Amendment 1 in North Carolina
Replies
-
And the bashing continues...good luck to u all.
Have a great day.0 -
Wrong. This country was founded on the notion of FREEDOM of religion.
Amendment 1 of the constitution (since you obviously missed this in your high school civics class):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I'm not american so correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the founding fathers non religious and borderline agnostics? I'm pretty sure the first few presidents were?
Didn't want to post the entire conversation you two were having so I just posted the last comment!
It's completely irrelevant what faith they were. It only matters what the law says, and freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion are basic tenants upon which America was founded. I find it highly significant that they chose to put this particular guarantee at the first amendment not the second third or fourth. In fact, it's the first line of the first amendment.
This makes any religion-based argument against gay-marriage moot upfront. It's unconstitutional.
There is no "freedom from religion" in the Constitution. The state simply cannot start a church, end of story. It has no bearing on whether or not a student would like to pray, or a politician for that matter.
What I find so hilarious is that the argument about ssm is that it harms no one, yet listening to someone pray is toxic.
I love you libs, no matter how hypocritical you are.
that depends on how you interpret it... and it is generally interpreted to extend the way it is being used in this thread... and I am all for reinterpreting the constitution as times change... thing of all the other 1st amendment cases that have extended freedom of speech if the constitution would have been interpreted simply as exactly what is says
So we make it up as we go? Sounds like a solid way to have a rule of law society.
The Constitution was written as a living document that could evolve with the times. Is it better to have a rule of law society whose laws are static and cannot account for the evolution of society or to have a framework in place to be able to change the rules to account for this evolution?0 -
Ok im checking out, this is the "if ur not pro gay ur stupid a big or uninformed" thread
Heres a final thought, I under stand n empsthizr wiyh u feeling wronged n im pro civil unions, but u all do ur caise a disservice in how u react to those who have a diffetence in oponions....if u really want to "win" grow up and act like an adult and not like children who were told they cant play in the sandbox.
Trust me
Apart from the posts after this one, I only saw people giving their opinions and not really bashing you? They gave very detailed explanations why they thought you were wrong and not a single one brought up the fact you type like a 6 year old...0 -
Please don't leave yet. I haven't had the chance to chat with you yet. I am a conservative Christian, and I'm often in this debate group alone defending Christianity. I always try to do it with grace, kindness, and respect. Try to see beyond what you feel is an attack, and just give your argument, but support your argument with good, coherent thoughts expressed.Ok im checking out, this is the "if ur not pro gay ur stupid a big or uninformed" thread
I posted this earlier and don't know if you got to see it. What is your thought on this quote?
"Politics divide. Love doesn't. Sad for the division and loss this unnecessary political move has caused and will cause. Sad for the message it sends. "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's and don't get them tangled up...."
Oh goodness! There you are Patti, I was looking for you, and it looks like you've changed your picture
I specifically asked where you were because you're always so able to defend your views without being rude or accusatory. Glad to see you're still representing. 0 -
Wrong. This country was founded on the notion of FREEDOM of religion.
Amendment 1 of the constitution (since you obviously missed this in your high school civics class):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I'm not american so correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the founding fathers non religious and borderline agnostics? I'm pretty sure the first few presidents were?
Didn't want to post the entire conversation you two were having so I just posted the last comment!
It's completely irrelevant what faith they were. It only matters what the law says, and freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion are basic tenants upon which America was founded. I find it highly significant that they chose to put this particular guarantee at the first amendment not the second third or fourth. In fact, it's the first line of the first amendment.
This makes any religion-based argument against gay-marriage moot upfront. It's unconstitutional.
There is no "freedom from religion" in the Constitution. The state simply cannot start a church, end of story. It has no bearing on whether or not a student would like to pray, or a politician for that matter.
The courts have consistently upheld decisions prohibiting congress from establishing any laws based in religious argument over the last 200 years (with some exceptions that have been overturned in subsequent years). This is their legal interpretation of the first amendment and the one to which the law is required to hold.What I find so hilarious is that the argument about ssm is that it harms no one, yet listening to someone pray is toxic.
NO ONE is taking away your right to pray. You can still voluntarily pray in public schools, in government buildings, etc. What you cannot do is force everyone else to do it. BIG DIFFERENCE.0 -
Um...so.
I came here to participate in the debate on Amendment 1 and marriage equality. Why does it ALWAYS go back to religion?
Here's the deal: regardless of MY religion, I may not force the rest of the country to follow what *I* believe. Which is probably good because I believe in Margarita Mondays and a 30 hour work week and "2-a-day May."
All snark aside, YOUR CHURCH, OF WHICH I AM NOT A MEMBER, DOES NOT GET TO DICTATE THE RULES WE ALL MUST LIVE BY.
I chose to remain a proud, participating, contributing citizen of this nation. Not of the Christian Fundamentalist Church.0 -
I'm sorry to come in & trash this little view you have here.My personal moral opinion is "being gay" meaning acting on it is repugnant and goes againstnatural law and God.
marriage is a religious consecration, the state shouldnt b involved. Civilunions give the same rights, but with rights should also come the freedom to criticize...im the public discourse today u cant b against gay marriage w/o beinged brandeid a bigot, so u tell me who r thr bigots on this thread?
But marriage existed before Christianity, no singular religion has a monopoly on it & you wished to deny others something which has nothing to do with you is bigotry.
You are well entitled to having a "personal moral opinion", but me - I'd rather have a reasoned & structured moral view - based on evidence, facts & methods of reducing human suffering.
If you have some valid reasons (other than bigory or religion) to be against gay marriage I'd love to debate them - but I've got a
feeling you don't have any.
Trash it thats what this thread is good at...this country's laws r based onchristianity, sorry if thzt bothers u.
if u wana win the real debate(nationally), stop calling ppl bigots who disagree with ur pov.
Sorry but no.
Separation of Church and State.0 -
Sounds like a non-believer to me
In fact I am. Problem?0 -
Wrong. This country was founded on the notion of FREEDOM of religion.
Amendment 1 of the constitution (since you obviously missed this in your high school civics class):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I'm not american so correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the founding fathers non religious and borderline agnostics? I'm pretty sure the first few presidents were?
Didn't want to post the entire conversation you two were having so I just posted the last comment!
It's completely irrelevant what faith they were. It only matters what the law says, and freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion are basic tenants upon which America was founded. I find it highly significant that they chose to put this particular guarantee at the first amendment not the second third or fourth. In fact, it's the first line of the first amendment.
This makes any religion-based argument against gay-marriage moot upfront. It's unconstitutional.
There is no "freedom from religion" in the Constitution. The state simply cannot start a church, end of story. It has no bearing on whether or not a student would like to pray, or a politician for that matter.
What I find so hilarious is that the argument about ssm is that it harms no one, yet listening to someone pray is toxic.
I love you libs, no matter how hypocritical you are.
that depends on how you interpret it... and it is generally interpreted to extend the way it is being used in this thread... and I am all for reinterpreting the constitution as times change... thing of all the other 1st amendment cases that have extended freedom of speech if the constitution would have been interpreted simply as exactly what is says
So we make it up as we go? Sounds like a solid way to have a rule of law society.
That's not at all what I said. Times are not the same as they were when the constitution was drafted... if they were... we would still have the 3/5s rule and women wouldn't be able to vote0 -
Oh goodness! There you are Patti, I was looking for you, and it looks like you've changed your picture I specifically asked where you were because you're always so able to defend your views without being rude or accusatory. Glad to see you're still representing.
Ditto!! 0 -
And the bashing continues...good luck to u all.
Have a great day.
they only bash because you are complaining rather than debating rationally0 -
Um...so.
I came here to participate in the debate on Amendment 1 and marriage equality. Why does it ALWAYS go back to religion?
Here's the deal: regardless of MY religion, I may not force the rest of the country to follow what *I* believe. Which is probably good because I believe in Margarita Mondays and a 30 hour work week and "2-a-day May."
All snark aside, YOUR CHURCH, OF WHICH I AM NOT A MEMBER, DOES NOT GET TO DICTATE THE RULES WE ALL MUST LIVE BY.
I chose to remain a proud, participating, contributing citizen of this nation. Not of the Christian Fundamentalist Church.
That is EXACTLY what the gay-marriage argument boils down to. It's those who want to legally enforce and unconstitutional religion-based ban on same-sex marriage and those who don't.0 -
Banning religious indoctrination isn't the same as banning religion.
What's the big deal if I quote what I want to address? Religion has been banned places in America.Who has banned religion exactly in America?
Nobody is stopping you from practicing whatever belief system you have at home, just no specific religion should be given preference in court houses or schools.
You do know a little about your own constitution do you not? - the separation of church & state & all that... besides - it's a non-sequitur anyway, because even if religion was banned (Which it isn't) it would still have no impact on how unjust this specific law is.
It's too bad Washington and Lincoln didn't know about the separation of church and state, I'm positive they wouldn't have publicly prayed during their time in office. Pretty sure the Constitution doesn't say "keep your religion at home" either.
I do find all of the arguments for ssm interesting. I've learned a lot from all the derp derp homophobe! derp derp redneck! derp derp derp religion sucks!....
Real valid stuff.
yea sure... it doesn't say "leave your religion at home" but it's generally agreed upon that your right to religious freedom should not infringe on the rights of others...
The examples I mention do not infringe on other people's religion or lack thereof. And no, it's not generally agreed upon. Can you tell me why a city can't have a nativity set, how does that infringe on your rights? It does not coerce you in anyway shape matter or form. What "freedom from religion" is, is actually suppression of religious expression. People may not like religious symbols, but they have no right to eradicate all religion from public view simply because they don't like it.0 -
Wrong. This country was founded on the notion of FREEDOM of religion.
Amendment 1 of the constitution (since you obviously missed this in your high school civics class):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I'm not american so correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the founding fathers non religious and borderline agnostics? I'm pretty sure the first few presidents were?
Didn't want to post the entire conversation you two were having so I just posted the last comment!
It's completely irrelevant what faith they were. It only matters what the law says, and freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion are basic tenants upon which America was founded. I find it highly significant that they chose to put this particular guarantee at the first amendment not the second third or fourth. In fact, it's the first line of the first amendment.
This makes any religion-based argument against gay-marriage moot upfront. It's unconstitutional.
There is no "freedom from religion" in the Constitution. The state simply cannot start a church, end of story. It has no bearing on whether or not a student would like to pray, or a politician for that matter.
The courts have consistently upheld decisions prohibiting congress from establishing any laws based in religious argument over the last 200 years (with some exceptions that have been overturned in subsequent years). This is their legal interpretation of the first amendment and the one to which the law is required to hold.What I find so hilarious is that the argument about ssm is that it harms no one, yet listening to someone pray is toxic.
NO ONE is taking away your right to pray. You can still voluntarily pray in public schools, in government buildings, etc. What you cannot do is force everyone else to do it. BIG DIFFERENCE.
There have been rogue instances of teachers and administrators overreacting to children praying in school. It is these small outlier events that tend to get the most press about the "War on Religion."0 -
There is no "freedom from religion" in the Constitution. The state simply cannot start a church, end of story. It has no bearing on whether or not a student would like to pray, or a politician for that matter.
What I find so hilarious is that the argument about ssm is that it harms no one, yet listening to someone pray is toxic.
I love you libs, no matter how hypocritical you are.
No one has presented an argument against students wanting to pray in schools, or if a politician wants to pray. I have no idea why you brought that up.
No one said listening to someone pray is toxic. In general, it seems a lot of us here in this group are in favor of people having the right to do as they please, without harming others. I can't think of a single person in this group who would put someone down for simply praying. Pretty sure most of us wouldn't call them "toxic," either. You've yet to provide an argument that didn't fall under the coveted red herring.0 -
And the bashing continues...good luck to u all.
Have a great day.
Come on now, no one has been bashing you.
Gay people in NC have just been denied the right to get married. That's a bashing!0 -
I thought that this article published in our local news paper was a pretty interesting breakdown on how voters actually voted:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/05/08/3227863/amendment-one-nc-voters-approve.html
The larger cities (read affluent areas with more money and better education systems) in NC voted primarily against the amendment, while it was the more rural areas (poorer and generally less educated) that threw the vote for the amendment. Not only that, but even here in Charlotte the voting broke down into some very interesting demographics. Seeing as there was already a law in place, I really am uneducated myself as to what this means or why it was necessary from the point of view of people who put it up for a vote. I also am curious as to what this means for insurance and other benefits, as i know that many large companies trump state laws by giving their employees partner benefits. My now husband qualified to be on my benefits prior to our marriage, and if I'd been a lesbian I could have had that partner put on them instead.
Here's the article:
Riding a Bible-influenced coalition that cut across political and racial lines, the marriage amendment stormed to approval Tuesday, making North Carolina the latest state to put stronger legal barricades before same-sex unions.
With 90 percent of the counties reporting, the constitutional amendment to make marriage between a man and a woman the “only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized” won resoundingly, 61 percent to 39 percent.
It goes into effect Jan. 1. North Carolina has had a law banning same-sex marriages for 16 years.
Turnout, fueled largely by the marriage debate, was the largest for a primary in decades, election officials said.
“This was an issue of standing on the principle of God’s word that marriage is between one man and one woman, and I believe that message has gotten across,” said the Rev. Mark Harris, pastor of First Baptist Church of Charlotte and a leader in the state campaign for passage.
North Carolina becomes the last Southern state – and the 31st overall – to pass a “defense of marriage” amendment. Such measures have yet to lose. Eight states, plus the District of Columbia, have passed laws allowing same-sex marriage.
Opponents of the N.C. amendment called it a threat on a variety of fronts, from domestic-violence protection and health benefits for unmarried families, to industrial recruitment and job retention.
But for most voters, Tuesday’s decision appeared to be a referendum on gay marriage.
“The pro side could have not spent a single dollar, and they would have still won by double digits,” said Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling in Raleigh.
Duke law professor Mike Munger said the amendment’s real impact might not be known for months.
“The screaming, excruciating paradox of all this is that supporters wanted to take this out of the judges’ hands. Clearly it will have the opposite effect,” Munger said. “…There will be litigation, and judges will have to decide what the darn thing means.”
The amendment lost in the state’s largest areas, including Charlotte, Greensboro, Asheville, Raleigh and Durham. But it ran strongly almost everywhere else.
The Rev. Robin Tanner of Charlotte, a leader in the effort to defeat the amendment, looked beyond Tuesday’s loss.
“Hope lives on in this place we all call home,” the pastor of Piedmont Unitarian Universalist Church said in a prepared statement. “Hope is our promised companion, and equality for all our promised land.”
Added the Rev. Murdoch Smith, pastor of St. Martin’s Episcopal Church: “The goal is not destroyed, just delayed for the moment.”
Conservative voting bloc united
In passing the amendment, many conservatives and African-Americans set political differences aside to vote along spiritual lines. Conservative Christians believe homosexuality is a sin and that traditional marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God as a cornerstone of life.
In Charlotte-Mecklenburg, the strongest support came from the predominantly white suburban areas of Mint Hill and Matthews. Across town, voters in the African-American neighborhoods of Coulwood and Paw Creek voted almost 2 to 1 in favor. The margin was the same in predominantly black precinct 79 near Charlotte Douglas International Airport.
While the NAACP campaigned hard against the amendment, many black voters continued to see same-sex marriage not as a civil rights issue, but as a lifestyle choice with which they don’t agree.
“This amendment has always been about one thing and one thing only, marriage and family,” said Bishop Phillip Davis, pastor of Nations Ford Community Church, a black congregation in southwest Charlotte. “The voters of North Carolina have chosen to protect the soul of the state and the nation; that is marriage and family.”
The campaigns were fueled by more than $3 million in spending. With Charlotte hosting the convention to renominate him this fall, President Barack Obama called for the amendment’s defeat. Around Charlotte, prominent Republicans such as former mayor and gubernatorial candidate Richard Vinroot spoke out against it.
“But it never extended to rank-and-file GOP voters,” pollster Jensen said. “This never got beyond the point of ‘Do I like gay marriage or not?’ ”
Last week, evangelist Billy Graham endorsed the measure, and the Catholic Diocese of Charlotte and Raleigh made $50,000 donations.
Charlotte area voters didn’t necessarily follow party affiliations in taking sides on the amendment.
At the Forest Hill Church precinct in south Charlotte, Democrat Don Hawley, 57, voted in favor. “I don’t know that we need to start protecting another class of citizens,” he said.
Mary Settlemyre, 49, a Republican, voted no. “My understanding of the Republican Party is it’s limited in your personal life,” she said. “That (intrudes) in the parts of your personal life they need not be in.”
College counselor Catherine Odum, a Democrat, also voted against, saying, “I don’t understand why allowing gay marriage hurts marriage between men and women.”
A national shift
Nationwide, attitudes appear to be changing on same-sex marriage. Polls show that younger voters strongly support giving gays the same opportunities as straight couples, and the opposition of older voters appears to be softening.
House Speaker Thom Tillis, leader of the Republican majority in Raleigh that put the measure on the ballot, said earlier in the campaign that he expects the N.C. measure to be reversed in the next generation because of changing attitudes.
And while North Carolina passed the measure convincingly, it did so by a lesser margin than many of its Southern neighbors. In 2006, 78 percent of S.C. voters supported their amendment. Elsewhere the endorsements ranged from 86 percent in Mississippi to 57 percent in Virginia.
In November, Minnesota voters will decide their own marriage amendment. In Maine, residents will decide whether to rescind their 2009 same-sex ban.
A year ago, Lisa Macdonald of Charlotte was among a group of local same-sex couples who went to Washington, D.C., to be married by their pastors and rabbis.
She later volunteered to work in the campaign to defeat the amendment. She said Tuesday’s vote is a setback for her native state.
“With this amendment, we have written discrimination into our constitution,” she said. “It’s not the end of the conversation.”
Harris, though, said the issue has never been about discrimination.
“I believe North Carolinians took the took the amendment at face value, and they voted as such,” he said. “The only winner tonight is marriage.”
Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/05/08/3227863/amendment-one-nc-voters-approve.html#storylink=cpy0 -
You ran him off before I could debate "Christian to Christian" on this issue!Oh goodness! There you are Patti, I was looking for you, and it looks like you've changed your picture I specifically asked where you were because you're always so able to defend your views without being rude or accusatory. Glad to see you're still representing.
0 -
Um...so.
I came here to participate in the debate on Amendment 1 and marriage equality. Why does it ALWAYS go back to religion?
Here's the deal: regardless of MY religion, I may not force the rest of the country to follow what *I* believe. Which is probably good because I believe in Margarita Mondays and a 30 hour work week and "2-a-day May."
All snark aside, YOUR CHURCH, OF WHICH I AM NOT A MEMBER, DOES NOT GET TO DICTATE THE RULES WE ALL MUST LIVE BY.
I chose to remain a proud, participating, contributing citizen of this nation. Not of the Christian Fundamentalist Church.
logic and rationality have no place in this discussion... we ARE talking politics here 0 -
Surely you didn't believe this debate would not involve the discussion of religion???I came here to participate in the debate on Amendment 1 and marriage equality. Why does it ALWAYS go back to religion?0 -
Wrong. This country was founded on the notion of FREEDOM of religion.
Amendment 1 of the constitution (since you obviously missed this in your high school civics class):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I'm not american so correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the founding fathers non religious and borderline agnostics? I'm pretty sure the first few presidents were?
Didn't want to post the entire conversation you two were having so I just posted the last comment!
It's completely irrelevant what faith they were. It only matters what the law says, and freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion are basic tenants upon which America was founded. I find it highly significant that they chose to put this particular guarantee at the first amendment not the second third or fourth. In fact, it's the first line of the first amendment.
This makes any religion-based argument against gay-marriage moot upfront. It's unconstitutional.
There is no "freedom from religion" in the Constitution. The state simply cannot start a church, end of story. It has no bearing on whether or not a student would like to pray, or a politician for that matter.
The courts have consistently upheld decisions prohibiting congress from establishing any laws based in religious argument over the last 200 years (with some exceptions that have been overturned in subsequent years). This is their legal interpretation of the first amendment and the one to which the law is required to hold.What I find so hilarious is that the argument about ssm is that it harms no one, yet listening to someone pray is toxic.
NO ONE is taking away your right to pray. You can still voluntarily pray in public schools, in government buildings, etc. What you cannot do is force everyone else to do it. BIG DIFFERENCE.
There have been rogue instances of teachers and administrators overreacting to children praying in school. It is these small outlier events that tend to get the most press about the "War on Religion."
rogue events to not mean the entire left is against you.... . consistent support of legislation that deny rights to gay citizens... that's a bit worse than a few bad apples... and there are bad apples on both sides0 -
The Constitution was written as a living document that could evolve with the times. Is it better to have a rule of law society whose laws are static and cannot account for the evolution of society or to have a framework in place to be able to change the rules to account for this evolution?
Hmmm, a static set of laws that doesn't evolve. Maybe if we could base it on a book that is worshiped as literally the word of God - not stories about or second hand stuff, quite literally, every single one written by God himself - and which will brook no "interpretation". Maybe then. That'd be cool, I think.0 -
SHAME ON THEM!!!
0 -
what's even funnier is that the debate has been made into a gay issue.. when Amendment 1 will actually strip rights away from ANY unmarried couple regardless of their genders0
-
It makes me extremely upset that this measure passed. It is so very shameful for all Americans that the justice system in the United States has reverted back in time to reveal exactly how backward some in North Carolina are. Most recently, North Carolina has been in the press for the lawsuits against the state for the forced sterilization of poor minorities by the Eugenics Board which was not abolished until 1977. With a history such as this, North Carolina should be bending over backward to stop the hate. But North Carolina has a high rate of hate crime and the Clan has always had one of the strongest holds there.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-22/us/raleigh.eugenics.hearing_1_sterilization-program-task-force-eugenics-law?_s=PM:US0 -
Wrong. This country was founded on the notion of FREEDOM of religion.
Amendment 1 of the constitution (since you obviously missed this in your high school civics class):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I'm not american so correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the founding fathers non religious and borderline agnostics? I'm pretty sure the first few presidents were?
Didn't want to post the entire conversation you two were having so I just posted the last comment!
It's completely irrelevant what faith they were. It only matters what the law says, and freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion are basic tenants upon which America was founded. I find it highly significant that they chose to put this particular guarantee at the first amendment not the second third or fourth. In fact, it's the first line of the first amendment.
This makes any religion-based argument against gay-marriage moot upfront. It's unconstitutional.
There is no "freedom from religion" in the Constitution. The state simply cannot start a church, end of story. It has no bearing on whether or not a student would like to pray, or a politician for that matter.
What I find so hilarious is that the argument about ssm is that it harms no one, yet listening to someone pray is toxic.
I love you libs, no matter how hypocritical you are.
that depends on how you interpret it... and it is generally interpreted to extend the way it is being used in this thread... and I am all for reinterpreting the constitution as times change... thing of all the other 1st amendment cases that have extended freedom of speech if the constitution would have been interpreted simply as exactly what is says
So we make it up as we go? Sounds like a solid way to have a rule of law society.
The Constitution was written as a living document that could evolve with the times. Is it better to have a rule of law society whose laws are static and cannot account for the evolution of society or to have a framework in place to be able to change the rules to account for this evolution?
You do realize that the founders gave an amendment process don't you? What good is a law if it can change at a whim?
The "living document" notion came about in the 20th century as a way for progressives to enact change they otherwise couldn't get. It is not a living document, it is a written law that means we abide by it until it changes through the proper channels.0 -
Wrong. This country was founded on the notion of FREEDOM of religion.
Amendment 1 of the constitution (since you obviously missed this in your high school civics class):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I'm not american so correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the founding fathers non religious and borderline agnostics? I'm pretty sure the first few presidents were?
Didn't want to post the entire conversation you two were having so I just posted the last comment!
It's completely irrelevant what faith they were. It only matters what the law says, and freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion are basic tenants upon which America was founded. I find it highly significant that they chose to put this particular guarantee at the first amendment not the second third or fourth. In fact, it's the first line of the first amendment.
This makes any religion-based argument against gay-marriage moot upfront. It's unconstitutional.
There is no "freedom from religion" in the Constitution. The state simply cannot start a church, end of story. It has no bearing on whether or not a student would like to pray, or a politician for that matter.
What I find so hilarious is that the argument about ssm is that it harms no one, yet listening to someone pray is toxic.
I love you libs, no matter how hypocritical you are.
that depends on how you interpret it... and it is generally interpreted to extend the way it is being used in this thread... and I am all for reinterpreting the constitution as times change... thing of all the other 1st amendment cases that have extended freedom of speech if the constitution would have been interpreted simply as exactly what is says
So we make it up as we go? Sounds like a solid way to have a rule of law society.
The Constitution was written as a living document that could evolve with the times. Is it better to have a rule of law society whose laws are static and cannot account for the evolution of society or to have a framework in place to be able to change the rules to account for this evolution?
You do realize that the founders gave an amendment process don't you? What good is a law if it can change at a whim?
The "living document" notion came about in the 20th century as a way for progressives to enact change they otherwise couldn't get. It is not a living document, it is a written law that means we abide by it until it changes through the proper channels.
One of those proper channels is through the power of the Supreme Court to interpret the law0 -
Wrong. This country was founded on the notion of FREEDOM of religion.
Amendment 1 of the constitution (since you obviously missed this in your high school civics class):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I'm not american so correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the founding fathers non religious and borderline agnostics? I'm pretty sure the first few presidents were?
Didn't want to post the entire conversation you two were having so I just posted the last comment!
It's completely irrelevant what faith they were. It only matters what the law says, and freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion are basic tenants upon which America was founded. I find it highly significant that they chose to put this particular guarantee at the first amendment not the second third or fourth. In fact, it's the first line of the first amendment.
This makes any religion-based argument against gay-marriage moot upfront. It's unconstitutional.
There is no "freedom from religion" in the Constitution. The state simply cannot start a church, end of story. It has no bearing on whether or not a student would like to pray, or a politician for that matter.
What I find so hilarious is that the argument about ssm is that it harms no one, yet listening to someone pray is toxic.
I love you libs, no matter how hypocritical you are.
that depends on how you interpret it... and it is generally interpreted to extend the way it is being used in this thread... and I am all for reinterpreting the constitution as times change... thing of all the other 1st amendment cases that have extended freedom of speech if the constitution would have been interpreted simply as exactly what is says
So we make it up as we go? Sounds like a solid way to have a rule of law society.
The Constitution was written as a living document that could evolve with the times. Is it better to have a rule of law society whose laws are static and cannot account for the evolution of society or to have a framework in place to be able to change the rules to account for this evolution?
You do realize that the founders gave an amendment process don't you? What good is a law if it can change at a whim?
The "living document" notion came about in the 20th century as a way for progressives to enact change they otherwise couldn't get. It is not a living document, it is a written law that means we abide by it until it changes through the proper channels.
The amendment process is the framework on which this Living Document is formed......0 -
what's even funnier is that the debate has been made into a gay issue.. when Amendment 1 will actually strip rights away from ANY unmarried couple regardless of their genders
How on earth could they have gotten it passed without the anti-gay marriage rabble rousers?0 -
The Constitution was written as a living document that could evolve with the times. Is it better to have a rule of law society whose laws are static and cannot account for the evolution of society or to have a framework in place to be able to change the rules to account for this evolution?
Hmmm, a static set of laws that doesn't evolve. Maybe if we could base it on a book that is worshiped as literally the word of God - not stories about or second hand stuff, quite literally, every single one written by God himself - and which will brook no "interpretation". Maybe then. That'd be cool, I think.
You are entirely too witty and level headed to be on the internet.0
This discussion has been closed.