I do fault religious folks for imposing their religion on my laws.  

If our rights are inherent why do we need to define them at all?  Its
because they aren't really inherent - some folks differ in opinion as to
rights.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lon Lentz [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 11:41 AM
> To:   CF-Community
> Subject:      RE: Bush Wins!
> 
>  I don't fault religiously oriented people making their legal arguments 
> based on their religious affiliations. We all have to have a basis for 
> the way we see things, even if their reasoning annoys other people. We 
> as a society do not see marriage with another as a right and therefore, 
> we pass laws to control it.  Therefore, the majority wins, no matter why 
> they believe that way.
> 
>  Also, and I'm not trying to pick nits. Constitutions are about defining 
> the roles and limitations of government. The US Constitution tells the 
> government what its job is and what authority the people allow it to 
> have. The Bill of Rights reminds the government of some of the people's 
> rights. Rights which can not be infringed. We do not derive these rights 
> from the Constitution. We do not derive these rights from the 
> Government. Our rights are based on our mere existence. And the 
> Government's authority is based on our permission.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fleischer, Beth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 12:13 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Bush Wins!
> 
> <snip>
> 
> However, as an example of where religion has no place in law:  in alaska
> they just voted to add to the constitution that a marriage can only be a 
> man
> and a woman in order to prevent same sex marriage from ever being 
> legalized
> in this state.  When discussing this with proponents of it they claimed 
> the
> reasoning was that a) same sex marriage is against the law of the bible 
> -
> the bible specifies man and woman so therefore a same sex marriage can 
> never
> be a marrriage  and b) its a crime against god  and c) it makes a 
> "mockery"
> of heterosexual marriage.   Now, same sex marriage was not legal in 
> alaska
> before this happened, but they wanted it in the constitution of the 
> state to
> ensure their religious beliefs would be inflicted on generations to 
> come.  I
> had the opportunity to talk to a woman who was involved in writing the
> Alaska State Constitution and she was just terribly upset about the 
> whole
> thing - it goes totally against the constitution which is about the 
> rights
> given to the people by the state - to make its purpose to remove rights 
> from
> individuals is just apalling to her.  But I digress:  the point being is
> that these folks reasoning involves god all the way - the bible says its
> bad, god struck down sodom and gomorrah - these concepts have no place 
> in
> law, whatsoever.  And generally folks who believe this stuff do not
> understand that their religious beliefs are just that - there is no
> conception that their religious views dont' apply to everyone.
> 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com

Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists

Reply via email to