equality blooms with spring

[the iron horse]

The World Only Sins Forward

 

[nathan1977]

Do American citizens have the Constitutionally-protected right to vote on the values that will shape their society?

Do American citizens have the Constitutionally-protected right to vote without fear of intimidation?

Do American citizens have the Constitutionally-protected right to vote, live, and speak according to their faith and beliefs?

Do non-profit charities in America have the Constitutionally-protected right to operate without government interference?

Because these are just a few of the Constitutionally-protected rights that have already under fire in the inevitable march towards gay marriage (a right whose Constitutional protection is dubious at best).

But perhaps it's true what they say about horses and water.

 

[BVS]

The World Only Sins Forward

 

[BVS]

Do American citizens have the Constitutionally-protected right to vote on the values that will shape their society?

Yes. But sometimes majorities are wrong. What if the majority wanted slavery again, would you just sit back and say "the citizens have spoken"?

Do American citizens have the Constitutionally-protected right to vote without fear of intimidation?

I really don't know what this has to do with anything, intimidation has always played a role in voting. Remember "we'll have another terrorist attack if we vote in a Democrat"?

Do American citizens have the Constitutionally-protected right to vote, live, and speak according to their faith and beliefs?

No, that's why we've locked up all the racists, misogynists, and the entire congregation of the "god hates fags" church?

Come on what kind of question is this?

Do non-profit charities in America have the Constitutionally-protected right to operate without government interference?

Care to elaborate?

Because these are just a few of the Constitutionally-protected rights that have already under fire in the inevitable march towards gay marriage (a right whose Constitutional protection is dubious at best).

You have become blind. This has nothing specifically to do with gay marriage. These stretched examples you give happen with any controversial subject, the Iraq war for example breeded a lot of these types of scenarios.

But is still does not mean Iraq War = infringement on freedom of speech!!!

You are trying far too hard and failing at every corner.

But perhaps it's true what they say about horses and water.

In your case it probably is...

 

[martha]

Do non-profit charities in America have the Constitutionally-protected right to operate without government interference?

As long as they don't take public money, sure. When they start taking tax-payer money, money collected from gay Americans, then they have to serve the taxpayers who provide that money. Even if you say those taxpayers shouldn't have those rights.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Do American citizens have the Constitutionally-protected right to vote on the values that will shape their society?

I don't think that extends to legalised bigotry, especially when it is based on a religious book.

Do American citizens have the Constitutionally-protected right to vote without fear of intimidation?

On what issues? Do you think that the American people are able to vote and overturn the first and second amendments?

Do American citizens have the Constitutionally-protected right to vote, live, and speak according to their faith and beliefs?

This doesn't extend to deciding how others should live their lives, you have explicitly announced that the move to ban gay marriage is based on religion, and the first amendment is quite clear about the validity of those laws.

Do non-profit charities in America have the Constitutionally-protected right to operate without government interference?

No, if they receive tax exempt status then they shouldn't be allowed to promulgate toxic attitudes in the community, if these groups paid taxes then they should be allowed to do whatever they want, I just don't think they should get public subsidy.

Because these are just a few of the Constitutionally-protected rights that have already under fire in the inevitable march towards gay marriage (a right whose Constitutional protection is dubious at best).

You make the claims without context, refuse to recognise the major infringements of having religious attitudes guide a public policy which discriminates against a large segment of taxpayers.

But perhaps it's true what they say about horses and water.

Oh those crafty faggots are pushing hard on hard working Americans.

 

[martha]

Do American citizens have the Constitutionally-protected right to vote on the values that will shape their society?

You mean like this?

California Proposition 14 (1963) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neither the State nor any subdivision or agency thereof shall deny, limit or abridge, directly or indirectly, the right of any person, who is willing or desires to sell, lease or rent any part or all of his real property, to decline to sell, lease or rent such property to such person or persons as he, in his absolute discretion, chooses.

The initiative proved to be overwhelmingly popular, and was passed by a 65% majority vote in the 1964 California elections.[2]

And then those accursed activist judges...

Three years later, in 1967, the amendment was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in the case of Reitman v. Mulkey. The Supreme Court ruled that the amendment was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

They reversed California democracy!!!!!




Oh wait. I just remembered. You have "no comment" on this case.

 

[yolland]

Do American citizens have the Constitutionally-protected right to vote on the values that will shape their society?

I'll repost my reply from a previous thread, since you've asked this question before:

Federal law contains no provisions concerning referenda or ballot initiatives, which is why only some states offer them. While the California Constitution obviously provides for them, and prescribes the means by which CA citizens may qualify a measure for the ballot, the California courts are nonetheless empowered to order qualified initiatives to be removed from the ballot, as well as to annul successfully passed initiatives, both of which have happened before. If such actions actually violated federally protected voting rights, as you're suggesting, then obviously the federal government wouldn't have allowed that.

Of course, it's also true that same-sex couples' right to marry (or to enter into civil unions, for that matter) isn't presently federally protected either. So unless the California courts decide to annul Proposition 8 on the basis of the currently pending lawsuits, which is unlikely, then you'll get what you voted for. It's not your "voting rights," however, which are at stake, because neither the US Constitution nor the CA Constitution guarantee you the "right" to see a successfully passed ballot initiative that you supported upheld by the courts.

Do American citizens have the Constitutionally-protected right to vote without fear of intimidation?

"Voter intimidation" is a specific felony offense category, the finding of which usually involves either behavior already explicitly defined in the relevant state's electoral code, or behavior judged by a court to meet the 'would cause a reasonable person fear of injury or harm' standard. In the US today, voter intimidation convictions are rare.

Here are your state's laws concerning voter intimidation: CA Code 18540-18548. There were a few incidents of vandalism at LDS temples in CA after Prop 8, also one incident where a politician and pastor received death threats; based on the legal definition, I'd imagine those might qualify if the perpetrators are caught and convicted, whereas boycotts and nonviolent protest rallies would not.

There's also a federal law (US Code 18.594), but again it doesn't apply to state referenda.

Do American citizens have the Constitutionally-protected right to vote, live, and speak according to their faith and beliefs?

If by "live" you mean refusing service to particular categories of persons on religious grounds (such as a doctor refusing fertility treatments to a lesbian patient, or a therapist refusing relationship counseling to a lesbian patient), no. Think about the consequences if that were true; the Civil Rights Movement couldn't have succeeded if such 'religious exemption' loopholes existed, because then segregationists could have--and most happily would have--claimed 'freedom to practice my Christian beliefs' as their reason for continuing to bar black Americans from seeking their medical services, eating in their restaurants, shopping in their stores and so on.

Do non-profit charities in America have the Constitutionally-protected right to operate without government interference?

What are you defining as "government interference"? An adoption agency losing the license permitting it to broker adoptions on behalf of the state because it refused on religious grounds to comply with that licenser's anti-discrimination laws? Bob Jones University losing its tax exemption because it refused until 2000, on religious grounds, to permit interracial dating among its students? Those wouldn't qualify as unconstitutional government interference, no.

 

[Irvine511]

Faith groups losing gay rights fights - Washington Post- msnbc.com

* A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney's costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple's commitment ceremony.
* A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.
* Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.
* A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage.

To say nothing of Catholic adoption agencies forced to close in Boston, parents put in jail for refusing to allow their kids to learn about same-sex marriage, etc.

you may be right, nathan.

it is going to be more and more difficult for churches to discriminate to be active and happy bigots practice their religious beliefs against gay people.

it's sad to me that some churches thing that their "religious beliefs" include bigotry, but somehow, i think American Christians will get over this just like they got over the Scopes Trial.

it is getting harder and harder to be a public Christian in America -- if by public Christian we mean "an outspoken bigot against homosexuals." but let's all just take a deep breath and realize that this is the end-of-the-line for the anti-gay rights crowd. they're claiming that "giving gays rights = taking away our rights." it's their last gasp of breath, and they're nervous, but they needn't be. it's not like anyone is going to be marched down to the police office for teaching Leviticus (after all, lots of Christians eat shellfish). this is little more than excessive paranoia.

i'd like to know where the outrage is/was about the "religious freedom" of American Catholics when divorce was legalized. we all know that the biggest single denomination in America denies the existence of divorce, does not recognize the status of re-married couples, and has life-long marriage as one of it's core principles. but 50% of straight people get divorced! how oppressive to Catholics! is this oppressive to Catholic priests because they have to deal with the ubiquity of divorced couples?

so let's take a step back Nathan and let's pull back the cut-and-past Maggie Gallagher talking points panic and let's call these "religious liberty" arguments for what they truly are:

abject panic at the thought of a world in which gay couples are legally treated as the equal of any other couple.

 

[Irvine511]

The World Only Sins Forward

this is offensive to me.

go ahead, call me a sinner.

if you need to retain that little bit of assumed superiority over me using your own self-serving religion, then all i can do is feel pity at your small mindedness.

how greatly disappointing you must be to that Rebel From Nazareth.

 

[melon]

Do American citizens have the Constitutionally-protected right to vote on the values that will shape their society?

Not if those aforementioned values infringe on the right to the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of others. Otherwise, you start to argue that laws like this are ethically permissible, merely because they were "voted on":

Afghan marriage law can't be changed: cleric

By the way, I recognize that this principle opens up the debate as to whether abortion infringes on the rights of the unborn (and have long stated that there can be a secular argument against the practice. On the other hand, there is also an ethical question regarding whether that theoretical right legitimizes forcing women to have a baby against their own will, but I'll leave this debate for another time.)

Do American citizens have the Constitutionally-protected right to vote, live, and speak according to their faith and beliefs?

See my answer to Question #1, as these are identical questions.

Do non-profit charities in America have the Constitutionally-protected right to operate without government interference?

As long as they do not accept government funds, then they should be forced to follow all the laws that all other private organizations are obliged to follow. If they do accept government funds, then expect the government to interfere just as any investor would in any other enterprise.

Because these are just a few of the Constitutionally-protected rights that have already under fire in the inevitable march towards gay marriage (a right whose Constitutional protection is dubious at best).

Sounds like you'd be right at home in an Afghani-based "democracy" then. In the Western world, we have such things as "minority rights" that are not subject to the prejudices of the majority. And, sure, we haven't been perfect here (e.g., "separate but equal" in the 19th and 20th centuries), but eventually, the march toward the equality espoused in the Constitution is fulfilled. And I'd say that, in every case, we've clearly been better for it.

As an aside, it appears that the conservative attitude toward government is that they like it when they tell "other people" what to do, but, when it comes to themselves, they want the government "out of their lives." No consistent philosophy or logic required here, and I'd say that this is ultimately why court after court after court keeps on ruling against conservative causes. The rule of law is based on consistent logic and philosophy, not the irrational whims of "Christian mullahs."

 

[melon]

this is offensive to me.

Well, "who cares what you think"? We need the government to keep you in your place.

But when it comes to cigarette smoking and E-coli tainted milk? Goddamn it, why doesn't the government leave me alone?!!!!!!!!!!!!

Apparently, those "rights" are more important than social equality in the conservative mindset. And all this from our resident "libertarian" (who is really a de facto paleoconservative, by objective definition; a "social conservative libertarian" is an oxymoron).

 

[deep]

this is offensive to me.

go ahead, call me a sinner.

if you need to retain that little bit of assumed superiority over me using your own self-serving religion, then all i can do is feel pity at your small mindedness.

how greatly disappointing you must be to that Rebel From Nazareth.

I thought the 'sinning" was doing it backwards?

 

[VintagePunk]

Apparently, those "rights" are more important than social equality in the conservative mindset. And all this from our resident "libertarian" (who is really a de facto paleoconservative, by objective definition; a "social conservative libertarian" is an oxymoron).

Thank you for pointing this out. So called libertarians who would infringe on the human rights of others irk me. That's the antithesis of libertarianism, and I'm not sure why some fail to recognize that.

 

[Irvine511]

And all this from our resident "libertarian" (who is really a de facto paleoconservative, by objective definition; a "social conservative libertarian" is an oxymoron).

i think you're being too charitable. perhaps, for clarity's sake, we should say "our resident simpleton."

 

[Irvine511]

Thank you for pointing this out. So called libertarians who would infringe on the human rights of others irk me. That's the antithesis of libertarianism, and I'm not sure why some fail to recognize that.

sinners are most assuredly not "others." they do not deserve to have their sins protected by law.

 

[deep]

I didn't see where VintagePunK said anything about sin.


Sin is an absolute fraud. It does not exist.

 

[anitram]

Sin is an absolute fraud. It does not exist.

I came to that conclusion myself some years ago.

It's liberating.

 

[deep]

Of course there is proper and correct behavior.

There is no magic, invisable being to obsolved me of harming myself and others.
My choices matter more now. It is liberating and refreshing.


It seems many religious people operate with this little "cheat sheet" attitude.
Like they have an automatic-pass guanantee.

 

[martha]

It seems many religious people operate with this little "cheat sheet" attitude.
Like they have an automatic-pass guanantee.

Especially when they're the ones who get to decide what constitutes sin.

 

[VintagePunk]

Of course there is proper and correct behavior.

There is no magic, invisable being to obsolved me of harming myself and others.
My choices matter more now. It is liberating and refreshing.

Agreed. And even if there was an invisible being who dictated things such as this (I believe there isn't), it should have no bearing whatsoever on the politically declared human rights of others, because not everyone will believe in the same invisible being or have the same belief system dictated by their invisible being of choice. So that brings us back to tradition, and whether or not to uphold the current anti-gay marriage laws. There are many, many examples of society changing its politically imposed rules as society became more enlightened and aware of the wrongs they were committing against groups. The least harm principle should apply here. Is it harmful to society for gay couples to marry? As societies who allow this have shown, no, it's not harmful, not in the least. But is it harmful to gay couples who want to marry not to be able to, to not have the same rights as their hetero counterparts? Absolutely it is.

Logic ftw.

 

[martha]

Logic, schmogic.

 

[anitram]

It seems many religious people operate with this little "cheat sheet" attitude.
Like they have an automatic-pass guanantee.

I have a good friend who is quite religious and generally votes along with the right, but isn't really politically driven. His answers for why a lot of things should be the way they are is "because God wants it that way." I really wonder whether he ever actually gave any independent thought to something like gay marriage at all.

 

[AliEnvy]

His answers for why a lot of things should be the way they are is "because God wants it that way." I really wonder whether he ever actually gave any independent thought to something like gay marriage at all.

Religious conformity doesn't leave much room for independent thought which is probably fine for many conventionally religious people who would otherwise be too lazy to think beyond what they're told. That's not a complete slam, just something I've also observed quite a bit.

 

[martha]

Religious conformity doesn't leave much room for independent thought which is probably fine for many conventionally religious people who would otherwise be too lazy to think beyond what they're told.

It can be fear as well, not just laziness.

 

[AliEnvy]

It can be fear as well, not just laziness.

Actually fear is probably much more often the case, you're right.

 

[the iron horse]

this is offensive to me.

go ahead, call me a sinner.

if you need to retain that little bit of assumed superiority over me using your own self-serving religion, then all i can do is feel pity at your small mindedness.

how greatly disappointing you must be to that Rebel From Nazareth.

I apologize if my post offended you.

I guess, in your view, I am narrow minded.

I am a believer in that Rebel from Nazareth
and I believe the scriptures teach that this world system will increase in sin.

And keep increasing in sin

Until we have faces



Take care

 

[BVS]

The Rebel from Nazareth never spoke of gay marriage. In fact he spoke of love, and he who was free of sin cast the first stone.

I see a lot of stones casted by folks who have logs in their own eyes...

Today Jesus wept.

 

[yolland]

I didn't get the impression he was referring specifically to gay marriage. If that even matters.

 

[A_Wanderer]

A rather weak non-apology, you ought to be more explicit, do you not care that Irvine is going to go to hell?