US Appeals Court rules gay marriage bans in WI and IN unconstitutional.

[Expat]

Hopefully if we can get the radical left and right to quit meddling in the science, a cure can be found for this condition.
Epigenetics Is A Critical Factor In Homosexuality - Medical News Today

Unfortunately neither side wants research funded in this area.

 

[HoughMade]

Ok I'll humor you, how do you interpret "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?

The original wording, in more modern terms, word state: "Congress shall make no law regarding establishing a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" In other words, it will not establish a state sanctioned religion, or prevent anyone from exercising their religion.

....and your earlier question "why shouldn't the the states recognize...." That's a good question and why this issue should not be a federal issue at all and each state should use the legislative process to determine it for itself....which Indiana did.

 

[TippecanoeSportsman]

If Tim wants to share the mutual benefits of marriage with Kate Upton, he isn't going to marry Rosanne Barr to do it either. The point I made was that the law is equal. If the point that you wanted to make is that anyone should be able to marry whomever they want, why did you argue that it was unequal consideration? The govt limits it to quite a few groups, for instance it limits it to groups of 2, it also limits it to groups that it doesn't feel are too closely related, it also limits it to groups that they feel are old enough, some also limit it to groups that are syphilis and/or rubella free. I'm sure I could come up with more if you would like. Do you believe some or all of those limits should be repealed? If so which ones and why, and/or why not if you feel any/all of them shouldn't be.

Sure, why not. With the exception to perhaps age restrictions to protect minors, they all amount to government over regulation.

 

[cop car]

"VAST majority"

I'm straight, for gay marriage and love firearms. Contrary to your guess.

I know gay couples that have more firearms than many Firearm enthusiasts.

I know of a few actual firearms group for gay couples. Contrary to your guess

Pink Pistols National | Pick On Someone Your Own Caliber

You presented examples of rare cases IMO. If there was a survey done about supporting a law that guarantees the right for same sex couples to marry, and then right after that they did a survey on a law that allows people to publicly carry weapons, most of the people would say yes to the first and no to the last. The point of my post was that while a lot of these "liberals" are championing the "right" to marriage (which isn't guaranteed anywhere in the constitution) citing the constitution as their reasons, are also pressing for stricter laws that further restrict and deny people a constitutional right that is explicitly defined in the constitution. Stop trying to de-rail an argument by picking one tiny thing you take issue with and running away with it. No where in my post did I say "homos hate guns" but that is the response post you made.

Lets make this clear here. I am against any laws that recognize gay marriage. Yeah I said it. I'm also against any laws at all that recognize ANY marriages. I'm for removing the government from the equation all together. Marriage is between you, the other person or persons, and God. No one else. Why should the government care if I'm married to a woman, man, 2 women, 2 men etc etc or if I am not married to anyone. It should have zero changes on how I am treated by my government. Equal treatment. Demand it for everyone. Not just you.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Hopefully if we can get the radical left and right to quit meddling in the science, a cure can be found for this condition.
Epigenetics Is A Critical Factor In Homosexuality - Medical News Today

Unfortunately neither side wants research funded in this area.

Interesting. Assuming some sort of epi-mark/gene therapy were to be devised, what percentage of people would avail themselves of it?

 

[HoughMade]

Interesting. Assuming some sort of epi-mark/gene therapy were to be devised, what percentage of people would avail themselves of it?

If there's any reality behind that, it would make the deaf community's cochlear implant controversy look like a love-fest.

 

[TippecanoeSportsman]

The original wording, in more modern terms, word state: "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" In other words, it will not establish a state sanctioned religion, or prevent anyone from exercising their religion.

I think the more important word is the "an" preceding "establishment". Your suggestion of meaning should read "Congress shall make no law respecting THE establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

For example, I interpret "an establishment of religion" as Congress will make no law respecting Catholicism, etc. In your line of thinking, why create a church-state when we can just legislate in a manner that reflects their belief system? It'd be a different means to the same end.

 

[HoughMade]

I think the more important word is the "an" preceding "establishment". Your suggestion of meaning should read "Congress shall make no law respecting THE establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

For example, I interpret "an establishment of religion" as Congress will make no law respecting Catholicism, etc. In your line of thinking, why create a church-state when we can just legislate in a manner that reflects their belief system? It'd be a different means to the same end.

Is your opinion based on what you think it should be, or what the historical evidence demonstrates the people who enacted the 1st Amendment actually meant?

 

[jkaetz]

The problem is simply "marriage". The term represents a religious bond between two and sometimes more, people. It ALSO represents a legal connection between two people, currently defined as man and woman in most states. A good portion of the population cannot conceptually separate the two things. Add that to the fact that a similar portion of the populous has a religion that also defines marriage as man and woman, to them the forced acceptance of gay "marriage" is an intrusion by the .gov on their religious belief system and they will fight it with a determination never before seen. I have always maintained that the entire issue would largely go away if the term marriage was stricken from all legal texts and replaced with something else. Suddenly the religious populous is happy as they are not being forced to accept gay "marriage" and they can deal with homosexuality in their own way. The path should then be clear to modify the legal definition from man and woman to individual 1 and individual 2. Viola, now the GLBT crowd can share in the joys of a legal binding and the equally joyful dissolution of that binding in a few years after they can't stand each other any more. Of course now that the legal definition has been change and is open to changing you'll likely have petitions to further modify the definition to allow joining of individuals beyond two and likely other more odd bindings, but hey, the current social hot button of gay marriage will be sorted.

 

[Expat]

I think the more important word is the "an" preceding "establishment". Your suggestion of meaning should read "Congress shall make no law respecting THE establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

For example, I interpret "an establishment of religion" as Congress will make no law respecting Catholicism, etc. In your line of thinking, why create a church-state when we can just legislate in a manner that reflects their belief system? It'd be a different means to the same end.

If you read some of the personal writings at the time, the Founders intended to reassure the states that the Federal government would not be involved in religious practice in any way. All of that would be left up to the states. Once again the power of incorporation that the SCOTUS invented from their reading of the 14th amendment beginning in the 1920's creates mischief.

 

[HoughMade]

....Once again the power of incorporation that the SCOTUS invented from their reading of the 14th amendment beginning in the 1920's creates mischief.

...and that is an excellent point. We oft times skip over the "Congress" part because the Supreme Court wants us to and, as you said, invented a principle that allows the feds to grab more power when they want to.

 

[TippecanoeSportsman]

The problem is simply "marriage". The term represents a religious bond between two and sometimes more, people. It ALSO represents a legal connection between two people, currently defined as man and woman in most states. A good portion of the population cannot conceptually separate the two things. Add that to the fact that a similar portion of the populous has a religion that also defines marriage as man and woman, to them the forced acceptance of gay "marriage" is an intrusion by the .gov on their religious belief system and they will fight it with a determination never before seen. I have always maintained that the entire issue would largely go away if the term marriage was stricken from all legal texts and replaced with something else. Suddenly the religious populous is happy as they are not being forced to accept gay "marriage" and they can deal with homosexuality in their own way. The path should then be clear to modify the legal definition from man and woman to individual 1 and individual 2. Viola, now the GLBT crowd can share in the joys of a legal binding and the equally joyful dissolution of that binding in a few years after they can't stand each other any more. Of course now that the legal definition has been change and is open to changing you'll likely have petitions to further modify the definition to allow joining of individuals beyond two and likely other more odd bindings, but hey, the current social hot button of gay marriage will be sorted.

Well said.

 

[jamil]

The first amendment guarantees all of us that the government will govern without religious influence. Period.

It most certainly does not. It will govern with the influence of the people, people who may or may not be religious.

Okay, here's one agnostic's point of view.

Steve's right. The constitution does not guarantee that government will not govern with any religious influences. The only way it could do that is if it prohibited any government official to hold any religious beliefs at all.

People get to be who they are, barring the obvious. They get to hate stuff. They get to love other stuff. They get to be straight. They get to be gay. They get to be religious. They get to be not religious.

People are influenced by all sorts of stuff: authors, actors, philosophy, and many many things, including, yes, religion. The constitution guarantees us that congress can't make you practice a particular religion or any at all. But that doesn't mean that the laws congress enacts can't be influenced by the beliefs of the lawmakers, religious or otherwise. World view and beliefs influence everyone.

I'm quite certain you'd feel differently about that if another religious group voted away something important to you.

We have to look at this practically. People oppose laws they don't like. People have lots of reasons to support or oppose this or that. What difference does it make if those reasons are religious, philosophical, self interest, or whatever? Someone want's to enact something and they have the political capital to get it done, that's just what happens. Then people who don't like it challenge it in court, and then the court decides. Of course, again in a practical terms, the court decides based on political expedience rather than on true constitutionality.

Ok I'll humor you, how do you interpret "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?

How can it not mean more than what it says? Does it say Congress shall make no law that smells at all of any hint of religion? Society's laws are mostly driven by society's interests, not the other way around. There's a lot of laws on the books that were enacted because of the influence of religion. Many of those laws are being challenged as the population becomes less religious because they don't want laws that are based on that.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Sure, why not. With the exception to perhaps age restrictions to protect minors, they all amount to government over regulation.

So you think that marriage between brother/sister or parent/offspring should be legal? Along with 3,4 or 12 people joining together in marriage? And isn't it the job of the parents to protect their children? Why should the govt interfere in that? Heck the age they set is just an arbitrary number, what was the marriage age when this country was founded? What was it 100 years later?

I think the more important word is the "an" preceding "establishment". Your suggestion of meaning should read "Congress shall make no law respecting THE establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

For example, I interpret "an establishment of religion" as Congress will make no law respecting Catholicism, etc. In your line of thinking, why create a church-state when we can just legislate in a manner that reflects their belief system? It'd be a different means to the same end.

How do you come to the conclusion that is what is meant by it? Basically in simpler terms, Congress shall not establish a state religion (eg The Church of England esp under Elizabeth I) nor outlaw the practice of a religion (eg persecuting Catholics under English law).

...and that is an excellent point. We oft times skip over the "Congress" part because the Supreme Court wants us to and, as you said, invented a principle that allows the feds to grab more power when they want to.

Yep. There were several states that had a state religion including religious tests for holding office after the 1st Amendment was ratified.

 

[Kart29]

...we can just legislate in a manner that reflects their belief system?

And the founding fathers did "just legislate in a manner that reflected their belief system". The statesmen who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution very definitely had a religion and a philosophy and very clearly in all their writing cite the religious basis for creating the government the way they did. It is most definitely desirable that a nation have citizens that have a reason for their belief system and that they make laws that reflect that belief system.

 

[88GT]

I want to agree with your statement but I think it is short-sighted to look at anything in such black and white terms.

I happen to see it in such black and white terms.

At the risk of beating an already badly bruised horse, that logic applied to the civil rights movement and women's sufferage would have prolonged both by many, many more years.

I doubt it. Both of those issues fall under the 14th.

 

[HoughMade]

....I doubt it. Both of those issues fall under the 14th.

Well, the 14th and 19th, but the point stands. In those instances, it was acknowledged that the Constitution needed to be changed to recognize rights that had not been previously recognized. The Constitution was amended which is an inherently legislative and republican undertaking. In other words, the governed got to decide, through their elected representatives, that the Constitution needed to be amended to to recognize rights that had not previously been recognized.

Here, we have a judicial end-run around the republican process. The governed have no say about whether rights should be recognized that never have been. If this is such a universally accepted right, why not use the legislative or amendatory process? The answer is simple, the idea that there is overwhelming support for this is a myth.

 

[Henry]

I don't care if someone wishes to marry their toaster, their dog, their car - or all three. But do not - do NOT - attempt to utilize the powers of government in order to sanction it as legitimate and deserving of public recognition or attempt to force me to recognize such deviancy as legitimate. It is not. They may do what they please, but I have the right to disregard any 'marriage'. "Tyrants to the left of me, tyrants to the right." Back to your regularly-scheduled Statism: Statists gonna State!

+1

l'll go further and submit the state should not be involved in marriage at all....not even the one between me and my wife.

 

[Henry]

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."


Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"

 

[jbombelli]

Well, the 14th and 19th, but the point stands. In those instances, it was acknowledged that the Constitution needed to be changed to recognize rights that had not been previously recognized. The Constitution was amended which is an inherently legislative and republican undertaking. In other words, the governed got to decide, through their elected representatives, that the Constitution needed to be amended to to recognize rights that had not previously been recognized.

Here, we have a judicial end-run around the republican process. The governed have no say about whether rights should be recognized that never have been. If this is such a universally accepted right, why not use the legislative or amendatory process? The answer is simple, the idea that there is overwhelming support for this is a myth.

Kind of like federal prohibition of drugs?