Thread: Freedom of choice and the Law

Originally Posted by Wildtim

It is if the majority of citizens say it is, the whole idea of representative government is that the government reflects or REPRESENTS the majority of the citizens. Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion not matter what current usage seems to be.

That's just not true. No act can be taken which violates the Constitution. A huge majority could vote for a religious belief to be the law, and if it violates the Constution it would be illegal and struck down. As you know it takes a LOT more than just a majority to change the Constitution.

Calling everything a union would be fine. ... If you grant gays the secular benefits of marriage they have all they want or can have, if you do it without effecting peoples religious beliefs they won't even care and this whole debate would deserve to be moot.

But it has to be the same for all couples in every way. "Separate but equal" is not equal. And that's why I said you should give the same name to all unions, as well. Total equality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildtim View Post
Quote:
It is if the majority of citizens say it is, the whole idea of representative government is that the government reflects or REPRESENTS the majority of the citizens. Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion not matter what current usage seems to be.
That's ust not true. No act can be taken which violates the Constitution. A huge majority could vote for a religious belief to be the law, and if it violates the Constution it would be illegal and struck down. As you know it takes a LOT more than just a majority to change the Constitution.

SHOULD I HAVE SAID SUPER-MAJORITY? OK SO IT TAKES MORE THAN A SIMPLE MAJORITY THERE IS LESS THAN 33% OF THE POPULATION THAT IS GAY


Quote:
Calling everything a union would be fine. ... If you grant gays the secular benefits of marriage they have all they want or can have, if you do it without effecting peoples religious beliefs they won't even care and this whole debate would deserve to be moot.
But it has to be the same for all couples in every way.

HOW WOULD IT NOT BE? YOU CAN'T GIVE GAYS THE RELIGIOUS BENIFITS AS THAT ISN'T A GOVERNMENT FUNCTION.

"Separate but equal" is not equal. And that's why I said you should give the same name to all unions, as well. Total equality.

OK BUT MARRIAGE IS A BAD NAME UNLESS YOU WANT TO PULL IN THE RELIGIOUS OVERTONES.

Sorry for all the caps I couldn't quote the things in the box so I had to cut and paste them.

Originally Posted by Stigmata

Human Beings are not flies. Should the vast majority allow their ideals to be usurped by a very miniscule, but semantically gifted minority?

Just curious as to what everyones idea of progress is.

Of course not, and I don't think it should be the other way around either. But I don't think we're talking about that here. Or maybe we're focusing on the wrong ideals. To me the primary ideal is the Constitution, and it doesn't allow someones rights to be prejudiced because they're homosexual. Now if giving them their rights somehow hurt you. I would look at it differently. Letting them have their rights wouldn't hurt your ideals unless your ideal as that they're not entitled to their rights.

So, exactly what ideal is it that's being usurped, and what is the source of the ideal?

Originally Posted by Wildtim

This is a common misconception. Minorities are only protected as long as the majority feels it is a good or moral thing to do.

I'm afraid you're the one with the misconception. We're talking about Constitutional rights, which the government cannot infringe, even if there's a majority vote. The result is unconstitutional, illegal and will be reversed by a court. That's the best minority protection there is, because it takes a LOT more than a majority vote to amend the Constitution.

In most religious societies one of the key beliefs upon which all is based upon is that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" so there is nothing before that.

It's a porr premise on which to base government action, since there has to be separation of church and state.

Although freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion, you're only looking at half of the Constitutional right. The other half is not to have religion promotrd or imposed, which is freedom from religion.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

SHOULD I HAVE SAID SUPER-MAJORITY? OK SO IT TAKES MORE THAN A SIMPLE MAJORITY THERE IS LESS THAN 33% OF THE POPULATION THAT IS GAY

You know better than that. It's not a simple vote. It's a complex pocedure that requires approval by the states. A constitutional right has never been taken away.

Calling everything a union would be fine. ... If you grant gays the secular benefits of marriage they have all they want or can have, if you do it without effecting peoples religious beliefs they won't even care and this whole debate would deserve to be moot.
But it has to be the same for all couples in every way.

HOW WOULD IT NOT BE? YOU CAN'T GIVE GAYS THE RELIGIOUS BENIFITS AS THAT ISN'T A GOVERNMENT FUNCTION.

I mant secularly. You can't legislate religion.

"Separate but equal" is not equal. And that's why I said you should give the same name to all unions, as well. Total equality.

OK BUT MARRIAGE IS A BAD NAME UNLESS YOU WANT TO PULL IN THE RELIGIOUS OVERTONES.

I don't care what you call it but it has to be the same for all couples.

If you guys want to debate this further, please take it off line. Joe, absolutely enough! I'm thinkin' you would be much happier with Mini Me et al.

Lynn