INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Libertarianism always seems a coded way of saying "why can't we be racist, sexist, homophobic and anti the poor anymore?"
I don't think we have any libertarians to defend themselves.
Libertarianism always seems a coded way of saying "why can't we be racist, sexist, homophobic and anti the poor anymore?"
I find nothing in the Bible to support anti-miscegenation laws. And, as I've said before, I don't think discrimination based on skin color in marriage is in any way analogous to discrimination based on sex. Skin color has nothing to do with marriage; gender does. Bride-groom, wife-husband, mother-father.
At the age of 18, Mildred became pregnant, and in June 1958 the couple traveled to Washington, D.C. to marry, thereby evading Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which made interracial marriage a crime. They returned to the small town of Central Point, Virginia. Based on an anonymous tip local police raided their home at night, hoping to find them having sex, which was also a crime according to Virginia law. When the officers found the Lovings sleeping in their bed, Mildred pointed out their marriage certificate on the bedroom wall. That certificate became the evidence for the criminal charge of "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth" that was brought against them.
The Lovings were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified miscegenation as a felony, punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years. The trial judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. ”
On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pled guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the state of Virginia. They did so, moving to the District of Columbia.
They were asking the baker weren't they?
I don't believe there is a civil right that recognizes "equality" between any and all arrangements wishing to be defined as a marriage. I can find the Free Exercise of Religion clause in the U.S. Constitution however.
You're right. It's not like "religious conscience" is a last-ditch effort for homophobic bigots to discriminate against homosexuals. It has conflicted with laws before (peyote, the military draft, and the current HHS rules mandating contraceptive coverage coming to mind) and no less than the evil Antonin Scalia has ruled there is no constitutional entitlement to exemption from applicable laws with a clear and compelling government interest.
So worry not, murder or human sacrifice cannot be plea bargained down with religious conviction. No one is lobbying for the anarchy of blanket religious immunity. But neither should the government nor courts impose activities against the religious beliefs of individuals when not necessary. Need every thought or deed found offensive be criminalized?
Are you aware the federal government exempted the religious use of alcohol during Prohibition? Are you familiar with the long held use of "conduct exemptions" in legislation or with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed into law by Bill Clinton?
I'm vigilant against Sharia Law because it cannot exist within a democracy or constitutional republic. Islamists that seek to impose Sharia Law say as much because they recognize no law but sharia (God-given) Law. Ideology prevents a two-way street from existing.
The relativism that goes into a statement like that is fathomless. Choosing not to participate in a same-sex marriage = stoning homosexuals to death. Wow.
Identity Christianity asserts that disease, addiction, cancer, and sexually transmitted diseases (herpes and AIDS) are spread by human "rodents" via contact with "unclean" persons, such as through "race-mixing".[35]:85 The first book of Enoch is used to justify these social theories; the fallen angels of Heaven sexually desired Earth maidens and took them as wives, resulting in the birth of abominations, which God ordered Michael the Archangel to destroy, thus beginning a cosmic war between Light and Darkness.[35]:85 The mixing of separate things (e.g. people of different races) is seen as defiling both, and is against God's will.[35]:86
Identity preachers proclaim that, according to the King James Bible, "the penaltys for race-mixing, homo-sexuality, and usury are death."[35]:86 The justification for killing homosexuals is provided by Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Exodus 22:21-22, Leviticus 25:35-37 and Deuteronomy explicitly condemn usury.[35]:92 Ezekiel 18-13 states "He who hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him" and is quoted as justification for killing Jews, since Jews have traditionally had a large presence in the usury business.
Identity followers reject the label of "anti-Semitic", stating that they can't be anti-Semitic, since in fact the true Semites "today are the great White Christian nations of the western world", with modern Jews in fact being descendants of the Canaanites.
I thought Judge Shelby made a ruling striking down Utah's law and State Constitutional amendment concerning marriage. Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor put a hold on that ruling for the duration of the appeals process. I thought this would go through the legal process.
I thought Judge Shelby made a ruling striking down Utah's law and State Constitutional amendment concerning marriage. Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor put a hold on that ruling for the duration of the appeals process. I thought this would go through the legal process.
So now Eric Holder has "decided" that the marriages will be recognized.
Hope and Change?
I thinks it's a scary slope to tyranny.
Libertarianism always seems a coded way of saying "why can't we be racist, sexist, homophobic and anti the poor anymore?"
Who said the earth was going to open up and swallow the population or whatever you expect to occur in ten years. But we could start with this; even though many people including yourself are sincere about SSM and the want for fairness in marriage, SSM is only one part of a larger agenda to the radical left. That agenda being making sex (gender) inconsequential and meaningless.
That is why any argument that men and women are different must be rejected despite its obviousness to the vast majority of the population. And that is why this is now the law in Massachusetts and California and will proceed after legalization of SSM in other states.
Transgender Access to Public School Bathrooms Now Required in MA by Commissioner - Massachusetts Family Institute
do you guys not understand how anti-discrimination laws work?
I don't think we have any libertarians to defend themselves.
Yes I do.
You do not understand how the 1st Amendment works. The Constitution is supreme to any state law. These laws are in conflict. Which is why I said the Supreme Court will eventually have to decide this issue.
So, nothing happened, then?
I don't think we have any libertarians to defend themselves.
If the government shouldn't have the power to define marriage, then who should?
We're talking about marriage here. Not Christian marriage. Marriage that is acknowledged via law and gives all the benefits straight marriages have too. Christian marriages are done in churches, and if someone wants to do that, by all means do it. But that is not the same.[/QUOTE
Did you read my post?
"Therefore, if a homosexual couple wishes to file a contract and they want to call it a “marriage contract,” then that is their prerogative and I have no right to forbid them from doing so. If they want to call it a “civil union” instead, that’s fine as well. "
It does seem as if we've switched from viewing committed gay couples wishing to devote their loves to one another as the enemy to the minuscule number of TG children who simply need to pee as the new enemy.
If the government shouldn't have the power to define marriage, then who should?
We're talking about marriage here. Not Christian marriage. Marriage that is acknowledged via law and gives all the benefits straight marriages have too. Christian marriages are done in churches, and if someone wants to do that, by all means do it. But that is not the same.
Did you read my post?
"Therefore, if a homosexual couple wishes to file a contract and they want to call it a “marriage contract,” then that is their prerogative and I have no right to forbid them from doing so. If they want to call it a “civil union” instead, that’s fine as well. "
I did read it, but that wasn't quite clear for me. So in essence, you're not per se against SSM, as long as it's the legal marriage and not the church wedding?
Thank for your reply and question.
From my post and another comment:
"However, not forbidding certain behavior should not be conflated with not approving of certain behavior. Being permissive of lifestyle choices does not entail me agreeing that the lifestyle choice is morally right before God."
I am against SSM based on my Christian faith, historical traditional definitions, and the harm that, I think, will and have occurred to children and society.
My main view I have been trying to point out here is that I disagree with the Federal government and courts forcing the baker (who views his works as expressions of speech) to bake the cake or face a fine or jail time. He believes to do that would force him to go against his religious beliefs. Even if one disagrees with him, shouldn't he have that freedom? The U.S. Bill of Rights, I think, allows him and all of us this freedom.
Why would SSM pose a thread to children and society?
We're talking about a marriage between two people who love each other here. Nobody is saying anything about the couple having children or not. That's not the question. The marriage alone is the quesion.
I have answered the question, I think, on why I am against SSM. Children and society are a part of this.
Previously I posted this link to help answer that question:
Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View | Public Discourse
Here is a passage:
Forty-one years I’d lived, and nobody—least of all gay activists—had wanted me to speak honestly about the complicated gay threads of my life. If for no other reason than this, Mark Regnerus deserves tremendous credit—and the gay community ought to be crediting him rather than trying to silence him.
Regnerus’s study identified 248 adult children of parents who had same-sex romantic relationships. Offered a chance to provide frank responses with the hindsight of adulthood, they gave reports unfavorable to the gay marriage equality agenda... Each of those 248 is a human story, no doubt with many complexities.
Here is the study he is commenting on:
The Kids Aren’t All Right: New Family Structures and the “No Differences” Claim | Public Discourse
It's a long read, but here is a part of the concluding remarks:
Taken together, the findings of the NFSS disprove the claim that there are no differences between children raised by parents who have same-sex relationships and children raised in intact, biological, married families when it comes to the social, emotional, and relational outcomes of their children.
First, same-sex parenting and same-sex marriage are different things. One does not have to be a parent to get married, and vice versa.
Second, going to The Witherspoon Institute for "research" is a bit like asking the KKK for research on black people.
Got any mainstream, non-religious sources?