• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Alaska Gay marriage ban overturned

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
But they should not live with us either. What they do is immoral and unnatural. Separate from such things. He we go again with someone who is not a believer being on a believers site. why???

:slap:

You're missing the point. We are believers. Believers in treating people as people.

Oh, and you're completely missing the point with relation to this site as well, which at least means you're consistent in your misrepresentation of things that don't agree with you.

Mission Statement
As a community of diverse cultural and religious backgrounds, our aim is to provide a civil environment, informative, respectful and welcoming where people of diverse beliefs can discuss, compare and debate religion while engaging in fellowship with one another.

By all means, disagree and debate issues. Please don't tell other posters what this site is or isn't unless it actually matches to the published and freely available mission statement of the site.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
That shows you how far they have fallen... just to be in line with modern day thinking! No moral backbone.

Yeah...right...
I'm a middle-aged father of two girls. I'm straight, white, monogomous.
I don't do drugs.
For no personal benefit, I am strongly in favour of allowing marriage equality in my country (Australia) which is sadly lagging behind despite being more secular than the States.

For me, it's a simple equation.
There is no reason for me to stand between two people who love each other.
I don't care if they're of different faiths. Still two people.
I don't care if they're of different colored skin. Still two people.

Happily, the law doesn't care either.

I don't care if they are both male, or both female. As long as they are two consenting adults, I am firmly of the opinion that they should be treated in the same manner as any other two consenting adults from a legal point of view.

Of course, it is here that the law disagrees with me.
They can live together, they can have sex, they can walk hand in hand down the street, they can be 'de facto' partners.
But simply treating them the same as any other two people? Law says no.

Well, in my opinion that is an immoral law.
I am not taking this stand due to 'modern thinking' whatever the heck THAT means. I am taking it because humans have the ability to complicate things that are not very complicated, and promote unfair treatment of some members of the community just because they are different.

Well, sod that.

I'm teaching my daughters to treat all people as PEOPLE. It's a much cleaner, simpler and more timeless message than whatever you're selling.
 

ShivaFan

Satyameva Jayate
Premium Member
There is a problem here. While gay marriage should be, and will be accepted by society, the role of the court is not to make law – at least in most Republics that is not the role of the court. Law is made by the elected representatives of the people for each state. While the ruling may be a just result, the court is acting and engaging in powers it should not possess – unelected Hierophants in black robes. What you think one court says is the “way it’s going to be” (effectively writing law – there is nothing in the constitution about marriage) another court using the same powers may state that gay marriage is not allowed across the entire nation. The advantage of having multiple states is, if you do not like the marriage laws in one state there is likely another state which fits your lifestyle.

What you need to do is win ballots, win propositions, win elections, by the vote and not the court. I predict if courts continue to act in this matter – doesn’t matter the issue per say – society will totally turn on the courts. Maybe that isn’t such a bad thing. But this isn’t the way to do it.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
There is a problem here. While gay marriage should be, and will be accepted by society, the role of the court is not to make law – at least in most Republics that is not the role of the court. Law is made by the elected representatives of the people for each state. While the ruling may be a just result, the court is acting and engaging in powers it should not possess – unelected Hierophants in black robes. What you think one court says is the “way it’s going to be” (effectively writing law – there is nothing in the constitution about marriage) another court using the same powers may state that gay marriage is not allowed across the entire nation. The advantage of having multiple states is, if you do not like the marriage laws in one state there is likely another state which fits your lifestyle.

What you need to do is win ballots, win propositions, win elections, by the vote and not the court. I predict if courts continue to act in this matter – doesn’t matter the issue per say – society will totally turn on the courts. Maybe that isn’t such a bad thing. But this isn’t the way to do it.


This ended up in court because people sued. They have a right to do so when they are being discriminated against because of their sexuality.


*
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
There is a problem here. While gay marriage should be, and will be accepted by society, the role of the court is not to make law – at least in most Republics that is not the role of the court. Law is made by the elected representatives of the people for each state. While the ruling may be a just result, the court is acting and engaging in powers it should not possess – unelected Hierophants in black robes. What you think one court says is the “way it’s going to be” (effectively writing law – there is nothing in the constitution about marriage) another court using the same powers may state that gay marriage is not allowed across the entire nation. The advantage of having multiple states is, if you do not like the marriage laws in one state there is likely another state which fits your lifestyle.

What you need to do is win ballots, win propositions, win elections, by the vote and not the court. I predict if courts continue to act in this matter – doesn’t matter the issue per say – society will totally turn on the courts. Maybe that isn’t such a bad thing. But this isn’t the way to do it.

You seem to be misunderstanding what is going on here. The job of the higher courts is to interpret laws. To judge the letter of the law, if it is being adhered to, and the Constitutionality of a law in question. The courts, the judges, aren't making any laws, they are determining whether amendments to laws already in existence, namely state and federal law and Constitutions, are legal and viable. This is why so many judges of these courts are overturning said bans in the first place. They are finding these bans to be against higher laws. Namely the Constitution. They are discriminatory and go directly against basic principles both federal and state constitutions were founded upon. They are seeing these cases because they are being brought before them due to civil rights cases being made. It is their job to weigh these cases.

So, sure, it is the job of elected representatives to create laws according to how they believe their constituents would benefit or like things to be (well ideally, though we both know that isn't how things are truly run), however it is upon the courts to either uphold or abolish those laws depending upon their constitutionality.
 

ShivaFan

Satyameva Jayate
Premium Member
No, you didn't change people's hearts. If you think you have achieved "victory" by means of tyranny of the unelected, then you have failed. You have acquiesced to the tyranny of the unelected. Just because you are not happy with the tyranny of the majorjty (Democracy) or the pace of change by means of elected representatives (Republic) doesn't mean tyranny of the unelected is the answer. It is worse, because at least under a Republic, and in most cases under a Democracy, if you change the hearts of humans who are full of faults - including yourself - then those hearts will make the victory long standing. One man's interpretation or 12 is not an excuse.

But this method sets the stage for your own undoing. It is a failure, the victory will be short lived. Do not be surprised when the next unelected brings you untold things that will effectively write you off entirely as ever even being alive. Be careful - with a gun you do not understand. Freedom is not the norm. You can claim you are not free. But you will be much less free in short order.

Marriage license in history, be it a on a slab of stone, or printed on a paper, never had anything to do with religion. Religion good or bad, was "just there". But the "license" - that is the state. It never had anything to do with love. It only had to do with the state regulating the cost of children dumped onto society by fathers or mothers who just "walk away". In most society, unless so poor or so torn they simply don't care if children simply are given to the dead and used as a door stop, the state realizes they cannot afford such burden on their people of such children. And so, this is simply regulation as known for thousands of years about regulating children.

Even before the "ban" was overturned by a court, there was nothing preventing two gays having a religious rite recognizing their love for each other and a commitment for life in such love. If you can find such a temple or church or place of "religion" nothing was stopping you to have such a right. It was the state license, not what you are calling marriage, which was your problem. There are reasons to argue the need to be fair, that science has advanced, that children may not only be from a man and a woman. Then change their hearts. Do not blame religion, this license as you call it is of the state, many religions, but states of every sort including atheist states. Your problem is with the state. Do not give the state too much power. I like a Republic over a Democracy - but I will take either any day over tyranny, as flawed as a Republic or Democracy is, this is not the way.

You have failed until you figure out how to change enough hearts to make a difference. And don't be smartalec and in the face of others who oppose you, you will only add to their numbers, be careful how fast the worm will turn. Because yes, people are not always wise. You will see, later.
 

ShivaFan

Satyameva Jayate
Premium Member
... no this isn't about religious rites... not in Alaska or anywhere in the US - in fact if one religion hates you, and you cannot find some place to have your religious rite, you are free to gather together and form own religion in America, you can even call it the same name as the other religion that wouldn't let you have that rite. No one can stop you, and the police will protect you and the peace if nuts try to attack you. Marriage day and night, all the religious marriage rites and oaths and love promises you want. Nobody stopped you before the "overturn" nor now.

No ... what this is about is not religion ... this is about is a license. A state or government or Kingdom license.

We have too many licenses. Too many regulations. Sometimes as we "advance" or change overtime, the very need for this "license" (including "marriage (having children) license") becomes defunct.

What you are saying is "Yes! License me! Regulate me!". It becomes even worse when you are saying "hooray! for the unelected who will now decide! Please regulate me!" ...

One day, sooner perhaps, all children will have their natural rights honored ... and there will be no need for marriage licenses anymore. Get rid of them.
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
Wow, in all that, I had to search for some semblance of sense. The "tyranny of the unelected"? "Please regulate me"? Just, wow.

It's a fight for rights. Rights given and afforded under a currently recognized form of contract that currently only certain "couples" can obtain. The "unelected" (a term you seem to use with disdain) are the ones merely doing what their job exactly details and nothing more. In fact, when in comparison to the precious "elected", they are usually vastly more educated in the matters of law. It takes no law requirements, no previous knowledge of how the law works, what is even in the US Constitution or state constitutions, in order to run for an elected position. Many times, most actually, the only requirements are things like age and residence in order to run. A farmer or shop keeper or Walmart worker may run for office, and if popular enough to get elected, may be making our laws. More often than not, it is those in families with wealth and influence enough to buy their way into power, law credentials or not. At least the "unelected" you fear tyranny from have actual knowledge of the law, the Constitution, and have devoted their lives to learning about all the intricacies of US law and upholding it. One simply cannot say the same about elected officials.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
There is a problem here. While gay marriage should be, and will be accepted by society, the role of the court is not to make law – at least in most Republics that is not the role of the court. Law is made by the elected representatives of the people for each state. While the ruling may be a just result, the court is acting and engaging in powers it should not possess – unelected Hierophants in black robes.

Not entirely accurate, actually not accurate at all. The courts do not make laws; that argument is a red herring and a false argument. The courts' job is to review and interpret the laws that elected representatives make vis-a-vis a higher law, and precedent. When the courts find that the enacted laws violate another law, namely a state constitution or the US Constitution, it is indeed the job of the courts to overturn those laws. Legislators do make bad laws, and laws that violate higher laws.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
This ended up in court because people sued. They have a right to do so when they are being discriminated against because of their sexuality.


*

Exactly, and that is when the courts can uphold or overturn a law.
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
Not entirely accurate, actually not accurate at all. The courts do not make laws; that argument is a red herring and a false argument. The courts' job is to review and interpret the laws that elected representatives make vis-a-vis a higher law, and precedent. When the courts find that the enacted laws violate another law, namely a state constitution or the US Constitution, it is indeed the job of the courts to overturn those laws. Legislators do make bad laws, and laws that violate higher laws.

Which is what I've tried to explain, but I don't know if it's getting through. He seems to have issue with "unelected" people doing their jobs. No matter if they are doing the exact jobs they are supposed to do, are trained to do, have the education to do and so forth. Somehow, a person highly educated in Constitutional law in place to uphold said law actually doing such is a bad thing in comparison to a farmer or Richie Rich making a bad unconstitutional law. Who knew? :shrug:
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Which is what I've tried to explain, but I don't know if it's getting through. He seems to have issue with "unelected" people doing their jobs. No matter if they are doing the exact jobs they are supposed to do, are trained to do, have the education to do and so forth. Somehow, a person highly educated in Constitutional law in place to uphold said law actually doing such is a bad thing in comparison to a farmer or Richie Rich making a bad unconstitutional law. Who knew? :shrug:

This business of "unelected" lawmakers, and "activist judges" is so old it has an inch of mold growing on it. Moreover, I grow tired of hearing about "democracy", and "let the people decide". The US is not a direct democracy, and the people have decided... by electing their representatives, who, we agree, occasionally make bad and illegal laws.
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
This business of "unelected" lawmakers, and "activist judges" is so old it has an inch of mold growing on it. Moreover, I grow tired of hearing about "democracy", and "let the people decide". The US is not a direct democracy, and the people have decided... by electing their representatives, who, we agree, occasionally make bad and illegal laws.

That is precisely why we have these fail-safes in place anyway. Those elected as representatives are not always going to be the most knowledgeable about law, nor are they always going to make the best decisions in regards to the letter of the higher law of state or country. This is why we have another branch of government, the judicial branch, the branch that is highly trained in matters of law, to weigh the law, dissect it, determine its worth, its letter, how it should or should not be implemented. Granted, sometimes they may not always get it "right" either. We are all human after all, but it is the best system we have and it is this way to balance things out. Checks and balances and all. Still, that is their job, elected or not.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Religions don't need to dictate such things for such things to be disallowed because they are a violation of natural law
If "natural law" should be enforced, then technology, medicine, clothes, and even religion and marriage would be banned. By the way, homosexually occurs in nature.

and the traditional family model.
why should tradition be arbitrarily enforced? Traditionally women stayed silent and in the kitchen, so what are you doing sitting at a computer and speaking if you feel so strongly about "tradition"?

All Alaska needs to do, besides it's legislators uphold the USC definition of marriage, which SCOTUS did not redefine, is enter an amendment into the state constitution that says marriage is between one man and one woman.
That's it.

I'm of the opinion that it those who so strongly despise freedom, rights, and equality would be happier finding a more suitable country, like Iran.
 
Top