Thread: Freedom of choice and the Law

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 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.