Homos and fags and queers! Oh my! Part Deux.
It's weird. I swear I thought I had covered this topic before, but I guess that is only because I have ranted about it all over the rest of the web already. Here, I shall copy and paste a post I made months ago at the Boards.
Steph said:
>Separation of Church and State / Same-sex marriage is a civil matter
>
>Discuss. I command it.
To which I replied:
That article is dead on. Marriage is not and never was in the exclusive domain of the church. In fact, being married in a church does not give a marriage any legal status whatsoever, hence the need to get an official license for marriage from the state. The purpose of marrying in a church is to uphold one's religious traditions and ensure that the church itself recognizes the marriage.
I must repeat that a church wedding has absolutely no bearing on the legal and civil status of a marriage. The state will not recognize a church wedding as legal until said marriage is legally defined from the state, just as the church does not recognize a couple as married until the church sanctifies it. Having said that, what is the opposition to allowing people the LEGAL right to marriage? Most opposition comes from the standpoint that it is against god, correct? Last I checked, gays were not demanding that churches the world over recognize their marriages. Aside from wishing to openly declare love for one another, allowing gays to marry would afford them legal protections that citizens of this country are guaranteed: the right to inheretance from a will, insurance protections, tax cuts, etc etc. THESE are the rights gays are currently seeking - the right to have the same legal protections marriage affords the rest of the country.
For the record, Pat Robertson can go suck a dick. For the record, I really want to meet Pat Robertson. For the record, if I ever get this delight, I will physically assault him by punching him in the face. If I should knock him unconscious, I will dance upon his limp and fragile body as though it were the second coming of Dionysus.
This constitutional amendment will NEVER pass, by the way. The overruling of Bowers proved that to me. Sure, we still have the dynamic trio from hell on that court, but they alone are not powerful enough to override the rational and sane judgments from the other 6 members. O'connor and Kennedy, the two most likely to swing to their side, both ruled in favor of overruling Bowers.
Why am I discussing the supreme court when it is the house and senate and the states that would ratify such an amendment? Because assuming the twits we elected to represent us do the very wrong thing, someone will rightfully challenge said amendment, bringing it under the jurisdiction of the supreme court. Hell, if it happened, I will become born again gay, try to marry, then take it to the damn court myself.
More importantly, though, such an amendment, besides eerily reminding me of centuries past (you remember the days - women couldnt vote, blacks didnt count as whole people), could NEVER pass.
People often argue that separation of church and state is a liberal conspiracy not actually inscribed in the constitution and therefore, an invalid viewpoint. This assumption is incorrect for two main reasons. Reason the first, the actual writer of the first amendment, Thomas Jefferson, was the same person who coined the term "spearation of church and state." He did this in his letters to James Madison (these writings are now known as the Federalist Papers) to EXPLAIN to Madison what the PURPOSE of the first amendment was. The Supreme Court was elected to interpret the intentions of the fathers who wrote the constitution. The best way to intepret a writing centuries old is to draw upon the explanations of the writers themselves.
Even if one COULD successfully argue that Jefferson's opinion does not matter, because it was not codified within the document itself, the plain and clear meaning of the amendment itself demands no other way of interpreting it. The amendment was designed to protect religion from government intrusion, just as it was designed to protect the government from religious intrusion.
Just where am I going with this, you ask? The current test to determine whether a given law is valid under the establishment clause can be summarized as follows:
1) The state must have a secular purpose in enforcing the law
2) the principal effect of the law must not advance or hinder religion
3) the law must not result in excessive government entanglement with religion.
Exaplin to me the valid, secular, completely non-religious purpose for denying gays the right to marry? Explain how defining marriage as between a man and a woman is secular. Every single argument against gay marriage stems from religious beliefs. As such, this amendment could never be justified.
God, I love this subject. You should see my books. I have various epithets and "pet" names assigned to certain justice's opinions. Of course, I can't mention any of the margin writings I have in here, because Elara might have to ban my access, but Scalia has to die sometime. When he does, I think I might just find a woman, go to his grave, and make out on top of it. I had a point in there somewhere, but I derailed. Sorry if I disappointed, Steph;-)
So later on, I may actually address the Marriage protection bullshit going on now.
Steph said:
>Separation of Church and State / Same-sex marriage is a civil matter
>
>Discuss. I command it.
To which I replied:
That article is dead on. Marriage is not and never was in the exclusive domain of the church. In fact, being married in a church does not give a marriage any legal status whatsoever, hence the need to get an official license for marriage from the state. The purpose of marrying in a church is to uphold one's religious traditions and ensure that the church itself recognizes the marriage.
I must repeat that a church wedding has absolutely no bearing on the legal and civil status of a marriage. The state will not recognize a church wedding as legal until said marriage is legally defined from the state, just as the church does not recognize a couple as married until the church sanctifies it. Having said that, what is the opposition to allowing people the LEGAL right to marriage? Most opposition comes from the standpoint that it is against god, correct? Last I checked, gays were not demanding that churches the world over recognize their marriages. Aside from wishing to openly declare love for one another, allowing gays to marry would afford them legal protections that citizens of this country are guaranteed: the right to inheretance from a will, insurance protections, tax cuts, etc etc. THESE are the rights gays are currently seeking - the right to have the same legal protections marriage affords the rest of the country.
For the record, Pat Robertson can go suck a dick. For the record, I really want to meet Pat Robertson. For the record, if I ever get this delight, I will physically assault him by punching him in the face. If I should knock him unconscious, I will dance upon his limp and fragile body as though it were the second coming of Dionysus.
This constitutional amendment will NEVER pass, by the way. The overruling of Bowers proved that to me. Sure, we still have the dynamic trio from hell on that court, but they alone are not powerful enough to override the rational and sane judgments from the other 6 members. O'connor and Kennedy, the two most likely to swing to their side, both ruled in favor of overruling Bowers.
Why am I discussing the supreme court when it is the house and senate and the states that would ratify such an amendment? Because assuming the twits we elected to represent us do the very wrong thing, someone will rightfully challenge said amendment, bringing it under the jurisdiction of the supreme court. Hell, if it happened, I will become born again gay, try to marry, then take it to the damn court myself.
More importantly, though, such an amendment, besides eerily reminding me of centuries past (you remember the days - women couldnt vote, blacks didnt count as whole people), could NEVER pass.
People often argue that separation of church and state is a liberal conspiracy not actually inscribed in the constitution and therefore, an invalid viewpoint. This assumption is incorrect for two main reasons. Reason the first, the actual writer of the first amendment, Thomas Jefferson, was the same person who coined the term "spearation of church and state." He did this in his letters to James Madison (these writings are now known as the Federalist Papers) to EXPLAIN to Madison what the PURPOSE of the first amendment was. The Supreme Court was elected to interpret the intentions of the fathers who wrote the constitution. The best way to intepret a writing centuries old is to draw upon the explanations of the writers themselves.
Even if one COULD successfully argue that Jefferson's opinion does not matter, because it was not codified within the document itself, the plain and clear meaning of the amendment itself demands no other way of interpreting it. The amendment was designed to protect religion from government intrusion, just as it was designed to protect the government from religious intrusion.
Just where am I going with this, you ask? The current test to determine whether a given law is valid under the establishment clause can be summarized as follows:
1) The state must have a secular purpose in enforcing the law
2) the principal effect of the law must not advance or hinder religion
3) the law must not result in excessive government entanglement with religion.
Exaplin to me the valid, secular, completely non-religious purpose for denying gays the right to marry? Explain how defining marriage as between a man and a woman is secular. Every single argument against gay marriage stems from religious beliefs. As such, this amendment could never be justified.
God, I love this subject. You should see my books. I have various epithets and "pet" names assigned to certain justice's opinions. Of course, I can't mention any of the margin writings I have in here, because Elara might have to ban my access, but Scalia has to die sometime. When he does, I think I might just find a woman, go to his grave, and make out on top of it. I had a point in there somewhere, but I derailed. Sorry if I disappointed, Steph;-)
So later on, I may actually address the Marriage protection bullshit going on now.