A way forwarded (Obergefell)

[Truth in love]

You haven't looked hard enough.

Well point me to something.
I've found many references to various levels of acceptance on homosexual behaviors (virtually forced in Greece at one point), but nothing outside of the last few decades of a society calling it a marriage

 

[Truth in love]

It has much to do with procreation, but since sex is not just for procreation in our species, it shouldn't be the main criteria.

I'm not saying that it is. What I am saying is that when we have a very clear established norm (not like green for go that's been around a hundred or so years), but things almost as fundamental is basic math or written language to have the courts willy nilly change it is wrong. Any such change needs to be via congress and maybe a constitutional amendment. Not 5 or even 6 bypassing the constitutional protections of the land.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As for religious rights. Their right to live and function is harmed when someone uses the government to try to force them to violate their beliefs or face punishment.

It's not your right to dictate how society functions.

Why would it be a second class right?

It's not. But others are not second class citizens and you do not get to decide--especially based on your religion--how society functions and what rights apply to who. The Ninth forbids it.

As far as nose the right to freedom of religion comes long before imagined rights to micro manage a persons life. So may I suggest you stop hitting people on the nose and then insisting that they did wrong.

Having to share society isn't hitting you on the noise. Not getting to decide who can have what rights isn't hitting you on the nose.

Actually sin is sin. Not everyone understands it, but its a thing and accepted far more widely than my religious beliefs.

Sin only applies to those who accept it. I left those shackles and burdens behind many years ago.
I am without sin. Your religion doesn't get to dictate my morality and it doesn't get to tell the world what is right and wrong. Only those who believe in sin can sin. For everyone else it's probably something harmless, and if an action does harm another this petty god can bugger off because I didn't harm him. I will make amends with those I wrong.
I am without sin.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well point me to something.
I've found many references to various levels of acceptance on homosexual behaviors (virtually forced in Greece at one point), but nothing outside of the last few decades of a society calling it a marriage

https://web.archive.org/web/2019080...m/2011/04/grave-of-stone-age-transsexual.html

a unique late Stone Age grave of a transsexual or gay man — dating from between 2500-2800 BC and the era of the so-called Corded Ware culture in the Czech Republic. Speculation about the sexual orientation of the buried man was sparked by the unorthodox positions in which his skeleton was found...
...
Whereas male skeletons from that culture are usually found buried on their right side with their heads facing the East, this grave in Terronská Street in Prague 6 is interred on its left side with the head facing the West, the traditional position for female burials. An oval, egg-shaped container usually associated with female burials was also found at the feet of the skeleton. None of the telltale objects that usually accompany male burials — such as weapons, stone battle axes and flint knives — were found in the grave.
...
Semrádová added that a woman buried as a man — because she was probably a warrior — had been found in the Czech Republic dating from the third century BC.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

have a very clear established norm (not like green for go that's been around a hundred or so years), but things almost as fundamental is basic math or written language

Modern English hasn't even been uniform for that long. Languages are in a state of constant, amd in some areas rapid, change.

 

[Truth in love]

It's not your right to dictate how society functions.

It's not. But others are not second class citizens and you do not get to decide--especially based on your religion--how society functions and what rights apply to who. The Ninth forbids it.

Having to share society isn't hitting you on the noise. Not getting to decide who can have what rights isn't hitting you on the nose.

Sin only applies to those who accept it. I left those shackles and burdens behind many years ago.
I am without sin. Your religion doesn't get to dictate my morality and it doesn't get to tell the world what is right and wrong. Only those who believe in sin can sin. For everyone else it's probably something harmless, and if an action does harm another this petty god can bugger off because I didn't harm him. I will make amends with those I wrong.
I am without sin.

Your right its not my decision. The decision was made by the founding fathers to expressly protect many vital human rights.

My religion does not dictate your morality. I do however refuse to accept that you get to limit someone else from living by theirs.

Where do you get the power to prohibit their freedom of religion?

 

[Truth in love]

Grave of stone age transsexual excavated in Prague - The Archaeology News Network

While interesting and suggestive of at least a non traditional life style (although a mistake can't be ruled out) I see nothing about homosexual marriage there.

 

[Truth in love]

Modern English hasn't even been uniform for that long. Languages are in a state of constant, amd in some areas rapid, change.

Yes, but where did the federal government get the power to redefine something when the constitution does not list it as one of their powers and prohibits them anything not listed?

 

[fantome profane]

Yes, but where did the federal government get the power to redefine something when the constitution does not list it as one of their powers and prohibits them anything not listed?

Legislatures define things for legal purposes. They do that all the time. Your legislature defined legal marriage in the first place. They define what murder is, what littering is, what an automobile is.

(btw, did you know a bumblebee is a fish?)

 

[Truth in love]

Legislatures define things for legal purposes. They do that all the time. Your legislature defined legal marriage in the first place. They define what murder is, what littering is, what an automobile is.

(btw, did you know a bumblebee is a fish?)

LOl saw that a little while ago.

But back to the point. The State have several restrictions on what they can do, but in theory can do pretty much anything else. The Federal government has a short list of what it can legally do. Everything else is banned.

Also the redefining was not by congress it was done by a court. So the court opinion in this case messed up twice. As I stated in the OP I'm for an effective lawful solution to a challenging situation.

 

[fantome profane]

Also the redefining was not by congress it was done by a court. So the court opinion in this case messed up twice. As I stated in the OP I'm for an effective lawful solution to a challenging situation.

My mistake. But in my defence I am from another country, one where same sex marriage became legal through an act of parliament.

But still, it is the courts job to interpret laws. And if that court interpreted the word marriage, that is their job, that is what they are there for.


This is not the first time I have had to explain this on this board. Words have different meanings in different context. A word can mean one thing in a legal context, a different meaning in the context of your religion, another meaning in the context of electrical engineering and yet another meaning in the context of ketchup.

What is the problem?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, but where did the federal government get the power to redefine something when the constitution does not list it as one of their powers and prohibits them anything not listed?

Haven't heard of them doing so.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Where do you get the power to prohibit their freedom of religion?

The Supreme Court. Like when the said religious people can bugger off when it comes to racial segregation and interracial marriages, and even with alcohol.

 

[Truth in love]

My mistake. But in my defence I am from another country, one where same sex marriage became legal through an act of parliament.

But still, it is the courts job to interpret laws. And if that court interpreted the word marriage, that is their job, that is what they are there for.


This is not the first time I have had to explain this on this board. Words have different meanings in different context. A word can mean one thing in a legal context, a different meaning in the context of your religion, another meaning in the context of electrical engineering and yet another meaning in the context of ketchup.

What is the problem?

In this case the change to the word marriage meant that peoples religious rights were violated as they faced government mandates to do something they felt was morally abhorrent.

This despite the express protection for religious liberty in our Constitution.

 

[Truth in love]

Haven't heard of them doing so.

That is what was done in Obergefll. Marriage was changed from its standing cultural and legal meanings to be something very different. This difference was then misused to harm others.

 

[Truth in love]

The Supreme Court. Like when the said religious people can bugger off when it comes to racial segregation and interracial marriages, and even with alcohol.

Not a power they possess in this case.

Now on the issue of race the 14th (I think) amendment gave the feds the power to deal with some race issues. But any law the interferes with religious freedom is null a void.

 

[fantome profane]

In this case the change to the word marriage meant that peoples religious rights were violated as they faced government mandates to do something they felt was morally abhorrent.

This despite the express protection for religious liberty in our Constitution.

How?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not a power they possess in this case.

Yes, they do, as it is enforcing the 9th Amendment. You can't grant privileges and rights to one group and deny them to another.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That is what was done in Obergefll. Marriage was changed from its standing cultural and legal meanings to be something very different. This difference was then misused to harm others.

It doesn't harm others. It doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights. Period.

 

[Truth in love]

How?

Richland Florist Sued Over Religious Refusal For Service to Gay Wedding Ends Legal Battle

One of many people whose ability to provide for themselves and live by their beliefs(I would argue two of the most fendemental human rights) was endangered by people trying to force them to violate their values.