Texans Vote To Amend Constitution to Ban SSM

[unclepercy]

Re: RE: Texans Vote To Amend

But if you are not granting them government marriage licenses then you are, in fact, not giving their religious beliefs equal treatment under the law. You are not allowing them complete freedom of religion. You are, in fact, being completely hypocritical by claiming one thing and then doing the opposite.

Ah, we do not redefine marriage is what you're getting at. We still maintain our traditional definition of marriage which is betwen one man and one woman. However, the Polygamist community is able to get around this technicality by having their own marriage ceremonies within their church. The gay community could do the same, all within the limit of their church, not state defined. No one will prosecute those who are practicing their religion. Actually, some muslims are Polygamists as well. They freely practice their religion without interference.

Actually, you are right there, James. I have a friend who is a lesbian, and she married another woman in a gay church. In Texas.
There you go.

Percy

 

[no1important]

RE: Texans Vote To Amend

Yeah but it is still not legal under the law like the 4 progressive countries have. (Canada,Belgium,Netherlands,Spain)

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Texans Vote To Amend

You guys are mincing words. Either the state recognises all religious beliefs equally or they are enforcing the beliefs of one religion over another and therefore infringing on freedom of religion. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Nascar_James]

Re: RE: Texans Vote To Amend

You guys are mincing words. Either the state recognises all religious beliefs equally or they are enforcing the beliefs of one religion over another and therefore infringing on freedom of religion. You can't have it both ways.

We do recognize religious freedom, Rev. It is one of the most important freedoms in our society. That is why Polygamists, gays ...etc) are all free to follow their religious teachings. No one is stopping them.

However we can't go around changing the official definition of marriage for every community or religion that comes along. We'd have a circus. We would be marginalizing marriage into some cheap institution. Could you imagine if they created a swingers religion where members would routinely marry other members? How would we accomodate our definition of marriage for this case? We would be opening up many cans of worms and once opened would be very hard to put them back in.

In summary, we need to remember that Civil marriage and religious marriage are two different institutions.

 

[tracy]

I think it's a shame that people care so much about homosexuality (it's one reason I could never become a Christian), but this really isn't just about Texas. The majority of Americans across the country don't think SSM should be legal.

 

[Reverend Blair]

In summary, we need to remember that Civil marriage and religious marriage are two different institutions.

So why do you insist on a definition based on your religious traditions?

The role of the state in marriage is to ensure that all parties involved have the protection of the law. It is not to decide who should marry who. You are denying the full protection of the law from people based on your religious beliefs, James.

 

[Nascar_James]

In summary, we need to remember that Civil marriage and religious marriage are two different institutions.

So why do you insist on a definition based on your religious traditions?

The role of the state in marriage is to ensure that all parties involved have the protection of the law. It is not to decide who should marry who. You are denying the full protection of the law from people based on your religious beliefs, James.

Rev, the state cannot go around changing the definition of marriage in the law books for every fringe group that comes along. That's ridiculous. If we did this, the institution of marriage would become a laughing stock, the equivalent of a 3 ring circus. Different religions allow folks to do as they please.

 

[unclepercy]

Re: RE: Texans Vote To Amend

You guys are mincing words. Either the state recognises all religious beliefs equally or they are enforcing the beliefs of one religion over another and therefore infringing on freedom of religion. You can't have it both ways.

No, we aren't. We understand the difference. And my friend was happy with being married in a church where she was welcome. If it made her happy to marry a gay partner, why should you care?
She understood the difference but still chose Texas, believe me.

Uncle

 

[no1important]

RE: Texans Vote To Amend

But uncle under the law of Texas she is not married though.

 

[unclepercy]

Re: RE: Texans Vote To Amend

But uncle under the law of Texas she is not married though.

You are not really the one to judge. She feels she is married in the eyes of God. Now I know that's not a popular statement to make on this forum, but she is a Christian lesbian. Sounds like it conflicts, but she doesn't see it that way.

Uncle

 

[no1important]

RE: Texans Vote To Amend

Well thankfully I live in a free and equal country where her marriage would be reconized under the law.

 

[Nascar_James]

Re: RE: Texans Vote To Amend

Well thankfully I live in a free and equal country where her marriage would be reconized under the law.

Well, if the CPC were to somehow get in, SSM would surely get overturned.

 

[no1important]

RE: Texans Vote To Amend

they would have to get a majority and invoke the notwithstanding clause and that aint gonna happen anytime soon.

 

[Nascar_James]

Re: RE: Texans Vote To Amend

they would have to get a majority and invoke the notwithstanding clause and that aint gonna happen anytime soon.

The notwithstanding clause has been used in the past and could surely be used again, no1.

One example I could think of is the Quebec government in 1982 using the Notwithstanding Clause to annul a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The late Robert Bourassa being the Separatist that he was (he was the creator of bill 22 in 1974 that made French the official language) had invoked the Notwithstanding Clause after Hyman Singer won his case against the Government of Quebec and the Language Police who ordered him to take down his sign with English on it on his Sherbrooke St. W. Montreal, Stationary Store. The section of Bill 101 then had made the use of even one word in English on a business sign illegal. The Supreme Court had declared this section of the law as unconstitutional. I mean how were English speakers in Montreal supposed to understand the French only writing?

 

[Summer]

RE: Texans Vote To Amend

James and Percy, the whole point is that religious definitions should not be applied to civil marriage. Civil marriage can be defined differently from religious marriage (and indeed already is in many cases as you yourselves have pointed out). Therefore don't act like expanding the definition of civil marriage to include SSM would have any effect whatsoever on whatever definition your particular religion uses for marriage, as civil and religious marriage are - by your own admission - two DIFFERENT things.

What you are attempting to do is say on the one hand that freedom of religion is important and should be respected, and on the other hand that YOUR religion deserves so much respect above the others that it should set the standard for all things even in CIVIL law. So apparently you feel your faith is "more equal" among equals.

But it doesn't work that way, and you know it, or at least you should.

By the way, the Pledge is NOT part of the Constitution, and it was altered to include "under God" as a reflection of the anti-Communist paranoia of the McCarthy era, not any sort of reflection of reality.

You really ought to take a course on history some day. Try one on Constitutional law while you're at it - you might learn something.

 

[Nascar_James]

Re: RE: Texans Vote To Amend

By the way, the Pledge is NOT part of the Constitution, and it was altered to include "under God" as a reflection of the anti-Communist paranoia of the McCarthy era, not any sort of reflection of reality.

You really ought to take a course on history some day. Try one on Constitutional law while you're at it - you might learn something.

Ahem ... http://www.usconstitution.net/pledge.html

 

[Nascar_James]

Re: RE: Texans Vote To Amend

James and Percy, the whole point is that religious definitions should not be applied to civil marriage. Civil marriage can be defined differently from religious marriage (and indeed already is in many cases as you yourselves have pointed out). Therefore don't act like expanding the definition of civil marriage to include SSM would have any effect whatsoever on whatever definition your particular religion uses for marriage, as civil and religious marriage are - by your own admission - two DIFFERENT things.

What you are attempting to do is say on the one hand that freedom of religion is important and should be respected, and on the other hand that YOUR religion deserves so much respect above the others that it should set the standard for all things even in CIVIL law. So apparently you feel your faith is "more equal" among equals.

But it doesn't work that way, and you know it, or at least you should.

By the way, the Pledge is NOT part of the Constitution, and it was altered to include "under God" as a reflection of the anti-Communist paranoia of the McCarthy era, not any sort of reflection of reality.

You really ought to take a course on history some day. Try one on Constitutional law while you're at it - you might learn something.

Summer, what's wrong with keeping our civil definition of marriage as is? If we were to change it to appease the gay community, we would have to do the same for the polygamous community, otherwise we are being hypocrtitcal. Favoring one community over the other is a no-no. The Netherlands had to legalize Polygamy after it legalized gay marriage. Do you want to steer down that path?

 

[Summer]

RE: Texans Vote To Amend

For reasons already explained by Shiva, that's unlikely, and would not follow from the situation as described. Now as to the civil definition of marriage, it already included SSM prior to the changes that various states recently made in their constitutions (and ya gotta love Texas overkill, as they went so far as to outlaw marriage altogether in the process). Acknowledging the right of same sex couples to marry the consenting adult partner of their choice would have absolutely no effect upon the definition or quality of religious marriage.

For that matter, neither would the addition of poly marriages to the civil definition, if that were ever to happen. You would still have the marriage you'd have regardless.

Remember that in the not-so-distant past, marriage was being defined in many states as existing only between partners who were of the same race. Then things changed and interracial marriage became accepted. The world didn't end, and I doubt it had any effect upon whatever type of marriage you or people like you have.

 

[Summer]

RE: Texans Vote To Amend

And to address your other post, the fact that the Pledge is outlined in the Constitution does not make it a part of our laws, which is what you seemed to be implying in your earlier statement. So it's not part of the Constitution in the sense that the Bill of Rights or the 19th Amendment are part of it.

Might as well say a date or a page number holds the force of law by virtue of being included in a document.

 

[Nascar_James]

Re: RE: Texans Vote To Amend

And to address your other post, the fact that the Pledge is outlined in the Constitution does not make it a part of our laws, which is what you seemed to be implying in your earlier statement. So it's not part of the Constitution in the sense that the Bill of Rights or the 19th Amendment are part of it.

Might as well say a date or a page number holds the force of law by virtue of being included in a document.

But it is a part of our constitution nonetheless, so by your statement below:

By the way, the Pledge is NOT part of the Constitution, and it was altered to include "under God" as a reflection of the anti-Communist paranoia of the McCarthy era, not any sort of reflection of reality.

You really ought to take a course on history some day. Try one on Constitutional law while you're at it - you might learn something.

It appears that you were wrong . So ... harrumph ...when are you signing up for a history class?