Are you for a state amendment or Constitutional Amendment?

[Fantasea]

Yes they are: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." It's so important that it's the very first sentence of the very first amendment. Serious scholars of the Constitution, such as the ACLU, call this the "establishment clause."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/02.html

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State."

The courts have ruled that posting a religious text of any kind in a government building which is funded by all taxpayers is, in essence, forcing one to "profess a belief in a religion," and thus violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Case closed.

That the US government has acknowledged a Supreme Being, invokes the name of God on its currency, employs clergy in the military, opens sessions of Congress with a prayer, and emblazons federal buildings with religious mottos---all technically violations of the Establishment Clause---is evidence not of the supposed religious underpinnings of our system of government, but of the elegant and enlightened secular philosophical bedrock that allows for the depth and breadth of the religious freedoms we enjoy.



Some of those lawyers and politicians represent secular humanists like me, who routinely turn the other cheek when it comes to violations of the Establishment Clause. It's when religious zealots like Judge Roy Moore commit flagrant violations of the Establishment Clause that we throw down the gauntlet. That's called democracy.

P.S. Please see my post: "ACLU: Defender of Christian Religious Freedom."

I notice that when you quoted me, you took only the first two sentences of the paragraph that contained an entire thought. The third sentence was more important than the first and second.

Let me repeat all three here.

"Every serious student of the Constitution knows there is no such thing as 'the establishment clause' in the sense that the ACLU has conjured up. The words are plain enough. The founding fathers, many of whom had been exposed to the Church of England, a government institution established by a monarch, did not want to see a Church of the United States, a government institution established by Congress."

That is the sum and substance of the intent of the founding fathers. Their intentions did not reach beyond that. How do we know this? The answer is simple. It was they who issued coin and currency with the motto, "In God We Trust". It was they who appointed chaplains to the military officer corps. It was they who authorized Congressional chaplains. It was they who authorized federal buildings, including the US Supreme Court to be emblazoned with religious quotes and mottoes.

Now, you are trying to tell me that the amendment, as written, may be construed to mean all manner of things contrary to the actions of the founding fathers.

Until the ACLU reared up from its communist beginnings and began its quest to dismantle the constitution, people of every possible view of religion lived in peace and harmony with those whose views differed from theirs.

In many ways their actions remind me of the eighteenth century revolutionaries. The size up an opponent, point the finger and shout d'accuse. The cowardly cave in.

 

[argexpat]

Now, you are trying to tell me that the amendment, as written, may be construed to mean all manner of things contrary to the actions of the founding fathers.

If we were to restrict interpretation of the Constitution to "what would the Founding Fathers do?" we would still own slaves and women would stay home cooking on election day. The framers of the Constitution intended it to be a framwork, the blue print for a system of government. But they kept it purposely indefinite precisely to avoid prescribing its manifestation. As with all blueprints, it's We the People who construct the edifice. And it's this resiliance and adaptability that esnures its success.

Until the ACLU reared up from its communist beginnings and began its quest to dismantle the constitution, people of every possible view of religion lived in peace and harmony with those whose views differed from theirs.

If you don't like the ACLU, you just don't like civil liberties.

 

[Fantasea]

If we were to restrict interpretation of the Constitution to "what would the Founding Fathers do?" we would still own slaves and women would stay home cooking on election day. The framers of the Constitution intended it to be a framwork, the blue print for a system of government. But they kept it purposely indefinite precisely to avoid prescribing its manifestation. As with all blueprints, it's We the People who construct the edifice. And it's this resiliance and adaptability that esnures its success.

If you don't like the ACLU, you just don't like civil liberties.

What I don't like about the ACLU is its 'pink' tinge.

What I also don't like about the ACLU is it consistent effort to dismantle the US Constitution, piece by piece by arguing away its provisions before selected judges who they have identified as activists more interested in the excitement of legislating from the bench than merely interpreting law.

What I also don't like about the ACLU is the politics of its founders, among them, Roger Baldwin, the first director of the ACLU, who was an admitted communist. He explains in his book, Liberty Under the Soviets, "I joined. I don’t regret being a part of the Communist tactic, which increased the effectiveness of a good cause. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the Communists wanted..."

We all know that the Communists wanted, and still want, don't we?

They were certainly crafty in their choice of an organizational name. After all, what could be more patriotic and stirring than "The American Civil Liberties Union". Why, it sounds like something that would have been founded by John Hancock, Patrick Henry, or Thomas Jefferson. That's why so many gullible persons don't bother to peek below the surface.

If they did, they would be shocked to find a wolf in sheep's clothing.

The ACLU, aided by its army of supporters, which includes many unsuspecting dupes, won't rest until they manage to convert the United States of America into the Union of Soviet Socialist States of Amerika.

 

[argexpat]

What I don't like about the ACLU is its 'pink' tinge.

OK, so here we finally have it: The ACLU is a nefarious communist plot to dismantle the constitution and...let's see, since we're in La La Land here, let's go crazy!...and...and...and overthrow the imperialist capitalist system, establish a Dictatorship of the Proletariat...well, that goes without saying. Oh, wait, and Michael Moore can be our Big Brother! I can just see it now: giant portraits of his fat, scruffy, baseball-capped head everywhere, his cameras recording your every move, only his films playing in every theater, they sweep every award! Oh, that's priceless! And let's see, I'm missing something...oh, right, every great repressive totalitarian hellscape needs a good purging. We've already beheaded all the rich people, so that leaves the Christians, of course, followed by the...the...hmm, usually it's intellectuals and journalists, but they're already communists, so...oh, well, we'll burn that cross when we get to it…

Hey, this is fun! OK, now it's your turn…

 

[Fantasea]

OK, so here we finally have it: The ACLU is a nefarious communist plot to dismantle the constitution and...let's see, since we're in La La Land here, let's go crazy!...and...and...and overthrow the imperialist capitalist system, establish a Dictatorship of the Proletariat...well, that goes without saying. Oh, wait, and Michael Moore can be our Big Brother! I can just see it now: giant portraits of his fat, scruffy, baseball-capped head everywhere, his cameras recording your every move, only his films playing in every theater, they sweep every award! Oh, that's priceless! And let's see, I'm missing something...oh, right, every great repressive totalitarian hellscape needs a good purging. We've already beheaded all the rich people, so that leaves the Christians, of course, followed by the...the...hmm, usually it's intellectuals and journalists, but they're already communists, so...oh, well, we'll burn that cross when we get to it…

Hey, this is fun! OK, now it's your turn…

No, it isn't fun. In fact it is sad to see how have reacted to the truth about the ACLU. It is evident that you are shocked to find yourself among the many who have been seduced.

Else, why would you write such a pitiful response. May I respectfully suggest that you do a google search on 'ACLU' and spend a little time learning? It's amazing what one finds below the surface when a little scratching is done.

 

[littlebitbratte]

You might be right.

I am homophobic, but I don't see where you can compare slavery with homosexuality. There are reasons that I am homophobic and it has nothing to do with fantasy or uncouncious desires. Your slavery metaphore is quite flawed. This has nothing to do with being human or not. This has nothing to do with slavery. Lastly, this has nothing to do with race.

Homosexuals are indeed human. They indeed have the SAME rights as I do - I just do not see where same-sex marriage is a RIGHT bound by the constitution.

It's probably not a good idea to start myself of on this forum, debating the moderator, however, I just can't help myself in this case. :doh

I don't think many who support equal civil liberties for all free American citizens are trying to draw a parallel between *slavery* and the gay rights issue. What I compare are the separate but equal ideas that are so strong in both the civil rights movement in the 60's and the fight we're fighting today.

Personally, I don't care a flying hoot about what the word marriage means to any individual. My concern lays with the rights granted by State and Federal governments, granted to two consenting adults of sound mind who agree to come together and be joined in the eyes of the law. It's called a contract and that's what is recognized. That's a little harsh. I do care about individuals opinions and beliefs, I just don't feel they should deny me civil liberties because of those opinions and beliefs.

What possible harm could come from granting rights to gay people? I don't feel the need to explain my sex life to anyone and no heterosexual should have to explain theirs. Do you know, as it stands now, if my spouse were to be badly injured or sick and was in a hospital, i have absolutely no right to be at her bedside to comfort her or even say goodbye?? If and when one of us passes away, we have no rights to property we've spent years accumulating together. We've had to spend 1000s of dollars to protect ourselves in cases such as those, whereas for an opposite sex couple, you pay the state however much for a license and BAM!! you automatically assume those rights. What is the harm in allowing all free citizens to be recognized in the same way? I promise, I am not out to "recruit" anyone. I just want equal protection under the law.

As for the Constitutional question, I think if you refer to the 14th Amendment, Section 1, that should address why recognizing rights for one people, yet limiting those for another class of people is indeed very Unconstitutional.

Thank you for the opportunity to give you my opinion. I'm sorry if I've offended anyone in the process. It was not my intent.

Take Care,
Julie A

 

[argexpat]

No, it isn't fun. In fact it is sad to see how have reacted to the truth about the ACLU. It is evident that you are shocked to find yourself among the many who have been seduced.

Yes, shocked...shocked! How could I have been so naive???

May I respectfully suggest that you do a google search on 'ACLU' and spend a little time learning?

May I repectfully suggest that you take a long walk on a short pier?

 

[Fantasea]

It's probably not a good idea to start myself of on this forum, debating the moderator, however, I just can't help myself in this case. :doh

I don't think many who support equal civil liberties for all free American citizens are trying to draw a parallel between *slavery* and the gay rights issue. What I compare are the separate but equal ideas that are so strong in both the civil rights movement in the 60's and the fight we're fighting today.

Personally, I don't care a flying hoot about what the word marriage means to any individual. My concern lays with the rights granted by State and Federal governments, granted to two consenting adults of sound mind who agree to come together and be joined in the eyes of the law. It's called a contract and that's what is recognized. That's a little harsh. I do care about individuals opinions and beliefs, I just don't feel they should deny me civil liberties because of those opinions and beliefs.

What possible harm could come from granting rights to gay people? I don't feel the need to explain my sex life to anyone and no heterosexual should have to explain theirs. Do you know, as it stands now, if my spouse were to be badly injured or sick and was in a hospital, i have absolutely no right to be at her bedside to comfort her or even say goodbye?? If and when one of us passes away, we have no rights to property we've spent years accumulating together. We've had to spend 1000s of dollars to protect ourselves in cases such as those, whereas for an opposite sex couple, you pay the state however much for a license and BAM!! you automatically assume those rights. What is the harm in allowing all free citizens to be recognized in the same way? I promise, I am not out to "recruit" anyone. I just want equal protection under the law.

As for the Constitutional question, I think if you refer to the 14th Amendment, Section 1, that should address why recognizing rights for one people, yet limiting those for another class of people is indeed very Unconstitutional.

Thank you for the opportunity to give you my opinion. I'm sorry if I've offended anyone in the process. It was not my intent.

Take Care,
Julie A

There are many who believe that the dictionary definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, a situation that is as old as recorded history, should remain the standard. They do not share your flippant view of the word 'marriage'.

They recognize the need for a solution to the problems you cite and believe that the current laws of contract and, where available, civil unions, would enable you to achieve your goal without disturbing the long established institution of marriage.

Equal protection under the law is and has always been provided for similarly situated persons. The law recognizes that every person in every situation is not the same as every other person in every other situation. The law upholds traditions.

No doubt these are some of the considerations that were on his mind in 1996 when then President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

In these forums, regardless of what one writes, those who wish to be offended will find a way to take offense. Those who do not wish to be offended will not. That is beyond your control.

 

[Hoot]

To me the whole thing is stupid.
We should never make any kind of US Constitutional amendment that even has a hint of infringing on the rights of any person....ever! This is dangerous territory we're treading!

200 years...about 17 amendments, and they all uplift the rights of the people, not infringe.

I'm a liberal, but I'm with Cheney...let the states decide.

I pray to God that the Republicans don't get on a ..."Let's change the Constitution kick!"

I'm still worried about the US Supreme Court in the next 4 years!

We're all doomed! LOL

 

[littlebitbratte]

There are many who believe that the dictionary definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, a situation that is as old as recorded history, should remain the standard. They do not share your flippant view of the word 'marriage'.

They recognize the need for a solution to the problems you cite and believe that the current laws of contract and, where available, civil unions, would enable you to achieve your goal without disturbing the long established institution of marriage.

Equal protection under the law is and has always been provided for similarly situated persons. The law recognizes that every person in every situation is not the same as every other person in every other situation. The law upholds traditions.

No doubt these are some of the considerations that were on his mind in 1996 when then President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

In these forums, regardless of what one writes, those who wish to be offended will find a way to take offense. Those who do not wish to be offended will not. That is beyond your control.

Thank you for the welcome Fantasea.

I didn't realize having an opinion that may differ from that of others was being "flippant." You see, the dictionary definition that I have seen, even here on AOL is the following:

"Marriage
14th century
1.a: the state of being married b: the mutual relation of husband and wife: WEDLOCK: the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.
2. an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially: the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities.
3. an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry>"

Take a look at #3 above. If we can attach the term marriage to two inanimate objects without blinking and eye, I think we can stretch our minds to incorporate two gay people.

Also, if you look up the word marriage you get about 9 choices. I think two are very interesting when thinking about this issue. Civil marriage which is EXACTLY what my flippant view of the word "marriage" is. There is also "open marriage." I find that amusing. We can allow the word to be used when to heterosexual people KNOWINGLY go outside their marriage to commit adultery, yet if two consenting gay individuals want to get married, that's BAD!!!! I just find that a little.....hypocritical I guess is the word for it.

Actually, the Equal Protection codes originated as a state to state contract issue and it applied to contracts between individuals from different states. It then moved to include all citizens in the states and the laws applied equally throughout the states. Basically all free citizens that live w/in the Federal Jurisdiction were treated equally under the laws. No State could refuse another states residents the same rights and protections. Then we move forward in time to the 14th Amendment. Section 1 provides due process to all free American citizens. I can provide you with the entire section if you would like it.

Neither the Equal Protection codes, nor the 14th Amendment separate "types" of citizens. The only stipulations they address is the amount of freedom the individual enjoys. Meaning if they have committed a felony, they give up some of their rights under due process. Such as the right to vote or own firearms.

As for the "defense of marriage act," I have a feeling it will end up a lot like prohibition did. Laws can be and have been overturned based on their Constitutionality. I think the "act" and the standing amendments in the state are going to be found Unconstitutional on 14th Amendment grounds. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.

Boy, if I could control how people felt about things, we'd already have equal civil liberties. I'm aware of the fact that I have no control over peoples feelings, however, I was brought up to have manners. You know that old adage, treat others as you wish to be treated? I was trying to be polite if I had offended others. Next time I'll remember not to reach out to others as it might be a sign of me wanting to control. Thanks for the tip.


Take Care,
Julie A

 

[Fantasea]

To me the whole thing is stupid.
We should never make any kind of US Constitutional amendment that even has a hint of infringing on the rights of any person....ever! This is dangerous territory we're treading!

200 years...about 17 amendments, and they all uplift the rights of the people, not infringe.

I'm a liberal, but I'm with Cheney...let the states decide.

I pray to God that the Republicans don't get on a ..."Let's change the Constitution kick!"

I'm still worried about the US Supreme Court in the next 4 years!

We're all doomed! LOL

So long as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, signed into law by then President Clinton holds up, there's no need for anything more.

 

[Fantasea]

Thank you for the welcome Fantasea.

I didn't realize having an opinion that may differ from that of others was being "flippant."

I was not commenting on your opinion but simply on the tenor of your reference to the word 'marriage'. When I read your line, "Personally, I don't care a flying hoot about what the word marriage means to any individual.", the adjective 'flippant' came immediately to mind.

You see, the dictionary definition that I have seen, even here on AOL is the following:

"Marriage
14th century
1.a: the state of being married b: the mutual relation of husband and wife: WEDLOCK: the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.
2. an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially: the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities.
3. an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry>"

Take a look at #3 above. If we can attach the term marriage to two inanimate objects without blinking and eye, I think we can stretch our minds to incorporate two gay people.

Rather than a stretch, I would clasify it as torturing the word beyond any shape into which it had heretofore been bent. In my wildest dreams I could not imagine you and your partner as inanimate objects. Somehow, I don't think your imagination runs to that length either.

Also, if you look up the word marriage you get about 9 choices. I think two are very interesting when thinking about this issue. Civil marriage which is EXACTLY what my flippant view of the word "marriage" is. There is also "open marriage." I find that amusing. We can allow the word to be used when to heterosexual people KNOWINGLY go outside their marriage to commit adultery,

The fact that some individuals decide to dishonor valid marriage vows does not destroy the institution. After all, clery of many churches have dishonored their religious vows and the institutions they once represented were not destroyed. Many elected officials have dishonored their oaths of office, even to the level of the White House, and the institution of government continued to function with not so much as a burp.

I don't agree that your argument holds up.

yet if two consenting gay individuals want to get married, that's BAD!!!! I just find that a little.....hypocritical I guess is the word for it.

If one gay partner is homosexual and the other gay partner is lesbian, I see nothing wrong with their being married to each other.

Actually, the Equal Protection codes originated as a state to state contract issue and it applied to contracts between individuals from different states. It then moved to include all citizens in the states and the laws applied equally throughout the states. Basically all free citizens that live w/in the Federal Jurisdiction were treated equally under the laws. No State could refuse another states residents the same rights and protections. Then we move forward in time to the 14th Amendment. Section 1 provides due process to all free American citizens. I can provide you with the entire section if you would like it.

Neither the Equal Protection codes, nor the 14th Amendment separate "types" of citizens. The only stipulations they address is the amount of freedom the individual enjoys. Meaning if they have committed a felony, they give up some of their rights under due process. Such as the right to vote or own firearms.

As for the "defense of marriage act," I have a feeling it will end up a lot like prohibition did. Laws can be and have been overturned based on their Constitutionality. I think the "act" and the standing amendments in the state are going to be found Unconstitutional on 14th Amendment grounds. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.

Boy, if I could control how people felt about things, we'd already have equal civil liberties. I'm aware of the fact that I have no control over peoples feelings, however, I was brought up to have manners. You know that old adage, treat others as you wish to be treated? I was trying to be polite if I had offended others. Next time I'll remember not to reach out to others as it might be a sign of me wanting to control. Thanks for the tip.


Take Care,
Julie A

All of what you have explained notwithstanding, one cannot escape the fact that every elected official has sliced and diced the results of the the so-called 'same sex marriage' initiatives (which defined marriage as between one man and one woman) on the ballot in eleven states two months ago. Both 'red' and 'blue' states were represented.

As you undoubtedly know, not only was every one approved, but the overwhelming margins by which each was approved indicates that voters of both parties had, for the first time, at least in my memory, unknowingly joined together to form a coalition to support a single issue.

Politicians, being avid readers of tea leaves, won't want to re-open this can of worms, now that the cover has seemingly been sealed shut.

 

[littlebitbratte]

First, can I ask you a technical question?? How do you get my post to separate in different quotes? I'd like to address point by point but our posts are so long it makes it hard to keep them organized. At least for my poor little head. I am the poster child for the computer idiot :screwy

I'd appreciate your expertise. Then I'll be able to make my posts easier to read.

Thanks, Julie

I was not commenting on your opinion but simply on the tenor of your reference to the word 'marriage'. When I read your line, "Personally, I don't care a flying hoot about what the word marriage means to any individual.", the adjective 'flippant' came immediately to mind.

Rather than a stretch, I would clasify it as torturing the word beyond any shape into which it had heretofore been bent. In my wildest dreams I could not imagine you and your partner as inanimate objects. Somehow, I don't think your imagination runs to that length either.

The fact that some individuals decide to dishonor valid marriage vows does not destroy the institution. After all, clery of many churches have dishonored their religious vows and the institutions they once represented were not destroyed. Many elected officials have dishonored their oaths of office, even to the level of the White House, and the institution of government continued to function with not so much as a burp.

I don't agree that your argument holds up.

If one gay partner is homosexual and the other gay partner is lesbian, I see nothing wrong with their being married to each other.

All of what you have explained notwithstanding, one cannot escape the fact that every elected official has sliced and diced the results of the the so-called 'same sex marriage' initiatives (which defined marriage as between one man and one woman) on the ballot in eleven states two months ago. Both 'red' and 'blue' states were represented.

As you undoubtedly know, not only was every one approved, but the overwhelming margins by which each was approved indicates that voters of both parties had, for the first time, at least in my memory, unknowingly joined together to form a coalition to support a single issue.

Politicians, being avid readers of tea leaves, won't want to re-open this can of worms, now that the cover has seemingly been sealed shut.

 

[Fantasea]

First, can I ask you a technical question?? How do you get my post to separate in different quotes? I'd like to address point by point but our posts are so long it makes it hard to keep them organized. At least for my poor little head. I am the poster child for the computer idiot :screwy

This is what I have learned, thus far. Perhaps someone more knowledgable than I will chime in.

First, hit the quote button on the lower right corner of the post to which you're replying. This brings up the 'reply' screen.

Next, highlight the text you wish to copy and click on the icon at the right end of the line of icons that begins with B, I, U. This will place [QU TE] at the beginning of the text you highlighted. At the end of it will be [/QU TE] Note: I had to omit the letter 'O' from the word 'quote' because the complete word in the square brackets triggers a quote that is inappropriate in that sentence.

Type your response to that section beneath it.

Repeat this as many times as you wish. Highlight and use the delete key to eliminate any text you don't need.

One caution, however. In order for this to work, you must type at least ten characters after the final [/QUOTE]

I always hit the 'Preview Post' button to proof read and to check the layout. Sometimes I have to go back to the 'Reply screen' to add or remove a [QU TE] at the beginning or a [/QU TE] at the end of a section.

I'd appreciate your expertise. Then I'll be able to make my posts easier to read.

Thanks, Julie

My pleasure.

 

[Contrarian]

As a newcomer to Debatepolitics.com, I read this thread from top to bottom and am exhausted by the opinions. It is clear that as with religion, most people have a very personal view of what the "institution of marriage" is, and should be. I would highly recommend a book, "Public Vows - A History of Marriage and the Nation" by Nancy Cott. It is a highly inciteful history of how marriage evolved within this great American democracy.

It was mentioned in this thread that the Constitution was designed as a framework for "We, the people", to find our way through the maze of issues that may threaten our way of life. The fact is, as Americans we should defend everyones freedom, not pander to religion to permit legislating morality. We are a pluralistic society and have an obligation to guarantee everyones rights.

I have hearn much about the "institution of marriage", which most people don't even have a modicum of knowledge about. The fact is that there is no global marriage norm. The western concept began almost exclusively for economic reasons. Over burdened families "sold" their daughters to men who needed to procreate and get domestic support. The whole concept of romantic marriage didn't exist until medieval times, when troubadours perpetuated the idea of "courtly love". Marriages, as with other business contracts became the pervue of the kings / government, who wanted CONTROL (taxation, property rights etc). Not wanting to be outdone, or wishing to miss an income opportunity, the Church got into the act in 1563 when the Council of Trent stated that marriages were suddenly sacriments of the church and needed to be presided over by a Priest. As a means of CONTROL, it took on a new role of saving men and women from being sinful. The current objection to gay marriage is no more than misguided religious zealotry attempting to hijack the Constitution to enforce CONTROL over what they believe to be "deviant" behavior.

It was also mentioned in the thread that if we allow gay marriage... what is next? Poligamy? Well if we would take the old blinders off, we would see that around the world Poligamy is not only normal, but LEGAL in many nations. Polyandry (a woman married to many men) is still in practice in Tibet and parts of China today. So the "institution" that is being defended as being from the beginning of time, is not quite what the defenders represent. Even the Founding Fathers had some questionable marital status'. Despite the requirement to get a marriage license (government CONTROL), George Washington did not have a license to marry Martha. Ben Franklin never really "married" his common-law "wife", whom he regularly forgot as he spread his considerable charms around the colonies and Europe. Jefferson, kept his slave mistress under his own roof and fathered numerous red haired slave children. Is there no limit to the ignorance and hypocracy in this country?

It's time for us to stop worrying about who someone loves. It is not up to government to make those choices, especially not by Constitutional amendment. The states have the right to issue "licenses" to whom ever they wish, and gay couples can move to those states who value personal freedom. Why would they want to live where their freedom is shat upon? I leave you with a quote from an enlightened man.

In 1816, Thomas Jefferson predicted future generations would extend
liberty's ideals into realms not yet imagined: "Laws and institutions
must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind," he wrote.
"As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries
are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with
the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep
pace with the times."

 

[Fantasea]

As a newcomer to Debatepolitics.com, I read this thread from top to bottom and am exhausted by the opinions. It is clear that as with religion, most people have a very personal view of what the "institution of marriage" is, and should be. I would highly recommend a book, "Public Vows - A History of Marriage and the Nation" by Nancy Cott. It is a highly inciteful history of how marriage evolved within this great American democracy.

It was mentioned in this thread that the Constitution was designed as a framework for "We, the people", to find our way through the maze of issues that may threaten our way of life. The fact is, as Americans we should defend everyones freedom, not pander to religion to permit legislating morality. We are a pluralistic society and have an obligation to guarantee everyones rights.

I have hearn much about the "institution of marriage", which most people don't even have a modicum of knowledge about. The fact is that there is no global marriage norm. The western concept began almost exclusively for economic reasons. Over burdened families "sold" their daughters to men who needed to procreate and get domestic support. The whole concept of romantic marriage didn't exist until medieval times, when troubadours perpetuated the idea of "courtly love". Marriages, as with other business contracts became the pervue of the kings / government, who wanted CONTROL (taxation, property rights etc). Not wanting to be outdone, or wishing to miss an income opportunity, the Church got into the act in 1563 when the Council of Trent stated that marriages were suddenly sacriments of the church and needed to be presided over by a Priest. As a means of CONTROL, it took on a new role of saving men and women from being sinful. The current objection to gay marriage is no more than misguided religious zealotry attempting to hijack the Constitution to enforce CONTROL over what they believe to be "deviant" behavior.

You write so eloquently that I almost hesitate to point out your, perhaps unintentional, but, nevertheless, pointedly derogative reference to the Church, and the disparities between your understanding and that of the OnLine Catholic Encyclopedia in connection with the statements eminating from the Council of Trent, which quote follows:

That Christian marriage (i.e. marriage between baptized persons) is really a sacrament of the New Law in the strict sense of the word is for all Catholics an indubitable truth. According to the Council of Trent this dogma has always been taught by the Church, and is thus defined in canon i, Sess. XXIV: "If any one shall say that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the Seven Sacraments of the Evangelical Law, instituted by Christ our Lord, but was invented in the Church by men, and does not confer grace, let him be anathema." The occasion of this solemn declaration was the denial by the so-called Reformers of the sacramental character of marriage.

It was also mentioned in the thread that if we allow gay marriage... what is next? Poligamy? Well if we would take the old blinders off, we would see that around the world Poligamy is not only normal, but LEGAL in many nations. Polyandry (a woman married to many men) is still in practice in Tibet and parts of China today. So the "institution" that is being defended as being from the beginning of time, is not quite what the defenders represent. Even the Founding Fathers had some questionable marital status'. Despite the requirement to get a marriage license (government CONTROL), George Washington did not have a license to marry Martha. Ben Franklin never really "married" his common-law "wife", whom he regularly forgot as he spread his considerable charms around the colonies and Europe. Jefferson, kept his slave mistress under his own roof and fathered numerous red haired slave children. Is there no limit to the ignorance and hypocracy in this country?

The mere fact that people abandon their vows, never to bother to marry at all, enter adulterous or other strange relationships, engage in the practice of bastardy, or in any other way, contravene the norm, is not reason to alter the foundation upon which the institution of marriage rests -- freely given vows, exchanged by one man and one woman, to live together as husband and wife until the death of one of them. If the steadfastness of any institution depended upon human perfection as the determinant for its continance none could withstand the challenge and all would disappear.

It's time for us to stop worrying about who someone loves. It is not up to government to make those choices, especially not by Constitutional amendment. The states have the right to issue "licenses" to whom ever they wish, and gay couples can move to those states who value personal freedom. Why would they want to live where their freedom is shat upon? I leave you with a quote from an enlightened man.

In 1816, Thomas Jefferson predicted future generations would extend
liberty's ideals into realms not yet imagined: "Laws and institutions
must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind," he wrote.
"As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries
are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with
the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep
pace with the times."

Given your own description of the views of Thomas Jefferson on the institution, as defined by his longtime practice of bastardy, he is hardly an authority to be observed in connection with marriage.

A reading of his quote reveals a universality that really says all things to all people without limit. According to the way you wish Jefferson's words to be construed, given the manners, customs, and opinions observed by some, how could a judge not rule that firearms of all kinds should be sold to anyone who wants them; or that all public toilets should be located on street corners and have neither walls nor stalls, for the benefit of 'flashers' who also enjoy public urination?

 

[Contrarian]

Thank you for the compliment, however I guess I wasn’t eloquent enough to fully illustrate my point. Marriage, is a contractual agreement that exists on three levels: The first being Legal / Civil – no marriage can exist in the US without being sanctioned by a governmental entity = absolute control over one of the most important aspects of most peoples lives. Second is the Religious interpretation which was designed as part of the cradle to grave control mechanism, which kept the “sinning” ignorant in check by preventing sex without their permission. Third, is the Emotional aspect by which two (or in some cultures more) people come together for love, comfort and mutual benefit, which should be the true basis for the institution.

From the beginning, marriage in its purest sense, was a “business / economic” transaction / contract, which evolved from the primitive necessity of women for protection and food, while primitive men needed access to the gene pool and reproductive avenues as well as support services. It became an evolutionary necessity for man and woman to join together for the survival of the species. The modern western concept of marriage began as men took women as possessions, not much different than indentured servants or some might argue, defacto slaves. They had no rights of ownership, joint property etc. As structure and the concept of power and control developed further, the “taking” of a wife, was merely a matter of registering your new possession with the local authority. If you believe in the story of Jesus, the migration of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem to register for the census is a perfect example. No ceremony, no flowers, no expensive reception at the Ritz Carlton. A man would meet with the father of a young lady and basically pay him (dowry) for the right to take his daughter. In a few jurisdictions (not many) it was required to register the transaction. It was thus, that controls over inheritance and estates was maintained by helping insure the purity of lines. This control extended in some societies to direct contact between the master and the serfs, as seen in the Rule of Prima Nocte, whereby the feudal lord had the right to the first night with the young bride, before granting legitimacy to the marriage. After the act was completed the noble would paint on the door, the acronym for “Fornication Under Consent of the King” to signify compliance with the law.

Marriage was under the complete and absolute control of the government, who controlled it, taxed it and maintained absolute realm over it. The church, in it’s constant quest to supersede the authorities of the various kings and lords, as the voice of God, decided to intercede saying that no marriage would be recognized by the church unless officiated by a priest and witnessed by Catholics. If they failed to do this it was the old fire and brimstone thing, and to give it validity, they sort of post dated the directive. The reference you cite from the Catholic Encyclopedia has chosen to reset the clock to before the Council of Trent (1563) which was the first time the rules for marriage were formally laid down. The quote is obviously a self-serving statement, spun to fit their agenda. :spin:

In retaliation, the kings and lords of heathen and lesser Christian states refused to recognize church marriages unless they were officiated again under a government representative. Did you know that in the most Catholic nation of all, Italy, the government did not recognize marriages conducted by the church until 1912? Hence it was common for the religious to get married in the town hall on Thursday and again at the church on Sunday.

The point being, that there has been a constant clash between church and state in the regulation / control of a commodity. :duel It continues to this day, where a (should be) secular government would have no reason to bar its citizens from entering into a binding contract of partnership, other than a set of 14th century beliefs. Despite supposed separation of church and state, it is clear that religious dogma has influenced moral and cultural evolution to the point where citizens of this great nation are willing to restrict the rights of those they despise and fear.

In your rebuttal you speak to the many evils that people in a free society can perpetrate on the moral “norm’. We are a pluralistic country with hundreds of nationalities and religious beliefs rolled into one spectacular nation. Despite the efforts of the religious right, we are a secular country with an obligation of religious freedom. What is “normal” marital structure for a pre-statehood Mormon, or a devout Muslim polygamist, or Tibetan polyandrarist, illustrates that the Judeo – Christian brand of marriage is not the sole standard bearer of the institution.

My example of the various founding fathers proclivities went to illustrate that these great men, didn’t seem too overly affected by societal controls that they didn’t believe should diminish their personal choices. They knew that in a truly free society, different people behave in different ways. As a general rule, they believed that anyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as it does not harm or interfere with the similar freedoms of others. Their basic belief was to reduce the role of government to protecting the collective freedoms of individuals.

You are completely off the mark to interpret the Jeffersonian quote I used as something to be construed as a potential sanction for open season for firearm distribution to anyone who breathes (which is kind of what happens now anyway); or to allow public urination on city streets. Under my premise, guns in the hands of the wrong person can kill people (the ultimate civil rights violation) and it is obvious that public urination is a health hazard (spreading disease also inhibits freedom).

The last time I checked, no one would die as a result of a gay marriage. The public health would not be in jeopardy if two women married. No ones personal freedoms would be inhibited, if same sex couples exchanged vows of devotion. As a person who has been married for over 30 years (for emotional reasons), I can guarantee that my marriage will not be attacked or diminished in any way shape or form, if my gay friends chose to formally share their love for the rest of their lives in matrimony. Nor will my safety or freedom be in jeopardy. So why would I want to restrict, through the withholding of “permission” for a license to marry? The government is not our parent and should not be allowed to control our lives. Frankly it confuses me that Republicans generally stand for limited government control, yet are quite eager to enable further limitations on its citizens freedoms, by the hand of the government.

By the way, my pointed reference to the church was definitely derogative and absolutely intentional.

 

[Fantasea]

Contrarian:

My response is too long for one posting. It is divided into three parts which I hope will run consecutively.
Thank you for the compliment, however I guess I wasn’t eloquent enough to fully illustrate my point. Marriage, is a contractual agreement that exists on three levels: The first being Legal / Civil – no marriage can exist in the US without being sanctioned by a governmental entity = absolute control over one of the most important aspects of most peoples lives.

The government’s reason for involvement in the recording of marriages is much the same as its involvement in the recording ownership of real estate.

If there is no official source for recording deeds that describe the property involved and the legal owner(s) thereof, one can easily imagine the chaotic mess that would result when persons of less than honorable character began to dispute ownership of a plot of land or attempted to evade the responsibilities attached thereto. Government stepped in and afforded a measure of protection to all concerned.

Given human frailties, imagine, too, the chaos that would result when persons chose to infringe on the marriages of others or to dishonor marriage responsibilities of their own. As populations grew, there was recognized the necessity of some sort of ‘bookkeeping’ arrangement to keep track of who was married to whom. Initially, this was done by the entity that officiated at the wedding ceremony, usually a church official who recorded these things. As populations grew even further, governments recognized two things; church records were not centralized which meant that finding information about the marital status of specific individuals was becoming impossibly difficult, and, there were those who had no church affiliation, who were desirous of being married, which marriages should also be recorded. So, government recording of marriages, via licenses, and civil ceremonies were instituted.
Second is the Religious interpretation which was designed as part of the cradle to grave control mechanism, which kept the “sinning” ignorant in check by preventing sex without their permission.

Spoken like a person who has a bone to pick with organized religion.

Third, is the Emotional aspect by which two (or in some cultures more) people come together for love, comfort and mutual benefit, which should be the true basis for the institution.

Without a doubt, the man and woman about to be married are attracted to each other and have developed a strong emotional bond. The central purpose of the ceremony is the public declaration that each is free to enter into marriage, is entering into marriage without coercion of any kind, and is pledging to remain faithful to the marriage promises and each other until the first one dies.

From the beginning, marriage in its purest sense, was a “business / economic” transaction / contract, which evolved from the primitive necessity of women for protection and food, while primitive men needed access to the gene pool and reproductive avenues as well as support services. It became an evolutionary necessity for man and woman to join together for the survival of the species.

No doubt this is why the Creator, to whom Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers make frequent reference, included sexual attraction and sex drive in the human equation.

The modern western concept of marriage began as men took women as possessions, not much different than indentured servants or some might argue, defacto slaves. They had no rights of ownership, joint property etc. As structure and the concept of power and control developed further, the “taking” of a wife, was merely a matter of registering your new possession with the local authority.

This was nothing more than recognition, at the time, that the inherent physical differences between a man and a woman made each more suitable for the efficient management of different facets of the difficult and often harsh conditions of life in the times you cite. Each gravitated toward the family jobs for which, emotionally and physically, was better equipped.

In those days of limited education and little opportunity for earning wages, ones subsistence was dependant upon the ability to raise food and hunt. It’s not necessary to go into a discussion of hunter/nurturer, breadwinner/homemaker, etc.

The concept of ‘love’ took a back seat to practical necessity. He needed a homemaker and she needed a meal ticket. They joined forces and each contributed to the success of the family. It proved to be the most efficient and practical way to live.
If you believe in the story of Jesus, the migration of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem to register for the census is a perfect example. No ceremony, no flowers, no expensive reception at the Ritz Carlton. A man would meet with the father of a young lady and basically pay him (dowry) for the right to take his daughter. In a few jurisdictions (not many) it was required to register the transaction. It was thus, that controls over inheritance and estates was maintained by helping insure the purity of lines.

Close, but no cigar. The purpose of the migration to Bethlehem was to register for the census decreed by Herod.

A better illustration of Jesus and marriage would be the Wedding Feast at Cana, where there was, indeed, a ceremony, flowers, and a large and formal reception to which many guests, including Mary and her Son were invited. Since you are inclined to discuss Biblical incidents, you may also recall that this was the occasion of the first public appearance by Jesus and His first public miracle; the changing of water into wine. It is seen by biblical scholars as the basis for the sacramental sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman.

It is likely that the rest of your description of a marriage, of that day, is correct because that’s the way things were in those days.
This control extended in some societies to direct contact between the master and the serfs, as seen in the Rule of Prima Nocte, whereby the feudal lord had the right to the first night with the young bride, before granting legitimacy to the marriage. After the act was completed the noble would paint on the door, the acronym for “Fornication Under Consent of the King” to signify compliance with the law.

All this signifies is that all rulers were not fair and just. What does it say about a king who used his temporal powers to ensure the fealty of his subordinates by appealing to their basest instincts by dangling such a carrot? The mere use of the word ‘fornication’ indicates that they knew this was an evil deed, but didn’t give a damn about such formalities when it was the peasantry on the receiving end of an indignity or abuse. If there is any truth to the story of William Wallace, then this turned out to be a bad move, indeed, for King Edward, didn’t it?

No doubt, as the education of the populace advanced, excesses of this kind led to the marginalizing of monarchies in many countries.

 

[Fantasea]

CONTINUED


Marriage was under the complete and absolute control of the government, who controlled it, taxed it and maintained absolute realm over it. The church, in it’s constant quest to supersede the authorities of the various kings and lords, as the voice of God, decided to intercede saying that no marriage would be recognized by the church unless officiated by a priest and witnessed by Catholics. If they failed to do this it was the old fire and brimstone thing, and to give it validity, they sort of post dated the directive. The reference you cite from the Catholic Encyclopedia has chosen to reset the clock to before the Council of Trent (1563) which was the first time the rules for marriage were formally laid down. The quote is obviously a self-serving statement, spun to fit their agenda.

Sorry to add another correction. See the paragraph above relating to the ‘Wedding Feast at Cana’. No doubt you will agree that this event pre-dated the Council of Trent by a millennium and a half. The references to the sacramental nature of marriage by the Council were nothing more than a re-affirmation for the benefit of Martin Luther and a few others who were claiming otherwise as they were establishing the dogma for their newly minted religions.

Do you begrudge the most exclusive ‘club’ in the world, the right to restrict full membership, in good standing, to those who are willing to observe, uphold, and live by the rules it sets; and to tell those who are unwilling to do so, to take a hike? Remember, it is not now, never was, and never will be, a democratic organization in which, by a show of hands, its members may decide that a truth, held sacred for centuries, has, in this modern day, become a bother, a nuisance, an inconvenience, an anachronism that should be dispensed with.
In retaliation, the kings and lords of heathen and lesser Christian states refused to recognize church marriages unless they were officiated again under a government representative. Did you know that in the most Catholic nation of all, Italy, the government did not recognize marriages conducted by the church until 1912? Hence it was common for the religious to get married in the town hall on Thursday and again at the church on Sunday.

Those making reference to Italy as being the most Catholic nation of all should never lose sight of the other side of that coin. Outside of the traditional Iron Curtain countries, the population of Italy is just about the most communist of all, isn’t it? What has this to do with the Church?
The point being, that there has been a constant clash between church and state in the regulation / control of a commodity. It continues to this day, where a (should be) secular government would have no reason to bar its citizens from entering into a binding contract of partnership, other than a set of 14th century beliefs. Despite supposed separation of church and state, it is clear that religious dogma has influenced moral and cultural evolution to the point where citizens of this great nation are willing to restrict the rights of those they despise and fear.

In your fascination with Biblical references, you might recall this one, attributed to Christ, Himself, when quizzed on a question with similarity, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God, the things that are God’s.” Don’t you think that sums it up nicely? And in only sixteen words.
In your rebuttal you speak to the many evils that people in a free society can perpetrate on the moral “norm’. We are a pluralistic country with hundreds of nationalities and religious beliefs rolled into one spectacular nation. Despite the efforts of the religious right, we are a secular country with an obligation of religious freedom. What is “normal” marital structure for a pre-statehood Mormon, or a devout Muslim polygamist, or Tibetan polyandrarist, illustrates that the Judeo – Christian brand of marriage is not the sole standard bearer of the institution.

I don’t know what it makes me, but I believe that many of the difficulties being experienced in this country can be traced to the current practice of manipulating the many nationalities of immigrants for political purposes. Today’s battle cry is for unity, however, most of the political energy seems to be devoted to encouraging every population segment to employ every means possible to maintain its individual identity. This, under the banner of diversity. Hypocracy?

It seems to me that the immigrant spirit that used to yearn for the day of naturalization, when a person born in a foreign land, and still speaking with a strong accent which identified that foreign land, would proudly brag to all, ‘I am an American!’ is being stifled. All these folks must feel as if they have only second class citizenship today because they can’t seem to shed their connection to the land from which they chose to sever ties. Political correctness has deemed that they forever carry that identity as a hyphenated prefix to the name of their adopted land. Think how ridiculous it is for a dark skinned immigrant from a Caribbean, Central American, or South American nation to be forever known as an African-American.

Assimilation, long the desire of immigrants, whose dream was to become an American, is now considered some kind of sin which should not be committed.

Referring to America as the ‘melting pot of the world’ acknowledged that combining the best qualities of many diverse peoples produced an amalgam having superior strength. The current socialistic practice of ‘Balkanizing’ the populace undermines this strength.

People come to the US to become Americans, not to proselytize in favor of the land they left.

This is continued.

 

[Fantasea]

FINAL THOUGHTS

My example of the various founding fathers proclivities went to illustrate that these great men, didn’t seem too overly affected by societal controls that they didn’t believe should diminish their personal choices. They knew that in a truly free society, different people behave in different ways. As a general rule, they believed that anyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as it does not harm or interfere with the similar freedoms of others. Their basic belief was to reduce the role of government to protecting the collective freedoms of individuals.

The only illustration that makes sense to me is that among the strengths these men brought to government lay the same weakness of the flesh that tempts all men. Some resist the temptation, some do not. It is their strengths which are to be celebrated; not their weaknesses.

Many constitutional scholars would argue that, irrespective of the individual beliefs of the founding fathers, what they embodied in the constitution was the sole duty of the federal government to provide to the states an umbrella of protection that cannot be provided efficiently or economically by the several states. Anything over and above that is a usurpation of the right of the people of a state to decide what is best for themselves.
You are completely off the mark to interpret the Jeffersonian quote I used as something to be construed as a potential sanction for open season for firearm distribution to anyone who breathes (which is kind of what happens now anyway); or to allow public urination on city streets. Under my premise, guns in the hands of the wrong person can kill people (the ultimate civil rights violation) and it is obvious that public urination is a health hazard (spreading disease also inhibits freedom).

I agree with you that Jefferson’s intentions were entirely different from what I wrote. However, one cannot deny that his words, especially in light of the verbal gymnastics and tortured logic which are applied today to the writings of those who are no longer available to contest current ‘translations’, could well be construed to allow such foolishness as I described.
The last time I checked, no one would die as a result of a gay marriage. The public health would not be in jeopardy if two women married. No ones personal freedoms would be inhibited, if same sex couples exchanged vows of devotion. As a person who has been married for over 30 years (for emotional reasons), I can guarantee that my marriage will not be attacked or diminished in any way shape or form, if my gay friends chose to formally share their love for the rest of their lives in matrimony. Nor will my safety or freedom be in jeopardy. So why would I want to restrict, through the withholding of “permission” for a license to marry?

You are most certainly free to hold and espouse such beliefs as you consider correct in the circumstances. I am certain, that you recognize that I have same privilege. Some things come down to a matter of imponderables.

Perhaps, on the other hand, you can tell me what benefits and protections which may be embodied in a ‘civil union’, sans the term ‘marriage’, may be lacking therefrom.

The government is not our parent and should not be allowed to control our lives.

I agree. Although, somehow, in light of the Democratic goal of cradle to grave socialism which has been creeping up on me, I think that is what is happening.
Frankly it confuses me that Republicans generally stand for limited government control, yet are quite eager to enable further limitations on its citizens freedoms, by the hand of the government.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Republicans recognize that there is no unanimity on the question and believe, therefore, that it’s not within the province of the federal government to impose a ‘one size fits all’ solution. They correctly note that this is a question that should be decided by the people of the several states.
By the way, my pointed reference to the church was definitely derogative and absolutely intentional.

Perhaps not applicable to you, personally, but I have observed that when a person makes a deliberate attack upon the Church, while there can be many reasons, usually one of the following is present:

A marital problem which is unresolved; usually because the person has made no attempt at ecclesiastic resolution;

Lack of understanding the difference between an institution and a human representative of the institution;

A perceived break with the Church due to the performance of activities upon which it frowns; coupled with pride or an inordinate fear of atonement.

Failure to recall that the fallback position of the Church is to hate the sin, but love the sinner and celebrate the return of its ‘lost lambs’;

Less than a clear understanding of Church finances;

The inability to see the Church, not as a museum for saints, but as a hospital for sinners.

 

[Contrarian]

Fantasea - First I must say WOW. It is a real pleasure to engage such a intellectually gifted person whose thoughts and opinions might be different than mine, but offer insight and material to ponder. Thank you.

Even though I enjoy the discussion, I have other responsibilities and will try to keep my responses brief. Following in approximate order from your last post:

* No one denies the need for a central repository for registration of deeds, ownerships, liens, corporate filings etc., nor the need for a central agency to oversee licensing of activites that may effect the public welfare such as professional licensing (doctors, plumbers etc), drivers licenses, gun licenses (oh, that's another discussion!). I agree with your explanantion of the churchs early role as repository for community records in lieu of a government structure in some regions. The local and state govenments are the appropriate authorities for these activities, which reverts back to the original posting. A Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is inappropriate since this is a matter for the individual states to rule upon.

* Excellent reparte on the evolution of the Judeo-Christian version of marriage which was a result of a confluence of genetic hardwiring, Darwinian evolution, sociobiological theory on survival of the species, good old fashioned sex drive, and a clash of regulatory agencies (church and state) for control to make us what we are today. But couldn't one foresee a further expansion of this evolution into the inclusion of those who by no "choice" of their own, cling to members of their own sex? Was it not so long ago that marriage between different races was forbidden by law, but very few reasonable, intelligent, unbigoted people would be distressed by an inter-racial marriage? What ever happened to "all men are created equal"?

* My Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem reference was to illustrate the power of the government, even at that time to regulate and record the activities, ownership and estates of their citizens. I was not claiming they went there to marry.

* To respond to your discussion of the Wedding Feast of Cana, I will use your own comments as they related to Jefferson and the Founding Fathers - However, one cannot deny that his words, especially in light of the verbal gymnastics and tortured logic which are applied today to the writings of those who are no longer available to contest current ‘translations’, could well be construed to allow such foolishness as I described. For a book that was written for the most part hundreds of years after the described events, and having had the benefit of multiple editorial twists and variations, I would be disinclined to accept them as "fact" of either content or chronology. The accuracy of history is subject to the bias of the "historian". Works of fiction are meant to entertain, move and inspire the reader... nice little story Cana is.

*You state>> The Republicans recognize that there is no unanimity on the question and believe, therefore, that it’s not within the province of the federal government to impose a ‘one size fits all’ solution. They correctly note that this is a question that should be decided by the people of the several states.
If this statement were true, the Republican President and many Republican members of Congress would not be seeking a Constitutional Amendment to supercede the rights of the states to decide.

* With respect to the "old club", I respect and defend their right to resrtict full membership etc., for those who wish to belong as I would for someone who chose to belong to the Boy Scouts, Ladies Club, Black Organization etc. Whatever floats your perverbial canoe is fine with me as long as it doesn't infringe directly or indirectly on the rights of others in the community.

* Italy - given as an example of the power struggle of church vs government. Extremes often collide in one place in order to obtain control.

* Unity as American has always been foudationally supported by the fact that we are a diverse people. Yes, the great masses yearn to become "American", BUT MOST still proudly identify with their heritage in the strongest terms. I completely disagree that these people feel like "second class" citizens as a result of the hyphenization of their heritage and new found Americanism. Go around the neighborhoods of New York City and many other communities in the US and you will see proud Arab-American, German-Americans etc who revere and some even "worship" their heritage.

* The thing missing in the term Civil Union vs Marriage is the word EQUALITY

* “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God, the things that are God’s.” Didn't Rome evolve into the Papal State and did not many a Pope take on the role of "Emperor", donning armor and laying seige to other nation states in the name of God and the Pope? Sounds like - take what belongs to Caesar because we (the church) has a higher authority to do so.

I will pick up on the rest later, as duty calls.

 

[Fantasea]

Fantasea - First I must say WOW. It is a real pleasure to engage such a intellectually gifted person whose thoughts and opinions might be different than mine, but offer insight and material to ponder. Thank you.

Even though I enjoy the discussion, I have other responsibilities and will try to keep my responses brief. Following in approximate order from your last post:

First, let me say that I, too, find great pleasure, satisfaction, and enlightenment in the extremely civil and intelligent way you express your thoughts.

Second, you exemplify the old saw, "Disagreement need not be disagreeable."

I shall await the completion of your thoughts before responding.

 

[heyjoeo]

Why don't you guys get married and test out that "gay marriage" thing? .

Your posts are too long and it's too late at night. However, I'd like to comment on this "cradle to the grave socialism." I'd like to think about it like this: on one hand, the republican party is pushing complete governmental control over all issues, and encroaching upon social morality (including religion), but on the other hand you have the democratic party with its welfare programs,etc,etc.

Now, personally I would go with the democratic party on this one (could you have guessed?). This isn't socialism. I will say that right now. Just like I hope that the Republicans don't try to turn the government into a facist dictatorship; However I don't see that happening also.

I wish I could invest more time in reading your discussions but I am REALLY tired and it's 2 in the morning. Sorry!

 

[Contrarian]

I'm surprised at you Heyjoeo! How do you know that Fantasea or I am not a woman? Are you insinuating that women are not capable of high level discourse? Maybe one of us is a really hot"babe" with a PhD from MIT in Quantum Mechanics? Shame on you, the DNC will never forgive you for that!! :lamo

And by the way, complex issues especially those rooted in hundreds of years of ideology, practice and evolution require long thoughtful answers. Besides reading is good for you. It is simple. If you are tired, go to bed and respond when you are fit.

.... which brings me to my next point Fantasea>>

* You stated: "Although, somehow, in light of the Democratic goal of cradle to grave socialism which has been creeping up on me, I think that is what is happening. Frankly it confuses me that Republicans generally stand for limited government control, yet are quite eager to enable further limitations on its citizens freedoms, by the hand of the government." You are corrrect in your comment that Republicans generally stand for limited govt., but my observation of late has me confused as to who is who. Our President is spending money like a drunken Democrat at a singles bar in Chappaquidick. The deficit is climbing out of control (please don't give me the Iraq nonsense). And social programs abound in the form of pork barrel or faith based initiatives (welfare in sheeps clothing). Democrats are responsible for the biggest welfare reform since FDR and are coming to the center (except for guys like Dean). They are trying to look more and more like Republicans. It's a sorry state of affairs. Their sole objective is to get elected regardless of the message or platform. I will say that it is completely incorrect to believe Democrats are "socialist" as much as Republicans are "fascist". Totally off the mark.

Again I must run and will have my final point later this afternoon. thank you.

 

[Fantasea]

Why don't you guys get married and test out that "gay marriage" thing? .

Your posts are too long and it's too late at night. However, I'd like to comment on this "cradle to the grave socialism." I'd like to think about it like this: on one hand, the republican party is pushing complete governmental control over all issues, and encroaching upon social morality (including religion), but on the other hand you have the democratic party with its welfare programs,etc,etc.

You might get the argument from many readers that it would appear as if you don't recognize a difference between preservation and destruction.

Now, personally I would go with the democratic party on this one (could you have guessed?). This isn't socialism. I will say that right now.

You may say whatever you wish. However, the mere act of your denying something does not change what a majority of the electorate knows to be true.

Just like I hope that the Republicans don't try to turn the government into a facist dictatorship; However I don't see that happening also.

Whatever is it that causes the odd way you have of expressing political concerns? First you begin a sentence saying that you hope that something won't happen. Then, in a subsequent clause in the same sentence, you say that it won't. Since the point of the second clause cancels out the point of the first, why bother, at all? I'm puzzled.

I wish I could invest more time in reading your discussions but I am REALLY tired and it's 2 in the morning. Sorry!

Sorry to have encroached on your snooze time. C'mon back when your battery is recharged.