Separation of Church and State

[littlerayofsunshine]

What is it with the government today? Bush made his speech about a Ban on gay marriage. WTF! From my understanding marriage was brought about by the bible in ancient times. A religeous ceremony witnessed by the whole town or village to proclamate to the people that this man owns this woman and she is of pure standing. But come on now. The government got involved in marriages only to keeps tabs on population and to make revenue. You buying a marriage liscence is paying to goverment to accept and recognize that a marriage is taking place. There fore affording you your marriage rights under law. Now people who hold position within the government (i.e. judges and justice of the peace) are able to perform a ceremoney for a fee and it is also recognized by the law.

I believe that if churches that wish to not perform a marriage among same sex couples should be free to do so based on their faith. But the government on the other hand who is supposed to give equal rights to all citizens born on the soil or immigrated here, should not be able to say "No! Your union is unacceptable". The Justice of the Peace and/or Judges should be able to perform a gay marriage and said ceremony should be accepted and recognized by the law. Let the churches make their own choices, but I be damned if a President or Other person of political standing is going to force their religeous believes on the people that they govern. In fact, it should be illegal. What should be first and foremost is what is in the best interest of their people. If he wants to save the "idea" of marriage he should make the divorce rate drop, stop spousal violence, pay for marrital counseling. Put some value back into the meaning of marriage and stop trying to negate and small part of the population from being able to legally commit to each other. Next they'll start making it where people with a cancer gene cannot marry and procreate because it costs the nation in health care and money. Or other genetic diseases.

I am in a hetero marriage. It is also interracial. Once apon a time, we would have not been able to marry. But they changed their minds. An Amendement is symbolic of change, it should be ever changing to the need of the people. I think the government lost their compassion and common sense along time ago. The divorce rate would probably drop dramatically if gay marriage was allowed and they should also think of the revenue that would accrue and relieve some of the burden dumbass decisions have placed on our country.

If you think I am wrong, Ok. You have the right and freedom to tell me so. If you think I am right, Lemme hear an AMEN Sista!

[bijenna08]

I totally agree with you. Amen Sista

[Long Duck Dong]

correction.....the church was not the original start of marriage....it started well before the church.....and in places where christianity DIDN"T rule with a twisted iron fist.... forms of marriage existed

the original form of marriage within the church was a way of controlling the bonding of different people.....like you couldn't be bonded with somebody outside the church etc

I look at G bush and i see a man with a personal agenda...a anti gay agenda....pandering to the people that decide his future and his chances of re election.....now if they were a LGBT majority...he would fall over his feet to give them anything they wanted in the way of marriage rights... stupid thing is....that its isolating the gays and lesbians.....and ignoring the people that are bi or want a civil union, instead of a marriage... and they do make up a majority of the voting public

[Jennz]

im sorry to say but the church has always had there hands in governmet (king's & queens as well) for 100's of yrs it will never change, it should change cause the bible or whatever has no place in politics and the running of a nation's i feel sorry for you ppl in the states, having to deal with bush
but like i said, the church will never be separated from the running of countries, i may have gone off topic here but this is basicly why gay marrige is being fought

[usedbear1950]

Karl Marx said that religion is the opiate of the people.
I'm against drugs.

Cotrell is correct. The seperation of church and state was to prevent the government from doing what England did with the Anglican church. Stuff one religion down everybodies throat.

While I do not believe that the 'founding fathers' would have approved of same sex marraige, they would have recognized that such an amendment would be unconstitutional. He is taking a great risk in promoting this amendment. If passed and challenged the Supreme Court has the power to strike it down and in so doing reverse the intention of the amendment.

He's a lame duck who cannot get anything done. His presidency has seen us invade a country for no other reason than to avenge his daddy. An economy that is in chaos. And if anyone wants to tell me to look at the Dow Jones Average, I do daily. I also look at the prime rate, the national debt, the deepening dependence on fossil fuels, the cost of base metals and a dysfuntional foreign economic policy. I see the institutionalization of a christian taliban. He only appoints people in his very small circle of friends. Definitely not a Lincoln Republican. His cabinet was comprised of all his political rivals.
Bring blow jobs back into the halls of government, it distracts politicians. Oh the theraputic results of a good blow job.
This amendment is the last gasp of a failed administration. A spiteful slap at the people he mistakenly beieves caused his failures. To paroday William Shakespeare, the fault lies not in the queers but in yourself.

:2cents: from
ur ever luvin
usedbear

[anne27]

Bush is a small minded (when he has a mind at all) bigoted ass pandering to the religious right in a desperate attempt to hold onto a piece of his party as it crumbles.

:2cents:

[littlerayofsunshine]

bijenna, cotrell, long duck dong, jennz, usedbear, anne,

Thank you all for your responses. They were very informative and I learned things I didn't know before.

[JohnnyV]

Let me give an amen to what everyone has written on here...

Also, to say that the Bible itself takes a very dim view of any kind of marriage. The Old Testament is full of polygamous, incestuous, and unhappy marriages. Christ says we don't even remember who we marry, in the next world. And St. Paul says not to marry unless you absolutely have to.

Don't believe homophobic bible-quoters; they are all psycho.

J

[littlerayofsunshine]

Let me give an amen to what everyone has written on here...

Also, to say that the Bible itself takes a very dim view of any kind of marriage. The Old Testament is full of polygamous, incestuous, and unhappy marriages. Christ says we don't even remember who we marry, in the next world. And St. Paul says not to marry unless you absolutely have to.

Don't believe homophobic bible-quoters; they are all psycho.

J


Amen to you J!

[allbimyself]

One correction to what bear said:

The Supreme Court can NOT overturn an amendment. An amendment by definition becomes part of the constitution and therefore can NOT be ruled unconstitutional.

[Da Doctor]

we live in a time of simple minded people. Unfortunately it is the simple minded people who have the power right now. All we have to do is insert covert agents slowly thru aperiod of time and the world will be ours

lol

Doc

[onewhocares]

Well I must concur with what has been stated most eloquently by the previous posters. I agree a new president with a decidedly open minded agenda, no ties to a particular group (save one) is needed.

I nominate..................one Used Bear..............! Eloquent, cerebral- but oh so down to earth. Certainly able to interject a sense of decorum and intelligence.

And plus, at least I have a shot of being invited to the Inaugrial Ball. Kate can be the First Lady, and Mrs. F and I can be like the ladies in waiting. (Sorry if I am presuming too much love.)

BELLE

[usedbear1950]

Firstly, as I am not sure so I will concede to allbi. He is right so often that only a fool would challenge him without a sure footing and I am many things but I try not to be a fool. LOL
What I did find in my reasearch was that it take a 2/3 vote of affirmation in both houses to put an amendment up for consideration. Then it must be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures before it becomes an amendment in fact. If allbi is correct, that a citizen, group or state cannot question the legality of an amendment before the Supreme Court, what if 2/3 of the houses decided to make slavery legal. Would not it be persuant on the Supreme Court to hear the challenge? I do not have an answer. I request that some of our members in the legal profession offer their opinions or facts to the discussion. But I do know that without a 3/4 ratification by the states it will not become part of our constituion. And that is where the fight must take place. We have the ballot to overthrow tyranny. If used by all it is more powerful than any army or destructive device.
Secondly, I am flatered at your nomination Belle but as FDR said, if nominated I wil not run and if elected I will not serve. He didn't mean it, I do.

:2cents: from
ur ever luvin
usedbear

[JohnnyV]

From what I understand, the Supreme Court cannot nullify a constitutional amendment. That's why Prohibition stood for as long as it did.

Yes, if Congress bizarrely put up enough votes to add an amendment that nullified the 13th-15h amendments (emancipation of slaves, black male suffrage, and equal protection) then believe it or not, slavery would be legal again and the Supreme Court would be bound to protect slavery!

Anyway, most experts feel the marriage amendment won't pass precisely because nobody really wants to alter the constitution, even among conservatives.

J

[Almost Jaded]

What kills me is that they're all defining their "traditional values" and "sanctity of marriage" based off of Abramic religions.

And using said religion to run a country that is supposed to have freedom of religion.

"America. Land of the free*"

*as long as you're straight.

[canuckotter]

From what I understand, the Supreme Court cannot nullify a constitutional amendment. That's why Prohibition stood for as long as it did.
The only question then would be if one amendment conflicted with another. Since I don't know your Constitution particularly well, I'm not sure if a gay marriage ban would conflict with anything else. In Canada, human rights (including freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation) are enshrined in the Constitution, so the only way to enact a gay marriage ban, despite Stephen Harper's bullshit to the contrary, is to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause which forces the government to effectively say "Yes we're violating human rights, but we don't care." And even then it only lasts for five-year periods. And since Harper's promised not to use the Notwithstanding Clause (using it would be political suicide for him) we're pretty well protected up here. I just feel bad for you Americans. :)

You could all come up and visit us... :tong:

[allbimyself]

There are no conflicts, canuck. Later amendments would override earlier amendments or the original document.

Bear,

Yes, there is NO recourse to a constitutional amendment. No challenges. That's why it's so hard to amend the constitution.

[JohnnyV]

Oh and just to add one note --

A lot of this discussion is just cosmetic, since there was a Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1994, when Newt Gingrich was the breakout character in Congress. Bill Clinton signed it into law (one of the main reasons I'm not a big fan of Bill Clinton, irrespective of how bad Bush is.) That 1994 law defines marriage as only between one man and one woman, on the federal level, and it has never been overturned. It has also withstood all legal challenges to it. The new amendment is therefore unnecessary on the federal level, but it would ratchet the enforcement of the DOMA so that states would be punished if they recognized same sex marriages at local levels.

J

[woolleygirl]

What kills me is that they're all defining their "traditional values" and "sanctity of marriage" based off of Abramic religions.

And using said religion to run a country that is supposed to have freedom of religion.

"America. Land of the free*"

*as long as you're straight.



We are give these freedoms and then we are told how to use them. Freedom of speech only what we want the public to hear. Freedom of religion but if you don't want their religion they look down there nose at you. Right to Bare arms and protect your property only when we say it is ok to have one.
Marrage in my opinions is sacred it doesn't have to be specifically a man and a women though. We love who we love it should not be structured around what sex you love. What we are dealing with here is a government who is to #$@#$*@ afraid to let people be people. There are afraid that if they let same sex marrage come about that all these family values crap will smack them in the face. :2cents: :soapbox:

[citystyleguy]

well, this is one reason i like this site; no one can say we are sitting around on our backsides. this site tackles more controversy, can discuss without attacking another!!!

our founding fathers, whatever faults they had or not, and like everyone else, they had a great many, they developed a great, incredible, flexible, and flawed system of goverment, that still breaths and flexes as we, the body politic, mature, throw tempertantrums, etc.

one of their greatest acts, was to separate our religious beliefs from our goverment; these concepts were born out of the great religious wars of the 17th century and they and the great activists of the day were horrified at what was done in the name God. so in the 18th century, theses men made the government neutral, and left the the church and its belief to the people.

all the religious icons and sayings on coinage, etc. came later (read 19th century), when it was believed that the expression of religious beliefs and creeds were fine, so long as no one was made to conform to anothers. this worked fine, so long as it was male centered, anglo-focused, and christian in context.

for the 20th century came the understanding, that if others suffered because of our need for conformity (very helpful when building nations, and empires), then our stand for freedom, etc. was ringing hollow; thus those of different races, ethnicities, creeds, religions, so on and so forth stood in defience and demanded their right to a piece of the pie and a place in the sun.

of course every action causes a reaction, and now we see what happens when some one(s) cannot accept these challenges.

to address this, back in the 18th century dedcided that we needed a certain amount of flexibility in our governmental structure; so they developed the process of the amendment format. essentially, we can alter our govermental structure two ways, through a constitutional convention, with a detailed means of calling for such, or by the approval of the individual states, with a detailed process for that approach.

the constitutional convention is not favored, as it could bring the entire constitution into question, and all sides have a vested interest in one or more parts of our constitution not to allow another party the possibly of altering anothers cherished parts of said constitution.

therefore, of recent times, for instance when the equal rights amendment was being pushed around, they ran it via the states process; this process allows for only single issues to be reviewed for possible amendment, thus leaving other cherished parts alone!

this marriage amendment is an appeasement by the white house to those core constituents of the republican party, in order to shore up the sagging political fortune of other party candidates. as soon as these mid-year elections are over, there will be more pressing needs to address, and the amendment will be put to the back burners.

influential party members on both sides of the aisle will be looking for the states to control this issue and thus take the blame of the electorates ire if things do not go their way.

thankfully, most americans perfer their religion, or the lack thereof, to be decided by them and not goverments. the trouble begins when laxity of one side of the issue fails to confront the offending party.

for me, i do not care how hair-brained your ideas may be :eek: , i will still fight for your right to hold them! :three:

[littlerayofsunshine]

I just want to say that I am wonderfully surprised at the amount of responses and the sight of people communicating freely and seeing positive interaction (even among those who disagree). You all make me extra proud to be bisexual. If only the American government could be as effective and bisexual as well.


I think that a marriage law ought to be in place that defines a Legal marriage as a union of two consenting adults. They still allow kids as young as 15/16 to get married in some states as long as a parent consents. That in itself is rediculous. And not that I have anything against Los Vegas or anything, but you can get married in a 5 min ceremony and not even get out of your car and then pull into a building a couple blocks down and get it annulled. Sanctified? I don't think so. It pains me to say, We (America) are no longer a super power, but a punchline and its all thanks to the Ones who rule us all. I love this country and want it to change so much for the better.

[Lisa (va)]

we live in a time of simple minded people.
Doc

I am a simple minded person, I think Bush is certainly entitled to his opinions as they affect his personal life. But his position is not to convert folkls to his way of thinking but to ensure equality amongst everyone. I see no valid reason two people in love should not be wed if they so choose, regardless of race, creed, color, nor gender. Follks should live and follow their beliefs, but only to the extent that it does no harm or interfere with others to do the same.

Lisa

hugs n kisses

[jennessex]

Well first off, I would like to say I dont know much about the Supreme Courts, or how laws are made. What I would like to say is sadly our government is going down hill. Fortunate enough for us Bush cannot be re-elected! The Pansy!

If you have not noticed the government is getting involved in alot of things, too many things in my opinion. I think same sex marriages should be legalized. If you have a partner you do so wish to marry it should be your poragative. Why should you be penelized from not recieving healthcare from your partners provider, or recieve a claim in the event of your partners death (i maybe wrong about that one and if I am sorry!).

The sad thing is, our problem does not end when Bushes term is over. Our problems are just beginning. We never know the whole truth of where a canidate stands. They will say anything to be elected. How as a voter are we to know who is the best for the office? Politicians are dishonest people sadly to say. If things continue to go the way they are going, I am afraid of the America that I love and proud to call my home. Not just for my sake, but the sake of my children.

Thank you LittleRayofSunshine. I hear an Amen coming from my corner! Not that anything I may have said makes any sense to your thread, lol.

Pray for our government, even if your not religious. They make the decisions on how we live like it or not. Sucks!!!!

anyhow, my :2cents: have been put in, and now I must go!

Jenn

[NightHawk]

Jenn has made the fundamental point. The Framers of the Constitution envisioned a highly limited government. That government was empowered to have a very small list of powers, which were explicitly listed in the Constitution. The argument was made that a Bill of Rights was not needed and was not even desirable because the government had so few powers that it simply could not threaten free speech, prevent assembly, define marriage, or interfere with commerce[regulation of commerce then meant preventing the separate states from interfering with interstate commerce]. In their minds, the several injunctions of the public welfare were a further restriction on Federal power. Yes, the government could build an arsenal, but it must do so in a manner consistent with the public welfare. This prevented the government from paying a legislator's son three times the usual cost to build an arsenal. When we allowed our politicians the power to argue that they were empowered to do almost anything they claimed was for the public welfare, even though no specific power to build public housing or canals existed and no power to subsidize wool, peanuts, sugar, or advertising abroad exists, we opened a Pandora's box. One of the evils released has been laws restricting our personal practice of our sexuality. I happen to deplore the vast number of special interest subsidies and market and professional restrictions as well. They are all the result of an emasculated Constitution and a general loss of respect for individual rights.

Now the government has its hand in almost everything. With such a loss of focus and such an enormous involvement, it does very little well. Is this surprising? No one would manage a business this way. It would be broken up into many different businesses in which some focus and some specialization was possible. Furthermore, government, as George Washington noted, is all about and only about the use of force. How many functions of our government ought to be based on the use of force to deprive individual Americans from making their own choices? An very wise East German teenager once said that the worst thing about Communism in East Germany was that it never, ever let you grow up. Our government, while much better, still basically seeks to treat us all as children who are not responsible enough to make our own personal decisions.

Government, Federal, State, or Local, has no business in the marriage business. They have a legitimate claim at the local and state levels to offer civil union contracts. This is a legal contract. It is not really marriage, if marriage is viewed as having a moral and spiritual meaning. That spiritual meaning should be created between two (or more) people based upon their moral and spiritual beliefs. They may or may not wish to involve religion in this. It should be entirely up to them. If this spiritual aspect of marriage is removed from the legal contract offered by government, then this separation makes it much easier to separate church and state. Then government does not marry anyone. It offers civil union contracts to individuals who have elected to share their property and to share responsibilities as declared in the contract. Period.

By the way, the early Christians rarely married at all. They saw no reason for marriage. In fact, they thought that the Second Coming was going to happen any day and that that made marriage unnecessary. The meaning among the churches of marriage today has been another subsequent creation of the church leaders to increase their power and probably to provide a service as well. But both government and churches have historically always looked for ways to increase their power. Brief, ineffective reforms happen, but the march toward greater power generally proves more powerful if only because it is more sustained.

The attack on the sovereignty of the individual is general and widespread. It is not just his/her sexuality that is attacked. It is his freedom to speak, to religion or no religion, to work in his chosen profession (licensing laws and severe limitations on medical schoos, for instance), to choose for himself how he will use his income (taxes limit this freedom), restrictions on giving one's wealth to others such as inheritance taxes, restrictions on who we hire, government discrimination against white males, special previleges given to many special interest groups, forcing employers to fill out tons of forms for taxes without remuneration, and even detailed restrictions on the shade of green that you can paint the shutters of your home.

While I have argued strongly against President Bush's backing a Federal definition of marriage and some other of his policies in my personal blog, I actually back him in the context of the totality of personal freedoms which are under attack. He understands that individuals have rights, much more so than did Gore and Kerry. He is clearly half-hearted on the Defense of Marriage issue. I think it is a rare instance where he thinks he is right about what marriage should be, but he knows that this is really not the business of the Federal government. He is violating his own principles and he knows it. But, I could never even find any principles held by Gore and Kerry. Neither of them could ever have effectively set the terms for the war on Islamofascist terrorism. Neither of them cares about our right to productive lives and the fruits of that labor. Neither of them saw the attack on Freedom of Speech that the McCain-Feingold Election Law is. He understands the importance of small business and the need for government not to regulate them as though they have infinite resources. He understands that higher taxes mean slower growth of the economy and simply feeds the government mis-spending machine. He understands that Social Security needs a privatization overhaul badly. Unfortunately, he has some religious beliefs that I do not share. But, no President will ever do what I think he should do, since he has be electable! So, I have to take the best choice offered.

It would be easy to join in and simply condemn George Bush for being less intelligent than we are. Actually, however, he is at least as intelligent as the average President and I believe in maintaining context. Of course, I understand that gay and bisexual people have a tendency to embrace greater government power generally, just not where it inhibits their expression of their own sexuality! Well, I believe strongly in all of the rights of the individual, not just our right to live consistent with our sexuality. A society that broadly recognizes the rights of the individual will be more ready to embrace individual sexuality. Our rights will always be insecure when we fail to defend them all. With respect to rights, we need to be like the Danes and put the Star of David on all of our arms when the Nazis come for the Jews. Otherwise, who will defend the gay and bisexual people, when the general principle of the sovereignty of the individual is not respected?

[orpheus_lost]

just so you understand...the meanig of separation of church and state as the Founder saw it was the there be no state sanctioned religion not that religionand the State can't be together...look at your money...In God we trust...all sessions of of both Housesare opened everyday with prayer...same with the Supreme Court

Sorry to have to correct you, Cotrell, but the "slogan" on our money was not put there by the founding fathers. Instead it was installed by the bullying tactics of Sen. Joe McCarthy and his ilk in the early '50's during the height of the Red Scare. "Under God" was inserted into the national anthem at this time as well. Also, while prayer has certainly been held in congress since the beginning, many of the founding fathers were Deists who did not even believe in Christianity. They used the construct of the Church as a basis for their social standing only. Despite what the fundie's would have us believe, the USA did not start out as a religious state. That has been the work of fascists, fundamentalists, and con artists.

[Avocado]

What is it with the government today? Bush made his speech about a Ban on gay marriage. WTF! From my understanding marriage was brought about by the bible in ancient times. A religeous ceremony witnessed by the whole town or village to proclamate to the people that this man owns this woman and she is of pure standing. But come on now. The government got involved in marriages only to keeps tabs on population and to make revenue. You buying a marriage liscence is paying to goverment to accept and recognize that a marriage is taking place. There fore affording you your marriage rights under law. Now people who hold position within the government (i.e. judges and justice of the peace) are able to perform a ceremoney for a fee and it is also recognized by the law.

I believe that if churches that wish to not perform a marriage among same sex couples should be free to do so based on their faith. But the government on the other hand who is supposed to give equal rights to all citizens born on the soil or immigrated here, should not be able to say "No! Your union is unacceptable". The Justice of the Peace and/or Judges should be able to perform a gay marriage and said ceremony should be accepted and recognized by the law. Let the churches make their own choices, but I be damned if a President or Other person of political standing is going to force their religeous believes on the people that they govern. In fact, it should be illegal. What should be first and foremost is what is in the best interest of their people. If he wants to save the "idea" of marriage he should make the divorce rate drop, stop spousal violence, pay for marrital counseling. Put some value back into the meaning of marriage and stop trying to negate and small part of the population from being able to legally commit to each other. Next they'll start making it where people with a cancer gene cannot marry and procreate because it costs the nation in health care and money. Or other genetic diseases.

I am in a hetero marriage. It is also interracial. Once apon a time, we would have not been able to marry. But they changed their minds. An Amendement is symbolic of change, it should be ever changing to the need of the people. I think the government lost their compassion and common sense along time ago. The divorce rate would probably drop dramatically if gay marriage was allowed and they should also think of the revenue that would accrue and relieve some of the burden dumbass decisions have placed on our country.

If you think I am wrong, Ok. You have the right and freedom to tell me so. If you think I am right, Lemme hear an AMEN Sista!

I agree with pretty much everything you say except for the "straight relationship" bit. This isn't your fault as all we are using is terms that the gay and straight communities have forced upon us, but I reckon we should ditch the terms "gay and straight relationships". You're spot on though, I'm sick and tired of SOME Christians in America and SOME Muslims in Britain forcing their beliefs down our throats. Ironically Political Correctness is one of the biggest dangers facing us queers today.