True Separation of Church and State

In Texas they've banned the teaching of evolution, and replaced it with "intelligent design", which is teaching the bible.
It's the continuation of the Scopes Monkey Trial. This country getting dumber is a way to prove that evolution is false.

 

You brought up same sex marriage, and imply that it is a religious issue, when most everyone I know who opposes it are non-religious, non-believers in any supernatural being they would call a God. While most, maybe even all religions may be anti-same sex marriage, abortion, or some other issue, on religious grounds, there are also others who may take the position on other grounds lacking any connection with any religion. Should those with strong religious convictions be barred from casting votes, or having their voices heard if they might influence the outcome more in line with those who are believers in a God?

I think you're going overboard now, slavery? I wouldn't worry about a religious war happening in the U.S. until the Muslim population becomes a more significant percentage of the population.

And I do mind teaching religion in Federally funded public school. Private schools, or Church funded schools where people send their children by choice is acceptable. Although I have no problem with those who are religious and attend public school practicing their religion if they are not trying to impose it on others. People shouldn't have to hide to practice their religion, and when you use the term 'public' place, are not those who are religious just as much a member of the public as those who are not religious?

And for the record, if I've not already made it clear enough, I am an atheist, with no beliefs in anything supernatural at all. But I do have a few friends who are religious, and believers.

 

Some things, including individual humans, evolve slower than others, and there may be instances where devolution is occurring.

 

Individual ~

"You brought up same sex marriage, and imply that it is a religious issue, when most everyone I know who opposes it are non-religious, non-believers in any supernatural being they would call a God."

On what grounds do they have to actively discriminate based upon sex? Why should anyone be entitled to this agreement and others not?

"While most, maybe even all religions may be anti-same sex marriage, abortion, or some other issue, on religious grounds, there are also others who may take the position on other grounds lacking any connection with any religion."

Now that's a big leap of assumption right there. That's dangerously close to religious zealots screaming that God "hates" homosexuals, never mind that God spoke only of procreation and "damnation" was only interjected later by church leaders wanting to tighten their own control on others. But that's in addition to the point, the main point is every people's beliefs are different and every religion is different one can't assume that they all think alike, let alone agree on any one topic all the time.

"Should those with strong religious convictions be barred from casting votes, or having their voices heard if they might influence the outcome more in line with those who are believers in a God?"

Nope. Everyone's free to voice their opinions and cast their vote in a democracy and republic, but not to the point where they are forcing their beliefs on other people or being favorited of deserving one service over others.

 

1. To me, and most all of my friends - actually every single one of them, I've spoken to, none of us have any problem with same sex couples becoming a family, and assuming responsibility for each other the same as a married couple. It is application of the word "marry" that we feel inappropriate, which has always carried the connotation of a male and a female component. Plumbers for example use the term marry two pipes, which indicates the joining of a male thread (outer threads) with a female thread (inner threads). When someone tells you they are married, if it is a man you naturally assume a woman is missing component, and if it were a woman the opposite would be naturally assumed. I, including most of my friends, Left, Right, Moderate, gay, and religious seem to all agree that the word is all we have a problem with. We obviously have no problem with what consenting adults do, especially when it has no direct or indirect effect on us, but since we have to communicate with others redefining words does have an effect, especially when you work with many languages which are already sometimes difficult to translate clearly.
What about discrimination based on age or species?

2. Like I said, similar or even the same beliefs can be held by both those who are and those who are not religious. There are some issues that all people will never agree on, so what? Politicians use them quite effectively to draw attention away from more significant problems or activities which have consequences that will affect our lives much more greatly.

3. When does democracy NOT force the opinion of a majority upon a minority?

 

For the first time ever, the majority (52%) of Americans are in favor of legalizing pot. In 1960 90% were against it. The wheels of evolution turn slow.

 

1. Since when does "marry" have to mean "man" and "woman" rather than "two people who wish to share their lives together by establishing a mutual bond"? Sounds like the culture brainwashing of our culture still is affecting your mind. And now you're using plumbing components as examples, seriously? Those are some pretty poor examples. Perhaps it is time to redefine the meaning of "marriage", the bottom line is it is a public service and no one should have ANY privilege to any public service while others are actively discriminated against as being barred from that service. This is starting to sound a lot like the racist laws of the 1900's after the civil war ended, "separate but equal" is starting to sound like the law's and bigoted people's catchphrase once again.

2. That was not your only statement in your earlier post, you said perhaps all religions, beliefs, and spiritualities damn or are against or comdemn homosexuality. Now you just hand-wave your own statement?

3. To answer your question: when in the country it is going to happen or happens is built upon the principle and the idea of equality between all its' citizens and freedom of beliefs. I'm sorry, even I forgot the VERY WORDS in the constitutional amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." -First Amendment to the Constitution

There actually WAS a case where the issue was an "official" religion where a Jewish woman sued her PUBLIC school:

"Deborah Weisman was a Jewish student who successfully sued her public school district in Rhode Island over a Christian graduation prayer in 1986. In her case, Weisman cited the First Amendment's clause against the state establishing any religion."

I bolded the most important parts.

source: ~ http://www.ushistory.org/gov/10b.asp

Here are some opinions over "Civil Unions" a proposed "solution" to "marriage equality":

Gary Buseck, legal director at the gay rights group Lambda Legal
No, because a civil union is not a marriage. As the Massachusetts high court recently said in rejecting civil unions, "separate is seldom, if ever, equal." A separate status is unnecessary except for the very purpose of setting one group apart as unworthy of inclusion in one of our most respected institutions. Creating a separate set of laws for same-sex couples solely because they are same-sex couples is inherently discriminatory.


Although civil unions may seem like an ideal compromise that can appeal to a majority of Americans at the moment, it is important to remember that civil rights for minorities have never rested, and should not rest, in the hands of the majority. Equality is the test of what is right and what will endure and once same-sex couples are married, our society will quickly see the mistake it would have been to create an entirely new institution (civil unions) just to accommodate a temporary discomfort.


Brad Sears, executive director of the Williams Project on Sexual Orientation Law at UCLA
Civil unions are a viable alternative in the sense that they would provide many of the legal and economic protections to gay couples that marriage provides. It is a better alternative than what is currently offered in all but a handful of states.

However, civil unions do not go far enough. First, they do not provide gay couples with access to the over 1,000 federal rights and obligations provided for by federal law. Second, they do not provide gay couples with the social recognition and support that the institution of marriage provides.


Finally, adopting civil unions places a stamp of inferiority on the relationships of gay men and lesbians just like the Jim Crow laws and segregation policies that kept African-Americans separate and (arguably) equal. If society can give gay couples most of the rights of marriage through civil unions, why can't it allow them to marry? Only because it believes that gay people are not worthy of the same dignity and respect as heterosexuals. Those who are advocates for civil unions but not marriage are stating a position of prejudice, pure and simple.


This person states my entire opinion in a nutshell:


Thomas Kohler, professor at Boston College Law School
I doubt that either advocates for same-sex marriage or proponents of traditional marriage will be satisfied with civil unions. Same-sex marriage advocates rightly claim that civil unions do not constitute full and equal legal recognition of same-sex relationships that society gives the nuptial relationship between a man and a woman. On the other hand, proponents of traditional marriage accurately point out that civil unions grant same-sex relationships everything but the name. This undermines the unique status that society grants married couples, to whom it has been granted because they procreate and raise children upon which the future of society depends. In the end, I think that only politicians, eager to avoid hard issues and hopeful of garnering support from all sides, will support civil unions.


I think we may be beyond the point of finding a politically acceptable "alternative" to same-sex marriage. Since this question is such a divisive one, perhaps the best thing to do is legally to disestablish marriage and return it to the realm of civil society. The law would be entirely neutral to the institution, neither privileging it nor granting those within it any special benefits or status. As a wholly private relationship, parties would be free to contract whatever sort of relationship they wish, according to whatever rubric they desire. The law would recognize only individuals.


I am far from arguing that this is an ideal solution, and it is a matter about which I need to reflect more, but at least at the moment, it may be the least worst alternative.

source: ~
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/gay_marriage/q2.html

 

1. While the word doesn't have to mean the union of a man and a woman, the fact that it has for centuries, to the best of my knowledge, been universally accepted to have that meaning, and you leave me wondering if it is more important to have the word redefined or to have the union between a couple of the same sex legally recognized. A man and a woman can live together and establish a mutual bond without need to marry if they desire, so nothing stops two persons of the same sex from doing the same, and while the act of a man and a woman marrying results in a contractual agreement, contracts with the same responsibilities can be drawn up between two persons of the same sex if they desire. You claim that marriage is a public service? In what way do you see it as a public service?
How are you trying to equate this topic to racism? And more to the point, WHY?

2. Please show me the post containing the words you are claiming that I wrote.

3. We're talking about two things, the definition of the word marry, and the legal recognition of unions between couples of the same sex.

Public schools receive Federal funding. Note that the Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". It does not say that States many not do so, however a States Constitution may prohibit such. Also had the case you cite been a Jewish student in a Catholic school, do you believe she would have prevailed?

While there may be some similarity between couples of the same sex and couples of opposite sex, they are not the same, and in my opinion we benefit much more when communicating from a vocabulary containing words with clear and concise definitions than we would with words vaguely defined and constantly changing.

 

1. Even disregarding Civil Unions as a concept, anyone can get married if they want a contractual agreement to be legalized saying that they are bonded legally and have certain benefits. Now there are rules to this process, mainly: 1. They must both be consenting adults or have the permission of each others or their parents' depending on the state, 2. Only 2 may marry at this time, 3. They must be Citizens of the United Sates of America or at least one of them must be, and 4. (now here is were it's gets discriminatory) One must be a man and one must be a woman.

Now supposedly the reasoning for 4. is because in the past marriage was seen as means to procreate or have children, this is way before birth control. NOW we have three important things readily available to anyone birth control, the acceptance of Homosexuality and other Sexualities besides Heterosexuals, and the acceptance of other beliefs besides Christianity. The claim that "the sanctity of marriage must be upheld for procreation" doesn't hold up anymore because many people already married who are a man and a woman CHOOSE not to have children *gasp* and the claim that "marriage must be respected because of *this* religion or because of "God"" doesn't hold up anymore either since anyone of any religion or spirituality may be married in their own ceremonies yes even pagans *gasp*.

To actively discriminate against people from marrying and having their marriage legally recognized because of their sexes based on previous notions that no longer hold any merit in today's modern age society is pure discrimination. Example: Me to a bigot: "Why do you think a man and a man shouldn't get married, without basing your argument on procreation and religion?" The bigot: "Well I...I..Homosexuals are Child Abusers!", Me: "That's a stereotype Homosexuals are no more prone to being or becoming Child Abusers than anyone else.", Bigot: "Homosexuals are mentally unstable because of what they are!", Me: "Disproven. Homosexuality is not a mental disease.", Bigot: "Well just cause!", Me: "Just cause? That's not a logical statement, you're not basing it upon anything at all. You're just saying it's not a good idea because it's your opinion and you don't need a reason for your opinion because it's your opinion. You just don't believe that Homosexuals should ever be considered equal in regards to marriage do you or anyone if they're not strictly a man and a woman only? You're a bigot." Bigot: "Well...I...I...#@%#@%!"

2. Yesterday, 12:29 PM

Individual

"You brought up same sex marriage, and imply that it is a religious issue, when most everyone I know who opposes it are non-religious, non-believers in any supernatural being they would call a God. While most, maybe even all religions may be anti-same sex marriage, abortion, or some other issue, on religious grounds, there are also others who may take the position on other grounds lacking any connection with any religion. Should those with strong religious convictions be barred from casting votes, or having their voices heard if they might influence the outcome more in line with those who are believers in a God?"

3. Like I said previously, marriage used to mean only between a man and a woman because of many reasons of the times like procreation, the thought that anyone attracted to someone or something not the opisote sex of them to be a mental disorder, and religion. But the times have changed and these reasons no longer hold any merit, marriage has now come from being "tradition" and "right", to being discriminating. It is time marriage either change with the times or be stricken from the law all together, because no group of people not even "a man and a woman" should have ANY privileged rights to something over any other groups of people simply because they are not strictly "a man and a woman".

 

This argument seems pretty weak to me. Please elaborate on how "we benefit" by keeping the word "marriage" as applying only to a union between a man and a woman.

 

1. The words 'marry, marriage, or married' when used in conversation implies by definition that one must be a man and the other a woman. I would have no problem accepting another word which implied a similar situation with the exception being both persons were of the same sex. I find nothing at all discriminatory in that, unless someone is trying to hide the fact that their partner is of the same sex. Perhaps that might be a major cause behind the desire to use the same word to maintain or hide behind a cloak of ambiguity?

2. Thank you, I was pretty certain that I did not write "perhaps all religions, beliefs, and spiritualities damn or are against or comdemn homosexuality."

3. What about the words 'husband or wife', should they become gender neutral in definition? Have you not noticed how often posts on these forums contain questions asking how another defines this word or that word? Not to mention that the returned definitions often differ greatly or even totally with that found in a dictionary. If, as people, we reduce the ability to communicate clearly and concisely with one another, we end up quibbling relentlessly and perpetually unable to clearly define problems,complicating or even totally eliminating the possibility of solving the same.

Words are often meant to discriminate, not prejudicially as you seem to imply, but only in ways that differentiate what is similar from what is identical. Their is quite a difference, although some similarity, between MM, FF, and FM unions.

Are you implying that use of the word 'married' is a privilege? As long as two persons of the same or different sex cannot be denied the right live together as a couple, no rights can be seen as being violated.

 

It eliminates asking a question to determine the sex of the partner of whom you are communicating with. Fewer words are needed in communicating clearly. And in no way have I promoted the idea that same sex couple relationships should not be recognized similar to that of opposite sex couples.

We benefit in communicating, without denying anyones actionable rights.

 

I agree, you are right.~

"Marriage" needs to be redefined with a more defined, exact, and a less legally-wiggle-room definition.~

No rights have been violated when people of the same sex are not prevented from living together legally.

Still Marriage is seen and displayed as something only a select group of people may enjoy legally with benefits simply on the basis of sex.~ Such a thing cannot be left as it stands now, it either must be changed as I have said above or removed entirely as a reward for being "straight".~

 

MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

The word 'marriage' clearly and concisely defines an act between a man and a woman.

There's nothing which denies a 'similar' act between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, that another newly created word, and relating words, including honorifics could not define more clearly and concisely, equally as well.

Although I don't believe any word solution, by redefinition or creation would produce a difference in the acceptance by those who feel that same sex unions are unacceptable for religious or non-religious reasons, a new word defining the act would reduce the argument to the act alone, which if recognized by law, would require the same treatment under the law.

 

That's not the legal definition of it though, since "God" can have nothing to do with the union.~

Definition

The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.
See also Common-law marriage.

Overview

In the English common law tradition from which our legal doctrines and concepts have developed, a marriage was a contract based upon a voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife. Marriage was viewed as the basis of the family unit and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization. Traditionally, the husband had a duty to provide a safe house, pay for necessities such as food and clothing, and live in the house. The wife's obligations were maintaining a home, living in the home, having sexual relations with her husband, and rearing the couple's children. Today, the underlying concept that marriage is a legal contract still remains, but due to changes in society the legal obligations are not the same.

Marriage is chiefly regulated by the states. The Supreme Court has held that states are permitted to reasonably regulate the institution by prescribing who is allowed to marry and how the marriage can be dissolved. Entering into a marriage changes the legal status of both parties and gives both husband and wife new rights and obligations. One power that the states do not have, however, is that of prohibiting marriage in the absence of a valid reason. For example, prohibiting interracial marriage is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

The majority of states limit people to one living husband or wife at a time and will not issue marriage licenses to anyone with a living spouse. Once an individual is married, the person must be legally released from the relationship by either death, divorce, or annulment before he or she may remarry. Other limitations on individuals include age and close relationship. Limitations that some but not all states prescribe are: the requirements of blood tests, good mental capacity, and being of opposite sex.

In 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which, for federal purposes, defined marriage as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" (1 U.S.C. § 7). DOMA further provided that "No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship" (28 U.S.C. § 1738C). (See Conflict of laws, Constitutional law)

A marriage may in some cases be void or voidable.

Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary

The legal union of two people. Once a couple is married, their rights and responsibilities toward one another concerning property and support are defined by the laws of the state in which they live. A marriage can only be terminated by a court granting a divorce or annulment.

Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.
August 19, 2010, 5:19 pm


menu of sources

Federal Material

U.S. Constitution

• CRS Annotated Constitution

Federal Judicial Decisions

• U.S. Supreme Court:
  • Landmark Decisions Concerning Marriage
  • Recent decisions
  • liibulletin Oral Argument Previews
• U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals: Recent Decisions Concerning Marriage

State Material

State Statutes

• State Marriage Laws
• Uniform Laws (See LII Locator for Uniform Matrimonial, Family, and Health Laws)

State Judicial Decisions

• N.Y. Court of Appeals:
  • Marriage Cases
  • Commentary from liibulletin-ny
• Appellate Decisions from Other States

Other References

Key Internet Sources

• Internet Law Library: Domestic Relations
• Marriage and Prenuptial Agreements (Nolo)
• Status of Same-Sex Relationships Nationwide (LambdaLegal.org)

other topics

Category: Family Law






Wex Toolbox

Search WEX:




Share on email Share on facebook Share on twitter
More Sharing Services






Donations cover only 20% of our costs





Law about... Articles from Wex

• Divorce
• Agency
• American Indian law
• Estates and trusts
• Child custody

Find a Lawyer

Family Lawyers
near San Bernardino, CaliforniaLawyers: get listed for free!


Mr. Thurman Wesley Arnold IIIArbitration & Mediation, Divorce, Domestic Violence, Family Law
Palm Springs, CA
silver Badge



Harry MirchandaneyBusiness Law, Collections, Divorce, Estate Planning, Family Law, Personal Injury, Probate
Riverside, CA
bronze Badge



See More Lawyers<A id=seemorelawyers name=listtop>All lawyers



Get Involved

• LII Announce Blog
• LII Supreme Court Bulletin

• Make a donation
• Contribute content
• Become a sponsor
• Give feedback

Also, the Supreme Court are debating the issue with California's Ban on Gay Marriage, as far I know:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...ears-arguments-on-california-gay-marriage-ban

This is a really interesting issue, if it IS religious matter then it should not be legal, that is the law should play no part in it since to do so would be to give favors and privileges to only select group of people (such as ONLY 'white men' may own land).~

If it IS a sort of 'public service' matter then everyone regardless of sex should be able to marry (such as women and non-whites finally being recognized with a inborn right to vote).~

 

All of which leads me to the conclusion that it should be a State matter and not a Federal matter, and that the Federal government should not be creating laws which differentiate between people based on race, religion, gender, etc. Rights should be seen as the same for all humans, regardless of race, religion, gender, wealth, lack of wealth, etc., allowing the States and their voting population to decide if any special treatment should be given, and on what basis, due to differences that exist between persons under their jurisdiction. After all the 1st amendment contains "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Separation of Church and State is a two way street or you might even say separate but equal, neither imposing upon the other, allowing the people to exercise their individual freedom in choosing which side to take.

 

True, well said, I enjoyed talking with you!~ ^_^

Still a lot of this could have been solved if marriage was just made not a part of the law at all a long time ago.~ Saves a lot of headache.~

 

I read an article that said that almost half of Americans would be okay with Christianity being appointed the official religion of the United States. I don't want to be known as a citizen of a Christian country. How is that fair?

I don't understand why religious people (politicians too) CANNOT accept that some people DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD. Or even that some people believe in a higher power, but not the way that they want them to. Or that gay people can be married without everyone dying in eternal hellfire. Let the individual do what they want as long as they're not murdering people or harming them. It's insane to think of how far we've come and yet in some ways, we're still struggling for freedom.

 

The charlatans shall masquerade as "Freedom-loving people" or "Americans" and try to suppress and oppress us, but if we stay true to our country and to ourselves we shall prevail and they shall not silence us!~