Health care law trial begins today

[MadZealot]

If the church doesn't want to perform "same sex marriages" then all they need to do is decouple their ceremonies from the legal condition of marriage. Anyone can get religiously married any way they want, but to have that marriage recognized by the state needs a different procedure, such as a civil "marriage."

I think what really needs to change is the state's definition/practice of 'marriage.'  
Marriage is a social/cultural compact.  What the state provides is a civil contract, a business arrangement.  The state has no prevailing interest in what traditions or customs, nor should it be concerned whether you become 'one flesh in the eyes of the Lord' (or not.)
Religious institutions should maintain full right, per the free-exercise clause of the 1st Amendment, to perform their rites-- or not-- according to custom, belief, and conscience.

[Inca]

I think what really needs to change is the state's definition/practice of 'marriage.'  

 
Bear in mind that the case sailor provided was from the EU, not the US. And apart from that, the court ruling did not include the ruling about church marriages: someone, somewhere made that up.

[MadZealot]

Bear in mind that the case sailor provided was from the EU, not the US. And apart from that, the court ruling did not include the ruling about church marriages: someone, somewhere made that up.

 
Understood.  My statement was made with the US in mind.  Regarding what I said about religious institutions and their rights, that was said with Constitutional principle in mind.

[sailor]

Religious institutions should maintain full right, per the free-exercise clause of the 1st Amendment, to perform their rites-- or not-- according to custom, belief, and conscience.

 
I sometimes wish that some US religious institutions understood that. Of course their stance may be based more on politics rather than on actual theology.

[MadZealot]

I sometimes wish that some US religious institutions understood that. Of course their stance may be based more on politics rather than on actual theology.

 
Religion involved in politics?  Shirley you jest!

[MadZealot]

We are, with 'we' being the government.



Usually any time there's anything in the UN that requires people to treat homosexuals as human beings.


No, Barak Obama is a moderate.  The pendulum has shifted so far to the right that people don't recognize what an actual moderate is.  Also, his name is Barak, not Barry.  There is no need for name calling.

 
Sorry, long time replying.

Regarding "we" being the government.  If the rights and responsiblities lay in our hands, then why do we need a nanny state?  If we have rights, we deserve this and that, and we're entitled to good things, it lies to us to seize them.  Remember that govt does not create wealth, or dollars, or prosperity.  What wealth it does possess, it has taken from some of the people to be 'redistributed' to others.  Remember that when you say you're entitled to something, and that government is duty bound to furnish it to you... it may just be your neighbour who has been tagged and taxed to feed your sense of entitlement.  

Regarding your statement Usually any time there's anything in the UN that requires people to treat homosexuals as human beings.  It was in response to my question: when does the US side with "oppressive regimes on the issues of human rights".
Not only is your statement unnecessarily vague (it says nothing at all, actually) but you can't be serious mentioning the UN and human rights in the same breath.  That is an absolute screamer.  When you get a moment, take a look at the current member list of the United Nations.  As far as violating human rights goes, many of those countries have made an art form of it, making us look like pikers in contrast.  I know the UN has a universal declaration of human rights-- I heard it read once, during a u2 concert-- but if you're looking to that collective body as an avatar of human rights goodness, don't.  

Now... to BARRY being a moderate.  
He has been described as being an 'ardent Marxist/Leninist' in his college days, and by his own admission he cozied up to his Marxist professors.  To my knowledge he has never abandoned or recanted these ideas... so is he really a moderate?  
He spent 20 years in the congregation of Rev. Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright.  Not a moderate church by any means...
Look at the 'czars' he as appointed.  Read up on their resumes and philosophies, many of them to the left of moderate.  As in, Left with a capital C.  And the usage of 'czar' is mighty telling.  You are known by the company you keep.  
Just for fun, look at Obamacare.  A nice big piece of bureaucratic boondoggle, and a statist's wet dream.  We need to pass this thing to find out what's in it, to paraphrase Pelosi.  Not only does it bend the commerce clause near to the point of breaking, it gives the FedGov far more power than what was originally enumerated.  And the mandate... my, what a coup!  For a man who once taught Constitutional law, he sure knows how to bend it over and stretch it.  This piece of law is supposed to his flagship, his legacy.... and look at how he scolds the Supremes for daring to differ with him.  
Then there are some of the EOs he has signed, using them as if they were dictatorial fiat.  
Move along. Nothing moderate to see here.

Regarding "pendulum shift"... now that really is a matter of perception.  You see that things have shifted so far to the right .... from my perspective, the left has been overrun by fringe marxist and socialist elements, and I point to the numerous 'occupy' speeches to their effect as evidence.  (And from what I've read here and there, that movement may yet go militant.  Down with the bougeoisie pigs!  Long live the dictatorship of the proletariat!)  I was a registered Democrat twenty years ago... even voted for B. J. Clinton.  Shit sure has changed.  

Oh, and "Barry"... that was a nickname Barack went by when he was younger.  As did his father.  So I'll thank you kindly not to presume to advise me against name calling.  Unless you hear me refer to the President as SpongeBarry MarxPants.  Or Poopyhead.

[sailor]

Regarding your statement Usually any time there's anything in the UN that requires people to treat homosexuals as human beings.  It was in response to my question: when does the US side with "oppressive regimes on the issues of human rights".
Not only is your statement unnecessarily vague (it says nothing at all, actually) but you can't be serious mentioning the UN and human rights in the same breath.  That is an absolute screamer.  When you get a moment, take a look at the current member list of the United Nations.  As far as violating human rights goes, many of those countries have made an art form of it, making us look like pikers in contrast.  I know the UN has a universal declaration of human rights-- I heard it read once, during a u2 concert-- but if you're looking to that collective body as an avatar of human rights goodness, don't.  

 
BTW, this weekend was the 18th anniversary of the start of the Rwanda genocide while the country was being protected by UN Peacekeepers lead by Kofi Annan.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-ghosts-of-rwanda-and-the-responsibility-to-protect/?singlepage=true

The only person who Might have been able to stop it followed his political orders to not intervene. Nuremberg vs civilian control and the Tutus lost.

[Auress]

Sorry, long time replying.

Regarding "we" being the government.  If the rights and responsiblities lay in our hands, then why do we need a nanny state?  If we have rights, we deserve this and that, and we're entitled to good things, it lies to us to seize them.  Remember that govt does not create wealth, or dollars, or prosperity.  What wealth it does possess, it has taken from some of the people to be 'redistributed' to others.  Remember that when you say you're entitled to something, and that government is duty bound to furnish it to you... it may just be your neighbour who has been tagged and taxed to feed your sense of entitlement.  

Regarding your statement Usually any time there's anything in the UN that requires people to treat homosexuals as human beings.  It was in response to my question: when does the US side with "oppressive regimes on the issues of human rights".
Not only is your statement unnecessarily vague (it says nothing at all, actually) but you can't be serious mentioning the UN and human rights in the same breath.  That is an absolute screamer.  When you get a moment, take a look at the current member list of the United Nations.  As far as violating human rights goes, many of those countries have made an art form of it, making us look like pikers in contrast.  I know the UN has a universal declaration of human rights-- I heard it read once, during a u2 concert-- but if you're looking to that collective body as an avatar of human rights goodness, don't.  

Now... to BARRY being a moderate.  
He has been described as being an 'ardent Marxist/Leninist' in his college days, and by his own admission he cozied up to his Marxist professors.  To my knowledge he has never abandoned or recanted these ideas... so is he really a moderate?  
He spent 20 years in the congregation of Rev. Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright.  Not a moderate church by any means...
Look at the 'czars' he as appointed.  Read up on their resumes and philosophies, many of them to the left of moderate.  As in, Left with a capital C.  And the usage of 'czar' is mighty telling.  You are known by the company you keep.  
Just for fun, look at Obamacare.  A nice big piece of bureaucratic boondoggle, and a statist's wet dream.  We need to pass this thing to find out what's in it, to paraphrase Pelosi.  Not only does it bend the commerce clause near to the point of breaking, it gives the FedGov far more power than what was originally enumerated.  And the mandate... my, what a coup!  For a man who once taught Constitutional law, he sure knows how to bend it over and stretch it.  This piece of law is supposed to his flagship, his legacy.... and look at how he scolds the Supremes for daring to differ with him.  
Then there are some of the EOs he has signed, using them as if they were dictatorial fiat.  
Move along. Nothing moderate to see here.

Regarding "pendulum shift"... now that really is a matter of perception.  You see that things have shifted so far to the right .... from my perspective, the left has been overrun by fringe marxist and socialist elements, and I point to the numerous 'occupy' speeches to their effect as evidence.  (And from what I've read here and there, that movement may yet go militant.  Down with the bougeoisie pigs!  Long live the dictatorship of the proletariat!)  I was a registered Democrat twenty years ago... even voted for B. J. Clinton.  Shit sure has changed.  

Oh, and "Barry"... that was a nickname Barack went by when he was younger.  As did his father.  So I'll thank you kindly not to presume to advise me against name calling.  Unless you hear me refer to the President as SpongeBarry MarxPants.  Or Poopyhead.

Agreed.

Obama is so far from being a moderate it isn't even funny. A leftist is a leftist is a leftist.

[cigfran]

Agreed.

Obama is so far from being a moderate it isn't even funny. A leftist is a leftist is a leftist.

 
Only to a committed ideological rightist.

[Skyth]

Oh, and "Barry"... that was a nickname Barack went by when he was younger.  As did his father.  So I'll thank you kindly not to presume to advise me against name calling.  Unless you hear me refer to the President as SpongeBarry MarxPants.  Or Poopyhead.

 
Actually, it is name calling as it is intended to denigrate and disrespect him.  It's childish antics that shows your true colors.

[Auress]

Only to a committed ideological rightist.

I don't think I've met any of those lately. He's not a moderate to even MODERATES.

[MadZealot]

Actually, it is name calling as it is intended to denigrate and disrespect him.  It's childish antics that shows your true colors.

Resorting to ad hominem attacks shows yours.
It also shows the limits of your thinking and your ability to form a coherent argument.

[cigfran]

I don't think I've met any of those lately. He's not a moderate to even MODERATES.

 
You'll need to provide some backup for that. As something of a leftist myself, I consume a fair amount of partisan media, and the critiques of Obama are pretty severe in those quarters.

But I was more concerned about the pointless reductionism of "a leftist is a leftist is a leftist." It's that kind of sloppy overstatement that, when actually believed, leads to bullshit like this:

[Allen West] said "he's heard" up to 80 U.S. House Democrats are Communist Party members, but wouldn't name names.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/allen-west-hears-cheers-jeers-at-town-hall-2295766.html?cxtype=rss_news

[cigfran]

He has been described as being an 'ardent Marxist/Leninist' in his college days, and by his own admission he cozied up to his Marxist professors.

And you were "by your own admission" once a Republican evangelical. Your point?

And the usage of 'czar' is mighty telling.

Seriously? My understanding is that the title "czar" to refer to a particular appointed authority goes back to the Nixon administration. This kind of word-association game is ridiculous.

[MadZealot]

And you were "by your own admission" once a Republican evangelical. Your point?

Actually, I had meant to add that Obama has never publicly recanted or modified those views.  That was my point, thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify myself.  
If however I am wrong in this, I am open to new info.  

Seriously? My understanding is that the title "czar" to refer to a particular appointed authority goes back to the Nixon administration. This kind of word-association game is ridiculous.

Go back a little further than that; try FDR.  
Constitutionally speaking, the appointment of "public Ministers" can be appointed by the President "with the Advice and Consent of the Senate."  The problem is when they are not vetted, such as those which Obama appointed without Senate approval.
These positions are 'unelected'-- a term which Obama recently used against the Supremes, almost perjoratively.  These positions require no background checks, and little-to-no oversight.  Concerns over this practice include the "rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff [threatening] the Constitutional system of checks and balances."  (Robert Byrd, getting it right for once.)  Democratic stalwarts Russ Feingold and Dianne Feinstein have also weighed in on the lack of oversight over these positions.  Also called into question are the czars' accountability and the transparency promised by the current Administration.  
I'm not the only one who raises a concern over the word associatiom, what you call a 'game.'  "We do not need and should not have czars. The last time I checked, only pre-Communist Russia had czars, and we are certainly not Russia."  (Sen Paul Broun.)  
The word has negative connotations.