New Hampshire Bans Gay Marriage

[Uraniun235]

[Illuminatus Primus]

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.

This is quite circular.

Why don't you just admit you have no real respect for the establishment clause and stand for the government's enforcement of your religious dogma?

[DPDarkPrimus]

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

As I would expect to be spewed by those brainwashed into unquestioning obediance of bigoted clergy.

[jegs2]

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

He didn't. The act of homosexuality is described as a sin, like any other. Therefore, I will vote against any measure attempting to normalized it, as I would for any other sin.

[Alyrium Denryle]

even if there is no rational basis for such a law? even if you would be harming millions of people?

For someone who swore an oath to defend the constitution and the people of the united states, you sure are quick to harm both.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Moreover, no one's talking about high-tailing it out there and forcing Jay's Baptist Church to marry Einy and Alyrium. We're talking about them being able to get a civil marriage license, to be civilly married, and to get the tax and financial and inheritance benefits current civil marriage grants.

But no. They need to own the word. The man on the stick said so.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Therefore, I will vote against any measure attempting to normalized it, as I would for any other sin.

I don't see you rallying for banning consumption pork and shellfish. Or screaming for the rights wrongly given to women to be revoked, for as the Bible says, they are to serve in silent subjugation.

[jegs2]

Why don't you just admit you have no real respect for the establishment clause and stand for the government's enforcement of your religious dogma?

I don't see the clause the same way you do. It appears only to forbid the establishment of an official religion over the state.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The constitution has never been amended to take away rights and priviledges, only to enumerate them. By using the constitution to enshrine your bogotry into law you are pissing on the very principples the country was founded on.

[Illuminatus Primus]

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

He didn't. The act of homosexuality is described as a sin, like any other. Therefore, I will vote against any measure attempting to normalized it, as I would for any other sin.

I like the word choice.

Not "legalize"; "normalize."

Jay's little fundie subculture out in the American countryside will always be permitted to descriminate against homosexuals and marry whoever they want and call whatever they want a sin.

Imagine a community in Brightville, NY. They are 95% atheists. Now, this group needs to have the government legally cut them off from marriage licenses if they choose someone of their own gender, why?

The government is to ban the right to choose sin?

Answer my other questions: would you be for getting a rid of the Establishment Clause? Would you support laws upholding the Ten Commandment?

[jegs2]

I don't see you rallying for banning consumption pork and shellfish. Or screaming for the rights wrongly given to women to be revoked, for as the Bible says, they are to serve in silent subjugation.

On shellfish, read the following:

Acts 10

10 [Peter] became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

Thus we see that foods that were previously unclean and forbidden for eating are so no longer.

So far as women in subjugation, Paul wrote that they must remain silent within the church, which has been interpreted to mean they are not to preach.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Why don't you just admit you have no real respect for the establishment clause and stand for the government's enforcement of your religious dogma?

I don't see the clause the same way you do. It appears only to forbid the establishment of an official religion over the state.

Well the supreme court has disagreed with you many many times. So I guess your opinion doesnt matter. Rule of Law, not Rule of Man...

[DPDarkPrimus]

It appears only to forbid the establishment of an official religion over the state.

MYTH: The First Amendment only prohibits an "establishment" a national church.

Response: It is true that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention wanted to prevent anyone from setting up a national church. Although established churches and intolerance towards minority religious beliefs had been common in the colonies, that time had nearly come to an end. Most people at the time were Protestants (out of a population of around 4 million, about 25 thousand were Catholic and fewer than 10 thousand were Jewish), but there was a great deal of variety among the Protestants.

When the Constitution went into effect, only four states - Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Maryland - still had established state churches. By this time, there were Anglicans, Baptists, Quakers, Mennonites, Methodists, and many more. If anyone had tried to take any one of these Protestant sects and established them as the official, national form of Christianity, it likely would have led to a civil war.

That was not, however, the only reason for prohibiting a national church. Another important factor was that most delegates genuinely believed that every person needed to have freedom of conscience. In practice, this meant that every person needed to be able to choose their own religious path without interference from the government. The government should not tell people what to believe, how to believe, or how to practice. This philosophical background is why it is a mistake to believe that a "national church" was their only concern.

The above myth normally relies upon one of two misunderstandings. The first is that the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty is only about preventing the government from setting up some particular church to which all must belong. The second is that the First Amendment does not prohibit the government form "multiple establishments" - showing equal preference for many different religions or denominations.

The first misunderstanding is the easiest to clear up. If it really is true that the First Amendment only prevents the federal government from setting up its own church, then the First Amendment does not guarantee religious liberty. Why? Well, the words "religious liberty" and "religious freedom" certainly do not appear:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

If the "no establishment only" interpretation were accurate, then the federal government could enforce compliance with the rules or dogmas of particular religious beliefs, and so long as it created no national church and allowed people to follow their own, separate, religious rules, this would not be unconstitutional. But does anyone really think that it would be permissible for the government to force all men to wear yarmulkes, or prohibit women from wearing jewelry?

This is the misunderstanding which lies behind the common myth that "freedom of religion" is wholly distinct from "freedom from religion." In reality, however, the former requires the existence of the latter, which means that the government is not simply prevented from creating a single national church. It is, instead, prevented from enforcing anyone's religious rules on everyone else.

Sometimes you will find someone arguing that "establishment" only refers to setting up a national church, and therefore does not mean that the government cannot actively support some church or religion. You won't find this too often, because it would obviously result in religious discrimination. How many really believe that it would be permissible for the government to help fund the Roman Catholic Church or the Jehovah's Witnesses while all other religious groups have to try and survive on their own?

The second misunderstanding has become popular in some conservative circles in recent years and is often known as "accommodationism" or "non-preferentialism." According to this view, it is permissible for the federal government to "accommodate" religion by supporting religion, but only so long as it does so without "preference" - that is to say, so long as all religions which ask for assistance are treated equally.

The premise behind this is that the First Amendment prohibits (so they say) an establishment of religion, but not many establishments of religion (it also helps if one tries to simultaneously argue for the above - that "establishment" only means setting up a church and does not refer to simply supporting a church or multiple churches). Unfortunately, the arguments offered by supporters fail, and on two accounts.

The first is that it fails even based upon their own understanding of the law, known sometimes as "originalism." According to this view, the Constitution means what the authors meant it to mean - nothing more and nothing less. Thus, if "no law respecting an establishment of religion" was intended only to refer to setting up a national church, then that is all it means. Anything else is permitted, even if that would otherwise infringe upon abstract notions of religious liberty.

The problem with this is that there is ample evidence that the authors of the Constitution did not intend merely to prohibit the creation of a single, national church. James Madison, who is responsible for much of the Constitution, wrote his "Memorial and Remonstrance" specifically denouncing multiple establishments in his native Virginia.

Moreover, the House of Representatives and the Senate considered different versions of the First Amendment which would have allowed for non-preferential support of religion. None of them were passed and the record of their discussions shows that they did not support nonpreferentialist support of religion. In addition, the records of the debate on ratification from Virginia also show that those legislators did not support such nonpreferentialism.

I do not, however, agree with the premises behind "originalism" - there seems no good reason to assume that a literal reading of the text and ignoring the principles behind the text is the only or even the most valid means of interpreting it. So, if we look instead to the principle of "religious liberty" and accept that people should be forced neither to adopt the rules nor support the maintenance of any church or religion other than their own, non-preferentialism loses any value it might have claimed for itself.

Source

You're resorting now to repeating decades old statements?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Why don't you just admit you have no real respect for the establishment clause and stand for the government's enforcement of your religious dogma?

I don't see the clause the same way you do. It appears only to forbid the establishment of an official religion over the state.

Your interpretation is irrelevent.

When I see "Chief Justice Jay Simpson" on CNN, your interpretation will matter. Until then, the loose constructionist intepretation of the Establishment Clause is upheld as Constitutional law, and no amount of handwaving will make that any different. That's what SCOTUS is for. To determine which interpretation is law. Yours isn't. Oh well.

Besides, many of the Founding Fathers made it quite clear in correspondence that their intent went beyond the mere banning of a state church.

You're simply intentionally ignoring the Framers' statements and the authority of SCOTUS' opinion to pretend you're perhaps legally justified.

[Illuminatus Primus]

So far as women in subjugation, Paul wrote that they must remain silent within the church, which has been interpreted to mean they are not to preach.

Okeedokee.

Should the government pass a law which bans women from preaching in churches? Would you support such a measure?

[DPDarkPrimus]

So far as women in subjugation, Paul wrote that they must remain silent within the church, which has been interpreted to mean they are not to preach.

5:22
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
5:24
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward."

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands;

Think that's not in context? Go open your own damn Bible and see how wrong you are.


Oh, and, did you know there is no law outlawing adultary? You'd better get cracking on that! The very moral fabric of society depends on it!

[jegs2]

Imagine a community in Brightville, NY. They are 95% atheists. Now, this group needs to have the government legally cut them off from marriage licenses if they choose someone of their own gender, why?

The government is to ban the right to choose sin?

Which is why the state should regulate what is and is not legal in such cases, not the central government. The people of the state vote for their legislators, so their voice in effect becomes the law of the land.

Answer my other questions: would you be for getting a rid of the Establishment Clause? Would you support laws upholding the Ten Commandment?

No. I would not support the establishment of a state church, so the Establishment Clause should stand IMO. As to voting for laws IAW the Ten Commandments, it depends on what penalties were levied for breaking which laws. For example, for murder I would vote for legislation outlawing it and penalizing it with capital punishment.

[Gil Hamilton]

A question, Jay. Does the Bible actually forbid gay marriage? I know that it has nothing good to say about gay men itself, but does it actually forbid two men from marrying each other?

[RedImperator]

The constitution has never been amended to take away rights and priviledges, only to enumerate them. By using the constitution to enshrine your bogotry into law you are pissing on the very principples the country was founded on.

It was once, with the 18th Amendment. We all know how that turned out.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Which is why the state should regulate what is and is not legal in such cases, not the central government. The people of the state vote for their legislators, so their voice in effect becomes the law of the land.

We have SCOTUS for a reason. The Fourteenth Amendment bans any state from making such laws.

No. I would not support the establishment of a state church, so the Establishment Clause should stand IMO. As to voting for laws IAW the Ten Commandments, it depends on what penalties were levied for breaking which laws. For example, for murder I would vote for legislation outlawing it and penalizing it with capital punishment.

I like this real buttery way of saying "yeah, make 'em law."

What should happen to me when I go to work on Sunday?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Which is why the state should regulate what is and is not legal in such cases, not the central government. The people of the state vote for their legislators, so their voice in effect becomes the law of the land.

And yet at the same time, you would vote to make it unconstitutional at the federal level. Thank you for contadictiong yourself and moving the goalposts.

The law of this country apparantly dont matter to Jegs2, because of a pesky little thing called the 14th amendment, he wont be allowed allowed to legally step on the legal protections of millions of people. Boo hoo. Apparantly his archaic religious laws are more important thatn tha happiness and well being of millions of the people he was sworn an oath to defend. Apparantly the constitution he swore to uphold is nothing more than an inconvenience.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Its stupid. "Sin" and Biblical appeals apply to marriage within the Church; the sacrament of matrimony, marriage before God, the joining of souls, whatever you want to call it.

How any religious edicts effect the seperate definition and issue of civil marriage, I don't know--unless you're living in a theocracy, or you believe as a Christian you own the word marriage, which is comical, to say the least.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The constitution has never been amended to take away rights and priviledges, only to enumerate them. By using the constitution to enshrine your bogotry into law you are pissing on the very principples the country was founded on.

It was once, with the 18th Amendment. We all know how that turned out.

Ohh yeah, thats right... once... and behold, organized crime!!

[jegs2]

5:22
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
5:24
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

In the above passages, the relationship between husband and wife is governed by the husband, who has the responsibility of loving his wife, even to the point of sacrificing his life for her.

Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward."

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands;

The above demonstrates how those we are to be servants to others. Again, the relationship for husbands and wives is spelled out, but you missed a piece:

1 Peter 3
7Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

The responsibility in the marriage runs both ways.

Oh, and, did you know there is no law outlawing adultary? You'd better get cracking on that! The very moral fabric of society depends on it!

Is there a law protecting the right to adultery?

[jegs2]

And yet at the same time, you would vote to make it unconstitutional at the federal level. Thank you for contadictiong yourself and moving the goalposts.

Only if interpretation of Federal law prevents states from exercising such legislation, but then it is no secret that I believe the central government exercises far too much power.