![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The rest of it is well-trod ground, but some if it is worth answering.
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:19:31 -0700, "Peter Duniho" wrote: "Robert Perkins" wrote in message .. . Separation of Church and State is not constitutional language. Of course it is. The exact words "separation of church and state" don't appear, of course. But the intent is clear. Heh. If the intent were clear, there wouldn't be differences of opinion on how to interpret it. By and large, I've seen the Supreme Court treat the Establishment Clause with great care. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" *used* to mean, to so many people, that Congress was not permitted to set up a Church of the United States. So many people today forget that the clause ends in "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Supreme Court decision upholding the notion that large traditional folkways such as marriage as defined by most people throughout history trump Article IV is one such careful consideration. States may solmenize gay marriage, or not, and may recognize it, or not, but You forgot to put "proof" in quotes. Probably because I think that we are worse off today the way things are concerning easy divorce as implemented than was true 40 years ago. but they are people who probably will never understand what it takes to allow a marriage to work. Wait until you do understand, then marry. If necessary, court for a year or more. (No, I'm *not* a fan of Dr. Laura, but what she says makes sense in this one narrow instance.) I don't see how expanding marriage to include gay couples is anywhere near as radical a change as allowing divorce to be easier. If anything, it allows a larger portion of society to return to our basic ideals. Statistically speaking, no, it does not. You've responded to one. Please. Please indeed. Before you proceed any further along the strawman, best you check my taglines in posts from this week. But were you really doing so honestly? I suppose in the end, only you can answer for yourself, but it sure seems to me that you're using a large helping of rationalization here. Are you really separating your religious beliefs from your political motivations? NO! And, you'll forgive me for shouting, but I actually think this is important enough that I want to get everyone's attention: WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYONE IN HIS RIGHT MIND WANT TO SEPARATE HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS FROM HIS POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS?!?!?!?!? Good grief. Religious belief is fundamentally human! Separating religious motivation from its expression in politics is the surest way to get yourself manipulated out of a voice in the process! Regardless, it certainly offends me that he would sign such a bill. Then you may be offended. And lest you be offended any more, I guess I'll have to go back to plonking your email. Wouldn't want to offend you, after all. Rob |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Question About Newsgroups | RST Engineering | General Aviation | 1 | January 17th 05 05:59 PM |
Re; What do you think? | Kelsibutt | Naval Aviation | 0 | September 29th 03 06:55 AM |
Newsgroups and Email | Jim Weir | Home Built | 8 | July 8th 03 11:30 PM |
Newsgroups and Email | Jim Weir | Owning | 8 | July 8th 03 11:30 PM |