Where people forget about "free exercise thereof" is when people want to have a cross atop a public hilltop. Ordering it down, as has happened to a 100 year old cross in my home town, violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause, I believe. And it doesn't establish religion because it is not forcing any person to believe anything.
Some people believe that gay marriage is wrong. And not all believe it for religious reasons. Isn't that their right? If they do not want their government putting it's stamp of approval on gay marriages, why should they be forced to accept their government doing so? They should only be forced if the majority of the voters disagree with them, shouldn't they? In the state of California, only a minority of people want to approve same-sex marriage. So why should they get to force their beliefs on the majority? If you don't like what the majority believes, educate them, change them, change public opinion. That's how our society works, but it is against the very nature of our society for the minority to force things on the majority. That's called tyranny. As for the issue of same-sex marriage -- I say, why is who I may any of the government's business? The government should get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses, because it's really a private, civil matter. Instead, if people need proof of marriage for insurance, health care, or other related issues, they should final a document with the civil court, have it notarized and that act as proof of marriage, with the government having no say on who gets married. Marriage, after all, is merely a contract. Why not treat it as such. Such a system would take religion out of the equation and also protect people's privacy (no more marriage licenses filed as public documents -- though the civil documents, unless sealed by a judge, would be public). H. -----Original Message----- From: Fleischer, Beth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 1:14 PM To: CF-Community Subject: RE: Bush Wins! Actually, as a religious minority I believe the separation of church and state is necesary in order to preserve our rights to freedom of religion, which the founding fathers of our nation did intend for us to have. I don't think anyone said anything about a separation of church and state being a law, its just a reflection of our right to follow the religion of our choice. Freedom of SPEECH aside, creating laws that reflect one religions beliefs over another could certainly be considered unconstitutional as they step on the rights of other people. The "free exercise thereof" applies to all of us, not just the majority. Where in the bible does it say that same sex marriages should be against the law? > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 12:13 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Bush Wins! > > Right on! Natural Law rules! > > Good response on the idea of people using their free speech rights to > support or defend laws for any reason they choose, including religious > ones. > > Two other points. No where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights will > you find the words "separation of church and state." The phrase comes > from > a letter by Thomas Jefferson, but there is no evidence that any of the > Founding Fathers intended it to mean what many people who use it mean. > Second, the 1st Amendment says that "Congress shall make no laws > respecting > an establishment of religion _or the free exercise thereof_" A lot of > people forget that second clause, including judges in Federal courtrooms. > > H. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lon Lentz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 12:41 PM > 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
