TexasCHLforum.com

mr1337 wrote:Should have exited the thread several posts ago when I mentioned it's obvious none of the nay sayers are going to open their mind.

I'll leave now and let you guys have your thread back so you can discuss this uncontested. The important thing is #lovewins

An open mind is not the panacea your college professors told you it is. There are basic tenets that demand a closed mind because the facts are not open to discussion. Take gravity for instance. When standing atop a high building and sincerely believing one can fly sans external contrivances, it would be better to close ones mind. A silly example perhaps, nonetheless very true.

Some things may be welcomed with an open mind. Other things are best left alone. Not all good ideas come from open minds. #lovewins is one. Only time will tell. I suspect it will not work out as well as some hope.

TXBO wrote: I'm sure this is a rhetorical question but the words don't appear. It was rejected language for the 1st Amendment. Most attribute the language to Jefferson but it does appear in essays of Madison who ultimately crafted the wording of the 1st Amendment.

Thank you sir. You are correct. The phrase "wall of separation between church and state" came from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in Conneticut. The phrase was meant to ease the fears of that Association and to do so Jefferson, who was not a Baptist, quoted Roger Williams, a prominent Baptist preacher. Jefferson wanted to convince the Baptists that the state would not exercise undue influence over the church.

This reality is frequently twisted beyond all understanding today. The problem was not the church exerting excess influence on the state, but the state exerting excessive influence on the church - by establishing a "state church." A careful reading of the 1st Amendment confirms that truth. Sorry for the history lesson.

TVGuy wrote: First of all, he stated an opinion. Started with "I don't think..."

Second, I'm confused. Are you arguing against the separation of church and state?

It isn't his opinion I asked about. I'm not arguing against the "founding principal", I'm just asking if anyone actually knows where such a notion comes from. A "founding principle" should be stated somewhere In a founding document don't you think? Constitution? Bill of Rights? Declaration of Independence? Have you ever looked for those words?

mr1337 wrote: I don't think blue laws have a place in a country founded on the principles of separation of Church and State.

Can you show me where that principle(s) is spelled out in the Constitution or Bill of Rights?

I need to add this to what I posted above. I have been a licensed and ordained Baptist Pastor for nearly 40 years. I have performed hundreds of weddings. There are several things everyone should know about the process.

1) Though I am licensed (To preach the Gospel) and ordained, there is no "state license" to perform marriage ceremonies. I signed state issued marriage licenses as a service to the couple getting married, and as a courtesy to local, state, and federal governments, not because I was required to do so by law. Signing by the involved parties made the marriage "legal" in the eyes of Texas laws as the minister and church became witnesses to the event. My signature attests that my church has granted me the privilege of marrying individuals for the church.

2) Every Texas marriage license form asks the minister to list his/her church of affiliation. This is, in my view, the proper request. Marriage by a minister, in my belief, is a ministry of the church not a ministry of the minister. I always concluded my weddings with the phrase, "And now by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the privilege granted me by the great state of Texas, I am honored to pronounce you husband and wife." In most Christian theology, the authority to marry comes from God, through His church, by the hand of His under shepherd, professed by the couple before witnesses, and is thus recognized by the state. The state portion is immaterial in theology. Since retirement, I do not perform weddings because I am not serving a church.

3) "Marriage" has historically been assumed, under the laws of most states, of couples "cohabitating" at the common law - common-law marriages. Not all jurisdictions recognize such unions. Marriage licenses in this country began in the mid 1600's in Massachusetts. Before that, marriage was a civil contract between two families. License contracts began to be widely recorded in the mid 19th century. Some states accommodate religious groups by issuing self marriage licenses which require only the couple and witnesses to sign.

4) I may stand corrected, but I believe almost all faiths believe marriage is an arrangement between God and two (or more, for those brave souls) people.

To be clear here. The government has NEVER BEEN IN THE BUSINESS OF MARRIAGE - save in one exception, that of state officials authorized to marry. Government has become involved in the process of LICENSING MARRIAGES for many years. That may be ending.

cb1000rider wrote: I understand the fear around what the courts "might" do beyond this. And as much as I don't believe most of it, I could certainly get behind what everyone agrees is the right solution - getting the govt out of the "marriage" business...

I think that is going to be the end result: States will cease to issue marriage licenses altogether and forbid public officials from performing ceremonies. Then marital status will just be between the individual and the IRS. That will be a happy state of affairs. And I predict the multi billion dollar a year wedding industry will react badly.

Of course the Feds could authorize IRS officials to perform ceremonies.

Churches and ministers have a simple, legal out. They will add to their bylaws that the church alone has the right to define marriage, that neither the church nor the minister may allow, sanction, or perform any marriage ceremony except for those couples who have read and signed a copy of the bylaws, who have been members in good standing for more than one year, and who present themselves before the membership of the church body who will then vote to authorize the ceremony, or not.

If rejected, there are barriers in place before you can take legal action: you agreed to the church bylaws when you joined, you signed the bylaws, marriage ceremonies are not offered as a ministry of the church to non-members, if you disagree with the agreed-upon conditions and vote, you're free to seek out someone else who will marry you.

mr1337 wrote:I just don't get why people are so vehemently against something that will never affect their own lives.

I could care less what people do in the privacy of their own homes. In that respect, you are right. It will never affect my life.

On the other hand, if my THINKING and SPEAKING about my personal convictions about homosexuality become threatened because of people deciding they have a right to silence all dissent and religious objections by legal means, or otherwise, then this decision will affect me in my personal life. If you baked wedding cakes you might understand where this is headed.

Supreme Court decisions have a way of affecting everyone's lives, sooner or later. To deny that basic fact just implies that one may not have lived long enough.