Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 27 Jul 2004 18:31:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2523 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
| |
Ok. So if your not using religon what is your justification for disallowing
them to enter into a contract.
|
The fact that many states expressly forbid it. If it’s illegal, it’s
illegal.
|
Wrong. Any law that violates the constitution is invalid. The government has no
right what so ever to declare gay marriage illegal. I would argue they have no
right to be involved with marriage at all.
| |
Anyone who feels that it’s unjust has the right to try to have the
laws changed to make it legal, but until they do...it’s still illegal.
|
Wrong again. It is the judical branch’s right and responsibility to strike down
any law which is unconstitutional.
| |
I’m not sure exactly how it’s supposed to work for states which merely
sidestep the issue by not addressing in any form of law (including their
respective constitutions). One could argue that by not outlawing it, they
are in effect passing the decision down to local governments...and one could
argue that by firmly defining marriage they are making a de facto ruling that
anything that falls outside of that definition is not allowed.
| |
Seriously, you don’t see how this is a blatant case of religious
discrimination?!
|
On the basis that there are Christians who strongly support both sides of
this argument, I don’t see how it can be. If a religious body can’t reach a
concensus on what stance they support, and just because a religious body does
reach a concensus on where they stand doesn’t mean that it suddenly becomes a
religious issue. If that were the case, every single legal issue brought
before Congress would be a religious issue, and they’d never be allowed to
pass another law (hmm, that might not actually be a bad thing...).
Besides, once you set a marriage ceremony in a church, with a member of the
clergy presiding, the ceremony becomes a private religious ceremony that’s
protected by the 1st Amendment. They can decide whether or not to perform it
at will. The only thing they can’t control is whether or not the marriage
license can be issued. If same-sex marriages are declared illegal by the
state, churches can keep performing them as much as they like, but they won’t
mean anything in a court of law. If they’re declared legal, churches can
forbid to preside over them as much as they like, but they can’t prevent them
from happening elsewhere.
|
It took me a while to find, but I remembered this old post which you might want
to read.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
