> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 12:34 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Bush Wins!
>
> 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.
>
I could care less about folks putting their religous symbols on a public
hilltop. However, I feel very differently about a public school leading
kids in christian prayer (which happened in my school, when I was a teen,
and had been brought up athiest).
> Some people believe that gay marriage is wrong. And not all believe it for
> religious reasons.
>
>
To believe and to speak out against it is absolutely their right. However,
to remove the right for others to have a same sex marriage in the
constitution of my state is not right.
> 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?
>
>
We aren't talking about the right to gay marriage (although no one
put up to vote whether heterosexual marraige should be legal) - we are
talking about limiting the right in the constitution. And I can tell you
that the advertisements on the television called it a crime against the
bible.
> 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?
>
Uh, no. Same sex marriage doesnt' force anything on anyone. If you
don't like one, then don't have one. It doesnt impose one anyones right to
have a heterosexual marriage, now does it? They aren't forcing their
beliefs on the majority, they want the RIGHT for themselves.
> 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.
>
Actually, I disagree that our country actually functions this way, I
believe it IS a tyranny of the minority.
> 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.
>
Yes, no shit.
> 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).
>
>
This is at least half my point. This particular constitutional
amendment has no business being there at all.
> 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.
> >
> >
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
