|
|
Expert
Posts: 1343
  
Location: East Texas | I’ll admit… the findings of last week had me upset and just downright aggravated. I have read all sorts of postings on FB and other places and after letting things sink in over the weekend, I have come to a couple of conclusions. 1. Love did not win last week… that was accomplished over 2,000 years ago by a Savior who died for ALL of us. The acceptance of that is totally an individual decision that you can’t make for me and I can’t make for you. 2. As a Bible believing Christian, not one thing that was decided upon last week changed for me. Even if I don’t believe in a certain life-style, I can still love those who believe different because God loved me first and commands me to love others. Nothing that Obama or the SCOTUS can or will change that. So, with that said, I continue to live my life like I always have. Do I have to like what the government does? Nope… but that’s why I get to vote every few years if I don’t like what is being done, and continue to pray for God’s mercy on our country!
| |
| | |
 BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | Hollywood's Fan - 2015-06-29 12:09 PM
Bear - 2015-06-30 10:45 AM I wish they would rule in favor of bestiality and polygamy. That way I could marry my Rotti and my mare, while still keeping my wife.
 You would be wrong about the keeping your wife part.
 | |
| | |
  Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | oija - 2015-06-28 9:47 PM
foundation horse - 2015-06-28 9:03 PM
Please reference the specific text within ANY of America's Founding Documents decreeing the specific separation of Church and State......................................
That is a cop-out, pure and simple. The first amendment of the United States both prevents the establishment of any state religion or the prohibition of one's free exercise. While it may not use the word "separation," Thomas Jefferson, the main author of one of our founding documents and an undisputed founding father, himself interpreted it this way. Jefferson wrote in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." As part of our early government he was assuring this organization that the government would not interfere with their religious practices and that this was the way to interpret the first amendment. The SCOTUS would uphold this ruling in Reynold v. United States and most explicitly in the 1947 SCOTUS ruling Emerson v. Board of Education where the SCOTUS clearly referenced Jefferson's 1802 letter and agreed with it. Most people are more familiar with the 1962 ruling, Engel v. Vitale banning prayer in state schools.
And don't even try to pull a line like, "Well, none of those are Founding Documents." That is BS.
BECAUSE the Constitution, which is THE FOUNDING DOCUMENT, protects the SCOTUS's right to interpret the Constitution, any ruling they make, until a new interpretation is reached, IS a founding document; it becomes part of our federal law. The writers of the Constitution KNEW that societies change, grow, and must adapt. They wrote a document that could be adapted to the needs of those later societies. In their foresight they provided a particular group to interpret the Constitution based on the needs of the current society. This is not 1776; it's 2015. This decision was reached through Constitutionally and legally protected processes. Whatever your personal opinion, if you agree with the Constitution, which clearly supports the creation of the SCOTUS and their ability to interpret the Constitution, then you must accept the ruling. The SCOTUS simply performed a function they were given the power to perform in the Constitution and used previously established precedents from their own rulings to support this, even basing their rulings on the opinions of founding fathers. Separation of church and state IS the law of the land because they have interpreted it so based on the opinion of one of the founding fathers.
Tis not a 'cop out' when the text does NOT exist in The Constitution or Declaration of Independence. Neither did this exist in The Articles of Confederation. And please forgive me, but when did 'doctrine' replace Founding Documents as signed and voted i.e. ratified by the Majority of States? | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Just Plain Lucky - 2015-06-29 11:00 AM
foundation horse - 2015-06-28 10:03 PM
Please reference the specific text within ANY of America's Founding Documents decreeing the specific separation of Church and State......................................
From the first Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
In other words, Congress cannot pander to Christian beliefs, but your right to be a Christian is most certainly protected. You can believe what you want, but you cannot force those beliefs on others.
However this ruling The Federal Government IS mandating a Church Function...... | |
| | |
 Thread Killer
Posts: 7545
| foundation horse - 2015-06-29 4:07 PM
Just Plain Lucky - 2015-06-29 11:00 AM
foundation horse - 2015-06-28 10:03 PM
Please reference the specific text within ANY of America's Founding Documents decreeing the specific separation of Church and State......................................
From the first Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
In other words, Congress cannot pander to Christian beliefs, but your right to be a Christian is most certainly protected. You can believe what you want, but you cannot force those beliefs on others.
However this ruling The Federal Government IS mandating a Church Function......
Can you not tell the difference between legal marriage and religious marriage? The SCOTUS has decided that gay couples can now marry LEGALLY. They can now go to the Justice of the Peace and get a marriage license. If the government forced all churches to perform gay marriages, then yes, you would have a point there. That is in direct violation of the first Amendment and Christians (and all other religions) are still protected by it and should be. Â | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Just Plain Lucky - 2015-06-29 3:28 PM
foundation horse - 2015-06-29 4:07 PM
Just Plain Lucky - 2015-06-29 11:00 AM
foundation horse - 2015-06-28 10:03 PM
Please reference the specific text within ANY of America's Founding Documents decreeing the specific separation of Church and State......................................
From the first Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
In other words, Congress cannot pander to Christian beliefs, but your right to be a Christian is most certainly protected. You can believe what you want, but you cannot force those beliefs on others.
However this ruling The Federal Government IS mandating a Church Function......
There is ligation in the works to use The Courts to LEGALLY force The Church to perform same marriage. | |
| | |
 Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Just Plain Lucky - 2015-06-29 3:28 PM Can you not tell the difference between legal marriage and religious marriage? The SCOTUS has decided that gay couples can now marry LEGALLY. They can now go to the Justice of the Peace and get a marriage license. If the government forced all churches to perform gay marriages, then yes, you would have a point there. That is in direct violation of the first Amendment and Christians (and all other religions) are still protected by it and should be.
Last I saw, a Christian Oregon baker was facing a $135,000 settlement for not making a cake. You think Christian Pastors are irrational from fearing the same? | |
| | |
 Expert
Posts: 5293
| Just Plain Lucky - 2015-06-29 1:28 PM
foundation horse - 2015-06-29 4:07 PM
Just Plain Lucky - 2015-06-29 11:00 AM
foundation horse - 2015-06-28 10:03 PM
Please reference the specific text within ANY of America's Founding Documents decreeing the specific separation of Church and State......................................
From the first Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
In other words, Congress cannot pander to Christian beliefs, but your right to be a Christian is most certainly protected. You can believe what you want, but you cannot force those beliefs on others.
However this ruling The Federal Government IS mandating a Church Function......
That's right! There is a big difference between legal marriage and religious marriage. Not all marriages happen in churches. American society should not revolve around the church. Those who have religious beliefs are free to worship and feel however they want, but religion should not dictate federal policy. Once again, same same sex couples do not have any effect on anyone. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Wonder what SS Marriage supporters will think when the lawsuits are filed? | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 5293
| foundation horse - 2015-06-29 1:38 PM
Just Plain Lucky - 2015-06-29 3:28 PM
foundation horse - 2015-06-29 4:07 PM
Just Plain Lucky - 2015-06-29 11:00 AM
foundation horse - 2015-06-28 10:03 PM
Please reference the specific text within ANY of America's Founding Documents decreeing the specific separation of Church and State......................................
From the first Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
In other words, Congress cannot pander to Christian beliefs, but your right to be a Christian is most certainly protected. You can believe what you want, but you cannot force those beliefs on others.
However this ruling The Federal Government IS mandating a Church Function......
There is ligation in the works to use The Courts to LEGALLY force The Church to perform same marriage.
In that case, absolutely against it. No church should be forced to perform gay marriages. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | FLITASTIC - 2015-06-29 4:20 PM
foundation horse - 2015-06-29 1:38 PM
Just Plain Lucky - 2015-06-29 3:28 PM
foundation horse - 2015-06-29 4:07 PM
Just Plain Lucky - 2015-06-29 11:00 AM
foundation horse - 2015-06-28 10:03 PM
Please reference the specific text within ANY of America's Founding Documents decreeing the specific separation of Church and State......................................
From the first Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
In other words, Congress cannot pander to Christian beliefs, but your right to be a Christian is most certainly protected. You can believe what you want, but you cannot force those beliefs on others.
However this ruling The Federal Government IS mandating a Church Function......
There is ligation in the works to use The Courts to LEGALLY force The Church to perform same marriage.
In that case, absolutely against it. No church should be forced to perform gay marriages.
In essence that is what SCOTUS has declared will happen. | |
| | |
 Expert
Posts: 3782
Location: Gainesville, TX | foundation horse - 2015-06-29 2:06 PM
oija - 2015-06-28 9:47 PM
foundation horse - 2015-06-28 9:03 PM
Please reference the specific text within ANY of America's Founding Documents decreeing the specific separation of Church and State......................................
That is a cop-out, pure and simple. The first amendment of the United States both prevents the establishment of any state religion or the prohibition of one's free exercise. While it may not use the word "separation," Thomas Jefferson, the main author of one of our founding documents and an undisputed founding father, himself interpreted it this way. Jefferson wrote in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." As part of our early government he was assuring this organization that the government would not interfere with their religious practices and that this was the way to interpret the first amendment. The SCOTUS would uphold this ruling in Reynold v. United States and most explicitly in the 1947 SCOTUS ruling Emerson v. Board of Education where the SCOTUS clearly referenced Jefferson's 1802 letter and agreed with it. Most people are more familiar with the 1962 ruling, Engel v. Vitale banning prayer in state schools.
And don't even try to pull a line like, "Well, none of those are Founding Documents." That is BS.
BECAUSE the Constitution, which is THE FOUNDING DOCUMENT, protects the SCOTUS's right to interpret the Constitution, any ruling they make, until a new interpretation is reached, IS a founding document; it becomes part of our federal law. The writers of the Constitution KNEW that societies change, grow, and must adapt. They wrote a document that could be adapted to the needs of those later societies. In their foresight they provided a particular group to interpret the Constitution based on the needs of the current society. This is not 1776; it's 2015. This decision was reached through Constitutionally and legally protected processes. Whatever your personal opinion, if you agree with the Constitution, which clearly supports the creation of the SCOTUS and their ability to interpret the Constitution, then you must accept the ruling. The SCOTUS simply performed a function they were given the power to perform in the Constitution and used previously established precedents from their own rulings to support this, even basing their rulings on the opinions of founding fathers. Separation of church and state IS the law of the land because they have interpreted it so based on the opinion of one of the founding fathers.
Tis not a 'cop out' when the text does NOT exist in The Constitution or Declaration of Independence. Neither did this exist in The Articles of Confederation. And please forgive me, but when did 'doctrine' replace Founding Documents as signed and voted i.e. ratified by the Majority of States?
Seriously??? Is this ignore the part of the Constitution you don't like day? The part that gives the Supreme Court the right to interpret the Constitution? The Supreme Court interpreted the establishment clause to mean separation. Until another panel of judges interprets it differently it doesn't really matter how you read it. If you want to influence interpretation become a judge yourself. Their right to interpret is perfectly constitutional.
And the Articles of Confederation is completely left field. Founding document or not it was scrapped because IT DIDNT WORK. It was a bad model so they came up with something better. As it is not law of the land, i refuse to refer to it. I care about what is relevant.
As for establishment, the government is no more setting themselves up as a religion by licensing marriages or civil unions than they are by licensing various religious nonprofits or allowing private schools. Allowing something to happen that some see as religious and others view as purely secular hardly makes them a religious entity. They are concerned with inheritance and taxation tied to these licensed partnerships. As stated before I do disagree with making churches perform marriages they do not wish to which is why I stated I thought ONLY JPs or judges should be allowed to marry people. Any religious ceremony would be entirely up the couple but legal license should be left entirely in the hands of the state. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| oija - 2015-06-29 4:58 PM And the Articles of Confederation is completely left field. Founding document or not it was scrapped because IT DIDNT WORK. It was a bad model so they came up with something better. As it is not law of the land, i refuse to refer to it. I care about what is relevant.... Interesting fact for you.... "Separation of Church and state" and "religious tolerance" were both "scrapped' language by the founding fathers. Like the Articles of Confederation, they were both rejected for 'something better".
Edited by TXBO 2015-06-29 5:24 PM
| |
| | |
 Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| TXBO - 2015-06-29 4:06 PM
Just Plain Lucky - 2015-06-29 3:28 PMÂ Â Can you not tell the difference between legal marriage and religious marriage? The SCOTUS has decided that gay couples can now marry LEGALLY. They can now go to the Justice of the Peace and get a marriage license. If the government forced all churches to perform gay marriages, then yes, you would have a point there. That is in direct violation of the first Amendment and Christians (and all other religions) are still protected by it and should be. Â
 Last I saw, a Christian Oregon baker was facing a $135,000 settlement for not making a cake. You think Christian Pastors are irrational from fearing the same?
There where several editorials over the weekend asking to revoke tax exemptions from any church that refuses to marry a same sex couple. I see a law suite in the making. | |
| | |
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| oija - 2015-06-29 4:58 PM
Any religious ceremony would be entirely up the couple but legal license should be left entirely in the hands of the state.
Why should there be license for something that is a fundamental right? Sounds quite contradictory to me. | |
| | |
 Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | oija - 2015-06-29 3:58 PM foundation horse - 2015-06-29 2:06 PM oija - 2015-06-28 9:47 PM foundation horse - 2015-06-28 9:03 PM Please reference the specific text within ANY of America's Founding Documents decreeing the specific separation of Church and State...................................... That is a cop-out, pure and simple. The first amendment of the United States both prevents the establishment of any state religion or the prohibition of one's free exercise. While it may not use the word "separation," Thomas Jefferson, the main author of one of our founding documents and an undisputed founding father, himself interpreted it this way. Jefferson wrote in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." As part of our early government he was assuring this organization that the government would not interfere with their religious practices and that this was the way to interpret the first amendment. The SCOTUS would uphold this ruling in Reynold v. United States and most explicitly in the 1947 SCOTUS ruling Emerson v. Board of Education where the SCOTUS clearly referenced Jefferson's 1802 letter and agreed with it. Most people are more familiar with the 1962 ruling, Engel v. Vitale banning prayer in state schools. And don't even try to pull a line like, "Well, none of those are Founding Documents." That is BS. BECAUSE the Constitution, which is THE FOUNDING DOCUMENT, protects the SCOTUS's right to interpret the Constitution, any ruling they make, until a new interpretation is reached, IS a founding document; it becomes part of our federal law. The writers of the Constitution KNEW that societies change, grow, and must adapt. They wrote a document that could be adapted to the needs of those later societies. In their foresight they provided a particular group to interpret the Constitution based on the needs of the current society. This is not 1776; it's 2015. This decision was reached through Constitutionally and legally protected processes. Whatever your personal opinion, if you agree with the Constitution, which clearly supports the creation of the SCOTUS and their ability to interpret the Constitution, then you must accept the ruling. The SCOTUS simply performed a function they were given the power to perform in the Constitution and used previously established precedents from their own rulings to support this, even basing their rulings on the opinions of founding fathers. Separation of church and state IS the law of the land because they have interpreted it so based on the opinion of one of the founding fathers. Tis not a 'cop out' when the text does NOT exist in The Constitution or Declaration of Independence. Neither did this exist in The Articles of Confederation. And please forgive me, but when did 'doctrine' replace Founding Documents as signed and voted i.e. ratified by the Majority of States? Seriously??? Is this ignore the part of the Constitution you don't like day? The part that gives the Supreme Court the right to interpret the Constitution? The Supreme Court interpreted the establishment clause to mean separation. Until another panel of judges interprets it differently it doesn't really matter how you read it. If you want to influence interpretation become a judge yourself. Their right to interpret is perfectly constitutional. And the Articles of Confederation is completely left field. Founding document or not it was scrapped because IT DIDNT WORK. It was a bad model so they came up with something better. As it is not law of the land, i refuse to refer to it. I care about what is relevant. As for establishment, the government is no more setting themselves up as a religion by licensing marriages or civil unions than they are by licensing various religious nonprofits or allowing private schools. Allowing something to happen that some see as religious and others view as purely secular hardly makes them a religious entity. They are concerned with inheritance and taxation tied to these licensed partnerships. As stated before I do disagree with making churches perform marriages they do not wish to which is why I stated I thought ONLY JPs or judges should be allowed to marry people. Any religious ceremony would be entirely up the couple but legal license should be left entirely in the hands of the state.
The 9th Amendment actually 'prohibits' the interpretation of the Constitution! By ANYONE! | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | musikmaker - 2015-06-29 5:20 PM
oija - 2015-06-29 3:58 PM foundation horse - 2015-06-29 2:06 PM oija - 2015-06-28 9:47 PM foundation horse - 2015-06-28 9:03 PM Please reference the specific text within ANY of America's Founding Documents decreeing the specific separation of Church and State...................................... That is a cop-out, pure and simple. The first amendment of the United States both prevents the establishment of any state religion or the prohibition of one's free exercise. While it may not use the word "separation," Thomas Jefferson, the main author of one of our founding documents and an undisputed founding father, himself interpreted it this way. Jefferson wrote in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." As part of our early government he was assuring this organization that the government would not interfere with their religious practices and that this was the way to interpret the first amendment. The SCOTUS would uphold this ruling in Reynold v. United States and most explicitly in the 1947 SCOTUS ruling Emerson v. Board of Education where the SCOTUS clearly referenced Jefferson's 1802 letter and agreed with it. Most people are more familiar with the 1962 ruling, Engel v. Vitale banning prayer in state schools. And don't even try to pull a line like, "Well, none of those are Founding Documents." That is BS. BECAUSE the Constitution, which is THE FOUNDING DOCUMENT, protects the SCOTUS's right to interpret the Constitution, any ruling they make, until a new interpretation is reached, IS a founding document; it becomes part of our federal law. The writers of the Constitution KNEW that societies change, grow, and must adapt. They wrote a document that could be adapted to the needs of those later societies. In their foresight they provided a particular group to interpret the Constitution based on the needs of the current society. This is not 1776; it's 2015. This decision was reached through Constitutionally and legally protected processes. Whatever your personal opinion, if you agree with the Constitution, which clearly supports the creation of the SCOTUS and their ability to interpret the Constitution, then you must accept the ruling. The SCOTUS simply performed a function they were given the power to perform in the Constitution and used previously established precedents from their own rulings to support this, even basing their rulings on the opinions of founding fathers. Separation of church and state IS the law of the land because they have interpreted it so based on the opinion of one of the founding fathers. Tis not a 'cop out' when the text does NOT exist in The Constitution or Declaration of Independence. Neither did this exist in The Articles of Confederation. And please forgive me, but when did 'doctrine' replace Founding Documents as signed and voted i.e. ratified by the Majority of States? Seriously??? Is this ignore the part of the Constitution you don't like day? The part that gives the Supreme Court the right to interpret the Constitution? The Supreme Court interpreted the establishment clause to mean separation. Until another panel of judges interprets it differently it doesn't really matter how you read it. If you want to influence interpretation become a judge yourself. Their right to interpret is perfectly constitutional. And the Articles of Confederation is completely left field. Founding document or not it was scrapped because IT DIDNT WORK. It was a bad model so they came up with something better. As it is not law of the land, i refuse to refer to it. I care about what is relevant. As for establishment, the government is no more setting themselves up as a religion by licensing marriages or civil unions than they are by licensing various religious nonprofits or allowing private schools. Allowing something to happen that some see as religious and others view as purely secular hardly makes them a religious entity. They are concerned with inheritance and taxation tied to these licensed partnerships. As stated before I do disagree with making churches perform marriages they do not wish to which is why I stated I thought ONLY JPs or judges should be allowed to marry people. Any religious ceremony would be entirely up the couple but legal license should be left entirely in the hands of the state.
Which means that the text or lack thereof means there is NO basis for this and a number
Of other unConstitutional Decisions..................  | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 3782
Location: Gainesville, TX | TXBO - 2015-06-29 5:16 PM
oija - 2015-06-29 4:58 PM And the Articles of Confederation is completely left field. Founding document or not it was scrapped because IT DIDNT WORK. It was a bad model so they came up with something better. As it is not law of the land, i refuse to refer to it. I care about what is relevant.... Interesting fact for you.... "Separation of Church and state" and "religious tolerance" were both "scrapped' language by the founding fathers. Like the Articles of Confederation, they were both rejected for 'something better".Â
They were adopted by the Supreme Court later though and particularly defended in 1947. From the constitution, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. The court is given jurisdiction to law and fact (thus to interpret cases and be the final word on legality) unless Congress says otherwise. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 3782
Location: Gainesville, TX | musikmaker - 2015-06-29 5:20 PM
oija - 2015-06-29 3:58 PM foundation horse - 2015-06-29 2:06 PM oija - 2015-06-28 9:47 PM foundation horse - 2015-06-28 9:03 PM Please reference the specific text within ANY of America's Founding Documents decreeing the specific separation of Church and State...................................... That is a cop-out, pure and simple. The first amendment of the United States both prevents the establishment of any state religion or the prohibition of one's free exercise. While it may not use the word "separation," Thomas Jefferson, the main author of one of our founding documents and an undisputed founding father, himself interpreted it this way. Jefferson wrote in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." As part of our early government he was assuring this organization that the government would not interfere with their religious practices and that this was the way to interpret the first amendment. The SCOTUS would uphold this ruling in Reynold v. United States and most explicitly in the 1947 SCOTUS ruling Emerson v. Board of Education where the SCOTUS clearly referenced Jefferson's 1802 letter and agreed with it. Most people are more familiar with the 1962 ruling, Engel v. Vitale banning prayer in state schools. And don't even try to pull a line like, "Well, none of those are Founding Documents." That is BS. BECAUSE the Constitution, which is THE FOUNDING DOCUMENT, protects the SCOTUS's right to interpret the Constitution, any ruling they make, until a new interpretation is reached, IS a founding document; it becomes part of our federal law. The writers of the Constitution KNEW that societies change, grow, and must adapt. They wrote a document that could be adapted to the needs of those later societies. In their foresight they provided a particular group to interpret the Constitution based on the needs of the current society. This is not 1776; it's 2015. This decision was reached through Constitutionally and legally protected processes. Whatever your personal opinion, if you agree with the Constitution, which clearly supports the creation of the SCOTUS and their ability to interpret the Constitution, then you must accept the ruling. The SCOTUS simply performed a function they were given the power to perform in the Constitution and used previously established precedents from their own rulings to support this, even basing their rulings on the opinions of founding fathers. Separation of church and state IS the law of the land because they have interpreted it so based on the opinion of one of the founding fathers. Tis not a 'cop out' when the text does NOT exist in The Constitution or Declaration of Independence. Neither did this exist in The Articles of Confederation. And please forgive me, but when did 'doctrine' replace Founding Documents as signed and voted i.e. ratified by the Majority of States? Seriously??? Is this ignore the part of the Constitution you don't like day? The part that gives the Supreme Court the right to interpret the Constitution? The Supreme Court interpreted the establishment clause to mean separation. Until another panel of judges interprets it differently it doesn't really matter how you read it. If you want to influence interpretation become a judge yourself. Their right to interpret is perfectly constitutional. And the Articles of Confederation is completely left field. Founding document or not it was scrapped because IT DIDNT WORK. It was a bad model so they came up with something better. As it is not law of the land, i refuse to refer to it. I care about what is relevant. As for establishment, the government is no more setting themselves up as a religion by licensing marriages or civil unions than they are by licensing various religious nonprofits or allowing private schools. Allowing something to happen that some see as religious and others view as purely secular hardly makes them a religious entity. They are concerned with inheritance and taxation tied to these licensed partnerships. As stated before I do disagree with making churches perform marriages they do not wish to which is why I stated I thought ONLY JPs or judges should be allowed to marry people. Any religious ceremony would be entirely up the couple but legal license should be left entirely in the hands of the state.
Disagree. The ninth amendment states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Nada about the Supreme Court or interpretation. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | The rights are enumerated via the text. Marriage, abortion and gun control are NOT enumerated via text. Per ANY Amendment! | |
| |
| |
Folks on-line