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.
Common law marriages from other states USED to be recognized, but will no longer be. Also, common law marriage in NC from this point forward would require a change to the State Constitution... No easy task.
And with the passage of this amendment, am I correct in understanding that the GA cannot simply pass legislation establishing civil unions as legally recognized domestic partnerships? It would take another amendment?
And with the passage of this amendment, am I correct in understanding that the GA cannot simply pass legislation establishing civil unions as legally recognized domestic partnerships? It would take another amendment?
I don't think so, but I'm no lawyer. Either way, civil unions are not the intended target IMHO. This seems like a poorly worded amendment to ensure that gay couples can't even sniff marriage here until a supreme court overturns the decision. Usually one thinks of a constitution as a document that SECURES rights... It's a little weird that so many states are using their constitution to deny rights.
You may not like it but that does not change the fact that of most of what this country was founded on... the Constitution, Bill of Rights etc are steeped deeply in Christian values if not actual dogma.
The set of moral values that most Americans hold dear are based on Christian beliefs and that is just the way it is despite the Left's attempts at removing God from every aspect of life.
Removing religious concepts and values from lawmaking entirely is not only futile but just plain stupid.
Separation of church and state provide freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
The country was founded on Natural Law principles by a group of people with diverse religious backgrounds. Most had some respect for Christian morals, but little respect for Christian dogma. Many of the founders were deists and unitarians.
Freedom of religion v. Freedom from religion is a distinction without a difference. It makes absolutely no sense.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,816 posts, read 34,838,269 times
Reputation: 10257
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821
And with the passage of this amendment, am I correct in understanding that the GA cannot simply pass legislation establishing civil unions as legally recognized domestic partnerships? It would take another amendment?
That's correct, Ani. Tim Moore explained the amendment in the Kings Mountain Herald. It nixes civil unions & domestic partnerships. He is in the legislature & an attorney.
People opposed to this just did not turn out in high enough numbers. They didn't think it would pass.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,816 posts, read 34,838,269 times
Reputation: 10257
Quote:
Originally Posted by coped
The country was founded on Natural Law principles by a group of people with diverse religious backgrounds. Most had some respect for Christian morals, but little respect for Christian dogma. Many of the founders were deists and unitarians.
Freedom of religion v. Freedom from religion is a distinction without a difference. It makes absolutely no sense.
The country was founded on Natural Law principles by a group of people with diverse religious backgrounds. Most had some respect for Christian morals, but little respect for Christian dogma. Many of the founders were deists and unitarians.
Freedom of religion v. Freedom from religion is a distinction without a difference. It makes absolutely no sense.
There is absolutely a difference, it means that the government can not create any legislation that creates a unified state religion and force that religion upon the citizens.
But that's pretty much all it means.
The Left is bent on turning and distorting this into meaning that they have a right to never be exposed to anyone's religious symbols or beliefs (especially if they are Christian ones).....thus the persisting lawsuits that crop up every year about someone being offended by a nativity scene.....
Natural law also has roots in religion based morals.... like it or not.
There is absolutely a difference, it means that the government can not create any legislation that creates a unified state religion and force that religion upon the citizens.
But that's pretty much all it means.
The Left is bent on turning and distorting this into meaning that they have a right to never be exposed to anyone's religious symbols or beliefs (especially if they are Christian ones).....thus the persisting lawsuits that crop up every year about someone being offended by a nativity scene.....
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." Thomas Jefferson, 1803
The bolded part sure sounds like Jefferson would not have been in favor of public prayers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dooleys1300
Natural law also has roots in religion based morals.... like it or not.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." Thomas Jefferson, 1803
The bolded part sure sounds like Jefferson would not have been in favor of public prayers.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." Thomas Jefferson, 1803
Your forgetting the most important part....
Quote:
Originally Posted by coped
Roman and Greek religion you mean?
The exact source is unimportant, only that it exists in some form. The concepts of morality that make up Natural Law also play a large part in most, if not practically all religious philosophy.
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.
