Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Jul 2004 01:19:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1938 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
| |
Last time I checked preventing religious zealots from forcing their beliefs
on others counts as enforcing freedom of religion.
|
Last time I checked Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. They’re not allowed to
pass laws to prevent religious zealots from flavoring the law with their
religious beliefs, as long as they don’t impose their religion in general. Only
democracy is allowed to do that. If you don’t want them to pass that law, go
vote against it.
| |
To the continuing assertion that Christianity is the foundation of our
country, I once again point out article eleven of the Treaty of Peace and
Friendship from the Barbary Treaties. It states: “As the government of the
United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian
Religion, ...no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an
interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” This treaty
was ratified by congress June 10, 1797. You can find it on the Yale Law
School’s internet site.
|
We were not founded on Christianity, but we weren’t founded in its absence
either. It played a role in the US legal system by way of influencing moral
values, but it’s not written directly into the government. There’s a huge
difference between the two.
| |
Lets go back to the issue that really started all of this, Gay Marriage.
People have been saying that we can not allow activist judges to change our
laws via creative misinterpretation of the Constitution.
|
Ironically, there is only one theistic belief that has proven itself able to
have inaccurate rulings made in the name of constitutionality, and that’s
atheism. School employees are no longer allowed to pray in school or display
symbols of their religion. The Ten Commandments aren’t allowed to be displayed
in courthouses. None of those rulings were made on the basis that Congress had
passed any unconstitutional laws, but rather that individuals who were not
members of Congress had voluntarily taken it upon themselves to perform actions
that were then wrongly deemed unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment.
Congress can’t even pass a constitutional law that prohibits such actions,
because it prohibits the free exercise of a religion.
| |
(An example of an actual creative misinterpretation would be the notion
that the second amendment ratified in 1791 does not refer to the people as
it says but rather the national guard which was created in 1917.
|
Heh. I’d find it amusing if a President finally used the constitution itself to
go after various private militias. Any president is fully within his rights to
call them into military duty and send them into battle. Once they’re there,
they’re under military rule until he releases them. If they refuse to serve,
they can be legally disbanded.
| |
The real problem is that the definition of marriage was changed many decades
ago when the government began controlling it. People can actually get married
without a church, temple, etc., and a church, temple, etc. can’t legally
marry people with out the government’s permission. Outrageous isn’t it.
|
It’s necessary for marriage to include a legally binding contract in order for
inheritence issues to dealt with. Otherwise when the husband dies without a
binding will, how can the courts decide who gets all his stuff?
| |
The damage has already been done, in order to comply with the first amendment
either the government must abolish legal marriages altogether and allow
churches, temples, etc. to handle it themselves or the government must allow
any willing participants to be married.
|
Not true. By bringing a legally binding contract into the issue of marriage, it
requires that the conditions for marriage be defined. As long as those
conditions don’t require the endorsement of one religion over another (and they
don’t), there’s no constitutionality issue involved, at least not at the federal
level (especially since they dump that issue on the states).
| |
Of course I should point out that some Churches recently began supporting
gay marriage, sparking the debate in the first place. This is the one point
which I have yet to see a response from anyone.
|
If it’s allowed under their local state laws, it’s legal. If it’s not, it’s
illegal to issue a marriage certificate. If they don’t issue the certificate,
it’s not legally binding, so it’s basically just a feel-good ceremony.
| |
If the first amendment doesn’t mean exactly what it says and protect all
religious beliefs equally, why would we need a constitutional amendment
against gay marriage?
”
|
If they’re trying to pass an amendment, the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply. It
only prohibits laws. Besides, the issue of same-sex marriage may be religiously
driven, but outlawing it isn’t either endorsing or prohibiting any specific
religion, so it’s not unconstitutional on that basis.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
