What Do You Think Of The Religious Freedom Restoration Act Bill?

I'm unaware of any 'laws' that would require rewriting, but maybe a few changes or additions to some forms, and after all our elected politicians are being paid to do a job so let them earn their keep.

I fail to see any relevance above to the issue being discussed. The word soul has always been applied without implying gender.

 

What rights are endowed by purchasing a standardized govt marraige contract ? Equal rights for
all would abolish these govt defined benefits .

 

Assuming all our laws are now stored in files on computers, it would be a trivial effort using a script to find the word 'marriage' and replace it with 'marriage/civil union' or whatever else might be desirous.

All humans are but one species, whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, etc. But most all species are made up of members who are of a different gender. The word marriage was created and long recognized as a legal union of a man and a woman. While it has taken a long time for the acceptance of different religions, skin colors, or other minor differences between those marrying, it has always communicated the union of a man and a woman. Maybe the issue would be more easily solved by eliminating the word marriage completely from our language and simply replace it with a word for government use, like 'partnership' or something else with no gender implication? Those who are religious could still use the word marriage in addition to recognizing a partnership between a man and a woman couple.

I don't believe in souls, but even if I did I don't see what it has to do with the issue being discussed. I do accept that two gays have a right to form a legal union with the same rights as a marriage of a straight couple. The only issue I see needing a resolution is what to call it.

And I am only stating my opinion.

 

The language needs to be without gender restrictions. Don't forget we have a third gender.

 

All laws should be written using words which contain no connotative meaning, which could allow misinterpretation to be used as a means of unequal application.
Relative to the issue being discussed, instead of government requiring/issuing 'marriage' licences, the term 'conjugation' could be used as a replacement and with or without any further ceremonial events they could be recognized equally by both Federal and State governments in the same way that has been applied to couples recognized as married in the past.
In my opinion, especially in consideration of the fact that people are living much longer today, it makes much more sense to expand rather than redefine our lexicon which allows for us to more clearly communicate with one another with less need to ask which meaning is being applied to words we are attempting to communicate using.

I feel my response would accommodate the recognition of a fourth, fifth, or any additional gender definitions as I've eliminated gender in my proposed solution.

 

I think that would be great.

 

i would sum this up by saying "where's the freedom"?
to me freedom is everything that ISN'T dominant.
anyone who tries to tell me christerism isn't already dominant, is seriously blowing smoke up their own ass and everyone else's.

i mean, if rifta's were serious about what they seem to be trying to say,
mormons and muslims and whoever else, could have multiple wives, or husbands or what have you.
and that's just scratching the surface. it goes on and on.

so to call those kinds of laws anything other then REPRESSION of religious freedom, is outright nonsense and dishonesty.

 

Look people... this isn't so fucking complicated.

The term "marriage" means the union of two people, many of whom think that exclusively means between a man and a woman.
The thing is, "marriage" has been the term, regardless of sex, for over two thousand years.
It wasn't until Christians started taking over (politically) that it was an issue... and when I say "issue", I mean they executed people for it.

Which brings me to my main point... that the argument against non-hetero marriage is based on religious values.
That means our government should not restrict marriage on a basis of sexuality, because it is a religious value.

And there is a huge issue with calling a gay marriage a "civil union" or "conjugation" or "conjunction junction"... as has been stated, it's just an "equal but separate" standpoint.
When you say "you can be joined legally... but not "married"", you're saying "you aren't as equal as us".
It belittles those who are not heterosexual.

Basically, the basis of "only man and woman" is religious.
Our country disallows religion as a reason for making laws.
Thus, we should not restrict marriage to heterosexuals only.


Also, your freedom of religion doesn't stop where it hurts me.
It stops where it effects me in any way whatsoever.
Insisting that religious people with secular businesses need to respect the law of the land isn't infringing on their right to be religious.
It's simply the way our country was set up right from the starting gate.

You have the right to worship who you want, but you don't have the right to impose those rules on anyone else... including by your public, commercial business.
(Hobby Lobby never should have been given favor in that ruling... it's an affront to our Constitution.)

 

More BS from psychotic megalomaniacs that believe they have the inalienable/universal right to dispense freedoms and reign over your life.

 

its great spin to call these laws 'religious freedom', but how can they give anything to religious freedom, when christianity, is the only religion they allow to be free?
and even only certain sects of it at that?
this is not religious freedom, it is a great and evil deception to call these laws anything of the sort.
they are laws against religious freedom, not in support of it.
this is typical 'conservative' bait and switch and simply bald faced outright lying, to call them anything of the sort.

shame on everyone who tries to impose these tyrannical lies, and call them any kind of 'freedom' at all.

it makes my blood boil, this kind of filth, that calls right wing tyranny some kind of freedom, religious or otherwise.

 

I'm outta Likes, so... QFT