Religions > Atheism > AMERICANS UNITED DEPLORES SENATE COMMITTEE'S CLOSED-DOOR VOTE FOR FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
21 May 2006 11:42:06 AM |
| Object: |
AMERICANS UNITED DEPLORES SENATE COMMITTEE'S CLOSED-DOOR VOTE FOR FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT |
AMERICANS UNITED DEPLORES SENATE COMMITTEE'S CLOSED-DOOR VOTE FOR FEDERAL
MARRIAGE AMENDMENT
Senate Must Not Wed Church And State, Says AU's Lynn
Today's Senate Judiciary Committee vote for a federal marriage amendment is
deplorable, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and
State.
S. J. Res. 1, the so-called "Marriage Protection Act," passed the committee
on a party-line vote of 10-8. The action took place behind closed doors in
a room off the Senate floor.
"This is an outrage," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United
executive director. "It's bad enough that the Senate is trying to wed
church and state in unholy matrimony, but it's even worse that they did it
behind closed doors."
Americans United has urged the Senate to reject the constitutional
amendment, charging that it enshrines the marriage rituals of the country's
majority faiths in the Constitution and undercuts separation of church and
state.
"Senate leaders clearly are bowing to the demands of the Religious Right,"
said Lynn. "This is election-year grandstanding for the benefit of Pat
Robertson, James Dobson and other disgruntled Religious Right leaders."
The marriage amendment, which mandates that marriage in America "shall
consist only of the union of a man and a woman," now moves to the Senate
floor where a vote is expected the week of June 5.
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington,
D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the
importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
.
|
|
| User: "Samuel W. Heywood" |
|
| Title: Re: AMERICANS UNITED DEPLORES SENATE COMMITTEE'S CLOSED-DOOR VOTEFOR FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT |
21 May 2006 01:15:02 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 21 May 2006 wrote:
AMERICANS UNITED DEPLORES SENATE COMMITTEE'S CLOSED-DOOR VOTE FOR FEDERAL
MARRIAGE AMENDMENT
Senate Must Not Wed Church And State, Says AU's Lynn
<snip>
The proposed federal marriage amendment has nothing to do with wedding
Church and State. It is only about prohibiting the legal recognition of
weddings between partners of the same sex.
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: AMERICANS UNITED DEPLORES SENATE COMMITTEE'S CLOSED-DOOR VOTE FOR FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT |
21 May 2006 11:40:21 PM |
|
|
"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.62.0605211400530.11206@otaku.freeshell.org...
On Sun, 21 May 2006 wrote:
AMERICANS UNITED DEPLORES SENATE COMMITTEE'S CLOSED-DOOR VOTE FOR FEDERAL
MARRIAGE AMENDMENT
Senate Must Not Wed Church And State, Says AU's Lynn
<snip>
The proposed federal marriage amendment has nothing to do with wedding
Church and State. It is only about prohibiting the legal recognition of
weddings between partners of the same sex.
It's about making what are claimed as religious decrees into U.S.
laws....... and THAT is what Lynn was talking about, moron!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Samuel W. Heywood" |
|
| Title: Re: AMERICANS UNITED DEPLORES SENATE COMMITTEE'S CLOSED-DOOR VOTEFOR FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT |
22 May 2006 11:21:40 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 May 2006, ZenIsWhen wrote:
"Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.62.0605211400530.11206@otaku.freeshell.org...
On Sun, 21 May 2006 wrote:
AMERICANS UNITED DEPLORES SENATE COMMITTEE'S CLOSED-DOOR VOTE FOR FEDERAL
MARRIAGE AMENDMENT
Senate Must Not Wed Church And State, Says AU's Lynn
<snip>
The proposed federal marriage amendment has nothing to do with wedding
Church and State. It is only about prohibiting the legal recognition of
weddings between partners of the same sex.
It's about making what are claimed as religious decrees into U.S.
laws....... and THAT is what Lynn was talking about, moron!
No. It is not about religious decrees. It is only about prohibiting
the legal recognition of so-called same sex marriages. No religious
beliefs are necessary for one to be against something so stupid and so
absurd as recognizing same sex "marriages". Only a moron would feel
that it ought to be OK for two people of the same sex to get "married."
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: AMERICANS UNITED DEPLORES SENATE COMMITTEE'S CLOSED-DOOR VOTE FOR FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT |
24 May 2006 10:09:26 AM |
|
|
Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2006, ZenIsWhen wrote:
It's about making what are claimed as religious decrees into U.S.
laws....... and THAT is what Lynn was talking about, moron!
No. It is not about religious decrees. It is only about prohibiting
the legal recognition of so-called same sex marriages. No religious
beliefs are necessary for one to be against something so stupid and so
absurd as recognizing same sex "marriages". Only a moron would feel
that it ought to be OK for two people of the same sex to get "married."
Hateful speech, but one can't be surprised given your religion.
Marriage is no longer just a business transaction, as it has been
traditionally for all of human history. And contrary to what the
religious right wants for the U.S, it's not simply for the purpose of
breeding. Marriage is a legal union between two people who love each
other. It is a single act which designates a legal heir, a legal
guardian in cases of health emergencies and about a hundred other
niggling details which provide peace, comfort and security to the lives
of people who love each other.
That you apparently consider marriage to have no point beyond
fulfilling the most basic animal function of humanity is a repulsive and
degrading concept, not even on a level with the traditional commercial
purpose.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Samuel W. Heywood" |
|
| Title: Re: AMERICANS UNITED DEPLORES SENATE COMMITTEE'S CLOSED-DOOR VOTEFOR FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT |
24 May 2006 03:39:13 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 24 May 2006, L. Raymond wrote:
Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2006, ZenIsWhen wrote:
It's about making what are claimed as religious decrees into U.S.
laws....... and THAT is what Lynn was talking about, moron!
No. It is not about religious decrees. It is only about prohibiting
the legal recognition of so-called same sex marriages. No religious
beliefs are necessary for one to be against something so stupid and so
absurd as recognizing same sex "marriages". Only a moron would feel
that it ought to be OK for two people of the same sex to get "married."
Hateful speech, but one can't be surprised given your religion.
You know nothing about my religion. Also it appears that you
understand very little about the religions of others who disagree
with you. Disagreeing with you in a civil manner is not hate speech.
Accusing all of your adveraries of hate speech does not earn any
points for anyone other than your fellow members of your lunatic
fringe group.
Marriage is no longer just a business transaction, as it has been
traditionally for all of human history.
Marriage is not about transacting business. It is about offering
love. Throughout history lawyers have screwed with the concept of
marriage because they want to make it into a business so that they
can make lots of money from it. To bring about happier marriages
for everyone we must first kill all the lawyers.
And contrary to what the
religious right wants for the U.S, it's not simply for the purpose of
breeding. Marriage is a legal union between two people who love each
other. It is a single act which designates a legal heir, a legal
guardian in cases of health emergencies and about a hundred other
niggling details which provide peace, comfort and security to the lives
of people who love each other.
If people of the same sex are allowed to get married, then the gay
widowed "spouse" of the deceased will get to screw the otherwise
legitimate heirs out of their otherwise rightful inheritances. The
law already provides for one to appoint someone other than his next
of kin to serve as a legal guardian in cases of health emergencies.
Relationships between homosexuals do not provide for the possibility
of their expressing "true love" for one another.
That you apparently consider marriage to have no point beyond
fulfilling the most basic animal function of humanity is a repulsive and
degrading concept, not even on a level with the traditional commercial
purpose.
What basic animal function of humanity are you
serving by taking it up the a** ?
Sam Heywood
-- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: AMERICANS UNITED DEPLORES SENATE COMMITTEE'S CLOSED-DOOR VOTE FOR FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT |
25 May 2006 01:38:10 AM |
|
|
Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2006, L. Raymond wrote:
Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
No. It is not about religious decrees. It is only about prohibiting
the legal recognition of so-called same sex marriages. No religious
beliefs are necessary for one to be against something so stupid and so
absurd as recognizing same sex "marriages". Only a moron would feel
that it ought to be OK for two people of the same sex to get "married."
Hateful speech, but one can't be surprised given your religion.
You know nothing about my religion.
On the contrary, earlier posts from you give many of your ideas on
religion.
Also it appears that you
understand very little about the religions of others who disagree
with you. Disagreeing with you in a civil manner is not hate speech.
Your use of moron and the placing of marriage in quotes is
contemptuous and disrespectful, two qualities which remove your reply
from the realm of civil discourse. It doesn't matter that you were
echoing someone's use of moron. There are many ways to avoid name
calling, methods you opted to avoid. If you want to be treated with
civility, you must behave with civility, which doesn't include calling
me a lunatic. If you don't want to expose your hatred for a whole
segment of the population, don't suggest they're incapable of love or
otherwise subhuman
Accusing all of your adveraries of hate speech does not earn any
points for anyone other than your fellow members of your lunatic
fringe group.
You fancy that you're an adversary, and that you're all my
"adversaries"? Get a grip, My. Heywood. You are a theist who has shown
yourself to be ill-informed about atheism (from earlier posts) and
wholly ignorant of the history of marriage.
Marriage is no longer just a business transaction, as it has been
traditionally for all of human history.
Marriage is not about transacting business. It is about offering
love.
Up until the 19th century give or take, marriage has been entirely a
business transaction pretty much across the globe. The rich and
powerful got married to seal treaties, create binding political
alliances and to guarantee as best they could that they have heirs to
take over their lands and, in later years, companies. A favorite
example is to point out that in pre-revolutionary France if a man died
childless, his wife was disinherited because she failed to fulfill her
end of the bargain. It's not a myth that aristocrats would often wed
people they had never met simply for the social, political or financial
advantages of the union.
In the lower and middle classes, marriage was a way to unite two farm
holdings, combine businesses or to get a lock on a valuable apprentice.
Today in the undeveloped regions of the world, one of the main purposes
of marriage is to produce cheap labor and for social security, since the
more offspring a couple produces the more people there are to work the
fields and who have the obligation of caring for them in their old age.
The myth that marriage is and always has been a romantic institution
for everyone is just another remnant of the Victorian age, a time when
the middle class idealized everything.
Throughout history lawyers have screwed with the concept of
marriage because they want to make it into a business so that they
can make lots of money from it.
Lawyers have had nothing to do with marriage until fairly recently
when pre-nuptials came into common use. What lawyers have done is make
a business out of divorce.
To bring about happier marriages
for everyone we must first kill all the lawyers.
Are you aware that to protest same-sex marriage you quote a man who
wrote some of his finest verse for a man he loved? Clearly bisexuals
and homosexuals aren't as worthless as you think they are.
And contrary to what the
religious right wants for the U.S, it's not simply for the purpose of
breeding. Marriage is a legal union between two people who love each
other. It is a single act which designates a legal heir, a legal
guardian in cases of health emergencies and about a hundred other
niggling details which provide peace, comfort and security to the lives
of people who love each other.
If people of the same sex are allowed to get married, then the gay
widowed "spouse" of the deceased will get to screw the otherwise
legitimate heirs out of their otherwise rightful inheritances.
The spouse would in fact be the legal heir of the deceased, so it
would not be possible to improperly inherit in this instance.
Relationships between homosexuals do not provide for the possibility
of their expressing "true love" for one another.
You have actually made me ill with this comment; it oozes hate like
pus from a boil. Love is an emotion that any sapient being in the world
can feel for another. It has exactly nothing to do with one's sexual
orientation.
That you apparently consider marriage to have no point beyond
fulfilling the most basic animal function of humanity is a repulsive and
degrading concept, not even on a level with the traditional commercial
purpose.
What basic animal function of humanity are you
serving by taking it up the a** ?
You are saying that love has nothing to do with marriage because the
only purpose to wed is to breed. Any alley cat can breed, as can any
cow, pig or dung beetle. That is the most basic animal function. That
is what you want to lower humanity to.
And for goodness sake, at least have the courage of your coarseness.
It is spelled "*****".
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
