And now there’s the stories that some people are lobbying for a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.
Putting aside that, as a general rule, amendments best serve the commonweal when they *expand* the rights of the people rather than restrict them, wouldn’t such an amendment put the final lie to the notion that we have separation of church and state in this country? After all, marriage, that bwessed awangement, that dweam wiffin a dweam, is a religious ceremony. An amendment that attempts to define what marriage is (a union between male and female only) is, by definition, an amendment that is curtailing religious freedom.
I mean, once the precedent is set, why stop there? Why not introduce an amendment that says, “Marriage is a union between male and female that will only be recognized by the government if it’s done as a sacrament from our lord, Jesus Christ.” Is it likely? No. But once the government is allowed to dictate the specifics of the religious ceremony in any aspect, they can dictate it in every aspect.
PAD
• 
Personally, I don’t see this proposal (proposal…marriage…get it?) getting further than the talking stage. After all, the Equal Rights Ammendment couldn’t pass even though it appeared at the time that the majority of people supported it. Making an ammendment to the constitution is a long drawn out process requiring a lot of thinking and a lot of people actually participating.
The seperation of church and state is intended to protect the church from the state and not the state from the church.
I know that this may open a whole big can of worms but our founding fathers had no intention of making this a Republic of moral and religious ambiguity. Our nation was founded on judeo christian principles and to be honest that is a historical fact.
If you want an idea of what role religion had in the founding of our nation I urge you to read George Washington’s fairewll address.
So, if a law or ammendment goes against universal Christian beliefs it is also going against what this country stands for.
Can we all say ‘antidisestablishmentarism,’ children? No church is to be established within government, any government, because that leads to nasty things like witch-trials and the Inquisition and that whole nasty thing in England with Bloody Mary and Elizabeth I and Pilgrims going off to found a new land where the religious persecution wouldn’t be of them.
As for amendments to the Constitution, last I checked, the only amendment ever to restrict the rights of the citizens of this country was also widely ignored and subsequently repealed. If the amendment against gay marriage works as well as Prohibition did, there will be gay weddings every day of the week behind closed doors in every city in the country.
Also, this country was not founded by Christians in the Judeo-Christian tradition; it was founded by Deists in the tradition of the Enlightenment. The only way to go against what this country stands for is to go against the rights of man, Reason, and the scientific method.
I’m with you there, Peter. I’ve had a problem with this proposed Amendment for months now, and you’ve touched briefly on why: all of the Amendments that work are the ones that clarify the text of the Constitution (outlawing slavery (XIII) for example, or including non-whites (XV) and women (XIX) in the definition of the words “people” and “men,” which are used throughout the document — Slavery was ok in a nation where “All men are created equal” because it could be argued that blacks weren’t people) or added something the forefathers didn’t think of (the term limit on the presidency (XXII) and straightening out the once-thorny issue of the chain of command in the event that the President dies (XXV)).
The income tax Amendment (XVI) will one day be overturned once the American public notices that they’re being double-taxed by the government, and Prohibition (XVIII) is the most embarassing thing Congress has ever done, since instead of making a law that could simply be stricken from the books, they ratified a self-serving interest the nation didn’t support into an Amendment that could only be repealed by another Amendment (XXI) and remain forever a blemish on Congress’s service record.
If the Federal Marriage Amendment is ever ratified, I guarantee you there will be another Amendment repealing it in fifty years or less, especially since the proposed Amendment is in violation of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” — and let’s face it, there’s no reason save those presented by religious doctrine for passing such an Amendment) and oversteps the Federal government’s bounds by laying a unilateral restriction on a state power without first proving the damage done by allowing the state power of marriage to exist without the restriction, either hypothetically (I’ve yet to hear a single sociologist speak out against gay marriage and outline the actual damage it would do to society) or realistically (because this isn’t like pollution or murder; gay marriage can be undone if it has to be. We could try it ourselves before dismissing it out of turn or use the evidence gathered in foreign social experiments. Not everything has to come down to a book not everyone has absolute faith in).
Frankly, this Amendment doesn’t have a leg to stand on, and if Congress wasn’t currently Republican majority, this Amendment would have to be presented on its own merits, and there’s no way for it to succeed. The only concrete fact about gay marriage is that a lot of people don’t like the idea, and that’s not really a good reason to ban it for all time.
“I know that this may open a whole big can of worms but our founding fathers had no intention of making this a Republic of moral and religious ambiguity. Our nation was founded on judeo christian principles and to be honest that is a historical fact.”
‘Fraid not. In fact, here’s a website that quotes the most influential Founding Fathers on the issue of religion: http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/founders.htm.
Further, here’s a link to the text of the Treaty of Tripoli, written by John Barlow, who worked directly with President George Washington, and unanimously approved by the Senate in 1797 (check out Article 11): http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html.
“If you want an idea of what role religion had in the founding of our nation I urge you to read George Washington’s fairewll address.”
I’ve read it. Washington knew religion was important to many people, and also knew that religious freedom was important to the infant nation he had the responsibility of leading. In not one of his speeches or writings does he ever refer to any religious ideas save for the existence of a god worthy of worship; he at no time ever specified that god to be the Judeo-Christian god, and was almost meticulously careful to ensure that no religious man could ever listen to one of his speeches and not believe the referenced god was that of the listener, rather than that of the speaker.
As for the line I’m sure you’re referring to, “Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle” — well, Washington was wrong and did not, in this statement, reflect the beliefs of all the Founding Fathers. It was ignorance on his part to assume that religious freedom excluded in any way the rights of the non-religious. Since the majority of the Founding Fathers were Deists, as mentioned above, his statement, as well as the statement of “fact” that American law is based on Judeo-Christian principle, is a false assumption.
James Tichiy says: “I know that this may open a whole big can of worms but our founding fathers had no intention of making this a Republic of moral and religious ambiguity. Our nation was founded on judeo christian principles and to be honest that is a historical fact.”
If this were the case, we wouldn’t be sitting around arguing about “what they meant by…” — it would have been spelled out clearly and succinctly in the Constitution, //but it is not.// There was lively debate for just such a “cornerstone,” but it didn’t come to pass.
//”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”// It makes no attempt to “play favourites,” it doesn’t say “Christians only.” By addressing government’s action on religion, it doesn’t need to address religion’s influence on government — any attempt by a “Christian” Congress to abolish non-Christian practices therefore violates Amendment I.
Yes, this phrase is *wide* open for interpretation, but the commonly held view “Separation of church and state” is appropriate. While a “majority” of the US is Christian, it would be abhorrent for our government to impose “Christian” laws that might force Muslims to behave in a manner counter to their own beliefs, as a narrow example. It would be equally abhorrent to force those views as laws that would abolish and/or restrict everything from homosexuality to dress code to diets. (I happen to *like* eating shellfish, but according to the Bible, that’s a no-no. Look it up!)
James Tichiy says: “If you want an idea of what role religion had in the founding of our nation I urge you to read George Washington’s fairewll address.”
There’s no denying that religion played a part in the creation of the United States, but referring to a speech given by a departing leader as a proof of a historical “fact” doesn’t make that “fact” true. It only illuminates Washington’s opinion on the matter.
On the other hand, let’s look at a document that actually addresses this issue directly —> http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html This page covers a few of the “Founding Fathers,” but the pertinent item is the “Treaty of Tripoli,” specifically, Article XI: //”As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion… it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”// A treaty, an official document, ratified and endorsed by Congress, signed by President John Adams.
The evidence, it would seem to me, indicates that the US Government was designed to be non-theistic, so as to serve a multi-faith population without discrimination or prejudice.
(Apologies for the length. ^.^; )
Wildcat
The number of people who want “Constitutional Amendments” for their private cause is amazing. It’s never understood that those kind of beliefs have to be approved by two-thirds of the state legislatures within seven years of its Congressional approval. Anyone remember what happened to the Equal Rights Amendment? It got sniped at, its supporters were called all kinds of things, its implications were exaggerated all over, and it failed.
Worse, do you remember what happened to the Eighteenth Amendment? The great attempt to reform America? If you thought the production of alcohol was something impossible to stop, that ordinary citizens were calmly ignoring, wait’ll they try that to gáÿ šëx.
Think. You might have to pay money for it, but not to the Mafia. Its “production equipment” is more easily available than the mash cookers that made tenements a wellspring of illegal alcohol. It may be a need, but is there an Al Capone or “Bugs” Moran who can monopolize it or battle over its use?
Aside from the most vapid politicians, who would appear to be “moral” for promoting it, who would really benefit from it?
After all, marriage, that bwessed awangement, that dweam wiffin a dweam, is a religious ceremony.
Except when it’s a non-religious ceremony — i.e. a civil ceremony — performed by a judge, justice of the peace or court clerk who has legal authority to perform marriages, or by a person given temporary authority by a judge or court clerk to conduct a marriage ceremony.
So in those cases, such an amendment would have nothing to do with religious freedom.
My problem with an amendment like the one Peter mentioned is that it seems redundant. Same-sex marriages are already illegal, anyway, so what’s the point? At least when our government put Prohibition into effect, it was banning something that was legal.
This one I just don’t get.
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.
Nor do I get why Peter thinks that there has ever been a total separation of church and state in our country. We have laws governing churches and people who are religious. We have to, otherwise any old idiot could do something illegal and claim immunity because he/she was just exercising their “religious freedom.”
-Dave O’Connell
Well, I look at the discussion in two simple ways.
1) The Constitution should be a living and evolving item – a set of guidelines, not restrictions, that are suitable to the present time. (I’ve thought the same of the Bible’s laws – surely G-d didn’t intend us to live by the laws of the original Bible in the 21st century?) As times and conditions change, so should the Constitution – and I DO think that the founding fathers had that in mind. (Hey man – I was in “1776.” I’ve BEEN to Philadelphia in ’76. I SIGNED the Declaration of Independence!)
2) Why oh WHY must there be another law against something that harms no one, does no one wrong, and makes people happy? Why is happiness a CRIME in this country? I wish someone could show me how gay marriages are harming anyone – because the hue and cry against them seems tremendous. Thank you for your consideration.
It’s important to remember that many of the Founding Fathers definitely were not Christians. Several were deists and Thomas Jefferson himself called Christianity “the worst thing mankind had devised” (paraphrasing) which hardly sounds like he followed its teachings.
The amendment is simply a manufactured wedge issue. It’ll never pass; they never got the flag-burning amendment through and that had a lot more popular support. On a basic level, the Republicans probably don’t want it to pass – that would take it away as a wedge issue.
Luckily for the Democrats, the amendment is worded so poorly as to dull its effectiveness as an issue. A candidate could simply mention how it would ban many benefits for straight couples that most people would prefer to keep, base his opposition on that, and not have it affect his campaign.
I have a feeling this is going to be a pretty weak wedge issue. Most people just don’t care about this very much, except for the people who care VERY, VERY much about it, and their minds are made up already. This isn’t going to change the voting much in a year in which Iraq and the economy will be seen as the big issues. This sort of frivolity only becomes an issue when things are going pretty well and people become politically bored.
Have you the wing?
I’d think you’d be cheering. There’s no way such an amendment will pass, and the momentum of its refusal will likely usher in the laws you want.
Dave – It’s true that there’s never really been a true separation of church and state, but that doesn’t make adding more violations of the principle acceptable. I stand for a US governed exclusively on the provable merits of the issues, rather than laws passed because a possibly fictional deity wants them passed. Should all examples be excised from current use? Probably, but there’s only so much commitment necessary to achieve the end of preserving religious freedom. I don’t feel it necessary to send a guy up on a cherry-picker to sandblast the Latin off the top of the Washington monument, but the Pledge of Allegiance? The National Motto? Yes, they need to go. There is no reason for them to be the way they are, espcially since the only reason they exist as religious sentiments was to separate us from the godless Communists. Our criminal justice system asks heathens, pagans and atheists if they swear to tell the truth “so help you God,” as if they believed they had anything to fear from lying after swearing on a book the divinity of which they deny. Poor judgement of generations past should not be maintained if we know it’s wrong.
As for marriage, yes it’s a religious issue. Sure, you can be married in a strictly civil manner, but for who can be civilly married to be determined by religious doctrine is the government telling you which church is right, something it’s not allowed to do.
There’s a judge in Alabama who’s a big hero with the Religious Right right now because he snuck a giant monument of the Ten Commandments that weighs like 500 pounds into his courthouse, and the Supreme Court told him to get rid of the dámņ thing. He might as well have been martyred, because there’s a plaster cast of the monument touring the country and the AFA and Focus on the Family, among others, are declaring this a violation of separation of church and state for trampling on this judge’s beliefs, while simultaneously insisting that the Ten Commandments aren’t an exclusively Christian document. Nevermind that the first four Commanments are all about how to worship God, but they’re laws whose chief source of validity is that a prophet carried them down from a mountain after talking with God.
I swear, some people must have learned the Bill of Rights through playing the game “Telephone.”
PAD said:
But once the government is allowed to dictate the specifics of the religious ceremony in any aspect, they can dictate it in every aspect.
Marriage, in the sense of the proposed amendment, is not a religious ceremony, it’s a legal status. Even if the amendment were passed, it wouldn’t stop anyone from performing marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, it would simply mean that those ceremonies wouldn’t change the couples’ legal status.
The proposed amendment is a bad idea, but it’s a bad idea because it restricts rights (which is does), not because restricts religious ceremonies (which it doesn’t).
nekouken said:
the proposed Amendment is in violation of the First Amendment
An amendment to the Constitution, by definition, cannot violate the Constitution because once the amendment is ratified, the Constitution is changed, “amended” one might say. By your logic liquor is still illegal because the 21st Amendment is a violation of the 18th Amendment. The proposed amendment certainly violates the spirit of the 1st Amendment, but if it were ratified, it would, for better or worse, “trump” the 1st Amendment.
As a young gay man, who would, sometime in the next, oh 20 years, get married like a civilized human being, I feel like I’ve sat on my hands one to many times here.
The Texas sodomy decision (ironically enough, O’Connors opinion if it had proviled ment an even quicker fight) will in time help this fight a lot, and I think we’re bound to see some sort of judicial decision in the next few years. And really, I think that’s where it needs to happen. I mean I’m not going to turn down the legislature if they amend the laws, but it’s the role of the courts to interprete the laws, and interprete they shall.
And frankly I’m not terribly worried about this ammendment thing, because its so incredibly difficult to get an amendment like that passed (of any kind). I mean in a doomsday kind of way it’s worth fretting over, but I can’t imagine that they’ll muster enough votes to pass it. But if they do, I suppose its yet another reason to emigrate.
Having said that, I think weather or not Bush et al, realize it or not, there is a seperation between church and state in terms of marriage. There are the legal codes, and then theres whatever else happens in you church. And I think most people are aware of this (evidenced by a sharp change in statistics when the question of “civil marriage” rather than just “marriage”), and I think most thinking relgious can deal. Or I can hope.
After all that, I must say that as someone whose also 17, this isn’t my fight. There isn’t a single argument for gay marriage that I disagree with, but there are some that are better than others. I also think that it’s a fight that depends on the support of vocal straight people who can offer more then rehtoric. I love that you’re talking, and don’t stop by anymeans, but homophobia/heterosexism is crawling around in much more primal forms than this “ammendment,” and at least in the short term, that’s really valueable.
Anyway, cheers folks.
Here we go again…
First, the attempt at the amendment banning gay marriage is a pre-emptive strike (the attack form made popular by Bush). Perhaps the anti-gay lobby is concerned that with people watching more positive gay people on TV, support for equal rights in marriage will come about. Perhaps it’s that being gay is no longer the stigma that it was (in some areas — how many active professional athletes have admitted they’re gay? Given the rough percentage of gay people in America, and the number of athletes in all teams, there should be at least a few homosexuals in sports. Then again admitting that could ruin lucrative endorsements…) and that these people are willing to fight for their rights. Perhaps the Republicans need a distraction from the massive unemployment, failure to regulate businesses and prosecute corruption (Enron? WorldCom?) and they need a “new” flag-burning issue. At any rate, this seems like a last-ditch effort to keep gay couples from having the same rights as heterosexual couples.
And IT COULD WORK. Right now, gay couples cannot share social security, or have “civil unions,” let alone marriage. The U.S. has said that gay couples who were married in Canada cannot file taxes as a couple, and I’d imagine they will be audited. WHile many Christians support gay marriage, there are Bible thumpers are out every day, screaming that it’s unnatural and that the Bible says something so everyone should abide by it. (Just look at what happened when Gene Robinson was made a bishop.) Don’t stop fighting; they won’t.
And if it did pass? Prohibition may not have stopped people from buying drinks underground, but this would stop a gay couple from filing a joint income tax. I think the ability to have gay marriage is about formal recognition, the chance for gay couples to exercise the same rights as staight couples, not to just have unofficial, unrecognized private ceremonies.
And I support that right.
Ah, legal BS. Nothing starts a fire quicker than legal BS. All this talk about the “spirit” or this and that, the “meaning” and “intent” of those both long dead and of a different culture from our own (or any left, for that matter), and the attempts at examination in a historical context. Now, I don’t believe like a christian or anything similar NOR do I, personally, approve of homosexuality (seems wrong, against nature, blah blah blah) but I don’t try to tell them what to do with their private lives. I mean I don’t want a co-worker coming up and telling me about the glories of Amway OR their god. I don’t want to watch a couple of puglies out in the real world slobbering over each other… whether they’re same sex or not. I don’t fault the person for their beliefs but for their actions, so to speak. Unfortunately, there are extremists (in every group) who want to tell me how bad I am for not buying the whole jesus angle and that I should be more gay. I find that queer eye show silly and representative of the whole problem (in my opinion)… it assumesthey are correct yet I have never seen them actually take into account the personality of the individual. Granted, I have only seen the show twice (and parts of others while waiting for something else on Bravo) so maybe the eps were not wholly representative but it was definitely there. Even other shows that are about makeovers use a gay man to change the person’s wardrobe and such. Even women. Pretty sad. I have no problem with gay people. I love my sisters and protect them fiercely and am one of the few family members they felt they could confide in. But I still don’t approve of it for myself. If they want to get married and have the hassles we all have when the marriage fails and they want a divorce… let them. Especially if it will stop the dámņ parades blocking traffic in my town. I would not support any motion to ban them from doing so but not because it’s a religious-based decision but because I don’t care about that part. I mean I don’t like weddings. Unless it’s mine or my immediate family’s I couldn’t give a rat’s. Analyzing the legal ramifications of this mess is a waste of time. Won’t go thru. Ever. Period. To try to explain why using the past is an even bigger waste of time. Lawyers look to previous decisions and loopholes because they lack imagination and only serve to further ruin this country. It won’t pass because of how we are TODAY. Ok, I’m done now. time to go back to work.
I don’t want gay marage for the USA, but the constitution is there to give freedom, not take it away.
Dave O’Connell says: “My problem with an amendment like the one Peter mentioned is that it seems redundant. Same-sex marriages are already illegal, anyway, so what’s the point? At least when our government put Prohibition into effect, it was banning something that was legal.
This one I just don’t get.”
Yeah, most states *do* have laws prohibiting same-sex unions, but Massachusetts’ SC looked at it and said “nope, sorry, doesn’t float, CHANGE IT.” So now, the religious reich have realized that such laws won’t survive a test of the US Constitution either. On the face of it, they want to “correct” this, but I think it’s more of an election year ploy to “rally the troops” and win those “conservative hearts and minds” for Election Day.
Dave O’Connell says: “We have laws governing churches and people who are religious. We have to, otherwise any old idiot could do something illegal and claim immunity because he/she was just exercising their “religious freedom.””
Ah, but the 1st Amendment merely says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” and it refers to religion itself, not even as an entity but a concept. Nobody has ever tried to claim that the Constitution gives an individual immunity to US laws, if that person tries to use that as a loophole of some form. (That *I* know of, anyway. 😉 )
Wildcat
\\Our criminal justice system asks heathens, pagans and atheists if they swear to tell the truth “so help you God,” as if they believed they had anything to fear from lying after swearing on a book the divinity of which they deny.
Posted by nekouken\\
I’m not sure about the pagans and the heathens but there is an atheist version of that oath that crops out the religious references so that an atheist can swear to tell the truth without having to swear to a god he doesn’t believe in. I don’t know what the exact wording of it is but I do know that it exists. And I presume that a version of that oath can be made (if one hasn’t already been made) for someone who practices one of the pagan religions (though I think that may depend on if the pagan religion in question has been recognized as an official religion in some manner too. I’m not really sure on that point.)
Chris
Many of our laws are rooted in religious faith upon close examination. However, I’m not sure that insisting that marriage is a union between a man and a woman is strictly a religious definition so much as a sociological one. It’s possible to argue the merits of that outside of religion (heterosexual unions are more stable for children because they provide a mother and a father, which gay unions don’t… and so on). In fact, there is probably more legitimate arguments for this than for excluding gays from the military.
I don’t support the amendment because I’m a classic liberal (in other words, not at home in either party) and I don’t like the government passing more laws unless absolutely necessary (hate crime laws, for example, and this sort of thing makes me ill). I don’t see what possible gain it could have. Even if you take the extreme view that homosexual unions are an abomination, there are so few gays, statistically speaking, that this whole thing is symbolic of killing a fly with a shotgun.
Yes, I can understand the “slippery slope” argument that some extremists have. I doubt even pro-gay marriage people deny that there’s a slippery slope — just that it’s not a *bad* thing.
Yes, if gays can marry legally, then they will wish to have the same rights to adopt as straight couples and that they should not be lower on the list simply because they’re gay, and so on.
(I support gay adoption, because someone has to take care of these kids — it’s a social positive. I’m not crazy about the Frankenstein methods used to help gay couples produce kids when they normally could not — artificial insemination and so on — for the same reasons I groan whenever I see the latest septuplets on “Today” — the world is overpopulated enough.)
As for the amendment, it’s a lot of smoke with no fire. Someone cynical like myself would simply say that it helps both sides: Conservatives can claim to be morally upright and leftists can stir up the base to stop this latest assault against civil liberties. Nothing, of course, comes of this because constitutional amendments are incredibly difficult to pass. It’s a relative non-issue.
An amendment needs two things to happen to get through.
1. Ratification by 2/3 of each house of Congress. (I give this a no more than a 10% chance of happening.)
2. Ratification by 3/4 (38) of the states by popular vote. This has Zero chance of happening.
Yes, the issue needs to be discussed and debated but the likelyhood of it happening is nil.
-tpl
Every time I hear argument for laws against homosexual marriage, prayer in schools, civil celebrations of Christmas, and a whole host of other things, I end up hearing the same argument from someone: “We live in a Christian country, so deal with it.”
Do I still have to deal with it when homosexual couples are being jailed for breaking the law and getting married because some fool passed such a purposeful law against it? It’s not me, after all, why should I care?
Do I still have to deal with it if my future children are required by law to attend chapel as part of public schooling or to announce their acceptance of Jesus Christ before attending classes? Maybe they can just lie about it and pretend? Great way to start off life, isn’t it?
Do I still have to deal with when I’m unable to hold a steady job in the future or keep my future kids in school because Jewish holidays become legally unexcused absences? Call in sick? How many times will that lie work?
That’s why we have Constitutionally protected freedoms, folks. Because otherwise only white heterosexual Christians are truly free to live without living a lie.
The main thing is that an amendment is needed to define what marriage is (however it gets defined) in the eyes of the government, or else get rid of all the secular laws relating to marriage.
Hmmmm……
Do I still have to deal with it when homosexual couples are being jailed for breaking the law and getting married because some fool passed such a purposeful law against it? It’s not me, after all, why should I care?>>
That would never happen. Gays would simply not be able to marry. While not a great thing, I doubt cops would bust in and arrest someone for having a “ceremony.” That would continue it just would have no legal recognition.
<
>>
The best way to ensure that is to ensure religious freedom. In other words, your buddies are the Christians on that score not the secularists, who would not support legally excused abscences for any religious purpose (although, most companies have personal days).
<>
That would never happen. The courts have continually upheld the separation of church and state — most often in the extreme. Now, many people *choose* to attend religious schools for the education and those who do tell me that they weren’t forced to convert to Catholicism.
Quote by SER:
That would never happen. Gays would simply not be able to marry.
Think so? I live in Cincinnati, the city where Larry Flynt was prosecuted, TWICE, using a “community standard” rather than a law.
Neither my first nor second marriage was religious at all. My first husband was (and still is, I believe) an atheist, and Robin and I got married at City Hall. No “G” word anywhere near the proceedings.
James Tichiy: The seperation of church and state is intended to protect the church from the state and not the state from the church.
Luigi Novi: The church doesn’t need protection from the state. Between oaths of office, courtroom swearings, and national currency that contain religious/spiritual references, to people changing the Pledge of Allegiance to include such references that it did not original contain, to trying to get public science classrooms to teach creationism, it is private citizens who need protection from the church, given that the church (sometimes with the help of the state) is the one often trying to ram their religion down their throats.
James Tichiy: I know that this may open a whole big can of worms but our founding fathers had no intention of making this a Republic of moral and religious ambiguity.
Luigi Novi: But they did intend religion to be a private consideration, and not a national institution.
James Tichiy: Our nation was founded on judeo christian principles and to be honest that is a historical fact.
Luigi Novi: No, it’s not. The founding of this nation had nothing to do with religion, and the only people who would argue that it was are those who obviously haven’t read their history texts very well.
James Tichiy: If you want an idea of what role religion had in the founding of our nation I urge you to read George Washington’s fairewll address.
Luigi Novi: Putting aside the fact that the words “God,” “Christ” and “Christian” don’t even appear in the address, what Washington put in his Fairwell Address is not the Constitution, and has no bearing on the laws on which this country was founded.
To attempt to intertwine Washington’s personal beliefs on religion with the fundamental principles on which the country was founded—as if they are one and the same—is akin to arguing that anyone who accepts the theory of gravity must also accept the ideas behind alchemy, since the man responsible for the one also dabbled in the other.
James Tichiy: So, if a law or ammendment goes against universal Christian beliefs it is also going against what this country stands for.
Luigi Novi: Wrong. The two have nothing to do with one another. This country stands for freedom and equality. Christian beliefs do not.
Dave O’Connell: We have laws governing churches and people who are religious. We have to, otherwise any old idiot could do something illegal and claim immunity because he/she was just exercising their “religious freedom.”
Luigi Novi: Like what?
if it makes you feel better I’ve seen lobbyists lobbying for an amendment that approves of gay marriages. Once again you see your side then overeact so it looks like everyone else is crazy. Chill out the democrats are just as bad as the republicans…probrably worse.
Dave O’Connell: We have laws governing churches and people who are religious. We have to, otherwise any old idiot could do something illegal and claim immunity because he/she was just exercising their “religious freedom.”
Luigi Novi: Like what?
Like some idiot talking on the phone, taking notes, & breastfeeding her baby all while driving down interstate 80 in Ohio, then refusing to stop for the police. This couple are claiming a violation of their religious freedom because they claim that their church only allows the husband to punish the wife, so the state has no authority to do so, no matter how many or what sort of crimes they commit. She also didn’t have a drivers liscense because she says her church forbids it.
As for the marriage amendment, I refer you to http://www.whitehouse.org/dof/marriage.asp I know it is a humor site, but if we’re going to pass amendments according to the bible, what makes any of these invalid?
Thanks for the humor site, Michael Brunner! Here’s one of my favorite speeches from THE WEST WING, when someone cites a Biblical passage against homosexuality to the President:
President Josiah Bartlet: “Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it OK to call the police? Here’s one that’s really important because we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?”
“Think about those questions, would you?”
Thanks for supplying a great, albeit ficitional, argument against the Christian hatred for homosexuals – it all comes down to picking and choosing which Old Testament passages they want to follow. I try to get my overtly religious friends to answer that very question whenever they start going on about homosexuality being against the Bible. None of them have been able to reconcile this “pick and choose” problem yet, but neither do they see a problem in acting that way.
if it makes you feel better I’ve seen lobbyists lobbying for an amendment that approves of gay marriages. Once again you see your side then overeact so it looks like everyone else is crazy. Chill out the democrats are just as bad as the republicans…probrably worse.
Ahh, so when some lobby for the rights of the individual, it must be a Democratic ploy?
Such wonderful logic.
It’s the Republicans and the Bible-thumpers that are bringing the issue to the forefront, constantly waving these inane polls in our face along with their religious prattle.
Yes, we need an Amendment to the Constitution.
One that will change the current definition of marriage to not discriminate against homosexuals.
Craig J. Ries wrote Ahh, so when some lobby for the rights of the individual, it must be a Democratic ploy? Such wonderful logic.
It’s the Republicans and the Bible-thumpers that are bringing the issue to the forefront, constantly waving these inane polls in our face along with their religious prattle.
Yes, we need an Amendment to the Constitution. One that will change the current definition of marriage to not discriminate against homosexuals.
If you want to talk logic, how about how unfair it is to assume that Christians = Republicans, or that a member of either group (I’m both, but attend church with a prominent leader of the local Democratic party) is automatically against gays having the right to marry? Turning it around to say “no, it’s your group, not mine” is no more logical than what you’re arguing against. Nor is it logical to argue against government interfering in marriage in general but argue for it so long as the government is on your side.
The real issue, legally, is that the Constitution purposefully left a wide variety of issues, including marriage, to be governed independently and locally by individual states, because the founding fathers feared big government. To pass a Constitutional amendment either way would be what truly goes against the intentions of the founding fathers.
Frankly, I could care less. If gay people want to pay more in taxes due to being married, get tangled up in community property issues, and pay for the privilege of getting divorced later on rather than just separating, they’re certainly entitled to all that marriage has to offer, good and bad. Plus I think it’s idiotic to value my marriage by comparing it to anyone else’s, regardless of orientation. But let’s keep it a local issue, at least legally. It’s just never a good idea to invite the federal goverment into more areas of your life, even if you think you’ll benefit in the short run.
“it all comes down to picking and choosing which Old Testament passages they want to follow”
Y’know, the government’s already picking and choosing. Has been for a while. That’s why murder and theft are illegal, but graven images aren’t (I’ve got a handful of them in my pocket, and they all seem to be supported — even mandated — by the government). And of course, sometimes bearing false witness is illegal (“perjury”) and sometimes it’s not (“Santa Claus”).
There’s also nothing in the bible (as far as I know) about leaving your car too long at a meter, or about driving too fast. My point is, the government may have used the bible for guidance, and in some cases the secular laws are in synch with the biblical ones, but in many cases, they’re not. So using the bible as a reason for allowing or disallowing anything from a legal standpoint shouldn’t, IMO, get very far.
Of course, when people start stoning homesexuals and claiming the government, by telling them they can’t, is trying to “prohibit the free exercise” of their religion, well, that’s when push’ll come to shove and the First Amendment may need to be amended itself.
This may seem like a tangent, but as many of us have said, the whole amendment thing is legal status and not religion. If it were reglion, then they could expand the amendment to declare exactly who can perform marriages and what schooling is required.
Case in point, I signed up with the Universal Ministries online and am now an ordained minister (call me the Jewish Reverend–ha ha). Legally, I can perform marriages and other religious ceremonies in my current home state (Maryland). I can even start my own church if so choose and enjoy all the associated benefits. I’m exercising my freedom of religion! Now the Union for Reform Judiasm may not recognize me as an ordained anything, but I am a practicing member and volunteer of that organization (which clearly puts forth that reglisious practices are a matter of personal choice and each temple can set forth it’s own standards of conduct in the building).
However, when I called my county government’s appropriate office to ask if they require a copy of my certificate or anything else on paper, they said “No, but to be an ordained minister you must have gone to seminary.”
I informed her that this is simply not true because the government cannot regulate religion (First Amendment and all that). She said I didn’t need to provide evidence (it’s an honor system in this state that reminds me of the finale to Mad About You). BUT, her entire department–over the phone–was aghast that any self-proclaimed religious group is allowed to ordain people just by signing up on the internet. They thought it was illegal and that their churches’ belief systems were recognized by the US government and made law by the State of Maryland!
BTW, the Universal Ministries is a legally-recoginzed religious organization that believes all humans are born with the equal right to represent G-d and lead other people in a religious forum or exercise.
It’s amazing how much difficulty the people with whom I spoke had in separating their religious views from their position as government employees. Or is it?
What do YOU think?
1. The quote from West Wing makes a point in that most Christians no longer follow the Torah. Valid enough. However, observant Jews still consider such things as the law, at least in the ideal Jewish state (which hasn’t existed in the least in 2,000 years and will only exist in its pure form when the Messiah arrives, or so I believe). This doesn’t mean that I condone the execution of gays, or of those who violate the sabbath for that matter, but any debate about gay rights vs. religious belief should take into account that Jews like myself still consider the words of the Torah as valid, and grapple with the paradox of a God who bans gáÿ šëx and who also creates gays as his children.
2. I have concluded that there are two forms of marriage, the civil kind and the religious kind. What’s more, I have also concluded that that in a society where marriage is a religious thing, perhaps we should no longer alos rabbis and priests and ministers and imams to conducts civil marriages. Seriously. I am a big believer in separation of church and state, and think that only a judge or other legally appointed secular official should be allowed to perform civil marriage.
This would protect religious marriage from factors that some religions don’t care for, and protect civil marriage from religious dogma. Thus civil marriage can be for everyone, gay and straight and poly and so on, and we can leave the “sacred” marriage on the sidelines.
Far-fetched? Maybe, but I would solve some problems, I think. Of course, we would need a lot more secular justices of the peace.
Folks:
There’s another complication to having an Amendment regarding marriage; marriage has been traditionally an area for the states to deal with (there aren’t federal divorce laws, for example). Like with criminal law, laws relating to marriage are considered local, reflecting local concerns (some states have capital punishment and some don’t). So enactment of such an Amendment would challenge the philosophy of federalism, that there are matters best addressed at the state or federal level. The Amendment would essentially nationalize the issue of marriage. The irony? Many who might support such an Amendment are vehement about the need to get the Federal government out of peoples lives. Of course, hypocrisy is something endemic to politics…
George Guay
2. Ratification by 3/4 (38) of the states by popular vote. This has Zero chance of happening.
I would not be so sanguine. But then, I live in a state that is famed for its liberalness and its gay enclaves… a state where the popular vote approved a definition of marriage designed to exclude same-sex couples.
Also, it is to be remembered that not all Christian religions, are literalist doctorine – meaning tha the Bible is the final word in all decisions. It is considered to literally be the word of God. No arguing.
Some are contextualist based, and factor in idioms, customs of the people who wrote it. PEOPLE.
(Off the top of my head, I know Mormions are literalist and Catholics are contextualist – in most things anyway.)
To extend on Randall’s point: I don’t know the exact verse, but I’ve been told that the bible (new testament?), says something akin to, “Thou shalt not interpret my words”. The problem is, this statement is a modern english “interpretation” of the original text. Ah what a tangled web humans weave while under the supervision of G-d.
“An amendment to the Constitution, by definition, cannot violate the Constitution because once the amendment is ratified, the Constitution is changed, “amended” one might say.”
It would technically alter the application of the First Amendment, true, but the existence of the Amendment (which is technically a law) would be itself a violation of both the spirit and word of the First Amendment, because Congress would actually be
making a law respecting an establishment of religion.
nekouken says:
“An amendment to the Constitution, by definition, cannot violate the Constitution because once the amendment is ratified, the Constitution is changed, “amended” one might say.”
It would technically alter the application of the First Amendment, true, but the existence of the Amendment (which is technically a law) would be itself a violation of both the spirit and word of the First Amendment, because Congress would actually be
making a law respecting an establishment of religion.
Huh?
It wouldn’t technically alter the application of the First Amendment, it would supersede the First Amendment on the subject matter in the later amendment. Subsequent amendments replace earlier terms of the Constitution when they are in conflict, which is why no one had to take a big eraser to the original copy of the Constiution when Amendment XII reformatted Presidential elections. Or are you suggesting that proposing the Constitutional amendment is unconstitutional, a position that is too stupid for words? (1. A proposed Amendment is not a law. By the time it becomes a law– when it is passed by the requisite number of states– it immediately trumps the previous term of the Constitution, a point which Styer made in response to your earlier post. 2. How’s this for an Amendment: “Freedom of speech as incorporated in the First Article in Amendment to this Constitution shall not extend to speech proposing laws or further Amendments to this Constitution.”)
George Guay writes:
There’s another complication to having an Amendment regarding marriage; marriage has been traditionally an area for the states to deal with (there aren’t federal divorce laws, for example). Like with criminal law, laws relating to marriage are considered local, reflecting local concerns (some states have capital punishment and some don’t). So enactment of such an Amendment would challenge the philosophy of federalism, that there are matters best addressed at the state or federal level. The Amendment would essentially nationalize the issue of marriage. The irony? Many who might support such an Amendment are vehement about the need to get the Federal government out of peoples lives. Of course, hypocrisy is something endemic to politics…
This is an interesting point, probably the most thoughtful observation brought up here so far. While it’s an oversimplification to say all the Founders envisioned most of the governing to be done at the state level (Hamilton for instance wanted the states to be reduced to administrative divisions, like really big counties), that clearly was the majority view at the time of the ratification, and it’s certainly the idea that’s built into the final 1787-era product. It’s not necessarily the paradigm we work with today, though. Federalism has become very soft and power has shifted to the Federal government, primarily because of the Civil War. (I know, I know, “don’t mention the war.” Sorry, but you started it. You invaded Poland.) The Civil War determined once and for all that the nation we live in is the United States, not the nation of, say, New York which happens to be in a big alliance system. Ever since then, at varying rates (faster during Reconstruction and the New Deal, slower during the Coolidge administration) power has accrued to the Federal goverment. In law, the XIV Amendment made Congress, the US Government, and philosophically the Constitution the supervisors of State governments and individual rights, which is why criminal law is so federalized now. Mr. Guay’s point that criminal law is governed locally is partially right– it would have been absolutely true 145 years ago, but now state laws are subject to Federal constitutional interpretation. On a broad scale society has embraced that shift; even states’ rights advocates (of whom I am not one) look to Washington to solve social problems now. Personally, I think that on balance it’s been a good shift, but we have to recognize that it is, indeed a shift.
I also think we need to recognize that it’s a tad hypocritical when people who ordinarily think it’s great that the Federal courts can get involved when a town council switches from district to at large seats (might dilute minority voting power) call “foul” when the Federal government gets involved in things like marriage, or when Federal justices overrule the Florida Supreme Court in a Federal election, but that’s a different argument.
I’m a pretty easy-going guy. Raised Jewish and, after some life-changing stuff that’s too long to go into here, “converted” to Christianity.
I’ve read the Bible a few times, different translations. I don’t claim to know it front to back or anything, but there are a couple of passages I do know:
1) Judge not, unless you wish to face judgement.
2) Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
If I take those two passages as a direct command from Heaven, well, it’s kind of hard for me to look at a gay couple and say “You’re sinning!”
Quite franly, it’s none of my business.
Now, if a gay man or woman comes to me and asks for my thoughts on the matter, that’s another story. 😉
I don’t have a problem with gay couples getting married. It is THEIR lives, THEIR decisions and, ultimately, THEY are the ones who MAY end up having to explain those choices to our Maker.
The only place where I would draw the line is if my pastor were told he had to perform a wedding for a gay couple.
Since the first political column at the website I’m launching on Monday will be about gay marriage, I’ve been doing some legwork on this issue, and I think that this amendment is mostly just red meat for the right wing in an election year.
There’s quite simply no way that it passes the Senate. Even if every Republican votes for it, they’ll need 16 Democrats to back them up. Not only will they not get 16 Democrats, between 3 and 5 Republicans will vote against this amendment. It will die in the Senate, if it survives the House, with a 55-45 or thereabouts vote. Which is, remarkably, about the breakdown of the number of Americans who support the amendment versus those who don’t support or have no opinion on the matter.
While there is somewhat wide support for this initiative, it’s not at the level necessary to alter the Constitution. The horrible Flag Burning amendment and much-needed Balanced Budget amendment both had public support of well over 80% but never made it through the US Senate. Weak support in the 55% range is not enough to drive Senators to throw out their own positions on this issue to pander for votes. In regions where support for the amendment is strongest, the Republicans already dominate. There’s very little they can do to either pass this amendment or to alter the political landscape enough by taking Senate seats from the Democrats to give them the 67 votes they’ll need.
Which doesn’t mean we should sit back and be quiet. We have to fight to make sure this amendment fails. But the fight should be easier than most folks seem to imagine.
Peter – I just found this site on which the cover of the german edition of “Sir Apropos” is shown.
http://www.luebbe.de/projekte/bastei/dps7.nsf/w2/86D0E95890364B8141256DE300713B44/?Open&ExpandSection=1
Why couldn’t they use the much better cover of the US-book? Also, the german title “Herr Apropos von Nichten” sounds rather stupid.
Pascal
Ahh, the latest that Bush has come up with to complain about Democrats:
“Whoever wins the (Democratic party) nomination will have done so by energizing their party’s left wing with angry attacks,” Bush wrote.
Bush just acts like he doesn’t deserve any criticisms.
And the issue of an Amendment to ban gay marriage is only one of many worthy criticisms.
Off topic. I just wanted to wish Peter, his readers, and all their families a safe and happy 2004.
–YJ Fan
Craig J Ries wrote:
**Ahh, the latest that Bush has come up with to complain about Democrats:
“Whoever wins the (Democratic party) nomination will have done so by energizing their party’s left wing with angry attacks,” Bush wrote.
Bush just acts like he doesn’t deserve any criticisms.**
Don’t know where you’re pulling this interpretation from (hey, what are you doing to that Monkey’s butt?!), but the leading Dems platform is mostly based on nothing but pure hatred.