Gay and Lesbian Marriage....

[packsaddle]

And less than one year has passed and look at all the changes. BSA membership policy. Supreme Court decisions. Wow.

[st0ut717]

Questions for the group - is marriage an inalienable right. If it is an inalienable right, does a majority have a right to vote to take away an inalienable right from a minority? If it is not an inalienable right, then what is it?

 

Yes marriage is an inalienable right but the minority hasn't had any rights taken away at all. Those who identify as homosexuals can marry -- that is, homosexual men can marry women and homosexual women can marry men.

Do you understand the meaning of inalienable?

[st0ut717]

The same argument was used to defend laws against mixed race marriages, and it didn't work.

 

Except that marriage is between one man and one woman by definition, not one black man and one black woman, or one white man and one white woman. Still, the State still has authority to regulate marriage within certain parameters, such as criminalizing incest (which laws differ from State to State).

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

 

The State (read Govt )does not have the right to deny an individual the pursuit of happiness.

[st0ut717]

 

 

Generally speaking, state legislatures decide marriage laws, including which of the very small number of human relationships are eligible for marriage.

 

It's true that the USSC ruled that state legislatures couldn't restrict marriage between races. It's also true that some state Supreme Courts have decided that their state can't restrict marriage to people of different sexes.

 

But in general, marriage laws are decided by law by the political branches of government.

 

That also means that legislatures can change such rules if they wish to do so. The legislature in Washington State passed a law approving gay marriage, which has been challenged by a referendum. So the issue will be up to the voters to decide in November.

 

If the voters decide to approve gay marriage, that will be the law of the land. If the voters turn it down, it will continue to be prohibited.

No voters cannot make laws that are unconstitutional

[st0ut717]

OK why the hate? How does this effect boy scouts at all? How does a gay couple getting married (I.e. able to sign a person as life insurance beneficiary sign as spouse for hospital documents etc..) How does this impact your life? your son? If it make a couple happy to say they love each other great.

 

Would you stop your son from helping a gay or lesbian if they needed first aid?

 

If you would stop a gay from the right to be happy (Delcaration of Independence) you also would support the right to revoke any other right as declared in the Bill of rights. That includes the 2nd.

 

 

 

[Kahuna]

There are valid reasons, pro and con, why gay marriage is or is not good for society. However, what we are obviously seeing is a very rapid change in public opinion in favor of allowing gays the same privileges in society as others.

[Stosh]

Allowing homosexual marriages privileges is not the same as granting them marriage recognition. It's a law-of-the-land legal term, and that never was and never will be any sort of ethical/moral determination. A marriage by law is nothing more than a partnership contract in which certain economic/financial benefits can be acquired. People can call it anything they want but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... Yeah, it's pretty easy to see through the double-speak. People can have all sorts of legal partnership contracts and they do so for a myriad of reasons, none of which are determined by any moral or ethical considerations. So my buddy and I in Colorado are going to open up a strip-club where we serve booze and pot and then expand into Nevada and add prostitution. We're gonna make a ton of money.

 

For the first 88 years of US existence the country allowed slavery, even at the onset it's ethical and moral stance was questioned. But for expedience sake, the founding fathers allowed it so that the southern states would join in the revolution. History is a never ending litany of such practices, why would the future be any different? The more politicized the process becomes, the less any sort of ethics/morality come into play.

 

As far as the US government stepping on religious toes? There's nothing new here, just ask the residents of Utah, who had to give up their religious freedoms to become a state in the Union.

 

Originally in the founding documents the government was to stay out of a person's religion, now it seems perfectly normal to persecute certain religions. This is why people left Europe hundreds of years ago, the world has come full circle and we're right back where we started. Aren't the citizens of this nation as upset with the political world of Washington as they were with the political world of King George III?

 

Those who don't learn from history are destined to relive it.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

What persecution of certain religions?

[moosetracker]

Sorry I don't buy the "I am persecuted, because I can't interfere and force my religious beliefs into the lives of others that I don't even personally know, and I am not free to persecute whom I deem worthy of my persecution". That argument just doesn't fly..

[Peregrinator]

Questions for the group - is marriage an inalienable right. If it is an inalienable right, does a majority have a right to vote to take away an inalienable right from a minority? If it is not an inalienable right, then what is it?

 

Yes marriage is an inalienable right but the minority hasn't had any rights taken away at all. Those who identify as homosexuals can marry -- that is, homosexual men can marry women and homosexual women can marry men.

@st0ut717 - yes, I do. I believe the first paragraph in my message above was initially a quote from someone else.

[ghjim]

Sorry I don't buy the "I am persecuted, because I can't interfere and force my religious beliefs into the lives of others that I don't even personally know, and I am not free to persecute whom I deem worthy of my persecution". That argument just doesn't fly..

I have never understood this either. The religious in America view themselves as persecuted when they can't appoint or award themselves authority over others.

[Sentinel947]

Sorry I don't buy the "I am persecuted, because I can't interfere and force my religious beliefs into the lives of others that I don't even personally know, and I am not free to persecute whom I deem worthy of my persecution". That argument just doesn't fly..

ghjim, I'd argue that Catholic groups are being persecuted. "Your morality shouldn't govern me" So does that mean States won't sue Catholic Adoption agencies when they refuse to adopt children to gay or lesbian couples? Considering Illinois already tried to force Catholic agencies to do so, I think the answer is pretty clear.

 

What about Obamacare forcing religious employers like Hospitals to provide insurance coverage to employees for services that are against the doctrines and beliefs of the institution. Alot of Liberals and Conservatives claim they don't want to legislate Morality onto other people, but they always do. If you look through history it's a constant.

 

Understandably many Christians who scream about being persecuted are just putting on an act, but that only makes it harder to cry foul when things actually happen, like what I mentioned above.

 

There are two Catholic doctrines that prevail in these debates, and it causes the Catholic Church to do what it does. Perhaps, while it will never change any of your minds, it will provide a little bit of insight, and the bigotry and persecution card will stop getting dropped.

 

First "Love thy neighbor" Means to Catholics that we have duty to protect our neighbors from sin. That whether or not they know it is or not, if we stand by and do nothing, we have allowed them to damn themselves.

 

Which brings me to the second, if one is aware of sins, or other evils being committed, and does nothing, then they are complicit in those evils.

 

NOW: that doesn't mean that all Catholics do this all the time. And as we've seen with clerical abuse, it gets ignored sometimes. But that doesn't change the doctrines of the Church, and it dooms the Church to fighting gay marriage down to the very end.

 

 

 

That all being said, I was pleased to see DOMA get struck down. and Proposition 8. Less because of gay marriage being validated than the fact that governments can't use marriage law as a way to discriminate against people they don't like, and that should be something everyone can get behind.

 

 

 

Sentinel947

[Rick_in_CA]

Sorry I don't buy the "I am persecuted, because I can't interfere and force my religious beliefs into the lives of others that I don't even personally know, and I am not free to persecute whom I deem worthy of my persecution". That argument just doesn't fly..

Sentinel947, my understanding of the issue with the Catholic Adoption agencies in Illinois, was that the Catholic agencies were providing contracted services to the state, and being paid with state funds. Which gives the state the ability to set the conditions of service in those contracts. This has nothing to do with religious discrimination, it has to do with the state not allowing it's contractors to discriminate in providing the contracted services. So the Catholic Adoption agencies decided to end the contracts and stop providing the contracted services (adoption).

[walk in the woods]

OK why the hate? How does this effect boy scouts at all? How does a gay couple getting married (I.e. able to sign a person as life insurance beneficiary sign as spouse for hospital documents etc..) How does this impact your life? your son? If it make a couple happy to say they love each other great.

 

Would you stop your son from helping a gay or lesbian if they needed first aid?

 

If you would stop a gay from the right to be happy (Delcaration of Independence) you also would support the right to revoke any other right as declared in the Bill of rights. That includes the 2nd.

 

 

Dude, put the hate card away. It's tiresome, cowardly and a really poor ad hominem attack. If you want to debate the issues then debate, stop the personal attacks. Just because somebody disagrees with you it doesn't make them a hater. Are you a hater of children when you tell them no? Or is that coming from a place of concern and love? Just asking.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Sorry I don't buy the "I am persecuted, because I can't interfere and force my religious beliefs into the lives of others that I don't even personally know, and I am not free to persecute whom I deem worthy of my persecution". That argument just doesn't fly..

Rick_in_CA is right -- those Catholic agencies could have continued to offer adoption services too, just not using public funding, but they decided to close down completely instead.

 

And the insurance issue is bogus; otherwise, working for a Jehovah's Witness could mean you aren't covered for blood transfusions. A Christian Science employer could give you no medical coverage at all. Why should employees have to follow their employers' religious views on medical treatment?