I remember learning about separation of state and religion. What it basically said is that the government decisions will not be based on religion.

What I do not understand is why homosexuals' can't get married. Isn't that a religion thing?

Yes it is a religion thing. Marriage is a function of the church civil unions are a function of the state. If I got married to a man outside of a church it would technically be a civil union not a marriage.

However you may notice that a lot of religious ideals push forward our legislative process since that who gives campaign dollars and who is influential. Its not right but politics isn't always fair or right

Two main things, First it was the "seperation of Church and State"
But read your constitution and you won't find a single word in it about a separation, only a protection that there will not be a state religion, One religion rerconised as the proper religion for the nation. And second that the government will not pass a law restricting the freedom of religion.

Most laws murder, stealing are all based on religion. You are learning the re-written constitution that the ACLU is selling, take out a book and read it for yourself.

Two pretty good responses. Chuck is correct about the doctrine of separation of church and state is not mentioned in the Constitution. However several of the founding fathers did write about it and it became an accepted doctrine. Since the constitution prohibits establishing a state or official religion, this has been interpeted to prevent the state from promoting any one religion in any way. Hence the removal of prayer from the schools. Hence trying to cover all religions or none during holidays.

Now, you raise any interesting point that the prohibition against homosexual marriage would seen to be mostly religious. But its cultural as well.

As ScottGem points out ,it is more of a cultural thing . It is certainly not a religious thing . A marriage is a contract and is licensed by the States. The problem with homosexual marriages being recognized by only some of the States is the 'full faith and credit "clause(Article IV, Section 1) of the Constitution which mandates that the contracts recognized in one State shall be recognized in all. Therefore there has to be a national consensus and at this time there is none .

The Constitution's 1st amendment prohibits the Congress from establishing a church and restricts them from making laws against the free exercise of religion. Nowhere is it implied that there would be a separation as Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802 . Even his letter did not address the States establishing a religion ;rather it addressed a national religion. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state."

SCOTUS has erred a number of times in citing his letter in their rulings. Indeed the intent was to protect the church from the government and not the other way around. The ideas which lead to this phrase came from a sermon given by Baptist Roger Williams, entitled "The Garden in the Wilderness," in which Williams explains that the purpose of civil government is to allow religion to flourish, not to be regulated.

Hey, Sarge.

The answers given above are generally good ones. But please keep in mind that sepparation of Church and State, even by those who accept this extraconstitutional idea, is not the same as sepparation of Church FROM State. There is a group of PC types who go around claiming that any public display of religion is against the law, and the ACLU keeps suing people for public religious displays. A prohibition of the government promoting any single religion is NOT a prohibition on INDIVIDUALS from making religious displays in public. That would be against the First Amendment's freedom of religion and freedom of speech clauses.

As for gay marriage, the argument against it is not religious, though those who make that argument tend to be of a religious background. The actual argument being made is that marriage is a right of the states. States have the right to define marriage however they wish, and have the right to prohibit gay marriage if they desire. However the "Full Faith And Credit" clause of the Constitution requirres that all states recognize the mariages of all other states. Since not all states wish to recognize gay marriage, but would be forced to do so, they are demanding that the term "marriage" be defined in the Constitution as "between a man and woman" so that they aren't forced to accept something they have no wish to accept. What they are looking for is an amendment that defines marriage so that all the states are on the same wavelength. That is the legal basis for trying to push a "marriage protection" amendment.

Elliot

Oh, I still do not know why these states hate homosexual's so much but I don't know maybe my generation can fix that (If I'm not alone on this thought).

That is interesting, I learned a lot from this. I love history and politics so I always have questions on this type of stuff.

Thank you.

Oh, i still do not know why these states hate homosexual's so much but idk maybe my generation can fix that (If im not alone on this thought).


Let's hope so.

Oh, i still do not know why these states hate homosexual's so much but idk maybe my generation can fix that (If im not alone on this thought).

That is interesting, i learned a lot from this. I love history and politics so i always have questions on this type of stuff.

Thank you.


Is disagreement = to hate?






Grace and Peace

Oh, i still do not know why these states hate homosexual's so much but idk maybe my generation can fix that (If im not alone on this thought).


Thank you.
To the success of our hopeless task…:rolleyes:

Fr_Chuck, {personal insults deleted <>} The crimes you mentioned can be rationalized with secular thought. Because murder strips someone of their right to pursue happiness, etc. it is illegal. Because theft infringes on a person's right to own property, it is illegal. The Constitution may not use the phrase "separation of church and state," but it is implied. However, the Constitution says nothing of marriage, gay or straignt. I think you should take out a book and read instead of buying what your cunning church leaders are selling you.

The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Doesn't making laws based SOLELY on the morals of 1 "god" establish a state religion? There is no good reason to prohibit same sex marriage. It has proven to be harmless sociologically. Why should we stomp on others' rights to appease religious zealots? Also, to impose religious values on non-religious people is inhibiting the free exercise of religion... something DIRECTLY addressed in the 1st amendment.

Finally, I just love all of you {personal insults deleted <>} who run around demonizing the ACLU when it is really the only organization in America actively protecting our constitutional rights. What's even better is how those same people want more "personal freedom" and then try to impose your {derogatory remarks deleted <>} religion on everyone else.

{Editors note: I believe the poster has something of value to say so I didn't delete the whole note, rather edited it to remove some direct insults and derogatory remarks. However, if future notes are not toned down, they will be deleted <>}

Fr_Chuck, {personal insults deleted <>} The crimes you mentioned can be rationalized with secular thought. Because murder strips someone of their right to pursue happiness, etc. it is illegal. Because theft infringes on a person's right to own property, it is illegal. The Constitution may not use the phrase "separation of church and state," but it is implied. However, the Constitution says nothing of marriage, gay or straignt. I think you should take out a book and read instead of buying what your cunning church leaders are selling you.

The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Doesn't making laws based SOLELY on the morals of 1 "god" establish a state religion? There is no good reason to prohibit same sex marriage. It has proven to be harmless sociologically. Why should we stomp on others' rights to appease religious zealots? Also, to impose religious values on non-religious people is inhibiting the free exercise of religion...something DIRECTLY addressed in the 1st amendment.

Finally, I just love all of you {personal insults deleted <>} who run around demonizing the ACLU when it is really the only organization in America actively protecting our constitutional rights. What's even better is how those same people want more "personal freedom" and then try to impose your {derogatory remarks deleted <>} religion on everyone else.

{Editors note: I believe the poster has something of value to say so I didn't delete the whole note, rather edited it to remove some direct insults and derogatory remarks. However, if future notes are not toned down, they will be deleted <>}
Interesting post

There are however flaws in your reasoning and the greatest is the conclusion that “There is no good reason to prohibit same sex marriage. It has proven to be harmless sociologically.”
A tradition that has not existed in the past could not possibly provide evidence that it is “harmless”. It is obvious that there is no evidence to base such a conclusion on.

Another flaw is the conclusion that it is implied in the constitution that there is to be a “separation of church and state”; or if there is you did not provide the argument I. e. reason from a premise to a conclusion.

AGB

Rationalize all you want ;the laws have been passed down generation to generation have a moral foundation behind them ;and the moral foundation of the West developed for good or bad in a lager degree from a Judeo-Christian heritage.

To me that is really an irrelevant part of the issue however . The only constitutional argument that makes sense at all is the 14th amendment "equal protection under the law". Thus the debate on the definition of marriage is in play.

There is nothing implied in the Constitution regarding separation of Church and State. The false interpretation of a wall of separation is based on Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists .The issue was as I described it on my reply.

Hooray for the editor for censoring my post. That's the 1st amendement at work! The Constitution allows me to be an atheist, and imposing laws based solely on religion on me prohibits my right to freely excercize my religion. Because my (hypothetical) marriage does not infringe on other people's Constitutional rights, it should be legal.

A separation of church and state is implied in its assertion that the state shall not create laws prohibiting the free exercize of religion nor establishing a state religion. If laws are based purely on religious beliefs, that is establishing a state religion. I know some of you will say "they meant, like, the Church of England or something like that," but it's clear from Jefferson's letter that the Founding Fathers intended a separation of church and state. You also fail to recognize that several of our Founding Fathers were not Christian and actually belonged to secret societies that mocked Christians for their stupidity (I'm sure that will be censored). Benjamin Franklin, for example, argued that religious texts should not be the basis of morality because religious text often prohibits harmless behaviors and encourages viscious ones. I have my books about this subject at my parents' cabin, so I can't cite specific articles he wrote or the societies to which he belonged.

To the editor, whoever you may be, calling religion disgusting is not derogatory. It is a well thought out opinion. Let us not forget that religious dogma is a major cause of hatred that leads to torture, murder and war. When was the last time a fundamentalist atheist burned someone at the stake for having different religious views?

Hooray for the editor for censoring my post. That's the 1st amendement at work! ...

I am the editor and you clearly missed the point. I did not censor your post. I felt you have some important points to make and my edits did nothing to inhibit your making those points. I simply removed the invective that violated the rules of this site. You should be happy I got to your post before one of the other mods did.

And the 1st amendment does NOT apply here. This is a privately owned site that has established a set of rules that YOU agreed to when you registered for the site.


A separation of church and state is implied in its assertion that the state shall not create laws prohibiting the free exercize of religion nor establishing a state religion. ... but it's clear from Jefferson's letter that the Founding Fathers intended a separation of church and state.

This has been argued back and forth over the years. Personally I agree with you that the Founding Fathers believed in the doctrine. But I don't agree that prohibiting the govt from establishing a state religion implies the doctrine.


To the editor, whoever you may be, calling religion disgusting is not derogatory. It is a well thought out opinion. Let us not forget that religious dogma is a major cause of hatred that leads to torture, murder and war. When was the last time a fundamentalist athiest burned someone at the stake for having different religious views?

By the way, I identified myself when making the edits as I affirm that I am responsible for them. I defend that particular edit in the context it was used.
You are wrong, calling religion "disgusting" is clearly derogatory. I'm letting it stand here because you do have a valid point. I, personally, do not believe in organized religion and I have also said on previous occasions that much harm has been done in the name of religion. But I don't believe that religion itself is disgusting, just that it has been abused many times over the years. In point of fact, much of the way we live is based on religion since much of our laws are based on the Ten Commandments.

You are correct marriage is not a US national law, it is a state law, and according to strict meaning, all rights not given to the federal government is retained by the states. So actually the US federal government has really no right even putting any rules or restriction on the states rights to determine what marriage is.

Also basically marriage is a church issue, a civil contract of a union of two people is the state right, Since marriage as a institution is a church issue, the name marriage has been kept.

So it is actually an issue for the state to decide by vote of the people, and most likely no state would allow it, if they actually got to vote on it.
It is most certainly not the courts right to decide.

And if you actually read Jeffersons writing, it was to a church telling it that the church would and should be protected from the state.

I was making a joke when I said "the 1st amendment at work!" I know this is a privately owned and operated site, so the constitution doesn't apply. Also, I didn't see your identification anywhere.

I will agree that there are similarities between religious morals and our laws, but I do believe than many laws would stand with or without the Bible's blessing. I fervently believe that just laws are only those that need no religious backing.

Actually I believe Jefferson was assuring the Danbury Baptists that a wall between church and state did exist.

If everything were by popular vote, women, the poor and racial minorities would not be able to vote today. It was our courts and representatives who nudged the American people to accept women and racial minorities and are responsible for the greater equity we see today. Without the decision to abolish poll taxes or property ownership as a requisite to vote, do you really think the American people, on there own, would've progressed to where we are today?

America has historically been the country of freedom and progress, but now we see countries like South Africa being more protective of civil liberties than we are. The more religious our public and government becomes, the less American it becomes. Under this religious revolution, we've authorized our government to spy on us, prevent the success of others, murder innocent people, steal from the poor, and give to the rich. What about that is American?

OOO, also, I question the constitutionality of DOMA.

I was making a joke when I said "the 1st amendment at work!" I know this is a privately owned and operated site, so the constitution doesn't apply. Also, I didn't see your identification anywhere.

I will agree that there are similarities between religious morals and our laws, but I do believe than many laws would stand with or without the Bible's blessing. I fervently believe that just laws are only those that need no religious backing.

I take the First Amendment very seriously. As you are new here, you might not have recognized <> as my sign.

What you are missing here is that morality and ethics are all rooted in religion. Are you saying that laws prohibiting murder are unjust because they are based on the 6th commandment? I'm sorry, but your argument just doesn't hold water here.

You may disagree all you like, however your argument remains flawed- the truth of the matter is that you're [strawman] of exchanging the terms “marriage” for “civil union” doesn't fly, and beyond that you're concept of “Tradition” (or belief, often one that has been handed down from generation to generation) is far from accurate.

It stands on firm ground that, “There is no good reason to prohibit same sex marriage. It has proven to be harmless sociologically” is not an accurate proposition.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Besides, the burden of proof really falls on those who want to prohibit other's rights.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Besides, the burden of proof really falls on those who want to prohibit other's rights.
I beg your pardon; the ‘Burden of Proof’ is the legal obligation on a party to prove the allegation made by him against another party.

Those who are challenging current laws regarding traditional marriage are the ones who bear the burden. There are no inherent “Rights”- there are only rights afforded to citizens by a government; in spite of all that has been written about ‘Natural Rights”. Natural rights are derived from religious convictions.

When the government decides to allow same sex marriage there then will be established a “Right”.

There are inherent rights, at least there are according to our Founding Fathers.

It is the responsibility of those who believe same-sex unions/marriages (they are the same thing, don't kid yourself) are harmful to prove they will be harmful. Homosexuality is generally regarded (by scientific communities) to be completely harmless and there is no reason to believe that same-sex marriage will be sociologically damaging. In fact, societies that allow ssm have higher standards of living and lower divorce rates than societies that do not (Belgium vs Poland, Massachusetts vs Alabama).

I am sorry but there is no rational for sexual perversions.

There are no inherent “Rights”- there are only rights afforded to citizens by a government; Hello DC:

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees equal treatment to all. That means if YOU have the right to marry who you choose to marry, I do too.

excon

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) is one of the post-Civil War amendments (known as the Reconstruction Amendments), first intended to secure rights for former slaves. It includes the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses among others. It was proposed on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868.[1] It is perhaps one of the most important structural changes to the Constitution.

The amendment provides a broad definition of national citizenship, overturning the Dred Scott case, which excluded African Americans. It requires the states to provide equal protection under the law to all persons (not only to citizens) within their jurisdictions, and was used in the mid-20th century to dismantle legal segregation, as in Brown v. Board of Education.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion)


__________________________________________________ ____



Bobby

They have the same right to marry someone of the other sex anytime they want, no rights lost.

AGB:

Look at the census bureau statistics on "poverty"
There are higher rates in the categories outside "traditional marriage."


I agree, a lot of war and genocide have sectarian roots, but
The same can be said of "agnostic" societies: Russia under Stalin, China under Mao for example.


I agree, that it is wrong for "religious" people to "hate" homosexuals [or anyone else ], but it is wrong to characterize all religious people as homosexual haters.




Grace and Peace

First, to Fr_Chuck: why is homosexuality perverse? It is a normal variation of human (and in a greater sense mammalian & avian) sexuality AND it has not proven to be harmful to society or individuals. There is no rationalization for laws based solely on religious dogma. Also, the last time I checked, the reason behind modern marriage was to marry someone you love. If you are gay, marrying someone of the opposite sex is not marrying someone you love. If love is not the basis of marriage, what is? Economic reasons? What is sacred about money?

Now, to inthebox: what are you trying to say? If you're saying that the rate of out-of-wedlock births is higher among the poor, you are absolutely right; however, if you look at the statistics, poverty is more prevalent in societies that do not support (and often times persecute) queer people. As for your assertion that atheistic/agnostic societies are as bad as religious ones, I'd like to point out that I said they have higher standards of living and lower divorce rates. I did not say, nor did I imply, that atheists are completely innocent, but throughout human history, religious societies suffer prominent blood-lust. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, the "War on Terror," and many other hideous wars are all religiously based.

At the bottom of this argument is the separation of church and state. Because restricting ssm is based solely on religion, it is unconstitutional. Give me a good reason (that is based on credible research) to prohibit ssm, and I will respect your opinions. Until then, I'll think of you the way I think of white-supremecists: legally allowed to exist but thoroughly deserving of disrespect.

I think this thread has run its course.

Question Closed