Can we get an amendment

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Agreed D-Ray

KKK indeed based their bigotry through the use of religion. Then when that didn't hold water they base it on heritage and preserving genealogy.

So then, would you agree that the proposed legislation is another attempt to misuse religion to justify hatred and discrimination against another disfavored group? Can we not say that the alleged beliefs of a group should not be imposed on the secular marketplace to justify bigotry in the name of religious freedom? Just as is was not legitimate to justify discrimination on the basis of race because "God told us not to mix the races," we should say that, simply because some people believe that gays are sinners, our pluralistic society cannot tolerate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Regards,

D-Ray

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

So then, would you agree that the proposed legislation is another attempt to misuse religion to justify hatred and discrimination against another disfavored group? Can we not say that the alleged beliefs of a group should not be imposed on the secular marketplace to justify bigotry in the name of religious freedom? Just as is was not legitimate to justify discrimination on the basis of race because "God told us not to mix the races," we should say that, simply because some people believe that gays are sinners, our pluralistic society cannot tolerate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Regards,

D-Ray

Well D-Ray I would not say a religious establishment is in the same boat as the KKK. (except those wackos in Florida).They have their beliefs that I would not say are to spread hate but for their faith. The KKK is a hate group that used a religion to hide behind.

As far as AZ legislative influences I don't know the truth of what went down. I just heard about it.

I feel all rights need to be protected for all parties. My stance with marriage, free choice is it's there life go handle your business. I like freedom as do most people and everybody wants to intrude on others freedoms.

We do have a dated constitution and bill of rights that would probably be best brought up to date. Except I would not trust this political environment to make more than a amendment, Baby Steps. merrylander referenced in another post considering suffragettes , women's rights, this country is doing pretty good with gay rights. I work with lots of gays in my business in the gayest city in the US not really a biggie for me.

[merrylander]

Just a thought, since some states permit marriage of people of the same sex does not Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution force every other state to recognize such marriages?

Frex, we were maried in Virginia but Maryland recognizes our marriage as legal and binding. It would be rather rediculous if this were not the case.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Just a thought, since some states permit marriage of people of the same sex does not Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution force every other state to recognize such marriages?

Frex, we were maried in Virginia but Maryland recognizes our marriage as legal and binding. It would be rather rediculous if this were not the case.

"Full Faith and Credit Clause"

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Just a thought, since some states permit marriage of people of the same sex does not Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution force every other state to recognize such marriages?

Frex, we were maried in Virginia but Maryland recognizes our marriage as legal and binding. It would be rather rediculous if this were not the case.

Seems so to me.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Just a thought, since some states permit marriage of people of the same sex does not Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution force every other state to recognize such marriages?

Frex, we were maried in Virginia but Maryland recognizes our marriage as legal and binding. It would be rather rediculous if this were not the case.

Makes sense to me.

It begs my question;

If something is a right, held by all citizens of the United States, then how can that right be denied anywhere within the United States? Are we not Americans first and state residents second? You may disagree, but that's how I see myself; An American who resides in Virginia, but once resided in California and prior to that, Ohio. American first, Virginian second. If Virginia should rebel against the United States (again) I would pack up my crap and leave. Then take up arms and fight against Virginia.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

So then, would you agree that the proposed legislation is another attempt to misuse religion to justify hatred and discrimination against another disfavored group? Can we not say that the alleged beliefs of a group should not be imposed on the secular marketplace to justify bigotry in the name of religious freedom? Just as is was not legitimate to justify discrimination on the basis of race because "God told us not to mix the races," we should say that, simply because some people believe that gays are sinners, our pluralistic society cannot tolerate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Regards,

D-Ray

Excellent post and I couldn't agree more.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Dear God, Churchill was right "The Americans and the British, two friendly peoples separated by a common language." amd no -5 you still don't understand. I did not say that religious people cannot vote. I was suggesting that religious GROUPS have no right to impose their views on others who do not subscribe to their religion. My beliefs are my own damn business and are purely personal. I have no desire to impose them on others and I do not want others to try and impose their beliefs on me. Has it finally sunk in?

Makes perfect sense to me. The very essence of religious freedom, in fact.

Dave

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Just a thought, since some states permit marriage of people of the same sex does not Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution force every other state to recognize such marriages?

Frex, we were maried in Virginia but Maryland recognizes our marriage as legal and binding. It would be rather rediculous if this were not the case.

Try driving over the border of Colorado with a bag of weed.

[Countryford]

Try driving over the border of Colorado with a bag of weed.

That is getting to a different topic.
However, isn't "weed" illegal in the eyes of the Federal Government? And doesn't Federal laws trump state laws? Or in better words when the Federal Government makes a law, the state can't lessen that law, but they can make it stricter.
Example: The Federal Government makes a law that states that the speed limit is 75mph. As a state they can't cange it to say 85mph is the limit, however they can make it stricter and say the speed limit in that state is 65mph.

As far as same sex marriage, the federal government recognizes it. Eventually they will mandate all states to recognize it as well. Just in time.