to you know where in a handbasket thnx SCOTUS

[Slowplay]

I was going to pass on this one, but I did think of one thing that bothers me about this ruling, not tied to any sort of moral stance on the subject. The thing that bothers me is that the SCOTUS ruled on something that isn't in the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights basically says that anything not called out specifically, is left up to the States or People, respectively. So, IMHO, this is the SCOTUS extending the reach of the Constitution into another area where it wasn't written to go, and thus extending Federal government reach somewhere it wasn't intended to go. I don't agree with him on everything, but I do agree with Rand Paul on this particular item about being just another case of overreach. And we've seen before that the Feds like to overreach on firearms every time they can; I don't like them having any more items to stand on if its not in the Constitution.

It's amazing to see the celebration of such a spurious ruling (after 150 or so years, a "fundamental" right has been discovered by scotus). Meanwhile, the national debt keeps exploding without any concern by the masses of idiots, that celebrate the irrelevant bone the leviathan federal government has thrown them (which will never be enough...the left lacks a soul that can be satiated). I guess the big picture doesn't matter much to the impacted constituency, as they cannot have natural posterity that will have to live with the consequences of our post-Constitutional leviathan fed. gov't. - as long as they can "feel" legitimized, it's a small boost to their self-esteem.

[ShootDontTalk]

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.

[ShootDontTalk]

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?

[TVGuy]

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?

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?

[ShootDontTalk]

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?

[TXBO]

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?

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.

[ShootDontTalk]

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.

[baldeagle]

There was never a separation of church and state envisioned by our founders. There was a separation of A church and state. IOW, religion was a part of their beliefs, but they were opposed to having a state supported church like the Church of England. Most people aren't aware of the history of the First Amendment in America. Originally every one of the colonies had a state supported church. People paid taxes which were used to pay the clergy and build churches. Laws were passed that prevented voting unless you were a member of the church (which meant there were a lot of nominal members because they wanted to vote.) That's what a state supported church means, and that's why the First Amendment was written the way that it was. The idea that government officials couldn't pray, that government buildings couldn't be used for religious observances, that schools had to ban any sort of religious behavior is a modern invention that has nothing to do with our founding.

If you really want to understand what the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" means and how it came to be, you need to read Freedom of Religion, the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court: How the Court Flunked History.

[mojo84]

Here's a good read.
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/sociali ... tate-issue" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mr1337]

"Separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state") is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Since the First Amendment clearly places the restrictions solely on the state, some argue a more correct phrase would be the "separation of state FROM church". Either way, the "separation" phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatio ... ted_States" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jefferson's concept of "separation of church and state" first became a part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878). In that case, the court examined the history of religious liberty in the US, determining that while the constitution guarantees religious freedom, "The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted." The court found that the leaders in advocating and formulating the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Quoting the "separation" paragraph from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, the court concluded that, "coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured."

Another good read:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... te/240481/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Don't just read the title and stop, you have to read the article.)

The point is, the government has no business in regulating a sacrament. Should the government be issuing licenses for baptisms and christenings? What about bar mitzvahs?

If you want to use a religious argument, you must accept that the government should have nothing to do with religion and defining religiously-based events, thereby creating exclusions for those who do not meet the religious interpretation. By creating this exclusion, you ensure that only those who meet the religious definition will get the benefits. Those excluded will be denied certain rights simply because the government chose to stick their noses in religious business.

I don't even know why I'm debating this with you guys, it's obvious that you've made your position and there's nothing that can be done to open your mind. I find it interesting that people who put so much emphasis on certain personal freedoms (the right to bear arms) can speak so harshly against other freedoms.

[cb1000rider]

mr1337, Unless I missed it, I haven't seen a single forum member indicate that the government should be in the marriage business. Most of the above quotes are about origin of the state and perhaps how we got tangled up in this mess to begin with. IE - historical in nature.

People are offended by the government being involved, but I haven't seen anyone who wants to keep it as a function of government...

And it's really unusual that we all agree.


Unless I missed something...

[mojo84]

I don't even know why I'm debating this with you guys, it's obvious that you've made your position and there's nothing that can be done to open your mind. I find it interesting that people who put so much emphasis on certain personal freedoms (the right to bear arms) can speak so harshly against other freedoms.

The only thing I am pointing out is how the idea of separation of church and state came about and how it has been twisted from it's origin to fit a certain agenda. Like it or not, this country's founding was based on a moral compass which was the Bible. Our government is not intended to influence religion but be influenced by our religion and that religion is the religion of the bible, Christianity. The SCOTUS decision has it backwards.

[TXBO]

I don't even know why I'm debating this with you guys, it's obvious that you've made your position and there's nothing that can be done to open your mind. I find it interesting that people who put so much emphasis on certain personal freedoms (the right to bear arms) can speak so harshly against other freedoms.

I have no political objection to the several states that proscribe to same-sex marriage as allowed by a referendum of the people or the legislation of a democratically elected body within a republican form of government. I do object to the activism of a federal judiciary.

[TXBO]

I don't even know why I'm debating this with you guys, it's obvious that you've made your position and there's nothing that can be done to open your mind. I find it interesting that people who put so much emphasis on certain personal freedoms (the right to bear arms) can speak so harshly against other freedoms.

The only thing I am pointing out is how the idea of separation of church and state came about and how it has been twisted from it's origin to fit a certain agenda. Like it or not, this country's founding was based on a moral compass which was the Bible. Our government is not intended to influence religion but be influenced by our religion and that religion is the religion of the bible, Christianity. The SCOTUS decision has it backwards.

Some tried to include Jesus into the first amendment but Madison scolded them. Christian doctrine did however have a large influence as Madison credited Martin Luther's Two Kingdom Doctrine as the guiding principle to religious liberty. Natural rights philosophers John locke and John Milton were both in agreement with Luther.

[mr1337]

I don't even know why I'm debating this with you guys, it's obvious that you've made your position and there's nothing that can be done to open your mind. I find it interesting that people who put so much emphasis on certain personal freedoms (the right to bear arms) can speak so harshly against other freedoms.

The only thing I am pointing out is how the idea of separation of church and state came about and how it has been twisted from it's origin to fit a certain agenda. Like it or not, this country's founding was based on a moral compass which was the Bible. Our government is not intended to influence religion but be influenced by our religion and that religion is the religion of the bible, Christianity. The SCOTUS decision has it backwards.

I don't agree with blue laws. If you are saying that the US needs to base its laws off of Christianity, there's a whole lot that needs to be outlawed, as I outlined above.

This includes cursing, tattoos, dancing (in the interpretation of some churches), divorce, intoxication, and adultery.

Let's outlaw divorce because it destroys core family values. It literally rips a family apart, and divorce is not allowed in the Bible.

Let's outlaw intoxication because it's moral and right to do so.

Let's outlaw worshiping any religion except Christianity. Paganism is not moral. Neither is Islam. Or atheism.

A lot of western Europeans who migrated to North America in the time before the US did do to escape the religious oppression of Europe so they could freely live their lives.

A free nation demands a secular government. Once religion plays too much into the laws of the land, you no longer have a free state. You have the workings of many middle-eastern countries in which women must keep their entire bodies covered except for their eyes because that is the standard of ethics in their country.

Just because marriage equality is against your own morals doesn't mean that's the case for everyone. The important question is: is it unethical? I would argue that stealing is both immoral and unethical. You are trespassing against someone else when you steal. But when someone marries another of their own gender, who is trespassed? Who is damaged? Thus to you, it may be immoral, but to society as a whole, it is not unethical.