I don't find it acceptable, but it is your right to marry someone of the opposite gender even if you don't love them in a deep sense. Since the people conducting the marriage can't read minds, I don't see any workaround.
Now it is if you don't love in a deep sense, the original statement was not loving them. You promoting duplicity on the part of one of the partners of the marriage, and how far would want to see the duplicity go, as far as Volos explained beccasue that is what you are stating.
Well I don't see that there needs to be a "workaround". There is NO LEGAL reaosn to deny Gays equal rights under the law.
__________________ "America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves – if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?
This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time – to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth – that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people:
Yes We Can. "
President Barack Obama To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"This is not true under current law (although in the past it might have been true). Current legal interpretations are governed by the Lemon Test (after the Supreme Court decision of Lemon vs. Kurtzman, 1971).
The Lemon Test is a 3 part test which determines whether a law impermissibly mixes Church and State:
(i) a statute [or public policy] must have a secular legislative purpose
(ii) the principal effect of of the statute [or policy] must neither advance nor inhibit religion
(iii) the statute [or policy] must not foster "excessive [government] entanglement with religion"
Under the Lemon Test, your example fails section (i), since it does not have a secular legislative purpose, but is based upon a religion. It would probably fail section (ii) as well, since a government making a law based on a prophecy of one particular religion, or the religious feelings of one particular religion, could quite possibly be seen as a government endorsement of that religion."
While the examples I have given are admittedly somewhat abstract and unrealistic, it simply is not the case that matters are in practice as cut and dry as you would have us believe, and I know that this irritates you to no end.
In this country we can create and enact policy, for example, either for eliminating the death penalty or for allowing the death penalty based on our religious beliefs. The policy simply must not make reference to religious belief. If you think for a moment that the voting of many of our policy makers is not tremendously informed by - among others things - religious belief, then you simply are detached from the reality of the process of governing.
There is no practically enforcable means by which you can prevent this from occuring, because the legislation does not reference religious belief and plausibly is not tied exclusively with it. This was one of the complications in recent "teaching of evolution" cases.
Similarly in the case of something as profoud as the congress providing for the declaration of war, it simply is the case that there are no practically enforcable tests or measures to constrain the right of a policy maker to vote for a policy having consulted whatever system of values he or she subscribes to short of bribery.
If it happened that by some chance a majority of our elected policy makers came to be of the same persuasion as certain extremist jews, there simply is no practically enforceable measures to prevent these policy makers from authorizing war on palestinians in support of Israel. Yes, they can be recalled by whatever means a state provides, but little else of any practical effect.
The government simply does not function how you would ideally would like it to, and in cases such as these if you disagree there is presently nothing of any practical effect you can do except to vote and influence the voting of others.
Now it is if you don't love in a deep sense, the original statement was not loving them. You promoting duplicity on the part of one of the partners of the marriage, and how far would want to see the duplicity go, as far as Volos explained beccasue that is what you are stating.
Well I don't see that there needs to be a "workaround". There is NO LEGAL reaosn to deny Gays equal rights under the law.
The workaround was applicable to any people getting married who weren't 'really' in love. It wasn't intended to be homosexual specific, lots of hetrosexuals create 'fake' marriages in Las Vegas for example.
Incidently, I've noticed a flaw in my reasoning that interracial relationships would be covered by equal protection, but homosexual relationships wouldn't. Since men can only marry women and women can only marry men, the law isn't being applied equally and thus according to my logic homosexual 'marriages' would fall under equal protection. That doesn't change my position really, but it does make moot that particular argument.
In the case of homosexuals the application is the same, they can marry exactly the same people that everyone else can marry who happens to be of their gender. What you're arguing is that people have a right to marry someone they are sexually attracted to, assuming that person is available. That is another right altogether, not an instance of not equal protection.
That is exactly the point.
Richard and Mildred Loving had the right to marry someone of their respective races but not the right to marry each other.
You would claim that the laws preventing the legal recognition of their marriage was not discrimination because they had to right to marry someone else (but not each other)
Mildred and Richard Loving argued that they had the right to marry someone they loved (and were attracted to). Despite your claims that they really did not have this right the supreme couurt ruled that denying the Loving’s right to marry each other was a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
I don't see this as an equal protection issue. Everyone has the right to marry another unmarried person of the opposite gender. The same rights and their corresponding protections apply to everyone.
<the voice of David Duke is being transmitted through the broken filling in Überlutheran's lower left jaw>
Blacks are always free to marry blacks.
Asians are always free to marry Asians.
Mexicans are always free to marry Mexicans.
Jews are always free to marry Jews.
Catholics are always free to marry Catholics.
I don't see where the white, Christian race has any obligation to mix itself or mongrelize itself with these other so-called "people".
That does it. I'm making a dental appointment to get this filling fixed, tomorrrow.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Maude is back!
“What did Liberals do that was so offensive…I’ll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-American the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things... every one.
"So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor."
You know where the [REPORT] button is. Here are the CF To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . If you would like to report me for something, please refer to them, citing my quote and the rule broken. Be creative! To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"This is not true under current law (although in the past it might have been true). Current legal interpretations are governed by the Lemon Test (after the Supreme Court decision of Lemon vs. Kurtzman, 1971).
The Lemon Test is a 3 part test which determines whether a law impermissibly mixes Church and State:
(i) a statute [or public policy] must have a secular legislative purpose
(ii) the principal effect of of the statute [or policy] must neither advance nor inhibit religion
(iii) the statute [or policy] must not foster "excessive [government] entanglement with religion"
Under the Lemon Test, your example fails section (i), since it does not have a secular legislative purpose, but is based upon a religion. It would probably fail section (ii) as well, since a government making a law based on a prophecy of one particular religion, or the religious feelings of one particular religion, could quite possibly be seen as a government endorsement of that religion."
While the examples I have given are admittedly somewhat abstract and unrealistic, it simply is not the case that matters are in practice as cut and dry as you would have us believe, and I know that this irritates you to no end.
Not at all. It does irritate me that some people can think that they can legislate solely religious values.
There wouldn't BE a Lemon Test if it wasn't for the fact that many jurisdictions have attempted to legislate based solely on religious mores (and many continue to, hence its reapplication many times over the past 30 or so years since it became precedent).
In this country we can create and enact policy, for example, either for eliminating the death penalty or for allowing the death penalty based on our religious beliefs. The policy simply must not make reference to religious belief. If you think for a moment that the voting of many of our policy makers is not tremendously informed by - among others things - religious belief, then you simply are detached from the reality of the process of governing.
You missed the point. It is perfectly legal for a law to agree with the tenets of a religion, however that law must have a purely secular reason for existance as well. In the case of the death penalty, for example, it can be argued that certain crimes merit death as both a) a just punishment for the crime committed, b) that society as a whole is better off and safer with the criminal who committed these crimes dead, and c) that the punishment of particularly heinous crimes with death may serve as a deterrant to others committing the same crime.
Note: I'm actually against the death penalty, mostly for its finality - if you execute someone who later turns out to be innocent (and enough people on Death Row get exonerated that this has almost certainly happened), there is no way to recompense them. And this of course, is an argument used by many of those against the death penalty, along with arguing that points a-c in support I listed above are flawed. It's important to note that on BOTH sides of the issue, the reasoning is both purely secular, and highly relevent to the issue - whether or not the legislators themselves are (and I know many, if not the majority are) influenced very strongly in the direction of their vote by their religion.
It would NOT be legal to create a death penalty solely because your religion, or anyone else's, believed that it was just for religious reasons.
There is no practically enforcable means by which you can prevent this from occuring, because the legislation does not reference religious belief and plausibly is not tied exclusively with it. This was one of the complications in recent "teaching of evolution" cases.
Similarly in the case of something as profoud as the congress providing for the declaration of war, it simply is the case that there are no practically enforcable tests or measures to constrain the right of a policy maker to vote for a policy having consulted whatever system of values he or she subscribes to short of bribery.
The test would be if they had referenced a secular reason, and that reason did indeed give a strong reason for the law, statute, or policy to exist. You can't create a law without citing the reason why the law should exist.
If it happened that by some chance a majority of our elected policy makers came to be of the same persuasion as certain extremist jews, there simply is no practically enforceable measures to prevent these policy makers from authorizing war on palestinians in support of Israel. Yes, they can be recalled by whatever means a state provides, but little else of any practical effect.
The government simply does not function how you would ideally would like it to, and in cases such as these if you disagree there is presently nothing of any practical effect you can do except to vote and influence the voting of others.
Never claimed that it did. However, under the Lemon test, I haven't seen ANY arguments against homosexual marriages that can cite a valid reason other than religious mores for denying them that right.
Everyone has the right to marry a person of their own race:interracial marriage being legalized::everyone has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex::gay marriage
It is a good analogy.
Homosexuals are not allowed to marry the consenting adult partner of their choice. Heterosexuals are. It seems as though the country is moving towards allowing gays and lesbians this right and I could NOT be happier.
__________________ "The Georgia Board of Education decided this week to continue to allow the use of the word "evolution" in biology classes. As a compromise, dinosaurs will now be known as 'Jesus horses.'"
--Weekend Update
datan, you have stated often that homosexuality is a sin. Tell me why homosexuality is wrong but lying is not or at least better than being a homosexual.
both are wrong.
but no one pretends that lying isn't a sin.
__________________
What do you like about christianforums.com? Let everyone know To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. !!!
No 1 reason I keep coming back to CF--everyday there's a new drama somewhere in the forums. You won't know where unless you're there To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
<the voice of David Duke is being transmitted through the broken filling in Überlutheran's lower left jaw>
Blacks are always free to marry blacks.
Asians are always free to marry Asians.
Mexicans are always free to marry Mexicans.
Jews are always free to marry Jews.
Catholics are always free to marry Catholics.
I don't see where the white, Christian race has any obligation to mix itself or mongrelize itself with these other so-called "people".
That does it. I'm making a dental appointment to get this filling fixed, tomorrrow.
and just imagine he is running for congress
__________________ "America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves – if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?
This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time – to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth – that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people:
Yes We Can. "
President Barack Obama To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Linear Mode
