Question on Political Beliefs:

Hi, I've known for a while my Constitutional beliefs about isonomy
and consensus on law are some rare "political belief or religion,"
that other people do not share (most do not believe consensus on laws is possible,
much less legally necessary as I believe in cases of religious or political beliefs).

I've assumed from the beginning that since my whole point is I believe
in "consent of the governed" (and not abusing govt to impose beliefs against the will of people,
but laws that reflect consensus of the people affected may contain religious or political beliefs
as long as all people consent to them and agree to endorse that through the state);
then I cannot violate my own beliefs by imposing mine or others
against the will of others either, but agreements on law must be formed by free will, not force of law.

So I have been putting up with people imposing their religious and political beliefs by law and govt,
which violates my beliefs and my consent, but cannot change that unless THOSE PEOPLE agree to change by consent.

That was my premise of how to go about resolving grievances and conflicts.

Now the Courts, States, and govt are writing, passing, interpreting and interpreting laws that violate
one set of people's beliefs or another's at an ALARMING rate, not resolving one issue before creating more such issues.

From my viewpoint of respecting religiously held beliefs equally as protected by law (but not being imposed by law either):
* right to health care is a political belief
equal and in contrast to
* belief in natural rights, limited govt, and keeping govt out of free choice of health care unless a Constitutional Amendment is passed

I see the two as equal political beliefs, and have asked people to separate these beliefs by party, incorporate their own systems,
and keep both out of govt which is to be reserved for only the policies and programs that all people/parties agree to and do not violate anyone's beliefs, religious or political

* right to marriage or marriage equality is a belief
equal and in contrast to
belief in marriage as defined by one man and one woman only

So again I see that either "laws on marriage must be written so neutrally" so as neither to exclude, ban, impose, or endorse one more than the other
So either remove marriage from govt and only have civil unions and contracts through the state
and keep all opinions, beliefs and traditions about marriage to the people and churches in private
Or agree to a compromise by CONSENSUS so that no one abuse govt to FORCE someone to abandon their beliefs for someone else's

I pointed this out on another forum
that to be progay or antigay on marriage
was like being Muslim or Hindu and being against pork or against beef in diet

I do not believe in this business of going to Court with a complaint
that either diets must require pork instead of beef, or beef instead of pork
where whichever side the Court picks, the other side must compromise their religious beliefs

I argue that the laws should be written to REMOVE such mention of pork or beef
so that NEITHER side is imposed upon by the other set of beliefs
or else REMOVE the policy from govt altogether
or AGREE how to write the policy where both sides consent to some compromise

As it is, when the Courts keep ruling for one side or the other,
someone is complaining their beliefs are not being protected or represented equally
and I believe that is unconstitutional.

Why is it okay for other people to keep imposing their beliefs through govt and courts,
taking turns violating each other's consent and equal religious freedom and equal protection from discrimination by creed?

And here, because I do not believe in violating people's consent,
I do not believe in going to Court and forcing my way of resolving these conflicts on people through govt, arguing it's more constitutional.
If they do not agree to separate and to respect each other equally by FREE WILL, I cannot force them to against their consent
or it still violates my beliefs in free choice and consent.

I believe if I do my job right, if I explain this properly and clearly,
people will naturally quit imposing on each other and see the Golden Rule
that if they want their beliefs respected they must enforce the same for others.

However, I cannot force this, it can only be taught, learned, adopted and enforced by free will not by force of law
or it isn't consent of the governed.

Do I have the right to go to Court and file some complaint?
How would you word such a complaint?

Do I just keep asking people to "knock it off" one by one with the political impositions back and forth,
and encourage people to mediate directly and keep things out of courts and govt.

If others have the right to sue in Court and force a ruling that excludes beliefs,
do I have the right to do the same, even though it technically goes against my beliefs in suing and forcing
rather than mediating and keeping it out of govt.

Please advise. Thank you! Yours truly, Emily