Just one comment on this, cause obviously no minds are going to change, and this debate will go on forever. My only comment is this, you say you believe in the Rule of Law, but you obviously only do so selectively, since you do not believe that gays should have equal protection under the law. Now, equal protection, THAT is bas legal "rights" as you say.
Marriage is not a right, but a privalige.
First off, it may be that the constitution was written by those of Judeo-Christian faith, but the bill of rights was written in 1791. Are you really suggesting that these values apply to todays society?
Just like Canada, the United States is a multi-cultural nation, many of these cultures do not practice Christianity. Some of these cultures do not have issues with homosexuality and if they choose to allow same sex marriage, should they not be allowed to do so? Judeo-Christian values cannot be applied to everyone as that would be violating their right to freedom of religion. It is the job of the Christian establishment to dictate how Christians live their lives, not those of other faiths.
If same sex partners are not allowed to marry, they are not allowed to practice their faith. Once again, church and state are seperate and whether or not that faith recognizes or accepts those individuals cannot be dictated by the government, nor can the Church dictate the rights of individuals.
Just as a side note, fore those provinces in Canada that do not allow gay marriage (only two now), same sex couples are granted the legal benefits of marriage under the law. It's not that they want the benefits of marriage; it's that they want to be allowed to practice their faith. That is why same sex couples from American come to Canada to wed. They would not retain any legal benefits once they crossed back over the border.
1. The United States is not Canada.
2. Are you suggesting the United States od away with the Bill of Rights?
3. If we do not know where we come from, where are we going?
I don't believe he was suggesting we do away with the Bill of Rights, but the fact of the matter is that it was written over 200 years ago, and we cannot hope to discern what it was based on or why its written the way it was, all we can do is interpret it. And your entire objection to gay marriage is based around ur Judeo-Christian beliefs, meaning that unless you can put forth a sound, legal/fact based argument for banning gay marriage, any law/amendment you would propose to ban gay marriage would amount to the government endorsing a religion.
The US government has been endorsing religion since its inception, and I have no problem with that. Seperation of Church and State in this country means that the federal government can not establish an official Church. Church services were held in public buildings in Washington DC, like the House of Representatives chamber well into the 1800's, and were attented by people such as Thomas Jefferson. We in the US do not follow the anti-God seperation the French do, as the government endorses religion wholeheartedly. And I intend to keep it that way.
The Ten Commandments have been around for a lot longer then the Bill of Rights, and they seem to work fine. So I really don't see your point. And while my perspective is Judeo-Christian, my arguments can be applied to anyone who believes in a God.
Yeah but there is a reason that those church services stopped in the Congress in the 1800's, because our government is growing increasingly more secular. The fact is while the Ten Commandments have some good principles, legislating something for the sole fact that is in the Ten Commandments is not what this country was founded upon. I mean just look at all the Commandments that have not been put into secular Law, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife." "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods." "Thou shalt not commit adultery." "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." So even if I concede the fact that "Thou shalt not commit adultery." includes acts of homosexuality (which I don't but I'm just making a point) that in and of itself does not mean that it should be secular law.
In my view, all marriage should have be between Aryans. However, the idea of legislating it would be ridiculous.
The Bible does cover interracial marraige. God destroyed the Tower of Babylon to ensure a racial purity. Since interracial marriage is between a higher and lower race, it violates God's will
"Allowing interracial "marriage" would force me to recognize something I philosophically, religiously, and morally do not recognize, and view as illogical. " (See previous post)
I believe in the Rule of Law, and so as a citizen under the law, I would have to recognize any union the law does. That's just basic legal "rights."
The Constitution was written by those who came from a racist tradition, and followed my beliefs by stating that negros were not real people. So my faith does not "trump" the law, but in fact our law stems from tradition and religion.
If you removed any legal benefits that marriage holds, would blacks still want to get married? Unmarried blacks
...Unmarried blacks are treated no different from any unmarried individuals."
http://www.calendari-delle-
tagli...rti.t3ttin3.com olo http://www.calendari-di-
segretar...rie.t3ttin3.com olo http://www.calendari-femminili-
n...udo.t3ttin3.com olo http://www.i-hjemmet-store-
puppe...per.f1lms3x.com olo http://www.lav-moden.f1lms3x.com olo http://www.museaktig-
historie.f1...rie.f1lms3x.com olo http://www.i-sangen-flaska.knu11a.com olo http://www.spenslig-gruppsex.knu11a.com olo http://www.tillgjord-hardporr.knu11a.com olo http://www.brittany-photo .feet6.com olo http://www.brittany-pics .feet6.com olo http://www.brittany-piedi.feet6.com olo
Commenting by HaloScan
