Ca Patriot
Regular Member
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
You seem to have missed the bold part of the First Admendment...
+ 1
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
You seem to have missed the bold part of the First Admendment...
i dont think that piece is entirely accurate.
i do believe that more americans support the right to gay marriage than any time in american history. however, when states vote on the issue either through legislatures or initiatives the vast majority are against same sex marriage.
personally i am not in favor of gay marriage but i am opposed to government involvement in marriage.
A 14 year old is a minor, minors can not legally give consent. To make marriage of minors legal, you're going to have to change a lot of laws and the basic framework of our legal system regarding them.i want to start my post by saying i want government out of the marriage business.
now, i am also against gay marriage, its wrong, its immoral and just plane weird.
but if the pro-gay marriage crowd what to be consistant and have a shred of credibility in their argument, they have to be for
polygamy and incest marriage. if you have the "right" to marry the same gender, surely you have the right to marry multiple people of the same gender,
you have the right to marry your brothers, sisters, heck even your mom and dad. or even all of them at the same time.
i will even extend it to you should be able to marry minors. who are you to say that 14 year old cant marry a 60 year old. if they consent, why not.
we currently have a very arbitrary age of 18. but why 18, can people not make the decision to get married at 17, or 16, 15, 14, etc.
people have sex before 18 all the time, get pregnant too, should we throw them all in jail? but they cant get married.
This.Replace "gay marriage, gun rights" with "civil rights"
this is what the amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
yeah nothing about separation of church and state. it clearly mean they cant make a law promoting a religion. like they cant pass a law saying everyone has to be baptist or you go to jail.
you do realize they used to hold church services in congress right?
and im sure you are invoking Thomas jefferson's letter mentioning a "wall of separation". well first of all, seeing as letters written by people who didnt write the constitution, has never been considered considered law, let alone constitutional law, it really has no bearing on public policy. 2nd that very man, thomas jefferson often lead congress in church and prayer inside of the congress building. so much for separation of church and state. you cant get much more conjoined than that.
the intent of the amendment was never to meant to eliminate religion from the public sphere.
Some of us have realized that loving our neighbors and treating others as we want to be treated means granting everybody an equal shake at the whole "marriage" business. Simultaneously, those same people recognize there are those who are angry that others might enjoy equality and would violently seek to oppress those of different beliefs. We see that the only way to stand against such oppression is by being our own defenders.
So yeah, not too surprising to see marriage equality and the right to self-defense come together. Delicious.
What conclusion is incorrect, and what's inflammatory about stating how we view equality? Marriage is a word used in two contexts, with two meanings. One is civil marriage, the other is religious. Nothing legally prevents a same-sex couple from being religiously married in the status quo. Civilly, however, is a different story.
People have taken their religious views and voted to impose them upon society, preventing loving couples in long-term relationships from enjoying the civil protections and status of marriage. Ironically, these people are voting based on their religious views, and are usually the same people who would cry out "Sharia!" the moment a Muslim voted to enforce their religious views upon the public.
So, what's the incorrect conclusion? That denying someone a civil marriage because your religion says no or because it makes you feel squicky is denying people equal treatment under the law? That some have acted violently towards gays, including gay bashing and other forms of targeted battery? That self-defense is the only option in many of these cases? As the pink pistols put it: "Armed gays don't get bashed." What's incorrect about those conclusions, and why is expressing them inflammatory?
Should this thread continue to follow the primary path of marriage rights, it will be locked as having nothing to do with OC or RKBA. Please read and follow the forum rules.
Should this thread continue to follow the primary path of marriage rights, it will be locked as having nothing to do with OC or RKBA. Please read and follow the forum rules.
Close it this instant!
I only support one and this thread was not posted to further its advancement.
Grapeshot, the thread should be moved to General since even though marriage is a civil right, just like how people were upset over black and white people getting married. Locking the thread over moving it would be inappropriate.
The General Forum is for all RKBA things not related to OC of handguns.
OCDO is NOT a generic civil rights forum - we are dedicate solely to RKBA with the primary focus on OC - let there be no mistake about that.
I agree that it should be closed .... linking ***** and gun owners in such a manner to further the **** agenda? Close it this instant!
I only support one and this thread was not posted to further its advancement.
I agree that it should be closed .... linking ***** and gun owners in such a manner to further the **** agenda? Close it this instant!
I only support one and this thread was not posted to further its advancement.
Then move the thread to the Social Lounge.
Was considering that.
The problem being that there are two distinct issues here. #1 being gun rights which is solidly connected to OCDO. The other (#2) marriage rights which is not connected at all and would by default only fit in the Social Lounge. Can't very well move half of an intermingled thread - part 1 goes with part 2.
The judgement call was made in favor of the purpose, intent of OCDO.
I support every person's freedom and responsibility to get involved and to do everything possible to influence the culture of our society according to his beliefs. That goes for 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, and any other amendment. If you're not willing to participate, then you don't have much right to complain.
Obama's administration has done some to alleviate some of the hardships of not being married to a same sex partner, like forcing hospital visitation of same sex couples upon hospitals via regulation. Imagine not being able to visit your friend in the hospital, especially if his/her whole family had already passed away.