Separation of Church & State

[tranquility]

Pretty sure the supreme court hasn't made ANY rulings regarding same sex marriage at this time.

In a technical way, they have. The Minnesota Supreme court found marriage to be only between a man and a woman. It was appealed (In part on 14th amendment grounds.) and the U.S. Supreme Court turned it down by finding it lacked a substantial federal question.

Most cases get to the Supremes by certiorari and there is no precedent if they turn down a case. Here it came to them under mandatory appellate review and by not accepting the case, it approved the case. (For lack of a better term; which I'm sure there is one, I just can't think of it.)

In other words, there *is* a Supreme Court precedent against the 14th amendment argument and same sex marriage. I don't think anyone believes it can't be distinguished, but, it is a ruling regarding same sex marriage.

 

[BOR]

Emst you can review this thread. A denial of Certiorari is not a decision on the merits, however, in Baker the SC issued a one page ruling.


https://forum.freeadvice.com/marriage-domestic-partnerships-other-family-law-matters-45/tx-gays-morality-clause-511968.html

Now, if you read the ruling from CA by Judge Walker, he does not even cite Baker as controlling precedent, but cites Loving v. Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas.

I read some scholar's opinions that it will be overturned on appeal based on Baker.

 

[Ohiogal]

There are NO anti sodomy laws that are in force, the 14th AM took care of that.

Actually a Supreme Court case took care of that. In this century.

 

[BOR]

Actually a Supreme Court case took care of that. In this century.

I did not mean in 1868 . I was speaking of L v T mentioned earlier in the thread.

How are things in your part of Ohio?

 

[FarmerJ]

We claim we have a separation of church and state , but its not totally true , what we have is sort of like a selectively intertwined church based state , example: we give clergy the power to help create a legally binding contract that can be terminated via the court system. If we had total separation of church and state then for example All legally binding marriage contracts would be handled via a govt civil marriage office then those who want a religous ceremony to meet personal beliefs would go afterward and get married in a church. BUT we dont do it this way. Can you imagine what it would be like if all whom married in a church were required to go back to a church to get a divorce? I can see it now , many would just live together in new relationships anyway.

 

[justalayman]

FarmerJ;2657294]We claim we have a separation of church and state , but its not totally true , what we have is sort of like a selectively intertwined church based state , example: we give clergy the power to help create a legally binding contract that can be terminated via the court system.

the only parties to the marriage contract are the man and wife (or man and man or wife and wife in a few places) The church is acts as the essentially as the notary. What the church does other than verify the marriage took place has no legal authority.

If we had total separation of church and state then for example All legally binding marriage contracts would be handled via a govt civil marriage office then those who want a religous ceremony to meet personal beliefs would go afterward and get married in a church.

and they can be if you choose that.

Can you imagine what it would be like if all whom married in a church were required to go back to a church to get a divorce? I can see it now , many would just live together in new relationships anyway.

Now you are starting to understand the Catholic way

 

[tranquility]

We claim we have a separation of church and state , but its not totally true , what we have is sort of like a selectively intertwined church based state , example: we give clergy the power to help create a legally binding contract that can be terminated via the court system

If there were a TOTAL separation of church and state, it is unlikely we would have rights which are endowed by our creator.

 

[HawaiianBurger]

If there were a TOTAL separation of church and state, it is unlikely we would have rights which are endowed by our creator.

To dismiss the bible does not mean to dismiss all rights (or restrictions) it outlines. Some are of the belief that the absence of religion implies the absence of morality. Your statement becomes mutually exclusive if we were to choose the first commandment on which on which to base law - that is, if you truly believe it is a choice endowed by our creator.

 

[ecmst12]

The idea of a creator has nothing to do with the bible. There are a zillion different creation stories that have nothing to do with christianity. The concept of a creator could be as simple (and secular) as one's parents. The idea is that the rights are present from birth. I'm sure it was INTENTIONAL that the founding fathers used the word "creator" instead of god, and it wasn't because they didn't believe in god.

 

[HawaiianBurger]

With such abstraction, I'm surprised tranquility feels entitled to rights whatsoever.

"I have the right to life, given to me by this succulent apple flesh and McDonald's hamburger, which so generously gave way to my creation by donating molecules."

 

[HawaiianBurger]

The problem with the idea of an undefinable creator is we start making up the rights given to us by it. WE are the ones controlling those rights, not this being. So, if tranquility's creator gives the inalienable "right" to marry only to heterosexual couples, and I disagree because my creator says otherwise, then what have we?!? There is, in the end, no entirely logical method for handling such debates without dropping this external, intangible entity.

 

[tranquility]

marry only to heterosexual couples, and I disagree because my creator says otherwise, then what have we?!? There is, in the end, no entirely logical method for handling such debates without dropping this external, intangible entity.

Pity your "creator" was not the one of the people making the social contract of the Constitution. Not the one which was agreed to. Not the one which is relevant. By the way, which "creator" are you talking about? Is it one which history has discussed, or one which resides in your own mind?

I agree we should drop the creator argument regarding rights. Where does that leave your argument regarding the forcing of all to accede you your demands?

 

[tranquility]

The idea of a creator has nothing to do with the bible. There are a zillion different creation stories that have nothing to do with christianity. The concept of a creator could be as simple (and secular) as one's parents. The idea is that the rights are present from birth. I'm sure it was INTENTIONAL that the founding fathers used the word "creator" instead of god, and it wasn't because they didn't believe in god.

The rights we have which are "inalienable" are based on the Bible. While the founding fathers were not all Christian as we understand the term, they were all aware of the Bible and knew how the populace were affected by the Word.

While you make a case in your previous arguments, you need to read the Federalist papers and a bit more philosophy to go down this path.

 

[tranquility]

To dismiss the bible does not mean to dismiss all rights (or restrictions) it outlines. Some are of the belief that the absence of religion implies the absence of morality. Your statement becomes mutually exclusive if we were to choose the first commandment on which on which to base law - that is, if you truly believe it is a choice endowed by our creator.

Huh?

I understand what you want, I don't understand how you want it from this statement.

 

[HawaiianBurger]

I agree we should drop the creator argument regarding rights. Where does that leave your argument regarding the forcing of all to accede you your demands?

So without a creator, we have no right to rights...

I'm not going down this path. Without the care and rigor of a well thought-out philosophical argument, I believe we can settle on the fact we all enjoy certain activities (staying alive, not having things taken from us), and we develop mutual understandings that if we respect one another in these terms (not murdering, not stealing - these are trivial cases) most people are happy. We, in a way, call these fundamental rights. We have come to approve of including the exclusion of rights extended to a population based on uncontrollable factors (race, gender, [sexual orientation], etc.) as a fundamental no-no. Why? Because the person on the receiving end cannot change who they are, and their being what they are does not trample existing rights.