Should Religious Morality Make Its Way Into Political Discourse...

[kenporay]

Were my father alive to hear that he would say: and you have a law degree from where?

If you decide your vote on whats right for others then your doing the same thing that people who vote their religious values do. Of course, your views are superior to others because they're not based upon religion...and my views are superior too because i base them on principles of primate behavior.

Except when you exercise your right to vote in such a manner so as to coerce someone else to conform to your religious values. The right to vote does not trump certain individual liberties. With regards to such liberties the opinion of the majority and hence the vote of the majority is irrelevant...it is why they are called inalienable rights. When talking about such rights , to talk about majority rule is to beg the question.

[Stone holm]

Were my father alive to hear that he would say: and you have a law degree from where?

If you decide your vote on whats right for others then your doing the same thing that people who vote their religious values do. Of course, your views are superior to others because they're not based upon religion...and my views are superior too because i base them on principles of primate behavior.

Not sure if that first question was aimed at me or not, answer Indiana University School of Law, JD cum laud '76. Not sure I understand the comment about voting on rights. We would only vote on rights if we were involved somehow in a Constitutional Amendment. When I wrote I was just speaking about voting for candidates who were advocating or opposing legislation.

[CASteinman]

Not sure if that first question was aimed at me or not, answer Indiana University School of Law, JD cum laud '76. Not sure I understand the comment about voting on rights. We would only vote on rights if we were involved somehow in a Constitutional Amendment. When I wrote I was just speaking about voting for candidates who were advocating or opposing legislation.

Doesn't, really, pretty much every law involve "rights"? And isn't it so that they only get to be a Constitutional question if they are somehow considered to be in violation of that document that also defines certain "rights"?

By that I mean --- I have a "natural right" to go blazing down the street at 100 Miles per Hour. But that "right" is curtailed by the Law -- which under the Constitutional appears to be a legitimate curtailment of my "right" -- in the interests of society at large.

How is that wrong?

[Stone holm]

Doesn't, really, pretty much every law involve "rights"? And isn't it so that they only get to be a Constitutional question if they are somehow considered to be in violation of that document that also defines certain "rights"?

By that I mean --- I have a "natural right" to go blazing down the street at 100 Miles per Hour. But that "right" is curtailed by the Law -- which under the Constitutional appears to be a legitimate curtailment of my "right" -- in the interests of society at large.

How is that wrong?

True but for Americans, I think we normally think of rights as those rights protected by the Constitutions either State or Federal and with the possible exception of California. Such rights are not up for vote, so it doesn't matter in the analysis whether the majority supports the law. Rights of this nature are not a matter of popularity. Of course, it is possible to have a national contract that recognizes no individual rights. There were I am informed certain Germans who opposed what the Nazi thugs were doing until they adopted laws supporting what they were doing, and then they said we must respect the law. Which didn't work out so well for the Jews or eventually Germany itself.

[Stone holm]

What is unresponsive is you don't engage what others, like me, have said. You simply keep repeating your point of view over and over and over again in spite of it being logically dismantled. Your responses below are more of the same.

Is anyone forcing the LGBT community to believe that SSM is a sin? No.

Is anyone forcing LGBT community to enter into traditional relationships? No.

Is anyone trying to prevent them from entering into domestic partnerships? No.

There are Churches that believe in smoking marijuana. There are churches that believe in handling poisonous snakes. There are churches that believe that creationism should be taught in schools, and not evolution. So? Just because a church believes and practices things doesn't mean that the state is therefore obliged to legally recognize and license it. Do you understand?

The sodomy laws were struck down, not because they were enacted on the basis that law-makers may have deemed it a sin, but because liberal judges and a couple of moderates, decided that those laws violated civil rights. Truly conservative judges ruled otherwise.

Be that as it may, laws against murder have been enacted on the basis that it is a sin, but not struck down. There are numerous other laws that have been enacted on the basis of sin, which also haven't been struck down (you have mentioned a few, yourself). The point being, the majority of voters have the constitutional right to enact any law they please and for whatever reason they wish. However, this doesn't guarantee that the law won't be struck down as unconstitutional, nor does it guarantee that it will be struck down. Whether it is struck down or not, has absolutely nothing to do with whether it was enacted on the basis of sin. Do you yet get this?

Even still, there is an important distinction between the sodomy cases and SSM. The sodomy laws made a certain sexual act illegal (regardless of sexual orientation), whereas DOMA legislation didn't make homosexual acts or relationships illegal. In fact, their relationships were sanctioned by the state and made legal through domestic partnership legislation. So, Prop 8 didn't make anything illegal, it just prevented the state from recognizing those relationships as marriages. It simply prevented the inane bastardization of legal definition of marriage. How many times will it take me saying this before you will finally get it? Will you ever get it?

Here we go again. This isn't a religious rights issue. Let me repeat, this isn't a religious rights issue. You won't find a single lawyer on either side of the Prop 8 case claiming it is a religious rights issue, and that is because it isn't. Any religion that wants to, can, and they have, married same-sex couple. No law prevents them from doing so. All Prop 8 does is disallow the state from legally recognizing those marriages as marriages, though those marriages are legally recognized as domestic partnerships.

Are you starting to get it? Or, am I still wasting my breath?

Again, Prop 8 doesn't deny anyone their right to believe whatever they wish. It doesn't even prevent them from doing as they believe and wish. All it does is prevent the state from bastardizing the definition of marriage. That is it. You have gotten it wrong from the beginning, and you keep getting it wrong. We'll see if you continue to get it wrong, and if so, I don't know that I will continue wasting my breath.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well now that the amicus brief has been published it is very clear you are wrong. They are very clearly trying to deflect the religious justification argument that they know could be fatal.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Stone holm

[wenglund]

Well now that the amicus brief has been published it is very clear you are wrong. They are very clearly trying to deflect the religious justification argument that they no could be fatal.

I am sorry, but your second sentence makes no sense to me. Could you reword it in a way that is coherent in English. And, after doing so, could you please quote sections of the amicus brief that alegedly substantiate your claim and supposedly demonstrate that I am wrong?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CASteinman]

True but for Americans, I think we normally think of rights as those rights protected by the Constitutions either State or Federal and with the possible exception of California. Such rights are not up for vote, so it doesn't matter in the analysis whether the majority supports the law. Rights of this nature are not a matter of popularity. Of course, it is possible to have a national contract that recognizes no individual rights. There were I am informed certain Germans who opposed what the Nazi thugs were doing until they adopted laws supporting what they were doing, and then they said we must respect the law. Which didn't work out so well for the Jews or eventually Germany itself.

We like to talk about "inalienable rights" and "natural rights".

But the truth is, that rights are indeed a matter of popularity and votes.

Get enough people to agree and anything could cease to be a "right" or it could be come a "right".

[thesometimesaint]

That is one of the best things about our form of government. It balances one man's greed against another man's avarice.

[Stone holm]

I am sorry, but your second sentence makes no sense to me. Could you reword it in a way that is coherent in English. And, after doing so, could you please quote sections of the amicus brief that alegedly substantiate your claim and supposedly demonstrate that I am wrong?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You were wrong in saying that no one considers this a religious rights controversy. If you read the amicus brief filed by the Church it is very clear they are trying to ward off the establishment of religion argument.

[wenglund]

You were wrong in saying that no one considers this a religious rights controversy. If you read the amicus brief filed by the Church it is very clear they are trying to ward off the establishment of religion argument.

If you think it is so clear, then provide specific examples. CFR.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

If you think it is so clear, then provide specific examples. CFR.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Go to the other thread which you are participating in regarding the filing of the Plaintiff's brief and click on the amicus brief -- the argument against the establishment clause (that the case is based on a religious justification) is sprinkled throughout and permeates the brief.

[wenglund]

Go to the other thread which you are participating in regarding the filing of the Plaintiff's brief and click on the amicus brief -- the argument against the establishment clause (that the case is based on a religious justification) is sprinkled throughout and permeates the brief.

No. I am not going to chase red herrings or sift through the amicus brief looking for alleged evidence in support your claim. That burden rests with you. Either satisfy the requisite and specific CFR, or I won't waste any more of my time trying to reasonably discuss this with you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

No. I am not going to chase red herrings or sift through the amicus brief looking for alleged evidence in support your claim. That burden rests with you. Either satisfy the requisite and specific CFR, or I won't waste any more of my time trying to reasonably discuss this with you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Page 17, Section heading in Church's Prop 8 Amicus Brief -- whole section devoted to trying to refute what was basically an establishment argument. You commented on that thread, didn't you read the links to the briefs posted?

[wenglund]

Page 17, Section heading in Church's Prop 8 Amicus Brief -- whole section devoted to trying to refute what was basically an establishment argument. You commented on that thread, didn't you read the links to the briefs posted?

Again, I am not going to search through old threads or the amicus brief or even page 17 of the amicus brief chasing red herrings and searching for evidence in support of YOUR claim. That is YOUR burden. And, according to board rules, that is your obligation once a CFR has been issued, Stop trying to shift the burden. I am not going to do your homework for you. If you want to quote here specific statements that you believe support your claim, then I am willing to read them and make comment. Otherwise, I won't waste any more time discussing this with you. This is the last I will say to you until you have reasonably satisfied the specific CFR.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 19, 2013 by wenglund

[Stone holm]

Again, I am not going to search through old threads or the amicus brief or even page 17 of the amicus brief chasing red herrings and searching for evidence in support of YOUR claim. That is YOUR burden. And, according to board rules, that is your obligation once a CFR has been issued, Stop trying to shift the burden. I am not going to do your homework for you. If you want to quote here specific statements that you believe support your claim, then I am willing to read them and make comment. Otherwise, I won't waste any more time discussing this with you. This is the last I will say to you until you have reasonably satisfied the specific CFR.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That is choice. The Section heading on page 17 of the Church's Brief: "II. PROPOSITION 8 IS NOT INVALID BECAUSE IT WAS SUPPORTED BY RELIGIOUS VOTES OR BECAUSE IT EXPRESSES A VALUES-BASED JUDGMENT" that is followed by a sub-section "A. Religious Support for Proposition 8 Does Not Render It Unconstitutional", then a second sub-section which is directly aimed at trying to defeat the First Amendment being applied through the Fourteenth Amendment which makes it applicable to the States "B. Proposition 8 Does Not Transgress the Fourteenth Amendment By Expressing a Values-Bassed Judgment in Favor of Traditional Marriage". I think it is pretty hard to deny that a legal debate is going on as to the religious issue. I had previously accepted your position because I had not read any of the Federal cases, only the Vermont case which was a "Common Benefits Clause" case under the Vermont State Constitution. But you have clearly been misleading people about whether or not whether the religion clauses were in play. It is true that the main argument has been on equal protection grounds, but it is also clear that there is an establishment clause argument involved in the case.

[kenporay]

That is choice. The Section heading on page 17 of the Church's Brief: "II. PROPOSITION 8 IS NOT INVALID BECAUSE IT WAS SUPPORTED BY RELIGIOUS VOTES OR BECAUSE IT EXPRESSES A VALUES-BASED JUDGMENT" that is followed by a sub-section "A. Religious Support for Proposition 8 Does Not Render It Unconstitutional", then a second sub-section which is directly aimed at trying to defeat the First Amendment being applied through the Fourteenth Amendment which makes it applicable to the States "B. Proposition 8 Does Not Transgress the Fourteenth Amendment By Expressing a Values-Bassed Judgment in Favor of Traditional Marriage". I think it is pretty hard to deny that a legal debate is going on as to the religious issue. I had previously accepted your position because I had not read any of the Federal cases, only the Vermont case which was a "Common Benefits Clause" case under the Vermont State Constitution. But you have clearly been misleading people about whether or not whether the religion clauses were in play. It is true that the main argument has been on equal protection grounds, but it is also clear that there is an establishment clause argument involved in the case.

Soley because of my religious beliefs, i believe murder should remain a felony crime. If you believe that murder is wrong then you must also do so because of religion.

That's an illogical arguement with an illogical conclusion. The premise that we both believe murder is criminal might be true...but our reasons could be different.

[wenglund]

That is choice. The Section heading on page 17 of the Church's Brief: "II. PROPOSITION 8 IS NOT INVALID BECAUSE IT WAS SUPPORTED BY RELIGIOUS VOTES OR BECAUSE IT EXPRESSES A VALUES-BASED JUDGMENT" that is followed by a sub-section "A. Religious Support for Proposition 8 Does Not Render It Unconstitutional", then a second sub-section which is directly aimed at trying to defeat the First Amendment being applied through the Fourteenth Amendment which makes it applicable to the States "B. Proposition 8 Does Not Transgress the Fourteenth Amendment By Expressing a Values-Bassed Judgment in Favor of Traditional Marriage". I think it is pretty hard to deny that a legal debate is going on as to the religious issue. I had previously accepted your position because I had not read any of the Federal cases, only the Vermont case which was a "Common Benefits Clause" case under the Vermont State Constitution. But you have clearly been misleading people about whether or not whether the religion clauses were in play. It is true that the main argument has been on equal protection grounds, but it is also clear that there is an establishment clause argument involved in the case.

I appreciate you finally providing the documentation.

However, you are mistaken in how you interpret what is said in the brief, and in how you mistakenly assume that what is said in the brief is indicative of what is argued in other SSM cases. And, the reason why I pressed you for documentation is because I figured you had misread the brief.

Now, I am not sure how you managed to get things exactly backwards. Perhaps you may have mistakenly figured that since religion was mentioned, this must mean that it is a religious rights issue.

Be that as it may, you will not find any mention of the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause in the amicus brief (as you mistakenly suppose), nor do I recall those clauses being mentioned in any of the other SSM cases I have studied. This is because, as I said, this is not a religious rights issue.

In fact, if you read what is said more carefully, it pretty much reflects what I have been saying all along--i.e. that whether or not Prop 8 was based on or reflects religious moral, it has no bearing on the constitutionality of the Prop, Here is a summary, in their own words, of the section you referenced:

Proposition 8 is not invalid because it attracted support from religious voters and organizations or because it reflects a moral judgment consistent with certain religious beliefs. Legislation is judged by its purpose, not the lawmakers’ motivations, and no law is invalid simply because it happens to coincide with particular religious beliefs. Nor is Proposition 8 questionable because it embodies a moral judgment, since marriage laws fall within a State’s police power to regulate public morality.

In other words, not only is it not making a religious rights argument (as you claim), but quite the contrary. It is suggesting that religion and religious rights are not relevant to the constitutionality of the case.

So, if anyone has been misleading here, it is you. And, I am glad that you finally provided the documentation so that it could be so demonstrated.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[EllenMaksoud]

I am a constitutionalist. While I believe in religous freedom, I do not believe that religon should be running the government. See what Constantine did to Christianity. Hopefully Faith systems will raise up people with good values..

[CASteinman]

I am a constitutionalist. While I believe in religous freedom, I do not believe that religon should be running the government. See what Constantine did to Christianity. Hopefully Faith systems will raise up people with good values..

Do you believe then, that people who have strongly held religious beliefs should stay quiet and not participate in the making and executing of laws and the creation of policy in government?

Or do you believe that such people should temporarily ignore some of their most deeply held convictions regarding the source of rights and freedom and morality, as they seek to serve others through public office?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am a constitutionalist. While I believe in religous freedom, I do not believe that religon should be running the government. See what Constantine did to Christianity. Hopefully Faith systems will raise up people with good values..

That would be a dictator and having a state sponsored religion. No one to my knowledge has argued for such. For instance, is having a prayer at the start of a congressional session the same thing has your example?

[thesometimesaint]

Do you believe then, that people who have strongly held religious beliefs should stay quiet and not participate in the making and executing of laws and the creation of policy in government?

Or do you believe that such people should temporarily ignore some of their most deeply held convictions regarding the source of rights and freedom and morality, as they seek to serve others through public office?

I don't believe that is what she said.

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 Gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

Thomas Jefferson.

Laws in the US should have an overriding secular purpose, and should not favor or disfavor any religion.

[Rob Osborn]

Every law we make is legislating morality- right from wrong. This goes all the way back to the premortal life where Lucifer wanted the natural man to be a law unto himself and that morality would be defined by nature. A clever plot to destroy Gods kingdom and divine moral law. It pretty much doesnt matter what the argument is so much as to what rights are at stake- that is what and how we should always rule. This whole marriage law is about protecting rights of gender, rights of sexes and most importatance- the rights of children. Its the courts who must ultimately deal with the problems that arise from moral corruption and decay.

[thesometimesaint]

That would be a dictator and having a state sponsored religion. No one to my knowledge has argued for such. For instance, is having a prayer at the start of a congressional session the same thing has your example?

If I had my druthers. No they would not start the legislative session with prayer. Something about praying in public to be seen of men.

[wenglund]

Something about praying in public to be seen of men.

How about posting comments in public to be seen of men?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CASteinman]

Laws in the US should have an overriding secular purpose

So you say. But that is not the wisdom of God speaking.

, and should not favor or disfavor any religion.

If you had changed that to say "a particular establishment of religion" I would agree with you more on this point.