example, if the union allows for the government to issue a health care card, then both heterosexual and same sex couples get the same government benefit. Perhaps we can say that everyone in the same situation has an equal right.

This has nothing to do with legalization of pedophilia or drugs. Such activities are again civil law and have nothing to do with, "a right to do so". In other words, there is no civil or natural right to pursue such activities.

Yes. Natural rights may be a factor when it comes to OTHER issues raised when it comes to civil contracts such as marriage. But again, you are confusing natural rights and civil rights.


Really? Maybe in Australia they aren't... but in the USA we have something Called the Bill of Rights where they are very specifically spelled out... In fact that document ONLY specifies what is a right. If its not a right... then it's a privilege.

Privileges can be easily curtailed... rights on the other hand take a LOT more effort... amending the bill f rights or the Constitution is a big task and requires ratification by all the states... it can't be simply rammed down everyone's throats by a handfull of temporary public officials..

Really? Maybe in Austrailia they aren't....but in the USA we have something Called the Bill of Rights where they are very specifically spelled out..... In fact that document ONLY specifies what is a right. If its not a right...then its a privilege.

Privileges can be easily curtailed....rights on the other hand take a LOT more effort....amending the bill f rights or the Constitution is a big task and requires ratification by all the states....it can't be simply rammed down everyone's throats by a handfull of temporary public officials..


Yes, I know all about your Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The term, "civil right" means just that. They are rights because just like natural rights they are enforceable by a court of law

Hello again, tom:

You got it exactly BACKWARDS.. The church isn't withholding rights from gays, it's the STATE. I have NO idea what you mean by the church not recognizing a gay marriage.. The ONLY thing a church could withhold from a gay couple is membership, and they can do that now. A repeal of DOMA isn't going to change that.

excon

Actually this is wrong. Churches are being sued already for this.

"Our law against discrimination does not allow [the group] to use those personal preferences, no matter how deeply held, and no matter — even if they're religiously based — as a grounds to discriminate," Lustberg says. "Religion shouldn't be about violating the law."

Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340)

Moonbattery: Christians Sued for Not Participating in Homosexual Ceremony (http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/04/christians_sued.html)

Christian Photographer Who Refused Gay Wedding Lost Lawsuit | Scott Fillmer (http://scottfillmer.com/2008/07/06/christian-photographer-refused-gay-wedding/)

Actually this is wrong. Churches are being sued already for this.

"Our law against discrimination does not allow [the group] to use those personal preferences, no matter how deeply held, and no matter — even if they're religiously based — as a grounds to discriminate," Lustberg says. "Religion shouldn't be about violating the law."

Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340)

Moonbattery: Christians Sued for Not Participating in Homosexual Ceremony (http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/04/christians_sued.html)

Christian Photographer Who Refused Gay Wedding Lost Lawsuit | Scott Fillmer (http://scottfillmer.com/2008/07/06/christian-photographer-refused-gay-wedding/)

Most of the states have written in protections for churches that refuse to sanctify the coupling ;however ,businesses like reception halls bakers,photographers etc are now forced to host cater ,service gay "marriage" affairs regardless of their convictions .
Did Ore. baker break the law when he denied service to same-sex couple? | Local & Regional | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KOMO News (http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Did-Ore-baker-break-the-law-when-he-denied-service-to-same-sex-couple-189474411.html)

businesses like reception halls bakers,photographers etc are now forced to host cater ,service gay "marriage" affairs regardless of their convictions .
"Forced"? They are in business for themselves, so certainly they can refuse. And isn't this the American way and free enterprise, to make money?

Nope ;they are being sued whenever they try to refuse service under anti-discrimination laws .

nope ;they are being sued whenever they try to refuse service under anti-discrimination laws .
They?

Yes ,they being a number of businesses that have refuse to provide services to gay "marriage " events .

Yes, I know all about your Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The term, "civil right" means just that. They are rights because just like natural rights they are enforceable by a court of law

Natural rights mean nothing in American law... and we are talking about American law... they have no force of law... and they are completely without a legal definition, without a specific definition they are too broad in scope... and thus unenforceable..

You can't just walk around naked in public... how can you get more natural than that... we are born naked... putting on clothes is a choice we make... and its your right to walk around in places that aren't privately owned...

But just try and make that claim.

Marriage isn't a right either... if it was a right... polygamists would be allowed to practice it... and there wouldn't be age of concent laws. Marriage is a religious institution that dates back thousands of years... its not a RIGHT for someone to redefine as they wish.

Its not someone's right to marry their same gender any more than it is to marry out of your species... or inside your own immediate family.

Natural rights mean nothing in American law....and we are talking about American law.....they have no force of law....and they are completely without a legal definition, without a specific definition they are too broad in scope....and thus unenforceable..

You can't just walk around naked in public.....how can you get more natural than that...we are born naked....putting on clothes is a choice we make...and its your right to walk around in places that aren't privately owned....

But just try and make that claim.

Marriage isn't a right either...if it was a right...polygamists would be allowed to practice it....and there wouldn't be age of concent laws. Marriage is a religious institution that dates back thousands of years.....its not a RIGHT for someone to redefine as they wish.

Its not someones right to marry their same gender any more than it is to marry out of your species.....or inside your own immediate family.


What??

"The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These limitations serve to protect the NATURAL RIGHTS OF LIBERTY AND PROPERTY." My emphasis

Taken from wikipedia

You know the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. That sort of stuff is regarded as natural rights.

You know the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. That sort of stuff is regarded as natural rights.

Tutt a natural right is the right to breathe, to enjoy the sunlight, to have water to drink, to live, to raise or grow food, to think, to feel.

Beyond that we have what we will allow each other because we have to make room for each other but it all becomes confused when men seek to modify rights for their own gain, you can say what you want, but you must temper that to demonstrate respect for others

Tutt a natural right is the right to breathe, to enjoy the sunlight, to have water to drink, to live, to raise or grow food, to think, to feel.

Beyond that we have what we will allow each other because we have to make room for each other but it all becomes confused when men seek to modify rights for their own gain, you can say what you want, but you must temper that to demonstrate respect for others

I have great respect. This is why I am defending natural rights.

Natural rights are fundamental tenets of how American's understand their freedoms and how these freedoms ought to be translated into legislation.

All Americans understand how natural rights are the cornerstone upon which a society is built. Well, almost everyone knows this.

Almost everyone from the left or right side of politics involved in this discussion will agree with my above claim.

I would agree with you that almost everyone has some understanding of rights there is one they don't exercise very often. You have the right to remain silent... I think that's how it goes

I would agree with you that almost everyone has some understanding of rights there is one they don't exercise very often. You have the right to remain silent... I think that's how it goes

That would come under a protection against the misuse of power by a government authority. This and most of the other Amendments can be regarded as a protection of natural rights.

This is why it is was an absurdity for someone to suggest that natural rights has nothing to do with American law. It has a great deal to do with it.However, natural rights are not the only rights enjoyed by a society.

To cut a long story short. Natural rights are those rights that are anterior to all other rights. They are anterior because one does not need an organized society to grant natural rights. They already exist. Organized society grants rights as well, but rights granted by a society cannot conflict with natural rights. Natural rights takes precedent.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that "gay marriage rights" are in any way natural rights. At least I hope they are not.

That would come under a protection against the misuse of power by a government authority. This and most of the other Amendments can be regarded as a protection of natural rights.

This is why it is was an absurdity for someone to suggest that natural rights has nothing to do with American law. It has a great deal to do with it.However, natural rights are not the only rights enjoyed by a society.

To cut a long story short. Natural rights are those rights that are anterior to all other rights. They are anterior because one does not need an organized society to grant natural rights. They already exist. Organized society grants rights as well, but rights granted by a society cannot conflict with natural rights. Natural rights takes precedent.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that "gay marriage rights" are in any way natural rights. At least I hope they are not.


Well done, Tuttyd. A little clarity never hurts.

Well tutt I agree with you, but then I don't think any marriage rights are natural rights any more the right to bare arms is a natural right

well tutt I agree with you, but then I don't think any marriage rights are natural rights any more the right to bare arms is a natural right

Most women would disagree with you - to bare arms is a natural right.

well tutt I agree with you, but then I don't think any marriage rights are natural rights any more the right to bare arms is a natural right

The right to bear arms is the right to protect oneself and one's liberty . Marriage is not a natural right .It has been defined by institutions for thousands of years;with specific requirements required to qualify .

That would come under a protection against the misuse of power by a government authority. This and most of the other Amendments can be regarded as a protection of natural rights.

This is why it is was an absurdity for someone to suggest that natural rights has nothing to do with American law. It has a great deal to do with it.However, natural rights are not the only rights enjoyed by a society.

To cut a long story short. Natural rights are those rights that are anterior to all other rights. They are anterior because one does not need an organized society to grant natural rights. They already exist. Organized society grants rights as well, but rights granted by a society cannot conflict with natural rights. Natural rights takes precedent.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that "gay marriage rights" are in any way natural rights. At least I hope they are not.

I'll go a step further and say there is zero mandate for the black robed, appointed for life oligarchs, to impose extreme societal change on the country. If indeed the nation is "evolving" ,and the definition of marriage is to be re-defined ,then it is not up to the courts of the land to make that call.

The entire history of America is about the struggle of groups to be recognized as free citizens and define themselves. Look it up, and substitute gay for women, and blacks and you will see the same patterns repeated over, and over.

Gays can be legally married already in some states but not recognized in others, so DOMA is already dead in parts of America. Where there is money and benefits involved everyone should be able to benefit from it. Not just the select traditional few.

the right to bear arms is the right to protect oneself and one's liberty . Marriage is not a natural right .It has been defined by institutions for thousands of years;with specific requirements required to qualify .

Yes, you can certainly argue that self-defense is a natural right, but probably not a lot past that. As you know natural rights are derived from a state of nature prior to there being an organized society to grant such rights.

A well organized militia would be post-hock explanation. In other words, one must have an organized society to begin with in order to render this a possibility.

That clause of the 2nd amendment is an extension of the individual natural right of self defense. It is clearly written as a limit to the power of the national government ;as all the bill of right amendments are .

Well geez, back then, in the beginning that was an issue. Its not government you need to be armed against, it's the crazy people with guns that live down the street.

You have a right to protect against both. There is no guarantee that we will forever be free.

Hello again, tom:


It is clearly written as a limit to the power of the national governmenIt was. The problem is the right wing still thinks their puny assault weapons are going to do the job...

No, SERIOUSLY... They believe they can defeat the U.S. Army. Somewhere along the line, the weapons people could bear STOPPED being a defense against the U.S. Government... Yet, somehow the right wing totally missed it. How do they MISS so much important stuff?

Not only that, they believe that when the shooting starts, the entire military will join their side. No, SERIOUSLY, they BELIEVE that stuff.

Come on. Tell me you don't.

Excon

Hello again, tom:

It was. The problem is the right wing still thinks their puny assault weapons are gonna do the job...

No, SERIOUSLY.... They believe they can defeat the U.S. Army. Somewhere along the line, the weapons people could bear STOPPED being a defense against the U.S. Government... Yet, somehow the right wing totally missed it. How do they MISS so much important stuff?

excon

So if the government became a totalitarian state you would lie back and take it with the sheeple ? I kind of doubt that .

So ex, you're really more troubled by the thought of us having an AR-15 than you are the idea of the feds sending the military in to slaughter us? Seems like kind of backward thinking to me.

Well geez, back then, in the beginning that was an issue. Its not government you need to be armed against, its the crazy people with guns that live down the street.

Hardly... its never been more inportant for the population to be armed than it is now with a brain dead.egomanic sociopath that HATES the Constitution and the Bill of rights, and whities everywhere (he said as much in his autobiographies that HE wrote) in office like we have now.

Hello again, Steve:


you're really more troubled by the thought of us having an AR-15 than you are the idea of the feds sending the military in to slaughter us? Seems like kind of backward thinking to me.Let's talk about backwards...

There's only ONE side talking about their guns. There's only ONE side taking about a tyrannical government... There's only ONE side talking about using force against the other..

And, it AIN'T my side...

Of course, I'd be concerned if the government attacked you. But, YOUR side is the one talking about this CRAP. The government ISN'T threatening you.. It's really NOT. It's not even close... It's YOUR side who brings it up...

I'm simply reminding you, that if you attack this great country of MINE, you will be destroyed... I KNOW you don't like to hear it... But, I don't want to hear about how your weapons protect you against a government who ISN'T threatening you...

Now, THAT'S backwards!

Excon

Gee... yesterdays freedom loving hippies are today's worst oppressors of personal freedom. Talk about A 180 degree change.

Your shadow is black so I guess that scares you too.

Hello again, Steve:

Let's talk about backwards...

There's only ONE side talking about their guns. There's only ONE side taking about a tyrannical government... There's only ONE side talking about using force against the other..

And, it AIN'T my side...

Of course, I'd be concerned if the government attacked you. But, YOUR side is the one talking about this CRAP. The government ISN'T threatening you.. It's really NOT. It's not even close... It's YOUR side who brings it up...

I'm simply reminding you, that if you attack this great country of MINE, you will be destroyed... I KNOW you don't like to hear it... But, I don't wanna hear about how your weapons protect you against a government who ISN'T threatening you...

Now, THAT'S backwards!!

excon

I don't know anyone on "my side" talking about attacking our country (that's a straw man). Maybe that's why you can't win fantasy football, you can't tell the difference between offense and defense?

Hello again, smoothy:


Gee... yesterdays freedom loving hippies are today's worst oppressors of personal freedom. Talk about A 180 degree change.I know you're not good at actually arguing. You'd rather throw up a bumper sticker... But, please TRY to tell me how a universal background check oppresses you?

You HAVE read where I've mentioned that a universal background check would STOP people like me from getting guns. I cannot imagine, WHY a right winger would be AGAINST a law that PREVENTED people like me from getting guns.

You're not going to tell me that I can pick one up in the hood for a few bucks, are you?? Really??

Excon

Your shadow is black so I guess that scares you too.

9RABZq5IoaQ

Your shadow is black so I guess that scares you too.

No... I'm just not dumb enough to fall for the Democrat propaganda when I can see the reality with my own eyes.

I never said all the loonies were white. I never said all the conservatives were white. Doesn't matter to me, the conservative right are loonies, and the further right they are, the crazier they talk.

And your point would be what?

I never said all the loonies were white. I never said all the conservatives were white. Doesn't matter to me, the conservative right are loonies, and the further right they are, the crazier they talk.

And your point would be what?

Fall of your meds?

5 years ago you were whining about imaginary things Bush was doing that violated nobodies rights or any law... and now you are defending the indefensible by a raving lunatic communist who is bent on destroying the Bill of Rights AND the COnstitution because he finds it gets in the way of his anti-american agenda... but you call the Right wingers crazy...

Hell the first witch publicly said she was ashamed to be an American not once but several times...

And that is the kind of person the lefties look up to... thats beyond pathetic.

Obviously liberals never listen to themselves or each other. Or loony is just normal to them.

Fall of your meds?

5 years ago you were whining about imaginary things Bush was doing that violated nobodies rights or any law........and now you are defending the indefensible by a raving lunatic communist who is bent on destroying the Bill of Rights AND the COnstitution because he finds it gets in the way of his anti-american agenda.....but you call the Right wingers crazy....

Hell the first witch publicly said she was ashamed to be an American not once but several times.....

And that is the kind of person the lefties look up to........thats beyond pathetic.

That's your loony version of the truth and your welcome to it.


Obviously liberals never listen to themselves or each other. Or loony is just normal to them.

If I am crazy for thinking things can be done in a reasonable positive fair way, okay I'm as crazy as you who don't thinks so.

And Bush was a compassionate idiot. He meant well, but he turned the spicket off on trickle down economics. Didn't help that YOU guys didn't want to help clean up the mess.

Hello again, smoothy:

I know you're not good at actually arguing. You'd rather throw up a bumper sticker... But, please TRY to tell me how a universal background check oppresses you?

You HAVE read where I've mentioned that a universal background check would STOP people like me from getting guns. I cannot imagine, WHY a right winger would be AGAINST a law that PREVENTED people like me from getting guns.

You're not going to tell me that I can pick one up in the hood for a few bucks, are you??? Really???

excon



Pick me Pick me!!

If the universal background check includes the keeping of records so as to record what I own rather then a spot check during the purchase period then it steps all over my rights to privacy. The name may be uder universal background check but if it actually is universal gun registration then I would be against it.

All through history the first thing a supressive tyranical government does is have a gun grab. If the know where they are then it makes it that much easier to control.

Should they be involved in the purchase process (yes). But after that they have no business regulating usage. The common law has always been innocent before guilt.

supressive tyranical government
No chance of this in THIS country! Too many checks and balances.

No chance of this in THIS country! Too many checks and balances.

Too late... we are there now... and this is the 5th year of it.

Hello dad:


Pick me Pick me!! Why? We agree. There should be no records kept.

I want to argue with people who think that felons like me, will get guns EVEN if there IS a background check...

Excon

No chance of this in THIS country! Too many checks and balances.


I don't see anyone checking Zero's power grabs.

No chance of this in THIS country! Too many checks and balances.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention to what is going on around you. This country is at a point of self destruction. There are 2 roads to be taken and if the right choices can not be made then its all going to end. People need to wake up and be informed about government and what is going on from the local levels on up. Most here on AMHD are fairly well informed on the issues but we have a great amount of the population that is sadly grossly uninformed. Just look at how many we get here that can't even figure out that having sex can make a baby. And these people have the right to vote. It is not as it used to be where people got involved and knew not only their neighbors but the community they lived in.
Be responsible and stay informed. Its your job as a citizen to do so.

Hello dad:

Why? We agree. There should be no records kept.

I wanna argue with people who think that felons like me, will get guns EVEN if there IS a background check...

excon

I do conceed that at the current time and under the current conditions there does exist routes that are favorable for someone that can not own or purchase a gun to get one.