| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
05 Jun 2004 07:07:26 AM |
| Object: |
Separation of Church and State - A Family History |
I wrote this article for OutNow magazine. Since it was published, some
people have suggested I forward this to web-sites with similar
discussions.
John Emery
Separation of Church and State - A Family History
By John Emery Jr
Recently, I decided to explore my ancestral roots and found some
interesting parallels with myself and today's historic events. These
parallels begin in 1635 when the John Emery Jr family arrives in Boston
aboard the "James", along with other religious refuge families who are
seeking relief from the church, which at the time, is controlled by the
crown. In 1640, is made a "freeman" and is appointed to appraise all the
properties in the new town for tax assessment and later serves as
juryman.
His political activism starts quickly after he is brought up on
charges for "excessive merriment" and later for "entertaining Quakers".
The second charge brings a steep fine. He is angered by this sentence
and initiates a petition. In his petitioned appeal, he argues the moral
and legal right of government to restrict the practices of other faiths
that might allow for "merriment" and "entertaining of Quakers". His
appeal was denied.
Later he involved himself with a case of Lt Pike and the crowns
denial to hear his petition for appeal. In this case, they are able to
successfully argue for the right of all citizens to petition government
and the right of all petitions to be heard in court.
Emery's foray into activism also involved a major schism in the
Massachusetts Bay Colonies at the time. The earlier Pilgrims had arrived
seeking religious freedoms while later immigrants arrived for other
reasons. Half wanted the control of the church to reside in the Body
Politic (later known as members of the "Woodman Party" led by John
Woodman) and the other half wanted control to reside with the church
officials and ultimately the crown (known as the "Parker Party"). This
ideological split continues until 1776 when this concept of freedom is
written into the Constitution of Massachusetts and the United States,
allowing for the separation of church FROM state.
As a direct descendant of both Emery & Woodman, I am amazed how
histories repeat.
My lesbian sister Kathy and I were born in the oilfields of the
North Dakota Badlands on one of our dad's forays for cash in the 1950's.
Our northern Minnesota rock farm (about 125 miles northwest of Lake
Woebegone) is an endless money-pit that eventually takes us to Alaska in
the 1960's, where we would later establish a farm near milepost 1,400
Alaska Hwy (about 125 miles from the Arctic Circle). On a neighboring
farm in Minnesota lived a widow with her gay son, Ole Olafson, he's
queer ya-know. Ole Olafson, he's queer ya-know, is a good farmer and
hard-worker and therefore fully accepted into the local community. His
cost of community acceptance taught us a lesson with mixed-blessings.
As teens in Alaska, Kathy and I enroll in the Civil Air Patrol, an
auxiliary of the Air Force that performs search and rescue missions.
Their cadet programs teach both of us to fly and sky-dive. On a CAP
seminar at Moffett Air Field as a teen, I saw the early prototypes of
the space shuttle at NASA's Ames Research Center, and was awestruck. My
goal was NASA, while my sister wanted to become a commercial airline
pilot. I set my sights on the Air Force Academy and join ROTC in
high-school. It is in this time period, and NOT the time period in which
marijuana was legal in Alaska, that I pick up the unfortunate handle;
"space cadet". My "Lt. Colonel." CAP rank and "Airman 2nd Class" ROTC
rankings are no match for my nemesis; a "Captain" in the CAP and
"Lieutenant" in the ROTC. My genetic inability to perform a "right-face
HARCH", would be my downfall. The Alaskan nod goes to the son of a
military family.
My political awareness started after high-school graduation when I
spent the summer of 1973 in Washington DC. With the energy crisis
looming, and the environmentalists nipping his heals, Nixon decided he
needed an expert who could fully understand valet parking and appointed
a wealthy Anchorage hotelier to become the Secretary of Interior. In the
stampede for DC jobs that follow, the entourage of oil-and-gas,
natural-resource and pillow-mint experts included the father of my best
friend. My summer of '73 was spent with a gang of Mormons whose parents
were also highly-connected political appointees.
The Watergate investigation had been stalled by G. Gordon Liddy's
refusal to rat out Nixon. Since Liddy is a completely incompetent
nut-job, few believe he is connected to anyone of significance. Most
assumed he was just an overzealous volunteer to CREEP (the committee to
re-elect the president - their name, not mine). In the summer of '73,
John Dean testified and the rest was history.
Amongst the backdrop of these events, the Nixon spin-doctors trot
out the proud fresh faces of Republican Youth, to counter the thousands
of young protestors across the street. It is at a Rosegarden reception
for Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev (what a toad) and his little
potato-dumpling wife, that I meet a fiery, handsome son of a powerful
Defense Under-Secretary. I begin a summer affair and a lifetime of
homosexual practicing (I seek progress, not perfection). All my hard
work to accomplish my "Lt. Colonel" CAP ranking finally paid off. Thank
God he liked his men in uniform.
The impeccably ethical and professional Mormon appointees were
publicly tight-lipped and privately outraged, by the Watergate scandal
playing out around them. They dutifully and stoically return to work,
straightening the administrative deck chairs aboard Nixon's Titanic. At
the end of this summer, I head off to Brigham Young University with some
of the most loving group of people I have ever met. Unfortunately, these
kids were nothing like the dreaded BYU Security. These straight DC
friends would become my under-ground railroad for the next four years.
My sister drives her motorcycle to Wayland Bible Baptist College in
Plainview, Texas. WHAT were we THINKING?
In the 1960's and 1970's BYU offered gay students (when discovered)
the choice of electro-shock aversion therapy OR excommunication and
expulsion from the university. Since watching erotic images while
vomiting after electro-shock was not the preferred method of watching
porn at the time, most gays stay VERY underground. 30 years later, I am
still haunted by the memories of fellow gays who were graduates of these
Inquisition- inspired, Pavlovian nightmares. Many of these tortured
souls committed suicide. I left BYU quickly in my senior year after
being anonymously reported to BYU security. I returned to Alaska and
began my lifetime career appraising properties and where I was later
appointed to the Board of Equalization.
My first steps in activism began when the City and Borough of
Anchorage decided to unify as a Municipality. This unification required
a new constitutional charter that when originally drafted, included
"sexual orientation" as a protected class. All was well until the
Chain-Sawthern Baptists, thru the Moral Majority, waged a successful
holy war that delayed the unification process and ultimately denied gays
of due process. This Alaskan effort was led by Jerry Prevo, a
Falwell-wannabe, without the bubbly charm. One of our few supporters was
City Assemblyman Tony Knowles (later Governor), a young, successful
restaurateur. As a result of his unequivocal support, the Gay Community
throws itself behind his successful Mayoral bid.
Since there were no gay political organizations in Alaska at the time,
we formed the Alaska Gay Coalition, which took on these battles. Soon
afterward we incorporated Alaska's first gay political action committee,
The Eleanor Roosevelt Club. For years, both of these organizations
matched the efforts of the Moral Majority and their attempts to control
governmental policy. After the gays, marijuana and the subsequent right
of merriment were their next successful targets.
During this period, I was elected to represent Alaska on the
National Steering Committee for the first March on Washington for
lesbian and gay rights in 1979. This was the national lesbian and gay
community's first attempt at a "constitutional congress", elected by the
Body Politic from each state. The national delegate meetings, held
around the country, and the march itself were met with ugly
demonstrations from the religious right. Many of the delegates would die
of AIDS in the decades that followed.
I moved to the Silicon Valley in the 1980's and to nearby San
Francisco in the 1990's. Here I became involved with "The Experience" a
non-profit whose stated goal was "By the year 2000, it will be
absolutely okay to be Lesbian and Gay". Realizing the greatest
impediment to gay acceptance is public awareness, The Experience
produced "coming-out" workshops that supported individuals in their full
expression at work and in their families. The workshop also encouraged
graduates to go back to their communities and provide what was needed
and wanted. It is out of these workshops and participants that I became
involved with the formations of National Coming Out Day and the Stop
Aids Project. For nearly 20 years I worked with The Experience,
eventually becoming the Northern California Director. The Experience
stopped producing workshops after the AIDS deaths of the co-founder Rob
Eichberg and national director Dan Osborne.
Finally, in December 2003, (3 years behind schedule) the Supreme
Court of the United States struck down the laws that invaded the privacy
of the bedroom and lifted the "criminal" status of Gays. Kathy and I,
along with all other gays and lesbians, were instantly made "freeman",
entitling us to all the privileges and responsibilities of those who are
no longer "indentured" nor "criminal". For years, the government used
our "criminal" status to deny us all rights afforded all other
"freeman". Our last barrier to full equality is now the guy carrying a
sign at our holy unions declaring "God Hates Fags".
In 2004, the 25th anniversary of the first march on Washington, we
are yet again facing another holy war. This time, the Catholics,
Baptists and Mormons want their definition of a "holy union" to be set
into the constitution. As a Lutheran, my chosen ministry defines "holy
union" to include couples of the same sex.. The issue is not of gay
rights but the rights of renegade Lutherans (and other religions) to
have their "holy unions" recognized by government in the same way that a
Catholic "holy union" would be.
Americans have come to expect government to treat equally, in the
form of tax law, Lutherans' "tithes" and Catholics' "purchase of an
indulgence". To codify a gay Lutheran wedding as morally inferior to a
Catholic wedding is against everything our constitution stands for. A
Lutheran's hotly debated and ever-changing definitions of "holy union"
and "holy communion" are different than a Catholics, and neither have
ever been regulated by our constitution before now.
Hopefully, most will see that the issue is more than one of lesbian
and gay rights. Whether we struggle with the right of our church to
practice "excessive merriment", "entertaining of Quakers" or
"inter-racial and same sex holy unions" the underlying principle of
SELF-determination is the same. Bush's rallying of the Jihad
Fundamentalists to amend the constitution denying the rights of
Lutherans (and other religions) to define "holy union" as they choose,
is just a 21st century attempt to rescind the Woodman/Parker Debate.
Churches that believe "God Loves Fags" must be recognized the same
as the Churches that believe "God Hates Fags." Like it or not, it is the
inevitable conclusion to our constitution.
Privately, I wonder about the Pandora's box were opening, knowing
the propensity for male relationships to last 2-3 years, and female
relationships to last 2-3 years longer than they probably needed to.
Perhaps we'll teach others in our tailoring of this suit.
In observing Pascal's long conversion to Catholicism, Nietzsche
observed this process to be the "slow suicide of reason". I hope he's
wrong on that one. Like many, I think Christianity is a FABULOUS idea.
And too think it's a crying shame no one has ever tried it.
PS to my daughter: I know it's difficult for the both of us, but
you also must focus your attention away from the cute guys in history
class and I can only pray that you and all of the other students at your
Quaker college find our family history entertaining. Keep up the good
work and always be merry.
It's legal now.
Luv ya, Papa John
.
|
|
| User: "Chuck Stamford" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State - A Family History |
05 Jun 2004 05:18:21 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:5qd3c0hdqmjru4i9770q4688fcnf72de3j@4ax.com...
I wrote this article for OutNow magazine. Since it was published, some
people have suggested I forward this to web-sites with similar
discussions.
John Emery
Separation of Church and State - A Family History
By John Emery Jr
Recently, I decided to explore my ancestral roots and found some
interesting parallels with myself and today's historic events. These
parallels begin in 1635 when the John Emery Jr family arrives in Boston
aboard the "James", along with other religious refuge families who are
seeking relief from the church, which at the time, is controlled by the
crown. In 1640, is made a "freeman" and is appointed to appraise all the
properties in the new town for tax assessment and later serves as
juryman.
His political activism starts quickly after he is brought up on
charges for "excessive merriment" and later for "entertaining Quakers".
The second charge brings a steep fine. He is angered by this sentence
and initiates a petition. In his petitioned appeal, he argues the moral
and legal right of government to restrict the practices of other faiths
that might allow for "merriment" and "entertaining of Quakers". His
appeal was denied.
Later he involved himself with a case of Lt Pike and the crowns
denial to hear his petition for appeal. In this case, they are able to
successfully argue for the right of all citizens to petition government
and the right of all petitions to be heard in court.
Emery's foray into activism also involved a major schism in the
Massachusetts Bay Colonies at the time. The earlier Pilgrims had arrived
seeking religious freedoms while later immigrants arrived for other
reasons. Half wanted the control of the church to reside in the Body
Politic (later known as members of the "Woodman Party" led by John
Woodman) and the other half wanted control to reside with the church
officials and ultimately the crown (known as the "Parker Party"). This
ideological split continues until 1776 when this concept of freedom is
written into the Constitution of Massachusetts and the United States,
allowing for the separation of church FROM state.
As a direct descendant of both Emery & Woodman, I am amazed how
histories repeat.
My lesbian sister Kathy and I were born in the oilfields of the
North Dakota Badlands on one of our dad's forays for cash in the 1950's.
Our northern Minnesota rock farm (about 125 miles northwest of Lake
Woebegone) is an endless money-pit that eventually takes us to Alaska in
the 1960's, where we would later establish a farm near milepost 1,400
Alaska Hwy (about 125 miles from the Arctic Circle). On a neighboring
farm in Minnesota lived a widow with her gay son, Ole Olafson, he's
queer ya-know. Ole Olafson, he's queer ya-know, is a good farmer and
hard-worker and therefore fully accepted into the local community. His
cost of community acceptance taught us a lesson with mixed-blessings.
As teens in Alaska, Kathy and I enroll in the Civil Air Patrol, an
auxiliary of the Air Force that performs search and rescue missions.
Their cadet programs teach both of us to fly and sky-dive. On a CAP
seminar at Moffett Air Field as a teen, I saw the early prototypes of
the space shuttle at NASA's Ames Research Center, and was awestruck. My
goal was NASA, while my sister wanted to become a commercial airline
pilot. I set my sights on the Air Force Academy and join ROTC in
high-school. It is in this time period, and NOT the time period in which
marijuana was legal in Alaska, that I pick up the unfortunate handle;
"space cadet". My "Lt. Colonel." CAP rank and "Airman 2nd Class" ROTC
rankings are no match for my nemesis; a "Captain" in the CAP and
"Lieutenant" in the ROTC. My genetic inability to perform a "right-face
HARCH", would be my downfall. The Alaskan nod goes to the son of a
military family.
My political awareness started after high-school graduation when I
spent the summer of 1973 in Washington DC. With the energy crisis
looming, and the environmentalists nipping his heals, Nixon decided he
needed an expert who could fully understand valet parking and appointed
a wealthy Anchorage hotelier to become the Secretary of Interior. In the
stampede for DC jobs that follow, the entourage of oil-and-gas,
natural-resource and pillow-mint experts included the father of my best
friend. My summer of '73 was spent with a gang of Mormons whose parents
were also highly-connected political appointees.
The Watergate investigation had been stalled by G. Gordon Liddy's
refusal to rat out Nixon. Since Liddy is a completely incompetent
nut-job, few believe he is connected to anyone of significance. Most
assumed he was just an overzealous volunteer to CREEP (the committee to
re-elect the president - their name, not mine). In the summer of '73,
John Dean testified and the rest was history.
Amongst the backdrop of these events, the Nixon spin-doctors trot
out the proud fresh faces of Republican Youth, to counter the thousands
of young protestors across the street. It is at a Rosegarden reception
for Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev (what a toad) and his little
potato-dumpling wife, that I meet a fiery, handsome son of a powerful
Defense Under-Secretary. I begin a summer affair and a lifetime of
homosexual practicing (I seek progress, not perfection). All my hard
work to accomplish my "Lt. Colonel" CAP ranking finally paid off. Thank
God he liked his men in uniform.
The impeccably ethical and professional Mormon appointees were
publicly tight-lipped and privately outraged, by the Watergate scandal
playing out around them. They dutifully and stoically return to work,
straightening the administrative deck chairs aboard Nixon's Titanic. At
the end of this summer, I head off to Brigham Young University with some
of the most loving group of people I have ever met. Unfortunately, these
kids were nothing like the dreaded BYU Security. These straight DC
friends would become my under-ground railroad for the next four years.
My sister drives her motorcycle to Wayland Bible Baptist College in
Plainview, Texas. WHAT were we THINKING?
In the 1960's and 1970's BYU offered gay students (when discovered)
the choice of electro-shock aversion therapy OR excommunication and
expulsion from the university. Since watching erotic images while
vomiting after electro-shock was not the preferred method of watching
porn at the time, most gays stay VERY underground. 30 years later, I am
still haunted by the memories of fellow gays who were graduates of these
Inquisition- inspired, Pavlovian nightmares. Many of these tortured
souls committed suicide. I left BYU quickly in my senior year after
being anonymously reported to BYU security. I returned to Alaska and
began my lifetime career appraising properties and where I was later
appointed to the Board of Equalization.
My first steps in activism began when the City and Borough of
Anchorage decided to unify as a Municipality. This unification required
a new constitutional charter that when originally drafted, included
"sexual orientation" as a protected class. All was well until the
Chain-Sawthern Baptists, thru the Moral Majority, waged a successful
holy war that delayed the unification process and ultimately denied gays
of due process. This Alaskan effort was led by Jerry Prevo, a
Falwell-wannabe, without the bubbly charm. One of our few supporters was
City Assemblyman Tony Knowles (later Governor), a young, successful
restaurateur. As a result of his unequivocal support, the Gay Community
throws itself behind his successful Mayoral bid.
Since there were no gay political organizations in Alaska at the time,
we formed the Alaska Gay Coalition, which took on these battles. Soon
afterward we incorporated Alaska's first gay political action committee,
The Eleanor Roosevelt Club. For years, both of these organizations
matched the efforts of the Moral Majority and their attempts to control
governmental policy. After the gays, marijuana and the subsequent right
of merriment were their next successful targets.
During this period, I was elected to represent Alaska on the
National Steering Committee for the first March on Washington for
lesbian and gay rights in 1979. This was the national lesbian and gay
community's first attempt at a "constitutional congress", elected by the
Body Politic from each state. The national delegate meetings, held
around the country, and the march itself were met with ugly
demonstrations from the religious right. Many of the delegates would die
of AIDS in the decades that followed.
I moved to the Silicon Valley in the 1980's and to nearby San
Francisco in the 1990's. Here I became involved with "The Experience" a
non-profit whose stated goal was "By the year 2000, it will be
absolutely okay to be Lesbian and Gay". Realizing the greatest
impediment to gay acceptance is public awareness, The Experience
produced "coming-out" workshops that supported individuals in their full
expression at work and in their families. The workshop also encouraged
graduates to go back to their communities and provide what was needed
and wanted. It is out of these workshops and participants that I became
involved with the formations of National Coming Out Day and the Stop
Aids Project. For nearly 20 years I worked with The Experience,
eventually becoming the Northern California Director. The Experience
stopped producing workshops after the AIDS deaths of the co-founder Rob
Eichberg and national director Dan Osborne.
Finally, in December 2003, (3 years behind schedule) the Supreme
Court of the United States struck down the laws that invaded the privacy
of the bedroom and lifted the "criminal" status of Gays. Kathy and I,
along with all other gays and lesbians, were instantly made "freeman",
entitling us to all the privileges and responsibilities of those who are
no longer "indentured" nor "criminal". For years, the government used
our "criminal" status to deny us all rights afforded all other
"freeman". Our last barrier to full equality is now the guy carrying a
sign at our holy unions declaring "God Hates Fags".
In 2004, the 25th anniversary of the first march on Washington, we
are yet again facing another holy war. This time, the Catholics,
Baptists and Mormons want their definition of a "holy union" to be set
into the constitution. As a Lutheran, my chosen ministry defines "holy
union" to include couples of the same sex.. The issue is not of gay
rights but the rights of renegade Lutherans (and other religions) to
have their "holy unions" recognized by government in the same way that a
Catholic "holy union" would be.
Americans have come to expect government to treat equally, in the
form of tax law, Lutherans' "tithes" and Catholics' "purchase of an
indulgence". To codify a gay Lutheran wedding as morally inferior to a
Catholic wedding is against everything our constitution stands for. A
Lutheran's hotly debated and ever-changing definitions of "holy union"
and "holy communion" are different than a Catholics, and neither have
ever been regulated by our constitution before now.
Hopefully, most will see that the issue is more than one of lesbian
and gay rights. Whether we struggle with the right of our church to
practice "excessive merriment", "entertaining of Quakers" or
"inter-racial and same sex holy unions" the underlying principle of
SELF-determination is the same. Bush's rallying of the Jihad
Fundamentalists to amend the constitution denying the rights of
Lutherans (and other religions) to define "holy union" as they choose,
is just a 21st century attempt to rescind the Woodman/Parker Debate.
Churches that believe "God Loves Fags" must be recognized the same
as the Churches that believe "God Hates Fags." Like it or not, it is the
inevitable conclusion to our constitution.
Privately, I wonder about the Pandora's box were opening, knowing
the propensity for male relationships to last 2-3 years, and female
relationships to last 2-3 years longer than they probably needed to.
Perhaps we'll teach others in our tailoring of this suit.
In observing Pascal's long conversion to Catholicism, Nietzsche
observed this process to be the "slow suicide of reason". I hope he's
wrong on that one. Like many, I think Christianity is a FABULOUS idea.
And too think it's a crying shame no one has ever tried it.
PS to my daughter: I know it's difficult for the both of us, but
you also must focus your attention away from the cute guys in history
class and I can only pray that you and all of the other students at your
Quaker college find our family history entertaining. Keep up the good
work and always be merry.
It's legal now.
Luv ya, Papa John
An excellent and well written example of how the entire argument for
legalizing homosexual unions depends upon focusing our attention toward an
exceptional and interesting grain of sand to the extent that we ignore the
beach! This issue doesn't (well...certainly shouldn't!) turn upon the fact
that various religions squabble over dogma (as should be readily apparent by
the fact that some of the most vicious persecution of homosexuality in
modern times has come from governments officially adopting and promoting
atheism as a world view!), but on the entire history of human society. When
that history is examined, where to we find societies legalizing homosexual
marriages? Where do we find it even being considered or discussed in the
literature that survives?
Therefore, any argument seeking to use religious differences to promote the
argument for legalizing homosexual marriages is merely an attempt at
misdirecting any reasoned approach to the subject. It has been my
consistent experience in life that when an argument needs to use such
tactics to plead its case, that argument is generally without real merit.
The issue in this argument is as plain as the nose on anyone's face. It
concerns a judgment between the few rights the many must give up to secure
the many rights the few wish to gain. Any reasoned approach then, requires
a dispassionate, critical analysis of just how many rights the many need
give up to accomadate the rights the few seek to gain. And any reasoned
approach needs to start by delineating what is the origin, and thus
definition of any "right". This article, like so many one sees advocating
that homosexual marriages be legalized by societies, does not even address
such an approach to the subject, let alone engage in one.
Chuck Stamford
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State - A Family History |
06 Jun 2004 06:16:05 AM |
|
|
"Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamford@cox.net> wrote:
:|> I wrote this article for OutNow magazine. Since it was published, some
:|> people have suggested I forward this to web-sites with similar
:|> discussions.
:|> John Emery
:|>
:|> Separation of Church and State - A Family History
:|> By John Emery Jr
:|>
:|An excellent and well written example of how the entire argument for
:|legalizing homosexual unions depends upon focusing our attention toward an
:|exceptional and interesting grain of sand to the extent that we ignore the
:|beach! This issue doesn't (well...certainly shouldn't!) turn upon the fact
:|that various religions squabble over dogma (as should be readily apparent by
:|the fact that some of the most vicious persecution of homosexuality in
:|modern times has come from governments officially adopting and promoting
:|atheism as a world view!), but on the entire history of human society. When
:|that history is examined, where to we find societies legalizing homosexual
:|marriages? Where do we find it even being considered or discussed in the
:|literature that survives?
:|
:|Therefore, any argument seeking to use religious differences to promote the
:|argument for legalizing homosexual marriages is merely an attempt at
:|misdirecting any reasoned approach to the subject. It has been my
:|consistent experience in life that when an argument needs to use such
:|tactics to plead its case, that argument is generally without real merit.
:|
:|The issue in this argument is as plain as the nose on anyone's face. It
:|concerns a judgment between the few rights the many must give up to secure
:|the many rights the few wish to gain. Any reasoned approach then, requires
:|a dispassionate, critical analysis of just how many rights the many need
:|give up to accomadate the rights the few seek to gain. And any reasoned
:|approach needs to start by delineating what is the origin, and thus
:|definition of any "right". This article, like so many one sees advocating
:|that homosexual marriages be legalized by societies, does not even address
:|such an approach to the subject, let alone engage in one.
:|
:|Chuck Stamford
:|
Here is an answer for you:
C&S Sep. Gay Marriage
PART I
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=j1bna09fpi3ovl2ft58q6t8ahjslesbam1%404ax.com
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O11422D78
PART II
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=ok9pa01kqkogs9c5730sisfsq67gn8g6kl%404ax.com
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D63414D78
LAST BUT NOT LEAST:
[ANOTHER HAD SAID]
:|The fact is that government recognizes marriage between heterosexuals
:|because stable family units are seen as a benefit to society. Back
:|when this controversy flared up I began asked these groups, "What is
:|the benefit to society of recognizing homosexual marriage?" I have
:|yet to hear back on that.
[ said ]
You have that somewhat incorrect.
If you are going to apply compelling interest it applies against the state,
the state has to show a compelling interest why they should not allow
something, not the other way around.
What benefits, to the state, are you claiming exist in a heterosexual civil
contractual marriage but would be absent in a same sex civil contractual
marriage?
If you can think of none, your question is irrelevant.
A benefit to society which is the wrong standard to begin with can be
answered as follows
Justice, as in equal civil rights for all not just straights.
It would move on step closer to living up to this
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed, . . . "
and this
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and
of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
and this
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/privacy/bldec_LovingVA.htm
Although the State also argued that they have a valid role in regulating
marriage as a social institution, the Court rejected the notion that the
State's powers here were limitless. Instead, the Court found the
institution of marriage, while social in nature, is also a basic civil
right and cannot be restricted without very good reason:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our
very existence and survival. (Skinner v. Oklahoma) ...To deny this
fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial
classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly
subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth
Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without
due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of
choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.
Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of
another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the
State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
". . . We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the
basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the
very existence and survival of the race. . . "
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/skinner.html
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/354/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of
law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The
freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very
existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so
unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these
statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of
equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all
the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth
Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by
invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to
marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual
and cannot be infringed by the State.
These convictions must be reversed.
LOVING v. VIRGINIA U.S. 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chuck Stamford" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State - A Family History |
06 Jun 2004 07:15:45 PM |
|
|
<> wrote in message
news:a6t5c0tob1n0o9prs21dfp3m13d4auv37b@4ax.com...
"Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamford@cox.net> wrote:
:|> I wrote this article for OutNow magazine. Since it was published,
some
:|> people have suggested I forward this to web-sites with similar
:|> discussions.
:|> John Emery
:|>
:|> Separation of Church and State - A Family History
:|> By John Emery Jr
:|>
:|An excellent and well written example of how the entire argument for
:|legalizing homosexual unions depends upon focusing our attention toward
an
:|exceptional and interesting grain of sand to the extent that we ignore
the
:|beach! This issue doesn't (well...certainly shouldn't!) turn upon the
fact
:|that various religions squabble over dogma (as should be readily
apparent by
:|the fact that some of the most vicious persecution of homosexuality in
:|modern times has come from governments officially adopting and
promoting
:|atheism as a world view!), but on the entire history of human society.
When
:|that history is examined, where to we find societies legalizing
homosexual
:|marriages? Where do we find it even being considered or discussed in
the
:|literature that survives?
:|
:|Therefore, any argument seeking to use religious differences to promote
the
:|argument for legalizing homosexual marriages is merely an attempt at
:|misdirecting any reasoned approach to the subject. It has been my
:|consistent experience in life that when an argument needs to use such
:|tactics to plead its case, that argument is generally without real
merit.
:|
:|The issue in this argument is as plain as the nose on anyone's face.
It
:|concerns a judgment between the few rights the many must give up to
secure
:|the many rights the few wish to gain. Any reasoned approach then,
requires
:|a dispassionate, critical analysis of just how many rights the many
need
:|give up to accomadate the rights the few seek to gain. And any
reasoned
:|approach needs to start by delineating what is the origin, and thus
:|definition of any "right". This article, like so many one sees
advocating
:|that homosexual marriages be legalized by societies, does not even
address
:|such an approach to the subject, let alone engage in one.
:|
:|Chuck Stamford
:|
Here is an answer for you:
C&S Sep. Gay Marriage
PART I
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=j1bna09fpi3ovl2ft58q6t8ahjslesbam1%404ax.com
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O11422D78
Actually, the link above leads me to an article that makes my case:
"The Christian right's disguising this issue as a moral and social one
conveniently obscures its patently religious roots."
It's the same strawman you tried to erect, and it doesn't hold water, nor
does it even try to address a historical argument that cripples your
position.
PART II
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=ok9pa01kqkogs9c5730sisfsq67gn8g6kl%404ax.com
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D63414D78
Once I read:
"Saint Paul, whose commitment to Jewish law had taken up most of his life,
never suggested that there was any historical or legal reason to oppose
homosexual behavior: if he did in fact object to it, it was purely on the
basis of functional, contemporary moral standards."
I realized I wasn't reading argument, but simply uninformed propaganda, so I
quit. How anyone is able to read the entire Bible, and not understand at
the conclusion that sexual sin comprises the most beguiling of sins, even to
being used as a metaphor for idolatry, is beyond me. The Bible is equally
clear on the *only* sexual behavior that is without sin: the union of a man
and a woman in marriage.
LAST BUT NOT LEAST:
[ANOTHER HAD SAID]
:|The fact is that government recognizes marriage between heterosexuals
:|because stable family units are seen as a benefit to society. Back
:|when this controversy flared up I began asked these groups, "What is
:|the benefit to society of recognizing homosexual marriage?" I have
:|yet to hear back on that.
[ said ]
You have that somewhat incorrect.
If you are going to apply compelling interest it applies against the
state,
the state has to show a compelling interest why they should not allow
something, not the other way around.
Nonsense. Two hundred years of precedent in understanding the term
"marriage", does not get swept away simply on your say-so. The fact is that
since the writing of the Constitution and the establishment of this nation,
"marrage" has *always* been understood within the law to mean a union
between a man and a woman. I don't have to argue this; all I need do is
refer any doubter to the nation's marriage records from the establishment of
the nation to the last few months! With that kind of precedent working for
it, I seriously doubt that the burden of proof rests with the historical
interpretation of the law. And the idea that we are "adding" meaning to the
law if we were to place "between a man and a woman" within the text is
simply ludicrous. The meaning has tacitly been there for 230 years in this
country, as the record so amply demonstrates.
Therefore, it falls to those desiring to expand and extend the rights
granted under law, to establish sufficient reason for so doing.
What benefits, to the state, are you claiming exist in a heterosexual
civil
contractual marriage but would be absent in a same sex civil contractual
marriage?
I realize that this question and all of the remainder of this post was
originally directed to someone else, but since you've seen fit to respond to
me by cutting and pasting it here, I'm going to assume you want me to infer
it as a response to me. To that end, the answer to your question above is
simply, "I haven't a clue off the top of my head, but I'm going to continue
to assume that the known history of human legal jurispurdence, all of which
fails to recognize this "right" you think you have, must have some reason
significant to human society for so doing."
Again, it is you, and those like you, who desire the right be extended to
you, and it is your position that has all of human history arrayed against
it by its deafening silence on the subject of legally recognized homosexual
marriage.
If you can think of none, your question is irrelevant.
Nice try, but it is blatantly obvious that the super majority of humanity,
not to mention a sexual biological schema reaching back millions of years
has any compelling reason to explain its apologetic to you or any other
johnny come lately who questions it. Instead, it is up to you to
demonstrate some valid reason it should take the time.
A benefit to society which is the wrong standard to begin with can be
answered as follows
And you're now implying what? That laws are passed without recourse to this
standard? Utter nonsense. The whole underlying principle of government is
to protect the rights of the many against the actions of the few. To that
end, laws are established to perserve the rights of the many against the
rights of the few, where those "rights" may come into conflict. Human
sexual behavior and impluses are without doubt one of the aspects of
humanity carrying a vast potential to any society for either good or harm.
Flippancy is *not* a characteristic I like to see in the argument of anyone
seeking to change, even if only to a small degree, the entire history of
human government in this area. I may not be able to point out to you
specifically what legalizing homosexual unions would do to society, but if
you can't assemble some compelling argument that so doing would provide some
missing benefit to society as a whole, then no one need listen to you. I
assume that's what's coming next.
Justice, as in equal civil rights for all not just straights.
It would move on step closer to living up to this
This, of course, assumes it is wrong to discriminate between homosexual and
heterosexual behavior, and calls 4,500 years of recorded human history
"unjust". Since that is not self-evident, perhaps you would care to provide
what argument exists that demonstrates it is.
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed, . . . "
Okay, fine. Now all you need do to show that this applies to your situation
is prove that the "Creator" created you homosexual. If you can't do this,
then. We have a "right" to move from place to place under this guarantee
because God created us with legs, but the guarantee doesn't extend to
anyplace legs are capable of taking us. The guarantee recognizes the
distinction, while you do not.
and this
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and
of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This only adds to the above the irrelevant definitions of "citizenship" (my
argument doesn't involve who is or is not a citizen), and requires all
states to recognize the guarantee. It therefore adds nothing to your
argument, which is so far mostly propagandistic (if homey) rhetoric.
and this
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/privacy/bldec_LovingVA.htm
Although the State also argued that they have a valid role in regulating
marriage as a social institution, the Court rejected the notion that the
State's powers here were limitless. Instead, the Court found the
institution of marriage, while social in nature, is also a basic civil
right and cannot be restricted without very good reason:
Which, of course, makes my argument: Where's the "very good reason"?
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our
very existence and survival. (Skinner v. Oklahoma) ...
Punching up my claim that this area of discussion holds a great deal of
potential for either harm or good to society.
To deny this
fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial
classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly
subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth
Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty
without
due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of
choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.
Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of
another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the
State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
". . . We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the
basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the
very existence and survival of the race. . . "
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/skinner.html
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/354/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of
law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The
freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our
very
existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so
unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these
statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of
equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive
all
the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth
Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted
by
invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to
marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual
and cannot be infringed by the State.
These convictions must be reversed.
LOVING v. VIRGINIA U.S. 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
These court cases were, of course, centered in the issue of race, i.e.,
interracial marriage, and any supposed states' rights to restrict marriage
on the basis of race. It was rightly decided that they don't. However, for
these cases to be relevant to your argument, they have to have been argued
on the same principles, and it certainly isn't clear that they were.
Race has *always* been know to be a trait of humanity created by its Creator
(and therefore a part of the "equality" alluded to in the Declaration of
Independence), even before the modern genetics research that establishes
this fact beyond reasonable doubt. That is CLEARLY not the case with
homosexual behavior, which currently enjoys no evidentiary confirmation
rising to the level of certainty that race now has, as a genetic component
of humanity. And unless, or until, such evidence is forthcoming, citations
of such cases in law are irrelevant to the legal principle confirmed by the
courts, and therefore cannot possibly form part of any rational argument
for, or against, legalizing homosexual marriages.
But you're welcome to take another shot at this if you like...
Chuck Stamford
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of Church and State - A Family History |
07 Jun 2004 12:23:50 PM |
|
|
"Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamford@cox.net> wrote:
:|[buckeye]
:|> Here is an answer for you:
:|>
:|> C&S Sep. Gay Marriage
:|> PART I
:|>
:|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=j1bna09fpi3ovl2ft58q6t8ahjslesbam1%404ax.com
:|> http://makeashorterlink.com/?O11422D78
:|
:|Actually, the link above leads me to an article that makes my case:
:|
:|"The Christian right's disguising this issue as a moral and social one
:|conveniently obscures its patently religious roots."
Actually the article above contains a variety of opinions from a variety of
sources. Some pro, some neutral and I would say a few leaning in the con
direction. If you think you found one out of the collection that supports
you, good for you. There are more than one that doesn't support you,
something you failed to mention.
The article above is made up of the following:
GAY MARRIAGE, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
From a variety of sources with a variety of ideas and thoughts
Banning Same-Sex Marriage Violates Church-State Separation
by Allen Snyder
www.dissidentvoice.org
March 15, 2004
First Published in Op Ed News.com
http://www.opednews.com/snyder031404_banning_same_Sex_marriage.htm
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar04/Snyder0315.htm
Allen Snyder is an instructor of Philosophy and Ethics. He can be reached
at asnyder111@hotmail.com. This article is copyright by Allen Snyder and
originally published by opednews.com but permission is granted for reprint
in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marriage Amendment Violates Separation Of Church And State, Says Americans
United
Thursday May 13, 2004
http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6649&abbr=pr&JServSessionIdr011=ffn16qkjr1.app1b&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N2E612858
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Church, State, and Gay Marriage
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/062487.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legalizing Gay Marriage
Critiques of the Ethical & Religious Arguments
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_eth_gaym.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separation of Church and State 101
Issues, People, and Arguments
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcs_101.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Religious Right FAQ
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/rr/blfaq_rr_index.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evangelical Christianity & Homosexuality
Understanding the Relationship
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/rr/blrr_gay_evangelicals.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Religion vs. Sexual Orientation:
A Clash of Human Rights?
(Bertha Wilson Lecture, 2002)
http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/equality/bertha_wilson.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does gay-marriage debate raise church-state concerns?
Associated Baptist Press
August 12, 2003 - Volume: 03-75
By Robert Marus
http://www.abpnews.com/abpnews/story.cfm?newsId=3759
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is There a Religious Difference Between Same-Sex Marriages and Civil
Unions?
By Voices
Sunday, May 2, 2004; Page C13
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59831-2004May1.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charges in Same-Sex Nuptials
N.Y. Clergy Protest, Vow to Wed More
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 16, 2004; Page A04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61436-2004Mar15.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separation Of Church And State: Let Religion Define Matrimony
By James Harold
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/offices/comm/oped/Seperation.shtml
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marriage Separation of Church and State
http://blog.dbthoughts.com/C1616428771/E1474408386/
-----------------------------------------------------------
So you wanna know about Gay Marriage?
Learn some background on the issue
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/pros_cons/gaymarriage/gaymarriage.html
Hear some argument s agaisnt Gay Marriage
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/pros_cons/gaymarriage/gaymarriage2.html
Hear some arguments for gay Marraige
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/pros_cons/gaymarriage/gaymarriage3.html
---------------------------------------------
Gay Marriage Blurs Church, State Roles
By Kevin Lewis
http://www.free-times.com/Editor/My%20Turn%20Archives/myturn031704.html
----------------------------------------------------------
Is gay marriage debate a church-state issue? - News
Christian Century, Sept 6, 2003 by Robert Marus
http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_18_120/ai_107760341
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separation of Church and State: A Most Important Decision
By Gerald A. Larue
Emeritus Professor of Biblical History and Archaeology University of
Southern California
http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/WhitePapers/separation_church_state.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama's Chief Justice Declares Homosexuality ‘A Sin,' Bases Custody
Ruling Partly on Bible
http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/alabama/alnews09.htm
Americans United Says Moore's Church-State Views Echo Dark Ages
February 20, 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sensibilities of Our Forefathers
The History of Sodomy Laws in the United States
By George Painter
http://www.sodomylaws.org/sensibilities/introduction.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
History of Sodomy Laws
http://www.sodomylaws.org/history/history.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Religious People Are Against Gay Marriage
http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/useditorial37.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your one little quote gathered from all that is available from above is
really lame.
:|
:|It's the same strawman you tried to erect, and it doesn't hold water, nor
:|does it even try to address a historical argument that cripples your
:|position.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary proof.
If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
(Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
:|> PART II
:|>
:|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=ok9pa01kqkogs9c5730sisfsq67gn8g6kl%404ax.com
:|> http://makeashorterlink.com/?D63414D78
:|
:|Once I read:
:|
:|"Saint Paul, whose commitment to Jewish law had taken up most of his life,
:|never suggested that there was any historical or legal reason to oppose
:|homosexual behavior: if he did in fact object to it, it was purely on the
:|basis of functional, contemporary moral standards."
:|
:|I realized I wasn't reading argument, but simply uninformed propaganda, so I
:|quit.
Then you lose be default.
In your opinion it was simply uniformed propaganda. However, since you
didn't read the material that the above comes from, nor did you research
any cites, etc that author provided, you don't have a clue about it.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=John+Boswell&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=930808152016.22c008b7%40MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU&rnum=10
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z3C813E87
The fact of the matter is, the books by John Boswell are completely cited
with a great deal of documented historical data
You may disagree with him but you are going to have to do more than hold
your hands over your eyes while you yell "aint't so, ain't so" if you want
to convince anyone.
Boswell, John (1947-1994)
HISTORIAN
Born in Boston, Boswell attended both the College of William and Mary and
Harvard University. He became part of the Yale University history
department in 1975 and was its chairman from 1990-1992. In 1987 he helped
found the school's Lesbian and Gay Studies Center.
In 1981 Boswell won the American Book Award for History for his
groundbreaking and controversial work Christianity, Social Tolerance, and
Homosexuality. Shortly before dying of complications from AIDS in 1994 he
published another book controversial among scholars, Same-Sex Unions in
Premodern Europe.
================================================
:|How anyone is able to read the entire Bible, and not understand at
:|the conclusion that sexual sin comprises the most beguiling of sins, even to
:|being used as a metaphor for idolatry, is beyond me. The Bible is equally
:|clear on the *only* sexual behavior that is without sin: the union of a man
:|and a woman in marriage.
I don't recognize the Bible as an authority on any subject. It has been
shown to have a number of errors, for much of it, the authors are unknown.
However, if you are citing the Bible as the authority you may find yourself
having some problems with the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
Part II consists of the following
NEWEST VERSION]
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: A Selective Bibliography of the Legal Literature
Rutgers Law Library - Newark
http://law-library.rutgers.edu/SSM.html
[OLDER VERSION
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
Rutgers--the State University of New Jersey School of Law, Newark
Justice Henry Ackerson Library
Pathfinder Series
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~axellute/ssm.htm
****************************************************************
SAME-SEX MARRIAGES (SSM), CIVIL UNIONS & DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr_menu.htm#menu
*****************************************************************
Saint Paul, whose commitment to Jewish law had taken up most of his
life, never suggested that there was any historical or legal reason to
oppose homosexual behavior: if he did in fact object to it, it was
purely on the basis of functional, contemporary moral standards.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=John+Boswell&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=930808152016.22c008b7%40MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU&rnum=10
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z3C813E87
***************************************************************
There is evidence to suggest that Paul was Gay:
RESCUING THE BIBLE FROM FUNDAMENTALISM, A
Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture, by Bishop John Shelby Spong,
Harper SanFrancisco (A Division of Harper-Collins Publishers) (1991) pp
116-118, 119, 120, 125-26 to be of interest on this topic.
***************************************************************
I would bring to your attention four other books
SEX AND REASON by Richard A. Posner
Richard A Posner is a Judge of the U S Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit
and has been mentioned in Conservative circles several times as a possible
U S Supreme Court appointee.
HIDDEN FROM HISTORY, Reclaiming the Gay and Lesbian Past, Edited by Martin
Duberman, Martha Vicinus & George Chauncey, Jr.
This book covers the following periods The Ancient World, Preindustrial
Societies, The 19th Century, The Early 20th Century and WWII and Post War
Era.
SAME-SEX UNIONS in Premodern Europe, by John Boswell
This book "focuses on the Authors discovery of Catholic and Orthodox
Liturgies for same-sex unions. These ceremonies, which were performed
throughout Christendom into modern times are shown to bear striking
resemblance to heterosexual nuptial services."
SAME-SEX UNIONS IN PREMODERN EUROPE. By John Boswell.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=John+Boswell&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=199408272107.QAA13396%40mixcom.mixcom.com&rnum=6
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H23821E87
************************************************************
CHRISTIANITY, SOCIAL TOLERANCE AND HOMOSEXUALITY, Gay People in western
Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the fourteenth Century,
by John Boswell (Winner of the 1981 American Book Awards for History)
"John Boswell's revolutionary study of the history of attitudes towards
Homosexuality in the christian West Challenges received opinion and our own
preconceptions about the Church's past relationship to its gay members,
among whom were priests, and even bishops and colonized saints."
CHRISTIANITY, SOCIAL TOLERANCE & HOMOSEXUALITY, by John Boswell (Yale U.
Press, 1980) and professor of history at Yale.]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=John+Boswell&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=754%40bbncca.ARPA&rnum=7
http://makeashorterlink.com/?U35812E87
"The most famous of the gay lover/saint couples widely venerated in the
church from the 4th to 13th centuries was Saints Serge & Bacchus (isn't
that a great pair of names!). They were Roman soldiers and lovers who
rose to high rank in the imperial army. They both became Christians (&,
it should be needless to say, remained lovers)."
************************************************************
Research unearths same-sex marriages blessed by church
By The Rev. Ron Pannell
Special to The Desert Sun
September 2, 2003
http://www.thedesertsun.com/news/stories2003/opinion/20030902013033.shtml
*********************************************************
Christian attitude towards same sex unions may not always have been as
"straight" as is now suggested
http://www.lezbeout.com/ancientgaymarriageoftwomalesaints.htm
***********************************************************
**************************************************************
WHEN MARRIAGE BETWEEN GAYS WAS BY RITE
http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaymarriagerite.html
*************************************************************
RELATED ISSUES
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Brief History of Marriage by Janet Thompson
http://www.sexscrolls.net/marriage.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
History of Marriage
http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MECA EDUCATIONAL GUIDE
History of Marriage
http://www.marriageequalityca.org/history_marriage.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The history of marriage
http://ks.essortment.com/historyofmarri_rimr.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Weekend Edition
December 13 / 14, 2003
On Marriage in "Recorded History"
An Open Letter to Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney
By GARY LEUPP
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12132003.html
***********************************************************
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND THE LAW, by the editors of
the Harvard Law Review, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, London,
England. (1989) pp 2-3)
:|>
:|> LAST BUT NOT LEAST:
:|>
:|> [ANOTHER HAD SAID]
:|> >:|The fact is that government recognizes marriage between heterosexuals
:|> >:|because stable family units are seen as a benefit to society. Back
:|> >:|when this controversy flared up I began asked these groups, "What is
:|> >:|the benefit to society of recognizing homosexual marriage?" I have
:|> >:|yet to hear back on that.
:|>
:|> [ said ]
:|> You have that somewhat incorrect.
:|>
:|> If you are going to apply compelling interest it applies against the
:|state,
:|> the state has to show a compelling interest why they should not allow
:|> something, not the other way around.
:|
:|Nonsense.
I suggest you look around on the web for take some info on law if you feel
that compelling interests places the burden of proof on the individual
rather than the state.
Compelling state interest. One which the state is forced or obliged to
protect. Term used to uphold state action in the face of attack grounded on
Equal Protection or First Amendment rights because of serious need for such
state action. Also employed to justify state action under police power of
state.
Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged 6th Edition, Centennial Edition
(1891-1991) West Publishing Co., (1991) p. 194
:|Two hundred years of precedent in understanding the term
:|"marriage", does not get swept away simply on your say-so.
Actually and legally speaking "marriage" has been in a state of redefining
for some time now.
In addition, you sidestepped the point.
:|> If you are going to apply compelling interest it applies against the
:|state, the state has to show a compelling interest why they should not allow
:|> something, not the other way around.
Try it again or move on from it.
:|The fact is that
:|since the writing of the Constitution and the establishment of this nation,
:|"marrage" has *always* been understood within the law to mean a union
:|between a man and a woman. I don't have to argue this; all I need do is
:|refer any doubter to the nation's marriage records from the establishment of
:|the nation to the last few months! With that kind of precedent working for
:|it, I seriously doubt that the burden of proof rests with the historical
:|interpretation of the law. And the idea that we are "adding" meaning to the
:|law if we were to place "between a man and a woman" within the text is
:|simply ludicrous. The meaning has tacitly been there for 230 years in this
:|country, as the record so amply demonstrates.
:|
:|Therefore, it falls to those desiring to expand and extend the rights
:|granted under law, to establish sufficient reason for so doing.
What compelling interest does the state have to withhold from one class of
people that which is pretty much freely extended to other classes of
people?
Because something * _____(fill in the blank) has always been, therefore, it
should always be* is losing any validity it may ever of had as a valid
argument and particularly so when it is offered as a excuse to deny and
deprive certain classes of people rights that are pretty much extended to
all the other classes of people.
The USSC has already stated that marriage was a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.
See Loving v Virginia
They have stated that privacy is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.
PRIVACY is a fundamental right, perhaps the most fundamental right. It
underlies so many areas of Criminal Procedure that a whole semester could
perhaps be spent on it. Historically, it's a common law concept that goes
back to the old English "every man's home is his castle" idea.
Constitutionally, the guarantee of a right to privacy appears nowhere in
the Constitution. Today, it's regarded as a penumbra, a term borrowed from
astronomy meaning that area of partial illumination between shadow and
light, to the Bill of Rights, meaning that it is hitherto unmentioned right
that is incorporated with a subjective look towards the "spirit" of the
Amendments. The key case establishing reliance upon penumbras for the
germination of legal doctrine is:
* Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) -- It was the opinion in this
case, by Justice William O. Douglas, who used the concept of penumbra to
find a right to privacy in the Bill of Rights even though there's no
mention of it.
The purpose of a right to privacy is a matter of widespread
speculation. Some scholars have said it's an important condition of love
and friendship in our society; others that it allows for personal autonomy,
"the right to be left alone".
Until relatively recently, the focus has been on "constitutionally
protected areas" of privacy, which dominated wiretapping law for several
decades, but in Katz v. U.S. (1967), a major shift toward a "reasonable
expectation of privacy" standard occurred. This had the effect of
separating privacy from it being a form of property. It is now a
fundamental right in itself.
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/325/325lect03.htm
:|> What benefits, to the state, are you claiming exist in a heterosexual
:|civil
:|> contractual marriage but would be absent in a same sex civil contractual
:|> marriage?
:|
:|I realize that this question and all of the remainder of this post was
:|originally directed to someone else, but since you've seen fit to respond to
:|me by cutting and pasting it here, I'm going to assume you want me to infer
:|it as a response to me. To that end, the answer to your question above is
:|simply, "I haven't a clue off the top of my head, but I'm going to continue
:|to assume that the known history of human legal jurispurdence, all of which
:|fails to recognize this "right" you think you have, must have some reason
:|significant to human society for so doing."
Well I congratulate you on your honesty when you say "I haven't a clue off
the top of my head, . . . "
But I think you nedd to drop off the top of my head. It would be more
auurate at that point.
BTW son, what is this ". . . all of which fails to recognize this "right"
you think you have, . . . "
What's with this *you*?
I'm already married. Therefore I must have had the right to get married
since I was married a very long time ago.
:|Again, it is you, and those like you,
Me? Why don't you make a total ***** of yourself and tell me about me?
This should be real good. LOL
:|who desire the right be extended to
:|you, and it is your position that has all of human history arrayed against
:|it by its deafening silence on the subject of legally recognized homosexual
:|marriage.
Human history is yesterday's news son, if we let history be the source of
law we would still have slavery, for instance, in this country only WASP
males who owned property would be allow to own property, would be allowed
to hold professional jobs, would be allowed to have credit, etc.
Why don't you try coming into the 21st Century
:|> If you can think of none, your question is irrelevant.
:|
:|Nice try,
I agree it is a very good question. You only reply is
*What has been should remain so.* Not very good, and even less good when
what has been maybe isn't as clear as you think, isn't exactly as you think
it was.
:|but it is blatantly obvious that the super majority of humanity,
:|not to mention a sexual biological schema reaching back millions of years
:|has any compelling reason to explain its apologetic to you or any other
:|johnny come lately who questions it. Instead, it is up to you to
:|demonstrate some valid reason it should take the time.
Look around you son.
That which you say doesn't exist exists all around you in nature in animal
in human
:|> A benefit to society which is the wrong standard to begin with can be
:|> answered as follows
:|
:|And you're now implying what? That laws are passed without recourse to this
:|standard? Utter nonsense. The whole underlying principle of government is
:|to protect the rights of the many against the actions of the few. To that
:|end, laws are established to perserve the rights of the many against the
:|rights of the few, where those "rights" may come into conflict.
Ever heard of the tyranny of the majority?
What do you think the underlying function and purpose of the Bill of Rights
is?
A FOUNDER, HAD THIS TO SAY:
The Question of a Bill of Rights
Letter to Thomas Jefferson, October 17, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/jm/17881017_bor.txt
Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of
oppression. In our Government, the real power lies in the majority of the
Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended,
not from acts of government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but
from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major
number of Constituents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AS WELL AS THE FOLLOWING PERTAINING TO THIS TOPIC:
Dangers and Comments
"We the People;" Factions, Including Religious Sects, & Denominations;
Local & State Governments; Majority v. Minority; Common Law and Other
Things of Importance
Selections from James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson,
Congressional Debates and other sources.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/dangers.htm
***************************************************************
A LAWYER, SCHOOLED IN AMERICAN LAW, HAD THIS TO SAY:
Removed From The Legislative Province by Neal Blanchett, Esq.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/blanchrt.htm
[EXCERPT]
Neal Blanchett is an attorney in private practice in Minneapolis. He earned
his B.A. from St. John's University in Collegeville, Minnesota, and his
J.D. ***** laude from the University of Minnesota Law School. He served four
years in the United States Marine Corps and three years in the Army
National Guard.
Some commentators believe that majority rule should prevail to allow
government endorsement of religion. Government should be able to endorse
religion, they reason, because government endorsed religion at the time the
Constitution was written, and some endorsements of religion enjoy popular
support even today. This rule is impossible to implement because the
outcomes ultimately depend on who is deciding how much endorsement is too
much. The Framers leave us no guidance on this issue (unless we allow only
those practices in place at the time of the Constitution, which would
surely exclude the endorsements in the Pledge of Allegiance, on money, and
in the Star Spangled Banner, none of which existed at the time.)
A better rule is that set forth by the Supreme Court during the 1940's,
1950's and early 1960's (a time many conservative commentators describe as
our national golden age). That rule is that matters of religion (or
"matters of conscience" in the words of Justice Jackson) are outside the
province of the legislature, and therefore outside the powers of the
majority.
The doctrine that matters of religion are removed from the government's
powers places the first amendment on equal footing with the rest of the
Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is a litany of limits on government
power. There is no more support in the Constitution for splitting the power
over religion, so that government has some, than there is for splitting the
power over unreasonable searches and seizures, so that the government may
conduct unreasonable searches that the Framers would have authorized, or
the unreasonable searches that are popular. The government has neither
power. Majority opinion has no impact on the Bill of Rights limits on
government power.
Once people learn to view the religion clauses properly, as limits to
government power, the answers to most of the religion cases become easier
to predict and to understand. Viewed incorrectly, the decisions are often
mischaracterized as "bans" i.e. the courts have "banned" school prayer,
"banned" graduation prayer, "banned" nativity displays, or "banned" the
Pledge of Allegiance. The courts have done no such thing, and they lack the
power to do such things, just as the other branches of government lack
these powers. Children, parents, teachers and staff may pray in schools, at
graduations, before and during games, and may recite the Pledge of
Allegiance or any other creed at any time that it does not disrupt
instruction. Religious groups must be allowed to meet on public property
under the same rules as other groups. No teacher or principal or policeman
can take the Koran from a child's hands or put a hand over their praying
lips (unless the child is disrupting education).
The entire spectrum agrees on these crucial points, from the culturally
activist "conservative" organizations American Center for Law and Justice
and the Heritage Foundation to the (truly) ultra-conservative Libertarian
Party to "liberal" (but truly conservative on this issue) ACLU, American
Atheists, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The only thing the
decisions have banned is the government's power to endorse, sponsor and
incorporate religious exercises into public functions.
For this reason, the decisions never threaten the free exercise of
religion. Any individual may take virtually any action necessary to honor
their deeply-held beliefs - the line is drawn at criminal acts, health
violations, and public nuisances, but otherwise extends to protect nearly
any act in the known universe. The Free Exercise Clause demands this
protection for religious practices; there is absolutely no danger that any
group or individual can legally prevent individuals from worshipping as
they so choose.
Explaining the difference between limits on the government's power and
limits on the individual deserves some more time, because, in the context
of the Pledge of Allegiance decision, nearly the entire U.S. Congress, the
President, the media and much of the public confused these two concepts.
Government, often through the courts, limits individual freedom through
criminal laws and civil laws and codes. Virtually nothing limits the
government except the federal and state Constitutions. The Constitutions
are the government's contract with the people. Only through the
Constitution does the government have any power at all to constrain
individual freedom. Americans agree to give up the personal freedoms, as
their elected representatives choose to limit those freedoms. In exchange
for this collective compliance, the government agrees to certain limits on
its power. No matter how many people may want the government to act outside
those limits, it simply cannot. It is constituted without the legal power
to do so. Government can no more endorse religion than it could have
designated Co-Presidents Gore and Bush.
The fact that religious practices continue to creep stealthily back into
public functions, and have not yet been challenged, does not make
government actions inserting them legal. Our courts work only by deciding
matters brought before them. Every American has faced situations in life
where they could have sued, but didn't - someone failed to keep a promise,
or a product didn't perform as a salesman stated. Every American knows
millions of criminal acts go unpunished every day - from speeding to drug
sales to rape and robbery. In the case of government religious endorsements
and other popular but illegal acts, the right people have to find out and
bring it to the courts. For criminal and civil wrongs, this is either the
police or the person harmed. But there is no governmental office to
investigate unconstitutional government acts. In the balancing act between
individual rights and government powers, protecting individual rights is
left solely to individuals and the private groups they form. So it may be
years or decades before a practice is discovered by someone who is
sufficiently harmed to challenge it. The more popular an illegal act is,
the less likely any specific instance of it will result in prosecution. So
it is that we have hundreds or thousands of unconstitutional government
laws and policies. No one credibly argues that tradition somehow transforms
these laws from illegal to legal, or that laws illegal when enacted somehow
become legal through sheer passage of time.
Against this backdrop, the right decision in the Pledge case is easy to
see. What is difficult for many people is to reach the correct
understanding of the Constitutional principles. To most, the Constitution
and the Pledge are part of the same background. It is difficult for them to
grasp that one could possibly contradict the other. Yet those who study and
understand the Constitution believe the decision is legally sound. Below I
have set out some common attacks on the Pledge decision, and defenses of
the government's right to sponsor at least some religious exercise, with a
response to each from the correct Constitutional perspective.
2. Doesn't the majority rule?
The majority never rules on the Bill of Rights. This is a
fundamental, bedrock principle of America. The Bill of Rights protects all
Americans from the government's actions adverse to that individual, whether
those government actions are popular or not. The Framers recognized there
is a thin line between majority rule and tyranny by the majority; the
Constitution sets this line. Constitutional rights are by definition not
subject to majority rule, and those who argue otherwise are both
un-American and wrong. They need to learn to love this American principle
or leave for another country where everything is up to the majority.
[END EXCERPT]
***********************************************************
A CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR, PROFESSOR AND APPARENTLY
HE HAS BEEN OR IS A JUDGE AS WELL, HAD THIS TO SAY:
[The Bill of Rights is] designed to protect individuals and minorities
against the tyranny of the majority, but it's also designed to protect the
people against bureaucracy, against the government.
JUDGE LAWRENCE TRIBE
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/202b.htm
**************************************************************
A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, WHILE SITTING ON THAT COURT,
HAD THIS TO SAY:
Justice Robert H. Jackson, in the case of WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF
EDUCATION v. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=319&invol=624
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from
the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach
of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be
applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free
speech, to free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other
fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome
of no elections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A FINAL WORD:
ONE AMENDMENT, TWO CLAUSES, NO PRECEDENT
http://intranet.lls.edu/reviews/sample2.pdf
[EXCERPT]
Advocates of school prayer invariably appeal to majority
religiosity and invoke fears of a disintegrating moral fabric to garner
support.9 While recent polls demonstrate overwhelming support for either
prayer in public schools or a Constitutional amendment allowing such 10 ,
this ignores a fundamental protection against tyranny that is afforded all
citizens by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.11 In all of the recent
cases discussed below, the preponderance of the student body desired
student prayer at non-compulsory school activities. Majority rule has never
been and cannot now be allowed to undermine the rights of a minority.
Student-initiated prayer, whether elected by a majority of the student body
or offered individually in a non-public forum, violates both the
Establishment Clause and the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
9. See Norman L. Geisler, 10 Reasons for Voluntary School Prayer,
(visited Apr. 24, 2000) <web site name>
<http://www.softdisk.com/comp/shume/politics/pray1.html> (article
originally appeared in The Shreveport Humanist Bulletin, August 1995).
10. See Viewpoints: Religious Freedom Amendment (visited Apr. 25,
2000) <http://religiousfreeom.house.gov/natpolls.htm>.
11 See, e.g., ACLU Bulletin, supra note 2, at 6.
http://intranet.lls.edu/reviews/sample2.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------
:|Human
:|sexual behavior and impluses are without doubt one of the aspects of
:|humanity carrying a vast potential to any society for either good or harm.
:|Flippancy is *not* a characteristic I like to see in the argument of anyone
:|seeking to change, even if only to a small degree, the entire history of
:|human government in this area. I may not be able to point out to you
:|specifically what legalizing homosexual unions would do to society, but if
:|you can't assemble some compelling argument that so doing would provide some
:|missing benefit to society as a whole, then no one need listen to you. I
:|assume that's what's coming next.
The missing benefit has been given already in this reply and in the other
replies which you seem blind to.
It's stated below
:|
:|>
:|> Justice, as in equal civil rights for all not just straights.
:|> It would move on step closer to living up to this
JUSTICE!!!! Ever hear of it?
:|This, of course, assumes it is wrong to discriminate between homosexual and
:|heterosexual behavior, and calls 4,500 years of recorded human history
:|"unjust".
Your history is false to begin with.
it is nice that you at least acknowledge homosexuals. However you fall into
the same bull ***** thinking that basically states that a human being who
is a homosexual can be acceptable but in order to be acceptable that human
being who is a homosexual must refrain from any kind of homosexual
behavior.
I don't imagine you have ever really thought that out or thought that
through far enough to begin to realize how warped that really is.
What a sad argument.
Discrimination is not good period.
:|Since that is not self-evident, perhaps you would care to provide
:|what argument exists that demonstrates it is.
Already done that son.
C&S Sep. Gay Marriage
PART I
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=j1bna09fpi3ovl2ft58q6t8ahjslesbam1%404ax.com
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O11422D78
PART II
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=ok9pa01kqkogs9c5730sisfsq67gn8g6kl%404ax.com
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D63414D78
:|> " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
:|> that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
:|> that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to
:|> secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
:|> just powers from the consent of the governed, . . . "
:|
:|Okay, fine. Now all you need do to show that this applies to your situation
:|is prove that the "Creator" created you homosexual.
(1) First of all, I'm not homosexual, but I see what is happening here in
your mind.
You are of the mindset that says: if person supports equal rights for all
people which includes Gays they have to be gay which goes along with if a
person supports strict church state separation they have to be a atheist.
Well, guess what, neither of the above assumptions are correct.
(2) Not at all. But to humor you for a few seconds, if there is a creator
that created everything that creator did, in fact, create forms of that
which we call "same sex" or "homosexual" in the biological world, plant
world, animal world thus the odds are really good that such would have been
created in the human world as well.
(2a) Our government does not recognize a creator as being the source of our
laws, rights or even the source of us. But our government does claim to be
based, at least to some degree, on the idea that individuals do have
rights, on liberty, equality, freedom or as put in the DOI Life, Liberty
and the pursuit of Happiness.
:|If you can't do this,
:|then.
You're still trying to maintain that reversal of the Compelling Interest
Doctrine.
That was already covered.
:|We have a "right" to move from place to place under this guarantee
:|because God created us with legs, but the guarantee doesn't extend to
:|anyplace legs are capable of taking us. The guarantee recognizes the
:|distinction, while you do not.
:|
:|>
:|> and this
:|>
:|> Amendment XIV
:|> Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
:|> subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and
:|> of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law
:|> which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
:|> States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or
:|> property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
:|> jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
:|
:|This only adds to the above the irrelevant definitions of "citizenship" (my
:|argument doesn't involve who is or is not a citizen), and requires all
:|states to recognize the guarantee. It therefore adds nothing to your
:|argument, which is so far mostly propagandistic (if homey) rhetoric.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary proof.
If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
(Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
:|
:|>
:|> and this
:|>
:|> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
:|---------
:|> Loving v. Virginia (1967)
:|> http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/privacy/bldec_LovingVA.htm
:|>
:|> Although the State also argued that they have a valid role in regulating
:|> marriage as a social institution, the Court rejected the notion that the
:|> State's powers here were limitless. Instead, the Court found the
:|> institution of marriage, while social in nature, is also a basic civil
:|> right and cannot be restricted without very good reason:
:|
:|Which, of course, makes my argument: Where's the "very good reason"?
Already done that
See above.
Also:
More and more recognition of full and complete equal rights for gays and
lesbians is taking place all over the nation, in the courts, in the
increasing number of TV shows that involve or include gay people and
relationships, in public opinion, etc.
------------------------------------------------
GOP's Gay-aversion Politics Bombing
by Frank Rich, NYTimes
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/06/arts/06RICH.html?th=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1086519702-ij9+HldiLFKLZ1+8ljW3pw
-------------------------------------------------
Lesbian & Gay Rights
http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRightsmain.cfm
Mass. Court Backs Gay Marriage
'Civil Unions' Rejected; Same-Sex Couples to Have Equal Status for First
Time
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12273-2004Feb4.html
---------------------------------------------------------
More and more recognition of the right for gays to adopt
Gays and Adoption
http://www.uahc.org/reform/rac/issues/issuegl.html#adopt
The issue of gay and lesbian adoption is one that is related to the issue
of gay and lesbian marriage. Nine states - California, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin - and
the District of Columbia have allowed openly gay or lesbian individuals or
couples to adopt. However, this remains a rare occurrence. There is
currently no federal mandate regarding gay and lesbian adoption, and
therefore the ability of gay men and lesbians to adopt is affected on a
state level by state adoption statutes.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sodomy Laws and Sodomy Law Reform
http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/sodomy_laws,4.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.walkingwithfisher.com/civilrightsgay.htm
Jeff Fisher for Congress
Democrat-Florida-District 16
Gay Rights
It is fundamental to our democracy that all citizens have equal rights,
irrespective of race, gender, creed, or sexual orientation. I firmly
support these rights and I oppose any governmental action to limit them.
There are times when government action is required to insure that these
rights are maintained, but laws for these must be crafted with great care,
since protecting the rights of one group can often impinge on the rights of
another.
Unfortunately, there have been ingrained negative attitudes toward homo-
sexuality in most societies, but progress has been made in recent years to
change this. Except for a minority still haunted by homophobia, our society
can now accept homosexuality as an inherent trait and not a forbidden
“lifestyle choice.” It should no longer be necessary for a gay man or
lesbian woman to be secretive about it, and I fully support their right to
be recognized as an equal citizen in our society.
There is no humane/legal reasoning in our Constitution to treat homosexuals
as being less than equal. Members of the military, Congress, or any elected
office that are gay, Democrats and Republicans alike, should not have to be
afraid of being classified as second-class citizens. The Constitution and
our Courts have made it clear that we are all equal under the law. These
men and women who serve this nation need not live a lie. They are cheating
themselves and their constituents by practicing their true sexual
orientation in secret. This is a diverse nation and no one should have to
live in fear by continuing to conceal his or her inherent trait in the form
of an untruth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:|> Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our
:|> very existence and survival. (Skinner v. Oklahoma) ...
:|
:|Punching up my claim that this area of discussion holds a great deal of
:|potential for either harm or good to society.
"It is fundamental to our democracy that all citizens have equal rights,
irrespective of race, gender, creed, or sexual orientation."
"There is no humane/legal reasoning in our Constitution to treat
homosexuals as being less than equal. "
:|To deny this
:|> fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial
:|> classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly
:|> subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth
:|> Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty
:|without
:|> due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of
:|> choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations.
:|> Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of
:|> another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the
:|> State.
"It is fundamental to our democracy that all citizens have equal rights,
irrespective of race, gender, creed, or sexual orientation."
"There is no humane/legal reasoning in our Constitution to treat
homosexuals as being less than equal. "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Question of a Bill of Rights
Letter to Thomas Jefferson, October 17, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/jm/17881017_bor.txt
Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of
oppression. In our Government, the real power lies in the majority of the
Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended,
not from acts of government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but
from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major
number of Constituents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removed From The Legislative Province by Neal Blanchett, Esq.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/blanchrt.htm
[EXCERPT]
2. Doesn't the majority rule?
The majority never rules on the Bill of Rights. This is a
fundamental, bedrock principle of America. The Bill of Rights protects all
Americans from the government's actions adverse to that individual, whether
those government actions are popular or not. The Framers recognized there
is a thin line between majority rule and tyranny by the majority; the
Constitution sets this line. Constitutional rights are by definition not
subject to majority rule, and those who argue otherwise are both
un-American and wrong. They need to learn to love this American principle
or leave for another country where everything is up to the majority.
[END EXCERPT]
***********************************************************
[The Bill of Rights is] designed to protect individuals and minorities
against the tyranny of the majority, but it's also designed to protect the
people against bureaucracy, against the government.
JUDGE LAWRENCE TRIBE
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/202b.htm
**************************************************************
Justice Robert H. Jackson, in the case of WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF
EDUCATION v. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=319&invol=624
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from
the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach
of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be
applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free
speech, to free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other
fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome
of no elections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A FINAL WORD:
ONE AMENDMENT, TWO CLAUSES, NO PRECEDENT
http://intranet.lls.edu/reviews/sample2.pdf
[EXCERPT]
Majority rule has never
been and cannot now be allowed to undermine the rights of a minority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[ANOTHER HAD SAID]
:|The fact is that government recognizes marriage between heterosexuals
:|because stable family units are seen as a benefit to society. Back
:|when this controversy flared up I began asked these groups, "What is
:|the benefit to society of recognizing homosexual marriage?" I have
:|yet to hear back on that.
[ said ]
You have that somewhat incorrect.
If you are going to apply compelling interest it applies against the state,
the state has to show a compelling interest why they should not allow
something, not the other way around.
What benefits, to the state, are you claiming exist in a heterosexual civil
contractual marriage but would be absent in a same sex civil contractual
marriage?
If you can think of none, your question is irrelevant.
A benefit to society which is the wrong standard to begin with can be
answered as follows
Justice, as in equal civil rights for all not just straights.
It would move on step closer to living up to this
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed, . . . "
and this
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and
of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
and this
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/privacy/bldec_LovingVA.htm
[snip]
:|But you're welcome to take another shot at this if you like...
Already done that son.
C&S Sep. Gay Marriage
PART I
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=j1bna09fpi3ovl2ft58q6t8ahjslesbam1%404ax.com
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O11422D78
PART II
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=ok9pa01kqkogs9c5730sisfsq67gn8g6kl%404ax.com
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D63414D78
You sure haven't done anything to undo it. A lot of people made a lot of
points and in some or many cases cited data supporting those points in the
above two items. Nothing you said changed any of that. Disproved any of
that, even addressed any of | | | | |