Atlas Conservative Party Convention

[Wisconsin+17]

Bumping this again.

Current ACP members:

Ben Kenobi
Thomas from NJ
Classic Conservative
RFayette
Santander
CMB22

[JustinTimeCuber]

The justification for this law is that the State has an interest in self-propagation.

1. We don't have an overpopulation or underpopulation problem in Atlasia.
2. By that same logic, let's ban old people from marrying because they can't have kids either

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That doesn't change the premise that the state has an interest in self propagation. Ergo, the recognition of marriage between one man and one woman does fulfill this desire from the state.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This commits a category mistake, and was already addressed further up the thread. We cannot guarantee that any union between husband and wife will have children. However, we do know that unions outside of a man and a woman will not produce children. Ergo, it makes sense for society to preference marriage between one man and one woman.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This commits a category mistake, and was already addressed further up the thread. We cannot guarantee that any union between husband and wife will have children. However, we do know that unions outside of a man and a woman will not produce children. Ergo, it makes sense for society to preference marriage between one man and one woman.

We also know that women cannot conceive children post-menopause. Mandatory divorces for retirees, I say!

[Classic Conservative]

Alright, let's get this party and country moving in the right direction!

[JustinTimeCuber]

That doesn't change the premise that the state has an interest in self propagation. Ergo, the recognition of marriage between one man and one woman does fulfill this desire from the state.

Even if that were true, do you think allowing gay marriage would cause there to be less straight marriage? If you do, that means that you would totally get a gay marriage if it weren't for the government telling you not to. I hate to break it to you, but it seems as if you are gay.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It all boils down to a few questions. "What is the role of the state with respect to marriage?" Prior to the establishment of civil marriage, marriage was done through the Church. The understanding was that the state recognized the marriages done by the priest.

That the state has chosen to provide civil marriage doesn't change the connection between the state and marriage. The purpose of a civil marriage was to permit folks to get married without having to see a priest.

I would argue that the state's role in marriage is to recognize what the definition always has been. Marriage has been around much longer than the state in civil society. Suggesting it otherwise is like the tail wagging the dog. Society can get along just fine without the state. Marriage is another matter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really. I didn't take Cuber for someone who uses the word 'gay' as a pejorative.

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It all boils down to a few questions. "What is the role of the state with respect to marriage?" Prior to the establishment of civil marriage, marriage was done through the Church. The understanding was that the state recognized the marriages done by the priest.

That is unconstitutional. The State cannot officially recognize marriages preformed by one religion, unless all religious and non-religious organizations can do the same thing.

That the state has chosen to provide civil marriage doesn't change the connection between the state and marriage. The purpose of a civil marriage was to permit folks to get married without having to see a priest.

I would argue that the state's role in marriage is to recognize what the definition always has been. Marriage has been around much longer than the state in civil society. Suggesting it otherwise is like the tail wagging the dog. Society can get along just fine without the state. Marriage is another matter.

But since marriage is defined by the State, it is clearly against the constitution to discriminate against gay couples.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really. I didn't take Cuber for someone who uses the word 'gay' as a pejorative.

Not as a pejorative. I just think that if you think gay marriage threatens straight marriage, you might be gay. That's all.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The state has always recognized marriage as done by the Church. This predates the formation of the United States in particular and post-Westphalia states in general. Catholic priests have the authority to solemnize marriages, and this authority doesn't stem from the state but from the Church.

The state has extended this, but that doesn't change it's nature.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not defined by the state. That's my point. This is a conflict that has come up before. Does the state define what constitutes "the Church?" Does the state define who constitutes "a priest"? You say it's discrimination, but the first amendment clearly protects the Church's ability to dispense sacramentals, to hire their own officials, etc.

There's a reason for that too. You might want to read up your history as to how that First Amendment came about and why there's a state called "Maryland".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Question, do you believe a Catholic church should be fined for declining to perform a homosexual marriage?

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The state has always recognized marriage as done by the Church. This predates the formation of the United States in particular and post-Westphalia states in general. Catholic priests have the authority to solemnize marriages, and this authority doesn't stem from the state but from the Church.

The state has extended this, but that doesn't change it's nature.

There's such a thing as a secular marriage.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not defined by the state. That's my point. This is a conflict that has come up before. Does the state define what constitutes "the Church?" Does the state define who constitutes "a priest"? You say it's discrimination, but the first amendment clearly protects the Church's ability to dispense sacramental, to hire their own officials, etc.

There's a reason for that too. You might want to read up your history as to how that First Amendment came about and why there's a state called "Maryland".

That's not true. The State does have a definition of marriage, and that definition can not under the constitution discriminate against "the ho-mos".
The name "Maryland" predates the Constitution, so I'm not really concerned about that. If Maryland changed its name to something else, I would believe that changing back to Maryland is unconstitutional under the establishment clause, and however much you might like, you can't name Texas to be Jesusland.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Question, do you believe a Catholic church should be fined for declined to perform a homosexual marriage?

Question, do you believe a Catholic church should be fined for declined to perform a homosexual interracial marriage?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really. There's just marriage. Are you saying that those who were married by a justice of the peace are considered to be less married? The government extended the privileges that Priests hold to their own Justices. The origin remains the same.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can you show me where in the Constitution it defines marriage?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You should be concerned, because it demonstrates the point that I'm driving home.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is Maryland called Maryland, JustinTimeCuber?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Answer the question, JustinTimeCuber.

[JustinTimeCuber]

Not really. There's just marriage. Are you saying that those who were married by a justice of the peace are considered to be less married? The government extended the privileges that Priests hold to their own Justices. The origin remains the same. The origin of marriage was WAY before lawrdy Jesus came to save us all so that points to it not being specifically Christian. I didn't say secular marriage isn't marriage, as any English teacher would tell you, adding an adjective doesn't necessarily change the essence of what the thing is. Are big shoes not shoes? Is light green not green?

Can you show me where in the Constitution it defines marriage? It doesn't, but there's this little part where it says "equal protection under the law" which apparently only applies to straight white male Christians.

Why is Maryland called Maryland, JustinTimeCuber? It is named for a religious figure, that I am not denying. That predated the Constitution by almost two centuries, so I don't really care that much, although I'd prefer it to be named after something more secular.

Answer the question, JustinTimeCuber. They have two options: provide no marriage services, or provide equal services to everyone without discriminating. I wouldn't force them to marry gay people, but they shouldn't be discriminating. Now it's your turn to answer the question.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Would you fine them, Mr. Cuber? Yes or no?

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Would you fine them, Mr. Cuber? Yes or no?

Since they are providing a service sponsored by the government, they cannot discriminate, under some kind of penalty. If they want to create an unofficial type of marriage, which the government does not endorse or sponsor, they are free to discriminate however they want, that is the extent of religious freedom.

tl;dr yes, but that's misleading

[CMB222]

Are we going to be able to run candidates in elections in April?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is there a specific position you'd like to run for?

Just let me know what you're thinking of running for.

[CMB222]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is there a specific position you'd like to run for?

Just let me know what you're thinking of running for.

Not really just yet but just seeing if anyone else will be.

[Wisconsin+17]

Were you thinking of running for House?

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Cuber, Marriage was created before the state and thus the state should have the decency not to interfere. The fact that the state has negatively interfered for whatever reason is what has the fine citizens in an uproar.

[JustinTimeCuber]

Cuber, Marriage was created before the state and thus the state should have the decency not to interfere. The fact that the state has negatively interfered for whatever reason is what has the fine citizens in an uproar.

That's a completely different question altogether - should marriage be a private affair without any legal concern. I see good arguments on both sides for that. What I don't see any good arguments for is state-sponsored marriage that discriminates against gay people.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why not have 4 people, 5 people married together, Cuber?

What is the role of marriage to the state?

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why not have 4 people, 5 people married together, Cuber?

What is the role of marriage to the state?

I don't personally like the idea of polygamy, but if it's between consenting adults it's not any of my or your business as elected officials.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are a couple of problems with this reductionist understanding. First off, if the state is issuing marriage licenses then yes it becomes the business of the state. Secondly, you'd have to throw out laws regarding bigamy, meaning it would become legal to deceive your spouse and marry them even knowing you are already married to someone else.

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are a couple of problems with this reductionist understanding. First off, if the state is issuing marriage licenses then yes it becomes the business of the state. Secondly, you'd have to throw out laws regarding bigamy, meaning it would become legal to deceive your spouse and marry them even knowing you are already married to someone else.

That's a separate issue from gay marriage. And no, I don't think it should be legal to lie to one's spouse about legal matters.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then you don't believe that someone can be married to more than one person at a time?