Justices rule on SSM (Page 5)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly Originally posted by dontracy Yes, you did put words in my mouth. Don, I was not speaking about morality in any sense. I am strictly referring to legal rights. Whether or not I believe in the morality of same-sex marriage is not the argument I was attempting to make. I do believe that is the domain of our religious institutions, which are entitled under the law to choose whether or not they will perform a same-sex marriage. And that's how I believe it should stand. I want government to stay out of my bedroom AND out of my synagogue. If that makes me a religious secular humanist I can live with that Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly My turn for last comments. The LGBT agenda is equivalent to the woman's suffrage movement is equivalent to the anti-segregation movement. Equal rights under the law for all citizens. Regardless of mob rule, religious views, or personal beliefs. C-ya. It just occurred to me that Brian gives another example of the phenomenon I wrote about earlier. He's saying in a sense (correct me if I'm wrong Brian, if you're still here) that the LGBT agenda is a moral crusade similar for example to the anti-segregationist movement, and further that there is a moral code that says that there ought to be equal rights under the law. That's fine. The notion of equal rights under the law of course comes out of the Judeo/Christian Western culture. It's rooted in a religiously informed notion of the nature of the human person. It was rightly applied to segregation laws. Our understanding of the dignity of the human person is a religiously informed one, even if we ourselves might not be religious. The he says essentially to not bring ones religiously informed opinions to the table regarding the LGBT agenda. (forgive me Brian if I put words in your mouth) So which is it? Can't have it both ways. If you want to appeal to the religiously informed opinion of the human person regarding equal protection under the law, then you have to allow for it as well regarding the definition of marriage and other issues regarding human sexuality. You might disagree with the religiously informed conclusion, that's fine. However, you have to allow it a place at the table and in the public square. ![]() Hold the phone!! Are we talking Jewish same sex marriages here?? Oh, hell no!! |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly Originally posted by dontracy Yes, you did put words in my mouth. Don, I was not speaking about morality in any sense. I am strictly referring to legal rights. Whether or not I believe in the morality of same-sex marriage is not the argument I was attempting to make. I do believe that is the domain of our religious institutions, which are entitled under the law to choose whether or not they will perform a same-sex marriage. And that's how I believe it should stand. I want government to stay out of my bedroom AND out of my synagogue. If that makes me a religious secular humanist I can live with that Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly My turn for last comments. The LGBT agenda is equivalent to the woman's suffrage movement is equivalent to the anti-segregation movement. Equal rights under the law for all citizens. Regardless of mob rule, religious views, or personal beliefs. C-ya. It just occurred to me that Brian gives another example of the phenomenon I wrote about earlier. He's saying in a sense (correct me if I'm wrong Brian, if you're still here) that the LGBT agenda is a moral crusade similar for example to the anti-segregationist movement, and further that there is a moral code that says that there ought to be equal rights under the law. That's fine. The notion of equal rights under the law of course comes out of the Judeo/Christian Western culture. It's rooted in a religiously informed notion of the nature of the human person. It was rightly applied to segregation laws. Our understanding of the dignity of the human person is a religiously informed one, even if we ourselves might not be religious. The he says essentially to not bring ones religiously informed opinions to the table regarding the LGBT agenda. (forgive me Brian if I put words in your mouth) So which is it? Can't have it both ways. If you want to appeal to the religiously informed opinion of the human person regarding equal protection under the law, then you have to allow for it as well regarding the definition of marriage and other issues regarding human sexuality. You might disagree with the religiously informed conclusion, that's fine. However, you have to allow it a place at the table and in the public square. ![]() Hold the phone!! Are we talking Jewish same sex marriages here?? Oh, hell no!! Wait for it... (1160168-Cartoon-Of-A-Male-Fish-Chasing-A-Female-Worm-On-A-Hook-Royalty-Free-Vector-Clipart.jpg) Attachments ---------------- 1160168-Cartoon-Of-A-Male-Fish-Chasing-A-Female-Worm-On-A-Hook-Royalty-Free-Vector-Clipart.jpg (63KB - 13 downloads) |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Regular ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by dontracy As honest as the Catholic Church?Originally posted by JoshR So would you be okay with some sort of a civil union that bestows all of the federal benefits of marriage for same sex couples? I haven't thought through it enough to give you an answer. Up 'til now, the idea of civil unions has been used as a trojan horse to push through a redefinition of marriage. The progressive movement as usual hasn't been honest. So before, yes. Now, I don't know. In the case of your aunt and medical decisions, sure. |
![]() ![]() |
Regular ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by tuwood Very interesting question. I don't believe anyone is all good or all bad. I think God would have a capacity for understanding the whole nature of a human--their decisions, circumstances, and all of the things that play into making people "sin" as defined by humans writing about their interpretation of God.Originally posted by JoshR Originally posted by tuwood Which type of sin are you referencing? I believe there are many different viewpoints on that particular subject. Originally posted by switch I don't know what God cares about. I do know that if God judges people based on who they love, I don't want anything to do with that God. In my mind, God goes beyond the confines of human emotions and intelligence and would never be so petty. Do you believe that God created "flawed" humans--that God would create people who feel love for the same sex, but are required to live a life without expressing that love, including marriage? If you believe that people choose to be gay, it will be impossible for us to have a rational conversation moving forward. Do you believe there is sin? I was mostly directing the question to Switch because I'm curious. The definition of Sin is an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law. "Sin" and "judgement" are something that humans use to try to define God. I do not think a God would "think" of things this way, certainly not in the same way humans do. I ABSOLUTELY do not think two people loving each other using any kind of definition of love, any expression of love or any combination of genders could be considered a "sin" in any capacity. Period. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by tuwood I respectfully disagree. Women did not have the right to vote and men did. They did not have equal rights with men and they successfully fought to obtain those rights. anti-segregation movement was where black citizens (and other minorities) didn't have the right to go to places based on their skin color. Yet again, they did not have equal rights with white people and they successfully fought to obtain those rights. Gay people have exactly the same civil rights I do in every level of the constitution. I know the LGBT agenda has tried to raise SSM to the level of a right, but it is not. Rights are individual by nature and I'll even quote the Huffington Post: Now when it comes to marriage or civil unions which is merely a recognition by the government that two people (currently man and women in most states) have entered into a legal agreement that entitles them to certain benefits. Yet again, gay people have the exact same entitlements, in that they have the ability to marry somebody of the opposite sex just like I do. I don't have the ability to marry the same sex either, so the argument for equal "rights" isn't correct. What the gay community is really asking for is special rights, in that they want to marry people of the same sex, which nobody (straight or gay) up to this point was allowed to do. I'm not specifically directing this at you Brian, but I get a little annoyed by the "equal rights" argument because I feel it's demeaning to the people who truly suffered through the oppression of their individual rights in our history. So Tony, I get the spirit of your post... however, "special rights" is also a "marketing buzz word" just like the civil rights argument that you posed. In fact, in a couple states now, you are perfectly free to marry the same sex just like gays. So it is not special to them, it applies to everyone, including you. How is that "special"? |
|
![]() ![]() |
Sensei ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly Originally posted by dontracy My turn for last comments. The LGBT agenda is equivalent to the woman's suffrage movement is equivalent to the anti-segregation movement. Equal rights under the law for all citizens. Regardless of mob rule, religious views, or personal beliefs. C-ya. Originally posted by JoshR Don, what do you mean by conjugal nature? I looked up the word conjugal to try and understand your use of it and got this of or relating to the married state or to married persons and their relations Also, what do you propose we do then, if gay marriage isn't allowed? For instance I mentioned in another thread, my aunt has a minor form of cancer that could potentially become deadly very quickly. She has been with her partner for over 25 years. If she dies her partner is going to face a huge mess that wouldn't happen if they were able to get married. How would you handle that? Intercourse. Authentic marriage includes in its matrix the fecund nature of intercourse in type if not in actuality.
I'm sorry your Aunt has cancer. These issues of medical decisions and such can be fixed by law without marriage. The LGBT agenda / progressive movement has used them as a trojan horse to get to what they want. I respectfully disagree. Women did not have the right to vote and men did. They did not have equal rights with men and they successfully fought to obtain those rights. anti-segregation movement was where black citizens (and other minorities) didn't have the right to go to places based on their skin color. Yet again, they did not have equal rights with white people and they successfully fought to obtain those rights. Gay people have exactly the same civil rights I do in every level of the constitution. I know the LGBT agenda has tried to raise SSM to the level of a right, but it is not. Rights are individual by nature and I'll even quote the Huffington Post: Now when it comes to marriage or civil unions which is merely a recognition by the government that two people (currently man and women in most states) have entered into a legal agreement that entitles them to certain benefits. Yet again, gay people have the exact same entitlements, in that they have the ability to marry somebody of the opposite sex just like I do. I don't have the ability to marry the same sex either, so the argument for equal "rights" isn't correct. What the gay community is really asking for is special rights, in that they want to marry people of the same sex, which nobody (straight or gay) up to this point was allowed to do. I'm not specifically directing this at you Brian, but I get a little annoyed by the "equal rights" argument because I feel it's demeaning to the people who truly suffered through the oppression of their individual rights in our history. I'll respond with a question. Do they have the right to marry who they LOVE? Apparently not, unless it's someone of the opposite sex. I figured marriage was about LOVE, no? So we can all marry someone of the opposite sex if we love them. Very convenient for the majority that that formula works for. Not so much for the gay/lesbian crew. We "all" have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, but obviously, that doesn't work for a significant number of people. So they don't have the right to marry who they love because for the majority, that IS someone of the opposite sex. We should restrict them because it's not the majority's view? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() Originally posted by dontracy Originally posted by ChrisM that said, your post misses a huge point. State voters cannot, for example pass law disenfranchising Asians from voting in state elections. If law is unconstitutional no matter how popular it cannot stand. They never got to adjudicate 8 however As you pointed out, the SCOTUS decisions did not find a right in the Constitution for so called gay marriage. The LGBT agenda is about changing the definition of marriage. No one is being discriminated against by the traditional/authentic understanding of marriage as being between one man and one woman. So I don't think your analogy to voter law holds. This issue is about two understandings of marriage: the traditional/authentic view that understands the conjugal nature of marriage vs. the LGBT revisionist view that it can be between any two persons regardless of gender. This fight will never go away. I hope the proponents of the LGBT agenda understand that. We on our side understand it. This issue isn't analogous to miscegenation laws as proponents try to propose. Completely different issue. We're on the correct side of the issue of the understanding of the nature of what marriage is. In the short run we'll probably lose more ground, but in the long run we'll win. Without a doubt. Well, I had deleted that paragraph because after reading it again, it didn't really reflect whaat you said, but you're missing my point still by narrowly focusing on marriage. The risk, as you and I agree, is that a state official can overturn the will of the people simply by not acting. HOWEVER, that is a separate issue as to whether what the state voters have passed is constitutional or not. SCOTUS clearly has the right to overturn laws that are unconstitutiional, no matter who passes them. So yes, while certain things should be left to the states, the states cannot simply ignore federal law in dealing with them. SO, for example, to turn this back to my analogy, the state cannot pass a law barring Asians from voting. That is clearly unconstitutional. SCOTS could have easily found 8 to be unconstitutional as well, on an equal rights footing. Just because you don't think anyone is being discriminated against does not mean SCOTUS cannot disagree (as do many people). And to clarify, your first sentence is, well, wrong. SCOTUS neither found nor did not find a right to gay marriage. It wasn't looking. That's sort of a straw man you set up there in support of your argument. Also ETA - "we on the correct side" is such a distasteful way of phrasing it. People can have differing opinions. I like you, but you do have a way of lording your relationship with "God" and the absolute truth of what you believe over these types of issues(which is kind of ironic, given your history of your beliefs and how they've changed). Might I suggest a different turn of phrase, such as "I believe that....." That leaves room for discussion. The absolutism does not. But maybe there isn't room anyway. I guess that's what you mean by you "winning", such that others must "lose." That's not a very Christian way of viewing things in my book, but hey, I'm not a Christian, so what do I know Edited by ChrisM 2013-07-02 3:37 PM |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Originally posted by ChrisMWell, I had deleted that paragraph because after reading it again, it didn't really reflect whaat you said, but you're missing my point still by narrowly focusing on marriage. The risk, as you and I agree, is that a state official can overturn the will of the people simply by not acting. HOWEVER, that is a separate issue as to whether what the state voters have passed is constitutional or not. SCOTUS clearly has the right to overturn laws that are unconstitutiional, no matter who passes them. So yes, while certain things should be left to the states, the states cannot simply ignore federal law in dealing with them. SO, for example, to turn this back to my analogy, the state cannot pass a law barring Asians from voting. That is clearly unconstitutional. SCOTS could have easily found 8 to be unconstitutional as well, on an equal rights footing. Just because you don't think anyone is being discriminated against does not mean SCOTUS cannot disagree (as do many people). And to clarify, your first sentence is, well, wrong. SCOTUS neither found nor did not find a right to gay marriage. It wasn't looking. That's sort of a straw man you set up there in support of your argument. OK. I agree with you without reservation. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Originally posted by ChrisM Also ETA - "we on the correct side" is such a distasteful way of phrasing it. People can have differing opinions. I like you, but you do have a way of lording your relationship with "God" and the absolute truth of what you believe over these types of issues(which is kind of ironic, given your history of your beliefs and how they've changed). Might I suggest a different turn of phrase, such as "I believe that....." That leaves room for discussion. The absolutism does not. But maybe there isn't room anyway. I guess that's what you mean by you "winning", such that others must "lose." That's not a very Christian way of viewing things in my book, but hey, I'm not a Christian, so what do I know I'll think about what you said. There's a risk of sanctioning moral relativism by doing what you suggest, but I understand your point. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Originally posted by switchAs honest as the Catholic Church? Right. The progressive movement hasn't been honest. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Originally posted by powerman Yet we don't live in a theocracy, we live in a democratic Republic. It is a form of government so we can all get along in a country. When we decide to do that, then there are going to be some things not everyone agrees on... so we default to individual freedom under the law. That is the Constitution we have. That individual rights trump mob rule. Shacking up with my girlfriend is not against the law. I can look at all the porn I want. And however I choose to live and how much sin I like, has nothing to do with your freedom to live your life however you see fit based on your beliefs... unless somehow I infringe on your rights. And me freely engaging in sin does not infringe on your freedom to practice your religion. The infringement on the exercise of another's freedom depends on the sin that you're engaging in. We certainly can bring religiously formed opinions to the public square without it falling over into theocracy. |
![]() ![]() |
Regular ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by dontracy This issue isn't analogous to miscegenation laws as proponents try to propose. Completely different issue. We're on the correct side of the issue of the understanding of the nature of what marriage is. (I hope I didn't mess up the formatting too badly. I am format challenged on my tablet.). I see it as the same as miscegenation. As half of an interracial marriage, I am so glad we were not born a few decades earlier when I would not have had this option of committing ourselves to each other and building a life together, free of laws. Yes, we still get odd looks, but rarely out and out animosity. I fully support my friends who wish to marry and the person they wish to build a life with happens to be the same gender as they are. American public opinion has changed, and new generations are setting the tone. I read that surveys in California have a 20% lead on SSM acceptance now. Sorry, but I think expecting the tide of public opinion (and votes) in the US to turn on this is akin to smokers expecting smoking bans for public places to be repealed. It's just not going to happen. I have a young friend named Jacobb. Jacobb has two daddies. And two sets of grand parents, aunts, uncles and cousins. He goes to church with his family. His parents fret over the same things other parents do, they celebrate Jacob's successes in school and sports, they correct when he acts out, they marval at his originality. How anyone can tell Jacobb that his family is any less than his friends' families is beyond me. And this year, the daddies only have to file 1 tax return. Oh - and they are both lawyers, active in civic maters. Those against them certainly have their work cut out for them. Eta - why can't I make paragraphs from my tablet?In the short run we'll probably lose more ground, but in the long run we'll win. Without a doubt. Edited by bootygirl 2013-07-02 9:45 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by dontracy The infringement on the exercise of another's freedom depends on the sin that you're engaging in. I thought all sin was equal. Me treating my body as an amusement park does not determine your freedom of chosen worship. We certainly can bring religiously formed opinions to the public square without it falling over into theocracy. Everyone is certainly free to bring their opinion to the square. And they should not be shouted down just because their views are traditional and conservative and go by a set belief system. The problem comes when one thinks he owns the square. Or that they at least own the high ground in the center above all others. In a democratic republic, that is simply not the case, and it never has been. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Originally posted by bootygirl I see it as the same as miscegenation. It's not the same as miscegenation. It's about redefining marriage and saying that gender doesn't matter. Miscegenation was about keeping men and women from marriage due to the color of their skin. Totally different issue. It's not beyond you to understand this. You're an intelligent person. You may not ending up agreeing, but you can understand it enough to even argue for the other side. Edited by dontracy 2013-07-03 6:28 AM |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by dontracy The infringement on the exercise of another's freedom depends on the sin that you're engaging in. I thought all sin was equal. Me treating my body as an amusement park does not determine your freedom of chosen worship. We certainly can bring religiously formed opinions to the public square without it falling over into theocracy. Everyone is certainly free to bring their opinion to the square. And they should not be shouted down just because their views are traditional and conservative and go by a set belief system. The problem comes when one thinks he owns the square. Or that they at least own the high ground in the center above all others. In a democratic republic, that is simply not the case, and it never has been. No, all sin is not equal. We don't think we own the square. We are however constantly told that we have no place in the square, at least when we disagree with the dominant culture. Look at the post just a few up from here. It starts with a beautiful illustration of the wonders of the universe (an understanding by the way that Church institutions have contributed to over the centuries despite popular misunderstands about Galileo) and then ends with a mocking of Church teaching on human sexuality. That kind of nonsense goes on all the time. It's designed to keep people quiet. No one wants to be mocked. It's a form a bigotry and contributes to mob rule. Yet bigotry against the Church and against Christians is tolerated all the time in our current culture. |
![]() ![]() |
Regular ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by dontracy The cartoon illustrates the point that sin is a construct of humans not God. There most definitely is bigotry in this thread. Strong work.Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by dontracy The infringement on the exercise of another's freedom depends on the sin that you're engaging in. I thought all sin was equal. Me treating my body as an amusement park does not determine your freedom of chosen worship. We certainly can bring religiously formed opinions to the public square without it falling over into theocracy. Everyone is certainly free to bring their opinion to the square. And they should not be shouted down just because their views are traditional and conservative and go by a set belief system. The problem comes when one thinks he owns the square. Or that they at least own the high ground in the center above all others. In a democratic republic, that is simply not the case, and it never has been. No, all sin is not equal. We don't think we own the square. We are however constantly told that we have no place in the square, at least when we disagree with the dominant culture. Look at the post just a few up from here. It starts with a beautiful illustration of the wonders of the universe (an understanding by the way that Church institutions have contributed to over the centuries despite popular misunderstands about Galileo) and then ends with a mocking of Church teaching on human sexuality. That kind of nonsense goes on all the time. It's designed to keep people quiet. No one wants to be mocked. It's a form a bigotry and contributes to mob rule. Yet bigotry against the Church and against Christians is tolerated all the time in our current culture. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Originally posted by switch The cartoon illustrates the point that sin is a construct of humans not God. How do you know that? |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by dontracy Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by dontracy The infringement on the exercise of another's freedom depends on the sin that you're engaging in. I thought all sin was equal. Me treating my body as an amusement park does not determine your freedom of chosen worship. We certainly can bring religiously formed opinions to the public square without it falling over into theocracy. Everyone is certainly free to bring their opinion to the square. And they should not be shouted down just because their views are traditional and conservative and go by a set belief system. The problem comes when one thinks he owns the square. Or that they at least own the high ground in the center above all others. In a democratic republic, that is simply not the case, and it never has been. No, all sin is not equal. We don't think we own the square. We are however constantly told that we have no place in the square, at least when we disagree with the dominant culture. Look at the post just a few up from here. It starts with a beautiful illustration of the wonders of the universe (an understanding by the way that Church institutions have contributed to over the centuries despite popular misunderstands about Galileo) and then ends with a mocking of Church teaching on human sexuality. That kind of nonsense goes on all the time. It's designed to keep people quiet. No one wants to be mocked. It's a form a bigotry and contributes to mob rule. Yet bigotry against the Church and against Christians is tolerated all the time in our current culture. It's not about disagreeing with others. It's about making others subscribe to a faith with which they do not agree. That is fine if you think SSM is a sin. Don't engage in one. I think pre-marital sex is not okay so I didn't have it. I did not try to impose that on anyone else. What is not okay, is making others live by that same set of mores. As far as not all sin is equal, that goes against everything the Catholic Church has ever said to me. Edited by tricrazy 2013-07-03 7:46 AM |
![]() ![]() |
Regular ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by dontracy I don't "know" it. It's what I believe. Originally posted by switch The cartoon illustrates the point that sin is a construct of humans not God. How do you know that? |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Originally posted by switch I don't "know" it. It's what I believe. Why do you believe that? |
![]() ![]() |
Regular ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by dontracy Because with my framework of humans, history and politics and my inability to fully comprehend "God's" greatness it is the belief that makes the most sense to meOriginally posted by switch I don't "know" it. It's what I believe. Why do you believe that? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Originally posted by switch Because with my framework of humans, history and politics and my inability to fully comprehend "God's" greatness it is the belief that makes the most sense to me OK. Would you acknowledge that you could be wrong? |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by dontracy No, all sin is not equal. We don't think we own the square. We are however constantly told that we have no place in the square, at least when we disagree with the dominant culture. Look at the post just a few up from here. It starts with a beautiful illustration of the wonders of the universe (an understanding by the way that Church institutions have contributed to over the centuries despite popular misunderstands about Galileo) and then ends with a mocking of Church teaching on human sexuality. That kind of nonsense goes on all the time. It's designed to keep people quiet. No one wants to be mocked. It's a form a bigotry and contributes to mob rule. Yet bigotry against the Church and against Christians is tolerated all the time in our current culture. I agree with the spirit of your post. I do find it funny how much diversity is pushed to be embraced, just as long as you are not conservative Christian it's all good. Progressive Christians are cool... but that has gone on for a very long time... and you do not win that case by engaging in the same behavior. In a representitive republic, it is fine if you want to vote a certain way. But in the end, all we really care about is our own personal liberties. I'm not gay. You won't find me in a gay march on DC fighting for gay liberties. But I do not oppose them. Because in general, I do not oppose liberties being forwarded. In general, I do oppose liberties being restricted on principal. The only thing the Constitution limits is Federal power. It grants, or rather protects, individual liberties. That is the way it should be. So, in your example, in the square, bring your concerns. If someone wants liberties extended, I'm good with that. If that infringes on yours, I will listen. But if you want to restrict said liberties, then you need to have a pretty strong case. And if your personal religious beliefs are all you have, then in our square, that is not enough for me. If your religious freedoms are indeed being attacked by those against such things, that is not going to cut it either.... for me. And then we can all leave the meeting in the square, and continue to conduct our lives as we see fit. |
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|