Today is a sad day in American history

[cb1000rider]

First, thanks for being willing to have a reasonable and objective discussion.. even if we disagree... Free of political spin.

Both what?

You can't have marriage be both a religious institution and a state institution and expect it to work. To do so inherently causes a conflict. Different churches differ on the rules around marriage. Catholics don't recognize 2nd marriages the way the state does, other denominations have different rules and restrictions. Besides, we're not an entirely Christian country.

You changed your position somewhat by speaking of "separate religion from the running of government." Originally, you use the buzz phrase "separation of church and state" and that phrase was not used by the founding fathers. The only thing the First Amendment intended was to prevent the United States from creating/mandating one single church as did England with the Church of England. It was never intended to allow atheists to thwart religion as is now the case.

I think the statements of "separate religion from running the government" and "separation of church and state" are somewhat indistinct. Our country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution. Religious persecution, at some level is people of a particular religious affiliation not granting the same rights as those who are not associated. I agree with you that there is nothing constitutional guaranteeing a separation of church and state, but I believe it is a fundamental principle.

Homosexuality is not a constitutionally protected class, so your attempt to harken back to racial issues fails.

There were no protected classes when the constitution was drafted. I think that fact validates my argument even more. The fact is that as we evolve as a country, the things that need protection change.

I'm an attorney and I know precisely what all citizens rights are in terms of currently available partnerships. Taxation is different in terms of the different marriage deduction for federal income tax purposes, but apparently you forgot about the so-called "marriage penalty" that actually penalized married couples.

No, I didn't forget. If you're an attorney, you're probably well educated and I can't imagine that you believe that same-sex couples have the exact same rights as married couples. A few examples:
Medicare
Surviorship benefits
Estate Tax
Gift benefits

I'll be honest with you, if I thought that there were equal options, I would have very little support for any sort of class-protection. Unfortunately, every time we try to make up alternate rules for some other class to be "fair" we do it incorrectly. And in this particular case, we're not even close to equality.

If you contend that those who support same-sex marriage in the gay community don't claim a "right" to marriage, then you are paying attention to their position. "Inherent fairness" is not a constitutional issue and that's why this decision is so dangerous.

I don't disagree that many claim a right to marry. You and I disagree on the root cause.
I'm indicating that I believe in most cases it stems from inequality. The same inequality that you're indicating doesn't exist.
You're indicating that it is rooted in social acceptance. That might be part of it, but it's certainly not a basis that I find very moving personally.

I don't make "my morality," and this is precisely the problem. When liberals and those supporting them argue that there is no "truth," no "right," and that each person should establish their own morality, then society is doomed. There is one morality, like it or not, accept it or not.

We all make our own morality to some degree. If personal morality was black and white, things would be a lot easier.
To me, this isn't an issue about a moral right.. I don't argue morality here. I argue equality. If I felt that there was civil equality and legal equality, then things would be different on my end.

I also could not disagree with you more on the issue of what our servicemen fought and died for in so many wars.
Chas.

I think they fought and died so we can have civil disagreements. So we can live in a country that is diversive in terms of belief system. So we can live in a country where the majority class doesn't try and exterminate a minority class, just because they judge themselves to be morally (or genetically) superior... And yea, I'm being dramatic, but in the past this country has a history of discriminating with great prejudice against unprotected minority citizens.

[2firfun50]

Hey folks, since this is a CHL Forum and this is a politcal thread, can we get back to CHL stuff? Our Governor has called another special session to start Monday and left all gun is issues off the call again.

The death of HB508 affects all of us a whole lot more than what the SCOTUS did today. Lets see what we can do regarding the "will of the people".

[The Annoyed Man]

Want a marriage policy that we call can agree on?
Marriage is a religious institution. One of the basic founding principles of our country is separation of church and state.
The government should get out of the marriage business. If they want to regulate something, they can regulate civil unions.
Churches get to regulate marriage and via that means, they can include or exclude whomever they want per moral doctrine.
Rights granted to citizens should not be predicated on marriage. They should be predicated on civil union. To do anything else results in some form of inequality and discrimination.

I can actually buy that. I think that gay marriage is icky and a sham, but as long as the state differentiates between the institution of marriage as a religious practice, and civil unions as a legal construct, I have don't have too much difficulty with it because I believe in the smallest possible of governments. If government keeps its nose out of marriage, that's about a half million fewer bureaucrats the taxpayer has to support.

However, I seriously doubt that Obama will be able to keep his hands off the churches. He promised that religious institutions who had a moral objection to paying for abortion would not have to, and then he turned right around and sicced his AG and HHS Sec. on the Roman Catholic Church for not wanting to pay for insurance that included abortion coverage.

I absolutely predict that before his term is over, he will sic the IRS on any church which will not perform gay marriage. That's his track record, and he's given me no reason to doubt him.

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."

--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Monsieur A. Coray, 1823

"[J]udges ... should be always men of learning and experience in the laws, of exemplary morals, great patience, calmness, coolness, and attention. Their minds should not be distracted with jarring interests; they should not be dependent upon any man, or body of men."

--John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

[mamabearCali]

Once a person accepts that they are living in a very large Sodom and Gomorrah understanding everything else that happens is much easier.

Obama is liar and I don't believe one word that comes out of his mouth. There is no way he won't use this to beat churches over the head. He swore up and down that he would not force christians to pay for abortions and yet here we are with the HHS mandate.

[baldeagle]

Our country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution.

Our country was founded by people fleeing a government that wouldn't allow them to freely practice their religion.

Religious persecution, at some level is people of a particular religious affiliation not granting the same rights as those who are not associated.

People don't grant rights to other people. People inherently have rights. To one degree or another, the governments under which they live either protect or do not protect those rights.

I agree with you that there is nothing constitutional guaranteeing a separation of church and state, but I believe it is a fundamental principle.

Our Constitution does not articulate fundamental principles. It articulates a form of government designed to protect the rights that people inherently have.

There were no protected classes when the constitution was drafted.

Really? Blacks didn't even have citizenship or protected rights.

I think that fact validates my argument even more. The fact is that as we evolve as a country, the things that need protection change.

Wrong. Fundamental rights never change. Things do not need protection. This is where so many people err. There is no right to privacy. The Supreme Court simply created one out of the "penumbra" of "emanations" being emitted by the Constitution. There is no right to an abortion. There is no right to marriage. The Supreme Court simply created these out of thin air. There is no right to adequate healthcare. There is no right to a decent education or a good job. These are not rights. They are privileges.

No, I didn't forget. If you're an attorney, you're probably well educated and I can't imagine that you believe that same-sex couples have the exact same rights as married couples. A few examples:
Medicare
Surviorship benefits
Estate Tax
Gift benefits

I'll be honest with you, if I thought that there were equal options, I would have very little support for any sort of class-protection. Unfortunately, every time we try to make up alternate rules for some other class to be "fair" we do it incorrectly. And in this particular case, we're not even close to equality.

Medicare, survivorship benefits, estate taxes and gift benefits are not rights. They are artificial distinctions in the law that grant privileges to certain classes of people that are not granted to other classes of people.

Where does the right to equality in marriage exist in the Constitution? What logical argument can you articulate after this ruling that prohibits polygyny, polyandry or polygamy given that now the Supreme Court has created this new right of marriage? Why should a person who seeks to marry a horse be denied his or her rights? You may think this is ridiculous, but it's coming. And now there is nothing in law to reject it. "Equality" must rule the day.

The reason governments pass laws that favor a particular class are many and varied. They may think protecting a certain class benefits society. They may have evil intentions and want to harm society. But nowhere in the Constitution is any class granted special favors or denied special favors. The true purpose of government is to protect our unalienable rights and provide for the common defense. Nothing more. Nothing less. All else is piffle.

I don't disagree that many claim a right to marry. You and I disagree on the root cause.
I'm indicating that I believe in most cases it stems from inequality. The same inequality that you're indicating doesn't exist.

There is no inequality. People who associate together (for whatever reason) have the right to enter into contractual obligations at any time for any reason. I could make you my heir, if I chose to. We don't need to be married to do that. I can grant you medical power of attorney. Or complete power of attorney.

We all make our own morality to some degree. If personal morality was black and white, things would be a lot easier.

A breathtaking statement. Is the punishment for murder a black and white issue? It's a moral judgment. What about rape? Can you articulate why it's wrong to rape not based on any morality? We make moral judgments in law all the time. If we did not, then there would be no justification at all for criminal prohibitions.

Why is it wrong for me to shoot you for no reason but right for you to shoot me in self defense? What makes one action acceptable and the other not? Moral judgments. Black and white moral judgments.

[baldeagle]

I am disappointed that this thread has gotten so far off track. If you go back and read my original post, it had nothing to do with gay marriage and everything to do with the elitist attitude of our Supreme Court Justices thinking that government officials are free to ignore any laws they disagree with. I'd appreciate it if we could get back on topic. This has serious implications to our gun rights. Basically the Court has ruled that government officials are free to impose anything they want on us by fiat and it will get their imprimatur.

[mamabearCali]

I am disappointed that this thread has gotten so far off track. If you go back and read my original post, it had nothing to do with gay marriage and everything to do with the elitist attitude of our Supreme Court Justices thinking that government officials are free to ignore any laws they disagree with. I'd appreciate it if we could get back on topic. This has serious implications to our gun rights. Basically the Court has ruled that government officials are free to impose anything they want on us by fiat and it will get their imprimatur.

Yes, that is the case. We are rapidly leaving the rule of law. It is a scary place to be.

[JALLEN]

Our country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution.

Our country was founded by people fleeing a government that wouldn't allow them to freely practice their religion.

Religious persecution, at some level is people of a particular religious affiliation not granting the same rights as those who are not associated.

People don't grant rights to other people. People inherently have rights. To one degree or another, the governments under which they live either protect or do not protect those rights.

I agree with you that there is nothing constitutional guaranteeing a separation of church and state, but I believe it is a fundamental principle.

Our Constitution does not articulate fundamental principles. It articulates a form of government designed to protect the rights that people inherently have.

There were no protected classes when the constitution was drafted.

Really? Blacks didn't even have citizenship or protected rights.

I think that fact validates my argument even more. The fact is that as we evolve as a country, the things that need protection change.

Wrong. Fundamental rights never change. Things do not need protection. This is where so many people err. There is no right to privacy. The Supreme Court simply created one out of the "penumbra" of "emanations" being emitted by the Constitution. There is no right to an abortion. There is no right to marriage. The Supreme Court simply created these out of thin air. There is no right to adequate healthcare. There is no right to a decent education or a good job. These are not rights. They are privileges.

No, I didn't forget. If you're an attorney, you're probably well educated and I can't imagine that you believe that same-sex couples have the exact same rights as married couples. A few examples:
Medicare
Surviorship benefits
Estate Tax
Gift benefits

I'll be honest with you, if I thought that there were equal options, I would have very little support for any sort of class-protection. Unfortunately, every time we try to make up alternate rules for some other class to be "fair" we do it incorrectly. And in this particular case, we're not even close to equality.

Medicare, survivorship benefits, estate taxes and gift benefits are not rights. They are artificial distinctions in the law that grant privileges to certain classes of people that are not granted to other classes of people.

Where does the right to equality in marriage exist in the Constitution? What logical argument can you articulate after this ruling that prohibits polygyny, polyandry or polygamy given that now the Supreme Court has created this new right of marriage? Why should a person who seeks to marry a horse be denied his or her rights? You may think this is ridiculous, but it's coming. And now there is nothing in law to reject it. "Equality" must rule the day.

The reason governments pass laws that favor a particular class are many and varied. They may think protecting a certain class benefits society. They may have evil intentions and want to harm society. But nowhere in the Constitution is any class granted special favors or denied special favors. The true purpose of government is to protect our unalienable rights and provide for the common defense. Nothing more. Nothing less. All else is piffle.

I don't disagree that many claim a right to marry. You and I disagree on the root cause.
I'm indicating that I believe in most cases it stems from inequality. The same inequality that you're indicating doesn't exist.

There is no inequality. People who associate together (for whatever reason) have the right to enter into contractual obligations at any time for any reason. I could make you my heir, if I chose to. We don't need to be married to do that. I can grant you medical power of attorney. Or complete power of attorney.

We all make our own morality to some degree. If personal morality was black and white, things would be a lot easier.

A breathtaking statement. Is the punishment for murder a black and white issue? It's a moral judgment. What about rape? Can you articulate why it's wrong to rape not based on any morality? We make moral judgments in law all the time. If we did not, then there would be no justification at all for criminal prohibitions.

Why is it wrong for me to shoot you for no reason but right for you to shoot me in self defense? What makes one action acceptable and the other not? Moral judgments. Black and white moral judgments.

Many values expressed in our "morals" are not universally shared in all cultures. Look at the many peculiar values we hear about in Islamic cultures.

A good part of the controversy stems from what I am more and more regarding as a serious problem, the idea that all the various cultures and religions and races are be melded together for good. "Out of many, one!" We do not share common values, common manners, common religion to any remarkable degree. In many countries, all speaking the same language, almost all of the same religious background, the social and cultural norms are more obvious, less variable, more enforceable. Why must we live in a multicultural environment? What good is that?

I don't see any advantage to it frankly and lots of conflict, tension, unease, violence and worse.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Our country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution.

Our country was founded by people fleeing a government that wouldn't allow them to freely practice their religion.

Religious persecution, at some level is people of a particular religious affiliation not granting the same rights as those who are not associated.

People don't grant rights to other people. People inherently have rights. To one degree or another, the governments under which they live either protect or do not protect those rights.

I agree with you that there is nothing constitutional guaranteeing a separation of church and state, but I believe it is a fundamental principle.

Our Constitution does not articulate fundamental principles. It articulates a form of government designed to protect the rights that people inherently have.

There were no protected classes when the constitution was drafted.

Really? Blacks didn't even have citizenship or protected rights.

I think that fact validates my argument even more. The fact is that as we evolve as a country, the things that need protection change.

Wrong. Fundamental rights never change. Things do not need protection. This is where so many people err. There is no right to privacy. The Supreme Court simply created one out of the "penumbra" of "emanations" being emitted by the Constitution. There is no right to an abortion. There is no right to marriage. The Supreme Court simply created these out of thin air. There is no right to adequate healthcare. There is no right to a decent education or a good job. These are not rights. They are privileges.

No, I didn't forget. If you're an attorney, you're probably well educated and I can't imagine that you believe that same-sex couples have the exact same rights as married couples. A few examples:
Medicare
Surviorship benefits
Estate Tax
Gift benefits

I'll be honest with you, if I thought that there were equal options, I would have very little support for any sort of class-protection. Unfortunately, every time we try to make up alternate rules for some other class to be "fair" we do it incorrectly. And in this particular case, we're not even close to equality.

Medicare, survivorship benefits, estate taxes and gift benefits are not rights. They are artificial distinctions in the law that grant privileges to certain classes of people that are not granted to other classes of people.

Where does the right to equality in marriage exist in the Constitution? What logical argument can you articulate after this ruling that prohibits polygyny, polyandry or polygamy given that now the Supreme Court has created this new right of marriage? Why should a person who seeks to marry a horse be denied his or her rights? You may think this is ridiculous, but it's coming. And now there is nothing in law to reject it. "Equality" must rule the day.

The reason governments pass laws that favor a particular class are many and varied. They may think protecting a certain class benefits society. They may have evil intentions and want to harm society. But nowhere in the Constitution is any class granted special favors or denied special favors. The true purpose of government is to protect our unalienable rights and provide for the common defense. Nothing more. Nothing less. All else is piffle.

I don't disagree that many claim a right to marry. You and I disagree on the root cause.
I'm indicating that I believe in most cases it stems from inequality. The same inequality that you're indicating doesn't exist.

There is no inequality. People who associate together (for whatever reason) have the right to enter into contractual obligations at any time for any reason. I could make you my heir, if I chose to. We don't need to be married to do that. I can grant you medical power of attorney. Or complete power of attorney.

We all make our own morality to some degree. If personal morality was black and white, things would be a lot easier.

A breathtaking statement. Is the punishment for murder a black and white issue? It's a moral judgment. What about rape? Can you articulate why it's wrong to rape not based on any morality? We make moral judgments in law all the time. If we did not, then there would be no justification at all for criminal prohibitions.

Why is it wrong for me to shoot you for no reason but right for you to shoot me in self defense? What makes one action acceptable and the other not? Moral judgments. Black and white moral judgments.

Many values expressed in our "morals" are not universally shared in all cultures. Look at the many peculiar values we hear about in Islamic cultures.

A good part of the controversy stems from what I am more and more regarding as a serious problem, the idea that all the various cultures and religions and races are be melded together for good. "Out of many, one!" We do not share common values, common manners, common religion to any remarkable degree. In many countries, all speaking the same language, almost all of the same religious background, the social and cultural norms are more obvious, less variable, more enforceable. Why must we live in a multicultural environment? What good is that?

I don't see any advantage to it frankly and lots of conflict, tension, unease, violence and worse.

Chas.

[talltex]

Want a marriage policy that we call can agree on?
Marriage is a religious institution. One of the basic founding principles of our country is separation of church and state.
The government should get out of the marriage business. If they want to regulate something, they can regulate civil unions.
Churches get to regulate marriage and via that means, they can include or exclude whomever they want per moral doctrine.
Rights granted to citizens should not be predicated on marriage. They should be predicated on civil union. To do anything else results in some form of inequality and discrimination.

Well said.

I have always said that we will do much better as Christians (I work in a church) to live out what marriage is rather than tell others what it is not. I know it is not as simple as that, but it sure starts with living our lives the way we desire others to live.

The government should recognize civil unions, regardless of what religious affiliation, if any, that the two people profess. They should not be in the business of defining what constitues a marriage legally. Remove the legal status of marriage itself, and simply view it as an accepted form of civil union, and let the various religious groups and denominations set their own rules for themselves that are separate from legal status. Even among Protestant Christians there are many varying viewpoints on this, and almost any other social issue, based on doctrinal differences and Scriptural interpretations. That is why we have all the various denominations...because they can't agree on certain issues, and each group's Theologians are adamant that their interpretation is the correct one. My wife graduated from Seminary with a M.Div. degree. To do so she had to attend a different denominational Seminary rather than a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod Seminary (we are members of an LCMS Church), because the LCMS doesn't allow women to attain that degree in their Seminary, or to serve as Pastor. The ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church America), along with Presbyterian and Methodist denominations do allow women to serve as Pastors. They all profess the same basic Christian beliefs, but differ on certain issues. My point is, if all these Christian denominations can't even agree on something as basic as equal status of men and women, why should they be defining the legal definition of marriage for the government. Whether this country was founded on Christian principles or not, the fact remains, that not all Christians have the same principles.

[chuckybrown]

Tick tick tick .....

Anygunanywhere

yup.......

[Cedar Park Dad]

Want a marriage policy that we call can agree on?
Marriage is a religious institution. One of the basic founding principles of our country is separation of church and state.
The government should get out of the marriage business. If they want to regulate something, they can regulate civil unions.
Churches get to regulate marriage and via that means, they can include or exclude whomever they want per moral doctrine.
Rights granted to citizens should not be predicated on marriage. They should be predicated on civil union. To do anything else results in some form of inequality and discrimination.

Well said.

I have always said that we will do much better as Christians (I work in a church) to live out what marriage is rather than tell others what it is not. I know it is not as simple as that, but it sure starts with living our lives the way we desire others to live.

Agreed.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Marriage is both a spiritual status recognized and held sacred by God, and a legal status recognized by the state. Property rights, child custody and support and other matters are determined by the legal status of marriage.

There's no need for so-called domestic partnerships; that's just a euphemism for marriage, just as "a matter of choice" is a euphemism for baby-killing. Anyone can set up a partnership to establish property rights, rights of survivorship, etc. That's been possible since before Texas became a state. The simple truth is people who support same-sex marriage don't merely want "rights," they want society to recognize them as being a married couple just as we do a man and a woman.

Chas.

If you only need to be recognized by a religion then, at least two major US religions affirm gay marriage.
Another one has no problem with polygamous marriage, and its membership is what, one billion people now.

If religion is your argument thats fine, but be careful what you wish for.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Hey folks, since this is a CHL Forum and this is a politcal thread, can we get back to CHL stuff? Our Governor has called another special session to start Monday and left all gun is issues off the call again.

The death of HB508 affects all of us a whole lot more than what the SCOTUS did today. Lets see what we can do regarding the "will of the people".

Agreed. He can call a special session for one thing that wasn't a pending issue for anyone, but not for the pending CHL legislation? Remember this come primary and election time.

[Beiruty]

In Lebanon, Marriage, Divorce and inheritance are Religious issues, handled by recognized religious courts with their own judges.