New Hampshire Bans Gay Marriage

[jegs2]

You should really read the Establishment Clause.

I am at a loss. Please elaborate or post a link.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I disagree with defining the act of homosexuality as a right. Therefore, I take every opportunity to vote against any legislation or action attempting to condone it as such, much the same as I would oppose legislation attempting to legalize prostitution, theft, adultery, purgery, or any other form of sin.

Do you support the criminalization of defying one's parents? What about having other gods before Him? Working on the Sabbath?

I find this stuff extremely hypocritical from someone who handwaves the Old Testament atrocities of the Christian God as "legal issues of the Israeli Kingdom, henceforth defunct with the kingdom's collapse," yet you feel your religious laws should be enshrined in civil laws, and I should be punished under the law for not obeying YOUR religious laws.

[Alyeska]

...and they would be entirely right. Please explain how flagrantly violating the 14th Amendment does not bely an underlying intolerance or bigotry.

I disagree with defining the act of homosexuality as a right. Therefore, I take every opportunity to vote against any legislation or action attempting to condone it as such, much the same as I would oppose legislation attempting to legalize prostitution, theft, adultery, purgery, or any other form of sin.

Now talk about fucking stupid. You would classify something as a sing when you can't even give justification for doing so and then furthermore punish consenting adults for something that doesn't even affect you.

Your a bigot and an asshole.

[SirNitram]

You should really read the Establishment Clause.

I am at a loss. Please elaborate or post a link.

In short - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

In other words, what your religion defines as a 'sin' is not to be considered by the US government.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You should remember this, after all, you've sworn to uphold it.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (the Establishment Clause emphasized by me)

[jegs2]

In short - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

In other words, what your religion defines as a 'sin' is not to be considered by the US government.

Oh, I see. I think the intent of that phrase was to prevent the establishment of a church over the United States (much like the Church of England was the official church of the state). I do not think it was meant to disrupt the will of the the people in establishing rule of law (as in the case of New Hampshire). Thus, the law does not define homosexuality as a sin, but it does prevent officially recognizing it as a right.

[DPDarkPrimus]

You should really read the Establishment Clause.

I am at a loss.

Well, it's no wonder.

Please elaborate or post a link.

"The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state. Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a persons practice of their religion."

Quoted from here.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Thus, the law does not define homosexuality as a sin, but it does prevent officially recognizing it as a right.

What? You seem to think the issue is whether or not homosexuality is a right.

That's what I see from reading that sentence, anyways. Clarify if you mean otherwise.

[Alyeska]

In short - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

In other words, what your religion defines as a 'sin' is not to be considered by the US government.

Oh, I see. I think the intent of that phrase was to prevent the establishment of a church over the United States (much like the Church of England was the official church of the state). I do not think it was meant to disrupt the will of the the people in establishing rule of law (as in the case of New Hampshire). Thus, the law does not define homosexuality as a sin, but it does prevent officially recognizing it as a right.

Yes, because we all know the Constitution was designed to limit the rights of the people and descriminate against the people bassed on vague religious documents thus turnign the US into a theocracy. Oh, wait, it wasn't.

[jegs2]

What? You seem to think the issue is whether or not homosexuality is a right.

If I read the original post correctly, New Hampshire was refusing to recognize marriage between homosexuals, which would lead me to believe they don't see the act of homosexuality as a basic protected right.

[SirNitram]

What? You seem to think the issue is whether or not homosexuality is a right.

If I read the original post correctly, New Hampshire was refusing to recognize marriage between homosexuals, which would lead me to believe they don't see the act of homosexuality as a basic protected right.

Which violates the 14th Amendment. Too bad, so sad.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Oh, I see. I think the intent of that phrase was to prevent the establishment of a church over the United States (much like the Church of England was the official church of the state).

Thomas Jefferson disagrees. Besides, the strict interpretation of the Establishment Clause is not endorsed by SCOTUS, and thus that interpretation is irrelevent.

I do not think it was meant to disrupt the will of the the people in establishing rule of law (as in the case of New Hampshire). Thus, the law does not define homosexuality as a sin, but it does prevent officially recognizing it as a right.

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. (emphases mine)

[Gil Hamilton]

Jegs2 can vote however he wants, for whatever reason. If there is a referendum for something related to gay marriage, he can vote against it. His reason is not important. That's part of the nice things of democracy.

However, we shall see if the rest of the country will vote similarly.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Here is the problem Jegs2

When the government allows two individuals to enter into a contract, it must allow any two individuals to enter into this contrct. ESPECIALLY when said contract entaisl certain legal benifits protections and obligations.

The government for example cannot bar two people from entering into a contract of sale due to the 14th amendment. The principle here is the same. Because the government must grant the same oportunity to marry the single person of their choice to homosexual cioples, it must prvide for such contracts. However due t Brown v. Board of education, it cannot create two seperate institutions. But rather, must allow that legal obligation to be fulfilled within the same insitution.

I hope that made sense.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Two homosexual people are persons, and are entitled to equal protection under the law and access to the legal options and privledges of civil marriage. The state does not have the right to arbitrarily remove this protection on the basis of the gender of the individual you wish to enter that pact with.

[jegs2]

Two homosexual people are persons, and are entitled to equal protection under the law and access to the legal options and privledges of civil marriage. The state does not have the right to arbitrarily remove this protection on the basis of the gender of the individual you wish to enter that pact with.

If the Supreme Court defines that as allowing homosexuals to marry each other, then I would vote for an amendment barring such.

[Alyeska]

If the Supreme Court defines that as allowing [a black and white] to marry each other, then I would vote for an amendment barring such.

Same argument, different words. Same effect. Your nothing more then a bigot.

[DPDarkPrimus]

If the Supreme Court defines that as allowing homosexuals to marry each other, then I would vote for an amendment barring such.

Too bad such an amendment won't ever pass. Thanks for reiterating that you're against equality, though.

And even if it were voted in, it'd be shot down due to violating the Establishment Clause. So stick that in your anti-gay pipe and smoke it.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Two homosexual people are persons, and are entitled to equal protection under the law and access to the legal options and privledges of civil marriage. The state does not have the right to arbitrarily remove this protection on the basis of the gender of the individual you wish to enter that pact with.

If the Supreme Court defines that as allowing homosexuals to marry each other, then I would vote for an amendment barring such.

That's very fascinating. A soldier who wishes to alter the Constitution to serve his personal religious feelings and force others to observe them by law.

[Crown]

If the Supreme Court defines that as allowing [a black and white] to marry each other, then I would vote for an amendment barring such.

Same argument, different words. Same effect. Your nothing more then a bigot.

Alyeska could you colour the [added text] just to make sure people know what you did to jegs2's post?

[SirNitram]

Well, this setback to civil rights appears to have had one interesting effect. The bigots crawled right out and waved their hands.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Two homosexual people are persons, and are entitled to equal protection under the law and access to the legal options and privledges of civil marriage. The state does not have the right to arbitrarily remove this protection on the basis of the gender of the individual you wish to enter that pact with.

If the Supreme Court defines that as allowing homosexuals to marry each other, then I would vote for an amendment barring such.

Why? Please let me know, what is your reasoning? WHy the fuck should your religious beliefs be forced on everyone with a constitutional amendment? I can understand a position from states rights. But a constitutional amendment would kick federalism in the face.

[jegs2]

Same argument, different words. Same effect. Your nothing more then a bigot.

As I would expect to be described by those who do not serve Christ.

[SirNitram]

Same argument, different words. Same effect. Your nothing more then a bigot.

As I would expect to be described by those who do not serve Christ.

Yea, serving Mankind tends to produce less bigotry.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Same argument, different words. Same effect. Your nothing more then a bigot.

As I would expect to be described by those who do not serve Christ.

Where did Jesus tell you to make your gay neighbor a second class citizen?