G A Y MARRIAGE: BUSH'S ATTEMPT TO CODIFY HIS RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS SHOULD OFFEND EVERY AMERICAN WHO BELIEVES IN THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. CIVIL MARRIAGE IS NOT A RELIGIOUS SACRAMENT, AND AMERICAN CITIZENS MUST LEARN TO RECOGNIZE THE DIFFER

Why should we be conditioned to think that g a y marriage has better chances to be accepted in case the Church somehow approves of homosexuality? Because of the underlying assumption that marriage is a religious matter, not just a State one. And that is wrong.

Most Americans agree with our Constitution that all citizens deserve equal protection under the law. It seems odd, then, that so many Americans of late have taken a stand against same-s e x marriage. How and why can we oppose extending basic civil rights to a group of people trying to join mainstream society by establishing permanent family units? What makes this issue, a simple question of equal access to the law, so profoundly contentious? The answer is: opposing the separation of church and state. Opponents of same-s e x marriage (including President Bush) almost always cite the preservation of "the sanctity of marriage" as their primary motivation. This argument overlooks that there are actually two distinct versions of marriage in this country -- religious marriage under the auspices of a church and civil marriage under federal or state law. The two are entirely separate and unrelated; getting a marriage license from City Hall doesn't make you married in the eyes of your religious community or God, and having a church celebrate your union doesn't change your legal status.

Granting same-s e x unions the same civil rights accorded heterosexual married couples will not affect or diminish the way religious communities choose to define and celebrate marriage. Every church and religious organization is free to forbid or encourage whatever behavior they choose. If your church wants to forbid religious marriage of same-s e x couples, no government action can stop it. Our government's role is to guarantee the freedom and equality of every citizen under the law, however. A church's teachings regarding the definition and "sanctity" of marriage have no place in federal law. Let's not forget what the First Amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Legislation (such as the Defense of Marriage Act and the "no g a y marriage" statute Bush promises/threatens) imposes a religious definition of marriage on the entire country. More accurately, they impose the definition of a few specific religions on the entire country -- some churches in America actually do choose to recognize same-s e x marriages. Such action flies in the face of a secular government, and we the voters must speak out now to eliminate religiously motivated discrimination and overrule its proponents.

BUSH'S ATTEMPT TO CODIFY HIS RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS SHOULD OFFEND EVERY AMERICAN WHO BELIEVES IN THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. CIVIL MARRIAGE IS NOT A RELIGIOUS SACRAMENT, AND AMERICAN CITIZENS MUST LEARN TO RECOGNIZE THE DIFFERENCE.

Why should we be conditioned to think that g a y marriage has better chances to be accepted in case the Church somehow approves of homosexuality? Because of the underlying assumption that marriage is a religious matter, not just a State one. And that is wrong.

Most Americans agree with our Constitution that all citizens deserve equal protection under the law. It seems odd, then, that so many Americans of late have taken a stand against same-s e x marriage. How and why can we oppose extending basic civil rights to a group of people trying to join mainstream society by establishing permanent family units? What makes this issue, a simple question of equal access to the law, so profoundly contentious? The answer is: opposing the separation of church and state. Opponents of same-s e x marriage (including President Bush) almost always cite the preservation of "the sanctity of marriage" as their primary motivation. This argument overlooks that there are actually two distinct versions of marriage in this country -- religious marriage under the auspices of a church and civil marriage under federal or state law. The two are entirely separate and unrelated; getting a marriage license from City Hall doesn't make you married in the eyes of your religious community or God, and having a church celebrate your union doesn't change your legal status.

Granting same-s e x unions the same civil rights accorded heterosexual married couples will not affect or diminish the way religious communities choose to define and celebrate marriage. Every church and religious organization is free to forbid or encourage whatever behavior they choose. If your church wants to forbid religious marriage of same-s e x couples, no government action can stop it. Our government's role is to guarantee the freedom and equality of every citizen under the law, however. A church's teachings regarding the definition and "sanctity" of marriage have no place in federal law. Let's not forget what the First Amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Legislation (such as the Defense of Marriage Act and the "no g a y marriage" statute Bush promises/threatens) imposes a religious definition of marriage on the entire country. More accurately, they impose the definition of a few specific religions on the entire country -- some churches in America actually do choose to recognize same-s e x marriages. Such action flies in the face of a secular government, and we the voters must speak out now to eliminate religiously motivated discrimination and overrule its proponents.

BUSH'S ATTEMPT TO CODIFY HIS RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS SHOULD OFFEND EVERY AMERICAN WHO BELIEVES IN THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. CIVIL MARRIAGE IS NOT A RELIGIOUS SACRAMENT, AND AMERICAN CITIZENS MUST LEARN TO RECOGNIZE THE DIFFERENCE.

Vera, America was founded upon the Christian doctrine from the very beginning and pretty much no American really believes in the beautiful words written in the Constitution. Hypocrisy is as American as cherry pie. Or pumpkin pie, if you would.

Well, I for one agree completely with Vera - and there are many others who do as well. We cannot relax as long as the Bush family continues to use their money, connections and family name to steamroll over democracy and the Constitution. If we wanted a monarchy we'd still be back in England.

"Should", "is not", "must" are keywords in the title of this topic, which is about *** marriages. But it is also about the attitude of the person who started it. I guess Vera lives on the mountaintop and from there Vera points fingers to all of us who happen to live beneath her what we SHOULD do, what we MUST think and what IS NOT to be said. KNOCK IT OFF VERA!!!
Everybody has the right to do whatever he or she pleases in the privacy of our homes/mountaintops/caves. To claim special set of rights based on who you sleep with is not decent at the very least.
And oh... you are an expert on distinction of marriages? And basic civil rights?

[acelaw]

Lurker
Member
 posted August 07, 2003 10:39 AM August 07, 2003 10:39 AM



Well, I for one agree completely with Vera - and there are many others who do as well. We cannot relax as long as the Bush family continues to use their money, connections and family name to steamroll over democracy and the Constitution. If we wanted a monarchy we'd still be back in England.


What a hypocrite you are Lunker, you use these Rights when they fit you, rest of the time YOU TAMPLE THEM INTO THE GROUND, YOUR AN IMMORAL , COURPT PERSON ....

DePoRt FaGz

Well, I for one do not think that g a y marriage is such a big issue -- I mean even if g a y people would be given the right to marry, it wouldn't change THAT much in the big scene ... yet, I do find VERY important the issue that Vera sets for discussion -- it's fundamentally WRONG to mix together the religion and state ... Bush's attempt to define marriage in terms of religion is disgusting.

I can agree with what you say, "DoesItReallyMatter" -- there are so many other unresolved g a y issues that are in a certain way much more important that g a y marriage itself -- I mean, g a y people get arrested by undercover cops in parks, g a y people are regularly discriminated against by employers ... how can we pretend these things not to be a bigger deal and just go ahead and celebrate right off the bat g a y marriage? I mean, it's too an artificial a thing to be celebrated among so much discrimination ... it's like, you know, not being done for real ... the way the whole issue is approached smells fishy to me also ... you know, viewing the issue from the religious standpoint, and going from there ... bottom line -- I think even if g a y marriage will become a reality in the U.S., it won't probably make things much better for g a y people ... it seems to me some politicians just wanna win some brownie points by playin' around a bit with the issue ...

Wow, have you people read it? Acelaw has posted his own words! Even though it is not a complete sentence, it is close. Still, to my amazement he came so very close to completing a sentence. I was completely wrong, I must admit, for thinking that acelaw could not put three words together that made sense. In this posting he didn't address himself, and if that didn't make you sit up and read...

What is truly astounding is that he actually attempts to make a coherent argument. If you ignore all the spelling mistakes such as 'tample', 'courpt', and 'your' instead of you're, and the grammar rules since it is not a complete sentence, and you consider his enormous linguistic challenges, what he has written is truly remarkable. Even when it is clear that many mexicans aliens, whom he despises so much, could write better than he does, you must admire his guts and dedication here at the risk of displaying his woefully inadequate literacy and common sense.

[This message was edited by MarkTwain on August 08, 2003 at 03:38 PM.]

Mark Twain - you omitted the spelling error of my username. In Minnesota anyway, 'lunker' is the term we use for a very large fish (maybe it wasn't a misspelling after all but another insult??)

Well, entertaining as cutting and pasting may be, I think it's still less attractive than what once-upon-a-time-"guest"-deport-... says

Not giving legal status to g a y marriages is not a separation of church and state issue. Separation of church and state means that the church has no involvement in the governemnt. It does not mean that politicians or voters are not allowed to base thier decisions on moral convictions which are founded in religion. The church is one thing, religion is another. All people, even those who claim not to believe in anything, are religious and spiritual. It would be impossible to erase religion from any human instition, including government. If one says "I believe that love is always good and that g a y marriage is just another wonderful act of love," then that person is stating a belief, not a fact. It is just as much a belief as someone else who says " I believe that g a y marriage is unnatural and unhealthy." Those are BOTH beliefs based on personal convictions which are founded in spirituality and religion. Neither one of those beliefs has anything to do with the church. The only time it would be a church and state issue is if someone would say "I believe that g a y marriage should not gain legal status because that is the official standing of the fill-in-the-blank church." I haven't heard any politician or person, for that matter, say that. It is easy to point fingers and find fault in those that don't agree with you, but you must realize that people are going to have different opinions. Someone having a different opinion than you or different spiritual convictions than yours doesn't make them bad. Bush did not judge g a y people. He simply made it clear that he could not publicly condone something which his personal convictions tell him is wrong. Since when is it wrong for a politician to have personal convictions and morals? Or could it be that you only think a politician has morals if he or she has morals that are very close to yours? If you don't like his politics, fine. Gripe and complain all you want. That's the beauty of this country, you can do that. But be ready to find people who disagree with you just as passionately and for reasons which are just as valid and the ones you base your beliefs on. If there's a politician in office that you don't like, then don't vote to re-elect him. If he gets re-elected anyway, then realize that you lost this one and that the your fellow citizens chose him. You are not going to get your way all of the time.

Chip says,

"Not giving legal status to g a y marriages is not a separation of church and state issue."


Who said that giving legal status to g a y marriages would be a separation of church and state? Or would not be?

Listen, I agree 100 and 10 % with Mr Bush on this *** issue.
I have no idea why people expecially people of the same feel like they should marry one another. This is so sick and makes me want to trow up. How many times have you seen a straight guy walk up to someone and tell them, I am straight. No mostly it's ***s that do that **** as if they were trying to get some sort of aproval. Why should you put your butt up in the sky for anther hairy man to stick it up your butt when you could do it lovely with a beatifull woman ? All of you ***s are lost and sick. As long as we will live in this country, we will not allow any of you morrons to have your so called *** mariages be legal.
Thanks Bush.