TexasCHLforum.com

Beiruty wrote:In Lebanon, Marriage, Divorce and inheritance are Religious issues, handled by recognized religious courts with their own judges.

baldeagle wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:Our country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution.

Our country was founded by people fleeing a government that wouldn't allow them to freely practice their religion.

cb1000rider wrote:Religious persecution, at some level is people of a particular religious affiliation not granting the same rights as those who are not associated.

People don't grant rights to other people. People inherently have rights. To one degree or another, the governments under which they live either protect or do not protect those rights.

cb1000rider wrote:I agree with you that there is nothing constitutional guaranteeing a separation of church and state, but I believe it is a fundamental principle.

Our Constitution does not articulate fundamental principles. It articulates a form of government designed to protect the rights that people inherently have.

cb1000rider wrote:There were no protected classes when the constitution was drafted.

Really? Blacks didn't even have citizenship or protected rights.

cb1000rider wrote:I think that fact validates my argument even more. The fact is that as we evolve as a country, the things that need protection change.

Wrong. Fundamental rights never change. Things do not need protection. This is where so many people err. There is no right to privacy. The Supreme Court simply created one out of the "penumbra" of "emanations" being emitted by the Constitution. There is no right to an abortion. There is no right to marriage. The Supreme Court simply created these out of thin air. There is no right to adequate healthcare. There is no right to a decent education or a good job. These are not rights. They are privileges.

cb1000rider wrote:No, I didn't forget. If you're an attorney, you're probably well educated and I can't imagine that you believe that same-sex couples have the exact same rights as married couples. A few examples:
Medicare
Surviorship benefits
Estate Tax
Gift benefits

I'll be honest with you, if I thought that there were equal options, I would have very little support for any sort of class-protection. Unfortunately, every time we try to make up alternate rules for some other class to be "fair" we do it incorrectly. And in this particular case, we're not even close to equality.

Medicare, survivorship benefits, estate taxes and gift benefits are not rights. They are artificial distinctions in the law that grant privileges to certain classes of people that are not granted to other classes of people.

Where does the right to equality in marriage exist in the Constitution? What logical argument can you articulate after this ruling that prohibits polygyny, polyandry or polygamy given that now the Supreme Court has created this new right of marriage? Why should a person who seeks to marry a horse be denied his or her rights? You may think this is ridiculous, but it's coming. And now there is nothing in law to reject it. "Equality" must rule the day.

The reason governments pass laws that favor a particular class are many and varied. They may think protecting a certain class benefits society. They may have evil intentions and want to harm society. But nowhere in the Constitution is any class granted special favors or denied special favors. The true purpose of government is to protect our unalienable rights and provide for the common defense. Nothing more. Nothing less. All else is piffle.

cb1000rider wrote:I don't disagree that many claim a right to marry. You and I disagree on the root cause.
I'm indicating that I believe in most cases it stems from inequality. The same inequality that you're indicating doesn't exist.

There is no inequality. People who associate together (for whatever reason) have the right to enter into contractual obligations at any time for any reason. I could make you my heir, if I chose to. We don't need to be married to do that. I can grant you medical power of attorney. Or complete power of attorney.

cb1000rider wrote:We all make our own morality to some degree. If personal morality was black and white, things would be a lot easier.

A breathtaking statement. Is the punishment for murder a black and white issue? It's a moral judgment. What about rape? Can you articulate why it's wrong to rape not based on any morality? We make moral judgments in law all the time. If we did not, then there would be no justification at all for criminal prohibitions.

Why is it wrong for me to shoot you for no reason but right for you to shoot me in self defense? What makes one action acceptable and the other not? Moral judgments. Black and white moral judgments.