SCOTUS on religious liberty [relevant to recent decision on same-sex marriage]

[UpwardForward]

Equality is a weak argument? Fairness is a weak argument? What?

 

I believe you are undermining your own point of view with a point like that.

 

Yes, It's a weak argument.

 

Would this mean the left would strive (in the name of sexual equality), to intermix men/women in prisons, public restrooms, gyms, dorms where formerly there was separation?

 

Demanding rights is just that. Doesn't matter if you fit in and with necessary criteria - or not. (obviously)

[RoseVille]

The marriage equality decision was not a religious liberty decision.

[UpwardForward]

The marriage equality decision was not a religious liberty decision.

 

1/4 of Americans are Evangelicals. They were not represented. (Scalia).

Edited July 2, 2015 by UpwardForward

[pureinheart]

Equality is a weak argument? Fairness is a weak argument? What?

 

I believe you are undermining your own point of view with a point like that.

 

The one thing I have to say about liberals- they can twist ANYTHING until it is unrecognizable ... you know what I was saying. Anyway, I'd love to have an intelligent straight up discussion, without playing word games. Thank you.

[trippi1432]

This is about one of the most powerful things I have heard on homosexuality and religion (and could be an intelligent straight up discussion):

 

[BC1980]

1/4 of Americans are Evangelicals. They were not represented. (Scalia).

 

Why should Evangelicals have been represented in this decision? Why should any religious group have been represented in this decision?

[UpwardForward]

Why should Evangelicals have been represented in this decision? Why should any religious group have been represented in this decision?

 

Yet it's alright that most of SCOTUS are Jewish and Catholic as long as you got your desired ruling?

 

It was Scalia that pointed out Evangelicals are not represented with SCOTUS.

 

But I would say it should have stayed with the States (VOTERS), anyway. There's nothing about marriage in The Constitution. They needed to reach or contort.

 

Question: How many of the states that had same sex marriage prior, reached it by popular vote?

Edited July 3, 2015 by UpwardForward

[Keenly]

Yet it's alright that most of SCOTUS are Jewish and Catholic as long as you got your desired ruling?

 

It was Scalia that pointed out Evangelicals are not represented with SCOTUS.

 

But I would say it should have stayed with the States (VOTERS), anyway. There's nothing about marriage in The Constitution. They needed to reach or contort.

 

Question: How many of the states that had same sex marriage prior, reached it by popular vote?

How many states had anti interracial marriage laws back in the day That were reached by popular vote?

 

Pro-tip, it doesn't matter what popular vote results are on an issue that violets some ones constitutional.right for equal protection under the law. You can not extend marriage to one group and deny it from another for no other reason than your own prejudices, therefore popular vote is irrelevan.

 

 

 

If we had a vote and popular vote said to make all black people slaves again, would it even matter what the popular vote was? Nope.

[BC1980]

Yet it's alright that most of SCOTUS are Jewish and Catholic as long as you got your desired ruling?

 

It was Scalia that pointed out Evangelicals are not represented with SCOTUS.

 

But I would say it should have stayed with the States (VOTERS), anyway. There's nothing about marriage in The Constitution. They needed to reach or contort.

 

Question: How many of the states that had same sex marriage prior, reached it by popular vote?

 

I don't care what religions any of them practice, as long as they attempt not to let that that sway their views. It would probably be completely impossible not to have some influence. I don't know the number of states that voted in gay marriage.

 

I guess my question would be: why do you think it was inappropriate for SCOTUS to step in, and when do you think it is appropriate? Why do you feel this particular issue should be left up to the states as opposed to other issues, and why?

[UpwardForward]

I don't care what religions any of them practice, as long as they attempt not to let that that sway their views. It would probably be completely impossible not to have some influence. I don't know the number of states that voted in gay marriage.

 

I guess my question would be: why do you think it was inappropriate for SCOTUS to step in, and when do you think it is appropriate? Why do you feel this particular issue should be left up to the states as opposed to other issues, and why?

 

Definition of marriage was established in the beginning. Probably it was understood, since not in the Constitution.

[writergal]

Definition of marriage was established in the beginning. Probably it was understood, since not in the Constitution.

 

That is the Church's definition it's not the civil definition of marriage. The Church is not in charge of society and never will be where making laws is concerned. America is not a Christian nation and will never be identified as such, except when the politicians do it to increase their voting appeal to the Christian population around election time.

 

Gay marriage doesn't effect you personally in any way, does it? Other than goes against your view that marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman.

 

But gay marriage doesn't impact your business, or anything like that so I really don't understand the hatred you have towards it, because its pretty obvious you hate gay people and gay marriage. And to hate a minority like gay people seems very anti-Christian to me.

[UpwardForward]

That is the Church's definition it's not the civil definition of marriage. The Church is not in charge of society and never will be where making laws is concerned. America is not a Christian nation and will never be identified as such, except when the politicians do it to increase their voting appeal to the Christian population around election time.

 

Gay marriage doesn't effect you personally in any way, does it? Other than goes against your view that marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman.

 

But gay marriage doesn't impact your business, or anything like that so I really don't understand the hatred you have towards it, because its pretty obvious you hate gay people and gay marriage. And to hate a minority like gay people seems very anti-Christian to me.

 

And you know that only the Left use the 'hate' word in their posts.

 

It wasn't a Constitutional issue, regardless.

 

And as for the position: I have explained that, over and over on these forums.

Edited July 3, 2015 by UpwardForward

[writergal]

And you know that only the Left use the 'hate' word in their posts.

 

It wasn't a Constitutional issue, regardless.

 

And as for the position: I have explained that, over and over on these forums.

 

But it's not a Left use of the 'hate' word. I don't politicize my vocabulary. I speak from my heart, not from my ballot.

 

It's not a Constitutional issue but it's a Church issue, because despite the fact that John 8:7 says "let he who hasn't sinned cast the first stone" from the Bible, the Catholic Church is going to deny same-sex supporters access to holy communion. So it's as if the Church as a whole is discrediting itself as a Christian symbol of God's love and plan for the human race. All I see is a Church of Bigotry, not a Church of Christ. Christ would accept gay people with open arms and not deem it morally wrong, the way he accepted the characters from stories in the Bible who were rejected by society at that time (the lepers, the poor people, women).

 

Yes, you've explained that you believe same-sex marriage is wrong because in your view traditional marriage is between a man and a woman. But I'd genuinely like to know how SCOTUS' ruling on same-sex marriage impacts you personally? Will it impact your business? Your grocery shopping? Your socializing with people? How?

 

It doesn't impact my life in any way, regardless of my non-religious belief or political leaning. It's just marriage. That's it. People who weren't allowed to be legally married are now allowed.

[BC1980]

Definition of marriage was established in the beginning. Probably it was understood, since not in the Constitution.

 

So you don't really have an answer? Appeal to tradition is all you've got?

[UpwardForward]

So you don't really have an answer? Appeal to tradition is all you've got?

 

I have answered over and over.

 

1) I believe everything that goes on in the world affects us all, or will.

 

2) In the immediate realm, we're seeing signs of more financial loss (of contributors) involving the following: Related Lawsuits; Health care and insurance premiums; added govt Benefits for 'married' homosexual govt workers.

 

We will be affected.

 

It's not necessary to continue to elaborate, as I have already done so in my prev posts,

[RoseVille]

1/4 of Americans are Evangelicals. They were not represented. (Scalia).

 

Appropriately so. It wasn't a religious liberty decision. Regardless, decisions are not made based on "religious representation." Quite the contrary.

 

The decision was made based on whether denying same sex couples due process and equal protection of the laws furthered a GOVERNMENT (not personal, not religious, not political) interest. Rightfully finding it does not, SCOTUS struck down any ban on clerks licensing marriages.

[RoseVille]

It was Scalia that pointed out Evangelicals are not represented with SCOTUS.

 

True, he did. But he's also the most sarcastic judge in the history of SCOTUS and includes the most inappropriate, and irrelevant to Consititional-law commentary we've ever seen in SCOTUS discourse.

[RoseVille]

That is the Church's definition it's not the civil definition of marriage.

 

The Episcopal church recognizes marriage as between two people who love each other, opposite sex or same sex.

 

As do some other denominations.

 

This is one more reason why the decision is not and cannot be one made based on religious terminology.

 

It's a LEGAL question, based on fundamental civil rights.

[UpwardForward]

True, he did. But he's also the most sarcastic judge in the history of SCOTUS and includes the most inappropriate, and irrelevant to Consititional-law commentary we've ever seen in SCOTUS discourse.

 

'Marriage' isn't part of the Constitution. Roberts was reaching.

 

(have already discussed this)

[UpwardForward]

The Episcopal church recognizes marriage as between two people who love each other, opposite sex or same sex.

 

As do some other denominations.

 

This is one more reason why the decision is not and cannot be one made based on religious terminology.

 

It's a LEGAL question, based on fundamental civil rights.

 

I would think the break down of society would also include the compromise of The Church.

[RoseVille]

'Marriage' isn't part of the Constitution. Roberts was reaching.

 

(have already discussed this)

 

The right to marry has been found by SCOTUS to be a fundamental right 16+ times since 1888. While the word "marriage" isn't on the face of the Constitution, SCOTUS has determined that some rights are so fundamental that any law restricting such rights must both serve a compelling GOVERNMENT interest and be narrowly tailored to that compelling GOVERNMENT interest. Among those fundamental rights are the right to privacy, to family, to parent, to travel, and to marry. If it weren't so important, so fundamental, you wouldn't care about your OWN right to marry.

 

It's been a fundamental right since 1888 for crying out loud. The only other time in our history when a large swath of people have taken issue with marriage being deemed a fundamental right was in response to Loving v. Virginia, 1967, when inter-racial couples were granted the right to marry.

 

Doesn't that just say it all?

[RoseVille]

I would think the break down of society would also include the compromise of The Church.

 

SCOTUS' job is NOT to protect any church from demise, or support any church. Quite the contrary. Please re-read the establishment clause.

[pureinheart]

And you know that only the Left use the 'hate' word in their posts.

 

It wasn't a Constitutional issue, regardless.

 

And as for the position: I have explained that, over and over on these forums.

 

...and elsewhere also. The left has a difficult time understanding and differentiating between disagreement (having ones own mind and opinions) and 'hate'. They don't like opposition and support 'diversity' only when it suits their agenda(s). Tolerance is something they demand, but are unable to give.

 

It's a must to throw out and name call those who oppose them with 'hate', 'bigot' and so on...

 

Anyway, I'm having a difficult time believing the stats from CA concerning same-sex marriage. The government is as liberal as it gets, but the people are different and I'm seeing a rather quick change from those who identify as dems. People here are tired of the division and the divisiveness of this current administration.

 

Possibly where sin abounds grace also abounds.

[RoseVille]

Many folks have a deep faith and yet also see the importance of having the choice to sin where than sin does not impact GOVERNMENT interests. ?

[pureinheart]

SCOTUS' job is NOT to protect any church from demise, or support any church. Quite the contrary. Please re-read the establishment clause.

 

It also wasn't designed to make laws- laws of the land. Biblically speaking, same-sex marriages are different from interracial marriages.