Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Dear CCJ:
You could also say the same of LIBERALS.
When LIBERALS push for "separation of church and state"
when it suits their agenda.
But in the case of gay marriage crossing the line and imposing a church function
of marriage on the state, suddenly LIBERALS WANT to mix church and state functions.
Why is that?
Can you tell me how "gay marriage" respects "separation of church and state"?
No, one could not also say the same of liberals.
Liberals correctly understand that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, and they respect and follow that case law, including that of First Amendment jurisprudence, which maintains there is indeed to be a separation of church and state, where the case law in no way disadvantages religious expression.
Liberals arent pushing for anything, nor do they have an agenda, save that of ensuring subjective religious dogma not be codified in secular law, in accordance with the Framers wishes.
Take, for example, the case of Lee v. Weisman (1992), invalidating a school policy authorizing prayer during graduation ceremonies, which the Supreme Court correctly found to be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This ruling was predicated on long-standing Establishment Clause jurisprudence, exhaustively reviewed by the courts in an objective, factual manner, and decided having nothing to do with a liberal agenda.
Moreover, the ruling in no way violated religious expression, where theists are at liberty to pray, provided it not be at the behest of the state.
Otherwise, your question with regard to gay marriage and the Constitutions requirement that church and state remain separate makes no sense.
First, there is no such thing as gay marriage, there is only marriage law, as written by the states and administered by state courts; this is the same law afforded to both same- and opposite-sex couples, as both are eligible to enter into marriage contracts.
Second, the issue has nothing to do with the First Amendments Religion Clauses, as this is a 5th and 14th Amendment issue pertaining to the right to due process and equal protection of the laws, in this case equal access to marriage law.
Last, that theists perceive some sort to religious aspect to the issue is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, as religious dogma has no bearing on the issue. Federal courts recognizing the equal protection rights of same-sex couples to access marriage law is based on 14th Amendment jurisprudence in the context of substantive due process, where the state has failed to establish a rational, compelling reason to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law pursuant to a proper legislative end. Indeed, to seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law predicated on religious dogma is un-Constitutional because it is not rational, it lacks objective facts and evidence in support, and it fails to pursue a proper legislative end.
A religious objection to affording same sex couples access to marriage law is mere demagoguery on the part of the social right, realizing theyve long ago lost the legal argument.
So basically, the First Amendment be damned, correct? Prohibiting people to freely practice their faith whilst running their business is ALSO demagoguery on the part of the social left, realizing that letting people freely exercise their faith anywhere they choose means surrender on a very important issue. They lose as far as the First Amendment is concerned.
Show me where the government has a compelling interest to keep someone from objecting via their religious rights to serve someone or appease something that violates their faith? You would be hard pressed to.
Moreover, the Courts only have their interpretations of marriage to work from. Nowhere does the Constitution prohibit, nor encourage states to make laws concerning marriage. Now, how can banning same sex marriage be unconstitutional when there is nothing in the Constitution regarding marriage? Hmm? Marriage itself is a majorly religious and ceremonial rite, not subject to the whims of Government nor to the oft cited Constitution.
All the laws concerning marriage have been legislated, not derived from the Constitution itself. This is, my friend a fundamental flaw in your argument, and of the proponents of same sex marriage equality. You cannot construe the document to impart nor disparage marriage equality, yet, here you are doing so, brazenly. Your interpretation of the 14th can be described as this: that it guarantees the rights and equality of someone, while disparaging the rights and equality of another.
Notice, I can make an argument against equality, as well as for. But I choose equality, frankly because it is within my nature to treat people equally.
So, of the 613 commandments in Torah, can you tell us exactly which ones Jesus's death absolves us of, and which not? Is the "sin" of homosexuality absolved, or not?
Oh, and just in passing, how's your Hebrew? Do you know how many verses there are about Homosexuality in the Torah, and exactly what verbs are used?
Just curious.
Fallacy of the loaded question. Stat, I'm disappointed.
Perhaps you've read Matthew 5:17?
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
I'm referring to the Bible, not to the Tanakh or the Torah. The Bible in it's entirety. Why is it you think we don't observe the Mosaic Law today? Because it involved killing people for breaching them. Jesus' death on the cross absolved us all of the death penalty of those laws. The meaning though, still remains.
How's my Hebrew? Don't know a single word. But I do know you're dancing around the issue by attacking my knowledge of the issue. I don't need to know hermeneutics or exegesis to know that what you just tried to do here was change the subject via argumentum ad hominem.
NO, it is not a loaded question. I will ask again. This time, don't run away from it.
Of the 613 Commandments, exactly which ones are absolved by the blood of Christ in your belief system, and which are not? Yes, I am aware of Matt 5:17, I quote it oft.
I asked about your knowledge of Hebrew because two entire different verbs are used, and the descriptor for "abomination" is different. Did you know that?
So, let me get this straight: You are saying that the blood of Christ makes pretty much everything in the "Old Testament" obsolete, but these two verses from Leviticus, they are suddenly very important.
And did you not just say the following:
"Why is it you think we don't observe the Mosaic Law today? Because it involved killing people for breaching them. Jesus' death on the cross absolved us all of the death penalty of those laws."
Ahh, but those two verses from Leviticus do carry the death penalty with them.
Quandary, what?
And what if I were to say to you that Homosexuality is not at all forbidden in Torah? How would you react?
So basically, the First Amendment be damned, correct? .
Fallacy of the loaded question. Stat, I'm disappointed.
Perhaps you've read Matthew 5:17?
I'm referring to the Bible, not to the Tanakh or the Torah. The Bible in it's entirety. Why is it you think we don't observe the Mosaic Law today? Because it involved killing people for breaching them. Jesus' death on the cross absolved us all of the death penalty of those laws. The meaning though, still remains.
How's my Hebrew? Don't know a single word. But I do know you're dancing around the issue by attacking my knowledge of the issue. I don't need to know hermeneutics or exegesis to know that what you just tried to do here was change the subject via argumentum ad hominem.
NO, it is not a loaded question. I will ask again. This time, don't run away from it.
Of the 613 Commandments, exactly which ones are absolved by the blood of Christ in your belief system, and which are not? Yes, I am aware of Matt 5:17, I quote it oft.
I asked about your knowledge of Hebrew because two entire different verbs are used, and the descriptor for "abomination" is different. Did you know that?
So, let me get this straight: You are saying that the blood of Christ makes pretty much everything in the "Old Testament" obsolete, but these two verses from Leviticus, they are suddenly very important.
And did you not just say the following:
"Why is it you think we don't observe the Mosaic Law today? Because it involved killing people for breaching them. Jesus' death on the cross absolved us all of the death penalty of those laws."
Ahh, but those two verses from Leviticus do carry the death penalty with them.
Quandary, what?
And what if I were to say to you that Homosexuality is not at all forbidden in Torah? How would you react?
Not running away from anything, in fact I answered your question directly. You're asserting that the texts of the Jewish faith somehow trump the texts of the Christian faith. You're using the teachings of one to justify what is a sin in the other. I'm not falling for it, Stat.
You've become incredibly snide, sir. I don't appreciate it.
Nope. I did not say that the New Testament does not mention homosexuality. Why lie?
My apologies, I confused you with Mertex. That doesn't change the fact that you are only citing the actor because you agree with him, and that, magically, makes him an expert.
By the way, did you ever find the post where I claimed Jesus didn't approve of anything?
Didn't think so.
Yet, despite the fact that I never said what you claimed, and you never found evidence I did, I never called you a liar.
And I even admitted I was wrong.
Interesting, isn't it?
Well...I assumed that you believe that the bible us the "word of god"....and therefore the word of Jesus. If you don't, please accept my apologies.
So basically, the First Amendment be damned, correct? .
Your first amendments rights stop when it starts impacting on others civil rights. Let's change out the words "gay marriage" for "black" or "woman" and see how well your argument stacks up...
The dude is an expert. Look him up. He puts people with theology degrees to shame on a regular basis.
That is because he agrees with your bias. If he said something different you wouldn't
think anything of his opinion and that is all he has, is an opinion.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Another idiot. That dude is a believer. As such, we disagree on all of this shit. But he has an understanding of the bible and is able to communicate it to people who can't be bothered to read the shit. He's an expert.
Your posts here prove you to be a poor blinded fool and tool of satan.
You have to be careful posting the stuff you do GISMY. It's hard to tell if you are a relic bible thumping ignoramous or just a characiture of one played by a gay theater artist to trump up sympathy for the church of LGBT.
They make such excellent diversions when the topic of closeted heteros in the gay population, for example, or the links between the church of LGBT and pedophilia, also for example, make their way into the debate for careful introspection and discussion...
My apologies, I confused you with Mertex. That doesn't change the fact that you are only citing the actor because you agree with him, and that, magically, makes him an expert.
By the way, did you ever find the post where I claimed Jesus didn't approve of anything?
Didn't think so.
Yet, despite the fact that I never said what you claimed, and you never found evidence I did, I never called you a liar.
And I even admitted I was wrong.
Interesting, isn't it?
Well...I assumed that you believe that the bible us the "word of god"....and therefore the word of Jesus. If you don't, please accept my apologies.
You assumed that I believe something I have never said.
Interesting.
.
GISMYS may be out there, but at least he wouldn't try to behead someone for being homosexual.
And we all know that.
.
That is because he agrees with your bias. If he said something different you wouldn't
think anything of his opinion and that is all he has, is an opinion.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Another idiot. That dude is a believer. As such, we disagree on all of this shit. But he has an understanding of the bible and is able to communicate it to people who can't be bothered to read the shit. He's an expert.
I didn't say he wasn't a believer, and what the hell is a believer? You can call him an "expert." He maybe an "expert," however, it is his interpretation, his opinion, his is no better or worse than any other "expert" with an interpretation or opinion. And if you don't read shit, how the hell do you know if interpreted it correctly or not?
And then you call me an idiot.
No, one could not also say the same of ‘liberals.’
‘Liberals’ correctly understand that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, and they respect and follow that case law, including that of First Amendment jurisprudence, which maintains there is indeed to be a separation of church and state, where the case law in no way disadvantages religious expression.
‘Liberals’ aren’t ‘pushing’ for anything, nor do they have an ‘agenda,’ save that of ensuring subjective religious dogma not be codified in secular law, in accordance with the Framers’ wishes.
Take, for example, the case of Lee v. Weisman (1992), invalidating a school policy authorizing prayer during graduation ceremonies, which the Supreme Court correctly found to be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This ruling was predicated on long-standing Establishment Clause jurisprudence, exhaustively reviewed by the courts in an objective, factual manner, and decided having nothing to do with a ‘liberal agenda.’
Moreover, the ruling in no way ‘violated’ religious expression, where theists are at liberty to pray, provided it not be at the behest of the state.
Otherwise, your question with regard to ‘gay marriage’ and the Constitution’s requirement that church and state remain separate makes no sense.
First, there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only marriage law, as written by the states and administered by state courts; this is the same law afforded to both same- and opposite-sex couples, as both are eligible to enter into marriage contracts.
Second, the issue has nothing to do with the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses, as this is a 5th and 14th Amendment issue pertaining to the right to due process and equal protection of the laws, in this case equal access to marriage law.
Last, that theists perceive some sort to religious aspect to the issue is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, as religious dogma has no bearing on the issue. Federal courts recognizing the equal protection rights of same-sex couples to access marriage law is based on 14th Amendment jurisprudence in the context of substantive due process, where the state has failed to establish a rational, compelling reason to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law pursuant to a proper legislative end. Indeed, to seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law predicated on religious dogma is un-Constitutional because it is not rational, it lacks objective facts and evidence in support, and it fails to pursue a proper legislative end.
A ‘religious objection’ to affording same sex couples access to marriage law is mere demagoguery on the part of the social right, realizing they’ve long ago lost the legal argument.
So basically, the First Amendment be damned, correct? Prohibiting people to freely practice their faith whilst running their business is ALSO demagoguery on the part of the social left, realizing that letting people freely exercise their faith anywhere they choose means surrender on a very important issue. They lose as far as the First Amendment is concerned.
Show me where the government has a compelling interest to keep someone from objecting via their religious rights to serve someone or appease something that violates their faith? You would be hard pressed to.
Moreover, the Courts only have their interpretations of marriage to work from. Nowhere does the Constitution prohibit, nor encourage states to make laws concerning marriage. Now, how can banning same sex marriage be unconstitutional when there is nothing in the Constitution regarding marriage? Hmm? Marriage itself is a majorly religious and ceremonial rite, not subject to the whims of Government nor to the oft cited Constitution.
All the laws concerning marriage have been legislated, not derived from the Constitution itself. This is, my friend a fundamental flaw in your argument, and of the proponents of same sex marriage equality. You cannot construe the document to impart nor disparage marriage equality, yet, here you are doing so, brazenly. Your interpretation of the 14th can be described as this: that it guarantees the rights and equality of someone, while disparaging the rights and equality of another.
Notice, I can make an argument against equality, as well as for. But I choose equality, frankly because it is within my nature to treat people equally.
No, TK, learn to read for comprehension.
What he is saying is that the thing from the get go is not a legal matter involving the 1st, but rather, the 5th and the 14th.
Many have held this view. This is nothing new.
So basically, the First Amendment be damned, correct? .
Your first amendments rights stop when it starts impacting on others civil rights. Let's change out the words "gay marriage" for "black" or "woman" and see how well your argument stacks up...
How does gay marriage impose on your civil rights?
How does gay marriage impose on your civil rights?
So basically, the First Amendment be damned, correct? Prohibiting people to freely practice their faith whilst running their business is ALSO demagoguery on the part of the social left, realizing that letting people freely exercise their faith anywhere they choose means surrender on a very important issue. They lose as far as the First Amendment is concerned.
Show me where the government has a compelling interest to keep someone from objecting via their religious rights to serve someone or appease something that violates their faith? You would be hard pressed to.
Moreover, the Courts only have their interpretations of marriage to work from. Nowhere does the Constitution prohibit, nor encourage states to make laws concerning marriage. Now, how can banning same sex marriage be unconstitutional when there is nothing in the Constitution regarding marriage? Hmm? Marriage itself is a majorly religious and ceremonial rite, not subject to the whims of Government nor to the oft cited Constitution.
All the laws concerning marriage have been legislated, not derived from the Constitution itself. This is, my friend a fundamental flaw in your argument, and of the proponents of same sex marriage equality. You cannot construe the document to impart nor disparage marriage equality, yet, here you are doing so, brazenly. Your interpretation of the 14th can be described as this: that it guarantees the rights and equality of someone, while disparaging the rights and equality of another.
Notice, I can make an argument against equality, as well as for. But I choose equality, frankly because it is within my nature to treat people equally.
No, TK, learn to read for comprehension.
What he is saying is that the thing from the get go is not a legal matter involving the 1st, but rather, the 5th and the 14th.
Many have held this view. This is nothing new.
Typical bandwagon fallacy, appealing to popularity. You ignore the fact that the Constitution says nothing about marriage. None. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. This whole presumed premise about "equality" can be debunked on it's face. I can no more codify my rejection of gay marriage than you can codify your belief that marriage should be equal for all. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.
The 5th simply protects someone from incriminating themselves, also it protects government infringement on a person's "life, liberty, or property" and establishes precedent for imminent domain. But since we are debating the 5th, I can say that the first word it uses, "life" and "liberty" can be construed to work both ways.
By banning same sex marriage, you are affecting the life of the proponents, by condoning it, you conversely affect the lives of it's opponents, ergo those who hold the faith. By condoning or rejecting, you are affecting the very fabric of American society. One way or another.
By banning same sex marriage, you infringe on a liberty. By condoning it, you also infringe on a liberty, namely that of religious liberty. If I cannot abstain from serving someone or appeasing something that violates my faith, my religious liberty has been infringed upon. One right cannot come at the expense of the other. Vise versa. This isn't my bias speaking, that's my objectivity talking.
The 14th would apply, if only there were clauses or amendments in the Constitution concerning marriage; the laws which govern marriage now have zero root in the Constitution itself. They are simply judged by their constitutional merits. Actually, Stat, I can read and comprehend just fine, thanks.
If you are gay, be gay and shut up about it.
I have two friends that are gay and one that is lesbian. They follow the above statement and that's what I love and admire about them.
