Boy shuns Pledge of Allegiance for Gay Rights

Yes, I agree as far as they envision it. I am going a radical step further which actually strips them of ANY legal authority. What precedence gives the church any authority in the civil sector? Why should they have any power to decide what constitutes legal marriage (civil unions).I say that since secular marriage, as far as legality goes, makes more sense to refer to it as a civil union, because definitionally, that's what it is. Whatever fundamentalists want has absolutely NOTHING to do with my proposal. The only thing my proposal shares with them is the phrasing (civil unions). Beyond that they and I are at opposites. That's funny, are you? My way is fair and more importantly, Constitutional. Your way just wants all the chips, which makes you no better than the fundies. You want to praise homosexuals but demonize religion. They want the opposite. I want to give respect to each belief and keep them separate from one another.I think you first need to erase from your mind what the fundamentalist version of a civil union is to really appreciate what I am proposing.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Lets start with this, since I think it exposes the heart of the issue. Ok. So you admit that the other side is discriminating, my suggestion would be the reverse of it. Fine, I retract my suggestion. I agree with you that the other side is discriminating, and it is what I base my argument on.There is an institution, with political affilitation, that is openly discriminating against a group of human beings. This is exactly what the civil rights movement was based on as well. Fine. But that doesn't awared them sole custody of the word "marriage." So then they are allowed to violate equal rights...? Why change the name to civil union? For me to get legally married I went and got a Marriage License, then I signed some papers and I was legally married. To change it to civil union is ridiculous at this point. Really? So its OK for them to discriminate against another group of people because their god said so?That's bullshit. So as long as we credit it to "god," anything goes? Blacks can't get married in my church because my god doesn't like them ... would you be cool with that too?Society looks down on institutions that discriminate for any basis (the Klan, white supremacist, etc.) - why be cool with churches that do this same thing?And its not just small churches, its big churches too. Its church leaders, TV personalities, people with political affiliations.It can't be allowed, not in a progressive society like ours. We ALL conform to the laws of society. We don't allow discrimination, period. Whether you're discriminating because Hilter told you, Stalin told you, or "Almighty God" told you ... its bullshit in any case. Because their beliefs discriminate for no reason.How about this, religions can perform ceremonial unions, but marriage as recognized by the state is for EVERYONE.If they are going to discriminate, then they change the word. Yea, that's what I'm saying. Anything else, other than the justice of the peace is not a marriage. Yea, but one gets "union" cake and the other gets "marriage" cake. Homosexuals are asking to be accepted as normal people, just as blacks were and every other minority has also. Why allow the church the right to discriminate, when we wouldn't allow it done to any other minority? What the hell is a civil union? Its marriage across the board for everyone. Its not "secular" or "religious" - its marriage. And like you suggested, only the justice of the peace can legally marry you.Anything else is not a marriage. As long as you now admit that they're discriminating.- Oni

The clear implication of this statement is that you think changing the law to allow gays to marry is unconstitutional. Please spell out exactly why you think this is so. If this isn't what you meant to say, you need to be more clear about what you think would be unconstitutional.Also, I'm still waiting to hear whose rights are violated by calling gay marriage "marriage."

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

What I am saying is that the government should never have given the church power to legally marry people in the first place. This is merely a throwback from monarchies when the Church and Royal families were under the same umbrella of power. The Founding Fathers, remembering the travails of that dictatorship had the foreknowledge to keep religion and government separate. That was the goal from day one.The government should never be able to decide who is married in the eyes of God. Religion is a private practise and should be respected as any individual rights. And because the government gave religion legal authority to marry people, the religious views then get to dictate how secular people should marry, who they can marry, and in what manner they can marry. It's the Church of England all over again, which is what we sought to flee from in the first place!So what we have is two forms of marriage that are trampeling on one another. Why not then distinguish between the two? That is the heart of my proposal.If marriage started out as a religious institution, then let the religions decide for themselves what God consecrates as a marriage. It's just a formal ceremony anyhow! That's all it really is to God, right? So let them have that formality.Meanwhile there are those of us who want to formally declare a union between two people but also to have legal status as a couple. There are certain priviledges and indemnities in place to protect married couples, recognizing them as a single unit. We want that.This is done "civilly," as it has nothing to do with God. Since it is a civil matter, not a religious matter, I just assumed that defining it as a civil union makes more sense definitionally. I really don't care what we call it though.So in the spirit of erecting a wall between church and state, the two should remain separate, neither telling the other what to do.A religion does not get to dictate that homosexuals cannot be legally united. That's not their place, its not their right. They don't get to say, "We can't allow gay people to marry because it's a sin." A sin to YOU, not to US. We don't want any part of your religion.Likewise the government can't all of a sudden tell religion, which has been in practice far longer than this government, "Oh, sorry everyone. The US government trumps God. You now have to perform sin."As Huntard says it is with the Dutch, the two are separate. One is a formality for the religious. A marriage ceremony between the two people getting married and God.The other is a legal contract between two people professing their love for one another.I never intended on the words "marriage" or "civil union" to overshadow the vastly more important message behind it. I really honestly don't care what anyone calls it.I just want the two separate the way it was intended. And had we followed through from the beginning, we may not have had all this controversy. We could say, this government recognises homosexual marriage, civil unions, or whatever.Honestly, this has less to do with gay marriage than it does with separating church and state.I hope this clarifies what I mean.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

As interesting as all of that is, and I may respond to particular points later, none of that has anything at all to do with anyone's rights being violated, which was the specific question I asked. Do you have anything responsive to that question?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It's amusing how people associate "gay marriage" exclusively with man/man marriage.Lesbians are "gay" as well, and many lesbian couples want to be married.The specific terminology should be left up to the couple. Some gay couples may indeed have a "husband" and a "wife" regardless of biological gender, while others may simply have two husbands or two wives.The point was that the word and institution of marriage is important. COuple who want to be married don;t want a "civil union," they want a marriage. Even if the two are functionally identical, there's simply no rational reason to make a new term for an identical clone of an institution that already exists and which carries extreme cultural significance. No, you just mean to be retarded. Words are redefined all the time.Somewhat related to the current discussion, the word "fag" has changed significantly over time. It has ranged from a collection of firewood, to a disparaging term for an elderly person, to a cigarette, to a disparaging remark in reference to homosexuals, etc. It's still changing today, as the word "fag" is now often used as a generalized insult against anyone. Give it 20 years and it may have absolutely nothing to do with homosexuals at all any more.Marriage has changed a great deal over the years as well, and continues to change. You can't turn back the clock.And what "right" exactly are you talking about, anyway? This may shock and appall you, but gay couples right now have the "right" to call themselves "married." The state simply doesn't recognize it (well, most states).Lots of people in this thread (Hyro, I'm looking intently at you) like to throw around the word "rights" without having even the barest conception of what that word means or what rights people and institutions actually do and do not have...and what allowing gay marriage does or does not do to people who don't approve of it.So let's clear the air. In the US, we have some basic rights guaranteed by the constitution. We have the right to freedom of expression. We have the right to worship (or not) is accordance with our own consciences, without interference from the government. Those are the basic and relevant rights for this discussion.The constitution also requires that the law apply equally to everyone. If a law makes theft illegal, for example, it must apply equally to blacks, whites, hispanics, men, women, cancer patients, the elderly, the young, gays, straights, bisexuals, transexuals, the President and a homeless guy on the street.Freedom of expression gives you the right to call "marriage" anything you want. I can call all Catholic marriages "baby contracts" if I want to. I have that right. The Catholic Church can;t do anything about it. The state can;t do anything about it. I can refer to my cats as "married" if I want to. Nothing you or anyone else can do about it.Gay couples, right now, regardless of whether their unions are recognized by the state, can identify themselves as "married." They can be husbands, wives, husband and wife, spouses, or whatever.The problem is state recognition and the rights that go along with it. Currently, in most states any two consenting adults can be married...as long as they aren't of the same gender. This is functionally identical to the state of interracial marriage less than 50 years ago, before Loving v. Virginia. Everyone technically had "equal rights" to marry whoever they wanted...of the same race and opposite gender. The SUpreme Court found that this unnecessarily discriminated against interracial couples. Here's a quote from the decision:

quote:

---

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

---

The parallels are obvious: marriage is a basic civil right. "Gender" is just as meaningless in legal terms as "race" is, being solely a physical difference that has nothing to do with any state interest. To put it bluntly, the state doesn't have a valid reason to say "you two can get married, but you two cannot" on the basis of their race. The same applies to gender - there is absolutely zero compelling interest for the state to say "a man and woman can get married, but a man can't marry a man." The decision of whom to marry rests solely in the hands of the individual and not in the hands of the state. Public opinion is trumped by the "basic civil rights of man." End of fucking story. The Church doesn't even come into the question, even though many Churches railed against interracial marriage every bit as vehemently as they oppose gay marriage today.Just to make it abundantly clear, I'll replace a few words in the decision:

quote:

---

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the gender classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious gender discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of the same gender resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

---

This did not, in any way, interfere with the rights of any Church. Even today, no Church is forced to perform marriage ceremonies for people of different religions, or for people forbidden by the customs of that Church, even though any couple can be married by the state.I say again - nothing about state recognition for any marriage does anything to violate any right held by any Church, period. Saying otherwise betrays either a complete lack of comprehension for what rights the Church does and does not have, or simple dishonesty.Allowing homosexual couples to marry as recognized by the state does not interfere with the teachings or practices of any religion...because it has nothing at all to do with religion. It's a state practice. Always has been. A gay couple would not be able to go down to the Westboro Baptist Church and force them to perform a marriage ceremony (though I would laugh for days if that were the case), but they would be able to be married by a Justice of the Peace and have their marriage recognized by the state.Hyro talks about getting the government out of religion by getting out of the marriage business, but marriage in the US is already separately a state and a religious matter, as chosen by the individuals getting married. You can get a state-recognized wedding, and then choose to be have (or not to have) a ceremony held by their chosen religious institution. The government is not in any way interfering with any "right" held by any Church whatsoever. Marrying gay couples would similarly not infringe upon any right held by any Church.In fact, I challenge you, Hyro, or anyone else:Immediately present precisely which legal right is being trampled by the government through state recognition of marriage (any marriage, gay or otherwise), or concede that no such right is infringed, and that argument was bullshit.Does anyone have a rational argument against allowing gays to marry? I see absolutely no rights infringed by such a proposition. I see absolutely no state interest in preventing people from marrying according to their consciences so long as everyone is able to give informed consent, regardless of race, gender, religion, or opinion of the color blue. I see no argument regarding the safety or well-being of children that cannot be refuted solidly by the fact that we allow murderers, rapists, child molesters, smokers, drug addicts, people who are sterile, old people, cancer patients, HIV patients, and clowns to get married. I see no rational argument about the "breakdown of society." I see no effective argument about "redefining a word" that has anything to do with rights or the law.If someone has a rational argument, then present on. Currently all we have is intentionally dumb arguments and the ever-present Mindless Middle attempting to compromise and protect rights that don't exist.

The Church already does not have the legal authority to grant a marriage license recognized by the state. Your point is moot - even with a religious ceremony, a state-issued marriage certificate is still required separately in order for the marriage to be recognized by the state.Religious marriage is for religion, and is wholly separate from state marriage. I could get ordained online and start performing wedding ceremonies for gay couples right now. The marriages simply wouldn't be recognized by the government. /facepalm The state already claims no right to do so. You're arguing from your imagination, Hyro. The state makes no claims regarding any deity's recognition of a marriage. The state is only concerned with the legalities of a state-recognized marriage license, full stop. Your arguments present a complete strawman of reality, Hyro. No church has any legal authority to issue a marriage license. That authority rests solely within the state. The Church can only marry people in accordance with the traditions of their own religion, a ceremony that may grant the approval of their chosen deity but has nothing whatsoever to do with state recognition unless coupled with a state-issued marriage license.Perhaps it would help if you started considering reality instead of marriage and law as it exists in your imagination?

Yes I agree, but the problem is that there needs to be an amendment made to the Constitution in order for homosexual marriage to be federally protected. The Constitution is silent on many issues, and it says that anything not specifically addressed in the Constitution has to be left for the States decide for themselves. That is why in certain states gay marriage is legal, but not in others. Again, I don't care if you want to call it pumpkin pie, it's the principle behind it that I stand for. White Power movements are allowed to dismiss equal rights. Anyone has the right to think whatever they want. It's not a crime to be a bigot. All I mean is that if we do finally separate religion from government, it just makes more sense to call it a civil union, because that's what it is. But I really don't care what anyone calls it, I'm just saying it makes more sense so as to not confuse religious marriage with civil marriage. Yes, really. It's called the freedom of speech and if you'd like to have a free society it means sometimes putting up with bigoted views. No, not anything. You still can't physcially harm people, but you can believe whatever you want. I wouldn't agree with it, but I would respect it. Racists have a right to be racist. They just don't have a right to hurt other people because they're racist. Exactly, society... Society weeds these people out, not government. Society has done more to change people's opinion than government force, coersion, or programs have ever done. The civil rights movement was started by a few people and it literally changed the world. The government didn't do anything to facilitate that. It was the People.It used to be illegal for black people to go to a school that white people went to. It took society, operating independent of the government to change things. Government has to conform to society, not society conforming to government. Yes I know. It doesn't matter. People are allowed to have whatever beliefs they want. And the people that don't like it are allowed to protest their beliefs in order to cahnge things. That's how free societies work. What??? That's exactly how it should work. Anything less is fascism, communism, or any other ism that threatens free society. Show me the law where it is illegal to think it is wrong for a church marry gay people, albino people, black people, etc, and I'll show where it is illegal to insist that people cannot be believe as they wish. It's not for no reason. They have a reason, written in their bible. In their minds it is more important to obey God than to obey man. Yeah, that's what I'm saying! That's it, man. You nailed it on the head. You just summarized my entire argument. To them it isn't discrimination. To them it's like you saying that rapists be allowed to rape whomever they want. That's how they see things. Is it wrong in my opinion? Yes, absolutely! But they are free to believe it. What is important is getting the message out there that it is not acceptable behavior. With time, just like in the civil rights movement, society will change. THAT's how you get things done. Its all relative. Religious people want their union before God. So let them. Secular people, both homosexual and heterosexual, want their union declared before man and to have that union legally protected. So let them. I don't tell churches how to run their congregation. If I think it's stupid, I'll say something. But we can't force people to change. You have to convince people to want to change of their own accord.If you haven't noticed, the very people who want the change the most tend to sabotage their own agenda by creating this false dichotomy and culture war. The second you start going for the jugular, people shut down and go into attack mode and then you end up in a worse position than when you started. But if you do what Dr. King did, unlike Malcolm X, you start to make real change. Its removing religion from marriage. I never denied that they weren't. They are, and in my opinion it is wrong. But do you see the critical difference? You can either fight fire with fire, or you can fight fire with water. Which makes more sense?

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

I thought that was clear?Further clarification: Without my proposal in place, in either direction it is discrimination to one or both groups.If we leave things the way they are, either religion gets to discriminate against homosexuals or secular society gets to discriminate against religious beliefs.I am trying to alleviate ALL discrimination.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

How does society discriminate against religion by allowing gays to marry?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This is simply wrong.The U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. What that means is that all laws in all states are subject to being struck down if they do not comport with the Constitution.Among the provisions of the Constitution is the Fourteenth Amendment. One part of that Amendment is called the Equal Protection Clause. That Clause says, "no state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."Equal Protection jurisprudence is somewhat complex, but basically settled. There are three different levels of scrutiny that courts use in evaluating whether a challenged state action may stand; rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny.Here is Wiki's brief and relatively accurate description of the three different levels of scrutiny:

quote:

---

The Supreme Court has defined these levels of scrutiny in the following way:

​

* Strict scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of race or national origin): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling" government interest. In addition, there cannot be a "less restrictive" alternative available to achieve that compelling interest.
* Intermediate scrutiny (if the law categorizes on the basis of sex): the law is unconstitutional unless it is "substantially related" to an "important" government interest. Note that in past decisions "sex" generally has meant gender.
* Rational-basis test (if the law categorizes on some other basis): the law is constitutional so long as it is "reasonably related" to a "legitimate" government interest.

---

To put to rest the notion that the states are free to craft marriage laws regardless of the Constitution, one need look no further than Loving vs. Virginia, decided in 1967. There, a unanimous Court struck down Virginia's anti-miscegenation law because it relied on a racial classification in restricting who may marry whom.Now, the Equal Protection analysis from Loving is not directly applicable to the question of gay marriage, because that involved a classification based on gender, not race, and the level of scrutiny is lower for gender-based classifications. Thus, we have to see how the analysis proceeds under intermediate scrutiny.To pass intermediate scrutiny, the law must be "'substantially related' to an 'important' government interest." Of course, this means that the first step is to identify the government interest. Probably the most frequently cited purpose behind gay marriage bans is to "protect" or "preserve" traditional marriage. The problem with this, as I see it, is that nobody has been able to explain exactly how allowing gay marriage would change traditional marriage in any way. Thus, even if we assume that protecting and preserving traditional marriage is an important government interest, I just can't see how a gay marriage ban is even slightly related to that interest, much less substantially related.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It's almost funny - he has to know by now that there is no right held by religious institutions that can be violated by the state recognizing or filing to recognize a marriage for state purposes.Instead he's falling back into "discrimination" and "rights" so that he can continue his Mindless Middle compromise nonsense by dodging the fact that the only relevant discrimination is that done by the state when they fail to recognize gay marriages, and that simply allowing them to marry resolves the issue without infringing upon any real rights held by anyone, churches included.

The First Amendment of the Constitution, but more specifically the Establishment Clause.By forcing a religion via the government to go against its own governing laws and beliefs is prohibiting the free exercise of religion.This is why religion and government need to be completely separate so that homosexuals can marry/unify (whatever you want to call it, I don't give a shit) without hindrance from a religious belief, and religious practices can go on only marrying boys and girls together to appease little baby Jesus.I think that you are misinterpreting what I am saying.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

And how, precisely, does state recognition of a marriage have anything whatsoever to do with forcing a religion to do anything at all?And they are already separate, except within the confines of your own imagination. A state marriage license != a religious marriage. A religious ceremony of any sort, marriage or otherwise, carries no state recognition, and vice versa.Religion isn't being asked or forced to do anything at all except stop interfering with the affairs of the state in what the state can or cannot recognize as a marriage. No, I think you don;t understand reality.

If anyone were to try to force a church to sanctify a gay marriage against its tenets, I would agree with you 100%.If gay marriage is legalized with the proviso that no church shall be compelled to perform any gay marriage, would you then agree that there is no discrimination?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat