Prop 8 Clearly Violates US Precepts; Separation of Church from State
|
|
Thread rating:  |
buckeye - 11 Nov 2008 10:41 GMT Prop 8 Clearly Violates US Precepts; Separation of Church from State http://gratefuldread.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/3570/
Wow. The following must-read article from the San Francisco Chronicle is by attorney and author James Brosnahan, and it concerns the un-American Proposition 8, the alleged separation of church from state, and the ridiculousness of a pluralistic society being ruled by certain peoples religious dictates. Please read it and share it with your control-freak religionista associates. Warning: If they are of the mentality of the articles commenters, they arent smart enough to understand and arent worth your time.
Here is an excerpt:
The approval of a constitutional ban on gay marriage raises troubling but age-old issues concerning the lines between religion and government. Before the founders of our country separated church and state, there were hundreds of years of turmoil caused by one religion dominating the government and using it against nonbelievers.
In the aftermath of Tuesdays vote, do gays and lesbians in California have a reason to believe that they have been abused, discriminated against and relegated to a separate-but-equal status?
Yes, and thats why this fight is far from over. There will be a challenge under the U.S. Constitution. In the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a California constitutional amendment that limited fair housing on the grounds that prejudice could not be put into a state Constitution.
No one can forecast the outcome of this next fight, but there is bound to be some fallout that may harm those religions that so vehemently insisted that their beliefs be placed in the California Constitution. All religions require tolerance to flourish, but in Proposition 8 some religious groups aimed at and wounded gay people in California.
The drafters of the U.S. Constitution had a brilliant, experienced view concerning the importance of drawing the lines to protect religion on the one hand and civil government on the other. They put those lines in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Today, those lines are very relevant.
Government may not attack religion. Californians who have religious beliefs concerning the proper scope of marriage may exercise those rights as they see fit. Churches have always been able to proceed as they wish concerning marriage ceremonies. There was no mandate to suppress religious beliefs. This should be obvious to everyone in California because of our tolerance of all religions.
That the supporters of Proposition 8 were motivated by religious beliefs cannot be denied. Now the religious beliefs of some Californians are in our Constitution and, until overturned, govern us all whether we like it or not.
*************************************************************** You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
*************************************************************** . . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.). Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992) . . . **************************************************************** USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at almost every media turn.
***************************************************************** THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE: SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html ****************************************************************
duke - 11 Nov 2008 16:54 GMT >Prop 8 Clearly Violates US Precepts; Separation of Church from State >http://gratefuldread.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/3570/ [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >ridiculousness of a pluralistic society being ruled by certain peoples >religious dictates. Nope, you boys are stuck.
You asked the public to authorize a religious ceremony for queers. And the public said no, fully in accordance with it's laws and beliefs, of which religious feelings are legitimate.
The Dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
chibiabos - 12 Nov 2008 02:03 GMT > >Prop 8 Clearly Violates US Precepts; Separation of Church from State > >http://gratefuldread.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/3570/ [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > public said no, fully in accordance with it's laws and beliefs, of which > religious feelings are legitimate. My god. How can anyone be so stupid or so wrong?
Nobody asked anybody to authorize a religious ceremony of any kind. These were civil unions and the church was neither asked nor required to recognize them.
Religious "feelings" are no basis to deny anybody their basic rights and privileges. You'll want to look that up in the US Constitution. (I know reading is a strain for you, but you'll only have to go a hundred words or so into it.)
Lastly, learn the f.cking difference between "its" and "it's." Eight-year-olds all over the country are laughing at you. The rest of us are just amazed that you can remember to breathe.
-chib
 Signature Member of S.M.A.S.H. Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
duke - 13 Nov 2008 20:26 GMT
>> You asked the public to authorize a religious ceremony for queers. And the >> public said no, fully in accordance with it's laws and beliefs, of which >> religious feelings are legitimate.
>My god. How can anyone be so stupid or so wrong? I don't know, but you guys come up to it pretty easy.
>Nobody asked anybody to authorize a religious ceremony of any kind. >These were civil unions and the church was neither asked nor required >to recognize them. A marriage is a religious ceremony. A civil contract is the secular part.
>Religious "feelings" are no basis to deny anybody their basic rights >and privileges. Of course it is. And your worst enemy is that I vote.
>Lastly, learn the f.cking difference between "its" and "it's." >Eight-year-olds all over the country are laughing at you. The rest of >us are just amazed that you can remember to breathe. >-chib It comes natural.
The Dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
jemcd - 13 Nov 2008 22:06 GMT >>> You asked the public to authorize a religious ceremony for queers. And the >>> public said no, fully in accordance with it's laws and beliefs, of which [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I don't know, but you guys come up to it pretty easy. Unfortunately for you, you don't have the skills to determine what is stupid because of being stupid.
>>Nobody asked anybody to authorize a religious ceremony of any kind. >>These were civil unions and the church was neither asked nor required >>to recognize them. > >A marriage is a religious ceremony. A civil contract is the secular part. Bullshit, I was married in a judge's house, it's a legally recognized marriage everywhere. Nothing to do with religion whatsoever.
>>Religious "feelings" are no basis to deny anybody their basic rights >>and privileges. > >Of course it is. And your worst enemy is that I vote. Your worst enemy is reasoning.
>>Lastly, learn the f.cking difference between "its" and "it's." >>Eight-year-olds all over the country are laughing at you. The rest of >>us are just amazed that you can remember to breathe. >>-chib > >It comes natural. It must, or surely you would have forgot how and died.
duke - 15 Nov 2008 14:08 GMT >>>> You asked the public to authorize a religious ceremony for queers. And the >>>> public said no, fully in accordance with it's laws and beliefs, of which [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Unfortunately for you, you don't have the skills to determine what is >stupid because of being stupid. Except for knowing you're stupid.
>>>Nobody asked anybody to authorize a religious ceremony of any kind. >>>These were civil unions and the church was neither asked nor required >>>to recognize them.
>>A marriage is a religious ceremony. A civil contract is the secular part.
>Bullshit, I was married in a judge's house, it's a legally recognized >marriage everywhere. Nothing to do with religion whatsoever. It's a legally recognized civil contract. There was no marriage as God wasn't involved but actually denied.
>>>Religious "feelings" are no basis to deny anybody their basic rights >>>and privileges. >>Of course it is. And your worst enemy is that I vote. >Your worst enemy is reasoning. You lose.
>>>Lastly, learn the f.cking difference between "its" and "it's." >>>Eight-year-olds all over the country are laughing at you. The rest of >>>us are just amazed that you can remember to breathe.
>>It comes natural.
>It must, or surely you would have forgot how and died. Do you............hear voices in your head when you think?
The Dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
Phlip - 15 Nov 2008 14:43 GMT >>Bullshit, I was married in a judge's house, it's a legally recognized >>marriage everywhere. Nothing to do with religion whatsoever. > > It's a legally recognized civil contract. There was no marriage as God > wasn't > involved but actually denied. Bullshit. God does not define marriage, humans do.
Otherwise (assuming you mean the Biblical God), we would still practice polygamy...
duke - 16 Nov 2008 23:45 GMT >>>Bullshit, I was married in a judge's house, it's a legally recognized >>>marriage everywhere. Nothing to do with religion whatsoever. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Bullshit. God does not define marriage, humans do. God defined it as the union of one man and one woman in the sight of God. And that was 14.5 billion years ago, min.
>Otherwise (assuming you mean the Biblical God), we would still practice >polygamy... Better luck next time, turkey.
The Dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
jemcd - 16 Nov 2008 21:12 GMT >>>>> You asked the public to authorize a religious ceremony for queers. And the >>>>> public said no, fully in accordance with it's laws and beliefs, of which [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Except for knowing you're stupid. "Unfortunately for you....."
>>>>Nobody asked anybody to authorize a religious ceremony of any kind. >>>>These were civil unions and the church was neither asked nor required [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >It's a legally recognized civil contract. There was no marriage as God wasn't >involved but actually denied. Bullshit again, Earl. Set aside the god part of your argument for a second. Where does the licensing come from? The church or the local government? If there is only a marriage service in the church with no documentation/licensing from the government, is that a marriage that is actually recognized? Would the priest/pastor/preacher even let the ceremony begin without the license from the government? Back to the god part, only in your religion's opinion does it have any say in marriage, but outside your religion that opinion is meaningless. (and that goes for the "14.5 billion years" you say your definition of marriage has existed) Humans define marriage, as there are actually humans to do this, no god has ever shown up and said a damn thing about anything. You are welcome to have an imaginary friend, but your imaginary friend doesn't even have authority over you, much less anybody else.
>>>>Religious "feelings" are no basis to deny anybody their basic rights >>>>and privileges. >>>Of course it is. And your worst enemy is that I vote. >>Your worst enemy is reasoning. > >You lose. What a retort, totally dukish of you.
>>>>Lastly, learn the f.cking difference between "its" and "it's." >>>>Eight-year-olds all over the country are laughing at you. The rest of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Do you............hear voices in your head when you think? Are you checking to see if you are alone?
>The Dukester, American-American >***** >"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." >Pope Paul VI >***** Hatter - 17 Nov 2008 18:54 GMT > In article <00ejh4l8q8ju9ptqr9bqtsqse4gdm6e...@4ax.com>, duke > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > My god. How can anyone be so stupid or so wrong? read the name of the person who posted it. This person has amply shown how stupid and wrong they can be, and therefore it should come as no surprise.
> Nobody asked anybody to authorize a religious ceremony of any kind. > These were civil unions and the church was neither asked nor required [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > know reading is a strain for you, but you'll only have to go a hundred > words or so into it.) Religious feelings were the reasoning behind denying the rights of women, blacks,and natives. It is a oft used reason to deny people their basic rights and privileges.
Of course every time it was used as a reason, later generations viewed it as barbarousness.
Unlike duke and his ilk, at least we he the good sense to recognize this. One day their will be equal treatment of homosexuals, and this law will be viewed in the same category as Jim Crow.
When that day will be I cannot say, but only through substantial effort will it come in our lifetime.
Hatter
Douglas Berry - 12 Nov 2008 02:41 GMT On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:54:01 -0600 duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> carved the following into the hard stone of alt.atheism
>>Prop 8 Clearly Violates US Precepts; Separation of Church from State >>http://gratefuldread.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/3570/ [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >You asked the public to authorize a religious ceremony for queers. Wrong. The state supreme court said that under our constitution marriage could not be denied to same-sex couples. No mention was made of religion, and you can get married by a court clerk or anyone willing to register. My sister's marriage was conducted by our older brother. My wife and I were married by a family friend.
Prop 8 removed that right.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5 Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
duke - 13 Nov 2008 20:29 GMT >On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:54:01 -0600 duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> carved >the following into the hard stone of alt.atheism [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Wrong. The state supreme court said that under our constitution >marriage could not be denied to same-sex couples. No it didn't. It said a civil contract could not be denied. The marriage is a religious ceremony.
> No mention was made >of religion, and you can get married by a court clerk or anyone >willing to register. Actually, you're not getting married, you're signing a civil contract.
> My sister's marriage was conducted by our older >brother. My wife and I were married by a family friend. >Prop 8 removed that right. Meaning, of course, that you're not married, but you do have a civil contract.
The Dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
Cary Kittrell - 13 Nov 2008 20:34 GMT > >On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:54:01 -0600 duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> carved > >the following into the hard stone of alt.atheism [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Meaning, of course, that you're not married, but you do have a civil contract. So is it your contention that billions of Chinese, Japanese, and Indians aren't actually married? Or instead that one religion is as good as another when it comes to marriage?
-- cary
> The Dukester, American-American > ***** > "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI > ***** duke - 19 Nov 2008 12:45 GMT >> >On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:54:01 -0600 duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> carved >> >the following into the hard stone of alt.atheism [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >aren't actually married? Or instead that one religion is as good >as another when it comes to marriage? Did they "marry" in the sight of the one almighty God but in their own religious faith?
An Indian is marrying in the sight of his god. An atheist avoids God.
The Dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
Wide Eyed in Wonder - 12 Nov 2008 18:03 GMT > Prop 8 Clearly Violates US Precepts; Separation of Church from Statehttp://gratefuldread.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/3570/ Just further example of the extremist views of your side. So much for the will of the people (in a statewide vote of the public). No...a Constitutional Amendment voted by the people is illegal, since it reflects the morality of church goers? Want to tell me a SINGLE law that isn't based in the morality of church goers? Looks like we have to remove all laws against theft and murder, since they are based in Christian morality.
Kenneth Clifton -- www.2008jesus.com
Witziges Rätsel - 12 Nov 2008 23:38 GMT On Nov 11, 5:41 am, buckeye <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
> Prop 8 Clearly Violates US Precepts; Separation of Church from > Statehttp://gratefuldread.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/3570/ [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >to remove all laws against theft and murder, since they are based in >Christian morality. Our laws are not based on Christian morality - they're based on secular morality, practicality, ethics, logic, and compassion.
cpt banjo - 12 Nov 2008 23:52 GMT > Want to tell me a SINGLE law that isn't based in the morality of > church goers? You might start with the community property system, which has been adopted by Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. It originated with the Visigoths.
|
|
|