Was I Wrong To Support Gay Marriage? (Nope! But we can still do better...)

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: burdman30ott6

So the States that allow Legal Discrimination and Services, Housing and Property denied to GLBTQP+ is against the Constitution?

As I explained in an earlier post to you, yes, such laws do violate the Constitution; specifically the 1st, 9th and 14th amendments:

originally posted by: Boadicea

The pertinent clauses of the 14th Amendment would be #1 and #5:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Therefore, under the 14th Amendment, any and all marriage laws must apply equally to both heterosexuals and homosexuals, at every level of government. However, the 14th Amendment does not apply to the individual or the private sector; only the government.

Consequently, neither the 14th Amendment nor the Supreme Court's decision in any way supercedes or overrides the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion and the practice thereof by the individual, or the 9th Amendment which guarantees that:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Forcing others to involuntarily serve or labor for others is also a gross violation of our Constitutional rights. There are other ways to address the issue of discrimination among private individuals/businesses without violating anyone's freedom of religion/conscience.

So if you do in fact support using the color and force of law to impose the will of some on the many, why? Especially when it can be battled in other ways, which encourage and promote rather than force and enforce, without violating anyone's Constitutional and Natural Rights.

Why would anyone want to be "that" person when we can do and be so much better?

a reply to: Boadicea

So then why are the States still allowed to Deny us such things?

that is my main argument, from what i read the sates lack the civil laws that prohibit discrimination and us denied services etc. but if the constitution does in fact grant us that protection why are the states still allowed to do it?

a reply to: Darth_Prime

It all comes down to the limited powers granted to government and the rights guaranteed to the people.

Governments cannot discriminate at any/all levels -- city, county, state, federal. This is the purpose of the 14th amendment. So any/all laws at any/all level must apply equally to all, and cannot be based on any/all religious beliefs. Therefore, any/all marriage laws must apply equally to heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, as the Supreme Court ruled.

However, such limitations apply to governments -- not individuals and the private sector, including businesses. The 1st Amendment guarantees our right to freedom of religion/conscience and the free exercise thereof... including the right not to participate/promote/provide for same-sex weddings if it is against our religion/conscience.

More generally, anti-discrimination laws and designating protected classes -- no matter how noble and well-intended, and ultimately beneficial to society as a whole -- also violate our rights to freedom of conscience/religion, freedom of association (both personally and in business), and creates a class of involuntary servants.

On the other hand, incorporation laws are NOT rights, and are whatever we make of them... we can make them a force for good, requiring corporations to honor and respect the same rights as the government granting them their incorporation charter... likewise, tax laws are not rights either, and are what we make of them... we can make them a force for good, rewarding those companies who voluntarily choose to serve the public without discrimination.

Does that make more sense?

originally posted by: Boadicea
My thanks to Ketsuko for posting this link in another thread...

The New Totalitarians Are Here

Totalitarians want their rule, and their belief system, to be accepted and self-sustaining - even if it takes bludgeoning every last citizen who disagrees.

In my sad experience, this article represents both sides in the same-sex marriage issue. And it will continue to be thus until both sides respect everyone's rights to freedom of conscience and religion.

There cannot be peace as long as there is force involved.

One is free to think what they will, but one cannot discriminate the supply of goods and services that will be used for lawful purposes.

A dollar is a dollar no matter where it comes from.

Let me put the shoe on the other foot for a moment.

You say you believe that everyone should be free to refuse business over moral conscience.

So, hypothetically a person known to me as a quite vocal and belligerent anti-gay Christian comes into my store and wants to buy goods from me.

As a gay person I find the messages this person spreads morally objectionable and I feel I don't want to sell anything to him because of my beliefs.

Is this okay too?

What if I'm just a bad person and I find the intellectually handicapped insufferable. Can I say no to them too?

Do you see where this is leading?

Any business that deals with the public HAS to put it's staff's personal beliefs and issues to the side and treat everyone as equals.

Read Mark 12 and the give Caesar what belongs to him story. It's good biblical advice on how to deal with money on a secular level.

a reply to: Boadicea

If the church were not a government sanctioned 501c non profit organization they wouldn't have to worry about any supposed infringements on their beliefs. If they were acting as the bride of Christ and not the whore of Babylon then there would be no issue. The gay couples that are trying to force churches to marry them would have no body to sue because it would be like trying to sue a group of friends who are taking a walk. No ministers would have to worry about staining their holy garments by affirming the love of two men because there is no such formal positions within the body of Christ. If christians would understand "my kingdom is not of this world" they wouldn't be trying to legislate morality. But if the church was actually the body of Christ none of this would be an issue because love is the legislation of the kingdom of heaven. This never would have been an issue in the first place.

Wow to you scribes and Pharisees you hypocrites woe to you pastors and theologians and bishops.

Eventually I see some governmental entity doing all the marrying of gay couples. I am sure many of the Christian leaders if not all will not perform marriage ceremony between same sex couple. The Christian leaders I know do not persecute individuals because of their beliefs. They do however preach against the act of homosexuality.

originally posted by: markosity1973
Let me put the shoe on the other foot for a moment.

You say you believe that everyone should be free to refuse business over moral conscience.

Yes, people have the right to freedom of conscience... if that means they feel that they cannot serve someone for whatever reason, so be it. That is our Constitutional right.

So, hypothetically a person known to me as a quite vocal and belligerent anti-gay Christian comes into my store and wants to buy goods from me.

As a gay person I find the messages this person spreads morally objectionable and I feel I don't want to sell anything to him because of my beliefs.

Is this okay too?

Of course!!! Just like this guy:

Stylist to anti-gay marriage governor: No haircut for you

What if I'm just a bad person and I find the intellectually handicapped insufferable. Can I say no to them too?

Yes, you can. I would then suggest you are the intellectually handicapped one for refusing good money from a paying customer, but whatever... They may even come to appreciate your refusal, as they find another merchant that isn't a complete jerk and will gladly serve them.

Do you see where this is leading?

Of course I do. Do you see where your path is heading? Once we give up our right to freedom of conscience -- and our freedom of choosing who and how we labor -- what else can and will someone force us to do? Can nurses be forced to kill people for death panels or death row? So what if she believes life is sacred and has dedicated her life to helping and healing... if the government wants her to use her skills to take lives instead, oh well! Can you imagine the mental and emotional hell that would cause? Would you want to inflict that on anyone? Because if we take away a person's right to freedom of conscience, people can and will be forced to do many things.

Any business that deals with the public HAS to put it's staff's personal beliefs and issues to the side and treat everyone as equals.

No, actually, they don't. People will find many ways to not serve certain people, or will provide substandard or downright shoddy service, or worse. It's free will. It's natural law. Which of course is why the force of law is being used to force people to act according to the will of others. I would much rather find ways to encourage -- and reward -- business owners to want to serve everyone, without silly discrimination, such as using the tax code or incorporation laws. Make it voluntary... but make it something they want to do. Likewise, find ways to encourage customers to do their business elsewhere -- let the free market put them out of business.

Read Mark 12 and the give Caesar what belongs to him story. It's good biblical advice on how to deal with money on a secular level.

I agree. Money comes from man... not God. But service/labor comes from the individual. The tax code comes from government, and can be used for good or ill. The incorporation laws come from government, and can be used for good or ill. Both serve government and big business very well presently. Let's make both serve the people instead.

Here is my bottom line: I have focused on Constitutional principles because it is (or should be) the foundation for all laws... because the rights guaranteed for each and every one of us protect and serve US -- you and me equally. But there are those who very much wish to do deny and/or fundamentally change our rights. For example:

Conservative lawmakers weigh bid to call for constitutional convention

List of state applications for an Article V Convention

You like the idea of making gay people a "protected class"... would you like it so much if the Conservatives have their way and amend the Constitution to make Christians a "protected class?" I sure wouldn't -- and I'm a Christian. The founding fathers sure didn't -- and they were mostly Christian also.

The problem with "protected classes" is that they are only protected as long as their protectors are in power. When that changes -- and it will -- they have no rights at all. Because it's a two-way street.

Might doesn't make right. We have better options. We can do better and still make sure everyone is provided for.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
Serious Question to anyone: Do Religious people believe in the constitution?

When it suits their needs, everyone believes in the constitution at some point.

Hey! Here I am!!!

Let's talk and discuss... not talk over and talk about. Please?

What?

I was not talking over or about anyone, I just made a simple comment in response to a question. Is it okay that I talk to people in this thread other than you?

a reply to: Boadicea

Everything that you said right here is spot on with what I think:

1. Marriage should be equally accessed by every consenting adult, and

2. Individuals or religious organizations should not be forced to perform marriage ceremonies if that particular marriage is against their right to practice their religion.

There are plenty of secular means of obtaining a marriage certificate.

Maybe it's time to have a heterosexual parade.

originally posted by: zardust
a reply to: Boadicea

If the church were not a government sanctioned 501c non profit organization they wouldn't have to worry about any supposed infringements on their beliefs.

No. If people weren't trying to force their will on others they wouldn't have to worry about infringements on their beliefs. 501c non-profit status does not require "infringement of your beliefs."

If they were acting as the bride of Christ and not the whore of Babylon then there would be no issue. The gay couples that are trying to force churches to marry them would have no body to sue because it would be like trying to sue a group of friends who are taking a walk. No ministers would have to worry about staining their holy garments by affirming the love of two men because there is no such formal positions within the body of Christ. If christians would understand "my kingdom is not of this world" they wouldn't be trying to legislate morality. But if the church was actually the body of Christ none of this would be an issue because love is the legislation of the kingdom of heaven. This never would have been an issue in the first place.

Again, no, if people were not trying to force their will on them, this would never have been an issue in the first place. I provided several examples of the church marrying gay couples over the last 2000 years. I provided specific denominations which today marry same-sex couples, and links to lists of more. There are already many Christian churches who gladly and willingly minister to and marry gay couples. No one has to force them, and they were neither enabled nor disabled by their 501c status. There is no need and no good reason for anyone to force their will on anyone.

"Woe to you scribes and Pharisees you hypocrites woe to you pastors and theologians and bishops.

Indeed, too many have forsaken the spirit of the law for the letter of the law. But we are no one's master. We do not have the right to force others to do our will. We do not have the right to force Christians to marry same-sex couples and we do not have the right to force Christians NOT to marry same-sex couples.

Might does not make right.

originally posted by: Ceeker63

Eventually I see some governmental entity doing all the marrying of gay couples. I am sure many of the Christian leaders if not all will not perform marriage ceremony between same sex couple.

There have always been Christians that perform same-sex ceremonies, as I wrote in the OP. I also specifically named several denominations that perform same-sex wedding services. I also provided links to lists of churches that provide same-sex ceremonies, even ones that exclusively cater to the LGBT community.

The Christian leaders I know do not persecute individuals because of their beliefs.

This is true in my experience as well, but then I don't know the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church... apparently you don't either!

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
Serious Question to anyone: Do Religious people believe in the constitution?

When it suits their needs, everyone believes in the constitution at some point.

Hey! Here I am!!!

Let's talk and discuss... not talk over and talk about. Please?

What?

I was not talking over or about anyone, I just made a simple comment in response to a question. Is it okay that I talk to people in this thread other than you?

My apologies -- of course you can. I guess I was a little antsy. Thanks for calling me out on it. I will have to do better in the future.

a reply to: Boadicea



No harm, no foul.

a reply to: KnightFire

See every Parade other than Pride...

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: KnightFire

See every Parade other than Pride...

LOL! I had that same thought!

But then I realized that I'll bet pretty much every parade has gay participants... we just don't know it because that's not what the parade is about! (Well, except pride parades) At least I wouldn't know it. I have absolutely no "gaydar." I don't know if that's good or bad?

a reply to: Boadicea

Now you I can respect

You are showing consistency in your point of view on discrimination and I would come round as far to say that I agree - it's all i.e. you can discriminate freely based upon belief and conscience without fear of legal action (I'm not sure how far things would devolve though) or nothing i.e. we are all forced to serve everyone.

Your view highlights an interesting cultural difference between our nations actually. Here where I live there are andtidiscrimination laws in effect that have been so for quite a few years. The view I take is already law here and to be honest, I hardly ever read of legal battles over it.

On a day to day basis I serve and deal with people I'd rather not, but I just get over it and understand that it's my job to harvest the money without bias for the financial viability of the company. Besides nobody can FORCE me to actually like or agree with them, There are plenty of times when I'm smiling and saying 'Yes' on the outside when I'm doing the primal scream and saying 'F$#% you" on the inside in my job.

SO, yes you can live honestly like you propose but in reality with the laws they way they are, people WILL sue. Or you can live a little dishonestly like we have to and put up a facade for the greater good and keeping that annoying SOB you just wanna slap happy in the hopes you'll make another dollar.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: KnightFire

See every Parade other than Pride...

You know what would be a hilariously ironic twist to all of this?

A Christian pride parade. I could just see it now - the opposite of Pride where the Christians are marching and the gays are picketing.

It of course would prove nothing more than we are both as bad as one another when it comes to giving freedom and respect to the other though.

a reply to: markosity1973

Like protesting a WestBoro funeral or something... yeah i wouldn't want to sink down to the level of people that show up at pride parades with signs and banners yelling at everyone