CDIH

So the clergy can perform civil unions.

That's it then. Everything is settled.

Thomas Jefferson on Separation of Church and State

There is no Separation of Church and State mentioned in the Bill of Rights. I'm pointing this out to clarify some mis-information in this thread.

yeah and theres no rights for niggers or fags in there either, your point?

I didn't read this thread. I just wanted to comment in it since it seems to be Thread of the year material.

GonzoStyle Wrote:yeah and theres no rights for niggers or fags in there either, your point?

Amendment XIV
(1868)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.



I believe that covers niggers and fags too.

Granted you got me there, I meant in the original document not it's amendments.

But as far as the seperation of church and state take it from the authors mouth.

Quote:I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. - Thomas Jefferson (1804)

GonzoStyle Wrote:Granted you got me there, I meant in the original document not it's amendments.

But as far as the seperation of church and state take it from the authors mouth.

Quote:I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. - Thomas Jefferson (1804)

It was originally in a private letter, so I don't know why people act like it's part of The Bill of Rights.

It must be the dumbing down of public school education. It's more important for children to learn that it's OK for Heather to have two mommy's, then the foundation of our Republic.

The US Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment as if it requires this "wall of separation" between church and state that Jefferson mentioned. It not only prohibits any government from adopting a particular denomination or religion as official, but requires government to avoid any involvement in religion.

What dumbing down are you talking about?

Splatterpunk Wrote:

GonzoStyle Wrote:

Quote:We draw the distinction that a man is different than a woman. Why?? Why don't we just call them both men? Does that distinction mean that men are pure, and women are inferior? Well, I guess so!

He's black, he's white. Obviously, the white man is better than the black man!

So you don't believe that for as long as man has existed that women have been characterized as inferior to men? It's not about calling them both the same, you are being retarded now with that point, it's not a debate about men using womens bathrooms or vice versa, ofcourse women are different from men in apperance. The point is that as long as man has been around and as long as man will be around he will always have someone to call inferior. Which he has done to women, women to this day are not viewed as having the ability to be equal to men in the work force. I am not talking about heavy work like construction, I mean work as in the board room.

You could do with a step back yourself, Gonzo.

As long as men have existed women have not been considered inferior to men. Not all societies that developed were or are patriarchal. You're assuming that any society considered civilized by modern standards is automatically patriarchal because that's your own experience.

There are cultures thriving today in countries you'd consider under-developed by this same logical misstep, Genius, where women are in charge and men fill the role in which women have traditionally been viewed in western culture. Medical literature and anthropological research are full of studies of such societies. Your presumption that humanity is inherently misogynistic is as insulting as your presumption that I use a thesaurus whenever you see me use words you didn't know I knew. I really thought you knew better than that.

I've watched this argument and others on the board here closely for a year. I haven't always contributed because for the most part, this place is full of kids. I'm not a teenager, as you know. And contrary to whatever presuppositions you've formed about my mentality based on my own gender, admitted drug use, and perhaps ethnicity, I'm not a mental midget or incapable of debate. In simple terms, you need to choose your battles. A forum called Cold Day in Hell where the whole purpose of the site is to make fun and insult and laugh at what is at level ridiculous stupidity is not a forum for serious consideration.

I cam back here because I was asked to return twice, but you know, what I've seen in the past few days from Arpi, from Keyser, and to a lesser extent from the rest of you is that this really is nothing but a room full of fussing kids.

I've got a Master's Degree from USC. That's in Los Angeles, not South Carolina. So I don't need a fucking thesaurus to show your ass up on any topic, and I don't come in here and try to hold forth because it's a largely asinine chorus to be preaching to on just about most subjects. This topic eloquently demonstrates that.

I choose not to show off here, unlike most of you. The reason why is pretty evident in this thread, and especially in your last post.

So I'm out of here again. This time, I've got no animosity. But what I said to you was true the first time, Gonzo. I don't belong here. I thought it was fun. Sometimes it was. But mostly, it was an exercise in patience. Only Alkey and one or two others are apparently able to see, overall, it really doesn't seem to be paying off much.

So yes. I get your little jokes about me. Hawt Baux -- your screenname is also asinine -- and Galt, I saw your veiled reference to my trip the other night. I thought the jokes flat and in Galt's case, beneath ability's level. Hence my commentary, or lack thereof.

Women are considered the superior gender in most societies until creationism is first recognized not to be miraculous. When men finally discover that women get pregnant not by themselves, but by something men are involved in -- that is when perceptions about gender and role change. Do a little read-up on evolution. Study the phases of gestation and you'll find that all human embryos are first female in the process of development.

Native American cultures are matriarchal. Look it up.

You're welcome.

Later, kids.

wow am I pissed I missed this one in all the rubble here, what a pathetic response. I didn't know you needed a masters to sit at home all day and get high. Atleast she finally cleared up the age old question that women actually can not get pregnant by themselves, I always wondered that. Then she mentions native american cultures where women are superior which is one point out of about 40 I can make against it like womens role in the middle east for one. For every cleopatra there is a pandora. But then don't fail to realize how native americans themselves have been butchered and viewed as savages and inferior in the past, so that invalidates that. Some superior intellect to do a silly post like this then just leave.

and who the fuck made fun of her name or hawt baux's?

Quote:but requires government to avoid any involvement in religion.

This is the difficult part, you're correct in that regard, however we're a nation founded under a God. Our rights are God given and the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence both acknowledge it.

One belief is that the wall was to prevent a State Sponsored Religion. I think the Atheist have gone too far in "booting" any and all references to God. And by God, I mean a Supreme Being not a symbol of any Religion.

Yeah but thats because you have to factor in the time in which it was written. The same argument has been made for the right to bear arms, it was a neccesity then because of the british crown hanging over us for every man to bear arms. We have greatly changed as a country since the late 1700's. At the time when their was no goverment yet as we have now to trust in they used religion.

The "in god we trust" on our money is archaic as well, which has been mentioned here. But once again factor in the time period. Today our money is backed by our trust in the goverment to back the monetary values for each bill. Before that money was backed by silver, once in a blue moon you will still see a dollar bill which reads "silver certificate". Back then the goverment was still in its infancy so the belief in god was what they based it on but today thats there mainly cause its been there forever and not the belief in god.

The Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights do not give anything to the Government. They secure mans rights as given to him by his Creator. People have rights, Government is just there to secure them.

The 2nd Amendment is more important today then it ever was, it's the the only thing that secures our rights if the Government becomes out of control and hurtful toward the People.

Our founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves knowing how out of control it's become.

They'd be more amazed at the amazing ganja now available.

And I get pretty tired hearing how much we suck and blah blah blah, or that our founding fathers would be ashamed. Yeah right like those wine swilling pot heads would have ever imagined we'd grow into the most powerful country in the world, especially during a time when the britsih empire ruled the world. Plus would you rather live anywhere else in the world? If so, unlike some countries you actually have the right to leave here.

as a member of the universal life church, i can legally perform weddings and sign all certificates.

In most other countries you'd be playing socom for reals by the age of 12.

<font size="4">Bush To Back Gay Marriage Ban Amendment</font>

WASHINGTON - Jumping into a volatile election-year debate on same-sex weddings, President Bush (news - web sites) on Tuesday backed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage ? a move he said was needed to stop judges from changing the definition of the "most enduring human institution."

"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," the president said in urging Congress to approve such an amendment. "Their action has created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."

Marriage cannot be severed from its "cultural, religious and natural" roots, Bush said in the White House's Roosevelt Room. It was a statement that was sure to please his conservative backers.

Bush, who has cast himself as a "compassionate conservative," left the door open for civil unions as an alternative to same-sex marriages.

He noted actions in Massachusetts where four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year. In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses, to people of the same sex. This, Bush said, is contrary to state law. A county in New Mexico also has issued same-sex marriage licenses, Bush said.

"Unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials ? all of which adds to uncertainty," Bush said.

The conservative wing of his party has been anxious for Bush to follow up his rhetoric on the issue with action. In recent weeks, Bush has repeatedly said he was "troubled" by the Massachusetts court decision and the gay marriages in San Francisco, but stopped short of endorsing a constitutional amendment.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage. Gay and lesbian couples from Europe and more than 20 states have flocked to San Francisco City Hall since city officials decided to begin marrying same-sex couples a few days ago. At the current pace, more than 3,000 people will have taken vows by Friday promising to be "spouses for life."

At least 38 states and the federal government have approved laws or amendments barring the recognition of gay marriage; last week, the Utah House gave final legislative approval to a measure outlawing same-sex marriages and sent it to the governor, who has not taken a position on the bill.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush believes that legislation for such an amendment, submitted by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., meets his principles in protecting the "sanctity of marriage" between men and women. But Bush did not specifically embrace any particular piece of legislation in his announcement. White House officials have said that support for Musgrave's proposed amendment has been unraveling in the Senate.

The amendment that Musgrave and other lawmakers are backing in the House says that marriage "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

Bush's comment that the states should be left free to define "legal arrangements other than marriage" indicates the president does not favor using a constitutional amendment to enact a federal ban on civil union or domestic partnership laws.

The proposed amendment backed by Musgrave and others in Congress is consistent with that, but some conservatives favor going further.

Recent polling suggests Bush is on solid political ground.

A nationwide CNN poll completed last week found that by a margin of 64-32, those surveyed said gay marriages should not be recognized in law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages.

On a separate question, 48 percent of those surveyed said it should be up to the federal government to pass laws regarding gay marriages, while another 46 percent said the states should take that role.

Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), Bush's likely Democratic opponent in this year's election, says he opposes gay marriages. But he also opposes a federal constitutional amendment to ban them, because he says it is an issue for the states to decide, spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said Tuesday.

Kerry says he prefers civil unions and rejects any federal or state legislation that could be used to eliminate equal protections for homosexuals or other forms of recognition like civil unions.

Wide-ranging reaction reflected the controversial nature of the issue.

A major gay Republican group, the Log Cabin Republicans (news - web sites), accused Bush of "pandering to the radical right" and "writing discrimination into the Constitution." Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the group, said, "The president has certainly jeopardized over 1 million gay and lesbian Americans self identified in exit polls who voted for him in the year 2000."

The Democratic National Committee (news - web sites) said the decision was purely political. "It is wrong to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution and it is shameful to use attacks against gay and lesbian families as an election strategy," DNC Chairman Terence McAuliffe said.

The American Center for Law and Justice, which focuses on family and religious issues, applauded Bush's announcement, saying it "serves as a critical catalyst to energize and organize those who will work diligently to ensure that marriage remains an institution between on man and one woman."

what are the chances that this will get passed?

depends...if it holds over til after the election, and bush can push a justice or 2 out and appoint his own...it has a good shot of not getting overturned...just my 2cents though

I think it's got a reasonable chance of passing, though I think most people are more hesitant to put things in the Constitution. Would you want to be responsible for putting "Gays can't get married" up there next to Free Speech?