Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > Civil Rights & Abortion
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Civil Rights & Abortion Discuss Alabama moving to leave marriage to religion and culture only at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by foundit66 You seriously can't be this thick. There is no "special sanctioning of RELIGIOUS clergy". ANYBODY who ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51 (permalink)  
Old 06-05-2016, 10:08 PM
Joe Shoe's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,218
Thanks: 822
Thanked 1,591 Times in 1,080 Posts
Default Re: Alabama moving to leave marriage to religion and culture only

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post

You seriously can't be this thick.
There is no "special sanctioning of RELIGIOUS clergy".
ANYBODY who wants to apply for the capability to legally marry people can do so.
Ok, it's becoming very clear that you're just arguing out of ignorance here. It all makes sense now. I assume you just didn't know some states allow ministers power to do this than others DON'T HAVE.
Read and learn.

Perform Marriage Ceremony Officiants Requirements by State | Marriage Licenses
Usually the state laws licensing provide any recognized member of the clergy (such as a Priest, Minister, Rabbi, Imam, Cantor, Ethical Culture Leader, etc.), or a judge, a court clerk, and justices of the peace have authority to perform a marriage. However in some states even the clergy must be first certified or licensed.

The best you can claim about ANYONE having these powers is in SOME states, but often PASTORS are specified and EMPHASIZED in these laws, and most do not give that power to just anyone.
More ...

F.A.Q.: Officiating Weddings - You Can Conduct That Wedding

(Read and see how numerous states put PASTORS the same status as judges in solemnizing marriage. But just anyone with no credentials? No--this is not allowed in numerous states.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Can you comprehend this?
There is nothing "religious" about the act of "sanctioning".
JUST BECAUSE some religious leaders apply does not make the sanctioning religious.
NO ONE SAID it makes the "SANCTIONING (as an act) religious".
What I've pointed out is that the state gives RELIGION a special place in this and therefore limited marriage based upon religious beliefs.
Now you've said you agree with that, and I'm glad you do. Even if you're not going to be able to tell me directly.
__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???
Reply With Quote
  #52 (permalink)  
Old 06-05-2016, 10:22 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,620
Thanks: 10,112
Thanked 15,316 Times in 9,287 Posts
Default Re: Alabama moving to leave marriage to religion and culture only

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Ok, it's becoming very clear that you're just arguing out of ignorance here. It all makes sense now. I assume you just didn't know some states allow ministers power to do this than others DON'T HAVE.
Read and learn.

Perform Marriage Ceremony Officiants Requirements by State | Marriage Licenses
Usually the state laws licensing provide any recognized member of the clergy (such as a Priest, Minister, Rabbi, Imam, Cantor, Ethical Culture Leader, etc.), or a judge, a court clerk, and justices of the peace have authority to perform a marriage. However in some states even the clergy must be first certified or licensed.
Joe.
Go back and read what I actually said.
Cause what you just posted IN NO WAY contradicts with what I was ACTUALLY saying.

The clergy must be certified or licensed before they can perform a marriage like a county clerk???
Yes. That's exactly what I was talking about...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
The best you can claim about ANYONE having these powers is in SOME states, but often PASTORS are specified and EMPHASIZED in these laws, and most do not give that power to just anyone.
More ...
F.A.Q.: Officiating Weddings - You Can Conduct That Wedding
(Read and see how numerous states put PASTORS the same status as judges in solemnizing marriage. But just anyone with no credentials? No--this is not allowed in numerous states.)
Did I say "anyone with no credentials" ???
No. I did not say anyone with no credentials

I was talking about anybody COULD GET LICENSED by the state to officiate a marriage.
Anybody can get credentials to officiate a marriage.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
NO ONE SAID it makes the "SANCTIONING (as an act) religious".]
What I've pointed out is that the state gives RELIGION a special place in this and therefore limited marriage based upon religious beliefs.
Good GAWD man. Seriously. It's like you come up with 1 + 1, and then when it comes time for the answer you think it's blue!


You JUST LINKED to how people can get licensed to perform marriages without any religious involvement.
And then you turn around and claim "the state gives RELIGION a special place in this".

No. It gives religion A PLACE in this, JUST LIKE ANY NON-RELIGIOUS WHO APPLY.

The really stupid part is that if the state were to give religion an exclusive place in this, that would violate the first amendment.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Now you've said you agree with that, and I'm glad you do.
QUOTE ME.
I've acknowledged the state can give religion A PLACE in marriage.
There is nothing "special" about it.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Last edited by foundit66; 06-05-2016 at 10:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #53 (permalink)  
Old 06-05-2016, 10:34 PM
Joe Shoe's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,218
Thanks: 822
Thanked 1,591 Times in 1,080 Posts
Default Re: Alabama moving to leave marriage to religion and culture only

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
I gave the definitions involved for the words you were using. You ignored it and now lie that I just "claimed an opinion".
Dude, where I specified "ANALOGY" was to the ANALOGY.
The relevance or application of any analogy IS an opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
"benefit" is not the same thing as "dole".
Police protection is a government benefit.
That doesn't mean police protection is "government dole".
Yep, like I said, semantics at this point ...
Have some integrity and just admit you don't like the word 'dole'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
If I had argued "You must give us a list of 1000+ relevant benefits / privileges / responsibilities or your request is rejected", THEN maybe you could claim significance because the 1000+ are not all equally important and the 1000+ are not all relevant for all marriages.

But I'm not doing that.

What I have done (and you predictably, cowardly ducked it) is document the absurd cost that you would impose upon ALL married couples if you had gotten your way. The point is not really the "1000+" as much as it is how much more difficult and costly it is to achieve these benefits.
http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/civ...tml#post816982

You would impose a hardship of Thousands to Hundreds of Thousands of extra costs on married couples across this land.
Bulls***.
You just admitted many of the 1000+ benefits "are not relevant"--the ones that ARE don't cost that much unless you're just stupid.
Many of the things are contested are covered in WILLS and POA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
"finding a mate, wedding ceremony" would be the same in both situations. A couple wanting to marry just with the religion would still have to do that.
Er ... but in the paradigm us libertarians are talking about, there IS NO situation of the govt. giving all these special benefits to people with married status. Not the same in "both situations" at all, because we're only talking about ONE situation to begin with.
Reading comp.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Another one of your stupid strawman arguments.
I never claimed it was a constitutional guarantee.
Then you have no good point here and you're just trying to backpedal at this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
What I have told you, repeatedly, is that if YOU want to change the status quo, you have to provide a convincing argument for doing so.
So gays were required to give a convincing argument to change their status quo? That's not what you used to argue at all.

You shift claims of burden of proof like you a snake sheds its skin.
Has nothing to do with "status quo." It has to do with the govt. going beyond the constitution in making govt. too powerful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
The cost of the wedding HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CONVERSATION.
Oh my gawd.
You are THICK.
It ALL has to do with this conversation, BECAUSE MARRIAGE IS THE SCENARIO BY WHICH YOU BASE GETTING ALL THESE SPECIAL BENEFITS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
And without surprise, YOU AGAIN COWARDLY DUCK THE ISSUES.
I never said a lawyer is necessary for a POA.
I asked you HOW MUCH WOULD THE LAWYER COST BE so the couple who doesn't get married without government involvement gets the same protections...
And (to use a phrase you like to use), I NEVER SAID YOU SAID 'a lawyer is necessary for a POA'. Look Foundit. You brought up the cost of a lawyer. I pointed out that isn't necessary. Your question was not pertinent to begin with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
I point out ... BLAH BLAH BLAH
You respond ... BLAH BLAH BLAH
you somehow think .... BLAH BLAH BLAH
I have been presenting persuasive arguments ... BLAH BLAH BLAH
[ SNIP / Foundit's pedantic and pointless arguing over the argument rather than MAKING arguments / SNIP]
__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???
Reply With Quote
  #54 (permalink)  
Old 06-05-2016, 10:44 PM
Joe Shoe's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,218
Thanks: 822
Thanked 1,591 Times in 1,080 Posts
Default Re: Alabama moving to leave marriage to religion and culture only

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Joe.
Go back and read what I actually said.

I was talking about anybody COULD GET LICENSED by the state to officiate a marriage.
Uh huh.
And Donald Trump was 'just talking about' the wall being built when he brought up the judge being Mexican.
Pull the other one.
It's become abundantly clear over all this time that you're never going to ever ever admit a mistake in a discussion with me, Foundit. But you might at least TRY not to be so transparent next time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
You JUST LINKED to how people can get licensed to perform marriages without any religious involvement.
And then you turn around and claim "the state gives RELIGION a special place in this".
More evidence yet that you don't read.

Many of the states in the laws I showed you DON'T make it so easy as that, at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
No. It gives religion A PLACE in this, JUST LIKE ANY NON-RELIGIOUS WHO APPLY.
Wow.
You WAAAAAY understate the reality in these cases I showed you, and you well know it. Are you just to the point where you flat out ignore the evidence given you, or did you just not even look at any of it? A number of these states in their laws very clearly EMPHASIZE pastors and give pastors alongside judges this power, without allowances in other ways.
I invite the reading public to see for themselves in the links I gave.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
The really stupid part is that if the state were to give religion an exclusive place in this, that would violate the first amendment.
Um ... it does. Marriage in the way the govt. has done it DOES do that.
That's the whole point, Einstein.
That's WHAT ShivaTD was trying to tell you.
You even agreed to that broader point, but your stubbornness won't let you even come down to acknowledge one simple CASE of that very thing when it's been shown you very clearly now.
__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???
Reply With Quote
  #55 (permalink)  
Old 06-05-2016, 10:50 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,620
Thanks: 10,112
Thanked 15,316 Times in 9,287 Posts
Default Re: Alabama moving to leave marriage to religion and culture only

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Dude, where I specified "ANALOGY" was to the ANALOGY.
The relevance or application of any analogy IS an opinion.
Quit trying to move the goal-posts.
I pointed out the definitions for government dole.
You tried to claim I only gave my opinion when I explicitly showed, by definition why your claim was wrong.

Your claim on "government dole" never claimed to be an "analogy". AFTER you realize the definition doesn't fit, of course NOW you want to claim "analogy", dontcha...
And the really stupid part is that in other places you try to show how my analogy fails by applying it to areas it wasn't intended.
But here, you claim "The relevance or application of any analogy IS an opinion."
So which is it? Are my analogies valid according to my opinion or are they proven wrong by your comments?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Yep, like I said, semantics at this point ...
Have some integrity and just admit you don't like the word 'dole'.
Using the actual meaning of words is not "semantics".
As I pointed out (and you ducked as usual), by your usage police patrol protection would be considered "government dole".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Bulls***.
You just admitted many of the 1000+ benefits "are not relevant"--the ones that ARE don't cost that much unless you're just stupid.
Many of the things are contested are covered in WILLS and POA.

I admit some rare items on the list "are not relevant" to some marriages.

And while some of the things are covered by wills / POA, MANY ARE NOT.
And I have repeatedly quoted the price tag in making sure ALL relevant areas are covered.
SEVERAL THOUSAND to HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Er ... but in the paradigm us libertarians are talking about, there IS NO situation of the govt. giving all these special benefits to people with married status. Not the same in "both situations" at all, because we're only talking about ONE situation to begin with.
Reading comp.
Gawd Joe.
You try to throw oranges in with the apples, and then pretend it's reading comprehension...

FOR MARRIED PEOPLE (which is the ACTUAL TOPIC OF THIS THREAD), the "finding a partner" crap is irrelevant to the overall COMPARISON of the current status quo and what you desire.

You are AGAIN MOVING THE GOAL-POSTS to try to ignore all those people you will cause extra problems and expenses for.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Then you have no good point here and you're just trying to backpedal at this point.

Your failed strawman does not mean I didn't have a point.
The fact that I did not make the argument you claimed I was making does not mean I was "backpedalling".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
So gays were required to give a convincing argument to change their status quo? That's not what you used to argue at all.
Oh GAWD man. You CANNOT be this thick.
HELLS YES we were required to give a convincing argument.
The arguments were documented in Obergefell v. Hodges.
And they were convincing enough to get five judges to agree.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Has nothing to do with "status quo." It has to do with the govt. going beyond the constitution in making govt. too powerful.
Wow. Man. Seriously.
I don't know whether to laugh at you right now or just pity you.

YOU HAVE MADE NO CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT HERE.
So trying to pretend this is about "govt. going beyond the constitution" is just a laughable pretense at this stage.

If you want to TRY to make a constitutional argument here, THEN MAKE IT.
But the truth is marriage has been recognized as a governmentally protected right for several decades. And with absolutely no cogent argument from you for why that is wrong, you're on the wrong end of reality.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Oh my gawd.
You are THICK.
It ALL has to do with this conversation, BECAUSE MARRIAGE IS THE SCENARIO BY WHICH YOU BASE GETTING ALL THESE SPECIAL BENEFITS.
No. Not thick.
I just think logically while you what you present is a bizarre mish-mash of reading comprehension failure, ranting with no persuasive argument made, or boring claims with no substantiation.

LOGICALLY if you have two situations you weigh the differences between them.
Government IN the marriage recognition business vs Government OUT OF the marriage recognition business.

The cost of the wedding is not changed between the two scenarios.
In BOTH scenarios, people will pay to put on a wedding.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE, ergo there is no point in trying to use it as an argument in your favor...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
And (to use a phrase you like to use), I NEVER SAID YOU SAID 'a lawyer is necessary for a POA'.
I swear.
You can't get more pedantic and argumentative than what you just did.

I pointed out the extra cost involved with people who want the marriage rights / benefits / responsibilities WITHOUT governmental involvement.
YOU started in with this stupid POA crap as an obfuscation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
You brought up the cost of a lawyer.
Good gawd man.
FREAKIN' LISTEN FOR ONCE.
The cost of the lawyer is regarding ALL THE RELEVANT RIGHTS / BENEFITS / RESPONSIBILITIES involved.
YOU want to talk JUST about POA and ignore everything else.
It's the EVERYTHING involved (not just the POA) that I'm talking about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/yo...oney.html?_r=0
Here is what we came up with. In our worst case, the couple’s lifetime cost of being gay was $467,562. But the number fell to $41,196 in the best case for a couple with significantly better health insurance, plus lower taxes and other costs.

These numbers will vary, depending on a couple’s income and circumstance. Gay couples earning, say, $80,000, could have health insurance costs similar to our hypothetical higher-earning couple, but they might well owe more in income taxes than their heterosexual counterparts. For wealthy couples with a lot of assets, on the other hand, the cost of being gay could easily spiral into the millions.

Nearly all the extra costs that gay couples face would be erased if the federal government legalized same-sex marriage. One exception is the cost of having biological children, but we felt it was appropriate to include this given our goal of outlining every cost gay couples incur that heterosexual couples may not.
To achieve similar protections as government marriage, it would require at least TENS of THOUSANDS of dollars. Possibly HUNDREDS of thousands, depending upon the insurance situation.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Last edited by foundit66; 06-05-2016 at 11:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #56 (permalink)  
Old 06-05-2016, 10:59 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,620
Thanks: 10,112
Thanked 15,316 Times in 9,287 Posts
Default Re: Alabama moving to leave marriage to religion and culture only

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Uh huh.
At this stage, I don't give a damn what you want to get snarky over...
This is why I repeatedly tell you to QUOTE ME when you try to pretend I argued something I didn't.
And when you repeatedly CANNOT DO THAT, it helps prove my point.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
More evidence yet that you don't read.
Many of the states in the laws I showed you DON'T make it so easy as that, at all.
As "easy" as WHAT Joe?
I wasn't talking about "ease", even though both are in the same relative ball-park.

I'm talking about CAPABILITY. Not what you think is easy or not easy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
You WAAAAAY understate the reality in these cases I showed you, and you well know it.
Joe, when you claim I "know" that your claim is accurate, that's often a red herring for a complete failure on your part to PROVE your claim is accurate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Are you just to the point where you flat out ignore the evidence given you, or did you just not even look at any of it? A number of these states in their laws very clearly EMPHASIZE pastors and give pastors alongside judges this power, without allowances in other ways.

They give pastors a method. Yes
They also give NON-pastors a method as well.
They BOTH have methods.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
Um ... it does. Marriage in the way the govt. has done it DOES do that.
That's the whole point, Einstein.
Once again, Joe blindly makes a claim with no proof of his claim.
Or, at worst, another attempt to vaguely move the goal-posts from my actual statement.

I said: "... if the state were to give religion an exclusive place in this, that would violate the first amendment."

Now go look up the meaning of the word "exclusive" and get back to me...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
That's WHAT ShivaTD was trying to tell you.

I already explained what ShivaTD ACTUALLY said there.
Unlike your attempt to misrepresent other people's statements, I'll REQUOTE the statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Historically states have defined/limited marriage based upon religious beliefs and that flies in the face of the US Constitution and the purpose of government in the United States.
ShivaTD was talking about RELIGIOUS BELIEFS defining / limiting marriage.

Which is something you cut and paste around earlier when I pointed that out.
But true to your form, later you try to revive what you cowardly ducked before.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Last edited by foundit66; 06-06-2016 at 07:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
alabama, and, culture, leave, marriage, moving, only, religion

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0