Partisan Politics Good For America?

[Ghost]

If my job had me hating life half of the time, I would look for a new job. I can't imagine being that bitter.

Andy, it's not just this statement. You really don't seem to be very good at reading comprehension. Maybe that's why my very regular words and phrases come across to you as "legalese."

My job gives me the opportunity to make a difference. I have a pretty big idea which has some possibility of coming to fruition in the next few years, and if it does, it could have a trillion dollar impact. You read that right. Trillion. I would probably get mere millions out of it over the course of a long career, but you can see how possibilities like that might make one the opposite of frustrated.

Yes, that's what it is. Your average intelligence is what's confusing me, not the fact that you're a patronizing asshat.

[Dan H]

I mean at the root of it all law is morality, but I think when you get into the realm of regulating behavior that only impacts one's self, is where I personally draw the line.

Interesting take. I don't think all laws are based on morality, especially the ones you referenced originally.


And doesn't Cruz violate that last portion of your statement?

Which position of his does so?

His stance on allowing states to not recognize same sex marriage. It is a perfect example of legislating something that only impacts oneself.

In a perfect world I'd say get the government out of marriage entirely and let it be a matter of contract law. If it's a religious ceremony for a certain party's beliefs, fine, no big deal. If it's a cohabitation contract in which both (or more - polygamy is more prevalent worldwide than same-sex marriages, so why the lack of recognition there?) parties agree to pool resources and give each other medical rights and inheritances, shared custody of any children, etc.

The Federalist position that Cruz has taken doesn't go quite that far, but at least it takes it out of the hands of the Feds when it shouldn't be an explicit legal authority anyway per the 10th Amendment. If certain states wish to legalize it, all well and good - just as if other states decline to do so.

[Ghost]

In a perfect world I'd say get the government out of marriage entirely and let it be a matter of contract law. If it's a religious ceremony for a certain party's beliefs, fine, no big deal. If it's a cohabitation contract in which both (or more - polygamy is more prevalent worldwide than same-sex marriages, so why the lack of recognition there?) parties agree to pool resources and give each other medical rights and inheritances, shared custody of any children, etc.

The Federalist position that Cruz has taken doesn't go quite that far, but at least it takes it out of the hands of the Feds when it shouldn't be an explicit legal authority anyway per the 10th Amendment. If certain states wish to legalize it, all well and good - just as if other states decline to do so.

Polygamy is tricky because it tends to lead to one party (without fail, the man) being in a somewhat exploitive position over the wives. And unlike gay marriage, it has historically opened the door to pedophilia and other very bad things. However, I agree. I think government should get out of the marriage business altogether.

However, I disagree that states should have the authority to decline to recognize a same-sex union. Individual rights trump state rights.

[Dan H]

I'd actually be willing to compromise on the latter issue provided that churches are not required by law to perform ceremonies. Although the actual recognition is not the issue, it's the ability to get married. Even though gay marriage wasn't legal in Indiana up until a court case recently, couples married in states where it was legal were recognized by state government.

Of course, as an aside, Indiana recognized gay marriage licenses from New York state, but New York state would not recognize my concealed carry permit. Seems to me if we're going to require blanket recognition of state licensure then it needs to carry over to things other than marriage and driver's licenses. Heck, we could fix one of the big negatives in ObamaCare in one fell swoop by forcing states to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Could make legal defense easier and cheaper by allowing lawyers certified in one state to practice in any other state.

I don't think the state bar associations would be very fond of that, though.

[Indy]

It is not compromising to say the rights of the individual are more important. It's explicitly wrong to deny rights based on bigotry and immoral high ground.

[Dan H]

So, you're in favor of using government force to require churches to perform marriage ceremonies for couples who don't qualify under the church's doctrine, I take it?

[Indy]

So, you're in favor of using government force to require churches to perform marriage ceremonies for couples who don't qualify under the church's doctrine, I take it?

Where did you get that? Nobody has ever forced an unwilling church to perform a same sex wedding.

[Dan H]

In the future, assuming the Supreme Court agrees with you.

[Indy]

In the future, assuming the Supreme Court agrees with you.

Why do you think clergy will be forced into performing ceremonies they don't want to perform?

[Ghost]

????

Of course, as an aside, Indiana recognized gay marriage licenses from New York state, but New York state would not recognize my concealed carry permit

Not the same issue. So, they recognized human right in one field, and you oppose that because of your guns?

Conflating. Again.

[Dan H]

In the future, assuming the Supreme Court agrees with you.

Why do you think clergy will be forced into performing ceremonies they don't want to perform?

Are churches public accommodations? Seems like you're dodging the question.

????

Of course, as an aside, Indiana recognized gay marriage licenses from New York state, but New York state would not recognize my concealed carry permit

Not the same issue. So, they recognized human right in one field, and you oppose that because of your guns?

Conflating. Again.

One is a Constitutional right, another is soon to be after the Supreme Court makes its decision.




BTW, the comments by the Solicitor General in oral arguments before the court is what prompted my question to you guys:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... -rules-gay

Religious institutions could be at risk of losing their tax-exempt status due to their beliefs about marriage if the Supreme Court holds that gay couples have a constitutional right to wed, President Obama’s attorney acknowledged to the Supreme Court today. “It’s certainly going to be an issue,” Solicitor General Donald Verrilli replied when Justice Samuel Alito asked if schools that support the traditional definition of marriage would have to be treated like schools that once opposed interracial marriage. “I don’t deny that.”

[Ghost]

There is absolutely no push from the supporters of gay marriage to force churches to conduct those ceremonies. A JP employed by the state? OK, that guy has to do it. I would vehemently oppose forcing the churches to participate in a ceremony they don't support. But it is a manufactured fear, because churches will never have to do that.

[Nodack]

It might be an issue? We shouldn't allow gays to marry because there might be an issue with churches tax exempt status? I guess we have to have priorities.

How do you feel about interracial marriage? Some churches hated it, but apparently were forced to accept it or lose their tax exempt status. How did that turn out?

In 1983, the Supreme Court ruled in Bob Jones University v. United States that it was within the scope of the First Amendment’s protections for religion for the IRS to revoke the tax exempt status for the university based on its policy prohibiting interracial dating. The Court determined that the “Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education … which substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on [the university’s] exercise of their religious beliefs.”

I am ok with that.

[Nodack]

I would vehemently oppose forcing the churches to participate in a ceremony they don't support.

My first wife was Catholic and we were almost married Catholic, but the amount of stuff we had to go through before they would agree to marry us along with lying about whether we had been intimate before marriage and my religious status was enough for us to go somewhere else to get married.

We weren't gay and they didn't have to marry us unless they wanted to.

[Dan H]

I would vehemently oppose forcing the churches to participate in a ceremony they don't support.

My first wife was Catholic and we were almost married Catholic, but the amount of stuff we had to go through before they would agree to marry us along with lying about whether we had been intimate before marriage and my religious status was enough for us to go somewhere else to get married.

We weren't gay and they didn't have to marry us unless they wanted to.

This post completely contradicts your prior post. So which is it? Should churches be allowed to do marriages based on doctrine, or not? The Bob Jones case is different because there's no doctrine in the Bible that speaks as to race. And, you point out correctly, churches will often refuse to do weddings if one or more parties isn't a believer or if other issues crop up.

BTW, the Catholic church is a little over-the-top. When my sister married her husband the wedding was in our hometown, about 200 miles from my brother-in-law's home church. The Reverend who conducted the wedding interviewed my brother and I. One of the questions he asked me was "How long have you known Nicole?" I laughed and said, "Pretty much ever since she was born." When he got done with the interviews he had a form to fill out. Smart-aleck me, I say, "Wow, do you need to run that to a notary?"

After which he whips out his official Catholic Church stamp and seals the document . . . LOL.

[Dan H]

There is absolutely no push from the supporters of gay marriage to force churches to conduct those ceremonies. A JP employed by the state? OK, that guy has to do it. I would vehemently oppose forcing the churches to participate in a ceremony they don't support. But it is a manufactured fear, because churches will never have to do that.

I hope you're right.

[Dan H]

Interesting, interesting. Definitely not another lawyer.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?325722-1/d ... nouncement

Should we do a 2016 thread?

[Nodack]

I would vehemently oppose forcing the churches to participate in a ceremony they don't support.

My first wife was Catholic and we were almost married Catholic, but the amount of stuff we had to go through before they would agree to marry us along with lying about whether we had been intimate before marriage and my religious status was enough for us to go somewhere else to get married.

We weren't gay and they didn't have to marry us unless they wanted to.

This post completely contradicts your prior post. So which is it? Should churches be allowed to do marriages based on doctrine, or not? The Bob Jones case is different because there's no doctrine in the Bible that speaks as to race. And, you point out correctly, churches will often refuse to do weddings if one or more parties isn't a believer or if other issues crop up.

BTW, the Catholic church is a little over-the-top. When my sister married her husband the wedding was in our hometown, about 200 miles from my brother-in-law's home church. The Reverend who conducted the wedding interviewed my brother and I. One of the questions he asked me was "How long have you known Nicole?" I laughed and said, "Pretty much ever since she was born." When he got done with the interviews he had a form to fill out. Smart-aleck me, I say, "Wow, do you need to run that to a notary?"

After which he whips out his official Catholic Church stamp and seals the document . . . LOL.

I don't see a contradiction. My point was that Churches already only marry who they want to and can say no to non gay couples if they deem them unworthy. If I am a gay couple and the Catholic Church doesn't want to marry me that's ok. Making laws that say gays can't marry I have a problem with. If they have to go to the court house or have uncle Larry marry them it doesn't matter to me.

Churches making rules as to who you can and can't date based on race I have a problem with. Churches can dislike interracial dating and gay marriage all they want, but they cannot dictate who dates who, who marries who and who uses a contraceptive. This is a free country, not a country where religion sets the laws. Some Muslim countries are trying to make Sharia Law the law of the land. There won't be a Christian law of the land here. The Constitution guarantees separation of church and state just like it gurantees the right to bear arms.

Will the Supreme Court rule that the Catholic Church has to marry gay couples or lose their tax exempt status? I have no idea. Right now it's just talk and the right trying to scare people like the always do IMO.

[Nodack]

Should we do a 2016 thread?

Might as well.

[Indy]

lose their tax exempt status

All churches should lose the tax exempt status anyway. There are few businesses bigger in the US than god.