HAHAHAAHAHAHA.....you clearly don't know history and I would suggest you stop touting it before you further embarrass yourself. Church discouraged learning? It was the Church that preserved and saved the thoughts of ancient Greece.
@MrTrilliondollarman I don't know where you're learning your history, but I'm getting the impression that YOU (MrTrilliondollarman) are a clear example of the dramatic failings of religious home-schooling.
You are very very confused, and you haven't a shred of credibility based off your blind adherence to religious dogma and the many demonstrably false claims you've tried to make here in this very forum.
Give it up already. History now or then, is not on your side.
Home schooling failure? Even the department of education admits home schooled children do much better and have higher test scores than public schooled children. History is 100% on my side. You, however, seem to base yours on outdated stereotypes and notions historians today dont buy.
@MrTrilliondollarman I'm not impugning ALL home schooling. As I clearly stated, you MUST be the result of "religious" home-schooling, where you are taught not only to disparage and disrespect modern science, but are also taught a wildly skewed revisionist history that tries to paint your religion in a HIGHLY inaccurate glowing light, where you not only didn't commit the atrocities history shows us you did, but stood against them, AND supported science rather than regularly stood in its way.
Oh, so as long as it's not religious, you don't have a problem with it? What utter nonsense. I love science but I don't view it as a way to base a lifestyle on. In fact, no scientist will ever say people should base their life on science. Christianity did not commit any atrocities, and in fact did support science. Ever heard of Gregor Mendal?
@MrTrilliondollarman Ever hear of Galileo Galilei? How about Giordano Bruno? Christianity and Science have a LONG contentious history, wherein science always wins, and Christianity then claims "we supported that view all along, in fact we were the ones who originated and advanced that view".
You really think you know Galileo's case? You don't. He was charged with defying orders to only present his case as an hypothesis, not as actual fact. Copernicus was told the same thing and he actually obeyed. Bruno was executed for promoting a heretical teaching, not for saying the sun is a star. Science and Christianity go hand in hand. Just ask Newton.
@MrTrilliondollarman Galileo didn't come up with the Sun centered solar system, why would he want to publish his work as hypothesis, when his work was specifically to PROVE definitively, by rigorous observation, that the Sun was at the center and the Earth was simply another planet orbiting it. The church had already placed Copernicus's works on their 'List of Forbidden Books' for the hypothesis of that.
The fact remains, the church has often fought science before begrudgingly accepting it.
He couldn't prove it. That's the point. Neither could Copernicus, whose works were never put on the index. The fact is you just don't know what you're talking about in this area, which comes as no surprise.
@MrTrilliondollarman Many heliocentric advocacy works were put on the Catholic's List, and that's the point. Once literacy and science began advancing, the church which held society in its iron grip, would only tolerate those discoveries that could be supported by Biblical teachings and understandings. Eventually they relent, just as many are now accepting evolution.
At any rate, we are getting way off topic now, and as I recall I long ago had decided to stop engaging with your blind allegiance
Those works were only because they could not answer why the stars never moved from their position in the sky. We now know that has nothing to do with whether the earth rotates or not, but they couldn't answer that. Also, many of these early works contained numerous errors, like Darwin's original theory of how genes were transferred. Seems more like you decided to be even more blind and ignorant.
@MrTrilliondollar Who wants to bet that in 50 years the Christians will be taking credit for the advancement of gay rights and marriage equality? Despite now being the #1 driving force behind anti-gay rhetoric, the push back against equal rights, and a long history of inculcating anti-gay societal attitudes, your future brethren will claim it was THE CHRISTIANS who originally stood up against bigotry and pushed to have ALL god's children treated with dignity, respect, and equality. Am I right?
MORONS. Having the gov't call different behavior by the same name as marriage does not represent liberty. It represents special recognition. Idiots. Gay people can do whatever the hell they want.
Also, the Constitution doesn't mention "equal treatment." Not once. No one has a right to equal treatment. They have a right to "equal protection," only, which implies that different behavior can leave you vulnerable to consequences.
@namordecai So what YOU'RE saying that 'marriage' actually means behavior - heterosexual sex? Hmmm. That's interesting. So basically there are A LOT more married people than even those people realize. Or is marriage the (hopefully) life-long commitment between two people who wish to share and enjoy their lives together, to care for and protect one another, and to be and become a family together? Where legal recognition provides rights, benefits, protections, responsibilities, and obligations.
@EmeraldView Marriage="the carrying out of the decision to live as husband and wife." Such behavior creates an outlet for the expression of instincts to protect and nurture _biological offspring_. While adoptive and step parents may do a good job to a degree, there is no ultimate substitute for inherent instincts.
Homosexual marriage does not create the same outlet for such natural expressions of parenthood.
Legal recognition isn't an integral part of marriage.
@namordecai There is no rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite gender couples that does not apply equally well to same gender couples, OR does not prohibit opposite gender couples who are incapable of having natural offspring or otherwise choose not to have any. Furthermore the marital protections afforded to a couple that benefit them and their children, are also critical for the protection of gay couples and THEIR children (a great many of whom are raising children).
@EmeraldView I never said anyone should ban anyone from "marrying." However, the natural laws of language (and thus free speech) demand that things with relevant differences be given a different name. Otherwise, you are making a moral statement about those differences, e.g. biological parenthood's relevance or irrelevance.
What the hell gay couples need the label "marriage" for? To trick people that their behavior is the same, when in reality, it's not. Is it the gov'ts job to trick people?
@namordeca Gay couples DON'T need the word 'marriage' (outside of the fact that it is the widely understood and accepted term for a couples' life-long and/or legal commitment to one another). What they need is equality under existing law. NOT an demonstrably untenable 'separate but equal' version of existing law. If all 'marriage' law State and Federal were changed to use the term 'Civil Union' for ALL couples, gay or straight, then that would satisfy Constitutional requirements. Who wants that?
its actually sad that they see it being split among party lines in SCOTUS...thats pathetic....liberty is Liberty / Freedom in Freedom - seems like its gonna be going down party lines......Liberty & Justice for ALL my ass.,,,amazing how its taking so dammed long in this friggin country
its actually sad that they see it being split among party lines in SCOTUS...thats pathetic....liberty is Liberty / Freedom in Freedom - seems like its gonna be going down party lines......Liberty & Justice for ALL my ass.
@TheMoriMaster Government (the people) have a vested interest in marriage, which is why we have law for it. Married people are more secure and capable together, are much less likely to ever become a burden to the State, and in many cases provide a stable secure platform from which to raise children. Government encourages marriage by providing rights and benefits, and also strengthens and guards the couple by providing protections, responsibilities, and obligations. This works straight OR gay.
The state should get out of marriage and all its benefits should be abolished. Its not the business of the state nor the business of statist busy bodies on what two consenting adults do.
That's it...I'm serving all ties to libertarianism....one, you cannot argue religion has nothing to do with marriage. People base their politics on many things and religion is one of them. Two, one would think libertarians would have applauded the state's deciding gay marriage for themselves through the democratic process, but they aren't doing that. Three, most of the evidence given for the Perry side is actually junk history and loopy logic that the courts should have known to be fraudulent.
@MrTrilliondollarman I'm serving beef. It's what's for dinner. Tell the Neocons we said 'hi douche nozzles'. Please relay that verbatim. I Hope Capitalist Fascism caters to your religion better (it doesn't, but hey...).
I'm serving a can of whoop-ass...it's just for you...;) It must really annoy you that even though the Libertarian Party has been around since the 70's, it just is not growing as fast as the Constitution Party. Too bad no one buys your "free-for-all" crap.
@MrTrilliondollarman You're still here? How long did it take for Roman pagans to 'buy' Christianity? I am never discouraged to be in the minority. All great movements started against a tide. You need to decide if this is a great movement, or to be part of the tide. Trying to use 'me too' marketing to shame me is telling though. Wrong guy. I stick by my beliefs even if they're not popular. Funny that this comes from a 'Christian'. You need to remember where you came from. Lions don't scare me.
But an atheist based outlook should...look, Libertarians dont have a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected and it's because of their stand on gay marriage (among other things). You can't claim to be for state rights then turn around and support gay marriage. it doesnt work that way.
@MrTrilliondollarman What is marriage? It's a contract. A government contract. A 'no default' mean nothing gov. contract. As soon as Gov. took marriage it ceased to mean anything. If you get married in a church and take your vows before god, then that's between you your spouse, god and the church. If your church marries same sex couples, that's between you and your church. You, church, GOD. See? I don't care about a gov. contract. I don't care if gov. allows people to marry goats. Means nothing.
Really? that's odd since last I checked, no government contract results in longer life spans for men or greater personal incomes or greater personal happiness, yet these three and more are exactly what we see in heterosexual marriage. Second, almost no church (in America anyway) will perform a same-sex marriage and those that do aren't following their faith's teachings. Three, no relationship exists in a vacuum. That's a major point pro-same sex people tend to forget.
@MrTrilliondollarman Marriage is a contract as viewed by gov. Hence the term 'no fault divorce'. Annulment? Division of assets? You do understand this, correct? There are many contracts that are unique, and that logic is flawed. Also, the whole men live longer (false) and are happier (not sure about that) is being dis-proven. Financial? Dual incomes make men look like they have higher income, but women spend more and kids... That's silly. Vacuum? What is your point? Theoretical philosophy?
First of all, married men do live longer and report higher happiness levels than single men. Financially, you have two minds looking at the same problem. If you really want to argue that government shouldn't define marriage, then you're left with no choice than to let churches decide...and nearly all of them say no to same-sex marriage.
@MrTrilliondollarman You argue like a woman. I make a point you change the topic. What were we talking about? Oh, gay marriage and the Libertarian party. Let's review; Marriage = contract required by government. Gov. doesn't hold either party responsible for vows (no fault). Divorce is actually referred to as an industry. Married men may live longer, because they haven't had the pleasure of having their assets split up by Lawyers and a family court. Marriage is a contractual financial merger.
You argue like a dumbass. Marriage=not something for gays. No fault divorce was not decided on by the democratic process. That was a hair-brained product created by judges and lawyers. Divorce is not as high as we have been told. Marriage is not just a legal contract or a merger. There is much, much more to it than that.
@MrTrilliondollarman Again, you're veering off . It doesn't matter who decided no fault divorce. Now you're pulling 'it's not fair' ? Divorce rate isn't around 50 percent? And married men are happy and live longer. Oh, I see. I've had 'discussions' with feminists that went like this. Someone has an agenda, and mine is not to waste my time with PETA types. All emotion and little reality (marriage= not for gays) is that an argument?
So you're saying the votes of the people dont matter? Divorce rate is closer to 15%. Clearly, your stand is "if the people don't want this, then I don't give a crap what the people think."
@MrTrilliondollarman BINGO MrTrillion, you hit the nail on the head, the votes of the people do NOT matter, when it comes to Constitutional rights & protections. The U.S. Constitution IS the highest law of this land. No State or local law including State constitution, no matter how enacted, can abridge the U.S. Constitution. That doesn't mean the people are without recourse. The vast majority of people CAN amend the Constitution with 2/3 votes of the House & Senate and 3/4 of State Legislatures.
But gay marriage is not protected by the Constitution. Not even close. Pro-straight marriage clauses do not contradict it. This has been tried in court several times and it has always failed.
@MrTrilliondollarman No neither gay marriage NOR straight marriage, the legal recognition of such, is found in the Constitution. What *IS* found, and I can't believe you need this stated to you AGAIN, is equal protection of the laws. No jurisdiction can abridge that right to equal protection, from any citizen, based on any arbitrary characteristic of that citizen, without a rational secular basis that advances a compelling State interest. It's THAT simple. Courts have long agreed on that.
Neither is there a prohibition against murder or rape, so does that mean the Constitution is okay with those? Of course not. Furthermore, we have laws against these actions but they discriminate against murders and rapists. According to your reasoning, that's not fair. Well, that's just tough then, isn't it? We dont tolerate murder and rape and we don't tolerate same sex marriage either.
@MrTrilliondollarman There are clear and very well established compelling State interests with a sound secular basis for laws against murder and rape. What is so hard for you to understand? Murder & Rape are only bad because your God told you that? Or are there justifiable societal reasons we proscribe those things? There is no legitimate societal reason to exclude same gender couples from marriage law. But speaking of murderers and rapists, even THEY can get married though locked up for life.
And those interests come straight from principles found in the Bible. The Founders were big fans of a man named Blackstone who made the case laws come from God. There are plenty of societal reasons why we're against it, like we're against polygamy. Look this up: Back when Utah applied for statehood, Washington told them they could not enter the union until they first made polygamy illegal.
@MrTrilliondollarman Some of the founding fathers DID want religion and Christianity either instituted into law or at least placed on a pedestal, and there were numerous attempts to institute religion and Christianity into our founding document, the Constitution, and each time they were shot down (what could be more clear than that action). What we were given is a purely secular based Constitution and system of government, that SPECIFICALLY decries the overt use of religion in our law.
What could be more clear than sundays are excluded as days of work? what faith excludes sundays? We have nothing even close to a secular document. You cant have a group of men, over 70% of which were Christian, come up with a 100% secular document. It can't be done.
@MrTrilliondollarman Never-the-less, our founders set out to and DID create a secular system of governance with the explicit goal of disentangling any influence of religion in our laws (initially federal law via the 1st Amendment, and by virtue of the 14th Amendment, State and Local laws). The fact that they had various conventions of society which may have found there way into the wording (year of our lord) or insignificant provisions (Sunday's excluded), does nothing to change that reality.
There was no secular system of governance created. You're getting off topic instead of just admitting you had it wrong. Religion was in the middle of everything and remained so until people started touting the nonsense you're putting on here.
@MrTrilliondollarman What does that even mean "Religion was in the middle of everything". Our founders had religion? Yeah some did. They had differing religions, some were simply deists, and some were agnostic. That has no bearing on their intent to create a secular system of government free from overt religious influence on it. Your pathetic examples 'year of our lord' 'Sunday's off', were not even contemplated as relevant until the 1830's, half a century later, by your apparent predecessors.
Actually, the majority of them did. Only one would count as an agnostic but only after America was already founded. Sundays off occurs in only one faith in the world and that is what this nation was based on.
@MrTrilliondollarman Who's denying that many founders were Christian and most of the population was too? That simply does NOT have any relevance to the very clear fact that the founders PURPOSELY and with full intention agreed upon a system of secular government, that would NOT make law based on any religious doctrines, beliefs, creeds or practices, but had rational justifiable secular purposes.
I know you are desperate to believe otherwise because or your religious insecurity, but get over it.
You seem to deny it with great delight. You just can't stand phrases like "nature's God", "endowed by their creator" or even the word "inalienable"--phrases that prove you wrong.
I know as an atheist you're just not smart enough to get it, but that's just too bad.
@MrTrilliondollarman You really are quite sad and pathetic. I have absolutely NO problem with 'nature's god' or 'endowed by their creator'. That's in the Declaration of Independence. Written BY Jefferson, and is quite intentionally left vague. Nature *IS* my creator. Nature's 'god' (that which rules over nature and it is subject to) is the physical processes of our Universe.
You're the one who wants to read something quite explicit into those words. YOUR completely unfounded 'god'.
You may not have a problem with the words by themselves, but you do seem to have a problem with what the words imply. Nature can't be your creator: something created nature. You don't want to give up your irrational atheism but looks like you've been backed into a corner. Only a few more moves until you're checkmated.
@MrTrilliondollarman Really? Nature requires a creator, but your creator (which by necessity would need to be vastly more complex and intricate than nature, did NOT require a creator itself).
Fundamentalists really do check their logic at the door, don't they.
MrTrillion, you'd been check-mated SO long ago, one would need to scroll back through countless pages to pinpoint exactly where.
We know the earth is much younger than the age of the universe. That is a fact. Since God does not operate in time like all created things, He does not require a creator but nature does.
Atheists really don't have brains, do they?
Oh, no, sad little boy....You got beaten several times already, as evident by your pathetic attempts to change the subject rather than be a big boy and admit you're wrong.
@MrTrilliondollarman Wow this is getting embarrassing. It's like picking on a defenseless child who's flailing about in a forlorn manner.
Tell us, how exactly do you come to the conclusion that this infinite, always present, all knowing, all powerful 'god' of yours unlike nature (which is none of those things) being outside of space or time can just exist? Is that some sort of (un)common sense, or did some book written by ancient tribal desert barbarians tell you that?
That notion of God comes from the greatest philosophical minds that have ever lived. An infinite regress is impossible. We know this from the world and the universe. So we need a being (for lack of a another word) who set it in motion but is not dependent on anything to set itself in motion. Think of it like starting a domino chain. You get the dominoes moving but you don't require a domino to move you.
@MrTrilliondollarman Hmmm. Okay I see!! So... we can't have natural processes that have always existed, even outside our universe, which brought our universe into existence. It's impossible for anything non-sentient outside our universe to have initiated 'the big bang'. Clearly that could ONLY be done by an always existent, all present, all knowing, all powerful being that now takes a very personal interest in the individual lives of the beings on a tiny dust particle in that universe. I get it
Natural processes have not always existed. Though it is agreed the universe began about 13 billion years ago, there's a gap around the Big Bang where all the laws of the universe simply don't work. How do you explain that?
@MrTrilliondollarman I explain that by filling my gaps in our understanding of the nanoseconds before and after the big bang by inserting what could only be obvious: an always existent, all present, all knowing, all powerful, sometimes all loving, vastly intelligent entity that out of the unfathomably beyond comprehension enormous universe decided to create flawed beings on one tiny speck of dust, to fail his expectations, struggle, suffer, and be saved by itself being tortured in human form.
By the way, it's attitudes like yours that convinced me to leave the Libertarian party, and it will also be the reason the Libertarian Party will always lose elections and be inferior to the Constitution Party.
@MrTrilliondollarman You and your brethren DO like to use words that make you sound better than you are. Just calling yourselves "The Constitution Party" no more makes you better adherents or keepers of our Constitutional principals and our founders intent for the system of government they wanted us to have than any other party. THEY put in the Amendment process, and most States agreed at the time the 14th was passed, to extend Bill of Rights protections to ALL jurisdictions Fed, State, & local.
At least I don't think laws should be based on what a judge thinks it should be...that is from hypocritical flops like you. The 14th amendment applies to who is a citizen, not whether the government is a citizen. Clearly, I know the Constitution better than you do.
@MrTrilliondollarman From my observations, you know only what charlatans want you to believe about our Constitution and our founders intent. The 14th Amendment does a few things including extending the Bill of Rights citizen protections to all lower jurisdictions of law, as well as mandating equal protection of the laws to all citizens.
BTW, why can't you be happy without government endorsement of your religious code? That's REALLY what this boils down to with your and your cohorts.
Seems pretty clear you have the charlatan market cornered. Why can't you just accept the fact people have voted of their own free will and they have ALWAYS said no to gay marriage? Why is that so hard for you?
@MrTrilliondollarman Alright, so that's your strategy now? You can't refute anything I've said so you're going with the 'I'm rubber your glue" defense. Heh!
Didn't we already go over how the people's vote doesn't matter when it comes to Constitutional protections. But that's NOT what's important to you, otherwise you'd be gravely concerned at polling trends over the last two decades, which show ever rapidly growing support for marriage equality. Sorry, but your ignorance is dying.
Actually, I have refuted everything you said. You just didn't get it. Didn't I already point out judges don't have the authority to override what people voted on openly and freely? But clearly, you don't care what people want because it gets in the way of what you want. Nice try, but this is a free country, not a dictatorship.
@MrTrilliondollarman Sorry you are wrong. We do not live in a direct democracy. The people simply can NOT vote on any law or Constitutional Amendment and have it override the Constitutional protections entitled to all citizens. Not 51% nor 99% can vote to do that. We have a system of three Co-equal branches of government and a defined way to change the Constitution.
You would like a theocratic dictatorship, wouldn't you? It's what fundamentalists ultimately pine for, with Jesus as the dictator.
As opposed to what: a tyrannical government that goes against the people "because the people aren't smart enough to know what's good for them"? No thanks. I'll stick with an America where majority rules and the people's votes still matter...and they say no to gay marriage.
@MrTrilliondollarman No tyranny is where any arbitrary majority can vote with 50.1% to strip the rights, liberties, and freedoms from any arbitrary minority. Where the majority of people can vote to say "People who's height is exactly MrTrilliondollarman's height are NOT entitled to equality under law". THAT is a tyranny of the majority and our system of government and Constitution is designed to protect against that.
If you don't like that, then you are in the wrong country. Sorry.
If that were true, why put measures on ballots in the first place? Don't you think that was considered before the ballot was put together? Besides, tyranny is when those in positions of authority ignore the will of the populace to suit their own agenda and that's exactly what you're advocating.
@MrTrilliondollarman Not all ballot initiatives run afoul of Constitutional protections. Proposition 8 did. It doesn't matter if they knew that or not, they gave it their best shot anyhow, it was passed and it's been challenged on Constitutional grounds.
Your ilk, KNOWS these anti-marriage-equality measures violate the U.S. Constitution. Why do you think they've tried so hard to amend the U.S. Constitution to override the 14th Amendment and carve equality in marriage law out of it.
It did no such thing. That judge didn't know what he was talking about and is notorious for getting the law wrong. There is no violation of the Constitution in any way, shape or form in denying gays marriage. The 14th amendment mentions due process of law; there was no violation of due process with Prop 8.
@MrTrilliondollarman Due process of law *IS* one of the key overriding concerns with Prop 8, which denies that to gay people, or those who wish to avail themselves of marriage law with someone of the same gender. Laws cannot simply strip someone of their due right to equality and fairness of law, without some rational compelling State interest.
The people voted, they said no and no evidence of voter fraud was ever exposed...sounds like due process was followed to me.
What doesn't follow due process, however, is failure by the judge to disclose that he had been in a gay relationship for ten years. Therefore, he should have followed legal guidelines and excused himself from the case.
@MrTrilliondollarman A laughable contention, and just about every legal expert has pointed that out. The judge's sexual orientation & relationship status is of no consequence to his capacity to provide a fair and impartial decision in his professional capacity as a judge, any more than is a straight married judge's capacity. If the judge wanted to be married he could have done that in California when it was available, or now anywhere in the nation it's available.
Actually, his orientation should have excluded him from hearing the case. As several Prop 8 backers have pointed out, unless the judge had no intention of marrying his long time partner, he had a personal interest in the case and was therefore biased, which means his ruling doesn't count.
@MrTrilliondollarman Well there is simply no proof that Judge Walker had any intent on marrying his partner, and if he did he had ample opportunity to do so during the several months that is was open to gay couples in California. The fact of the matter is the Plaintiffs put on a rock solid case against Proposition 8, the Defendants of Prop 8 failed miserably, and the judge after a lengthy and quite thorough trial issued a very detailed and meticulous ruling as to why Prop 8 is Unconstitutional.
once again, you don't get it. He did have a vested interest in making sure it was defeated, which then means he should have followed ethical guidelines and referred the case to a different judge.
@EmeraldView Ask yourself why all advanced civilizations practice marriage? Your 'takes a village" idea is very flawed. Villages were all closely related and tightly knit. That's more like a family. But in the modern world, marriage is basically what the ancients did: biological parents being the primary guardians of their children. That's nature, and it's a proven fact that biological parents have stronger instincts to protect and nurture children. That's why France's lawmakers preserve mariage
@namordecai Societies practice marriage for the EXACT same reasons that it's valuable to gay couples and any children THEY may be raising. And that has little to nothing to do with the procreative capacities or intent of the couple involved. I don't need to re-litigate something that's been thoroughly hashed out in numerous posts below.
@EmeraldView You're talking about people's motives, which is irrelevant to this debate. Marriage is an institution. It's a thing. It doesn't have motives. It is what it is. Male homosexuals, for the most part, don't even want children, according to the polls. Furthermore, lesbians might have a child or two, when they get older or may bring a child in from a previous heterosexual relationship (as lesbians are commonly bisexual).
Marriage is different than a gay union. Prove otherwise.
@MrTrilliondollarman Too many Christians have fallen for the 'Gov. Contract' and in doing so have given it spiritual significance. You - Church - Fed - God? NO! 'No Fault' divorce has made an even bigger joke of marriage. My point is to let the churches decide. It's sad that you speak of this like the gov. knows best and the alternative would be the church deciding. Is that a bad thing? Put your faith in God, NOT in Gov. Gov. can marry whoever they want. My church is held to a higher standard.
What's even sadder is government doesn't turn to the church for guidance like it should or actually be of and by the people. So by that reasoning, no, government can't marry whoever they want. Government should just let people decide this, and if the people say no, than that's that.
@MrTrilliondollarman I can't believe I'm responding ofter that 'dumbass' comment, but here goes. Government cannot 'seek the churches guidance'. First, which church? Then the problem would be that the church would become highly political. Rome. Politicians can and should. That last comment is Mob Rule. We don't work that way. Sorry if the constitution is inconvenient for you, and yes, the government contract of marriage has to be afforded to all, or it is unconstitutional. Even at state level.
I can't believe you're still talking nonsense yet here we are. Government does seek the church's guidance. Name any political leader who doesn't consult a religious figure and I'll show you someone who's a tyrant. The Church is political already. I don't know where you've been. If the government extends marriage to all even though the people have voted repeatedly no, you have tyranny, not democracy. States have the right to decide no, and all of those who voted did just that.
@MrTrilliondollarman So, placing my faith in the church, and not in government is nonsense? You get your religious doctrine from the Federal Gov. and your statistics from the church. You are correct, in your world, I am talking nonsense.
No, dipshit...I'm saying if you want to argue that government shouldn't decide marriage, then leave it up to churches to decide. If you want to argue the people should decide, then you should have no problems with people voting no every time. Either way, the answer will be no.
@MrTrilliondollarman Ah, the Christian has resorted to childish name calling. SHOCKING! You are not paying attention to what I have stated in every post because as a nasty foul-mouthed Christian it is inconvenient for you. I don't advocate the people voting on social issues that's mob rule, and the founders did not adhere to it either (pesky constitution). Yes, Church you fool. How many times do I have to say it. I've stated it in EVERY reply. I stick to my beliefs remember. Name call away.
@MrTrilliondollarman You couldn't be more wrong. We have a system of a Constitutional Republic that prevents mob rule, so that any arbitrary majority can't simply vote away the Constitutional rights and protections (such as equality of law) from any arbitrary minority. YOU, happily in the (waning) majority opinion on this topic, WANT a tyranny of the majority. Of course, we all have dozens of things that put us in a minority classification, luckily no arbitrary majority can vote away our rights.
However, the vote of the people is not mob rule but is in fact the rule of law you are so quick to defend. I, in the GROWING majority opinion, do not buy the fact gay marriage is equal to interracial marriage or any other crap like that. Luckily, we still live in a nation where the voice of the people still matter and the people say no.
@MrTrilliondollarman Are you delusional MrTrillion? YOU'RE in the growing opinion? Wow. Pull your head out of wherever, because the polling over the last 2 decades has shown an ever increasing acceptance among people for gay rights and same gender marriage equality. The more we come to understand who gay people are, our friends, family, neighbors, and countrymen, and the scientific consensus that sexual-orientation is not chosen nor changeable, the more we the people agree with equality.
There is no such support for it. If there was, it would have passed by the people's vote and not by judicial fiat. Sexual orientation is changeable and the more we know about the gay lifestyle, the more we find it reprehensible.
@MrTrilliondollarman Reprehensible eh? Yeah, you're a religious nut desperate to have your ancient tribal barbarian notions of God's rules enshrined into law. I love it how when our courts recognize rights, based on a far greater understanding now that being gay isn't just something someone does but it's an inherent identity of someone, you disparage our 3rd CO-EQUAL branch of government. Science (many decades of it now) doesn't support your view on gay people, and jurisprudence doesn't on law.
tsk...tsk...you're just another wacko hypocrite who gleefully touts freedom yet when the people choose not to agree with you, you basically call them poopy heads. You will find the scientific view is based on personal politics, not on any sound science.
@MrTrilliondollarman And you will find that you are wrong. Homosexuality has been studied for decades now, even more-so in recent decades, and today all of the leading relevant scientific, medical, sociological, psychological, pediatric, and legal organizations that have examined, studied and issued policy statements agree on the inherent, unchosen, unchangeable nature of one's sexual orientation, and the importance of legal rights and protections based on that. Sorry, but YOUR god... is wrong.
@MrTrilliondollarman No political leader or representative should be taking any legislative guidance from any church, at least in so far as trying to enact religious doctrine, beliefs, or practices into law. Our Constitution, 235 years of jurisprudence, and our founders words say there is to be a strict wall of separation between church and state. Our laws are to be based on secular reasoning with a rational basis. THAT is where Prop 8 supporters have fallen completely flat.
"separation of church and state" is not even in the Constitution. The only founder that used that phrase was Jefferson and that has been taken out of context for several decades. Our laws come from the absolute guidance of God, not the subjective whims of man. That's what Prop 8 opponents just don't get.
@MrTrilliondollarman You're such a poor little man. I know how DESPERATE you are to believe that your specific religious notions were supposed to rule the day on U.S. law, but that's simply not true. By virtue of the 14th Amendment the Bill of Rights extends to ALL State and Local law, and the 1st Amendment of that states there be NO establishment of religion (long held & regarded to mean that NO religious doctrine, belief, or practice is to be a justification for our laws). Sorry but its true.
Actually, they do rule the day. You might want to try looking closer at the Constitution (you know, that little document you threw under the bus a few posts ago). You will find it makes Sundays an exemption of work for federal employees and for presidential inaugurations. Plus, the intro closes with the phrase "in the year of our Lord." Now, who could this Lord they're referring to be? Hmm....
@MrTrilliondollarman Just saying something doesn't make it true you know, & as typical of your ilk you like to actually DO the very thing you claim someone else is doing while pointing the finger at them. You are undoubtedly, the one who has been disparaging our Constitution, our system of governance, and our founding father's clear intent. "In the year of our lord" was THE common parlance of the day, the Constitution does not mention god or religion other than to proscribe its use in our laws.
Then why do you tout so much that isn't so? "in the year of our lord" was a phrase put on Christian documents, hence why it says "our lord." Everything else you said was complete nonsense.
@MrTrilliondollarman So THAT"S your rock solid unequivocal proof that our founders intended to create a Christian nation with laws founded upon one of the hundreds of interpretations of the Bible? The wording of the DATE on the document! LOL. Despite the numerous rejections of attempts to explicitly state so in the Constitution, despite WRITTEN proscriptions against such IN our Constitution, and even our founders own words, a treaty with unanimous Senate approval, you have a DATE'S wording. Ha!
Actually, this is more because of the correspondence between the Founders which can be found at the Library of Congress as well as each of their respective museums. Didn't think of that, did you?
@MrTrilliondollarman ANY correspondence doesn't override the fact that these VERY issues were debated endlessly during our Constitutional conventions, and in the end the founders chose to exclude religion as any basis for our government or submit to any divine authority, but INSTEAD chose to explicitly create (as Jefferson stated "a wall of separation between church and state"). Affirmed by the Treaty of Tripoli, unanimously ratified by the Senate, stating the U.S is NOT founded on Christianity.
Actually, it does override that fact. You also overlooked Congress has a chaplain that starts each session with a prayer, most often a Christian themed one. Jefferson's statement is taken out of context as I have shown already and the Treaty of Tripoli is a piss-poor argument for your side. Keep your crap up and I'll show why.
@MrTrilliondollarman My crap, eh? Are we now turning this into a separation of church and state discussion, now that we've firmly established that this issue is about your desire to enshrine your particular religiously based beliefs and justifications into our laws?
The existence of Congressional chaplains is irrelevant to the demands of our Constitution in regard to law. Besides wouldn't they ALL be Christian prayers? And, I think our founders words in an official document are quite relevant.
More like this is a case of you trying and failing to show why religion shouldn't have anything to do with our nation. All you have to go on is one misquoted phrase from Jefferson and a treaty you know nothing about. The existence of the chaplain contradicts your notion. But if you insist that words in an official document are relevant, then that means the phrases "nature's god" and "endowed by their creator" also contradicts you.
@MrTrilliondollarman The Declaration of Independence is not our Constitution. Nature's god is just as easily nature, and 'creator' is just as easily one's parents.
Why you think trivial little artifacts of existing culture that appear in such documents or proceedings overrides the VERY clear language of our Constitution's provisions for creating and enacting secular based law is beyond rationality.
The founders had EVERY opportunity for your view to be clearly spelled out, yet they didn't.
But it is a founding document. Nature's god refers to the one who made nature; that's why it doesn't just say nature by itself. So parents are the ones who gives people their rights? That doesn't even come close to making sense.
What you dont get is the plain language of these as well as the word inalienable. The Founders knew this nation was founded on Christianity and it's clear they wanted it to stay that way.
@MrTrilliondollarman That's right. The mere act of coming into existence as an intelligent sentient human being (being 'created' by one's parents) bestows the inalienable rights that every sentient human being by nature wants (liberty, freedom, and justice).
Again though, not only are those terms remarkably vague, but regardless of what they mean to anyone, even the writer himself, the Declaration of Independence is NOT one of our governing documents. Period.
That's not the correct use of the word inalienable. The word is defined as "not capable of being transferred to another or capable of being revoked." Your example just doesn't work. The Declaration is considered a founding document and is used as a governing document as well. Nice try though.
@MrTrilliondollarman How is being due something (e.g. freedom, liberty, justice) by virtue of being born an intelligent sentient being any less 'inalienable' than by virtue of some presumed 'god' who is demonstrably absent and uninvolved in interacting with our physical reality, let alone verbalizing demands upon the powers that be.
No, I think it is YOU who fail to understand what an inalienable right is for a person, an intelligent sentient human being.
Your question makes no sense and shows you don't understand the definition.
Inalienable rights mean a right you can't take away from someone. They don't give themselves these rights, government has been more than eager to take them away, and they cant be transferred from someone else. So what else does that leave as the source of the right?
@MrTrilliondollarman Inalienable rights is a construct of the rights that we implicitly desire as thinking individuals, by virtue of being born.
The reality of the matter is though, that in practice, rights are bestowed upon us by the society we live in and the system of governance we live under. There is no 'god' ensuring that any of our 'inalienable' rights are being provided to us. If you believe otherwise then you are in danger of having those rights denied.
No, no, and no. As thinking individuals, we do not feel with our brains. Saying society and system of governance as a source of rights is a horrible notion as each can take away rights when and if they feel like it. That's not how rights work. There is a god and that's how we have rights in the first place. It is man that takes rights away, not God.
@MrTrilliondollarman You don't get it do you. Inalienable rights are what we desire and expect for ourselves (and others) by virtue of being born intelligent sentient beings.
It's the practical reality that actual rights are only available to us based on the society and system of governance we live under. ANY of our practiced legal rights COULD be taken away, even here in America, by an Amendment to our Constitution doing so. That is practical reality and no 'god' would prevent it.
Rights are not based on desires. That's what you don't get: objective rights cannot be based on the subjective whims of man. No right has been taken away by that method. Again, you dont get that.
@MrTrilliondollarman Whether you like it or not, the practical reality is that rights are doled out by the society and government we live under. What we believe to be our inalienable rights (rights we are due by virtue of being born intelligent sentient human beings) are only as useful to us as the system of governance we live under allows. Just SAYING they're your rights isn't useful. No deity is coming around to lay those rights out and ensure they are upheld.
The actual reality is our rights come from the one who made us all, and that would be God. It is not based on what a government allows us to have, since that would be a dictatorship. It is not based on what others let us have, because that doesn't follow from the definition of inalienable.
@MrTrilliondollarman You really are clueless. Name one right that can't be denied to you? Inalienable rights don't necessitate some God. WHO tells us and defines what those God-given rights are? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness certainly aren't handed down by the Biblical God. In fact his demands are quite antithetical to those things. Our inalienable rights are those rights we as thinking existent individuals naturally expect, but society/government upholds or denies them.
You really are a dumbass. You cant take away my right to think. Inalienable rights by definition are rights that cannot be taken from you but that doesn't make sense unless those rights were first given to you by something that can't take them away. So rights can't come from government or any man made body. That just leaves God.
@MrTrilliondollarman Can't take away your right to think? Of course I could, if we lived in a society and system of governance where it was perfectly fine for me to kill you, that would definitely take away your right to think (at least as a living human being) now wouldn't it? That's the point. What we consider inalienable rights, are rights we consider due us by some inherent virtue, however rights can only be realized (doled out and respected) by the society and government we live under.
So you're talking about an atheist nation then? Government and society cannot be the provider of rights because they, being led by foolish man, can decide to take it from you and then where would your recourse come from?
@MrTrilliondollarman Where would YOUR recourse come from, if not from the agreed upon and Constitutionally enacted and enforced rights we enjoy as citizens of this nation? If you are denied them, is God going to come down and say "Hey! You're violating my children's inalienable rights! Now stop it, or I'm going to get really really mad!"
Or do you think there is some appointed representative of God we are supposed to listen to and who will enforce our 'God-given' rights if they're denied?
@MrTrilliondollarman And furthermore, WE have whatever degree of control over our system of governance we so choose. That puts our rights directly in our collective hands, and we can as a society protect what we consider our inalienable rights. We don't need some charlatan telling us what their conception of God, who spoke specially to them, claims our rights are. Which is seemingly what you want.
Inalienable rights are self-evident to any thinking individual; existence, but no God, required.
Rights are not a collective concept either. Just because someone touts God doesn't make them a charlatan. If their last name is Dawkins, Hitchens or Harris, then they're a charlatan....and a compulsive liar. You need God to show these rights are absolute.
@MrTrilliondollarman Of course. Men who've based their understandings of the world, the universe, and the reality around them on centuries of vast corroborative scientific inquiry, study, discovery, observation, experimentation, and predictive modeling are the charlatans, whereas blind reliance on the purveyors of the unsupported claims of ignorant confused frightened ancient tribal barbarians written in a highly inaccurate and contradictory book are the REAL authorities on reality. Yeah.
Too bad for you those who based their view of morality on science and experiment are the same ones who brought hell on earth...ever heard of concentration camps?
@MrTrilliondollarman Concentration camps eh? The place where Nazi's sent millions of Jews along with gay people and other 'undesirables'. The Nazi's were unequivocally Christian (or at the very least you can say Christianity and Christian heritage were used by Hitler to motivate the German people). They not only touted Christianity, their very belt buckles stated "God with us".
Who else in Germany could be so hostile to Jews (not to mention gays).
The Nazis were not Christian. Christian belief suffered greatly under the Nazi regime. Hitler himself called Christianity "a spiritual terror which can only be defeated with even greater terror." The "God with us" was stolen from an ancient germanic knight order. It had no basis in reality.
@MrTrilliondollarman History doesn't support your view against Hitler and the Nazi's ties to Christianity, and in particular the Catholic church. Try as you might to pull the wool over people's eyes, that history isn't changing.
Their "God with Us" belt buckles is only ONE piece of damning evidence for religion's tie to the holocaust.
@MrTrilliondollarman The Myth of Hitler's Pope? Ha! Few suggest Hitler's Pope was an even handed book to begin with, however that does not change the fact that the Pope during that time remained SILENT about what was occurring in Nazi Germany and by people who at least claimed to adhere to Christianity and the Catholic Church.
And you may not like it, but the "God With Us" motto used by the Nazi's is a clear indicator that they were NOT atheists, as you would very much like to believe.
The book clearly indicates the Pope did all he could to help Jews. The Vatican even operated as a haven for them. He even wrote an encyclical condemning Nazism. That doesn't sound like doing nothing.
You may detest it, but that motto shows how willing the Nazis were to rewrite their own history.
@MrTrilliondollarman What is really disturbing, is you are placing NO faith in the church. NONE. Let the churches decide who they marry. Hence my original comment that this contract means nothing to me. Sure, I have to get on and play by the rules, but it's the vows I took before my family my church and god, that matters. Gov. could create a contract tomorrow for Baptisms. Require a license, and perform atheist baptisms at the court house. I don't care - that's not a baptism.
Pretty excellent. It's clear that the opponents of marriage equality don't actually have a legal argument. (And it's comical that Evan thinks that equality is a "politically correct" triviality. Have a look at the Constitution, Evan, not to mention American history.) They have simply their gut revulsion of homosexuals and a feeling of hurt when the law treats homosexuals the same as it treats them.
@namordecai As a matter of fact, it does "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Equal protection IS equal treatment. If any jurisdiction wants to deny equality to a citizen (in this case based on their gender for entering into a legal marriage contract) they MUST provide a rational secular basis that advances a compelling State interest. The P-8 defense was unable to articulate any. At least none that made sense or didnt apply equally to gay couples
@EmeraldView Equal PROTECTION is profoundly different than equal treatment. It is NOT equal treatment. Learn some English. Equal protection implies that if your behavior is different, you may not be as "safe" as the next guy. Not that gay people are put in danger by not having the gov't refer to their homosexual unions as, "marriages," anyway. NOT based on gender. The California Supreme Court officially ruled otherwise. It's based on their choice of would-be spouse.
@namordecai Are you aware that SEX isn't actually a mandated requirement for a State recognized legal marriage contract? There is no 'behavior' difference that is relevant when it comes to marriage law, because behavior is not a legislated requirement to get married. The Supreme Court has long ago now ruled that one's choice of consensual marriage partner is implicit in our American notions of liberty and freedom. Equal protection of Law IS equality of treatment of equal citizens under it.
@EmeraldView I never said sex was mandated for the state to recognize marriage. Behavior is a legislative requirement for the recognition of marriage, e.g. when the law was written, it wasn't to affirm heterosexuality. The required behavior for marriage includes getting a marriage license, not choosing a family member, choosing someone who is of proper age, choosing someone who has consented and choosing someone of the opposite sex.
With regard to liberty and freedom, no on is stopping gays.
@namordecai So exactly what 'behavior' are you saying is a 'legislated requirement' for marriage? If not sex, then what's the behavior? Loving someone of the opposite sex? Surely not to 'affirm' heterosexuality. That needs no affirmation, it's GONNA happen a LOT, state affirmation of it or not. No the State was simply recognizing something that was already taking place, making a monogamous commitment to someone, which they wanted to encourage, and wanted to protect that relationship and family.
@EmeraldView "The carrying out of the decision to live as husband and wife," is a marriage. The gov't doesn't need to legislate love. Love comes from nature or God, not the gov't.
Civil rights do not involve recognizing something different as if it is the same. As Aristotle said, "The greatest inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." A gay union, a thing, a set of behaviors, is not equal in its nature to provide for societal needs the same way a real marriage can.
@namordecai The bottom line is that YOU very desperately want to boil 'marriage' down to specifically what genitals are involved, and in a futile effort to do that, attempt to equate marriage with procreation which has never been a requirement for heterosexual marriage. Of course marriage entails a vast multitude of human needs, desires, goals, values, and relationship between a couple, any and all of which apply equally well to gay couples. Why legally separate it by involved genitalia?
@EmeraldView Procreation was essential to the original decision to regulate marriage, though. I never claimed it was a requirement for each individual marriage. It's not about genitals, either. It's about gender, procreation, gender-role models, etc. Basic early childhood development issues, etc.
All those "desires and goals, etc." don't require government intervention. You say there is no different behavior, but the profoundly different results tell a different story.
@namordecai Your history as to procreation being essential to the original justifications for legal recognition of marriages could not be more incorrect. Others here have already pointed that out.
And what different results? Recent studies have definitively PROVEN that children raised by same-gender spouses are just as well off, and develop just as well, as children raised by opposite-gender spouses. Marriage protects those families; it is JUST as valuable to gay couples as straight couples.
That second paragraph is a flat out lie. Even more studies have shown those children wind up more confused about their own identity, are much more likely to engage in risky behaviors and gay marriage just doesn't offer the same benefits psychological wise as straight marriage.
@MrTrilliondollarman Well now you're just talking out your ass, and making it quite clear that you REALLY couldn't care less about facts, reality, science, psychology, sociology, medicine, pediatrics, law, or Constitutional principals, let alone how the people vote at the polling booth. You have a mission, a fundamentalist Christian mission, to keep the ignorances of your religious beliefs enshrined in our law.
Why? Because how could your God/book be so wrong, just like it was with slavery. Eh?
This has been flagged as spam show
THUMBS UP if you're reading this comment.
MrAsymo 8 months ago
@EmeraldView
HAHAHAAHAHAHA.....you clearly don't know history and I would suggest you stop touting it before you further embarrass yourself. Church discouraged learning? It was the Church that preserved and saved the thoughts of ancient Greece.
MrTrilliondollarman 8 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman I don't know where you're learning your history, but I'm getting the impression that YOU (MrTrilliondollarman) are a clear example of the dramatic failings of religious home-schooling.
You are very very confused, and you haven't a shred of credibility based off your blind adherence to religious dogma and the many demonstrably false claims you've tried to make here in this very forum.
Give it up already. History now or then, is not on your side.
EmeraldView 8 months ago
@EmeraldView
Home schooling failure? Even the department of education admits home schooled children do much better and have higher test scores than public schooled children. History is 100% on my side. You, however, seem to base yours on outdated stereotypes and notions historians today dont buy.
MrTrilliondollarman 8 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman I'm not impugning ALL home schooling. As I clearly stated, you MUST be the result of "religious" home-schooling, where you are taught not only to disparage and disrespect modern science, but are also taught a wildly skewed revisionist history that tries to paint your religion in a HIGHLY inaccurate glowing light, where you not only didn't commit the atrocities history shows us you did, but stood against them, AND supported science rather than regularly stood in its way.
EmeraldView 8 months ago
@EmeraldView
Oh, so as long as it's not religious, you don't have a problem with it? What utter nonsense. I love science but I don't view it as a way to base a lifestyle on. In fact, no scientist will ever say people should base their life on science. Christianity did not commit any atrocities, and in fact did support science. Ever heard of Gregor Mendal?
MrTrilliondollarman 8 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman Ever hear of Galileo Galilei? How about Giordano Bruno? Christianity and Science have a LONG contentious history, wherein science always wins, and Christianity then claims "we supported that view all along, in fact we were the ones who originated and advanced that view".
EmeraldView 8 months ago
@EmeraldView
You really think you know Galileo's case? You don't. He was charged with defying orders to only present his case as an hypothesis, not as actual fact. Copernicus was told the same thing and he actually obeyed. Bruno was executed for promoting a heretical teaching, not for saying the sun is a star. Science and Christianity go hand in hand. Just ask Newton.
MrTrilliondollarman 8 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman Galileo didn't come up with the Sun centered solar system, why would he want to publish his work as hypothesis, when his work was specifically to PROVE definitively, by rigorous observation, that the Sun was at the center and the Earth was simply another planet orbiting it. The church had already placed Copernicus's works on their 'List of Forbidden Books' for the hypothesis of that.
The fact remains, the church has often fought science before begrudgingly accepting it.
EmeraldView 8 months ago
@EmeraldView
He couldn't prove it. That's the point. Neither could Copernicus, whose works were never put on the index. The fact is you just don't know what you're talking about in this area, which comes as no surprise.
MrTrilliondollarman 8 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman Many heliocentric advocacy works were put on the Catholic's List, and that's the point. Once literacy and science began advancing, the church which held society in its iron grip, would only tolerate those discoveries that could be supported by Biblical teachings and understandings. Eventually they relent, just as many are now accepting evolution.
At any rate, we are getting way off topic now, and as I recall I long ago had decided to stop engaging with your blind allegiance
EmeraldView 8 months ago
@EmeraldView
Those works were only because they could not answer why the stars never moved from their position in the sky. We now know that has nothing to do with whether the earth rotates or not, but they couldn't answer that. Also, many of these early works contained numerous errors, like Darwin's original theory of how genes were transferred. Seems more like you decided to be even more blind and ignorant.
MrTrilliondollarman 8 months ago
@MrTrilliondollar Who wants to bet that in 50 years the Christians will be taking credit for the advancement of gay rights and marriage equality? Despite now being the #1 driving force behind anti-gay rhetoric, the push back against equal rights, and a long history of inculcating anti-gay societal attitudes, your future brethren will claim it was THE CHRISTIANS who originally stood up against bigotry and pushed to have ALL god's children treated with dignity, respect, and equality. Am I right?
EmeraldView 8 months ago
MORONS. Having the gov't call different behavior by the same name as marriage does not represent liberty. It represents special recognition. Idiots. Gay people can do whatever the hell they want.
Also, the Constitution doesn't mention "equal treatment." Not once. No one has a right to equal treatment. They have a right to "equal protection," only, which implies that different behavior can leave you vulnerable to consequences.
namordecai 9 months ago
@namordecai So what YOU'RE saying that 'marriage' actually means behavior - heterosexual sex? Hmmm. That's interesting. So basically there are A LOT more married people than even those people realize. Or is marriage the (hopefully) life-long commitment between two people who wish to share and enjoy their lives together, to care for and protect one another, and to be and become a family together? Where legal recognition provides rights, benefits, protections, responsibilities, and obligations.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView Marriage="the carrying out of the decision to live as husband and wife." Such behavior creates an outlet for the expression of instincts to protect and nurture _biological offspring_. While adoptive and step parents may do a good job to a degree, there is no ultimate substitute for inherent instincts.
Homosexual marriage does not create the same outlet for such natural expressions of parenthood.
Legal recognition isn't an integral part of marriage.
namordecai 9 months ago
@namordecai There is no rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite gender couples that does not apply equally well to same gender couples, OR does not prohibit opposite gender couples who are incapable of having natural offspring or otherwise choose not to have any. Furthermore the marital protections afforded to a couple that benefit them and their children, are also critical for the protection of gay couples and THEIR children (a great many of whom are raising children).
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView I never said anyone should ban anyone from "marrying." However, the natural laws of language (and thus free speech) demand that things with relevant differences be given a different name. Otherwise, you are making a moral statement about those differences, e.g. biological parenthood's relevance or irrelevance.
What the hell gay couples need the label "marriage" for? To trick people that their behavior is the same, when in reality, it's not. Is it the gov'ts job to trick people?
namordecai 9 months ago
@namordeca Gay couples DON'T need the word 'marriage' (outside of the fact that it is the widely understood and accepted term for a couples' life-long and/or legal commitment to one another). What they need is equality under existing law. NOT an demonstrably untenable 'separate but equal' version of existing law. If all 'marriage' law State and Federal were changed to use the term 'Civil Union' for ALL couples, gay or straight, then that would satisfy Constitutional requirements. Who wants that?
EmeraldView 9 months ago
Characteristics based on behaviors???? You mean behaviors like religion? Religion is a protected behavior. Why not protect sexual orientation?
neenerpuss 9 months ago
Gay rights are civil rights are human rights1
shenadoa 9 months ago 2
the haters just think LGBT people are icky - thats thier reasoning
rextrek 9 months ago
its actually sad that they see it being split among party lines in SCOTUS...thats pathetic....liberty is Liberty / Freedom in Freedom - seems like its gonna be going down party lines......Liberty & Justice for ALL my ass.,,,amazing how its taking so dammed long in this friggin country
rextrek 9 months ago
its actually sad that they see it being split among party lines in SCOTUS...thats pathetic....liberty is Liberty / Freedom in Freedom - seems like its gonna be going down party lines......Liberty & Justice for ALL my ass.
rextrek 9 months ago
Just get the government out of marriage. What, do they need to regulate personal relationships now?
TheMoriMaster 9 months ago
@TheMoriMaster Government (the people) have a vested interest in marriage, which is why we have law for it. Married people are more secure and capable together, are much less likely to ever become a burden to the State, and in many cases provide a stable secure platform from which to raise children. Government encourages marriage by providing rights and benefits, and also strengthens and guards the couple by providing protections, responsibilities, and obligations. This works straight OR gay.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
very interesting discussion...
Eltoca21 9 months ago
The state should get out of marriage and all its benefits should be abolished. Its not the business of the state nor the business of statist busy bodies on what two consenting adults do.
chevydriver1123 9 months ago
That's it...I'm serving all ties to libertarianism....one, you cannot argue religion has nothing to do with marriage. People base their politics on many things and religion is one of them. Two, one would think libertarians would have applauded the state's deciding gay marriage for themselves through the democratic process, but they aren't doing that. Three, most of the evidence given for the Perry side is actually junk history and loopy logic that the courts should have known to be fraudulent.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman I'm serving beef. It's what's for dinner. Tell the Neocons we said 'hi douche nozzles'. Please relay that verbatim. I Hope Capitalist Fascism caters to your religion better (it doesn't, but hey...).
Brajabu74 9 months ago
@Brajabu74
I'm serving a can of whoop-ass...it's just for you...;) It must really annoy you that even though the Libertarian Party has been around since the 70's, it just is not growing as fast as the Constitution Party. Too bad no one buys your "free-for-all" crap.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman You're still here? How long did it take for Roman pagans to 'buy' Christianity? I am never discouraged to be in the minority. All great movements started against a tide. You need to decide if this is a great movement, or to be part of the tide. Trying to use 'me too' marketing to shame me is telling though. Wrong guy. I stick by my beliefs even if they're not popular. Funny that this comes from a 'Christian'. You need to remember where you came from. Lions don't scare me.
Brajabu74 9 months ago
@Brajabu74
But an atheist based outlook should...look, Libertarians dont have a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected and it's because of their stand on gay marriage (among other things). You can't claim to be for state rights then turn around and support gay marriage. it doesnt work that way.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman What is marriage? It's a contract. A government contract. A 'no default' mean nothing gov. contract. As soon as Gov. took marriage it ceased to mean anything. If you get married in a church and take your vows before god, then that's between you your spouse, god and the church. If your church marries same sex couples, that's between you and your church. You, church, GOD. See? I don't care about a gov. contract. I don't care if gov. allows people to marry goats. Means nothing.
Brajabu74 9 months ago
@Brajabu74
Really? that's odd since last I checked, no government contract results in longer life spans for men or greater personal incomes or greater personal happiness, yet these three and more are exactly what we see in heterosexual marriage. Second, almost no church (in America anyway) will perform a same-sex marriage and those that do aren't following their faith's teachings. Three, no relationship exists in a vacuum. That's a major point pro-same sex people tend to forget.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman Marriage is a contract as viewed by gov. Hence the term 'no fault divorce'. Annulment? Division of assets? You do understand this, correct? There are many contracts that are unique, and that logic is flawed. Also, the whole men live longer (false) and are happier (not sure about that) is being dis-proven. Financial? Dual incomes make men look like they have higher income, but women spend more and kids... That's silly. Vacuum? What is your point? Theoretical philosophy?
Brajabu74 9 months ago
@Brajabu74
First of all, married men do live longer and report higher happiness levels than single men. Financially, you have two minds looking at the same problem. If you really want to argue that government shouldn't define marriage, then you're left with no choice than to let churches decide...and nearly all of them say no to same-sex marriage.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman You argue like a woman. I make a point you change the topic. What were we talking about? Oh, gay marriage and the Libertarian party. Let's review; Marriage = contract required by government. Gov. doesn't hold either party responsible for vows (no fault). Divorce is actually referred to as an industry. Married men may live longer, because they haven't had the pleasure of having their assets split up by Lawyers and a family court. Marriage is a contractual financial merger.
Brajabu74 9 months ago
@Brajabu74
You argue like a dumbass. Marriage=not something for gays. No fault divorce was not decided on by the democratic process. That was a hair-brained product created by judges and lawyers. Divorce is not as high as we have been told. Marriage is not just a legal contract or a merger. There is much, much more to it than that.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman Again, you're veering off . It doesn't matter who decided no fault divorce. Now you're pulling 'it's not fair' ? Divorce rate isn't around 50 percent? And married men are happy and live longer. Oh, I see. I've had 'discussions' with feminists that went like this. Someone has an agenda, and mine is not to waste my time with PETA types. All emotion and little reality (marriage= not for gays) is that an argument?
Brajabu74 9 months ago
@Brajabu74
So you're saying the votes of the people dont matter? Divorce rate is closer to 15%. Clearly, your stand is "if the people don't want this, then I don't give a crap what the people think."
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman BINGO MrTrillion, you hit the nail on the head, the votes of the people do NOT matter, when it comes to Constitutional rights & protections. The U.S. Constitution IS the highest law of this land. No State or local law including State constitution, no matter how enacted, can abridge the U.S. Constitution. That doesn't mean the people are without recourse. The vast majority of people CAN amend the Constitution with 2/3 votes of the House & Senate and 3/4 of State Legislatures.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
But gay marriage is not protected by the Constitution. Not even close. Pro-straight marriage clauses do not contradict it. This has been tried in court several times and it has always failed.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman No neither gay marriage NOR straight marriage, the legal recognition of such, is found in the Constitution. What *IS* found, and I can't believe you need this stated to you AGAIN, is equal protection of the laws. No jurisdiction can abridge that right to equal protection, from any citizen, based on any arbitrary characteristic of that citizen, without a rational secular basis that advances a compelling State interest. It's THAT simple. Courts have long agreed on that.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
Neither is there a prohibition against murder or rape, so does that mean the Constitution is okay with those? Of course not. Furthermore, we have laws against these actions but they discriminate against murders and rapists. According to your reasoning, that's not fair. Well, that's just tough then, isn't it? We dont tolerate murder and rape and we don't tolerate same sex marriage either.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman There are clear and very well established compelling State interests with a sound secular basis for laws against murder and rape. What is so hard for you to understand? Murder & Rape are only bad because your God told you that? Or are there justifiable societal reasons we proscribe those things? There is no legitimate societal reason to exclude same gender couples from marriage law. But speaking of murderers and rapists, even THEY can get married though locked up for life.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
And those interests come straight from principles found in the Bible. The Founders were big fans of a man named Blackstone who made the case laws come from God. There are plenty of societal reasons why we're against it, like we're against polygamy. Look this up: Back when Utah applied for statehood, Washington told them they could not enter the union until they first made polygamy illegal.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman Some of the founding fathers DID want religion and Christianity either instituted into law or at least placed on a pedestal, and there were numerous attempts to institute religion and Christianity into our founding document, the Constitution, and each time they were shot down (what could be more clear than that action). What we were given is a purely secular based Constitution and system of government, that SPECIFICALLY decries the overt use of religion in our law.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
What could be more clear than sundays are excluded as days of work? what faith excludes sundays? We have nothing even close to a secular document. You cant have a group of men, over 70% of which were Christian, come up with a 100% secular document. It can't be done.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman Never-the-less, our founders set out to and DID create a secular system of governance with the explicit goal of disentangling any influence of religion in our laws (initially federal law via the 1st Amendment, and by virtue of the 14th Amendment, State and Local laws). The fact that they had various conventions of society which may have found there way into the wording (year of our lord) or insignificant provisions (Sunday's excluded), does nothing to change that reality.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
There was no secular system of governance created. You're getting off topic instead of just admitting you had it wrong. Religion was in the middle of everything and remained so until people started touting the nonsense you're putting on here.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman What does that even mean "Religion was in the middle of everything". Our founders had religion? Yeah some did. They had differing religions, some were simply deists, and some were agnostic. That has no bearing on their intent to create a secular system of government free from overt religious influence on it. Your pathetic examples 'year of our lord' 'Sunday's off', were not even contemplated as relevant until the 1830's, half a century later, by your apparent predecessors.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
Actually, the majority of them did. Only one would count as an agnostic but only after America was already founded. Sundays off occurs in only one faith in the world and that is what this nation was based on.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman Who's denying that many founders were Christian and most of the population was too? That simply does NOT have any relevance to the very clear fact that the founders PURPOSELY and with full intention agreed upon a system of secular government, that would NOT make law based on any religious doctrines, beliefs, creeds or practices, but had rational justifiable secular purposes.
I know you are desperate to believe otherwise because or your religious insecurity, but get over it.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
You seem to deny it with great delight. You just can't stand phrases like "nature's God", "endowed by their creator" or even the word "inalienable"--phrases that prove you wrong.
I know as an atheist you're just not smart enough to get it, but that's just too bad.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman You really are quite sad and pathetic. I have absolutely NO problem with 'nature's god' or 'endowed by their creator'. That's in the Declaration of Independence. Written BY Jefferson, and is quite intentionally left vague. Nature *IS* my creator. Nature's 'god' (that which rules over nature and it is subject to) is the physical processes of our Universe.
You're the one who wants to read something quite explicit into those words. YOUR completely unfounded 'god'.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
You may not have a problem with the words by themselves, but you do seem to have a problem with what the words imply. Nature can't be your creator: something created nature. You don't want to give up your irrational atheism but looks like you've been backed into a corner. Only a few more moves until you're checkmated.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman Really? Nature requires a creator, but your creator (which by necessity would need to be vastly more complex and intricate than nature, did NOT require a creator itself).
Fundamentalists really do check their logic at the door, don't they.
MrTrillion, you'd been check-mated SO long ago, one would need to scroll back through countless pages to pinpoint exactly where.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
We know the earth is much younger than the age of the universe. That is a fact. Since God does not operate in time like all created things, He does not require a creator but nature does.
Atheists really don't have brains, do they?
Oh, no, sad little boy....You got beaten several times already, as evident by your pathetic attempts to change the subject rather than be a big boy and admit you're wrong.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman Wow this is getting embarrassing. It's like picking on a defenseless child who's flailing about in a forlorn manner.
Tell us, how exactly do you come to the conclusion that this infinite, always present, all knowing, all powerful 'god' of yours unlike nature (which is none of those things) being outside of space or time can just exist? Is that some sort of (un)common sense, or did some book written by ancient tribal desert barbarians tell you that?
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
So why are you being the child then?
That notion of God comes from the greatest philosophical minds that have ever lived. An infinite regress is impossible. We know this from the world and the universe. So we need a being (for lack of a another word) who set it in motion but is not dependent on anything to set itself in motion. Think of it like starting a domino chain. You get the dominoes moving but you don't require a domino to move you.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman Hmmm. Okay I see!! So... we can't have natural processes that have always existed, even outside our universe, which brought our universe into existence. It's impossible for anything non-sentient outside our universe to have initiated 'the big bang'. Clearly that could ONLY be done by an always existent, all present, all knowing, all powerful being that now takes a very personal interest in the individual lives of the beings on a tiny dust particle in that universe. I get it
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
Natural processes have not always existed. Though it is agreed the universe began about 13 billion years ago, there's a gap around the Big Bang where all the laws of the universe simply don't work. How do you explain that?
MrTrilliondollarman 8 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman I explain that by filling my gaps in our understanding of the nanoseconds before and after the big bang by inserting what could only be obvious: an always existent, all present, all knowing, all powerful, sometimes all loving, vastly intelligent entity that out of the unfathomably beyond comprehension enormous universe decided to create flawed beings on one tiny speck of dust, to fail his expectations, struggle, suffer, and be saved by itself being tortured in human form.
EmeraldView 8 months ago
@EmeraldView
An overly simplistic....and quite immature take on Christianity you have.
MrTrilliondollarman 8 months ago
@EmeraldView
By the way, it's attitudes like yours that convinced me to leave the Libertarian party, and it will also be the reason the Libertarian Party will always lose elections and be inferior to the Constitution Party.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman You and your brethren DO like to use words that make you sound better than you are. Just calling yourselves "The Constitution Party" no more makes you better adherents or keepers of our Constitutional principals and our founders intent for the system of government they wanted us to have than any other party. THEY put in the Amendment process, and most States agreed at the time the 14th was passed, to extend Bill of Rights protections to ALL jurisdictions Fed, State, & local.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
At least I don't think laws should be based on what a judge thinks it should be...that is from hypocritical flops like you. The 14th amendment applies to who is a citizen, not whether the government is a citizen. Clearly, I know the Constitution better than you do.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman From my observations, you know only what charlatans want you to believe about our Constitution and our founders intent. The 14th Amendment does a few things including extending the Bill of Rights citizen protections to all lower jurisdictions of law, as well as mandating equal protection of the laws to all citizens.
BTW, why can't you be happy without government endorsement of your religious code? That's REALLY what this boils down to with your and your cohorts.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
Seems pretty clear you have the charlatan market cornered. Why can't you just accept the fact people have voted of their own free will and they have ALWAYS said no to gay marriage? Why is that so hard for you?
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman Alright, so that's your strategy now? You can't refute anything I've said so you're going with the 'I'm rubber your glue" defense. Heh!
Didn't we already go over how the people's vote doesn't matter when it comes to Constitutional protections. But that's NOT what's important to you, otherwise you'd be gravely concerned at polling trends over the last two decades, which show ever rapidly growing support for marriage equality. Sorry, but your ignorance is dying.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
Actually, I have refuted everything you said. You just didn't get it. Didn't I already point out judges don't have the authority to override what people voted on openly and freely? But clearly, you don't care what people want because it gets in the way of what you want. Nice try, but this is a free country, not a dictatorship.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman Sorry you are wrong. We do not live in a direct democracy. The people simply can NOT vote on any law or Constitutional Amendment and have it override the Constitutional protections entitled to all citizens. Not 51% nor 99% can vote to do that. We have a system of three Co-equal branches of government and a defined way to change the Constitution.
You would like a theocratic dictatorship, wouldn't you? It's what fundamentalists ultimately pine for, with Jesus as the dictator.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
As opposed to what: a tyrannical government that goes against the people "because the people aren't smart enough to know what's good for them"? No thanks. I'll stick with an America where majority rules and the people's votes still matter...and they say no to gay marriage.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman No tyranny is where any arbitrary majority can vote with 50.1% to strip the rights, liberties, and freedoms from any arbitrary minority. Where the majority of people can vote to say "People who's height is exactly MrTrilliondollarman's height are NOT entitled to equality under law". THAT is a tyranny of the majority and our system of government and Constitution is designed to protect against that.
If you don't like that, then you are in the wrong country. Sorry.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
If that were true, why put measures on ballots in the first place? Don't you think that was considered before the ballot was put together? Besides, tyranny is when those in positions of authority ignore the will of the populace to suit their own agenda and that's exactly what you're advocating.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman Not all ballot initiatives run afoul of Constitutional protections. Proposition 8 did. It doesn't matter if they knew that or not, they gave it their best shot anyhow, it was passed and it's been challenged on Constitutional grounds.
Your ilk, KNOWS these anti-marriage-equality measures violate the U.S. Constitution. Why do you think they've tried so hard to amend the U.S. Constitution to override the 14th Amendment and carve equality in marriage law out of it.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
It did no such thing. That judge didn't know what he was talking about and is notorious for getting the law wrong. There is no violation of the Constitution in any way, shape or form in denying gays marriage. The 14th amendment mentions due process of law; there was no violation of due process with Prop 8.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman Due process of law *IS* one of the key overriding concerns with Prop 8, which denies that to gay people, or those who wish to avail themselves of marriage law with someone of the same gender. Laws cannot simply strip someone of their due right to equality and fairness of law, without some rational compelling State interest.
How many times do you need that repeated to you?
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
The people voted, they said no and no evidence of voter fraud was ever exposed...sounds like due process was followed to me.
What doesn't follow due process, however, is failure by the judge to disclose that he had been in a gay relationship for ten years. Therefore, he should have followed legal guidelines and excused himself from the case.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman A laughable contention, and just about every legal expert has pointed that out. The judge's sexual orientation & relationship status is of no consequence to his capacity to provide a fair and impartial decision in his professional capacity as a judge, any more than is a straight married judge's capacity. If the judge wanted to be married he could have done that in California when it was available, or now anywhere in the nation it's available.
The defense failed miserably.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
Actually, his orientation should have excluded him from hearing the case. As several Prop 8 backers have pointed out, unless the judge had no intention of marrying his long time partner, he had a personal interest in the case and was therefore biased, which means his ruling doesn't count.
MrTrilliondollarman 8 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman Well there is simply no proof that Judge Walker had any intent on marrying his partner, and if he did he had ample opportunity to do so during the several months that is was open to gay couples in California. The fact of the matter is the Plaintiffs put on a rock solid case against Proposition 8, the Defendants of Prop 8 failed miserably, and the judge after a lengthy and quite thorough trial issued a very detailed and meticulous ruling as to why Prop 8 is Unconstitutional.
EmeraldView 8 months ago
@EmeraldView
once again, you don't get it. He did have a vested interest in making sure it was defeated, which then means he should have followed ethical guidelines and referred the case to a different judge.
MrTrilliondollarman 8 months ago
@EmeraldView Ask yourself why all advanced civilizations practice marriage? Your 'takes a village" idea is very flawed. Villages were all closely related and tightly knit. That's more like a family. But in the modern world, marriage is basically what the ancients did: biological parents being the primary guardians of their children. That's nature, and it's a proven fact that biological parents have stronger instincts to protect and nurture children. That's why France's lawmakers preserve mariage
namordecai 9 months ago
@namordecai Societies practice marriage for the EXACT same reasons that it's valuable to gay couples and any children THEY may be raising. And that has little to nothing to do with the procreative capacities or intent of the couple involved. I don't need to re-litigate something that's been thoroughly hashed out in numerous posts below.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView You're talking about people's motives, which is irrelevant to this debate. Marriage is an institution. It's a thing. It doesn't have motives. It is what it is. Male homosexuals, for the most part, don't even want children, according to the polls. Furthermore, lesbians might have a child or two, when they get older or may bring a child in from a previous heterosexual relationship (as lesbians are commonly bisexual).
Marriage is different than a gay union. Prove otherwise.
namordecai 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman Too many Christians have fallen for the 'Gov. Contract' and in doing so have given it spiritual significance. You - Church - Fed - God? NO! 'No Fault' divorce has made an even bigger joke of marriage. My point is to let the churches decide. It's sad that you speak of this like the gov. knows best and the alternative would be the church deciding. Is that a bad thing? Put your faith in God, NOT in Gov. Gov. can marry whoever they want. My church is held to a higher standard.
Brajabu74 9 months ago
@Brajabu74
What's even sadder is government doesn't turn to the church for guidance like it should or actually be of and by the people. So by that reasoning, no, government can't marry whoever they want. Government should just let people decide this, and if the people say no, than that's that.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman I can't believe I'm responding ofter that 'dumbass' comment, but here goes. Government cannot 'seek the churches guidance'. First, which church? Then the problem would be that the church would become highly political. Rome. Politicians can and should. That last comment is Mob Rule. We don't work that way. Sorry if the constitution is inconvenient for you, and yes, the government contract of marriage has to be afforded to all, or it is unconstitutional. Even at state level.
Brajabu74 9 months ago
@Brajabu74
I can't believe you're still talking nonsense yet here we are. Government does seek the church's guidance. Name any political leader who doesn't consult a religious figure and I'll show you someone who's a tyrant. The Church is political already. I don't know where you've been. If the government extends marriage to all even though the people have voted repeatedly no, you have tyranny, not democracy. States have the right to decide no, and all of those who voted did just that.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman So, placing my faith in the church, and not in government is nonsense? You get your religious doctrine from the Federal Gov. and your statistics from the church. You are correct, in your world, I am talking nonsense.
Brajabu74 9 months ago
@Brajabu74
No, dipshit...I'm saying if you want to argue that government shouldn't decide marriage, then leave it up to churches to decide. If you want to argue the people should decide, then you should have no problems with people voting no every time. Either way, the answer will be no.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman Ah, the Christian has resorted to childish name calling. SHOCKING! You are not paying attention to what I have stated in every post because as a nasty foul-mouthed Christian it is inconvenient for you. I don't advocate the people voting on social issues that's mob rule, and the founders did not adhere to it either (pesky constitution). Yes, Church you fool. How many times do I have to say it. I've stated it in EVERY reply. I stick to my beliefs remember. Name call away.
Brajabu74 9 months ago 3
@MrTrilliondollarman You couldn't be more wrong. We have a system of a Constitutional Republic that prevents mob rule, so that any arbitrary majority can't simply vote away the Constitutional rights and protections (such as equality of law) from any arbitrary minority. YOU, happily in the (waning) majority opinion on this topic, WANT a tyranny of the majority. Of course, we all have dozens of things that put us in a minority classification, luckily no arbitrary majority can vote away our rights.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
However, the vote of the people is not mob rule but is in fact the rule of law you are so quick to defend. I, in the GROWING majority opinion, do not buy the fact gay marriage is equal to interracial marriage or any other crap like that. Luckily, we still live in a nation where the voice of the people still matter and the people say no.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman Are you delusional MrTrillion? YOU'RE in the growing opinion? Wow. Pull your head out of wherever, because the polling over the last 2 decades has shown an ever increasing acceptance among people for gay rights and same gender marriage equality. The more we come to understand who gay people are, our friends, family, neighbors, and countrymen, and the scientific consensus that sexual-orientation is not chosen nor changeable, the more we the people agree with equality.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
There is no such support for it. If there was, it would have passed by the people's vote and not by judicial fiat. Sexual orientation is changeable and the more we know about the gay lifestyle, the more we find it reprehensible.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman Reprehensible eh? Yeah, you're a religious nut desperate to have your ancient tribal barbarian notions of God's rules enshrined into law. I love it how when our courts recognize rights, based on a far greater understanding now that being gay isn't just something someone does but it's an inherent identity of someone, you disparage our 3rd CO-EQUAL branch of government. Science (many decades of it now) doesn't support your view on gay people, and jurisprudence doesn't on law.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
tsk...tsk...you're just another wacko hypocrite who gleefully touts freedom yet when the people choose not to agree with you, you basically call them poopy heads. You will find the scientific view is based on personal politics, not on any sound science.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman And you will find that you are wrong. Homosexuality has been studied for decades now, even more-so in recent decades, and today all of the leading relevant scientific, medical, sociological, psychological, pediatric, and legal organizations that have examined, studied and issued policy statements agree on the inherent, unchosen, unchangeable nature of one's sexual orientation, and the importance of legal rights and protections based on that. Sorry, but YOUR god... is wrong.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman No political leader or representative should be taking any legislative guidance from any church, at least in so far as trying to enact religious doctrine, beliefs, or practices into law. Our Constitution, 235 years of jurisprudence, and our founders words say there is to be a strict wall of separation between church and state. Our laws are to be based on secular reasoning with a rational basis. THAT is where Prop 8 supporters have fallen completely flat.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
"separation of church and state" is not even in the Constitution. The only founder that used that phrase was Jefferson and that has been taken out of context for several decades. Our laws come from the absolute guidance of God, not the subjective whims of man. That's what Prop 8 opponents just don't get.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman You're such a poor little man. I know how DESPERATE you are to believe that your specific religious notions were supposed to rule the day on U.S. law, but that's simply not true. By virtue of the 14th Amendment the Bill of Rights extends to ALL State and Local law, and the 1st Amendment of that states there be NO establishment of religion (long held & regarded to mean that NO religious doctrine, belief, or practice is to be a justification for our laws). Sorry but its true.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
Actually, they do rule the day. You might want to try looking closer at the Constitution (you know, that little document you threw under the bus a few posts ago). You will find it makes Sundays an exemption of work for federal employees and for presidential inaugurations. Plus, the intro closes with the phrase "in the year of our Lord." Now, who could this Lord they're referring to be? Hmm....
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman Just saying something doesn't make it true you know, & as typical of your ilk you like to actually DO the very thing you claim someone else is doing while pointing the finger at them. You are undoubtedly, the one who has been disparaging our Constitution, our system of governance, and our founding father's clear intent. "In the year of our lord" was THE common parlance of the day, the Constitution does not mention god or religion other than to proscribe its use in our laws.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
Then why do you tout so much that isn't so? "in the year of our lord" was a phrase put on Christian documents, hence why it says "our lord." Everything else you said was complete nonsense.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman So THAT"S your rock solid unequivocal proof that our founders intended to create a Christian nation with laws founded upon one of the hundreds of interpretations of the Bible? The wording of the DATE on the document! LOL. Despite the numerous rejections of attempts to explicitly state so in the Constitution, despite WRITTEN proscriptions against such IN our Constitution, and even our founders own words, a treaty with unanimous Senate approval, you have a DATE'S wording. Ha!
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
Actually, this is more because of the correspondence between the Founders which can be found at the Library of Congress as well as each of their respective museums. Didn't think of that, did you?
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman ANY correspondence doesn't override the fact that these VERY issues were debated endlessly during our Constitutional conventions, and in the end the founders chose to exclude religion as any basis for our government or submit to any divine authority, but INSTEAD chose to explicitly create (as Jefferson stated "a wall of separation between church and state"). Affirmed by the Treaty of Tripoli, unanimously ratified by the Senate, stating the U.S is NOT founded on Christianity.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
Actually, it does override that fact. You also overlooked Congress has a chaplain that starts each session with a prayer, most often a Christian themed one. Jefferson's statement is taken out of context as I have shown already and the Treaty of Tripoli is a piss-poor argument for your side. Keep your crap up and I'll show why.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman My crap, eh? Are we now turning this into a separation of church and state discussion, now that we've firmly established that this issue is about your desire to enshrine your particular religiously based beliefs and justifications into our laws?
The existence of Congressional chaplains is irrelevant to the demands of our Constitution in regard to law. Besides wouldn't they ALL be Christian prayers? And, I think our founders words in an official document are quite relevant.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
More like this is a case of you trying and failing to show why religion shouldn't have anything to do with our nation. All you have to go on is one misquoted phrase from Jefferson and a treaty you know nothing about. The existence of the chaplain contradicts your notion. But if you insist that words in an official document are relevant, then that means the phrases "nature's god" and "endowed by their creator" also contradicts you.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman The Declaration of Independence is not our Constitution. Nature's god is just as easily nature, and 'creator' is just as easily one's parents.
Why you think trivial little artifacts of existing culture that appear in such documents or proceedings overrides the VERY clear language of our Constitution's provisions for creating and enacting secular based law is beyond rationality.
The founders had EVERY opportunity for your view to be clearly spelled out, yet they didn't.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
But it is a founding document. Nature's god refers to the one who made nature; that's why it doesn't just say nature by itself. So parents are the ones who gives people their rights? That doesn't even come close to making sense.
What you dont get is the plain language of these as well as the word inalienable. The Founders knew this nation was founded on Christianity and it's clear they wanted it to stay that way.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman That's right. The mere act of coming into existence as an intelligent sentient human being (being 'created' by one's parents) bestows the inalienable rights that every sentient human being by nature wants (liberty, freedom, and justice).
Again though, not only are those terms remarkably vague, but regardless of what they mean to anyone, even the writer himself, the Declaration of Independence is NOT one of our governing documents. Period.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
That's not the correct use of the word inalienable. The word is defined as "not capable of being transferred to another or capable of being revoked." Your example just doesn't work. The Declaration is considered a founding document and is used as a governing document as well. Nice try though.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman How is being due something (e.g. freedom, liberty, justice) by virtue of being born an intelligent sentient being any less 'inalienable' than by virtue of some presumed 'god' who is demonstrably absent and uninvolved in interacting with our physical reality, let alone verbalizing demands upon the powers that be.
No, I think it is YOU who fail to understand what an inalienable right is for a person, an intelligent sentient human being.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
Your question makes no sense and shows you don't understand the definition.
Inalienable rights mean a right you can't take away from someone. They don't give themselves these rights, government has been more than eager to take them away, and they cant be transferred from someone else. So what else does that leave as the source of the right?
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman Inalienable rights is a construct of the rights that we implicitly desire as thinking individuals, by virtue of being born.
The reality of the matter is though, that in practice, rights are bestowed upon us by the society we live in and the system of governance we live under. There is no 'god' ensuring that any of our 'inalienable' rights are being provided to us. If you believe otherwise then you are in danger of having those rights denied.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
No, no, and no. As thinking individuals, we do not feel with our brains. Saying society and system of governance as a source of rights is a horrible notion as each can take away rights when and if they feel like it. That's not how rights work. There is a god and that's how we have rights in the first place. It is man that takes rights away, not God.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman You don't get it do you. Inalienable rights are what we desire and expect for ourselves (and others) by virtue of being born intelligent sentient beings.
It's the practical reality that actual rights are only available to us based on the society and system of governance we live under. ANY of our practiced legal rights COULD be taken away, even here in America, by an Amendment to our Constitution doing so. That is practical reality and no 'god' would prevent it.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
Rights are not based on desires. That's what you don't get: objective rights cannot be based on the subjective whims of man. No right has been taken away by that method. Again, you dont get that.
MrTrilliondollarman 8 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman Whether you like it or not, the practical reality is that rights are doled out by the society and government we live under. What we believe to be our inalienable rights (rights we are due by virtue of being born intelligent sentient human beings) are only as useful to us as the system of governance we live under allows. Just SAYING they're your rights isn't useful. No deity is coming around to lay those rights out and ensure they are upheld.
Are you trying to say otherwise?
EmeraldView 8 months ago
@EmeraldView
The actual reality is our rights come from the one who made us all, and that would be God. It is not based on what a government allows us to have, since that would be a dictatorship. It is not based on what others let us have, because that doesn't follow from the definition of inalienable.
MrTrilliondollarman 8 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman You really are clueless. Name one right that can't be denied to you? Inalienable rights don't necessitate some God. WHO tells us and defines what those God-given rights are? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness certainly aren't handed down by the Biblical God. In fact his demands are quite antithetical to those things. Our inalienable rights are those rights we as thinking existent individuals naturally expect, but society/government upholds or denies them.
EmeraldView 8 months ago
@EmeraldView
You really are a dumbass. You cant take away my right to think. Inalienable rights by definition are rights that cannot be taken from you but that doesn't make sense unless those rights were first given to you by something that can't take them away. So rights can't come from government or any man made body. That just leaves God.
MrTrilliondollarman 8 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman Can't take away your right to think? Of course I could, if we lived in a society and system of governance where it was perfectly fine for me to kill you, that would definitely take away your right to think (at least as a living human being) now wouldn't it? That's the point. What we consider inalienable rights, are rights we consider due us by some inherent virtue, however rights can only be realized (doled out and respected) by the society and government we live under.
EmeraldView 8 months ago
@EmeraldView
So you're talking about an atheist nation then? Government and society cannot be the provider of rights because they, being led by foolish man, can decide to take it from you and then where would your recourse come from?
MrTrilliondollarman 8 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman Where would YOUR recourse come from, if not from the agreed upon and Constitutionally enacted and enforced rights we enjoy as citizens of this nation? If you are denied them, is God going to come down and say "Hey! You're violating my children's inalienable rights! Now stop it, or I'm going to get really really mad!"
Or do you think there is some appointed representative of God we are supposed to listen to and who will enforce our 'God-given' rights if they're denied?
EmeraldView 8 months ago
@EmeraldView
God is quite clear on this. He does not approve of homosexuality anymore than He approves of divorce.
MrTrilliondollarman 8 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman And furthermore, WE have whatever degree of control over our system of governance we so choose. That puts our rights directly in our collective hands, and we can as a society protect what we consider our inalienable rights. We don't need some charlatan telling us what their conception of God, who spoke specially to them, claims our rights are. Which is seemingly what you want.
Inalienable rights are self-evident to any thinking individual; existence, but no God, required.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
Rights are not a collective concept either. Just because someone touts God doesn't make them a charlatan. If their last name is Dawkins, Hitchens or Harris, then they're a charlatan....and a compulsive liar. You need God to show these rights are absolute.
MrTrilliondollarman 8 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman Of course. Men who've based their understandings of the world, the universe, and the reality around them on centuries of vast corroborative scientific inquiry, study, discovery, observation, experimentation, and predictive modeling are the charlatans, whereas blind reliance on the purveyors of the unsupported claims of ignorant confused frightened ancient tribal barbarians written in a highly inaccurate and contradictory book are the REAL authorities on reality. Yeah.
EmeraldView 8 months ago
@EmeraldView
Too bad for you those who based their view of morality on science and experiment are the same ones who brought hell on earth...ever heard of concentration camps?
MrTrilliondollarman 8 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman Concentration camps eh? The place where Nazi's sent millions of Jews along with gay people and other 'undesirables'. The Nazi's were unequivocally Christian (or at the very least you can say Christianity and Christian heritage were used by Hitler to motivate the German people). They not only touted Christianity, their very belt buckles stated "God with us".
Who else in Germany could be so hostile to Jews (not to mention gays).
EmeraldView 8 months ago
@EmeraldView
The Nazis were not Christian. Christian belief suffered greatly under the Nazi regime. Hitler himself called Christianity "a spiritual terror which can only be defeated with even greater terror." The "God with us" was stolen from an ancient germanic knight order. It had no basis in reality.
MrTrilliondollarman 8 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman History doesn't support your view against Hitler and the Nazi's ties to Christianity, and in particular the Catholic church. Try as you might to pull the wool over people's eyes, that history isn't changing.
Their "God with Us" belt buckles is only ONE piece of damning evidence for religion's tie to the holocaust.
EmeraldView 8 months ago
@EmeraldView
Actually, it's your take on history that has been dismissed. You might want to read The Myth of Hitler's Pope. It shoots everything you say down.
The "God with us" is an example of Nazis ripping others off to suit their twisted ends...much like you do. So cut this Nazi bullshit out.
MrTrilliondollarman 8 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman The Myth of Hitler's Pope? Ha! Few suggest Hitler's Pope was an even handed book to begin with, however that does not change the fact that the Pope during that time remained SILENT about what was occurring in Nazi Germany and by people who at least claimed to adhere to Christianity and the Catholic Church.
And you may not like it, but the "God With Us" motto used by the Nazi's is a clear indicator that they were NOT atheists, as you would very much like to believe.
EmeraldView 8 months ago
@EmeraldView
The book clearly indicates the Pope did all he could to help Jews. The Vatican even operated as a haven for them. He even wrote an encyclical condemning Nazism. That doesn't sound like doing nothing.
You may detest it, but that motto shows how willing the Nazis were to rewrite their own history.
MrTrilliondollarman 8 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman What is really disturbing, is you are placing NO faith in the church. NONE. Let the churches decide who they marry. Hence my original comment that this contract means nothing to me. Sure, I have to get on and play by the rules, but it's the vows I took before my family my church and god, that matters. Gov. could create a contract tomorrow for Baptisms. Require a license, and perform atheist baptisms at the court house. I don't care - that's not a baptism.
Brajabu74 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrTrilliondollarman
You will not be missed.
littlebier8 9 months ago 3
Pretty excellent. It's clear that the opponents of marriage equality don't actually have a legal argument. (And it's comical that Evan thinks that equality is a "politically correct" triviality. Have a look at the Constitution, Evan, not to mention American history.) They have simply their gut revulsion of homosexuals and a feeling of hurt when the law treats homosexuals the same as it treats them.
SonnyDL 9 months ago 13
@SonnyDL The Constitution never mentions equal treatment, genius.
namordecai 9 months ago
@namordecai As a matter of fact, it does "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Equal protection IS equal treatment. If any jurisdiction wants to deny equality to a citizen (in this case based on their gender for entering into a legal marriage contract) they MUST provide a rational secular basis that advances a compelling State interest. The P-8 defense was unable to articulate any. At least none that made sense or didnt apply equally to gay couples
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView Equal PROTECTION is profoundly different than equal treatment. It is NOT equal treatment. Learn some English. Equal protection implies that if your behavior is different, you may not be as "safe" as the next guy. Not that gay people are put in danger by not having the gov't refer to their homosexual unions as, "marriages," anyway. NOT based on gender. The California Supreme Court officially ruled otherwise. It's based on their choice of would-be spouse.
namordecai 9 months ago
@namordecai Are you aware that SEX isn't actually a mandated requirement for a State recognized legal marriage contract? There is no 'behavior' difference that is relevant when it comes to marriage law, because behavior is not a legislated requirement to get married. The Supreme Court has long ago now ruled that one's choice of consensual marriage partner is implicit in our American notions of liberty and freedom. Equal protection of Law IS equality of treatment of equal citizens under it.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView I never said sex was mandated for the state to recognize marriage. Behavior is a legislative requirement for the recognition of marriage, e.g. when the law was written, it wasn't to affirm heterosexuality. The required behavior for marriage includes getting a marriage license, not choosing a family member, choosing someone who is of proper age, choosing someone who has consented and choosing someone of the opposite sex.
With regard to liberty and freedom, no on is stopping gays.
namordecai 9 months ago
@namordecai So exactly what 'behavior' are you saying is a 'legislated requirement' for marriage? If not sex, then what's the behavior? Loving someone of the opposite sex? Surely not to 'affirm' heterosexuality. That needs no affirmation, it's GONNA happen a LOT, state affirmation of it or not. No the State was simply recognizing something that was already taking place, making a monogamous commitment to someone, which they wanted to encourage, and wanted to protect that relationship and family.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView "The carrying out of the decision to live as husband and wife," is a marriage. The gov't doesn't need to legislate love. Love comes from nature or God, not the gov't.
Civil rights do not involve recognizing something different as if it is the same. As Aristotle said, "The greatest inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." A gay union, a thing, a set of behaviors, is not equal in its nature to provide for societal needs the same way a real marriage can.
namordecai 9 months ago
@namordecai The bottom line is that YOU very desperately want to boil 'marriage' down to specifically what genitals are involved, and in a futile effort to do that, attempt to equate marriage with procreation which has never been a requirement for heterosexual marriage. Of course marriage entails a vast multitude of human needs, desires, goals, values, and relationship between a couple, any and all of which apply equally well to gay couples. Why legally separate it by involved genitalia?
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView Procreation was essential to the original decision to regulate marriage, though. I never claimed it was a requirement for each individual marriage. It's not about genitals, either. It's about gender, procreation, gender-role models, etc. Basic early childhood development issues, etc.
All those "desires and goals, etc." don't require government intervention. You say there is no different behavior, but the profoundly different results tell a different story.
namordecai 9 months ago
@namordecai Your history as to procreation being essential to the original justifications for legal recognition of marriages could not be more incorrect. Others here have already pointed that out.
And what different results? Recent studies have definitively PROVEN that children raised by same-gender spouses are just as well off, and develop just as well, as children raised by opposite-gender spouses. Marriage protects those families; it is JUST as valuable to gay couples as straight couples.
EmeraldView 9 months ago
@EmeraldView
That second paragraph is a flat out lie. Even more studies have shown those children wind up more confused about their own identity, are much more likely to engage in risky behaviors and gay marriage just doesn't offer the same benefits psychological wise as straight marriage.
MrTrilliondollarman 9 months ago
@MrTrilliondollarman Well now you're just talking out your ass, and making it quite clear that you REALLY couldn't care less about facts, reality, science, psychology, sociology, medicine, pediatrics, law, or Constitutional principals, let alone how the people vote at the polling booth. You have a mission, a fundamentalist Christian mission, to keep the ignorances of your religious beliefs enshrined in our law.
Why? Because how could your God/book be so wrong, just like it was with slavery. Eh?
EmeraldView 9 months ago