Homosexuality and Christianity, Part 20075

[Blade96]

China has a practice of bashing unwanted baby girls on rocks. I don't see it destroying their country. But I also don't want it to be legal in mine.
I don't know what it does to your country. I don't know what it would do in mine. But I have my opinions about it, and I'm entitled to both have them and to vote that way.
Sez you. All due respect, I don't agree. I would never accept your 'proof' and you would never accept my 'proof'. Opinions are like that.

Oh please tell me you're not comparing gay marriage with murdering baby girls......

And, yep, sez me.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

A potential danger to US society, how? How would the marriage of gay people be of greater detriment to US society, then their non-marriage? The gay population would still exist regardless. What is the fear?

You're asking me to engage in a debate that I will not engage in. It is enough that I believe there is a danger. I do not have to explain it or to get you to agree. I am not trying to convince you of the danger, I am explaining that I have the right to believe there is one.

 

[WC_lun]

My personal opinion is that if you are going to infringe upon the rights of others then yes, you should show demonstratable proof that the action of gays being married puts society at risk. That he bible says it is wrong does not qualify. Otherwise you are soporting a law because of your bias. We've overturned these laws before and will continue to do so, regardless ifit make people uncomfortable or not. Remember, at one time interacial marriages were viewed in much the same light.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Correction: "because the majority will of the people has potential to infringe." The law of our country (which seems to be your point) specifically protects me from your opinion if my behavior is harmless. We don't universally uphold that law yet, but the trend has been aggressive since the 1970s or so.

I cannot think of one law, one court case, or one cite that supports your statement at all, let alone 'not universally'.

Well, yes. Sometimes the majority is right. Other times it's wrong. Which is why we sometimes have to ask the majority for more than "The Bible Tells Me So" if they want to restrict the freedoms of others. The Lemon ruling also brought up is another good piece of support for that.

Our law is not concerned with which side is right. It can be right, wrong, or indifferent. It does not matter. All that matters is that it was legally passed into law and that it passes Constitutional muster, which as I keep saying, addresses only the civil rights of citizens, not who is right and who is wrong. "The Bible tells me so" is perfectly as valid as "The Koran tells me so" or "My toaster tells me so" so long as no civil rights are being violated. As pointed out by the "Lemon" ruling (by the way, read the whole thing, it is being abandoned by the Supreme Court as a valid test anyway), if the purpose of the law is to espouse a particular religion, then it DOES violate civil rights - the 'Establishment Clause' of the 1st Amendment. However, if the eating of pork were to be banned simply because the majority voted that way - even if they did so because they were all orthodox Jewish and Halal-observing Muslims - then it would NOT be illegal, because the purpose of the government is not the establishment of religion, but simply the majority will that pork be banned.

Never said the laws changed from fairness, etc. Just that the laws have been changed. Because the laws of our land protect us from a majority (like christians) that holds an opinion that can harm a minority (like homosexuals).

I'm going to say it again. The laws of the USA do not protect anyone from majority rule. They do not. There were not designed to do so, and they do not do so. NOT AT ALL, NOT EVER.

The government is denied the right to infringe on certain rights. That is all.

As a matter of fact, the Bill of Rights (and amendments) do not impact the rights of homosexuals at all, except in as much as they have the exactly the same rights as everyone else does. But they do not have protections specifically enumerated in various amendments, such as those extended to racial minorities.

There are federal laws which do afford protections to homosexuals (or rather, to all regardless of sexual orientation) such as the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which the OPM has interpreted the word 'conduct' to mean sexual orientation. However, this is not a law that was forced by a minority. It was passed into law just as nearly every other law was; it was voted into existence by Congress. By a majority of Congress.

Congress could just as easily repeal that law. All it takes is a new bill to do so, and enough votes to pass and if required, overcome a Presidential veto. There is nothing anyone could do to stop it. There is no requirement that the majority not trample all over the rights of homosexuals. You keep stating that there are legal protections because the minority has to be protected from the majority - it's simply not true, it's fantasy. The law exists because the majority wanted it that way and for no other reason. If the majority changes its mind, then the law will change and homosexuals will be out of luck when it comes to federal hiring.

I think your major point here was that the majority can vote a law into effect, and thus we're wrong in asking for your motivations in doing so.

Not at all. I'm saying that I am not trying to convince anyone that my point of view is the right one, or the one they should have. Since I'm not trying to convince you to see things my way regarding same-sex marriage, I am not going to hold my reasons up to your scrutiny. It would accomplish nothing. You'll tell me I'm wrong, and I'll continue to think I'm right. If I wanted to debate same-sex marriage, I would do so. I don't want to debate same-sex marriage. I want to point out that majority rules, so long as civil rights are not being infringed, and that the fact that the 'majority' wants it that way has zero to do with whether or not it will be allowed to stand. The minority has no legal rights to be protected from the majority unless their civil rights are being infringed upon. Just because they are the minority is a case of too bad, so sad.

However, a law that's in effect is only half a law. Legal scholars and working lawyers understand that a law isn't taken seriously until it's survived its first legal challenge. That's how our system works. And our system is designed, among other things, to prevent a majority-passed, overly restrictive, law from surviving the test of the courts.

I'd like to see you tell that to an attorney. All laws are laws, and if you break one, you'll find out how seriously it is taken. The fact that it hasn't been challenged in court yet (or ever in the case of most laws) has nothing to do with whether or not it is enforced.

While you're correct in the details of how laws are created, you seem to be ignoring (I know you can't be unaware of this) that SCOTUS and lesser court review is how those laws get changed...and that the fact that changes for the past several decades are overwhelmingly in favor of personal freedom in the face of majority assumptions such as racism, sexism, distaste of miscegination and employer discrimination for sexual preferences.

Cite one case that did not find a civil right being infringed. ONE case would be sufficient. SCOTUS does not find laws unconstitutional for generic 'personal freedom' reasons. They either find that a civil right is being infringed (one which the government is prohibited from infringing upon) or they find the law constitutional. Exceptions would be where a law has been considered 'void for vagueness', when Congress has been too generic describing the law itself.

Look at Jim Crow laws. Look at teaching evolution in schools. Look at bans on abortion. They were left-overs from a less civilized age. They're gone now because they are illegal under our Constitution. Changed when our system became aware that the opinion of the majority was improperly and illegally restricting the freedoms of a minority.

They were struck down as you said - because they infringed upon civil liberties. Not because the courts felt that the majority were oppressing the minority. While it is true that the majority was oppressing the minority, that fact by itself had nothing to do with it.

Imagine if that was the actual reason. Using your example, the majority could never create laws - only the minority - unless someone, somehow, agreed that in this particular case, the majority was 'right'. What an unworkable system that would be. And would that be the society you wanted to live in? Only the minority get to decide what laws are? We have elections, but only the person who gets the least number of votes holds office? We vote for laws, but the losing side gets the law their way instead of the other way around?

Majority rules. Unless there is an infringement on civil liberties, such as Jim Crow laws, bans on abortion, and so on. Yes, they are remnants of a less civilized age, but this is important - THAT IS NOT WHY they were overturned. They were overturned because they infringed, not because they were not civilized. 'Civilized' is not a requirement. Majority rule and compliance with civil liberties is.

As those who aren't Christian continue to increase their level of visibility in the American political dialog, we see more and more situations just like that...where the checks and balances inherent in our system find places where the majority assumption is unconstitutional.

As America becomes more agnostic, we see laws change because they represent the will of the new majority. Don't you see, you are proving my point over and over again. Yes, the laws are changing. Not because we are more enlightened. Not because we're right and the people in the past were wrong. Not because we're good and they were bad. Not because the minority is now having their rights respected over that of the majority. The majority still wins. It is just that the constituency of the majority is changing - again - which it has always done and will continue to do. As the majority changes, so do the laws that the majority get to have. Majority rules. If the majority are Christians, then expect to see Christian influences on the law. If the majority is not Christian, or (more likely) they are professing Christians but do not believe in a Christian basis for secular law, then expect to see a non-Christian influence on our laws. That is how it works. You don't agree with your words, but your examples are all exactly what I am saying. Majority rules - always, so long as civil rights are not infringed.

Just because it takes us a while to realize something is unconstitutional doesn't make it somehow "more legal." It's still illegal and it's still wrong. And the laws of our country still forbid it, even if that forbidding isn't currently being enforced.

No, they don't. Everything that is not forbidden is permitted. Period. Name one person who has ever been arrested or prosecuted for violating a law that has not yet been written. Name one person arrested or prosecuted for violating a law that exists now, but did not exist when they did whatever act they did that is now illegal.

And let's not confuse 'wrong' with 'illegal'. "Wrong and right" are morals. Our system of laws is not about wrong and right. It's either legal or illegal. We may, as human beings, try to make sure our laws are also moral. But it is not a requirement. No law was ever overturned because it was 'wrong'. Only because it was incorrect based on other reasons. Morality has no place in the discussion in a Constitutionality case.

 

[Empty Hands]

You keep stating that there are legal protections because the minority has to be protected from the majority - it's simply not true, it's fantasy. The law exists because the majority wanted it that way and for no other reason. If the majority changes its mind, then the law will change and homosexuals will be out of luck when it comes to federal hiring.

Discriminatory Intent, of which Disparate Impact is a partial proof, has been held as a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment by the USSC, notably explained in Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp (1977). Thus "fairness" or "minority protection" is in fact a part of Constitutional law, apart from legislative acts like the Civil Rights Act. It may or may not apply to any particular situation as determined by the Court, but the principle exists.

The 14th by the way, while the original language applies to the States, has been held to be binding on both the Federal and State level.

 

[Ken Morgan]

You're asking me to engage in a debate that I will not engage in. It is enough that I believe there is a danger. I do not have to explain it or to get you to agree. I am not trying to convince you of the danger, I am explaining that I have the right to believe there is one.

I have no issue ending the discussion here and now, but I am legitimately interested in how gay marriage can be perceived as a danger to the state of the United States. Am I missing something glaringly obvious?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I have no issue ending the discussion here and now, but I am legitimately interested in how gay marriage can be perceived as a danger to the state of the United States. Am I missing something glaringly obvious?

I'm sorry that you're legitimately interested. I am still not going to debate the reasons I hold an opinion on the matter.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Discriminatory Intent, of which Disparate Impact is a partial proof, has been held as a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment by the USSC, notably explained in Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp (1977). Thus "fairness" or "minority protection" is in fact a part of Constitutional law, apart from legislative acts like the Civil Rights Act. It may or may not apply to any particular situation as determined by the Court, but the principle exists.

The 14th by the way, while the original language applies to the States, has been held to be binding on both the Federal and State level.

Let's talk about the Equal Protection Clause, then. It says:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
​

In other words, if you have a civil right to X, all citizens have it. You may not make a law which infringes on the right of this citizen while not infringing on the right of another citizen. "Equal Protection" means just that - treat everyone the same.

This does not speak to the right of the majority to inflict their will on the minority, again, so long as no one's rights are infringed upon. Blue laws are a classic example. They are (or were) based on the popular concepts of religion at the time - that no one should work or do business (or drink, apparently) on Sunday, which Christians tend to consider the Sabbath or day of rest. While some such laws were struck down because they infringed on the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, many remain on various state books, and not because they've never been challenged. They've remained because they do not infringe. And as to 'Equal Protection', there is no group whose civil rights are being infringed while another's are not. One group may claim Saturday is the actual proper Sabbath, another group may claim religious days of rest don't belong in secular law (I would tend to agree with that, on a personal note). And they are free to try to change the law. But it's been challenged and it is legal. It does not take away a civil liberty from one group unequally - none may buy booze on Sunday for example, not just group X or group Y. It's equal.

But again, consider what I've said. Your own reply agrees with me - laws are valid regardless of how morally 'right' or 'wrong' they are UNLESS they infringe. When courts throw out laws, they do so because they find that the infringement exists (in your example, Equal Protection), but they do NOT do so because the law in question is not nice, or unkind, or just plain wrong-headed, or created by the majority, from which the minority needs to be protected. There simply is no such thing.

I have yet to read the court case that says "We declare this law to be unconstitutional because it was created by the majority and therefore it is wrong." Whether the majority or the minority were behind the law's creation, it is constitutional or unconstitutional based on it's content, not on who was behind it, or if it is 'right or wrong' or other equally nebulous moral values. People have moral values. Not all of them are the same, but many are quite similar. We may agree on a lot of things being 'right' or 'wrong'. We may disagree on some things too. But the law does not place weight on morality other than as expressed by the vote of the legislative body or the people directly.

Take the situation of same-sex marriage. It's all over the place in various states. In some, it is legal. In some, it is not legal. In some, there are laws specifically prohibiting it. Each represent a vote - probably a majority vote - especially in the cases of direct plebiscites. They're all being challenged in various courts, and the results see-saw back and forth. Different judges or courts rule differently as to whether or not an existing civil liberty is being infringed by either allowing or refusing to allow same-sex marriage. But in every case - every single one of them - the arguments that same-sex marriage is "just the right thing to do" or "it's just immoral and therefore wrong" are not considered as determining factors. Lawyers may say that as a sound bite, or reporters might write that in an Op/Ed piece, or sign-wavers may wave signs that say that, but that's not what the court is going to consider. It's legal - or not legal - based on the legality of the process that made the law itself (was the vote conducted properly, etc) and whether or not it infringes on a given civil liberty. No judge is going to affirm or deny a law banning or allowing same-sex marriage because it is the morally right thing to do according to him or her. Or even, getting back to the 'tyranny of the majority' question, if the law was created by the majority. The fact that a majority voted for it does not mean it infringes on the rights of the minority. It might infringe, but not because the majority voted for it, but rather simply because it infringes. Would not matter how it came to be. The fact that it was a majority is not significant.

The problem is that people on both sides of the argument simply refuse to see that - they see it as a 'right or wrong' issue. That's fine for voting, but not fine for determining if the resulting law is legal or illegal. Courts decide 'right and wrong' according to what the law says is right and wrong, if they find that the law is allowed to say that without infringing on existing rights. Laws are 'right' if they are constitutional. Moral values do not apply.

 

[Blade96]

I have no issue ending the discussion here and now, but I am legitimately interested in how gay marriage can be perceived as a danger to the state of the United States. Am I missing something glaringly obvious?

Me too but meh. i won't make bill do it. I have friends who don't like gay marriage. Think its gross or whatever. But....maybe gays think we're gross.

 

[granfire]

Me too but meh. i won't make bill do it. I have friends who don't like gay marriage. Think its gross or whatever. But....maybe gays think we're gross.

LOL, I am not gay, but I think some couples are way gross! :lfao:

 

[Tez3]

I never understand why people get hung up about the food laws. Think of them as food hygiene rules such as you find in catering establishments, they are designed for a hot country without the wherewithal to keep things cold. It can backfire of course, when food poisoning broke out in pre Soviet Russia because of bad food hygiene and people died, the local Jews were killed simply because they were suspected of causing the outbreak, this was 'proved' because no Jews got ill. Kosher laws had made sure that the food was 'clean' or as we say 'kosher'. There is no, nor has there ever been, any obligation for non Jews to follow these rules so I don't see why people should make a fuss over the eating or non eating of bacon, just watch out for swine fever.
In the UK we've had gay marriage, gays in the military etc. etc. for a while now so it's considered normal, there's no ill effects. There's no reason why governments should poke their noses into peoples sexuality or love lives.

 

[shinbushi]

Yes, I am sure the many crusades were well worth it! :lfao:

It did get rid of a lot of excess knights.

 

[CanuckMA]

This does not speak to the right of the majority to inflict their will on the minority, again, so long as no one's rights are infringed upon. Blue laws are a classic example. They are (or were) based on the popular concepts of religion at the time - that no one should work or do business (or drink, apparently) on Sunday, which Christians tend to consider the Sabbath or day of rest. While some such laws were struck down because they infringed on the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, many remain on various state books, and not because they've never been challenged. They've remained because they do not infringe. And as to 'Equal Protection', there is no group whose civil rights are being infringed while another's are not. One group may claim Saturday is the actual proper Sabbath, another group may claim religious days of rest don't belong in secular law (I would tend to agree with that, on a personal note). And they are free to try to change the law. But it's been challenged and it is legal. It does not take away a civil liberty from one group unequally - none may buy booze on Sunday for example, not just group X or group Y. It's equal.

But the blue laws did infringe on rights. If all businesses were forced to be closed on Sunday, and observant Jews closed on Saturdays for religious reasons, they lost a day's business.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

But the blue laws did infringe on rights.

They don't, as evidenced by the fact that they are still around.

If all businesses were forced to be closed on Sunday, and observant Jews closed on Saturdays for religious reasons, they lost a day's business.

That's not a civil right, that's a choice.

Some of the so-called 'blue laws' did infringe on civil liberties, especially where they tended to establish a state religion or even give that impression. Others, such as no liquor sales or car sales on Sundays, bars have to close on election days, are still around, in force, and have withstood numerous legal challenges. You can say they infringe on rights - but they don't according to the courts, and that is all that matters.

These remaining blue laws are a perfect example of my point. The majority, even thought it causes problems for a minority (as in your example above), rules. Yes, it causes problems. Too bad. It's perfectly legal.

And when the worm turns, and the majority is not religious, the laws will shift to favor the new majority. And those who were the majority and are now the minority will complain that their rights are being trampled. But if the court does not agree with their claim that a civil liberty is being violated, too bad for them.

Courts are not interested in what is fair. They are interested in what is legal. And laws do not have to be nice, kind, decent, moral, just, or respectful of the minority. They only have to be within the bounds of the Constitution. If the majority wants a law that just chaps your ***, and you have no civil liberty being infringed upon, guess what?

Not liking a law is not the same as having your rights infringed. Being inconvenienced even in a major way, is not the same either. The majority gets their way, and that's how the US system of government was designed to work.