Any legislator who is publicly supporting laws which favor abortion or euthanasia may not present himself or herself for Holy Communion. -- Raymond Burke, Catholic Archbishop of St. Louis
If Judge Samuel Alito is approved by the Senate, the Supreme Court will have five Catholic justices, a religious majority that is nearly without precedent in U.S. history. He would join Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
The only time this appears to have happened was 1792-1793, when four of the six justices belonged to the Episcopal church: Chief Justice John Jay and Justices James Iredell, Thomas Johnson and James Wilson.
The Constitution expressly forbids religious tests in consideration for public office, so there's a strong inclination against scrutiny of a nominee's religious beliefs, whether in support or opposition. With Catholics, this comes into conflict with a growing movement within the church to deny sacraments to lawmakers who oppose its views on subjects like abortion, stem cell research and euthanasia.
In 2002, the Vatican issued a doctrinal note stating that Catholic lawmakers must act in accordance with its teachings:
John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a grave and clear obligation to oppose any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them.
The Catholic Church comes into conflict with different political factions over the Vatican's voluminously documented views. John Kerry, a practicing Catholic who regularly attends mass, was publicly denied the right to communion by Archbishop Burke during the 2004 presidential campaign, an action with the approval of Pope Benedict XVI while he served as cardinal. New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey was denied by another bishop for remarrying without getting an annulment.
Up to this point, American bishops have played the communion card solely against socially liberal Democrats. There has been no comparable effort to deny Justice Scalia for his support of capital punishment, nor a rejection of Catholic politicians who favor the Iraq war.
Though I'm undoubtedly going to be accused of anti-Catholic bigotry (in spite of being raised in the church), one of my concerns with Alito's selection is the historic majority that it establishes. When the church began actively politicizing the Eucharist, it called into question how life-tenured justices will reconcile conflicts between their Constitution and their faith.
it seems that you're saying that if Catholics are going to be on the Supreme Court they have to be good ones.
I think you found the smoking gun on this nominee. I'm holding out for more balance on the court... a female, homosexual, moslem with some form of physical disability. If she's a Vet that would be helpful to the cause as well but I don't want to be too extreme in my "profile". This way they won't get anyone approved until a professional politician is elected president... someone that has actually studied for the position... read a few books on history and not just cribbed some
Since it is the duty of judges to carry out the laws, not make them, one would expect no conflicts with the Doctrinal Note for Catholic judges who don't legislate from their benches. Did I miss something?
It's no surprise that BushCo is trying to pack the court with Catholics. Even if a particular judge support choice, the pressure from the other judges, and the Vatican, would probably overwhelm him/her.
I'm unreligious myself, although I have spiritual beliefs, but I don't care what religion a judge - or other office holder - is as long as they represent all of the people that they are supposed to represent, and not just those who agree with them.
When (not if) Alito is confirmed, we will go Back to the Past faster than you can say, "Hail, Mary!".
This is a sad time for America, and a sad time for the world because of the influence we wield, even in the current world where Bush as aliented every nation that is not a Christian theocracy on the planet. (I can't really think of one)
Everything goes in cycles. Nothing lasts forever, but Bush is doing things to this country that we may never recover from. I say that because it may take a revolution to get our country back, and then it would not be the same country, so we could never 'get it back' in the sense of recovering from what BushCo has done to us.
What's amazing is that the far right is able to get a significant minority of the country to think that it is acting in their interest. Hitler did exactly the same thing in Germany in 1933. He dragged them, willingly, down the path to ruin. The difference was that the technology available then meant that they could recover.
It's hard to recover from corporations being given so much power over the land and over people without a tremendous sacrifice by the people.
Our environment won't recover. I've been telling people for 10 years that we're just the walking dead - we just don't know it. 90% of bill-fish wiped out, signficant percentages of every fish wiped out, some approaching - or at - 100%. The ocean conveyor slowing down. There is nothing we can do to prevent its collapse and no government is telling its citizens what that will mean to them.
Water is being degraded at a horrendous rate (see the article on Africa in today's news), and it will be hundreds of years - assuming humans stopped living on the planet today - before water could return to the quantity and quality of the 1900's.
And on and on.
And now we have a court in that will put into motion ever more debasement of people and the planet. The Constitution says nothing about mining or timber regulation - so there goes that. I wouldn't be surprise if the court ruled that National Parks and National Forests were part of a previous court's 'activist' agenda and are sold off - maybe for the going rate of $5/acre. (Federal mining leases currently).
Women will return to being the property of men. Not allowed to choose to terminate a pregnancy - a decision that is traumatic and painful for almost any woman, and the woman will be forced to bring a child into the world that she can neither afford nor is emotionally (not to mention, financially) equipped to handle. Millions of more people in the US a year (thankfully, poor people generally vote Democratic). The woman will be denied food stamps (see yesterdays news about $3.4B cut in food stamps) and healthcare, which sentences the child to a retarded intellectual development and a higher crime rate. (see the State of Texas stats on these figures for teen mothers)
In the name of God, BushCo is doing the work of the devil. (not that I believe in either) As is true of all grand plans that are centered around religion, this one will screw whomever it touches except the priviliged. (think: Constantinople)
It's hard to believe that, in 2005, we are going backward so quickly.
Where's Jesus when you need him?
Did I miss something?
The part where the Vatican said that Catholic public officials should do everything in their power to oppose abortion.
OK. That means that the Catholic church is now trying to control the political process in the US. That makes them a PAC, not a church. Revolk their tax exempt status, make them pay back property and income taxes, and hold them to the same campaign contribution rules as other PACs.
That should apply equally to every church in the country that advocates for or against a particular candidate and to any church that denys any of it's sacraments to any political figure base upon public policy decisions.
so Kelly, you're saying that public officials don't have the right to be in bad books with their religious community? That if they are Catholic, and the Catholic Church refuses to give them communion, that somehow that is a matter of concern to you?
Dear Lord please save me from your followers.
Did I miss something? When did "G*D"
become a Republican?
Worse yet, as Ezra Klein points out, we'll have two justices from Trenton.
It's also interesting how we've come full circle on the religious influence thing.
Since when was religion allowed in American laws? What happened to separation of church and state?!
I clearly missed the damn memo Bush got, but since he is such a God fearing man, and puts to death criminals but revers the potential for life so highly, I have only one thing to say to his blind followers:
The Devil can quote scripture too.
Wouldn't it be a grand gesture if Bush could find a qualified Female Hispanic Black Muslim to nominate?
I don't think that he would ever nominate a Muslim, but a guy can dream, can't he?
By the way, Rogers, I can't post from my usual address. Have I been identified as a spammer? I just sent you an email.
Despite all the bad news, presuming Alito's confimation, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED for the next generation.
The Catholic Church is not trying to influence the courts directly but it must reserve the right to deny the flesh and blood of our Lord to people supporting abortion or any other practices that are against the teachings of the Church.
Visitor: The church is asking good Catholics on the Court to either support its teachings or deny themselves the sacraments.
Why is that OK, when it has been loudly denounced for a Supreme Court justice to refer in any way to international law in the formative process of reaching an opinion?
who made wealth and power from debt of usa,was it neccessary?HAS IT HAPPENED BEFORE IN THE 235YEARS OF THE REPUBLIC, FACT IS NO, NOT FOR MORE THAN TEN YEARS OF THE 1935-1945 NOT THIS 25YEARS STRETCH THAT HAS SOLD OFF 25PER CENT OF THE USA BECAUSE OF OVERSPENDING ,THEFT,LOST PRODUCTIVITY...THE RELIGIOUS ABORTIONDEBATE IS OF MINOR SIGNIFICANCE TO THE DESTRUCTION O F THE USA DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC EMPIRE AND THE CONVERSION TO A OLIGARCHIC TOTALITARIAN STATE...USA IS A SOLO SUPERPOWER AS LONG AS IT DOESNT ENGAGE A MID SIZE MILITARY POWER..EVEN BUSH MISTAKENLY BELIEVE THE USA MILITARY INDUSTRIAL BASE IS OF SUPERPOWER STATUS,IT ISNT UNLESS THE BORROWING AND TRADE DEFCICITS CONTINUE..THIS IS A CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM. DID THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO BORROW SO MUCH FOR SO LONG FOR NO APPARENT BENEFIT TO THE REPUBLIC AND PEOPLE. I SAY NO..DO NOT CONFUSE SENTIMENTALITY,NOSTALGIA WITH PURE REGRESSION
The majority in Roe v. Wade acknowledged that the various states did have the right to regulate abortion; the contretemps being that the Texas state laws were vague and infringed on a putative right to privacy a woman in those circumstances had.
Since most state laws on abortion were as vague, the SC's conclusion negated them, practically.
So, for the anti-abortion crowd to hope for any success, and with the help of whomever (even a judge,) it will have to come from the states and whatever abortion regulation(s) the people of that state decide on making law.
If the states, one or several, pass a state law which definitively expresses the interest they have in regulating abortion, then I believe that whoever is on the court will have to acknowledge the Constitutionality of that law.
The trick will be in finding the words to definitively express the state's interests when in opposition to a woman's right to decide. However, and with public approval, late term abortions are, and will continue to, go away...so there is some 'wording' which no one is attempting to test in court, because it might get to the SC...
J.J. uses caps, "[caps deleted]"
I always thought that we shouldn't have any borders with our geographical neighbors. I thought that anyone who wanted to work in the USA, should be given a social security number, registered to pay taxes and receive benefits, as long as they worked in the US. I even envisioned, were I the despot, of disappearing the borders al Sud and annexing Canada and S. America, from Mexico on down. No more borders but lots more Congressmen and valuable citizens.
That would show those Texans.
Anyway, I noticed that Japan invested and is now damn near a state.
Glad to see China buying, now -- big state.
My dream might come true, were I the despot.
How does one reconcile being simulataneously pro-life and in favor of the death penalty? That is pure hypocrisy.
Evil asks, "How does one reconcile being simulataneously pro-life and in favor of the death penalty? That is pure hypocrisy."
Apples and oranges. One is about innocence and the other is about guilt.
My definition of "Hypocrite": A Bush
I guess I am just not partisan enough. I am a big believer in letting a president of either party have the choices for appointments that he wants. And while this may sound simpleton, I am a big believer in it so we can see, for better or worse, how a president's vision for the country will come to fruition. While I did not vote for Bush, (I voted Libertarian) I for one, want him to have the person he wants no matter what the judicial or political ideology. I also think the Democrats are setting themselves up for a problematic scenario if and when they regain the presidency. The last two Clinton Supreme Court appointments passed the senate with 87 and 93 votes respectively. Do you think the Republicans are going to play nice the next time around when a Democratic President nominates a Supreme Court Justice? I say if they graduated law school and have never been accused of hanging out at a junior high after cheerleading practice, give 'em a robe.
Musafair says, "My definition of "Hypocrite": A Bush
Most people mistake me for a Bush supporter, or a Republican -- I am neither. I also agree that Bush is an hypocrite of no small talent; however, I think the same of 90% of the political ilk, democrat or republican, that have conned their way into ruining this country.
If we as citizens applied the same standards to our congressional choices, as those congressional choices apply to criticizing judges, we'd definitely have a better congress, and probably better judges.
Lone Star says, " I say if they graduated law school and have never been accused of hanging out at a junior high after cheerleading practice, give 'em a robe."
Jokes aside, you are right in indicating that the responsibility of the Senate is to simply verify the credentials and determine the qualifications of the judges nominated, not determine their political philosophy or judge it.
In my opinion, we need more strict constructionists on the court, and for the reason that those judges will recognize the state's rights to regulate themselves and according to the will of the people. A state is much more manageable an entity and can better decide which laws which may be its right to empower through the vote.
For example, and although I don't agree with it, Oregon has decided to make legal physician assisted suicide. If a majority of citizens of Oregon decide that they don't want this to be law, they can change it -- not the federal government, because the right is with the people who choose such social conditions. That 'right' is specifically outlined in the Constitution.
Although I believe that we should face all the natural exigencies of our lives and not opt-out, the federal government has no 'right' to decide that for me, pro or con. I support the 'right' of the people of Oregon to decide differently, though. I will support their decision if they decide to abolish it, later, too.
That's state's rights...
... the responsibility of the Senate is to simply verify the credentials and determine the qualifications of the judges nominated, not determine their political philosophy or judge it.
I don't see where the Constitution establishes that the "advise and consent" role of the Senate is limited to looking over a nominee's resume and calling his references.
The Senate's role should be to decide whether the nominee deserves to be on the Supreme Court, not to give the president any kind of presumption that he's made a worthy choice. Presidents make bad nominations frequently.
With lower courts, the president's views deserve more consideration. But the Supreme Court is too important to hand over to the White House, especially a president who is choosing judges who consistently expand the power of the executive branch.
Rogers says, "I don't see where the Constitution establishes that the "advise and consent" role of the Senate is limited to looking over a nominee's resume and calling his references."
Well, I've posted this link before, but perhaps you missed it. The Claremont Institute has a well referenced monograph on it titled, "The Senate Is Supposed to Advise And Consent, Not Obstruct and Delay
An objective reading will show that the Senate must decide, pro or con, and not try political manipulations to deny an appointment outside that vote. It will also provide references which define the degree which the Senate should exercise in either consenting, or advising the president not to confirm the candidate.
"The Senate's role should be to decide whether the nominee deserves to be on the Supreme Court, not to give the president any kind of presumption that he's made a worthy choice. Presidents make bad nominations frequently."
Fine, they vote and express their support or not. Those that object express their doubt as to the qualifications of the nominee. They can't presume to say whether the political ideology of the candidate is worthy or not. A president can appoint his choice, even against an advise vote in the majority -- he must suffer the consequences of any malpractice by that judge, ambassador, etc., though.
"With lower courts, the president's views deserve more consideration."
You extrapolate some 'right' for allowing *political* manipulation of the courts in lower juristictions by the Senate, and which I don't believe exists. Neither can the Senate legitimately question the politics of the person nominated. That is why the framers were so determined to limit the 'rights' of the Senate in such appointments -- they didn't want the voice of the majority to be at the mercy of the minority, politically. Qualifications and experience, advise or consent. That's it.
"But the Supreme Court is too important to hand over to the White House, especially a president who is choosing judges who consistently expand the power of the executive branch."
There is no danger in those with a reputation for strict constructionism. State's will determine their social institutions and processes. A constructionist would be bound to recognize those rights, and when federal authority is not specified in the constitution. That way, all of our votes have much more significance and importance.
Alito's credentials are impeccable and his experience is undoubted. If the minority act out politically, they will continue to damage the belief that they are truly anything like democratic...
I'll check out that Claremont piece.
You extrapolate some 'right' for allowing *political* manipulation of the courts in lower juristictions by the Senate, and which I don't believe exists.
American politics is what the voters will let you get away with.
Right now, on my side, Alito's nomination boils down to whether the Senate Dems think that their voters will let them get away with not using the filibuster.
Personally, I think they should probably play chicken with the Repubs and use it. Let the GOP sweat over the prospect of a future Democratic majority with no filibuster to slow them down.
Republican convictions on issues such as abortion, gay marriage and so on, are more in-line with Biblical teaching then many liberal dem philosophies. Like it or not, most of America agrees with Christian teachings and wish to be in a country that hold those truths. The Bible is very clear about these issues and how Christians should react to them; which is out of love. It is not personal. It is about principal. Please someone tell me why people get mad when someone stands up and says, "Wait a second, life is real, life is good, life is a gift and I want to protect it." Is not that a good thing? Please answer another question. Why is it that so many people say it is good to have and express your opinion but when I express my held beliefs, I am hated.
I don't hate you, Scott. I love you, man.
I love you more than the guy in the Bud Light commercial loves you. The life philosophy you lined out is fine and you should follow it and I certainly don't hate you for it if you do so. But if we carry your logic out, how about we make the Bible the law of the land instead of the law of the land? And then you have everything you want.
But if we do that, do we follow the old testament or the new testament when it comes to death penalty for example? The old testamen was written based on Hammarabi's Code (yes I am sure I misspelled that so I wrote it phonetically), which is basically the idea of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. And there was certainly a lot of capital punishment in the old testament. The new testament was written based on the Covenant of Christ in which it is stated "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord." The point here is an argument one way or the other on the death penalty, it's to make the point who'se interpretation of the Bible do you follow?
The problem Scott isn't that people hate you for your beliefs. You can believe what you want and live life as you see fit. But people who interpret the Bible differently from you or have different beliefs from you have a problem when you want to substitue your interpretation of the Bible and your moral beliefs for the law of the land for all of us. In Scott's world how many concubines would you allow me to have? Would you allow Saddam and Gomorrah or just opt that everyone should be killed. Would you crucify adulterers? Do we eliminate all adult bookstores and video stores because they sell sell sexually explicit material? If so then don't we have to eliminate all sexual references from all movies and TV shows?
You say "Republican convictions on issues such as abortion, gay marriage and so on, are more in-line with Biblical teaching then many liberal dem philosophies." So there aren't many liberal dem Christians? And if we go to church every Sunday we're not as righteous as you? Come on. That pisses me off. I still love you and all but it does piss me off. Not only do you know without a doubt as to what is morally right but you have a corner on the market.
I have never understood the idea that allowing rights to one group threatens another group. For example I hear over and over that gay marriage devalues marriage and makes it mean less. If two guys get married today, do you feel less good about your marriage tomorrow? Do you love your wife less? My main reason for being for gay marriage is to allow partners who have been with each other for decades to divide their property the way they would like when the other dies. Also,I think when a gay couple has been together and one partner has expressed whether he/she wants extraoridnary means used as the result of a severe medical problem, the other partner should be able to attest to what their wishes are. There are plenty of times when gay people have been disowned by their families and haven't seen them for years, only to have them show up when the person is about to die and make the decisions about whether to resussitate or not.
Here's the point. I don't like guys sexually speaking. I prefer boobs. But because I like boobs and that guy over there likes penises, am I going to try and prevent him from leaving property or money or stocks to his partner? Am I going to not let his partner carry out his wishes when he's about to die? No. And the reason is that just because he doesn't like boobs doesn't mean he shouldn't have same rights I do. Same thing on school prayer. I go to church. I believe in praryer so I am going to have my kids pray as much as I want. But I'm not going to make your kids pray that much or little - you decide. I apologize for this long-winded treatise but I am a little sick and tired of people suggesting that because you allow for the rights of others, then you aren't "in-line with Biblical teaching." Apologies for the typos.
In Scott's world how many concubines would you allow me to have?
I don't know about Scott's world, but I was at your wedding, where we were all asked to take personal responsibility for the success of your union. So I know the answer to this question: You are allowed no concubines. Harlots and strumpets are also out of the question.
Rogers believes, "Harlots and strumpets are also out of the question."
The logical extension of Lone's support of non-traditional marriage would seem to include that class of person as eligible to form 'marriages,' and in whatever numbers they might consent, as adults, to forming -- don't they have rights, too?
Rogers said, "American politics is what the voters will let you get away with."
Not wanting just another disagreement, at the time, I pondered this (more or less) truism, in theory. It is our vote which tacitly supports what our politicians get away with. Also, in theory, it would be our vote which would remove them for getting away with something we didn't agree with.
However, it doesn't rebut that Senators cannot legitimately question the politics of nominees, or use politics to 'stuff' the courts with ideological stooges for one party, or the other...since that is the president's prerogative; and, whatever party is 'in' on our democratic, majority vote (with the safeguard of the electoral college.)
To digress, another assertion in this thread has been that the formal institution of marriage should be modified, to include other sexual lifestyles. The support for that modification of the age-old institution being that they have their 'rights,' and which should include acceptance into that institution; however abstract that 'institution' is made out to be.
I disagree, because any law created to manage that putative 'right,' will be an infringement on the free exercise of religion, and a practice of which (writing law about it) is directly forbidden by the Constitution.
The term 'marriage,' in the abstract, is designed to foster and support Nature's own genetic imperative. Support for 'marriage' has always been part of the spiritual part of human life which feels closer to 'intelligent design' by acting in consonance with what they recognize as that imperative.
I seriously doubt that our ancient forebears were among those, who surely existed at that unknowably distant past, that were homosexual. However, our very presence is undisputably real as a result of the institution of marriage, and one which has NOT seen it as a 'right' for their dead-end activities...up to this very same presence.
Get their 'property rights' settled with 'civil partnerships,' and forget about social security survivor benefits or other federal support of Nature's families...in 'marriage.'
Tadowe says, The term 'marriage,' in the abstract, is designed to foster and support Nature's own genetic imperative. Support for 'marriage' has always been part of the spiritual part of human life which feels closer to 'intelligent design' by acting in consonance with what they recognize as that imperative ....
I hate to be blunt. But that is wrong. What you said has nothing to do with what marriage is currently today in our society. In all 50 states you do not have to get married in a church in order to get married. No state endorses a particular religious matrimonial ceremony. In fact state's don't recognize the religious portion of marriage at all. You can get married by a one-winged hobbit (I know they don't have wings) with a bad haircut during the summer solstice while hurling insults at God himself and if the marriage license and forms are in order, you're married. That's why as long as you have the license, the forms etc. you can get married in a satanic church, or by a justice of the peace in a ceremony that makes no mention of God. I know because when I was a reporter I did a story about a church in northwest Arkansas that was not exactly a church and they were marrying people there. Guess what ...eevn though the church was made up, the folks that got married there were married. Here's that state's right thing you were talking about before Tadowe. The states don't want to get in the middle of this. Because Satanists, Jews, Hindus and atheists not only get married everyday but they are allowed to do so in ceremonies that might or might not mention God. The truth is that for better or worse (I'm so punny,) marriage is a legal contract that is sancitoned by the state you are in if you follow the guidelines and regulations. To have what you are talking about Tadowe, you would need a separate marriage license that is recognized by a particular church/religion. But believe it or not when you get married as a Christian in Louisiana and I get married as a Frisbee-tryian (we believe that when you die your soul gets stuck on the roof and you can't get it down) your marriage isn't recognized as any better than mine. I mean as someone who is a conservative, you don't want government getting into sanctioning religiion do you Tadowe? So since all that stuff you said is already out the window - Satanists can get married, atheists can get married - then why can't gays? Don't you understand? THE GENIE IS ALREADY OUT OF THE BOTTLE AND HAS BEEN OUT OF THE BOTTLE CREATING NON CHRISTIAN, BABYLESS MARRIAGES ALL OVER THE PLACE. Sorry about that lost my head for a moment.
As far as the nature's imperative crap that you threw out there. My wife and I can't have a baby and are adopting. Since "'marriage,' in the abstract, is designed to foster and support Nature's own genetic imperative" does that mean my wife and I aren't married. that we are any less married than you or anyone else?
My original point in this string was when Scott McJunkin said "Republican convictions on issues such as abortion, gay marriage and so on, are more in-line with Biblical teaching then many liberal dem philosophies." The inference being that a liberal dem - or anyone else who isn't Scott's flavor of Christian - can't be as good of a Christian and is less inclined to follow Biblical teachings. I then gave a example of an a liberal stance supported by the Bible and the Catholic Church - the death penalty. The point wasn't to start an argument on gay marriage or the death penalty, but rather that I can follow Biblical teachings and come to different conclusions based on intrepretations. Just like Tadowe's interpretation of marriage. And the reason no one interpretation works is because we're all different with different beliefs and yet miraculously enough I can show up on Sunday at my Episcopal Church on Sunday and believe that I am just as much of a Christian as Tadowe or Scott McJunkin even though I think gay marriage would be just fine. And guess what? I think Tadow and Scott McJunkin are good Christians even though they disagree with me. I don't need the government - state, local or federal - to enact laws that are specifically consistent with my own moral beliefs in order for me to feel comfortable in my spirtual skin. If you want your kids to pray more - make them pray more make them go to church every night of the week. If you're against abortion, then don't have one. If you are against gay marriage, don't marry a gay person. Unless of course you think they are really cute.
Get it? You can have all your personal moral beliefs just be responsible and accountable to make them happen in your life and don't expect the government to do it for you.
Lone concludes, "You can have all your personal moral beliefs just be responsible and accountable to make them happen in your life and don't expect the government to do it for you."
I agree with you 100%, Jr., let the homosexual couples have all the 'beliefs' they care to have and live together if they want to responsibly and accountably, and that those principles help to foster them in their lives -- don't expect the government to give them benefits for it. That's what I was talking about.
Having such fundamental agreement, in conclusion, I wonder at stuff like this:
Star, Jr. says, "What you said has nothing to do with what marriage is currently today in our society. In all 50 states you do not have to get married in a church in order to get married."
You simply deny what I did write by saying, in effect, that because the state (government) taxes marriage, and that's what is done now, it scores one for your side.
First, I was talking about the connection between religion and marriage -- not the secular ability of the state to provide recognition and taxation of partnership outside of 'marriage,' and while still providing those partners with the sense that they are married (lol) within-the-law. You use apples to deny oranges.
Second, sentence after sentence of sarcasms and mockery of the strawman argument, invented by you, is hardly reasonable support for your argument. All of that does not negate that marriage was always an effort to assist Nature, intelligent design, in continuing the species; nurturing and fostering the future in the children which come into existence through that process. However much you care to deny it, religion and marriage are inextricably intertwined, and the institution of marriage because of that spiritual (Nature, intelligent design) connection with the culmination of it in the reality of man and woman, with procreation and the continuance of mankind's future.
Those who don't want to recognize their relative status, vis a vis Nature, may have partnerships in secular ceremony, that's fine. However, it is time to stop calling the civil recognition of those partnerships: marriage, and providing benefits intended to support procreation and a stable environment for the results of that natural process.
The arguments concerning religious beliefs, of course, is specious concerning anything I said, and seem only to highlight some personal bias against one specific world religion -- I mentioned none. All of those references are considered 'fringe beliefs' by most followers of that religion, anyway, in my opinion, and hardly justify your apparent prejudice against them, for it.
In conclusion, The ancient concepts of marriage were also religious, in nature (my pun.) The effort to force religion and the 'institution of marriage,' is an attack on not just one religion, but all of them. Call the joining of one male with another, female with female, what it is: a partnership. Tax it, provide any ceremony desired for it, but do NOT give it the benefits designed to support the mystery of life -- because they don't have it, and never will.
I hate Bush and I hope that this Libby thing some how leads to a indictment of the President.
This is exactly what I am talking about. You are using a spiritual/nature agrument to justify a public policy. Current law and how marriage is treated ignores these concepts already. Couples who cannot bear children already marry. Athiests, Jews, Satanists, agnostics already marry. These people don't meet your criteria for marriage but are allowed to marry. The horse is already out of the barn. And some might argue they are a greater threat to marriage than gays. How do you justify allowing these folks who do not meet your definition of marriage to marry but not gays?
Tadowe says First, I was talking about the connection between religion and marriage -- not the secular ability of the state to provide recognition and taxation of partnership outside of 'marriage,' and while still providing those partners with the sense that they are married (lol) within-the-law. You use apples to deny oranges.
Your religious definition of marriage can continue on in your head. You can have that belief and make sure you only marry when there is a pirtual nature connection. But how come you're so fired up about gay marriage? How come you don't write on blogs about all the other people who have married that don't meet the definition?
On the contrary I am trying to keep the apples and oranges separate. You can maintain your belief of what marriage is. But you can't use that belief, which is not recognized by the states, do deny rights. Your problem here is that marriage is a legal contract that is sanctioned by the states. Property rights, divorce issues, custody etc. flow from that contract. They don't flow from your spiritual definition of marriage. So, you can't use a spiritual arguement to deny rights that flow from a legal contract santioned by the state.
If you want to deny the rights and really institutionalize your definition then how about we write your definition of marriage into the law and say you must meet it in order to get married. And you're in charge of enforcing it.
I think it's funny you just say I merely mocking you. But you did infer originally that the purpose of marriage is procreation. What about people who can't have childre? Are we fringe. And of course all those heatherns - here and aborad - who have little or no spiritual beliefs. Are they married less than you?
I mean really Tadowe. If we are really going to take this nature thing to it's logical conclusion then why stop at gay marriage? Adoptive mothers are not really the real mothers of adopted child. Nature did not give that child to that mother. Therefore we should not allow adoption because it goes against nature. Think about all the things we do in modern America that we do - pollution, oil drilling, etc - that go against nature. but you draw the line at gay marriage. Amazing.
Lone Star Jr. says, "...You are using a spiritual/nature agrument to justify a public policy. Current law and how marriage is treated ignores these concepts already."
Civil law allows heterosexual couples a method to make formal partnerships without a religious endorsement; or not necessarily any religious sanction of that partnership; by taxing all marriage.
"Couples who cannot bear children already marry. Athiests, Jews, Satanists, agnostics already marry. These people don't meet your criteria for marriage but are allowed to marry."
My comments had to do with the realization that the institution of marriage started with a religious foundation, in order to support the reality of the natural process of procreation and nurturing of children. That religious authority is intimately wrapped up in civil authority is obvious. That the state taxes marriage is obvious. And, although children are not necessarily a part of all marriages, up until the present marriage has been between a man and a woman, in recognition of that a priori understanding that it was in support of the family unit and the continuation of the species that it was formed.
"The horse is already out of the barn. And some might argue they are a greater threat to marriage than gays. How do you justify allowing these folks who do not meet your definition of marriage to marry but not gays?"
You simply (again) declare that those couples don't meet my definition and that they somehow endanger the institution of marriage. And, of course, I disagree. Those couples are still heterosexual and can actually form a supportive family unit for any children they produce and however secular their beliefs happen to be.
A male/male or a female/female partnership is a square peg, attempting to fit into a round hole as far as teaching the mystical, intelligently designed by nature, family unit to future generations to follow. It is an experiment in teaching its demise.
"...how come you're so fired up about gay marriage? How come you don't write on blogs about all the other people who have married that don't meet the definition?"
I tried to show why 'marriage,' up until the present, has been a religious institution. My explanation, you deride, was an attempt to describe that -- not to make some 'definition' about the beliefs of the people who join in marriage.
Then, you use that misdirection to make to infer that I am agains gay partnerships. I'm not. I'm in disagreement that they should be recognized as MARRIED. Call it anything else that you want, but they are not MARRIED...because marriage means something else, something more important than BENEFITS.
"...But you can't use that belief, which is not recognized by the states, do deny rights."
They are denied those 'rights,' now, Jr., and that is what you want to change with your belief that marriage is nothing more than a secular recognition of that...that the state is the authority which can magically change what marriage was (used to be) into what your belief of it should mean, now.
"Your problem here is that marriage is a legal contract that is sanctioned by the states. Property rights, divorce issues, custody etc. flow from that contract. They don't flow from your spiritual definition of marriage."
Horse hockey. The state's support of marriage has traditionally recognized and enforced the morals and principles of that institution. A myriad of laws have used religious values to form them; including, those agains sodomy, for example.
"So, you can't use a spiritual arguement to deny rights that flow from a legal contract santioned by the state."
That means that the state can't deny ANY form of marriage, since any moral arguments are not pertinent. Polygamy should be a right, and rules worked out to assign benefits. With PETA at your side, you might even make a case for zoophily -- how about NAMBLA and lowering the age of consent for male children to the Georgia standard (13 with PARENT'S consent?) How about female children? If they are old enough to bleed, etc.? Nothing is sacred in civil marriage, if moral laws aren't germane.
As I've mentioned, provide them with a license for their partnership, but don't call it 'marriage,' because that will allow them to literally force their way into other institutions and gain benefits designed to support a natural family -- not a play house one...
They can have 'property rights,' but they shouldn't have any special 'sexual rights' and which are imaginary, made-up in order to advance their political efforts to gain benefits which are intended to support Nature's imperative and not their own...
And the real root of nature's genetic imperative is that there should be marriage for the main purpose of procreation. I know ther eare others but that's the main one right?
Lone Star J.R. asks, "And the real root of nature's genetic imperative is that there should be marriage for the main purpose of procreation."
No, what I said was that religion has fostered the mystical (however scientific you care to make it) understanding of nature's genetic imperative to (almost literally force) procreation and nurturing care, even love, for the results of that 'demand,' and that it was by intelligent design. The institution formed to foster that spiritual agreement in encouraging the family and providing a nurturing environment was 'marriage.' All the religions of mankind have 'marriage,' and none of them allow homosexual 'marriage.'
"I know ther eare others but that's the main one right?"
I think the institution of 'marriage' has undergone many changes, and the many religions of man have multiplied the rules and regulations that those religions apply to 'marriage.' However, none of those religions, except in their sectarian exceptions, allow or permit 'marriage.'
I believe, that if democracy was honored, that by vote of the citizens of the various states, homosexual 'marriage' would not pass any of those state's referendums.
I think the 'progressive' states should word a law permitting civil 'unions,' for same sex partners, and which will allow them property rights, and other rights dealing with property. Those 'unions' should specify 50/50 property rights (or whatever the 'contracters' decide) and specify such situations as visitation, termination of medical treatment, who gets the Ferrari, etc.
But no forcing their way into church, no 'right' to adoption by being 'married,' and no benefits in relation to social security and, or medicare. No receiving any present or future tax benefits designed to foster the family unit designed in agreement with nature to be our survival icon. . .
I think where we differ is on one main point.
Tadowe said "That religious authority is intimately wrapped up in civil authority is obvious."
Sure. Certainly criminal laws apply here. But we currently don't have laws against premarital sex and that arguably could be a detriment to families and a religious definition of marriage. Adultery isn't against the law and that's a commandment. I could provide a long list of things that people are allowed to do under the law that most religions wouldn't go along with. But you want to invoke religions' part in shaping marriage as a reason as to why we can't change it. And guess what? If i get married and engage in sodomy in a state where it's against the law and I get caught red-handed, my marriage is still valid and I get all the benefits of marriage. There's no actual link between the two. We just put enacted sodomy laws to use against gays if we needed them but had no intention of enforcing them for the most part against heterosexuals.
Tadowe says "You simply deny what I did write by saying, in effect, that because the state (government) taxes marriage, and that's what is done now, it scores one for your side. "
The benefits that the state gives to married people flows from the civil definition of marriage. And some how you seem to be suggesting that this moral idea of marriage is connected to the benefits we currently receive and therefor if we change it in someway, this moral idea is threatened. The moral, religious and nature's genteic imperative idea of what marriage is happens in the heart and mind. It certainly doesn't mean that defintion doesn't have personal or individual worth. And again I would suggest that if you have this belief, make absolutely sure you don't marry a gay person. But in 2005 this nature's genetic imperative has little to do with the state's defnition of marriage and the benefits and services that flow from it.
And the truth is that when it comes to marriage, the civil authority does not regonize the religious authority. You can get married in the Satanic Church or by a Justice of the Peace in a ceremony that does not mention any God and you still get social security, can adopt etc. That's worth saying again. I can get married out of the church and in a pagan ceremony and I still get all of the same benefits as someone married in the Catholic Church. So if civil and religious authority were ever intertwined on marriage, they are not now and in fact the religious portion of this has no impact at all. And do you really believe that the existence of sodomy laws supports that the state goes along with religion's idea of what marriage is? And if the nature's imperative idea of marriage is so important why don't we enforce it? Why don't we make people get married in religious ceremonies or in ceremonies that ackowledge the spiritual idea of marriage and why don't we make them have children and why don't we make them form family units that fit the definition of whatever was in your mind at the second that you wrote that's what marriage is for?
For your observations to have any impact we'll either have to change the civil definition of marriage to include the one you talk about - or have two separate ones - civil and religious marriage licenses. And it's not just that the state taxes marriage. It gives benefits and affords certain opportunities and services based on the civil definition of marriage.
Not one single state recognizes a specific or any church or religion in order to make your marriage license and forms legitimate. Those benefits enumerated above don't flow from your definition of marriage or the whole natural imperative thing.
The problem is you are just asserting that the civil and religious authorities are inextricably intertwined when it comes to marriage, And all of those vague things you say marriage are but won't elaborate on specifically when asked about them - those things happen in people's hearts and heads as to what marriage is. And all of those beliefs don';t have to be held by someone to get married. And likewise you can still hold those beliefs if someone gets married that doesn't hold those beliefs.
As far as putting it to a vote, are you ready to put adultery, premarital sex, abortion and all other moral issues that some people feel are a threat to marriage. Let me guess - no. Just gay marriage.
Lone Star J.R. says, "As far as putting it to a vote, are you ready to put adultery, premarital sex, abortion and all other moral issues that some people feel are a threat to marriage. Let me guess - no. Just gay marriage."
Your other comments tend to contradict themselves, e.g., begging the question about laws against various sexual activities, and then recognizing that those laws might actually exist.
I am willing to put-it-to-the-vote, and that's the main thrust of the entire argument -- let the people decide: from the local level on up. In that respect, even here in Oregon, the people have said that the definition of 'marriage' is the contract between a man and a woman.
That's the way it will go in the other states, because the people see that it is an effort to gain the benefits traditionally assigned to 'marriage' which the homosexual's are attempting to gain, and not some imaginary 'right' to their sexual preferences.
First, I point out all the big moral issues where laws don't exist or apply in order to make the point of where do you draw the line? I specifically point out those issues that affect your defnition of marriage where there is no law. I ask you why not and you remain silent. I say why not put those to a vote and not only gay marriage and you remain silent. I can't iamgine why.
If the state takes an interest in marriage because of the nature's imperative justification, don't you have to - better yet don't you want to - address all the other issues that affect it and are tied to it- pre-marital sex, abortion, adultery etc.? But you want to draw the line at gay marriage and stop. You want to have laws that prevent people from challening your definition of marriage, but interestingly enough you donn't want any laws that would actually enforce your defnition of marriage. How conveeeeeennient. Please elaborate and tell us your entire nature's imperative political platform so we know everything we're going to get.
And what good would it do if your gay marriage vote goes your way but you lose on abortion and adultery? In the final analysis wouldn't you be worse off than before?
Imaginary? Funny. You don't want them to adopt but they are already having babies. Lesbian couples are using these imaginary rights to have and raise babies. One partner has the baby through insemination and the couple raises the baby together. Amazing. And without a vote. It just can't be legitimate can it? Maybe it's not really happening. And if your vote goes against them, what would you then do with their family? Take the child? Adopt it out? In addition, in California for sure, and possibly other states, gay couples are already allowed to adopt.
"It was impossible to get a conversation going, everybody was talking too much."
You're right Gene. Guilty as charged. And I must be hanging out in the wrong places. I was totally unaware that "intelligent design" is the new phrase for evolution. It's probably good I didn't know. i would have talked a lot more.
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."
Drugs must have been kicking in . I meant to say that intelligent design is the new phrase for creationism.
The flat-earthers want science to include God. Anything less for them is atheism. Of course, they don't understand what scientific enquiry is.
They can't see the contradiction.
Do you have any more of those drugs?
Gene says, "The flat-earthers want science to include God. Anything less for them is atheism. Of course, they don't understand what scientific enquiry is."
Science, itself, is in the same 'boat' of belief. In this instance it is a belief that the theory of evolution = truth. This same 'science' dismisses any consideration of 'intelligent design' because they can't *test* for any such entity. However, the same institution of science proposes *untestable* conclusions vis a vis "dark matter" and "blackholes," the "big bang" and even "evolution."
All of which demonstrates the crux of the problem(s): Belief.
In that regard, perhaps both "evolution" and "intelligent design" should be discussed under the curriculum of "comparative religion" and neither included in any teaching of science...?
They can't see the contradiction.