Marriage is NOT a Constitutional Right!

reply to post by Hefficide


Really? That must be why there are 5 refrences to GOD in the Declaration of Independence. Obviously no connections......got it. Moving on

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Can you back this up with evidence? Humans are both polygamous and monogamous. By nature, we'd have multiple sexual partners to ensure the spreading of our seed. Marriage is a man-made institution and it primarily arises from religion and other means of social control.

As to the OP, this is an issue of disparity; a person's sexual orientation should not disqualify him or her from an institution which he or she would otherwise be able to attend. Letting gays get married will not effect your life, live and let live.

reply to post by IknowJack


Are you really wanting to debate the separation of Church and State???

If so you might want to Google the above phrase first. It will help.

reply to post by Gazrok


Will you please show me the quote/term "seperation of church and state" in any founding document including the Constitution.
I get sick of this statement

The "seperation" statement comes from a Thomas Jefferson Letter; The wall of seperation letter.

www.loc.gov...

Originally posted by SamaraTen
The only violation i see, is the violation of Earth's LAWS; the LAW of seed time and harvest: Reproduction

Okay, but I see homosexual acts in nature. I had three dogs. Two were gay dogs. Not to mention walking around a big city, you tend to notice things, and yes I agree that one of the main things that pushes life foward is the need to perpetuate the species. Though I also believe that this is natures way of cutting back on the population. Take a step back. Out of your life and your mindset for one moment and just take a long hard look at Gay Marriage.

Ask yourself two things. 1) Does it hurt you in any way, shape, or form for gay marriage to be legalized.
2) Is it wrong for two grown consenting adults to be happy?

reply to post by Hefficide


Don't have to "google" it It comes from the "wall of seperation letter" by Thomas Jefferson and is found NO PLACE in our founding documents.

Freedom from Government Directed Religion was the intent.

reply to post by IknowJack


Citing only Jeffersons letter is ignoring the First Amendment - as has been upheld by the SCOTUS time and time again. Also it ignores the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli that blankly states:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility,

Source

Truth - cherry picking rarely is the path to it.

Marriage isn't a constitutional right, eh? Then I say that we should shuffle marriage aside and license every couple as a civil union. A very small fraction of American soil will recognize the church-approved unions, but all of America will recognize a certificate of civil unionship. Problem solved.

reply to post by IknowJack

Don't have to "google" it It comes from the "wall of seperation letter" by Thomas Jefferson and is found NO PLACE in our founding documents.

Freedom from Government Directed Religion was the intent.

you're right. You know jack #.

Sorry. Had to use it. But very few of the founding fathers were Christian or Catholic. Had they walked in during the Salem witch trials, half of them would have been burned for blasphemy.

Originally posted by IknowJack


Freedom from Government Directed Religion was the intent.

This right here.
This is why I truly do believe that the religious can retain their religious integrity and separateness from government with the definition of and ceremony concerning marriage. The government or state can retain its separateness from religion by offering civil union for homosexual couples. We have 2 documents.. a marriage license purchased from the government and legal contract... and a marriage certificate from a religious ceremony. We CAN keep these separate.. they already are. Churches shouldn't be compelled by any means to perform same sex ceremonies.. but the state should offer a legally binding contract to same sex couples. We're talking federal benefits, IRS, etc.. things that are NOT the domain of the church... or that the religious ceremony has any involvement with. In this manner the church and state are separate. They already are.. which is why I find the whole argument ridiculous.

reply to post by IknowJack


"Nature and Nature's God"
"Their Creator"

They sound more Pagan, than Christian to me. Of course it could be that God and Creator were meant to be interpreted on a person by person basis to read as one's personal god and even a more atheist interpretation of 'Nature' can be found. All it really means is that there are things above any law made by man (inalienable rights) and that was what the Colonists felt had by violated by the King of England and thus driving them to pursue Independence from England.

reply to post by Hefficide


YOUR citing the treaty of tripoli as a defense? Nice TRY for the Ignorant masses but it was superseded by the treaty of 1805!

Read....or just skip to the last paragraph, if it's to long for you.



Article 11
Although Article 11 has been a point of contention in popular culture disputes on the doctrine of separation of church and state as it applies to the founding principles of the United States, no academic historian has suggested the treaty provides evidence to settle that question in either direction. Some religious spokesmen claim variously that — despite unanimous ratification by the U.S. Senate in English — the text which appears as Article 11 in the English translation does not appear in the Arabic text of the treaty.[11] Some historians, secular and religious, have argued that the phrase specifically refers to the government and not the culture, that it only speaks of the founding and not what America became or might become,[13] and that many Founding Fathers and newspapers described America as a Christian nation during the early-Republic.[14]


Article 11Article 11 reads:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers." Lambert writes,

"By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.[15]
The treaty was printed in the Philadelphia Gazette and two New York papers, with only scant public dissent, most notably from William Cobbett.[16]

At least one member of Adams' cabinet, Secretary of War James McHenry, is known to have protested the language of article 11, prior to its ratification.[18] A second Treaty of Tripoli signed on July 4, 1805 superseded the 1796 treaty. The 1805 treaty did not contain the phrase "not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."[19][20]

I love how Christians think Sharia law is horrible...and then they want to use the Bible to create our own laws.

You can't have a logical discussion with people like this...where they think one religion (their religion) is the only true religion...it is like trying to have a discussion with a radical Muslim as to why women should be treated with respect. Or hey...it would be like trying to talk to a Christian a couple hundred years ago about why women should be treated with respect.

Yes, for all you Christians that are against gay marriage...I am comparing you to the most strict and radical Muslims...because you are just the same as they are.

Originally posted by RationalDespair
reply to post by inverslyproportional

 

Well, does it seem fair to you that a majority can rule over the happiness of a minority? Take into account that the subject does not harm the majority in any way; I have not heard a single rational argument that shows how same-sex marriage is harmful to others.

And you will not get one from me, as I have stated already, neither side is right here. Both are wrong and acting like spoiled rotten chchildren.

The governement has no place to decide what is and isnt love, marriage, in america, as we dont allow forced marriages, is based on persknal choice and love.

Thus the government has no legal authority to decide this either way. And both sides foaming at the mouth for the government to once again overstep its legally binding limits in the hooes they will get what they want at the exoense of what others want is asinine.

I dont agree with gays or the gay life style, and in fact find both to be disgusting and morally reprehensible.

Thks doesnt make my opinion any more valid than the flamer who wants to be married to the same sex, we both have an opinion, neither matter, as neither of us may decide what makes the other happy.

How can you claim it does no harm? It clearly will harm many others, as it will offend them and their god....like I care about their god either. Just as it doesnt harm gays to not be married, what harm do they suffer? None at all, so how can harm be any viable reasoning?

Both sides are being idiots. Marriage is throughout all of time between aadam and eve, not adam and steve.

The gays and their supporters are trying to redifine it, which is very wrong. In an attemot to force others in society to acceot their abnormal behavior as normal, which it isnt, as normal is defined by the majority, hence everything outside that being abnormal.

Gays coukd have teied to oush for civil unions to have equal financial partnerships to married straight folks, they reject this notion, as it is their intention to try and force others to accept their behaviors. This is not about equal financial advantages, it is about human need to be accepted.

They are just going about this all wrong. The religious folks are doing the right thing, by denyiglng that marriage be redifined, because it is not between man and man or woman and woman. They are dojng it for the wrong reasons though. Their god has already told them they are not to judge, either his will or purpose, or others actions and desires. So they are also hypocritical.

If it were truly about marriage, and marriage alone, gays wold go find a priest, and have him marry them, there are plenty around that woukd perform the ceremony.

It is about trying to force ones views on others, both sides are guikty, both sides are idiots, both sides will fail, as neither has even one single logical arguement.

Gays want civil unions, they just also want to force society to agree it os ok to be gay, because all humans seek approval.

Just seems to be so obvious to me, I dont know how others do see it, I mean it is smacking all of you in the face while you are arguing semantics.

I dont have a horse in the fight, I am both and neither, so I am not biased one way or the other. I am not religious in any way, but I do see and understandwhat marriage has always been, a show of the bond of love, historicalky between a man and woman, today a financial contractual joining.

Gays want marriage as a show of love? No not hardly, they can be married if it is a ceremony they seek to show the world they are loved be eachother. They seek both a contractual financial joining, and society at larges approval of their actions. They will get neither if they continue to try and chane the definition of marriage.

They need to go for civil unions, as they are outside the norm, the normal karriage should jot and would not apply. We have different names for different things, gay and straight marriage are not the same thing, so should have different names.

The whole gay side of the arguement is that they are the same ajd normal, so deserve all the same things normal folks get to have, while never acknowledging being gay is not normal, it is outside the norm, thus abnormal.

Gays=civil unions
Straight=marriage

Everyone wins, except the egos of those who want to force others, in the vast majority btw, to redefine long established and held cultural institutions.

I really dont see why it is such a big deal to call it a civil union, or for gays to have the same legal financial contracts as straights.

I think it boils down to everyone trying to prove their side correct, by any means it takes, which will ensure both lose, as neither will end uo with what they want, and will probably have less than they started with.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Thats Okay I would be burned too and some try to burn me everyday...goes with the turf. But I really do know Jack. He lives in NC, but I dont see him much anymore. Just though the handle would be funny, not necessary applicable LOL

Marriage is a religious right, the Constitution does protect religious sovereignty.

NOT SO QUICK!

That doesn't mean the Christians win because the government has NO RIGHT to force sovereign religious organizations to promote or discourage marriage for straight or gays.

Free people don't ask for permission to love.


Besides, this is not a 'gay rights' issue. No I'm serious....

This is a tax equality issue, and the only tax equality I want is TAX FREEDOM.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Marriage isn't a constitutional right, eh? Then I say that we should shuffle marriage aside and license every couple as a civil union. A very small fraction of American soil will recognize the church-approved unions, but all of America will recognize a certificate of civil unionship. Problem solved.

edit on 27-3-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

I avree totally, a marriage is just a step down the road of monogamy, first it is a date, than your going steady, than your engaged to let the world know you guys have both pledged to take the other off the market, then there is marriage, the final nail in the coffin.

A civil union shoukd be a seperate institution where ones finances and personal realtions shoukd not be comingled.

reply to post by inverslyproportional

Gays=civil unions
Straight=marriage

Let's keep fairness and equality in the ENTIRE mess. It's more appropriate like this:

Religious ceremony = marriage
non-religious ceremony = civil union.

Keep sexual orientation right out of it. It has no bearing on anything and is stupid. If the religious folk want civil unions to be recognized by the state, then give them to ALL partners.

Two people in love, wanting to commit to each other has absolutely no relevance on my life, my love, my relationships or my religious beliefs, just like it has absolutely no relevance on anyone else's. Whomever out there that has a problem with two people of the same sex committing to each other has only one thing to remember: Your problem is just that---It's YOUR problem.

Originally posted by SamaraTen

Originally posted by daryllyn
Oooo.. expect some flaming for that last line there.

I believe in a little thing called 'minding my own damn business'. More people should try it.

Get married or don't. It is none of my concern.

Aren't they making it our business??? Shouldn't we be concerned? If they PUSH this on us, what else will they push. (they: being lawmakers and politicians) IMO this has nothing to do with "rights" and everything to do with AGENDA!

It's a simple question of human rights here. People with your same logic were the ones against freeing the slaves in the 1800s and against interracial marriage during the 1960s.

reply to post by daryllyn


Unfortunatly I would Like to agree with you, cause I like your Avatar. However the minute it becomes a legal issue it is EVERYONEs business, because there are benefits and thus taxation. That it is why it is of the utmost importance to get this out of the hands of the government and into the hands of the churches.

Once the government suppies ANYONE with ANY benefits it not only becomes an issue Of the People but By the People. However, once we remove the government entity it becomes a PRIVACY issue and everyone can PI$$ OFF