Can someone explain to me how imposing laws based on Christian defined morality is not a violation of the First Amendment ?
No comment...
- Thread starter dante
- Start date
Ignorant mouth breathers uninformed? How long has this been going on? Of course, these are the same folks who think Obama is Kenyan, ordered the government to socialize medicare, is a revolutionary marxist, socialist, fascist, and a communist.
Get off your high horse. People North of the Mason Dixon are just as much
Unlike the great state of WI.....
Of course, the Southern states seem to have embraced the anti-gay-marriage theme a bit more strongly than the rest of the country, both passing laws *and* amending their constitutions to prohibit it...
Let me qualify this by saying that I am in no way supporting legislation against gay equality.
But.... if you read the first amendment you can see that this law does not violate it.
I'm proud to say I'm one of the 1% who went to georgia tech and never touched that crap.
Tortillas (now defunct), Magic Mushroom pizza and El Mir burritos you could make a case for however..........
Coincidence? I think not...
Yeah all them universities is full of liberal fags. Exactly why my kids will not be going to college.Coincidence? I think not...
The question that should be asked is, if a religion (Episcopalians?) wants to marry a gay couple, is the federal government forbidding them from doing it an infringement on their religious rights?
Why can't the Christian Right gang up fat people? Sloth and Gluttony are both deadly sins. It could also help them justify their SUVs and Pick up trucks. Dragging fat people behind your truck requires torque.
Isn't the act of passing laws that are derived from Christian based morality in and of itself a violation of our founding principles of separation of church and state and freedom of religion ? It's my understanding that the government shall not endorse any one religion. Passing a law that defines a marriage as only being between a man and a woman as it is written in the Bible is most definitely endorsing one particular religion. This practice seems to go unquestioned for the most part due to how deeply ingrained Christianity is in our culture.
Pretty pleased to see Obama make this move today, not so impressed by the ridiculous bigotry and hatred on Twitter (and elsewhere). WTF is wrong with all these "Christians" in America? Do they not understand what hypocrisy is? Or are they just retarded?
while I am in favour of equality for teh gayz.....this is such a stupid thing to be in the forefront of the political...thing. There are SO many other things that need to be dealt with. But this is so easy to throw out there as "good" or "bad" everyone latches onto it.
I realize I'm not saying anything don't already know.....but your political process is a gong show.
I realize I'm not saying anything don't already know.....but your political process is a gong show.
Coincidence? I think not...
This is something I like to throw out in political argument as a troll, but I think it's dangerous to assume that its actually true. This town is filled with some highly educated, otherwise intelligent people, who are some of the sickest ultra-conservative tea-tard, religion based bigots, I've ever had the displeasure of encountering.
Last edited:
The
part of me has a sneaking suspicion that the Euro zone is going down the toilet shortly, and Obama wants to distract the American people from the upcoming economic calamity. Sort of like how the right-wing suddenly started making a big deal out of the contraception issue when it looked like unemployment was trending down...
i also suspect something like thisThe
Here's my take on it from a political standpoint (x-posted on David Frum's column):
Regardless of the social implications (which I personally agree with), I honestly think that this was a brilliant political move by Obama. To follow up on DF's points:
1) The one unifying factor of whether voters supported or rejected Amendment 1 is *age*. 60+% of seniors supported it, 60+% of 18-29 year olds rejected it based on previous PPP polling. These are almost identical numbers to those who support Obama, with seniors being the most anti-Obama group out there. He has very little support to lose among them, and everything to gain from those 18-29 year olds.
2) If the same proportion of people vote in 2012 as they did in 2008, Obama wins, period. Any backsliding of support among the nation as a whole is more than canceled out by the demographic changes that have been going on in the past 4 years: More Hispanics, fewer whites, and another 4 years of young people entering the political spectrum. The challenge is keeping those sub-35 year olds energized and to draw a distinction between him and Romney. In one interview, he did just that.
The right *knows* that it's losing the debate on Same-Sex Marriage. Colorado Republicans had to cancel debate on several bills just to kill a bill allowing civil unions because it was almost guaranteed to pass. A Colorado Republican was quoted as saying that the issue is going to kill them (Republicans) in the state legislature come November. North Carolina had to schedule the referendum on a GOP primary day just to get it to pass. My guess is that if they'd scheduled it for November, it probably would have lost.
Either that, or Obama knows something about Europe's financial crisis that we don't. He could be purposely shifting the dialogue to social issues because he knows that the Euro zone is about to implode, and take the world economy with it. THAT is a scary thought...
Regardless of the social implications (which I personally agree with), I honestly think that this was a brilliant political move by Obama. To follow up on DF's points:
1) The one unifying factor of whether voters supported or rejected Amendment 1 is *age*. 60+% of seniors supported it, 60+% of 18-29 year olds rejected it based on previous PPP polling. These are almost identical numbers to those who support Obama, with seniors being the most anti-Obama group out there. He has very little support to lose among them, and everything to gain from those 18-29 year olds.
2) If the same proportion of people vote in 2012 as they did in 2008, Obama wins, period. Any backsliding of support among the nation as a whole is more than canceled out by the demographic changes that have been going on in the past 4 years: More Hispanics, fewer whites, and another 4 years of young people entering the political spectrum. The challenge is keeping those sub-35 year olds energized and to draw a distinction between him and Romney. In one interview, he did just that.
The right *knows* that it's losing the debate on Same-Sex Marriage. Colorado Republicans had to cancel debate on several bills just to kill a bill allowing civil unions because it was almost guaranteed to pass. A Colorado Republican was quoted as saying that the issue is going to kill them (Republicans) in the state legislature come November. North Carolina had to schedule the referendum on a GOP primary day just to get it to pass. My guess is that if they'd scheduled it for November, it probably would have lost.
Either that, or Obama knows something about Europe's financial crisis that we don't. He could be purposely shifting the dialogue to social issues because he knows that the Euro zone is about to implode, and take the world economy with it. THAT is a scary thought...
Every time I hear a story on the radio about ___________(insert any social issue), the go-to republican douchebag mouth piece is inevitably from either Highlands Ranch, or Colorado Springs. Fvck I hate this town.
it's not democracy when you're legislating religious beliefs; it's theocracy.
but it does violate it...
if congress made a law banning gay marriage based on the bible, it would impose upon the right of other religious groups that have no problem marrying gays - which would prohibit the free exercise of the other religions.
they're too fat to bump uglies, so this fixes itself
i see it as political wind-checking, a profile in cowardice, and -- for once -- leading from behind.
simply grotesque
wanna shack up w/ me in monument?
and hickenlooper has twice teh sack obama has. i think i'm starting to come around on him. i choose to put his political views aside and see that he's showing **actual** leadership. and i do this without cynicism or reservation.
my thoughts - x-post from the lounge
if you're against gay marriage, that's your right as an american to hold that belief. and it's my right as an american to hold the belief that if gays want to get married, they should be able to. While it may be your right as an american to hold that belief, just because you are part of the majority religion does NOT give you the right to enforce your religious beliefs through government legislature - be it federal, state, or regional. It instantly places one religion's beliefs over that of another, and completely undermines the notion of freedom of religion - which many of the first settlers to America from Europe came here seeking (regardless of how preposterous others may have viewed their practices).
Also, for some people, whether you agree with it or not, freedom OF religion means freedom FROM religion. If you are against gay marriage, that's fine. But don't tell your congressperson, tell your priest, pastor, or rabbi (or whomever your religious leader is). It's not the governments job to ensure people who don't follow your religious creed abide it's rules. The second we use the government to start enforcing one set of religious beliefs upon people who do not follow it, democracy dies and theocracy begins.
if you're against gay marriage, that's your right as an american to hold that belief. and it's my right as an american to hold the belief that if gays want to get married, they should be able to. While it may be your right as an american to hold that belief, just because you are part of the majority religion does NOT give you the right to enforce your religious beliefs through government legislature - be it federal, state, or regional. It instantly places one religion's beliefs over that of another, and completely undermines the notion of freedom of religion - which many of the first settlers to America from Europe came here seeking (regardless of how preposterous others may have viewed their practices).
Also, for some people, whether you agree with it or not, freedom OF religion means freedom FROM religion. If you are against gay marriage, that's fine. But don't tell your congressperson, tell your priest, pastor, or rabbi (or whomever your religious leader is). It's not the governments job to ensure people who don't follow your religious creed abide it's rules. The second we use the government to start enforcing one set of religious beliefs upon people who do not follow it, democracy dies and theocracy begins.
so by this reasoning, you must also say "freedom OF speech means freedom FROM speech", the silliness of such a notion is plain.
extend this too to freedom of press, movement, and peaceable assembly.
by government fiat, the government is closed on christmas.
not kwaanza.
not ramadan.
not hannukah.
No one is stopping them. They could have their ceremony with all the bells and whistles. They could consider themselves married under the all seeing eye of the FSM. They could even wear rings and go around calling themselves husband and wife (or whatever the case may be). There won't be legal recognition of the union though.
If the law read how you state it,
it would probably be a problem but as it is there is no problem. It does not favor one religion over another everyone is held to the same standard.
Now if it said something weird like, "only Scientologists can have hot sexy gay marriage" then one religion would be treated differently and it would violate the first amendment.
The first amendment does not say that it will be unconstitutional to pass laws which are inline with a religious belief.
you're missing the point and being bogged down by semantics. The constitution doesn't FORCE people to exercise these rights, it ALLOWS them to, and prevents others from preventing your right to exercise these actions.
You have the RIGHT to freely practice a religion. You are not FORCED to freely practice a religion. You also have the right to not practice a religion. You have the right to free speech, freedom of press, peaceable assembly, you are not FORCED to perform these actions.
i know jews that celebrate christmas. what's your point?
also, the gov't does not drive Fiats. perhaps they should.
if i didn't know any better, i'd think you were trying to goad me into defending romney, a lifelong politician
can't i just eat my waffles?
the problem is that it's forcing people who do not follow that religion to abide by it's rules.
if anti-gay legislation were introduced in the name of biblical principles only, it should never make it out of committee.
full stop.
same for any legislation that takes aim to deny gays their rights. DOMA didn't take aim at them, but said, "these are the criteria"
they must be jew-ish
oh please. you'd have to be functionally retarded to think these bills have nothing to do with religion. I know you're smarter than that. Explicitly stated or not, we all know what's driving this.
These hot button social issues are pretty much invented to distract voters from real issues.
conventional wisdom clearly conveys if this happens, then this will eventually lead to muslims marrying non-muslims, which is a capital offense in over a dozen countries
this is about the slippery slope into a global community, code named 'fab-u-dome'