Court Returns With Gay Marriage: Should It Be Legalized?
American☆Atheist
2013/01/07 19:24:52
|
|
|||||
|
73 votes
|
|
81% | |||
|
17 votes
|
|
19% | |||
Top Opinion
-
Bronar 2013/01/07 19:26:15
There is no definition of protected marriage recognition in the Constitution. Thus, its up to the states to define.
Now when it comes to the states I support gay marriage and if we want to pass a Constitutional Amendment on the subject I'll support that too.
But as far as the Fed and Federal Courts go this is a non-issue.
No offense, but I don't want to get rid of liberty.
And I'm fairly sure God can handle it. Liberty doesn't undermine God. He knows us and the choices we make in life, government rules don't factor in.
.This is not a free country. It is a country valuing bondage with people in it fighting for freedom.
I will say that even Christ recognized that nations and governments existed and would continue to. After the new covenant (which replaced the old one - remember the one where God actually defined specific punishments for specific crimes and created His own nation?) God addressed us as individuals that were going to live in a world that we would largely make ourselves. As individuals we're to go out and not cast judgement, and to love our neighbor and to preach of Christs sacrifice. God never told us to turn away from the governments we lived under - render unto Caesar what is his.
So we live as individuals under Gods laws but as citizens we live under our own laws as well. And in the US we've created a system where the individual can have more say in the government than usual - and at a state level rather than a Federal level. If I want to live in a state that allows this or doesn't allow that I can likely find it, or at least try to affect it in my state. And that allows others to live by the rules they want.
Thats great.
Liberty with jail? Of course. Criminals must be punished. When God set up his own nation in the old testame...
I will say that even Christ recognized that nations and governments existed and would continue to. After the new covenant (which replaced the old one - remember the one where God actually defined specific punishments for specific crimes and created His own nation?) God addressed us as individuals that were going to live in a world that we would largely make ourselves. As individuals we're to go out and not cast judgement, and to love our neighbor and to preach of Christs sacrifice. God never told us to turn away from the governments we lived under - render unto Caesar what is his.
So we live as individuals under Gods laws but as citizens we live under our own laws as well. And in the US we've created a system where the individual can have more say in the government than usual - and at a state level rather than a Federal level. If I want to live in a state that allows this or doesn't allow that I can likely find it, or at least try to affect it in my state. And that allows others to live by the rules they want.
Thats great.
Liberty with jail? Of course. Criminals must be punished. When God set up his own nation in the old testament He defined those punishments for lawbreakers. And one might argue that our penalties are less severe.
God doesn't want us to be perfect btw. While it would be nice, He does understand the imperfect nature of humanity and that we sin and can't avoid sin. Thats precisely why He sacrificed His Son for us. Thats the most important thing, faith and belief in that sacrifice and a penetant nature. Not striving for unobtainable perfection.
Had all render unto Caesar what was his with his image on it with people giving to God in a human what God made Caesar would be surrounded with money he would not know what to do with because no one would want it. All of us are criminals in Gods eyes be cause we die. That's just part of it. That is what it means by condemn whoever be condemned for the same things. Romans 2:1 ;King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
Oh yea? Matthew 5:48;Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. That is being perfect in the soul.
The body is what is not perfect.
Christ in us makes us imperfect?
Satan says what you say.
It will remain unnatural sexual perversion.
If we have a repeat of the Edmunds-Tucker act all churches that don't comply can have their legal existence destroyed, the church's property ceased, all adherents denied the right to hold office or vote. There have been repeated calls to take away the tax status of any church that does not endorse gay marriage. Most churches would not survive having donations taxed. There is also the general principle that the feds have limits on their power and should not be bossing around the church or altering the oldest and most universal social institution.
What I think we should do is leave marriage alone and allow people all the legal controls and perks that can come via marriage (inheritance, custody hospital visits etc.). This includes all couples gay straight bi 3-somes etc. A large number of people do not marry and miss out on the government perks. I think everyone should have the same legal standing whenever possible.
I suppose I should just hope that a group if given a power legal tool in their hands to harm a group that they have a long history of dislike with will simply not use it. Not going to happen.
And it should be no surprise that gays aren't completely satisfied with a compromise that affords them second class status rather than full equality. Would you be?
As far a second class I know the feeling. I get told on a regular basis that I'm the wrong race, wrong sex etc. every time I look for a job.
Social rejection is common or people who violate the norms of a society.
Peoples rights not not be taken from them, but it is quite common for people to be excluded from social gatherings etc. No law is going to change this. It is not the the government to impose equality on us nor to try to fore us to pretend that two different things are the same. The choice should be left to the individuals to form their relationships as they see fit. I should not need the governments permission to have a relationship. I also have no right to try to force the views and beliefs of others by law.
You said: "As far a second class I know the feeling. I get told on a regular basis that I'm the wrong race, wrong sex etc. every time I look for a job."
Are you joking? You're a white, straight, Christian male in the United States. You haven't got the slightest inkling how it feels to be a second class citizen.
And "the norms of society"? I was under the impression that here in America, we're all afforded the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" provided we aren't hurting anyone else or compromising their rights in doing so. But now, according to you, we're required to conform to a majority standard or we forfeit those rights? Could you please provide more information on this?
You said: "It is not the the government to impose equality on us nor to try to fore us to pretend that two different things are the same. The choice should be left to the individuals to form their relationships as they see fit."
Legal equality is a separate issue from government forcing you to pretend...
You said: "As far a second class I know the feeling. I get told on a regular basis that I'm the wrong race, wrong sex etc. every time I look for a job."
Are you joking? You're a white, straight, Christian male in the United States. You haven't got the slightest inkling how it feels to be a second class citizen.
And "the norms of society"? I was under the impression that here in America, we're all afforded the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" provided we aren't hurting anyone else or compromising their rights in doing so. But now, according to you, we're required to conform to a majority standard or we forfeit those rights? Could you please provide more information on this?
You said: "It is not the the government to impose equality on us nor to try to fore us to pretend that two different things are the same. The choice should be left to the individuals to form their relationships as they see fit."
Legal equality is a separate issue from government forcing you to pretend that two different things are the same. Legal equality simply affords equal rights, while doing nothing to compel you to change your personal views. The only difference would arise "...when the practice of personal preferences and prejudices of an individual, a business entity, or a government interferes with the protected rights of others." http://legal-dictionary.thefr... Thus the ongoing debates about subjects like this where civil rights butt up against religious rights.
I'm not talking about forfeiting any rights. I'm talking about the possibility of not being included in some social situations (hardly a right).
Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness I'm all for. It is the mandate that forfeit my liberty when someone does not like my views or beliefs that is the issue.
What "liberty" will gay marriage cause you to forfeit? So far you've only referenced the highly unlikely possibility that churches will be forced to take part in same sex marriages, which is a separate issue from allowing gays the right to marry in the first place.
What are the examples of punishment for refusing services to gays that violate religious beliefs?
Have you considered the fact that a religious hospital, for example, denying insurance that includes birth control to non-religious employees is a perfect example of that hospital forcing its beliefs on others? There are two sides to the story.
When all's said and done, you just sound determined to deny marriage rights to gays over your personal, tangential fears.
No this is a perfect example of the government trying to force the religious people to violate their beliefs. The person wanting the birth control can use their money to buy it. The employer is not stopping them. Freedom is not having the government tell you everything you must do. There is also a lot of room between a right to have something and an entitlement to have it given to you.
But as you apparently think that the government forcing people to violate their most scared beliefs is fine and not doing it is pushing religion I don't suspect you will understand.
Or let me put it this way. How does you as an employer providing me with insurance that accommodates my beliefs translate into you somehow violating yours? Is it a violation of your beliefs to recognize that many people do not conform to them?