Respect, pass it on.

[BlazerWookee]

And your point is?

Covered by a toupee?

 

[Denny Crane]

Covered by a toupee?

Nah, I really have my own hair still.

Everywhere, too

 

[e_blazer]

He was a deist and that in any of his writings, the term "Creator" does not mean "God", be it a christian, muslim, or jewish one, etc.

My quibble isn't with you. I'm clarifying for anyone who cares about it.

Fair enough, although you can find quotes by him that are all over the map on that subject. Deist or Christian, it does raise an interesting question for atheists. Jefferson at least attributed human rights to a creator. If there is no creator, what is the source of our rights? But this thread has wandered far enough off topic that we probably shouldn't go there.

 

[dviss1]

I'd say you've managed to provide a synopsis of the problem in your post. For people who aren't "religious", marriage is just a contract between two people who want to live together and have their relationship identified as having the legal and social benefits accorded married couples in our society. For those who have a life centered around their faith, marriage is viewed as a commitment that is made before God and is in accordance with the principles of their faith. They're not likely to "just accept" and "move on" with a substantive change in the very definition of something that is at the core of the principles by which they live .

"Equal marriage" is not, in fact, covered by the Constitution. Marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or any of the subsequent Amendments. The closest you'll come to a constitutional argument on the subject would be that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment (which states, "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.") somehow means that same-sex couples have to be afforded the right to marry if heterosexual couples have that right. So far no federal court decision has been made that would make that interpretation so individual states presently have the power to make laws either way relative to marriage.

I think that the move towards same-sex marriage is doubtless going to continue its march across the country. There may eventually be a Supreme Court decision on the topic that will decide it, but I think that many people of faith are coming around to the notion that same-sex marriage should be allowed as a civil right, even if they don't find that it fits within the theology of their religion. My bet is that when the matter is brought before the people of Oregon again, it will pass this time. As I said yesterday, I think that Christians should feel free to have an additional ceremony within the church that recognizes the religious implications of their marriage vows, but I don't think that denying a civil right to marriage for same-sex couples will continue in the near future. At least, that's the way I feel. There will be hard core fundamentalists who will continue their opposition, but I think that they will be in the minority.

Go read the "Treaty Of Tripoli" and you will discover that your god does not govern our nation nor has he ever.

The minute Christians start to understand that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, the sooner you will understand that that covers equal marriage too. It's the WHOLE reason DOMA is unconstitutional.

 

[dviss1]

Fair enough, although you can find quotes by him that are all over the map on that subject. Deist or Christian, it does raise an interesting question for atheists. Jefferson at least attributed human rights to a creator. If there is no creator, what is the source of our rights? But this thread has wandered far enough off topic that we probably shouldn't go there.

Just because he said creator doesn't mean he meant the christian god.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Go read the "Treaty Of Tripoli" and you will discover that your god does not govern our nation nor has he ever.

The minute you Christians start to understand that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, the sooner you will understand that that covers equal marriage too. It's the WHOLE reason DOMA is unconstitutional.

Treaty of who? Only one Treaty I know of . . .

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Can we try and get this thread back on track? I am the only god that should be talked about in this thread.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Can we try and get this thread back on track? I am the only god that should be talked about in this thread.

Stop with the double standard already!

 

[e_blazer]

Go read the "Treaty Of Tripoli" and you will discover that your god does not govern our nation nor has he ever.

The minute Christians start to understand that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, the sooner you will understand that that covers equal marriage too. It's the WHOLE reason DOMA is unconstitutional.

First, I suggest you read my post again and you'll see that I agree this isn't a theocracy and that I favor same-sex marriage. Second, go read the decision on DOMA. It has nothing to do with separation of church and state. It has to do with the federal government not having the authority to adopt laws overruling state laws when the lone intent is to deny rights to a group of people.

 

[e_blazer]

Just because he said creator doesn't mean he meant the christian god.

I never said he was referring to the Christian God. Only that he says rights come from a higher power.

 

[e_blazer]

Can we try and get this thread back on track? I am the only god that should be talked about in this thread.

All hale Lord Sly.

 

[Denny Crane]

I never said he was referring to the Christian God. Only that he says rights come from a higher power.

He says you're born with certain unalienable rights.

The "Creator" is nature.

 

[crandc]

e_blazer, the problem I have is you seem to be counterposing same sex marriage with those who consider marriage a religious covenant. There are many same sex couples who consider their marriage a religious covenant and many clergy of many faiths agree. Look, I know a lot of couples who had registered civil unions or domestic partnerships and they said it was about as exciting as going to DMV for a driver's license renewal. These same couples often broke down in tears when after 5, 10, 20, 50 years they finally could get married. Not gay married. Not married lite. Married.

You are correct that DOMA was decided on equal protection and not separation of church and state - pretty much what I've been saying from the start of the thread. It's an issue of equal rights for all. Whether someone else accepts me as an equal human being is a problem, no doubt, and a change in law probably won't change their minds, but whether the law does so is something that can be legally changed. And should. And that's all the teams are saying.

 

[e_blazer]

e_blazer, the problem I have is you seem to be counterposing same sex marriage with those who consider marriage a religious covenant. There are many same sex couples who consider their marriage a religious covenant and many clergy of many faiths agree. Look, I know a lot of couples who had registered civil unions or domestic partnerships and they said it was about as exciting as going to DMV for a driver's license renewal. These same couples often broke down in tears when after 5, 10, 20, 50 years they finally could get married. Not gay married. Not married lite. Married.

You are correct that DOMA was decided on equal protection and not separation of church and state - pretty much what I've been saying from the start of the thread. It's an issue of equal rights for all. Whether someone else accepts me as an equal human being is a problem, no doubt, and a change in law probably won't change their minds, but whether the law does so is something that can be legally changed. And should. And that's all the teams are saying.

As I'm sure you know, there's a broad range of views on theology and social views represented by various denominations within Christianity. What I should have said is that those churches that are more fundamentalist in their views on same-sex marriage can maintain those principles in their marriage ceremonies. Same-sex couples won't have any problem finding churches with more open views in which to worship and marry. This is not an easy topic for Christians, crandc, and it's not going to change over night or uniformly.

 

[crandc]

As I'm sure you know, there's a broad range of views on theology and social views represented by various denominations within Christianity. What I should have said is that those churches that are more fundamentalist in their views on same-sex marriage can maintain those principles in their marriage ceremonies. Same-sex couples won't have any problem finding churches with more open views in which to worship and marry. This is not an easy topic for Christians, crandc, and it's not going to change over night or uniformly.

Not just within Christianity.

I agree with what you said. Any clergyperson still retains the right to not perform any marriage ceremony he/she feels is against his/her faith. Catholic priests are not required to marry divorced people, although divorce and remarriage are legal. Orthodox rabbis are not required to perform mixed marriages although they are legal. Christian Identity ministers are not required to perform interracial marriages although they are legal. Current law actually encroaches on religious freedom in that clergy of denominations that consider gay and straight relationships equal are in most states NOT allowed to officiate at same sex weddings. So in fact when marriage equality is the law nationwide it will be a victory for equal rights and for religious freedom.

 

[dviss1]

First, I suggest you read my post again and you'll see that I agree this isn't a theocracy and that I favor same-sex marriage. Second, go read the decision on DOMA. It has nothing to do with separation of church and state. It has to do with the federal government not having the authority to adopt laws overruling state laws when the lone intent is to deny rights to a group of people.

The decision had nothing to do with Separation of Church and State (because we have crazy right wingers on the court who would never decide that) but we know DOMA is certainly an infringement on the 1st amendment.

 

[e_blazer]

The decision had nothing to do with Separation of Church and State (because we have crazy right wingers on the court who would never decide that) but we know DOMA is certainly an infringement on the 1st amendment.

What we know is that DOMA isn't an infringement on anything since it's been ruled unconstitutional.

 

[crandc]

Getting some national pub. With cool pics, too.. Could expand the fan base.