Separation of Church & State

[nextwife]

IMHO: We do NOT live in a theocracy and should not be legislating everyones CIVIL liberties based on Church Law (any Church). We should make laws that protect citizens, and that create stability in the community.

We should NOT be imposing specific religious beliefs on others who don't share that religion.

 

[RRevak]

IMHO: We do NOT live in a theocracy and should not be legislating everyones CIVIL liberties based on Church Law (any Church). We should make laws that protect citizens, and that create stability in the community.

We should NOT be imposing specific religious beliefs on others who don't share that religion.

*sigh* If only our lawmakers thought the same way...

 

[tranquility]

We should make laws that protect citizens, and that create stability in the community.

Some would reasonably claim that nearly all law-making societies, of whatever religion, in humankind's history created stability by legally sanctioning marriage between a man and a woman.

Murder is hurtful and interferes with another persons right to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Where do I find that "right"? My recollection is that it was in the Declaration of Independence. Our laws use the Constitution as their basis. Besides, any law interferes with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I suggest also, the current controversy regarding gay marriage has little to do with two people of the same sex being "married", but more to do with forcing those who do not believe the gay lifestyle is as good as that practiced by the vast majority of humanity to change their thinking on the matter by force of law.

Maybe someday there will be an actual debate on the question without one side calling the other some pejorative. Until then will suffer the touchy-feely politically-correct secularist religion theory of what must be true. (Even though a consistent majority of Americans think differently.)

 

[justalayman]

IMHO: We do NOT live in a theocracy and should not be legislating everyones CIVIL liberties based on Church Law (any Church). We should make laws that protect citizens, and that create stability in the community.

We should NOT be imposing specific religious beliefs on others who don't share that religion.

I don't believe that we do. I see laws enacted based on community, state, or national standards. It has nothing to do with religious mores other than, at this time, the majority of the citizens do hold religious beliefs. That means the laws will reflect the religious mores they accept. In fact, the rescission of laws criminalizing homosexual acts and moving homosexual status to be not merely law neutral but specifically moving to become a protected class of people would support that.

Laws, and they underlying basis for those laws are continually changing. Our country was created by people with strong religious beliefs. While there were great efforts to keep government out of religion and direct religious controls out of government, the fact remains that those creators did have strong religious beliefs. It would be expected that laws that dealt with anything remotely close to have moral aspects would be guided by those same religious beliefs.

As we move away from religion, as we have been doing, the laws will change. They do not, and should not, move quickly.

 

[mistoffolees]

because marriage is a sacrament of the Church and cannot simply be "undone" while living together without the marriage is merely a sin.

It isn't morally acceptable to live together without marriage. It is forgivable though.

Yeah, I'm familiar with the Catholic Church's rationalizations. I've been hearing them for 50 years - including the annual lecture from our priest that using birth control is a mortal sin.

It's just that their position just doesn't pass the smell test. You can be married for 25 years, have 5 kids, sex every night and then one day you decide you don't want to be married, but no divorce - instead you have to get a ruling (from another priest who obviously has no idea what married life is about) that the marriage never existed - yet the kids are all legitimate.

 

[tranquility]

Huh? Are you recounting a specific incident, or a general policy?

I mean, really, while a Kennedy can buy an indulgence, the basic theory does not lead to such a conclusion.

 

[justalayman]

=mistoffolees;2653400]Yeah, I'm familiar with the Catholic Church's rationalizations. I've been hearing them for 50 years - including the annual lecture from our priest that using birth control is a mortal sin.

Ya got to have rhythm misto.

It's just that their position just doesn't pass the smell test. You can be married for 25 years, have 5 kids, sex every night and then one day you decide you don't want to be married, but no divorce - instead you have to get a ruling (from another priest who obviously has no idea what married life is about) that the marriage never existed - yet the kids are all legitimate.

actually, that is incorrect. You can divorce. You just cannot remarry.

 

[stealth2]

actually, that is incorrect. You can divorce. You just cannot remarry.

Actually, I believe you cannot receive any Sacrament, such as Communion.

 

[cbg]

Would just like to point out, for the sake of argument, that not everyone who calls themselves a Christian is a Catholic, or agrees with the position of the Catholic church, or even holds the same beliefs as everyone else who considers themselves a Christian.

I am in favor of gay marriage. I do not agree with the Catholic church on the subject of birth control. I lived with my now-husband for a year before we were married. I vote Democrat. I also believe in a triune God and am a born-again Christian who believes that John 3:16 is the defining verse of the Bible.

Too many people hear that someone is a Christian and decide they know how that person thinks. Isn't always true.

Just thought I'd point all this out before this train gets too far out of the station.

 

[BOR]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MN

My inquiry concerns the separation of church and state with regard to marriage law. Why, might I ask, is marriage not a SOCAS violation? To augment this, politicians will, when confronted with the question of the legalization of homosexual marriage, argue that marriage is defined within the religion. This may be true, and that is good. However, why will the state then embrace this (give preference to the church) and develop law governing such contracts if they really do feel government has no place in religion?

Here are Annotations from Cornell, scroll down to Establishment.

Annotated Constitution (amdt1a) TOC

The Doctrine of seperation is not always clear, as some facts clearly entwine.

Marriage falls under a purview of the state, generally citing the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution.

The courts do not define gay marriage as a moral issue and the ruling just handed down from the San Fransisco Federal Judge stated such bans on homosexual marriage violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. Clearly in contrast to US SC precedent, but an appeal is expected.

On a side note in the Landmark, Loving v. Virginia case, 1967, the US SC ruled that such interracial marriage bans violate the 14th AM.

I cite Loving because the criminal trial Judge, as it was a criminal offense in VA, opined this:


.....Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix....

Clearly HE made it a Moral one.

 

[justalayman]

Actually, I believe you cannot receive any Sacrament, such as Communion.

My priest has said just the opposite. Unless the church annuls the marriage, as far as they are concerned, you are still married. It's that legal/religious thing again. So, in itself, a legal divorce means nothing in the church. Only if one remarries would it become a problem.

and of course, I mean marriage in the church.

 

[tranquility]

For more than you ever want to know about anything Catholic, always see the Catholic Encyclopedia. For divorce:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Divorce (In Moral Theology)

 

[Dillon]

I am in favor of gay marriage.

i am in favor of gay divorce. i know its good for homosexuals to have a right to divorce someone, thats one we can all agree on.

generally, is it a good or bad experience to divorce someone?

it can be so confusing for some people !

its my understanding, that if something is generally unnecessary, than it is unreasonable, U think?

 

[mistoffolees]

i am in favor of gay divorce.

Sure. Equal rights includes the good AND the bad.

 

[Dillon]

Sure. Equal rights includes the good AND the bad.

can you give me an example of a bad equal right?

are you saying, gay marriage is a bad equal right?