• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arkansas Judge Strikes Down State's Gay Marriage Ban

Does the ability/right to engage in an OSM also have the ability to force another person/business to perform a ceremony for the OSM couple? Because if that ability does not currently exist for opposite sex couples then it won't doesn't exist for same sex couples. It is that easy.

a person or business, has the ability to make his own determination....not government for them....that is what liberty is.

note the 14th amendment..ie CIVIL RIGHTS....applies to government ........not people or business.
 
a person or business, has the ability to make his own determination....not government for them....that is what liberty is.

note the 14th amendment..ie CIVIL RIGHTS....applies to government ........not people or business.

Okay. The SCOTUS has upheld anti-discrimination laws. There has not been a case where someone has tried to force any person or business to marry them against that person's/business's desire. If that day comes, it can be dealt with then. The most likely outcome will be determined by the circumstances of the case.

I get it, you have an issue with anti-discrimination laws. This thread is about same sex marriage, not those laws and how they may apply here. Until there is truly an issue, you have nothing but unfounded fears. I have yet to find a lawsuit or case against any of those drivethru chapels (which aren't just in Vegas or Nevada btw) that denied a couple marriage based on something that would be protected otherwise by anti-discrimination laws if it weren't for the unique position of a marriage ceremony.
 
constitutional law is not reality, because the government is not following constitutional law....that is very clear!

Again we live in a Common Law society not a Civil Law society. If you are ignorant of what that means please educate yourself. What is clear is that you either have no concept of the law or don't want to.
 
Okay. The SCOTUS has upheld anti-discrimination laws. There has not been a case where someone has tried to force any person or business to marry them against that person's/business's desire. If that day comes, it can be dealt with then. The most likely outcome will be determined by the circumstances of the case.

I get it, you have an issue with anti-discrimination laws. This thread is about same sex marriage, not those laws and how they may apply here. Until there is truly an issue, you have nothing but unfounded fears. I have yet to find a lawsuit or case against any of those drivethru chapels (which aren't just in Vegas or Nevada btw) that denied a couple marriage based on something that would be protected otherwise by anti-discrimination laws if it weren't for the unique position of a marriage ceremony.


no.... i have an issue with force...i am a libertarian.

i have no problem with SSM, as long as someone who performs the ceremony is willing, or government bureaucrat does it.

my fears are not unfounded, ..as you say people are already forced to do things[though not committing a crime], even though constitutional law forbids it.
 
Last edited:
You are remaining in the dark. Do we or don't we live in a society governed by Common Law?

you stated reality...i stated constitutional law....here it is:

AMENDMENT XIII

Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

if i discriminate against you for any reason......what so ever..its not criminal law.....its administrative law....therefore there is no conviction of a crime...and no force can be applied.

however in your reality, government is applying force unconstitutionally
 
Again we live in a Common Law society not a Civil Law society. If you are ignorant of what that means please educate yourself. What is clear is that you either have no concept of the law or don't want to.

i do know the fact that constitutional law,..is supreme..... and no law is higher!
 
no.... i have an issue with force...i am a libertarian.

i have no problem with SSM, as long as someone who performs the ceremony is willing, or government bureaucrat does it.

my fears are not unfounded, ..as you say people are already forced to do things[though not committing a crime], even though constitutional law forbids it.

Yes, they are unfounded because we haven't seen any such cases come up, despite seeing almost every year at least one either black couple or mixed race couple in the news for being refused a wedding ceremony by their church or a church. And there are probably hundreds, if not thousands of couples that are denied a marriage ceremony officiated by the person of their church/choice that go unheard of except for possibly locally for all sorts of reasons, including previous marriages, lack of premarital counseling, officiant doesn't approve of age difference or even just ages of people going to marry, religious differences (interfaiths marriages are actually a big cause for denial), and many others. Same sex marriage has been legal in some states of our country for about a decade, and yet no lawsuits that you have this "fear" of. 10 years and I have yet to notice a news story that even talks about a same sex couple being denied a ceremony by their first choice of officiant even without mention of any sort of lawsuit.
 
Yes, they are unfounded because we haven't seen any such cases come up, despite seeing almost every year at least one either black couple or mixed race couple in the news for being refused a wedding ceremony by their church or a church. And there are probably hundreds, if not thousands of couples that are denied a marriage ceremony officiated by the person of their church/choice that go unheard of except for possibly locally for all sorts of reasons, including previous marriages, lack of premarital counseling, officiant doesn't approve of age difference or even just ages of people going to marry, religious differences (interfaiths marriages are actually a big cause for denial), and many others. Same sex marriage has been legal in some states of our country for about a decade, and yet no lawsuits that you have this "fear" of. 10 years and I have yet to notice a news story that even talks about a same sex couple being denied a ceremony by their first choice of officiant even without mention of any sort of lawsuit.

we will..we will..... already the fight in going on in Europe.

however i notice you only dealt with the church as a denial, and not people or business...because you know i am right, but will not admit to it....you know force it always there and someone is always waiting to use it.


Frequently Asked Questions about Minnesota's New Same-Sex Marriage Law

On May 14, 2013 Governor Mark Dayton signed into law a bill legalizing same-sex marriages in Minnesota. The Minnesota Department of Human Rights answers your questions regarding the rights of couples wishing to get married when the new law goes into effect on August 1, 2013.


Are religious organizations required to marry individuals of the same-sex?

No. The legislature sought to ensure this new legislation would not unconstitutionally infringe upon the rights of religious entities. Therefore, religious entities can, consistent with their theological doctrine, policy and teachings, perform same-sex marriages. However, the new law does not compel legal religious entities to perform same-sex marriages.


Are other organizations exempt from the law?

No. The law does not exempt individuals, businesses, nonprofits, or the secular business activities of religious entities from non-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs regarding same-sex marriage. Therefore, a business that provides wedding services such as cake decorating, wedding planning or catering services may not deny services to a same-sex couple who is planning a wedding based on their sexual orientation. To do so would violate protections for sexual orientation laid out in the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The individuals denied services could file a claim with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights against the entity that discriminated against them.

here is an example of government giving people rights, on another person's property.
 
Last edited:
we will..we will..... already the fight in going on in Europe.

however i notice you only dealt with the church as a denial, and not people or business...because you know i am right, but will not admit to it....you know force it always there and someone is always waiting to use it.


Frequently Asked Questions about Minnesota's New Same-Sex Marriage Law

On May 14, 2013 Governor Mark Dayton signed into law a bill legalizing same-sex marriages in Minnesota. The Minnesota Department of Human Rights answers your questions regarding the rights of couples wishing to get married when the new law goes into effect on August 1, 2013.


Are religious organizations required to marry individuals of the same-sex?

No. The legislature sought to ensure this new legislation would not unconstitutionally infringe upon the rights of religious entities. Therefore, religious entities can, consistent with their theological doctrine, policy and teachings, perform same-sex marriages. However, the new law does not compel legal religious entities to perform same-sex marriages.


Are other organizations exempt from the law?

No. The law does not exempt individuals, businesses, nonprofits, or the secular business activities of religious entities from non-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs regarding same-sex marriage. Therefore, a business that provides wedding services such as cake decorating, wedding planning or catering services may not deny services to a same-sex couple who is planning a wedding based on their sexual orientation. To do so would violate protections for sexual orientation laid out in the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The individuals denied services could file a claim with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights against the entity that discriminated against them.

here is an example of government giving people rights, on another person's property.

The only time it happens in Europe is when the church actually has some power in the government or they are basically the only ones that can legally marry someone. We don't have that issue here. We have freedom of religion and the government cannot adopt a "state" religion, unlike many places in Europe did long before us (and some possibly even after us).
 
The only time it happens in Europe is when the church actually has some power in the government or they are basically the only ones that can legally marry someone. We don't have that issue here. We have freedom of religion and the government cannot adopt a "state" religion, unlike many places in Europe did long before us (and some possibly even after us).

do you really believe freedom of religion will last....i am a christian,. and i don't even believe the church in america will last.

notice: i said throughout THIS thread citizens AND business, and i was replied to by .....WHAT BUSINESS, WHAT CITIZENS...........YOU HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF ME BEING CORRECT ABOVE.
 
do you really believe freedom of religion will last....i am a christian,. and i don't even believe the church in america will last.

notice: i said throughout THIS thread citizens AND business, and i was replied to by .....WHAT BUSINESS, WHAT CITIZENS...........YOU HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF ME BEING CORRECT ABOVE.

It's lasted this long. The only way to change it is to change the US Constitution.

I have no clue what the heck you are talking about. Nothing I have said so far supports any nonsense that the church, any church, is legitimately going to face a lawsuit in the near future from same sex couples who they refuse to marry, to perform a religious rite/ceremony for. They at the least would be guaranteed to win such a lawsuit for quite some time to come and likely would get compensated for their wasted time and money as well.
 
It's lasted this long. The only way to change it is to change the US Constitution.

I have no clue what the heck you are talking about. Nothing I have said so far supports any nonsense that the church, any church, is legitimately going to face a lawsuit in the near future from same sex couples who they refuse to marry, to perform a religious rite/ceremony for. They at the least would be guaranteed to win such a lawsuit for quite some time to come and likely would get compensated for their wasted time and money as well.


sorry, but you are creating a false trail, i never said you were for a church to be forced.....or every reading any such story



i declared in the thread the at its beginning that force would come to citizens and business, and i was told again.......what citizen ? what business?. as if i was making things up...its clear some in here do not know was is happening...i do have to say, i don't find you lacking knowledge, however i don't see why you cannot predict the future and know what is coming

-the abolishing of individual rights.
 
alright, if its private property, can anyone who preforms a marriage, ..business ...ship 's captain be forced to perform a ceremony?

No, where on earth are you getting the idea that anybody is arguing otherwise?
 
sorry, but you are creating a false trail, i never said you were for a church to be forced.....or every reading any such story



i declared in the thread the at its beginning that force would come to citizens and business, and i was told again.......what citizen ? what business?. as if i was making things up...its clear some in here do not know was is happening...i do have to say, i don't find you lacking knowledge, however i don't see why you cannot predict the future and know what is coming

-the abolishing of individual rights.

You're forced to run a business that caters to weddings? That's new...

Or are you saying they are "forced" to do it in the same way your airline pilot is forced to undergo recurrent training in order to fly you around. That costs money, you know. Is that not involuntary servitude?
 
Last edited:
sorry, but you are creating a false trail, i never said you were for a church to be forced.....or every reading any such story



i declared in the thread the at its beginning that force would come to citizens and business, and i was told again.......what citizen ? what business?. as if i was making things up...its clear some in here do not know was is happening...i do have to say, i don't find you lacking knowledge, however i don't see why you cannot predict the future and know what is coming

-the abolishing of individual rights.

Except you can't prove that this is truly a likelihood. It hasn't happened yet, and the same conditions are present without having same sex couples allowed to marry.

All same sex marriage being legal does is expand individual rights. Everything you list as "possible" from the argument you've made is possible now, and has been possible for decades, even centuries, since the US became a country and legally recognized marriages. It's likelihood of happening however is very small. It was more possible to happen back before we had as many different ways to get the marriage ceremony as we do now. In the past, much fewer people were available to perform a marriage which meant fewer choices in who could do a ceremony, but almost the same probability (or possibly higher) that a clergy member would turn a person away when it came to performing the ceremony.
 
If there is anything I have taken away from this thread, it is how valuable my legal education has been. The mind-boggling lack of understanding of US law and the constitution demonstrated by a certain user in this thread is honestly flooring me. This is why all of our congress members are lawyers. You need to know the law before you are qualified to make laws.

There is no version of equality that includes preventing gays from marrying but not straights. No one is forcing anyone to perform marriage ceremonies. The Articles of Confederation and the Declaration of Independence aren't law. The constitution makes no distinctions between natural rights or civil rights. And now I have a headache.
 
you're forced to run a business that caters to weddings? That's new...

Or are you saying they are "forced" to do it in the same way your airline pilot is forced to undergo recurrent training in order to fly you around. That costs money, you know. Is that not involuntary servitude?

thats not even a good response....a pilot works for a company and must perform the duties and training required by the company he works for, if not he can be fired.

A business owner works for himself, in his own interest, as long as he is not committing a crime, or endangering the public thru health and safety government has no authority to apply force to him.
 
If there is anything I have taken away from this thread, it is how valuable my legal education has been. The mind-boggling lack of understanding of US law and the constitution demonstrated by a certain user in this thread is honestly flooring me. This is why all of our congress members are lawyers. You need to know the law before you are qualified to make laws.

There is no version of equality that includes preventing gays from marrying but not straights. No one is forcing anyone to perform marriage ceremonies. The Articles of Confederation and the Declaration of Independence aren't law. The constitution makes no distinctions between natural rights or civil rights. And now I have a headache.

i personal think you have no idea what equality under the law means...

civil rights ...are privileges mentioned in the Constitution.

book/title 1 page 1

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/001_statutes_at_large.pdf

your going to have to scroll to page 1
 
i personal think you have no idea what equality under the law means...

civil rights ...are privileges mentioned in the Constitution.

The Organic Laws of the United States of America can be found in Volume One of the United States Code which contains the General and Permanent Laws of the United States. U.S. Code (2007)[1] defines the organic laws of the United States of America to include the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, and the Constitution of September 17, 1787.
 
The Origin of Federal Civil Rights Laws

During the period immediately following the Civil War, civil rights legislation was originally enacted by Congress, based upon its power under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to pass laws to enforce these rights. The first two of these laws were based upon the civil rights act of 1866 (42 U.S.C.A. § 1982), which had preceded the Fourteenth Amendment.

The first civil rights law guaranteed equal rights under the law for all people who lived within the jurisdiction of the United States. The second guaranteed each citizen an equal right to own, inherit, rent, purchase, and sell real property as well as personal property. The third original civil rights law, the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13), provided citizens with the right to bring a civil action for a violation of protected rights. The fourth law made violation of such rights a criminal offense.


The term Privileges and Immunities is related to civil rights. Privileges and immunities encompass all rights of individuals that relate to people, places, and real and Personal Property. Privileges include all of the legal benefits [legal rights]of living in the United States, such as the freedom to sell land, draft a will, or obtain a Divorce. Immunities are the protections afforded by law that prevent the government or other people from hindering another's enjoyment of his or her life, such as the right to be free from illegal searches and seizures and the freedom to practice religion without government persecution. The Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." The clause is designed to prevent each state from discriminating against the people in other states in favor of its own citizens.





CHAPTER 18 | Document 26

Noah Webster--
The constitutions are republican
[/B], and the laws of education are monarchical. The former extend civil rights to every honest industrious man; the latter deprive a large proportion of the citizens of a most valuable privilege.
 
i do know the fact that constitutional law,..is supreme..... and no law is higher!

You still have not answered the question. Is the United States of America a Common Law country or a Civil Law country? Answer the question please.
 
anything that deals in force, concerns me......laws , and polices take place many times, without the consequences being known, until they materialize after its too late.

we have had legal marriage in this country for a while now its clear that institution doesn't get to force any 1 not working for the state to marry some 1
 
Back
Top Bottom