jim wrote:I was listening to NPR last night, and they had some preacher who was an advocate of prop 8 and he said as clear as can be said that it was his religion and bible that formed the basis of his stance, and really of the ammendment. And then I say to myself, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
I reflect on that statement, and then think to myself , "What the f---?".
I don't see the connection. This is a proposition where voters are allowed to vote however they want using whatever set of rules they live by. As I said before, I'm not a fan of propositions coming before voters, but if they're there I don't have a real problem in this man's point. I do care when it starts to infringe on other people's right's, which is the case here.
I think there's a difference between legislating religion and allowing your religion to inform your political decision making. Some would say anti-abortion or anti-death penalty views come from the Bible or their church. If that influences how you cast your ballot, I think that's fine. It's not how I do things, but I'm okay with it in principle.
Jocephus wrote:i haven't read through this whole thread, so i apologize if this was brought up, but did anyoen/everyone hear/read about how the mormons (from utah) gave like 25 million to help this amendment pass
the people who believe in magic underwear have a problem with the same sex marrying...
Thats very disturbing.
If they don't like gays, then why can't they just pray real hard to their magic underwear and that would fix it.
As I said b/f - failing religions turn to politics to impose their views.
jim wrote:I was listening to NPR last night, and they had some preacher who was an advocate of prop 8 and he said as clear as can be said that it was his religion and bible that formed the basis of his stance, and really of the ammendment. And then I say to myself, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
I reflect on that statement, and then think to myself , "What the f---?".
I don't see the connection. This is a proposition where voters are allowed to vote however they want using whatever set of rules they live by. As I said before, I'm not a fan of propositions coming before voters, but if they're there I don't have a real problem in this man's point. I do care when it starts to infringe on other people's right's, which is the case here.
I think there's a difference between legislating religion and allowing your religion to inform your political decision making. Some would say anti-abortion or anti-death penalty views come from the Bible or their church. If that influences how you cast your ballot, I think that's fine. It's not how I do things, but I'm okay with it in principle.
We don't live in a pure democracy, the constitution assures us of that. If the majority of people think than men should get paid more than women for the same work, the constitution assures us that it will not happen even though it's the will of the people based on popular vote.
If the only reason for a law is to discriminate based on sexual orientation, I don't care if it passed unanimously it's unconstitutional.
There is no freedom of religion without freedom from religion.
ghostrunner wrote:I think there's a difference between legislating religion and allowing your religion to inform your political decision making. Some would say anti-abortion or anti-death penalty views come from the Bible or their church. If that influences how you cast your ballot, I think that's fine. It's not how I do things, but I'm okay with it in principle.
I agree, and besides I'm not sure how people would be able to decide which of their views are a result of their religion and which aren't. Religion influences people in many ways, and it will surely show up in voting behavior. The problem here is the one in the title. This is an issue of basic civil rights, and it should not be subject to a simple majority vote.
BW23 wrote:Failing religions are the ones against this? Interesting.
Religious or spiritual beliefs transcend politics. IMO.
For example - your parent(s) hopefully raise you and teach you things about life and instill values. What you learn from your parent(s) becomes part of your being. So it goes with religion/spiritual beliefs - its part of your being.
Thus when it comes time to vote - should you go ask your mother or religion what to vote for? Hopefully not. If I as a parent have to tell my grown child who to vote for or how to act, rather than them being able to figure it out on their own - then I have failed as a parent.
So it goes with religions - if they feel like they need to take over politics as the means of promoting their beliefs. They have failed.
Last edited by Freed Roger on November 6 08, 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BW23 wrote:Failing religions are the ones against this? Interesting.
Religious or spiritual beliefs transcend politics. IMO.
For example - your parent(s) hopefully raise you and teach you things about life and instill values. What you learn from your parent(s) becomes part of your being. So it goes with religion/spiritual beliefs - its part of your being.
Thus when it comes time to vote - should you go ask your mother or religion what to vote for? Hopefully not. If as a parent, I have to tell my grown child who to vote for or how to act, rather than them being able to do right on their own - then I have failed as a parent.
So it goes with religions - if they feel like they need to take over politics as the means of promoting their beliefs. They have failed.
I'm getting married in a week. It won't be in a church. All we need is a license from the state of Texas, which I got this week.
Why does any church's stance on who the Bible says can get married have anything to do with state sanctioning of a civil union? If I want a synagogue or church to recognize our marriage and deem it as such, I have to abide by their rules and teachings.
But all I need is from the state. By what constitutional authority can the state demonstrate its compelling interest to define a class of citizens (homosexuals) and by definition withhold from them the same rights that heterosexuals enjoy? I'm asking in earnest, because the inevitable Supreme Court case on this issue will be entirely based upon that question.
