Gheys Want to Marry

[Sofiyya 1,687]

First of all, you are absolutely right that Rights in our society belong to all, not to specific groups. I used the term "gay rights" in my post because that's the topic of this particular thread. What I mean of course is that gays should not be denied any of the rights given to others in our society, including the right to marriage. Some here have advocated taking away Government's right to sanction marriages - that's not likely to happen in our society, it's not what people are asking for. Hence the correct approach is to simply not deny that right to those who want this right.

Not all rights are universal or equal, so they can be limited to specific groups. Some rights are legal and some some are "natural", "human", or "inalienable". But, if you accept that philosophical premise, then you also accept that there is a source for natural rights that is beyond government purview, and in our social contract, those are the rights granted by a Higher Power. Can an atheist claim "human rights" when those rights are the ones endowed by a Higher power s/he dismisses as fantasy? S/he can if those who do accept the Higher Power choose to legally extend those rights to non-believers, as we have done in the US.

So, you have natural/human rights and legal rights, and they must at some point, converge so that the natural rights are protected by legalities. Is it "natural" to marry? If not, then is marriage a human right at all?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Now see here is where the libertarian pisses off the liberal. There is no such thing as "GAY RIGHTS" There are HUMAN rights, all the same for everyone, no favoriteism shown by government to anyone.

I DO NOT agree with "hate crime" laws, quotas, affirmative action or ANY law which gives any HUMAN a priority over any other HUMAN. It is preposterous that a person could get stronger punishment for killing someone because they are Gay, than for killing me because I am not!

Everyone HUMAN should be able to be married and enjoy whatever benefits is accorded married people. OR simply end ANY government benefit to being married, no tax breaks, no estate rights, no ability to choose for a partner even life or death decisions. NONE, for anyone. It is not the government's place to discriminate, segregate, divide, or cause disputes...that has traditionally been the place of the church, let them do it if they choose.

I don't see where what you have written "pisses off" anyone. Nothing you wrote is particularly inflammatory. I, for one, agree with your overall thrust though I diverge on certain key points (notably hate crime) as explained below.

First of all, you are absolutely right that Rights in our society belong to all, not to specific groups. I used the term "gay rights" in my post because that's the topic of this particular thread. What I mean of course is that gays should not be denied any of the rights given to others in our society, including the right to marriage. Some here have advocated taking away Government's right to sanction marriages - that's not likely to happen in our society, it's not what people are asking for. Hence the correct approach is to simply not deny that right to those who want this right.

Regarding Civil Rights in the US, the 14th Amendment, enacted in the wake of the Dred Scott decision and the aftermath of the Civil War was intended to assure African Americans the same rights as other Americans. Notably and wisely, nowhere in the text do we see the words Black, Negro, or African American. These rights belong to all:

The 14th Amendment, Section 1:

Section 1. 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.

I would argue that any state laws or constitutional amendment that specifically bars gay marriage is in violation of the 14th amendment Equal Protection clause. That includes California Prop 8, which Attorneys David Boies and Ted Olson are now challenging under precisely this argument (I posted this recently).

You write

"I DO NOT agree with "hate crime" laws, quotas, affirmative action or ANY law which gives any HUMAN a priority over any other HUMAN."

I tend to agree with you regarding quotas and affirmative action. I think a case for these policies may have made sense in the early days of the civil rights struggle in the 60s and 70s. At this point America is a sufficiently integrated society that I personally believe these policies to more harm than good to the minority communities they claim to help. It's high time we that America's workplaces hire and promote strictly on the basis of merit. And that America's universities and colleges admit their students on the basis of merit.

However I see hate crime differently than you do. Hate crimes do not just harm the individual targeted, they have a debilitating effect on the broader community. The words of the New York state legislature put it well.

When it enacted the Hate Crimes Act of 2000, the New York State Legislature found that:

Hate crimes do more than threaten the safety and welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society. Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs. Hate crimes can and do intimidate and disrupt entire communities and vitiate the civility that is essential to healthy democratic processes. In a democratic society, citizens cannot be required to approve of the beliefs and practices of others, but must never commit criminal acts on account of them. Current law does not adequately recognize the harm to public order and individual safety that hate crimes cause. Therefore, our laws must be strengthened to provide clear recognition of the gravity of hate crimes and the compelling importance of preventing their recurrence. Accordingly, the legislature finds and declares that hate crimes should be prosecuted and punished with appropriate severity."

Disagree about hate crimes and it doesn't matter what the NY legislature says. I believe in strict, severe and reliable punishment. I do nlot belive a Gay man or black man or ...whatever...is in any way more capable of suffering from crime than I am or my family is. It is a preposterous and insulting concept that one human is more capbale than another of emotions and fears. Stupid idea.

Now if New York wants to make enhanced punishment across the board for all crminals, I am all for it. You support "equal protection"? So do I.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

First of all, you are absolutely right that Rights in our society belong to all, not to specific groups. I used the term "gay rights" in my post because that's the topic of this particular thread. What I mean of course is that gays should not be denied any of the rights given to others in our society, including the right to marriage. Some here have advocated taking away Government's right to sanction marriages - that's not likely to happen in our society, it's not what people are asking for. Hence the correct approach is to simply not deny that right to those who want this right.

Not all rights are universal or equal, so they can be limited to specific groups. Some rights are legal and some some are "natural", "human", or "inalienable". But, if you accept that philosophical premise, then you also accept that there is a source for natural rights that is beyond government purview, and in our social contract, those are the rights granted by a Higher Power. Can an atheist claim "human rights" when those rights are the ones endowed by a Higher power s/he dismisses as fantasy? S/he can if those who do accept the Higher Power choose to legally extend those rights to non-believers, as we have done in the US.

So, you have natural/human rights and legal rights, and they must at some point, converge so that the natural rights are protected by legalities. Is it "natural" to marry? If not, then is marriage a human right at all?

You are not even making sense. Marriage is not a "right" Any benefits of marriage are granted only by the state in contractural law, as you note above. My contention is that state created privileges cannot be denied to certain people based on sexual descrimination. Either apply the privilege of marriage equally, or eliminate it entirely. There is no other acceptable choice FOR THE GOVERNMENT. Churches, being private can descriminate and mistreat and deny privileges to other humans all their God allows them to.

Yes, there is a higher source for rights than governments created by people. The PEOPLE are the higher power. I do not assume that the "higher source" is an imaginary God from one of the world's thousands of religions also created by people. An atheist has exactly the same rights as any other person from exactly the same source. Perhaps YOU believe YOUR rights come from a God. OK, then the athiests come from that same GOD unless the GOD you worship is descriminatory, or did not create athiests, maybe they were created by another religion's God?

[dalegg 143]

I think I heard the best answer on the radio so far to this. This guy suggested that the government not try to recognize any marriages at all, and that every joining between couples would turn into a civil union whether they are straight or gay. "Marriages" would be performed only in churches and would only mean what the church you go to wants it to mean.

Anyway, I liked it.

Interesting. Sounds fair enough.

Fair until there is a need for divorce. Marriage is not merely a social interaction, it's a legal contract, and contract law is regulated by the state. So division of property, tax issues, child custody, and maintenance all fall under state purview. Legal in, legal out. It's hard to escape the state.

Those same things already apply to the dissoluntionment of civil unions. On the child support documents there is already a check box for them.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You are not even making sense. Marriage is not a "right" Any benefits of marriage are granted only by the state in contractural law, as you note above. My contention is that state created privileges cannot be denied to certain people based on sexual descrimination. Either apply the privilege of marriage equally, or eliminate it entirely. There is no other acceptable choice FOR THE GOVERNMENT. Churches, being private can descriminate and mistreat and deny privileges to other humans all their God allows them to.

I make solid sense. Government, while limited by inherent "human rights" is still the manner by which we provide concrete avenues to its philosophical construct. The argument for gay marriage is that the "rights" of marriage and its benefits are being denied to gays. Privileges, on the other hand, are not inate, and can be denied or limited until earned.

Yes, there is a higher source for rights than governments created by people. The PEOPLE are the higher power. I do not assume that the "higher source" is an imaginary God from one of the world's thousands of religions also created by people. An atheist has exactly the same rights as any other person from exactly the same source. Perhaps YOU believe YOUR rights come from a God. OK, then the athiests come from that same GOD unless the GOD you worship is descriminatory, or did not create athiests, maybe they were created by another religion's God?

In our system, the people are the higher political power, but not the source of natural rights. That is not a matter of personal opinion. That is what is stated in the Declaration of Independence, and from where our legal definition arises.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I think I heard the best answer on the radio so far to this. This guy suggested that the government not try to recognize any marriages at all, and that every joining between couples would turn into a civil union whether they are straight or gay. "Marriages" would be performed only in churches and would only mean what the church you go to wants it to mean.

Anyway, I liked it.

Interesting. Sounds fair enough.

Fair until there is a need for divorce. Marriage is not merely a social interaction, it's a legal contract, and contract law is regulated by the state. So division of property, tax issues, child custody, and maintenance all fall under state purview. Legal in, legal out. It's hard to escape the state.

Those same things already apply to the dissoluntionment of civil unions. On the child support documents there is already a check box for them.

Yes, civil unions are also a legality. Legal in, legal out. Those who advocate that government stay out of contractual relationships, of which marriage is one, don't realize that they are removing the concept of "rights" by doing so, rendering moot the "right" to be married argument.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

The founders of the nation included the belief in a Creator in the concept of natural rights. Attacks on the believers in a Creator have no place in a rational discussion of the natural rights recognized by our government.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Barza Woman

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You are not even making sense. Marriage is not a "right" Any benefits of marriage are granted only by the state in contractural law, as you note above. My contention is that state created privileges cannot be denied to certain people based on sexual descrimination. Either apply the privilege of marriage equally, or eliminate it entirely. There is no other acceptable choice FOR THE GOVERNMENT. Churches, being private can descriminate and mistreat and deny privileges to other humans all their God allows them to.

I make solid sense. Government, while limited by inherent "human rights" is still the manner by which we provide concrete avenues to its philosophical construct. The argument for gay marriage is that the "rights" of marriage and its benefits are being denied to gays. Privileges, on the other hand, are not inate, and can be denied or limited until earned.

Yes, there is a higher source for rights than governments created by people. The PEOPLE are the higher power. I do not assume that the "higher source" is an imaginary God from one of the world's thousands of religions also created by people. An atheist has exactly the same rights as any other person from exactly the same source. Perhaps YOU believe YOUR rights come from a God. OK, then the athiests come from that same GOD unless the GOD you worship is descriminatory, or did not create athiests, maybe they were created by another religion's God?

In our system, the people are the higher political power, but not the source of natural rights. That is not a matter of personal opinion. That is what is stated in the Declaration of Independence, and from where our legal definition arises.

as I have said, there are no Gay "rights" They have the same rights as humans as anyone else. Thise rights comes form being human. Marriage is a set of privileges granted by the state or federal government. Even to the point of immigration benefits for, or in anticipation of, a marriage.

The Declaration of Independence was letter to the King. It is not the "basis" of anything. The constitution is that. That the consittution acknowlegses "a" God does not make it so, nor does it make any other part of the constitution null and void. It is clear in its intent that "rights" do NOT come from government. Their source is really not important in any case. Only that they are NOT from government and government cannot infringe on them.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You are not even making sense. Marriage is not a "right" Any benefits of marriage are granted only by the state in contractural law, as you note above. My contention is that state created privileges cannot be denied to certain people based on sexual descrimination. Either apply the privilege of marriage equally, or eliminate it entirely. There is no other acceptable choice FOR THE GOVERNMENT. Churches, being private can descriminate and mistreat and deny privileges to other humans all their God allows them to.

I make solid sense. Government, while limited by inherent "human rights" is still the manner by which we provide concrete avenues to its philosophical construct. The argument for gay marriage is that the "rights" of marriage and its benefits are being denied to gays. Privileges, on the other hand, are not inate, and can be denied or limited until earned.

Yes, there is a higher source for rights than governments created by people. The PEOPLE are the higher power. I do not assume that the "higher source" is an imaginary God from one of the world's thousands of religions also created by people. An atheist has exactly the same rights as any other person from exactly the same source. Perhaps YOU believe YOUR rights come from a God. OK, then the athiests come from that same GOD unless the GOD you worship is descriminatory, or did not create athiests, maybe they were created by another religion's God?

In our system, the people are the higher political power, but not the source of natural rights. That is not a matter of personal opinion. That is what is stated in the Declaration of Independence, and from where our legal definition arises.

as I have said, there are no Gay "rights" They have the same rights as humans as anyone else. Thise rights comes form being human. Marriage is a set of privileges granted by the state or federal government. Even to the point of immigration benefits for, or in anticipation of, a marriage.

The Declaration of Independence was letter to the King. It is not the "basis" of anything. The constitution is that. That the consittution acknowlegses "a" God does not make it so, nor does it make any other part of the constitution null and void. It is clear in its intent that "rights" do NOT come from government. Their source is really not important in any case. Only that they are NOT from government and government cannot infringe on them.

It's clear that you are arguing from emotion and preference rather than fact. You also have no real knowledge of the impact and authority of the founding documents of the Unied States. Forgive me, but I prefer to support my position from the perspective and within the context of the actual legal process, history and using valid legal and philosophical sources and concepts.

You are using only your feelings and opinions about the topic, based on falsehoods. I cannot debate on that level.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

The founders of the nation included the belief in a Creator in the concept of natural rights. Attacks on the believers in a Creator have no place in a rational discussion of the natural rights recognized by our government.

so what? You cannot run and hide because someone put that word in there. It doesn't matter, for constituional aspects. It is a redundant word. Take it out, it reads and means the same...

"that they are endowed with inherent and inalienable rights...unless you are Gay, black, hispanic, Irish or Italian, Jewish or Muslim, Chinese" Shall I list any other of our nations descriminated peoples? It is time for this pseudo-religious ####### to stop and the oppression of "god's people" that goes with it. The important thing, even an athiest can believe, is that rights do not come from government formed by the people.

The first amendment protocts my freedom to disagree with religious beliefs

[Sofiyya 1,687]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

The founders of the nation included the belief in a Creator in the concept of natural rights. Attacks on the believers in a Creator have no place in a rational discussion of the natural rights recognized by our government.

so what? You cannot run and hide because someone put that word in there. It doesn't matter, for constituional aspects. It is a redundant word. Take it out, it reads and means the same...

"that they are endowed with inherent and inalienable rights...unless you are Gay, black, hispanic, Irish or Italian, Jewish or Muslim, Chinese" Shall I list any other of our nations descriminated peoples? It is time for this pseudo-religious ####### to stop and the oppression of "god's people" that goes with it. The important thing, even an athiest can believe, is that rights do not come from government formed by the people.

The first amendment protocts my freedom to disagree with religious beliefs

I'm not going to run and hide. I just don't see our exchange advancing in a constructive manner. Have a wonderful day!

Edited May 31, 2009 by Barza Woman

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You are not even making sense. Marriage is not a "right" Any benefits of marriage are granted only by the state in contractural law, as you note above. My contention is that state created privileges cannot be denied to certain people based on sexual descrimination. Either apply the privilege of marriage equally, or eliminate it entirely. There is no other acceptable choice FOR THE GOVERNMENT. Churches, being private can descriminate and mistreat and deny privileges to other humans all their God allows them to.

I make solid sense. Government, while limited by inherent "human rights" is still the manner by which we provide concrete avenues to its philosophical construct. The argument for gay marriage is that the "rights" of marriage and its benefits are being denied to gays. Privileges, on the other hand, are not inate, and can be denied or limited until earned.

Yes, there is a higher source for rights than governments created by people. The PEOPLE are the higher power. I do not assume that the "higher source" is an imaginary God from one of the world's thousands of religions also created by people. An atheist has exactly the same rights as any other person from exactly the same source. Perhaps YOU believe YOUR rights come from a God. OK, then the athiests come from that same GOD unless the GOD you worship is descriminatory, or did not create athiests, maybe they were created by another religion's God?

In our system, the people are the higher political power, but not the source of natural rights. That is not a matter of personal opinion. That is what is stated in the Declaration of Independence, and from where our legal definition arises.

as I have said, there are no Gay "rights" They have the same rights as humans as anyone else. Thise rights comes form being human. Marriage is a set of privileges granted by the state or federal government. Even to the point of immigration benefits for, or in anticipation of, a marriage.

The Declaration of Independence was letter to the King. It is not the "basis" of anything. The constitution is that. That the consittution acknowlegses "a" God does not make it so, nor does it make any other part of the constitution null and void. It is clear in its intent that "rights" do NOT come from government. Their source is really not important in any case. Only that they are NOT from government and government cannot infringe on them.

It's clear that you are arguing from emotion and preference rather than fact. You also have no real knowledge of the impact and authority of the founding documents of the Unied States. Forgive me, but I prefer to support my position from the perspective and within the context of the actual legal process, history and using valid legal and philosophical sources and concepts.

You are using only your feelings and opinions about the topic, based on falsehoods. I cannot debate on that level.

It is evident you cannot debate on that level. For the Declaarion of Independence to be the basis of anything would have negated the need for the constitution 13 years later and all the meetings in between. Preposterous.

The Declaration was an announcemnet to the King of England. The King of England was/is the "keeper of the Faith" the head of the Anglican church ever since the Coatholic Religion didn't agree with Henry the VIII so he dumped the Catholic beliefs in deference to his own which now became the Anglican churches...see how that works? The King was not only the King, he was, essentially, the "Pope" of the Anglican faith. Wouldn't it be clever of Jefferson to maybe mention GOD in the letter? Yikes. I do not buy into the notion that "Jefferson mentioned God in a letter to the head of the Church, therefore there IS a God" Sorry.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

The founders of the nation included the belief in a Creator in the concept of natural rights. Attacks on the believers in a Creator have no place in a rational discussion of the natural rights recognized by our government.

so what? You cannot run and hide because someone put that word in there. It doesn't matter, for constituional aspects. It is a redundant word. Take it out, it reads and means the same...

"that they are endowed with inherent and inalienable rights...unless you are Gay, black, hispanic, Irish or Italian, Jewish or Muslim, Chinese" Shall I list any other of our nations descriminated peoples? It is time for this pseudo-religious ####### to stop and the oppression of "god's people" that goes with it. The important thing, even an athiest can believe, is that rights do not come from government formed by the people.

The first amendment protocts my freedom to disagree with religious beliefs

I'm not going to run and hide. I just don't see our exchange advancing in a constructive manner. Have a wonderful day!

Translation...

"I am hurting my own cause and need to bug out before more people learn the truth in responses to my preposterous claims...quick, where's my bible? Oh yes, here it is...behold the lillies of the fields, they do not toil. The government cares for them. The government tells them who to marry, the government feeds them and waters them"

[scandal 951]

Disagree about hate crimes and it doesn't matter what the NY legislature says. I believe in strict, severe and reliable punishment. I do nlot belive a Gay man or black man or ...whatever...is in any way more capable of suffering from crime than I am or my family is. It is a preposterous and insulting concept that one human is more capbale than another of emotions and fears. Stupid idea.

Now if New York wants to make enhanced punishment across the board for all crminals, I am all for it. You support "equal protection"? So do I.

You are free to disagree. That's what a free society is all about. I encourage you to vote for representatives, or run for office, or support/oppose legislation, or write letters to the editor, or post your thoughts on the Internet - in keeping with your beliefs. And I for one am interested in hearing your views, even when I disagree with them.

It doesn't matter to you what the NY legislature says, you live in Vermont. I offered the text from NY as a statement that I felt explains and justifies why it's important to have such legislation.

Note that Vermont has a Hate Crimes law, 13 V.S.A. §1454-1457:

Any crime committed in Vermont that is maliciously motivated by the victim’s actual, or perceived, race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age, service in the armed forces of the United States, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity is a hate crime.

You may not like this law or agree with it, but it does apply in your state and you are bound by it as other residents are.

Note that it does not single out one group for special protection. Rather, it asserts that any crime motivated by a victim's belonging to any distinct group is a hate crime. If someone picked on you because you are a straight white male, that would be a hate crime. Hence there is no issue here with "equal protection" under the law - this statute is fair and square offering equal protection.

Thus the debate is not over constitutionality of such a law. The debate is over the advisability of having such a law. You believe it is unadvisable, which is your right. I disagree with you, which is my right. I believe this differing attitude may have to do with our life experiences. If you come from a group that has never been victimized perhaps it's easier to dismiss legal protections that you've never felt you've needed or benefited from. The history of this country is that targeted groups HAVE suffered persecution. Hate crime laws in all 50 states and federal law have taken that reality into account. That's what we should expect the law to do - recognize real social injustices and take steps to remedy them.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

The founders of the nation included the belief in a Creator in the concept of natural rights. Attacks on the believers in a Creator have no place in a rational discussion of the natural rights recognized by our government.

so what? You cannot run and hide because someone put that word in there. It doesn't matter, for constituional aspects. It is a redundant word. Take it out, it reads and means the same...

"that they are endowed with inherent and inalienable rights...unless you are Gay, black, hispanic, Irish or Italian, Jewish or Muslim, Chinese" Shall I list any other of our nations descriminated peoples? It is time for this pseudo-religious ####### to stop and the oppression of "god's people" that goes with it. The important thing, even an athiest can believe, is that rights do not come from government formed by the people.

The first amendment protocts my freedom to disagree with religious beliefs

I'm not going to run and hide. I just don't see our exchange advancing in a constructive manner. Have a wonderful day!

Translation...

"I am hurting my own cause and need to bug out before more people learn the truth in responses to my preposterous claims...quick, where's my bible? Oh yes, here it is...behold the lillies of the fields, they do not toil. The government cares for them. The government tells them who to marry, the government feeds them and waters them"

You get the law wrong, you get my words wrong. At least you're consistant.