Just had to put this up
The recent commotion in Washington state by homosexual activists who are demanding that married couples procreate has stirred the hornet's nest. People are again tackling the issue of gay-marriage and I was pleased to find the most coherent rejection of government sanctioned same-sex unions that I have read to date. As I read, I found myself thinking that the author was reading my mind, though he expressed 'my' thoughts more articulately than I ever could ;-)
This must read is over at townhall and argues a point which I have tried to make so many times here at my own virtual hangout: Marriage is about children! It is about the interest government has in perpetuating society. What are you waiting for? Get over there and read!!!
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Comment by the shalana— 2007/02/11 @ 06:38 PM — (Reply)
No - but I would definitely be for the tax benefits of marriage being applicable only to couples with children. If you have no intention of having children, then how are you perpetuating civilization? What stake does government have in your union? How are you different from a non-married couple? Some benefits are extended to custodial single parents, especially low income earners. IT'S ABOUT MAKING BABIES, BART!
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/11 @ 06:53 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Howard Stern— 2007/02/11 @ 06:58 PM — (Reply)
It's about RAISING children, not making babies!! When are you going to look past that critical distinction?? THAT is the governmental interest.
The government ought not have any vested interest in the procreative functions of two adults, unless you believe in the type of governmental control we see in Communist China- and you don't believe in that, do you??
It DOES have a strong interest in the security and stability of a family that raises children. The article you cited betrays its inherent bias when it brazenly says:
So, essentially, in order to "protect society" for any appearance of endorsement for the "gay lifestyle," the conservative agenda is declaring that it is better to deny orphaned children ANY parent, than to allow them loving, albeit same-sex, parents.
Hypothetical question for you, Cate: If, as a prerequisite, every homosexual 'marraige' were required to adopt at least one child as a precondition to their license, would you accept that as governmental interest?
Or does the horror of same-sex relationships outweigh any benefit of raising children in a safe, stable and loving environment?
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/12 @ 07:51 AM — (Reply)
Michael,
Again you are missing the point. Raising a good next generation is the ultimate goal, yes. But you cannot build a generation out of merely a handlful of people.
You can't raise an aborted fetus or educate and enlighten the fluid produced from a homosexual sexual exchange. You actually have to make the babies first. It's a duty that we owe to dear old France.... isn't it romance" Remember?
And handing children over to gay couples is not the same as pushing the positive eugenics of traditional family values. The numbers don't add up unless you are an adherent of the zero population theory, not that I'd be surprised by this.
Unless of course, you are going to go all matrix on us and turn some heteros into human breeding fields.
Denying children a parent of each gender is a real issue. That you don't recognize that has nothing to do with the "horrors" of homosexuality, but it is, frankly, sad. The deterioration of traditional families has led to the confusion and there are a host of problems that preceeded the current social enamoration with homosexuality and led us to this point. The fact that otherwise intelligent people are too PC or too brainwashed to recognize the innate differences between men and women and their roles as parents is evidence of how far we've fallen.
As a mother of boys and a girl who does not push gender stereotypes, I defy anyone to show me certain traits aren't inborn. Ask any mother with a large family of mixed gender. I hand my daughter trains and my sons baby dolls. No matter the train gets hugged and kissed and the dolls get thrown and caught.
As for the argument that couples over a certian age no longer qualify for benefits - that's nonsense. Parental responsibilities continue forever - ask any grandparent or great grandparent if they still have financial ties to their descendants.
And no I wouldn't polygraph people who weren't having children. I would merely suggest that tax bennies be related to parenting rather than to marriage. In other words, the certificate that enables the tax incentives is a birth certificate rather than a marriage certificate. Simple enough?
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/12 @ 08:28 AM — (Reply)
You are an intelligent woman, and I respect your insight and opinions.
You've said it yourself: Kids are born with innate tendencies. You hand your girl a train, and she picks up the doll. You are a modern Christian who, to my eyes, accepts but does not force gender roles upon her children.
Do you think your daughter's reaction would be different if you weren't so modern-thinking? Or if you were a lesbian? Would your daughter think "Oh, I don't have a daddy, so I'd better play with that train instead..."
Absurd!
Of course parents affect the type of person their children become by the type of environment they surround the child with... but they don't dictate it. Most girls are going to play with dolls: they have throughout history, and will likely continue to. Most boys are going to make weapons. And while this is truth in a generalization, it is equally true that there will always be "tom-boys" among the girls and there will always be "nancies" among the boys.
So what's the big deal? What's the risk to society if, instead of having "Uncle Gene- the odd guy who never seemed to have a girlfriend", we had "Uncle Gene and his partner, Tom"? Instead of "Spinster Aunt Betty", we have "Betty and Louise"?
Unmarried, the 'asterisks' weren't going to add to our population growth anyway. Why are you so set against them having some facade of stability?
And, oh that population growth. It's as if you foresee a world where EVERYONE is gay, and only a handful of radical extremist Christians are shacked up in a remote Utah ranch, the only ones actually procreating and making babies.
You have posted several times about the lesbians you've befriended. How were you able to talk to them, and not find yourself lured into their lifestyle? Was the temptation so strong that you had to actively fight the urge to just lean over and kiss them? Or maybe you were just straight because that's who/what you are. Nah, that couldn't be it, could it?
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/12 @ 09:35 AM — (Reply)
The point about innate gender differences was to illustrate that children receive different benefits from having a mother and father:
My husband throws our kids high into the air. I scream for him to stop it because jr. is going to hit the ceiling, I just know it...
As a woman who has single parented for periods of time, I can see a direct correlation between some of my children and the developmental stages they were in when daddy was gone for a year. Which ones are more cautious, which ones are fearless, which ones feel more secure, which ones need reassuring, there are very visible and undeniable reference points in their lives tied to the presence and absence of their dad.
As for your argument about uncle gene or whoever, let's just remember that before Kinsey interviewed sexual predators and inmates to determine the sexual habits of normal people, Uncle gene was an oddity. Now people are using those statistics to convince others that homosexuality is 10% or more of the gen. pop. And if it is purely dna, then explain bisexualism.
You can't. People can be turned on by whatever they associate with their arousal if the exposure and intensity of arousal is profound enough. It explains rape victims sympathizing with their rapists and abuse victims not coming forward. It explains the rise in pedophilia that corresponds with the popularity and availability of child porn. It explains the desensitizing of our entire culture to the point that we have women in panties dancing in front of a flashing neon sign spelling SEXY at 3 in the afternoon in Victoria's secret commercials instead of shows with Lucy and Ricky sleeping in separate beds.
We can become accustomed to arousal and addicted to sensuality in the same way. If you want to believe that every one who claims to be a homosexual is simply that, I can't stop you. But you won't convince me either, that the legitimization of the behavior will make it less popular anymore that repealing prohibition stabilized the number of alcoholics.
The problem of homosexuality (yes I said problem) will become increasingly pervasive. What I foresee is a further decline of our present state - a society in which children are valued so little that people simply decide procreation and parenting are the hobbies of the ignorant and the fate of the poor.
Isn't it already that way? Up and coming metrosexuals deciding that kids are little more than a fashion accesory to be raised by nannies or daycare? And only those superstitious religious nuts or trailer park/project inhabitants being "saddled" with more than one or two?
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/12 @ 10:25 AM — (Reply)
"If it's pure DNA..."- I have never said it was pure DNA, and even if it were, that still wouldn't justify the behavior if it's justification you're looking for. As you know, little boys are more likely to get into fights than little girls. Total generalizations here, of course, but I don't think you or I would disagree with the generalization. I think we would agree that the tendency comes from DNA. And I think we would also agree that it is behavior that needs to be controlled or redirected in little boys, if they're to grow up into decent men.
But... just for silliness sake, you've asked me to explain bisexualism based on pure DNA, and it is so absurdly easy, I really wonder if you put much thought into the question before posing it.
Right-handedness and left-handedness are genetic. I trust we can agree on that. I trust we can also agree that the extent of right/left-handedness is variable. For most, one side is predominant, but for some individuals, neither takes an exclusive role. We call those people ambidextrous. Now, to be sure, many ambidextrous people have CHOSEN to be so, but if it were an easy choice to make, we wouldn't be talking about right/left-handedness.
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/12 @ 11:26 AM — (Reply)
The word preference itself defines bisexualism as absurd. You must prefer one above another.
How much thought did you put into your response ;-)
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/12 @ 11:32 AM — (Reply)
What about being arousal being linked to experience? Why do some people have oral sex and others find it repulsive? Why do some people need porn to get aroused and others of us get by wonderfully without it? Are these inborn differences? My dna predisposed me to my bedroom habits?
okay.. if that's what we have to believe to think that homosexuality is normal.
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/12 @ 11:37 AM — (Reply)
Then, when I found what you were trying to say, I found I needed more time to respond... something work doesn't always afford to me. :)
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/12 @ 11:48 AM — (Reply)
Of course arousal is tied to experience, few things in our life, except perhaps eye color, are strictly genetic in origin.
And I'm not gonna say that homosexuality is 'normal,' so there. But I don't view divorce as 'normal' either. Divorce, especially the free and nearly guiltless variety that is flowing through our society these days, is far, far, FAR more detrimental than any "homosexual agenda," because unlike most homosexual couples, most divorces DO involve children, and do irreparably damage those children's sense of family, responsibility and security.
You rail on and on about the "jeopardy" of gays, and sometimes (though not nearly as often) about the sleeze of porn... but Good Lord! A group of people WANT to establish a family, a stable relationship, and you'd deny them that simply because of what's in (or not in) their underwear?
I keep saying that if the conservatives want to suppress the "homosexual agenda," they'd be all in favor of gay marriage. Everyone knows that sex stops after marriage.
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/12 @ 11:59 AM — (Reply)
FYI - if you haven't heard me state it before, I don't believe in no-fault divorce and I believe that that concept was one of the first real kicks to the groin of traditional marriage, so to speak.
There is a laundry list of things that have created the social mess we find ourselves in. Unfortunately, many of those things are cats so far away from the bag that people don't even remember life before the social breakdown we see around us.
Also, unfortunately, society has accepted some of these concepts so well, like frogs in the water that's rumbling to a boil, folks don't even feel the heat. If those issues were on the legislative agenda, I'll rail against them - frankly, it's too little, too late.
Your implication that I am simply some homophobe only interested in this one issue is wrong and it suggests that because I am frantically fighting the toppling of the next domino in the chain, I accept the catastrophe caused by the dominos that have previously fallen. Not so, my friend.
I would love to see a society where people chose not to get drunk, do drugs, sleep around casually. Where teenaged girls weren't selling themselves to older men for trips to the mall, kids weren't so caught up in what they wore or what neighborhood they lived in that they kill other kids over it. I'd love it if spouses were all faithful and if there were some public and personal shame associated with abandoning your family to find yourself, or treating children as burdens blocking a career path. I would love it if as a society we stopped chasing Hollywood's version of love/lust/excitement and treated each other with dignity and courtesy. If couples treated each other with respect and people were valued for more than their bra size or bank account balance.
I would love it if more women realized that the sexiest thing in the world is your husband carrying a sleepy toddler to bed or his patience and good humor at building a pinewood derby car with your son after a long day at work.
I would love it if men fell madly in love with their wives every time they saw her reading a story in her best pirate voice or running, laughing up the stairs to hide from a six year old seeker.
If that isn't the life people know, then they are sadly missing out. And I feel sorry for them.
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/12 @ 12:30 PM — (Reply)
I used oral sex as an example. Shame on you for the assumptions about my personal life and the attempt to pigeonhole me.
For the record, what goes on between a married couple in their bedroom is between the two of them. It is for each couple to decide what they find acceptable and so long as neither feels degraded, who am I to define their relationship.
Redefining government sanctioned marriage is a different issue, however, as that affects society as a whole.
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/12 @ 03:02 PM — (Reply)
except that you are the one who has made "marraige" all about whether or not the couple procreates and propogates the species.
(For the record, any implication about your personal life was parody only, and in no way did I mean to make any serious implication. I wouldn't want to know any more than you would want me to know!)
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/12 @ 03:53 PM — (Reply)
The argument is about legalizing same-sex marriage.
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/12 @ 05:53 PM — (Reply)
Likewise government cannot define the spiritual, emotional, and divine in a marriage. It can however define the institution by it's quantifiable effect on the society at large and by the responsibilities and obligations that come from forming a family.
Gay people can love each other. They can buy homes together, they can exchange rings - even in some churches - but the quantifiable effect stops at the self or with the twosome. You can add children extraneously but they cannot create them. This will always be the reality.
My personal feelings about the lifestyle choice aside, how exactly does government intervention change life for two gay people in love other than by fostering normalcy? You admitted earlier that you wouldn't call homosexuality normal...
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/12 @ 06:08 PM — (Reply)
Okay, lil Tommy prefers to play with trucks with his right hand, while little Jane prefers to play with dolls with her left hand... and young Pat actually likes playing with both toys in both hands.
Hold on just a minute, Pat! Cate has said that's impossible! You must prefer one over the other.
You've totally lost me on the semantics there, Cate.
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/12 @ 11:46 AM — (Reply)
Bisexualism is a strong argument in my favor. It means there's a choice rather than genetic predetermination.
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/12 @ 12:08 PM — (Reply)
Nor have I ever said that there was a genetic predetermination of our destiny... we have gone one or two steps beyond the response/stimuli of the protozoa, after all.
But you really need to work on your defense here, if you plan on using 'bisexuality' as some sort of counter-argument. Yes, "orientation" implies that one is pointed one way or another... but you seem to think it's some sort of either/or switch, and there's no gradiation in what influence genetics have.
I guess that makes sense, because if we look around us, we can see that all women have the same basic body shape. Thanks to genetics, we know that anyone born with XX chromosomes will fit into a 36C bra. Can you imagine how wierd the world would be if breasts came in a variety of sizes?
And it's great to know that all our athletes have the same basic body type as the rest of us. Genetics being the strict on-off switch it is meant that anyone who wanted to play tennis, stood a decent shot at winning Wimbledon. I can't imagine what it'd be like if there were actually variation in our genetic makeup.
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/12 @ 12:22 PM — (Reply)
Yes breasts come in different sizes but they are after all still breasts. And with the exception of the hermaphrodite, there are only two genders, male and female.
All other aspects of physicality may have a wide spectrum of variation but gender is fairly specific.
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/12 @ 12:33 PM — (Reply)
I can't see how a mother of four can look at her children, and not see, even in that small subset, the broad variation that genetic predispositions can generate.
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/12 @ 01:10 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/12 @ 02:31 PM — (Reply)
It's my limited understanding that what genetic element to sexuality there is, is related to ratios of testosterone and estrogen (among others), particularly manifested during pre-natal development, but also expressed through adolescent maturation... the same combination that affects mammary development, or muscle-building.
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/12 @ 01:17 PM — (Reply)
This is not like pigmentation - there isn't a wide spectrum to choose from. Your implication that personality differences are part of sexual orientation has very limited merit. Personality isn't why teenage boys look at mom's cosmo magazine. It isn't why girls fantasize about football players instead of the members of the chess club.
If we are talking about the biological function of attraction, personality is much less relevant isn't it?
Humans have the capacity to appreciate personality as a major part of attraction but that is hardly a factor impacting orientation, it is a refining factor that comes into play long after attraction begins. To put "sense of humor" or "kind to animals" on the same playing field as "hetero" or "homo" would be to suggest that a person who is attracted to "good sense of humor" could be attracted to any man/woman/child/animal/etc that makes him or her laugh.
I thnk the nocturnal emissions of most fifteen year old boys would refute that line of reasoning. Not that Pamela Anderson isn't funny, but most of them probably aren't dreaming about Robin Williams.
Interesting however how influenced sexuality is by environment - what shows kids watch, mags they read, etc helps define how they are aroused. With homosexuality overwhelming becoming a factor in popular culture, how can kids not be confused?
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/12 @ 02:58 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/12 @ 03:42 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/12 @ 05:52 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/02/12 @ 05:24 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/02/12 @ 05:58 PM — (Reply)
It's in the tax code. A much lengthier document. ;-)
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/12 @ 06:20 PM — (Reply)
Relationships are relationships. Everybody's is different. I can't tell you how yours' should be and vice versa.
What part of the Constitution again are you two saying supports your arguments re: governments and relationships?
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/02/12 @ 06:19 PM — (Reply)
It isn't about what is in the Constitution, it's about what might soon be in the Constitution. And it's about what judges and mayors are legislating without the consent of the governed.
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/12 @ 06:25 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/02/12 @ 07:14 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/02/12 @ 07:32 PM — (Reply)
Feb 11, 2007 | 10:07 PM PST
Category: News
Report This Post I am wondering if anyone out there has heard about this? Haltom City is attempting to pass a new rental property ordinance, as far as I can tell, without letting the public know. I happened to catch part of last months city council meeting on the public access channel and was shocked! Most of the people who were in attendance on 1/22 were property owners and had only learned of the ordinance within the last few days by word of mouth. None of them were happy about this either. Several have already put their properties up for sale as a result. The mayor and city council members insisted that the proposed ordinance is on the city website but I searched for over 45 minutes and never found it!
I am a renter, not a property owner, but the things being discussed scare me too death! They are talking about coming in and inspecting your property "a minimum of annually" which puts no limitations on their access to your home! You will also have to keep a sign or plaque posted on your living room wall to show the property was inspected making it resemble a cheap motel! I have lived at the same rental property for 4 years. I am fortunate to have wonderful landlords. This is going to put a huge financial strain on them. They are inspecting everything from carpeting up. Yes, you can be forced to move from your home if your carpet is too dirty and your landlord will be fined $2000/day until it is fixed! As renters, my husband and myself will be forced to register our personal information with the city offices (from what I understand) and go through a criminal background check before we are allowed to rent property in the city limits. (Like I said, I haven't found the ordinance so I am going on what was said in the council meeting) The council members stated that code enforcement is trying to keep the criminal element out of Haltom City by enforcing certain standards. Well, unless I am mistaken, isn't that why we have a police department?
Has anyone else heard about this and if they have what are your thoughts?
5 Comments | Add a Comment
from amills2473's Blog
Comment by aza spade— 2007/02/12 @ 08:02 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/02/13 @ 07:25 PM — (Reply)
Neither of you think there will be a Constitutional Amendment do you?
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/02/12 @ 06:32 PM — (Reply)
Truthfully, I don't think the government should have anything to do marraige, which ought to be a personal matter. And, at a minimum, it's not a question that ought to be addressed at the federal level. Let North Carolina do what it likes.
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/12 @ 07:01 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/02/12 @ 07:00 PM — (Reply)
Then, the "counter-activism" will need to be counter-countered... back and forth and back and forth, until the basic principle of stare decisis is just tossed down the toilet.
I return back to the assertion that we need to shuck it all, and start again. As it stands, we have three amendments which effectively are meaningless, according to the Supreme Court (the 9th, 10th and 27th) and two that cancel each other out (18th and 21st). So, almost 20% of our amendments don't DO anything.
Time for a rewrite.
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/12 @ 07:15 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/02/12 @ 07:21 PM — (Reply)
Item 1- Judicial review is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. Marbury v Madison may have established the principle, but nowhere in the Constitution is any court (either the Supreme Court or any inferior) is given the power to declare acts unconstitutional.
So, in essence, for strict constructionists to be at all relevant, either an amendment needs to be added to the Constitution, or we have to accept the clearly bogus notion that the legislature can do no wrong.
Item 2- The 9th Amendment is either meaningless, or it is the largest guarantor of personal liberties imaginable.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Modern strict constructionists (and indeed, most jurists) have read this as essentially meaningless. But to be a true constructionist, one must accept the tenet that nothing written in the Constitution is without purpose. Indeed, Madison had argued against the Bill of Rights, specifically because he felt that by "guaranteeing" the rights of free speech, worship, trial by jury, etc., that the Government would take that to mean that any rights not listed, COULD be infringed upon by the Government. Therefore, this amendment was included to specifically state that there are other, inalienable rights accorded to all citizens that, though not listed specifically, could not be infringed on willy-nilly.
Bugger of it is- that noone bothered to give a "for instance." Is there a "right to privacy"?? "Well, it's not listed in the Constitution", argues the modern Construstionist.
"Yeah, but there is the 9th Amendment," counters the truly strict Constructionist, "and the principle of 'every man's home is his castle' has been around for ages."
"Oh, you're just an activist judge," counters the modern Constructionist, who then goes on to assert that rights like "to read a book," "to teach," "to seek employment," "to eat whatever food you want," "to marry whoever you wish," or "to keep that extra kidney in your body" are also not listed in the Constitution, and winds up imploding on his own set of internal inconsistency.
Item 3- The 2nd Amendment has that sticky little preceding clause...
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed!!" cries the modern Constructionist. "So anybody who wants an AK-47 is entitled to own one!"
"Um, what about that bit about 'well-regulated Militia'?" asks the strict Constructionist. "It seems to me that anyone wanting to own an AK-47 needs to be part of the Militia, and that the Militia must be well-regulated."
BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!! The modern Constructionist caps the strict Constructionist with the revolver he snuck through security, and the argument is ended.
Nope, "Constructionist theory" is, like I said, admirable... but American jurisprudence had pretty much discarded it as being completely useful around 1804- largely because strict interpretation of the Constitution still left many necessary questions unanswered. And don't get me started on the whole 14th Amendment and "incorporation"... Ugh- I need some more coffee!
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/13 @ 09:42 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/02/13 @ 02:38 PM — (Reply)
Just thought I'd throw that in...
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/13 @ 03:08 PM — (Reply)
In my alleged strict constructionalist mind that means there shall be no government required religion and that the government shall prohibit no religion.
Harry?
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/02/13 @ 03:30 PM — (Reply)
That's a little overreaching, imho.
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/13 @ 06:27 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/02/13 @ 07:00 PM — (Reply)
What -would- happen is that the church would lose its tax-exempt status, a status that you will note is nowhere listed in the Constitution's clauses on religion. Congress has granted tax-exempt status to faith-based organizations with the limitation that they can not endorse individual candidates. They can invite candidates to speak, they can talk to the issues, but they are not allowed to target individuals. A rather small price for a tax-exemption that saves the churches (and consequently costs the country) millions of dollars.
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/14 @ 12:13 PM — (Reply)
A term which was originally to describe protection of sects from a majority has now come to mean that we punish the majority for the sake of the minority. A liberal policy we see based on a perverse principle of social justice, i.e. punish the majority in favor of the minority instead of provide equality of opportunity.
Those are vastly different ideas.
A great example of this was what happened over Christmas in Chicago. The city refused to allow advertisements for "The Nativity" but allowed displays celebrating other religious philosophies.
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/14 @ 12:48 PM — (Reply)
To some extent, I have sympathy because I too see a disturbing lack of faith in our society... but as a rule, I'm leery of folks who complain about the majority "being punished." Not that there isn't sometimes validity to the point, but too often, it just smacks of whining, to be honest.
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/14 @ 01:39 PM — (Reply)
I'd add just two minor clarifications in bold text, and one point for you to think about, to your reading:
In my alleged strict constructionalist mind that means there shall be no federal1 government required religion, nor governmentally-preferred religion2 and that the government shall prohibit no religion3.
Reasons:
1) The Amendment is clearly speaking only about Congress. Individual States are at liberty to do as they like, including the establishment of State religions. In fact, at the time of ratification, many states DID have official religions. The Founders did not want to introduce conflict at the Federal level, so leaving States their own perogatives, merely forbid Congress from stepping into the mess.
2) Establishment can not mean merely "governmentally required," or else the clause is toothless. Suppose that was all that was meant. Then, if Congress were to pass laws that favored only Roman Catholicism, for example, but never actually declared Catholicism the "official state religion," it would effectively maintain all the benefits of an official state religion, while being (under this reading) Constitutional. Since, as noted in 1) above, this could run contrary to what individual States might have opted for as official religions, it is illogical to presume that this was their intent.
3) "religion" constitutes two parts: religious thought, and religious acts. We would agree, I believe, that Congress may not prohibit religious thought... but a strict constructionalist (and I mean truly strict) would also say that Congress may not prohibit religious acts.
That would imply
- the use of drugs, as part of a religious ritual, could not be outlawed by Congress.
- polygamy, as practiced by fundamentalist sects of Mormonism, could not be outlawed by Congress.
- homosexual marraige, as practiced by some liberal churches, could not be outlawed by Congress
- ritual animal sacrifice, as practiced by the Santeria faith, could not be outlawed by Congress.
Note- some of those things listed above, are legal, due to current understanding (the first and last, in particular. Polygamy was struck down, and the "Defense of Marriage Act" has not yet been tested with regards to a combined religious/civil ceremony; nor is it likely to be heard on First Amendment grounds frankly).
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/14 @ 11:55 AM — (Reply)
There is a fine line between true religious practices and beliefs and morally criminal behavior.
Christians Scientists are OK and those who sacrifice humans probably aren't.
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/02/14 @ 05:29 PM — (Reply)
Secondly, concerning religious acts... even the strictest interpretation has to return to the Preamble: that the Constitution exists to ensure domestic tranquility... promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty. Clearly any supposed religious act that would infringe on another person's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness would not be permissible no matter what the First Amendment said.
Which is why I didn't include human sacrifice- clearly a violation. However, animal sacrifice?? There's no mention of animal rights in the Constitution (unless you want to discuss 'other persons'...)
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/14 @ 07:11 PM — (Reply)
What if the "animal sacfricing" was being performed in Nordstrom's for example. Does that disturb the average bear's publicly entitled tranquility?
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/02/14 @ 07:39 PM — (Reply)
I think this is what's called "thread-hijacking"- since the original post was about marriage and stuff. Wanna take it over to my board? I'll start up a thread there just for the First Amendment, and you and I can hash it out. :)
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/15 @ 07:34 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/02/12 @ 07:07 PM — (Reply)