|
|
|
|
|
lira
|
Joined: 6/8/2006
Msg: 51 | |
| What Part of the Constitution forbids adults to make legal contracts with each other?
Posted: 7/8/2006 9:39:52 PM | | I just had another thought. In our pledge of alligence to the flag, towards the end it, it is said "one nation under God" So if people except same sex marriages, they are turning their back on our countrys flag. So our constitition states relegion(including christian) shall not be forced on anyone, but we must pledge or alligence to the flag "under God". I am geting confused on this topic. | |
|
vivid
|
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 52 | |
| |
| What Part of the Constitution forbids adults to make legal contracts with each other?
Posted: 7/8/2006 10:05:34 PM | As far as the OP goes, I think it was spineless of the courts to do what they did. The court had a responsibility to uphold the constituion, which is meant to guide lawmaking.
As to the God question... If I have to accept that God hates homosexuality, I have a few other questions for you:
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor
for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not
pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In
this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? She's 18 and
starting University. Will the slave buyer continue to pay for her education by law?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of
menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried
asking, but most women take offense. I'm sure you have found a way to do this
and can share it with me.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female,
provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that
this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own
Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly
states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or
should this be a neighborhood improvement project?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev.
11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle
this?
g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in
my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be
20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? Would contact lenses help?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their
temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they
die?
i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean,
but may I still play football if I wear hemp gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in
the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds
of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is
it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together
to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private
family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) | |
|
| What Part of the Constitution forbids adults to make legal contracts with each other?
Posted: 7/8/2006 10:18:43 PM | | This is an issue I can't understand. The people opposed to gay marrige always use God's laws or christian morality as their excuse for not wanting it legal. In order to side with these beliefs, and rule against gay marrige, seems unconstitutional. It directly goes against Artical 3, Amendment I of the Bill of Rights. Where is the seperation of church and state? This is a free country, it may have been founded by puritan christians, but their goal was a place where people could believe and worship whatever they wanted to, without an institution persecuting them. | |
|
| What Part of the Constitution forbids adults to make legal contracts with each other?
Posted: 7/8/2006 11:00:21 PM | vivid
Again, the republicans are watching the backs of the elite.
just pure stupidity.
The federal amendment became an issue in the presidential race, with President Bush supporting the measure and Sen. John Kerry opposing it. Despite their differences over the amendment, both Kerry and Bush were on record opposing same-sex marriage and supporting civil unions, and Kerry has said he is not opposed to state constitutional bans.
the high courts sent it back to the states because the name of the state is on the licience.
the states have voted on this issue and only one state to my knowledge has passed this law .
Yes, as of May 17, 2004. However, with legal challenges to the Massachusetts state law, some local jurisdictions may have residency requirements and/or not issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Check with your local authorities to see how they are handling this issue.
please correct me if i am wrong.
so as you can see it is a state issue not a federal issue. | |
|
lira
|
Joined: 6/8/2006
Msg: 56 | |
| What Part of the Constitution forbids adults to make legal contracts with each other?
Posted: 7/9/2006 3:12:25 AM | | Pyro74, I am with you. to use Gods law is unconstititional, but to not consider His law is not respecting our country according to the plegde of alligence, The "one nation under God" part. The constitution says we shoud not consider God laws and the pledge of alligence says we should.In an earlier post I quoted"Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants" Maybe our forefathers, congress and other government officials are the tyrants.I am not being a name caller to anyone. | |
|
| What Part of the Constitution forbids adults to make legal contracts with each other?
Posted: 7/9/2006 8:02:33 AM | I just had another thought. In our pledge of alligence to the flag, towards the end it, it is said "one nation under God" So if people except same sex marriages, they are turning their back on our countrys flag. So our constitition states relegion(including christian) shall not be forced on anyone, but we must pledge or alligence to the flag "under God". I am geting confused on this topic.
____________________________
Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).
In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.
Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.
. | |
|
| What Part of the Constitution forbids adults to make legal contracts with each other?
Posted: 7/9/2006 10:28:44 AM | “Civil Union = Marriage
Marriage = Civil Union”
Nope, a civil union is a legal thing, marriage is a religious thing.
If it were not for the state giving you a licence, you can't be married or in a CU.”
Laws vary from state to state, and this is not true in all of them.
“Read Orwell's "Animal Farm"
I am guessing that was a joke from the rest of your post.
“I believe that homosexual people just want to have their life style accepted and even integrated into the rest of our society.”
IF that is all they want, why do they insist on riling the religious with the attempts at twisting the word marriage? It just comes back to being unreasonable about a WORD. MARRIAGE is what straight people do (insert any new term you want to make up) is what gay people do. If they have no problem with being called gay instead of straight, why can’t they be called joined instead of married, for example? | |
|
| What Part of the Constitution forbids adults to make legal contracts with each other?
Posted: 7/31/2006 12:12:38 PM | | My point exactly. I think that the purpose of a "legal marriage" is so they can collect SS, be included in estate settlements, have the advantage of being called a spouse in legal proceedings, not wanting to be responsible for being a business partner and excused from that responsibility witch makes them responsible for thier partners debts. In other words haveing all of the priviledges of a spouse and none of the responsibilities of a partner. | |
|
| What Part of the Constitution forbids adults to make legal contracts with each other?
Posted: 7/31/2006 12:32:02 PM | | We must have a definition of freedom to do what as a religious practice. So, I will attempt to do that useing constitutional law. The spirit of the law of The United States directs the states in forming thier own State Constitution. I don't believe the Constitution makes reference to how to handle that situation so it turns it over to each State to do so as it is presented. If the change you are seeking is Constitutional interpretation that takes place in the National Judicial System and is interpreted by The Supreme Court of The U.S. The Supreme Courts only duty is to interpret the Law not make them. If turned down by that body it means that there is no law to interpret or the plea did not have the proper information to to prompt the interpretation. Please point out the law that is inviolation of the U.S. Constitution and I will agree with the homosexuals. | |
|
| What Part of the Constitution forbids adults to make legal contracts with each other?
Posted: 7/31/2006 1:08:23 PM | Regardless of where you stand on the issue, local OR federal government legislating religious limitations is a clear violation of the seperation of church and state, one of the principles this nation was founded on.
If a church chooses to wed two women or men, then they have the right to do so. What is at issue here is do states have the right to deny a license to same-sex couples? Legally they do not for it is the church's right to decide who can and can't be married.
Unfortunately these decisions are being made by representatives whose voters are still very narrow-minded and don't beleive we should all have equal rights. It saddens me to see so many women and blacks leading their own personal crusades in the name of bigotry.
A friend of mine claims that
this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own
Canadians?
Look up this verse my friend from [Deagidos 11:23]
And yay! She douth walkest from the far northern lands. Low, though she rides a pale white horse her hands are uncleaned. Givith her a pound of flesh so that yee may multiple. Keepith not yon maiden from far northern lands as thou would the beast of the land. Showith her how doth the beast drinkith from the stream and plant fertile seed in her field. | |
|
xamo
|
Joined: 3/24/2006
Msg: 62 | |
| What Part of the Constitution forbids adults to make legal contracts with each other?
Posted: 7/31/2006 6:40:57 PM | | just a note but, originally the church state seperations wasintended to keep the governments handsoff of the church i.e to avoid another anglicantype schism, and to allow people to practice thier religion, free from government, whatever it was. it was never intended as a tool to rid the government of religious influence. If in a democracy, like America is....kind of if the majority are Christian, there is nothing constitunally wrong with voting in a rep that will vote/act acordingly. I don't realy have an opinion here, but i just wanted to put that out, it seems likemost people (Yankees too!) mistakenly believe that that aspect of theconstitutionwasintended to protect the Government from being influenced by religion, when in fact it is the opposite. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
