| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/24/2008 02:30:30 PM · #1401 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let the backpedal begin. Forgive me for being distracted by your big, bold separation of church and state. How again does the separation fit into your rephrase above? I didn't see it listed there at all. Can you state it again, but include "separation of church and state" in the appropriate part so us dense people can understand what you meant? |
No backpedaling is necessary.
My point was and is that no laws should be based solely on what's written in an old book, regardless of its status as a holy text within some faction of the religious community. In other words, "God" ain't enough. Or, just because someone interprets some verses in the bible as condemning some act doesn't justify laws that restrict others from doing the same or according them the same advantages afforded others. To do otherwise constitutes an endorsement of one religion over another, i.e. establishes a state endorsed religion, and consequently violates the separation of church and state.
Plain enough for you?
Message edited by author 2008-11-24 14:31:56. |
|
|
|
11/24/2008 02:30:57 PM · #1402 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Melethia:
An aside, but it really is bothering me -  tnun is not a "he". Please refer to her with the proper pronouns. Thank you. Please continue. |
I think tnun is a boy. (Timothy.) Either way, s/he is playing mind-bending gender games with us. |
[totally irrelevant digression] I've always wished the English language had a singular pronoun that, while denoting the presence of gender, remained gender-neutral. "He" and "she" denote gender, "it" implies a thing, and "they" is plural, much misused because there isn't a good alternative for when you know you're speaking of a person but not what gender that person is.
{/digression] |
|
|
|
11/24/2008 03:13:07 PM · #1403 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
tnun, dang it, I keep trying to put you on my "favorite Photographer" list but you're already there.
:-)) |
Add her to your favorite Photographress list. She can be in both lists! |
|
|
|
11/24/2008 03:25:12 PM · #1404 |
| I thought it was "photographrix". |
|
|
|
11/24/2008 03:27:11 PM · #1405 |
LOL. I call 'em all "photogs"
Never get in trouble that way. |
|
|
|
11/24/2008 03:57:06 PM · #1406 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I thought it was "photographrix". |
Sorry I was going for a wider audience... |
|
|
|
11/24/2008 04:15:03 PM · #1407 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let the backpedal begin. Forgive me for being distracted by your big, bold separation of church and state. How again does the separation fit into your rephrase above? I didn't see it listed there at all. Can you state it again, but include "separation of church and state" in the appropriate part so us dense people can understand what you meant? |
No backpedaling is necessary.
My point was and is that no laws should be based solely on what's written in an old book, regardless of its status as a holy text within some faction of the religious community. In other words, "God" ain't enough. Or, just because someone interprets some verses in the bible as condemning some act doesn't justify laws that restrict others from doing the same or according them the same advantages afforded others. To do otherwise constitutes an endorsement of one religion over another, i.e. establishes a state endorsed religion, and consequently violates the separation of church and state.
Plain enough for you? |
You are either being obtuse or disingenuous. How does your bolded statement disagree with my assertion, "Spaz was trying infer that a good reason to strike down Prop 8 would be citing the separation of church and state." which you said you weren't saying. You can't have it both ways. Just take your intellectual lumps, admit it was a bad argument and move on. Sheesh. |
|
|
|
11/24/2008 04:42:01 PM · #1408 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
For those who claim God as the basis of rights, I have five words for you: Separation of Church and State. |
The separation of church and state refers to having no state sponsored religion. That is, one faith cannot be favored over another. It doesn't, however, mean nothing derived from religion can be discussed/implemented in state government. |
(this is old I know, I'm just catching up...)
Doc has a valid point, and just to be clear, anything derived from religion that is implemented into government must have a secular purpose, otherwise it run's afoul of the establishment clause. Not only must it have a secular purpose, it also "must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion" and it "must not result in an 'excessive government entanglement' with religion." Failing any one of those tests makes a law unconstitutional. (see Lemon Test)
So, what again was the secular purpose for taking away the right of gay people to marry? And why are Unitarian Universalist views of marriage being placed below that of other denominations?
For that matter, why is government entangled in marriage anyway? Oh yea, that part of the business is supposed to be secular. |
|
|
|
11/24/2008 04:47:27 PM · #1409 |
|
|
|
11/24/2008 04:56:19 PM · #1410 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let the backpedal begin. Forgive me for being distracted by your big, bold separation of church and state. How again does the separation fit into your rephrase above? I didn't see it listed there at all. Can you state it again, but include "separation of church and state" in the appropriate part so us dense people can understand what you meant? |
No backpedaling is necessary.
My point was and is that no laws should be based solely on what's written in an old book, regardless of its status as a holy text within some faction of the religious community. In other words, "God" ain't enough. Or, just because someone interprets some verses in the bible as condemning some act doesn't justify laws that restrict others from doing the same or according them the same advantages afforded others. To do otherwise constitutes an endorsement of one religion over another, i.e. establishes a state endorsed religion, and consequently violates the separation of church and state.
Plain enough for you? |
You are either being obtuse or disingenuous. How does your bolded statement disagree with my assertion, "Spaz was trying infer that a good reason to strike down Prop 8 would be citing the separation of church and state." which you said you weren't saying. You can't have it both ways. Just take your intellectual lumps, admit it was a bad argument and move on. Sheesh. |
I think I've confused us both.
What I should have said was that my point about the separation of church and state isn't limited to Prop 8. I got carried away in the bigness of the whole separation of church and state thing. |
|
|
|
11/24/2008 04:57:25 PM · #1411 |
Originally posted by JMart:
Doc has a valid point, and just to be clear, anything derived from religion that is implemented into government must have a secular purpose, otherwise it run's afoul of the establishment clause. Not only must it have a secular purpose, it also "must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion" and it "must not result in an 'excessive government entanglement' with religion." Failing any one of those tests makes a law unconstitutional. (see Lemon Test)
So, what again was the secular purpose for taking away the right of gay people to marry? And why are Unitarian Universalist views of marriage being placed below that of other denominations?
For that matter, why is government entangled in marriage anyway? Oh yea, that part of the business is supposed to be secular. |
So just to be clear John, before I even get into it, do you agree with Spaz that it is a valid argument to declare Prop 8 is a violation of the establishment claush of the first amendment? If this is just a rhetorical post, I'm not going to waste the time. So are you joining Spaz on his sinking ship, or are you going to let him sink alone?
EDIT: So Spaz, I think, is saying that Prop 8 violates the separation of church and state, but we shouldn't think of the principle (separation) as being limited to this.
Message edited by author 2008-11-24 16:59:55. |
|
|
|
11/24/2008 05:19:38 PM · #1412 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by JMart:
Doc has a valid point, and just to be clear, anything derived from religion that is implemented into government must have a secular purpose, otherwise it run's afoul of the establishment clause. Not only must it have a secular purpose, it also "must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion" and it "must not result in an 'excessive government entanglement' with religion." Failing any one of those tests makes a law unconstitutional. (see Lemon Test)
So, what again was the secular purpose for taking away the right of gay people to marry? And why are Unitarian Universalist views of marriage being placed below that of other denominations?
For that matter, why is government entangled in marriage anyway? Oh yea, that part of the business is supposed to be secular. |
So just to be clear John, before I even get into it, do you agree with Spaz that it is a valid argument to declare Prop 8 is a violation of the establishment claush of the first amendment? If this is just a rhetorical post, I'm not going to waste the time. So are you joining Spaz on his sinking ship, or are you going to let him sink alone?
EDIT: So Spaz, I think, is saying that Prop 8 violates the separation of church and state, but we shouldn't think of the principle (separation) as being limited to this. |
Doc, I'm not sure which is the better argument to make against Prop 8. I do see it as an equal protection violation, but I think it is much less defensible as an establishment clause question. It clearly violates the advancing/inhibiting prong of the Lemon test by putting the view of some religions over others with regard to marriage. It clearly violates the secular purpose prong since the motivation to deny gay people the word marriage is based primarily on its religious definition. That's enough to say it's an establishment clause problem.
The equal protection argument is a good one, but I think it's less clear cut than the religious one and I think the Prop. 8 opponents would have been wise to argue based on the Establishment Clause rather than focusing on equal protection and only having an amicus brief about Establishment (I believe from the Center for Inquiry). That could have ended the Prop. 8 push preemptively. |
|
|
|
11/24/2008 05:29:32 PM · #1413 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My point is that as a legal argument it's pretty easy to discredit. Which specific religion is being sponsored again? Christianity? Judaism? Islam? Mormonism? They all seem to be generally for the "man and woman" idea.
|
(sorry Doc, just re-reading and I missed this point earlier)
Unitarian Universalists are not for the "man & woman" idea.
ETA: And they're not against it either, just not exclusive to it.
Message edited by author 2008-11-24 17:30:51. |
|
|
|
11/24/2008 05:32:58 PM · #1414 |
Originally posted by JMart:
Doc, I'm not sure which is the better argument to make against Prop 8. I do see it as an equal protection violation, but I think it is much less defensible as an establishment clause question. It clearly violates the advancing/inhibiting prong of the Lemon test by putting the view of some religions over others with regard to marriage. It clearly violates the secular purpose prong since the motivation to deny gay people the word marriage is based primarily on its religious definition. That's enough to say it's an establishment clause problem.
The equal protection argument is a good one, but I think it's less clear cut than the religious one and I think the Prop. 8 opponents would have been wise to argue based on the Establishment Clause rather than focusing on equal protection and only having an amicus brief about Establishment (I believe from the Center for Inquiry). That could have ended the Prop. 8 push preemptively. |
Man, you sound like a lawyer. :) I'm not sure it "clearly violates" the secular purpose prong because I doubt every person who voted for Prop 8 would consider themselves religious. So if you had enough people claim to be for Prop 8 who were not religious, would that establish a "secular purpose"? (leaving aside all other arguments such as discrimination, etc). I also doubt it violates the specific religion prong. We have bans against polygamy and that would appear to be a similar violation.
EDIT: Really, now that I think about it, wouldn't it be easy to point out that bans against polygamy are current and unchallenged. Such a ban would probably be about as close a precedent as you could get. If IT doesn't violate the separation of church and state than I don't think this would either.
Message edited by author 2008-11-24 17:36:37. |
|
|
|
11/24/2008 05:45:12 PM · #1415 |
| Polygamy is only a problem when you try to do it secularly. |
|
|
|
11/24/2008 06:01:57 PM · #1416 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Man, you sound like a lawyer. :)
|
Uh, dood, you don't have to resort to insults :P Seriously, I have gotten into this area of law for the same reason you cited earlier, I get mixed up with it as a school music teacher. But, that's another tangled web entirely.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not sure it "clearly violates" the secular purpose prong because I doubt every person who voted for Prop 8 would consider themselves religious. So if you had enough people claim to be for Prop 8 who were not religious, would that establish a "secular purpose"? (leaving aside all other arguments such as discrimination, etc).
|
For most legislation there is a legislative history that can be used to establish what the intended purposes and justifications were. I don't think a judge is going to care about what a segment of the voters say they were thinking about. On that basis we could probably come up with all sorts of strange laws such as a requirement to teach intelligent design as a scientific alternative to natural selection. ID was struck down largely due to the religious intent of the people who crafted the law that was uncovered during the trial.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I also doubt it violates the specific religion prong. We have bans against polygamy and that would appear to be a similar violation.
EDIT: Really, now that I think about it, wouldn't it be easy to point out that bans against polygamy are current and unchallenged. Such a ban would probably be about as close a precedent as you could get. If IT doesn't violate the separation of church and state than I don't think this would either. |
Well, I really don't know what sort of cases have been heard regarding polygamy and I don't know what secular arguments for or against polygamy might exist. On the face of it I would say that Mormons who believe in polygamy are being treated unconstitutionally when they are denied marriages. But again, I don't know if there might be better secular arguments against it such as the difficult legal entanglements polygamy might produce. |
|
|
|
11/24/2008 06:09:30 PM · #1417 |
Supreme Court Case for the wiki version, with links to court findings. Ruled in 1878, based on idea that this does not fall under free exercise of religion.
edit to add, interesting statement by Jefferson which directly relates to Gay Marriage:
In the ruling, the court quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he stated that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legitimate powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions."
Message edited by author 2008-11-24 18:12:26. |
|
|
|
11/24/2008 06:45:41 PM · #1418 |
| Reynolds vs. United States seems to be a case that could be claimed by both sides as evidence in their support. What was your thinking on it? (if you had an opinion). |
|
|
|
11/24/2008 06:59:56 PM · #1419 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Reynolds vs. United States seems to be a case that could be claimed by both sides as evidence in their support. What was your thinking on it? (if you had an opinion). |
Yipes! Interesting case.
The argument that monogamy "had existed since the times of King James I of England in English law on which United States law was based" seems like rather weak reasoning against polygamy and this case sounds like a precedent the anti-Prop 8 side may have to contend with.
I would start by saying that this Reynolds argument is irrelevant to the case of gay marriage by the simple fact that gay marriage has been recognized in some parts of the US and it was recognized in CA prior to Prop 8. So, you can't just plead historical tradition without ignoring certain regions and points in time.
Also, the Reynolds case was a criminal case asking if a person can commit a crime and then use their religious view as an excuse for that crime. That's a different question than asking if the entire law is unconstitutional on first amendment grounds. It sounds to me like the constitutionality of anti-polygamy laws may not have been addressed fully. Instead, the justices were asking, "how long before someone argued that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion?" So, clearly (again ;) they were primarily concerned about using religion as an excuse for crime. |
|
|
|
11/24/2008 07:23:51 PM · #1420 |
Originally posted by JMart:
So, clearly (again ;) they were primarily concerned about using religion as an excuse for crime. |
If I've learned anything, nothing is clear when it comes to constitutional law... ;) |
|
|
|
11/24/2008 07:37:23 PM · #1421 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by JMart:
So, clearly (again ;) they were primarily concerned about using religion as an excuse for crime. |
If I've learned anything, nothing is clear when it comes to constitutional law... ;) |
OK, you win, I have to agree with you about that. :P |
|
|
|
11/24/2008 07:48:48 PM · #1422 |
| OK, you heard him people. I've been declared the winner. All posts after this point will be considered part of the Postgame show. Good night everybody! Game over! Drive home safely! ;P |
|
|
|
11/24/2008 07:55:51 PM · #1423 |
| OK everybody, Doc's gone. Quick, overturn prop 8 before before he gets back! :P |
|
|
|
11/24/2008 08:03:38 PM · #1424 |
Originally posted by JMart:
OK everybody, Doc's gone. Quick, overturn prop 8 before before he gets back! :P |
LOL. But that's not enough. Lets get another prop passed but this one bans the practice of Christianity. It'll be amusing to see Doc do a 180 in all of his arguments. :P
Message edited by author 2008-11-24 20:04:07.
|
|
|
|
11/24/2008 08:04:26 PM · #1425 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by JMart:
OK everybody, Doc's gone. Quick, overturn prop 8 before before he gets back! :P |
LOL. But that's not enough. Lets get another prop passed but this one bans the practice of Christianity. It'll be amusing to see Doc do a 180 in all of his arguments. :P |
Dontcha mean a 180 there smart guy?
HAHA! I saw it say 360! I saw it before you changed it!
Message edited by author 2008-11-24 20:04:52. |
|
