Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So the implication isn't enough, you want to just sit here and argue semantics?
It's not "semantics", it's specifics. The exact opposite of semantics. There is no such thing as Separation of Church and State. That is a liberal myth. Any government official can declare from the steps of city hall that "Muhammad is the one true God" or "Jesus is Lord" or "The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the only deity in my life" and that would be perfectly fine and in line with the Constitution. Now, if Congress passed a specific law, making any of those specific statements the law, then that would be a violation.
In creating laws that purvey the beliefs of a religion, they are respecting the establishment of it.
Not a single ruling against ssm bans have used the establishment clause. I'm not sure advocates of ssm have even bothered to raise the issue in a courtroom. If the bans are unconstitutional, it's not because of the 1st amendment.
It's not "semantics", it's specifics. The exact opposite of semantics. There is no such thing as Separation of Church and State. That is a liberal myth.
Any government official can declare from the steps of city hall that "Muhammad is the one true God" or "Jesus is Lord" or "The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the only deity in my life" and that would be perfectly fine and in line with the Constitution.
That's not quite what the separation of church and state is there to prevent.
Quote:
Now, if Congress passed a specific law, making any of those specific statements the law, then that would be a violation.
And so would, say, a law banning gay marriage based on theological grounds, right?
Not a single ruling against ssm bans have used the establishment clause. I'm not sure advocates of ssm have even bothered to raise the issue in a courtroom. If the bans are unconstitutional, it's not because of the 1st amendment.
That's because you would first have to prove the law was based in theology (not easy to do) and the opponents of SSM would never admit to it, plus the scrutiny standards provide some de facto protection against it anyways.
It's not "semantics", it's specifics. The exact opposite of semantics. There is no such thing as Separation of Church and State. That is a liberal myth. Any government official can declare from the steps of city hall that "Muhammad is the one true God" or "Jesus is Lord" or "The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the only deity in my life" and that would be perfectly fine and in line with the Constitution. Now, if Congress passed a specific law, making any of those specific statements the law, then that would be a violation.
I am not a liberal, and it is not a myth.
We TRUE conservatives (and not bible beaters abusing the republican party in order to legislate morality) want government out of business AND our personal lives.
Don't bash liberals and act like a high-horse conservative when all you really represent is the christian taliban.
You and your ilk have RUINED the republican party and made it into a joke.
And that really gets to us real conservatives.
Small government means keeping people like you out of people's bedrooms, too.
Just to be clear, since I believe in traditional 1 man, 1 woman marriage and do not want it redefined, I am a "bigot" and "anti-gay", correct? Because that's what multiple posts in this thread keep telling me.
In best Ed McMahon voice... "Why YES! Yes sir you are correct!"
LOL...c'mon...too easy for that big soft ball toss not to.
That's not quite what the separation of church and state is there to prevent.
And so would, say, a law banning gay marriage based on theological grounds, right?
No, because that is not establishing a specific religion. Believing in traditional 1 man, 1 woman marriage is not an endorsement of a specific religion. Besides, your argument is a specious one; you can't ban something that doesn't exist. Do you want to ban dogs from driving cars?
No, because that is not establishing a specific religion. Believing in traditional 1 man, 1 woman marriage is not an endorsement of a specific religion. Besides, your argument is a specious one; you can't ban something that doesn't exist. Do you want to ban dogs from driving cars?
But the only argument against SSM comes from theology, which flies in the face of the 1st amendment.
Trust me, we've been through this before. In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the opponents of same sex marriage couldn't come up with literally a single argument for their case without inducing religious morality, and that, in a nutshell, is why they lost.
What constitutes the 5% exemption? And is their a list somewhere that tells me how I should act and think so I won't be labeled a "bigot" and "anti" anything? Thanks
Ignorance
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
