Mike Huckabee on Gay Marriage (Jon Stewart)

[MarieDelta]

Transcript of Mike Huckabee and Jon Stewart On Gay Marriage

Full transcript here:http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/8568/

Video here: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-9-2008/mike-huckabee-pt--2



Stewart: But people got married in the interim and- then they went back and said you're not- I guess my question is...

You said, reaffirming the tradition of marriage over 5000 years, which takes it back to the Old Testament, where polygamy was the norm, not a heterosexual marriage between two couples [sic] that choose each other.

Marriage has evolved greatly over those 5000 years, from a property arrangement, polygamy... we've redefined it constantly. It used to be that people of different races could not... marry.

It strikes me as very convenient, to go back to the Bible and say, "Hey, man... we gotta look at the way they define marriage..." Why don't we look at the way they did slavery, in the Bible?

Huckabee: But if we change the definition, then we really do have to change it to accomodate all lifestyles. We have to say to the guy in West Texas, who had 27 wives, that's okay. And I'm not sure that I hear alot of people arguing that that's a great idea.

Stewart: I don't know why polygamy has an issue here. It seems like a fundamental human right. You write in your book that all people are created equal, and yet, for gay people, you belive it is corrosive to society to allow them to have the privledges that all humans enjoy.

Huckabee: Well, there is a difference between the equality of each individual and the equality of what we do and the sameness of what we do. I mean, the fact is, marriage is under our law a privelegde; it's not an absolute defined right.

Stewart: So what if we make it that Hispanics can't vote?

Huckabee: Well, I don't think that's a really good idea. I'm not sure that we should do that.

Stewart: So why can't gay people get married?

Huckabee: Well, because marriage still means a male and a female relationship. And until the laws are overturned, it still means that.

Stewart: I disagree. I think, you know... segregation used to be the law until the courts intervened.

(applause)

Huckabee: There is a big difference between a person being black, and a person practicing a lifestyle and engaging in a marital relationship that-

Stewart: Okay. This is helpful. This gets to the crux of it- I think it's the difference of between what you believe gay people are and what I do. And I live in New York City, so I'm just gonna make a suppostition that I have more experience being around them...

(laughter and applause)

And I'll tell you this. Religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality. And the protections that we have, for religion- we protect religion- and talk about a lifestyle choice! That is absolutely a choice. Gay people don't choose to be gay.

At what age did you choose not to be gay?

(applause)

Huckabee: But Jon, religious people don't have the right to burn others at the stake; they don't have the right to do anything they wish to do-

Stewart: You're not being asked to marry a guy. They're asking to marry the person they love.

Huckabee: But they're asking to redefine the word. And frankly, we're probably not going to come to terms. But if the American people are not convinced that we should overturn the definition of marriage, then I would say that those who support the idea of same sex marriage have got alot of work to do, to convince the rest of us, and as I said, 68% of the American population has made that decision.

Stewart: You talk about the pro life movement being one of the great shames of our nation. I think, if you want number two, I think it's, I think it's that. It's an absolute- it's a travesty that people have forced, someone who is gay, to have to make their case- that they deserve the same basic rights-

(applause)

Huckabee: Jon, excuse me, I respect you and I disagree with that- I really do- and one of the things that I want to make sure that people understand is that if a person does not necessarily support the idea of changing the definition of marriage, it does not mean that they are a homophobe. It does not mean that they are filled with hate and animosity-

Stewart: I was in no way suggesting-

Huckabee: No no, you were not saying that, but I think some people would like to throw the epithets at some people, whether they're like me, or someone else-

Stewart: But it does beg the question, I have to say, and again... is "WHY?"

You know, you keep talking about, jeez, it would be redefining a word... and it feels like semantics is cold comfort, when it comes to humanity and especially someone such as yourself, who is I believe an empathetic person who is someone who seeks to get to the heart of problems, this idea that, "Jeez, I dunno Jon, definitions and society..." I mean, marriage was not even a sacrament until the 1200s...

Huckabee: Words do matter. Definitions matter. And I think that we have to be very thoughtful and careful before we say that we are going to undo an entire social structure. I mean, let's face it, the basic purpose of a marriage is not just to create the next generation but to train our replacements. And it is in the context of 23 male and 23 female chromosomes coming together at the point of conception to create the next human life.

Stewart: I think you are looking at sexuality and not attributes, and it's odd because the conservative mantra is a "meritocracy", and I think what you are suggesting is the fact that being gay parents makes you not as good as others and i would suggest that a gay, loving family with a financially stable background beats the hell out of Britney Spears and Kevin Federline any day of the week.

Huckabee: I'm not gonna defend Britney and Kevin, for sure.

Stewart: But I appreciate you having the conversation and I just, uh, it's just, it's just wild.

[TwylaTwobits]

let me just say.... .I love Jon Stewart.

[MarieDelta]

This is my favorite part-


Stewart: Okay. This is helpful. This gets to the crux of it- I think it's the difference of between what you believe gay people are and what I do. And I live in New York City, so I'm just gonna make a suppostition that I have more experience being around them...

(laughter and applause)

And I'll tell you this. Religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality. And the protections that we have, for religion- we protect religion- and talk about a lifestyle choice! That is absolutely a choice. Gay people don't choose to be gay.

At what age did you choose not to be gay?

(applause)

Huckabee: But Jon, religious people don't have the right to burn others at the stake; they don't have the right to do anything they wish to do-


Gay Marriage = Burning people at the stake(?)

What!?!?

Shows what those on the right are thinking...

[FalconAngel]

This is my favorite part-




Gay Marriage = Burning people at the stake(?)

What!?!?

Shows what those on the right are thinking...

He's just using a false dichotomy again. It is one of their favorite types of arguments.

You can find examples of it all over the web, but Creationists use it a lot because it often works on the gullible.

There is an interesting video about the lies that right wing Christians use to make false and misleading points. It is focused on Creationists, but you will probably recognize the argument types from other issues; particularly when it is right wing Christians trying to make a point that they cannot properly defend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoZW7-3YSns&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZjxBdyu10A&feature=related

Like I said, these videos are not on topic, directly, but they are examples that you will find being used by the right wingers in almost every argument.

[cliffordmontero]

Personally, I think the biggest problem is the separation of church and state. Our country was founded with the idea that church and state should be separated . . . yet somewhere along the way a legal civil union and a marriage in the eyes of the church have become one in the same. I think that the solution is to separate the two, marrying in the eyes of the church and becoming a union in the eyes of the state can be two separate things. Look at certain polygamous sects . . . they typically view only the first wife as the true wife once they leave the protection of the church. Going and getting a marriage license and getting it signed by someone authorized by the state to say you are married is the state part, you can have that done without the church. Going to the church and doing what the church wants prior, sometimes counseling or becoming a member of the church or whatnot, that is the church part. Sever the tie completely, so that, like in polygamous sects, you can go get married in the church and never have a civil union. You can have a civil union without marriage, why not the other way around. The beliefs of a church, any church, should not be imposed upon those who do not agree. I agree with one thing Huckabee said in that interview. The whole redefining the word marriage thing. It might be hard to convince people to change the definition. However clearly separating the marriage from the civil union, essentially making them two separate things makes sense. They should be two separate things in my eyes. If you can go to a town clerk, get your license, go to a justice of the peace, get married, go to a lawyer, then to a judge and get divorced, all without a church involved, why is the church not stopping this? This is the procedure I think the civil union should follow. And then the church can have you do whatever they say in order to get married in their eyes. Make a marriage a union before the eyes of God, or your chosen deity, make a civil union a union before the eyes of the state. Maybe I am alone in this idea, but maybe not.

[tenni]

Isn't marriage a legal act and not a religious act? It is in my country. No church is required to provide a marriage ceremony but no church may marry anyone without the state legal marriage license document. There should be no separation of a hetero marriage from a same sex marriage. Both should have the same legal requirements and rights.

[cliffordmontero]

In the US, it is both.

There are rights granted to those married in the eyes of the state. That involves getting a marriage license and seeing a state recognized officiate and filing some paperwork. That is all the government says needs to be done to get married.

Then there is a church marriage. Now most church official become state recognized officiates, meaning they can handle that part of the state marriage. The exact conditions vary from church to church for marriage. Some churches want a period of couples counseling with a church approved counselor, some want you to become a member of their church, it varies from church to church. Once you meet their requirements, you can have a ceremony and get married in the eyes of the church.

It is possible to be married in the eyes of a church and not in the eyes of the state. For example certain polygamous sects of the Mormon church, and other religious sects, as the government only allows you to be married to one person at a time. In this case the state may recognize your first marriage, and not the subsequent ones. It would also be possible to be married in the eyes of the state and not the church if the church refused to recognize a marriage performed outside the church, though I have never heard of this happening.

[MarieDelta]

Personally, I think the biggest problem is the separation of church and state. Our country was founded with the idea that church and state should be separated . . . yet somewhere along the way a legal civil union and a marriage in the eyes of the church have become one in the same. I think that the solution is to separate the two, marrying in the eyes of the church and becoming a union in the eyes of the state can be two separate things. Look at certain polygamous sects . . . they typically view only the first wife as the true wife once they leave the protection of the church. Going and getting a marriage license and getting it signed by someone authorized by the state to say you are married is the state part, you can have that done without the church. Going to the church and doing what the church wants prior, sometimes counseling or becoming a member of the church or whatnot, that is the church part. Sever the tie completely, so that, like in polygamous sects, you can go get married in the church and never have a civil union. You can have a civil union without marriage, why not the other way around. The beliefs of a church, any church, should not be imposed upon those who do not agree. I agree with one thing Huckabee said in that interview. The whole redefining the word marriage thing. It might be hard to convince people to change the definition. However clearly separating the marriage from the civil union, essentially making them two separate things makes sense. They should be two separate things in my eyes. If you can go to a town clerk, get your license, go to a justice of the peace, get married, go to a lawyer, then to a judge and get divorced, all without a church involved, why is the church not stopping this? This is the procedure I think the civil union should follow. And then the church can have you do whatever they say in order to get married in their eyes. Make a marriage a union before the eyes of God, or your chosen deity, make a civil union a union before the eyes of the state. Maybe I am alone in this idea, but maybe not.

I'm good with calling it a civil union as long as it grants all the rights as legal marriage does now. Personally I could care less as long as the rights are equal across the board.

[MarieDelta]

Problem is you have to employ a lawyer(many LGBT cant afford it.) Whereas straight couples have these rights granted to them.

Also in many cases a partner of a same sex couple cant be at their partners side in the hospital no matter how many agreements are signed. Because they arent considered as immedaite family, as a straight spouse would be.


Benefits of Marriage:



Tax Benefits
Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
Estate Planning Benefits
Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.
Government Benefits
Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.
Employment Benefits
Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.
Medical Benefits
Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Death Benefits
Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.
Family Benefits
Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
Housing Benefits
Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
Consumer Benefits
Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
Other Legal Benefits and Protections
Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

As long as those rights are granted, I'm good with calling it "macaroni soup"

[12voltman59]

I go back to a point I made in another recent post---"what difference does it make if being gay is a choice or something natrually determined?"

This certainly being the case in a country that holds itself out as both the biggest bastion of freedom and promoter of rights for all!!!!

It would seem to me --that for all these supposed lovers of human rights and all---and also those who are to some degree hold some version of "libertarianism"----how can you deny rights to someone who is "gay"*--either by choice or if nature determined them to be "gay?" if you believe that each person for the most part--at least consenting adults engaging in activity that doesn't harm anyone else---- should be free from the constraints of government.

It this sort of major inconsistency of "the right" that make it impossible for me to ever call myself "a conservative" since for MANY (not all "conservatives" of course--but far too many for my tastes) conservatives and as a fundamental policy goal of many organized conservative groups----they would at the very least limit the rights of "gays" in most ways and at their very worst and most extreme----deny "gays" the most fundamental right of all--their "RIGHT TO LIFE!!" (or at least life not spent behind bars simply for being "gay.")

*I use the term "gay" to refer to anyone who falls under the GLBT and related catagories.

You do have to hand it to Jon Stewart---with his comedy--he often shows the true nature of situations, people and certainly the BS that is much of the spin that comes from the "right." Hardly anyone else in the media does it--especially so many of those reporters from "the evil, liberal, mainstream media." You only have a small handful of "reporter types" on "the left" who do it and you can count them on one hand---like Keith Olberman, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Bill Moyers and David Brancaccio who are on national televison networks and both Moyers and Branaccio's shows are ending in a few weeks. Their shows are on PBS but end with the close of April.

Phil Donahue is gone from the scene and the only other journalists who do such work----Amy Goodman with her show TV "Democracy Now!" is not seen on all that many outlets and David Barsamyan---whose radio program airs on a number of public radio stations are hardly known---I bet most of ya have not heard of Goodman and Barsamyan so they really don't have much reach.

[FalconAngel]

Personally, I think the biggest problem is the separation of church and state. Our country was founded with the idea that church and state should be separated . . . yet somewhere along the way a legal civil union and a marriage in the eyes of the church have become one in the same. I think that the solution is to separate the two, marrying in the eyes of the church and becoming a union in the eyes of the state can be two separate things. Look at certain polygamous sects . . . they typically view only the first wife as the true wife once they leave the protection of the church. Going and getting a marriage license and getting it signed by someone authorized by the state to say you are married is the state part, you can have that done without the church. Going to the church and doing what the church wants prior, sometimes counseling or becoming a member of the church or whatnot, that is the church part. Sever the tie completely, so that, like in polygamous sects, you can go get married in the church and never have a civil union. You can have a civil union without marriage, why not the other way around. The beliefs of a church, any church, should not be imposed upon those who do not agree. I agree with one thing Huckabee said in that interview. The whole redefining the word marriage thing. It might be hard to convince people to change the definition. However clearly separating the marriage from the civil union, essentially making them two separate things makes sense. They should be two separate things in my eyes. If you can go to a town clerk, get your license, go to a justice of the peace, get married, go to a lawyer, then to a judge and get divorced, all without a church involved, why is the church not stopping this? This is the procedure I think the civil union should follow. And then the church can have you do whatever they say in order to get married in their eyes. Make a marriage a union before the eyes of God, or your chosen deity, make a civil union a union before the eyes of the state. Maybe I am alone in this idea, but maybe not.

First, an unrelated note; DUDE, you have got to break your comments down to easily digestible paragraphs. It makes it a whole lot easier to read through.:)

Now, on with the show.

You were not a member of the site when the discussion came up about the Gay marriage issue, so unless you read through all of the threads, you would have missed it, but that is not your fault.
We had an interesting discourse on exactly that POV. If you have the time, you should take a look at it. It was an interesting thread.

Marriage, as the state sees it, is nothing but a contract; not unlike any business or employment contract, as the law sees it.

Being married in the eyes of the church is not the same as being married in the eyes of the law, so unless one pays the state for that marriage certificate, one is not married under any current state enforceable laws.

There may be some outdated marriage laws in various states, still on the books, that apply without requiring a marriage certificate from the state, but those are specific and I am speaking in general terms, nationwide. Plus some of those laws are not currently enforced except in very rare circumstances.

As a matter of fact, when CA banned gay marriage, many folks decided to not get married under their religion, but instead got married outside of the church. Others did the other way around, getting married in the church, but not making it legal under state law.

But what we have come to call "separation of church and state" should be more strictly enforced.

[FalconAngel]

The first step is to remove the rights marriage grants and get government out of it altogether. Once that's done, it won't matter at all.

Yes and no. The problem with that is that those automatic benefits have become so ingrained in our society, that doing that would devastate the nation, both economically and socially.

I agree that the government should stay out of people's personal lives, but more important than that is religion (in this case right wing/dominion Christians) needs to stay out of our civil laws.


Technically, a gay couple in any state in the union can enjoy all rights except the taxes.

Actually, that is in error. In order to do that requires a gay couple to do a whole glut of legal filings and acrobatics within the courts to even gain half of the rights that a married straight couple gets without anything more than that marriage certificate.

On top of that, all of that legal juggling can be overturned in a heartbeat by any family member coming forward and challenging it. Not so easy to do against a straight couple.


You can go to a lawyer and have agreements drawn up that says that person X gets everything in your will, that person X can sign for you in medical need, that person X can sign for you if you are unable to do so for yourself. That person X will be your guardian should you become an invalid. All of these agreements can already be made.

Again, as I said before, to get most, not all of the same benefits that a straight married couple has under the law, a gay couple currently has to do all of that without a guarantee that those rights can be tossed out by any family member's challenge in court.

Straight couples do not have those concerns.


Insurance policies are a tad trickier, but not much, if you work it right.

Pasa

My sister is an insurance agent and according to her, that is entirely wrong. While insurance beneficiaries can get challenged in court, it does not automatically mean that they will lose.
A person can make anyone their beneficiary and the insurance company does not care.
That becomes a civil matter for others to sue for their presumed "right" to the insurance money. A bit harder in some areas than others, but that is a court matter.
Like I said, the insurance companies don't really care who a person's beneficiary is. You can make it your pet goldfish if you like; they don't care.

With insurance payoffs, even straight couples can run into that problem, but the insurance company is not the problem, the relatives are the problem.

[12voltman59]

What does get confused in our country is what the meaning of marriage is and it shouldn't since we are supposed to have "Seperation of Church and State" in our country---but we see that the two do get comingled on this as in many other areas.

There is the biblical and religious meaning of "marriage" and we have the legal, secular meaing of the term "marriage."

The term marriage is loaded with all kinds of baggage thanks to its religious connnotations----what we need is to come up with an acceptable legal and secular term instead of marriage that confers all the legal sorts of rights to those of the same sex who wish to form a legally sanctioned partnership without the baggage of the term in its religious and socal terms.

The thing with "civil unions"----the way the laws have been written in most states---the courts say that "civil unions' often don't confer the same sorts of rights and responsibilities as does a "marriage." In this case the courts are the right venue to consider such the nature of those rights and such since we are talkiing about issues like contract law, child rearing, passage of property and estates from one person to another and all those sorts of purely legal matters.

As far as churches are concerned----I say that any laws regarding "same sex marriage" or the total legal equivalent should make it clear----that religious faiths, churches and such---should not have to peform same-sex religious marriage ceremonies if that is what they believe.

But any change in the laws regarding marriage--should also remove allowing churches to perform "marriages" that are legally sanctioned and recognized---for people straight and gay to be "married" it would simply become an administrative task--more or less in the form of simply signing legal documents with proper witneses and such and getting the paperwork registered and duly noted as being recognized---any ceremony that people want--thet can be done on their own or in a church that will marry them. This would not be that much of a change since marriages aren't legally recognized until you get a marriage license anyhow.

It would not mean that we could not still have ceremonies with ministers, or fake Elvises presiding--just that those are merely ceremonial in nature to satisfy our own needs or the dictates of a religious faith we are a member of.

In fact--maybe other than some basic training and getting an inexpensive license--even on a one off basis---pretty much anyone should be free to "preside" at a ceremonial "wedding" under my hypothetical situation.

It would be fun for say a marriage of people who have kids already----one or several of them could get a one time license to be the officiating party--that would mean more to most people than getting some outsider to do it.

You could imagine all kinds of scenarios to take place if this were to be allowed. I think it would make for some fun, interesting and unique "weddings."

[FalconAngel]

Once again, Volty comes through with an intelligent and reasonable solution.

Too bad it won't get made into law.......it just too common sense to become law.


What does get confused in our country is what the meaning of marriage is and it shouldn't since we are supposed to have "Seperation of Church and State" in our country---but we see that the two do get comingled on this as in many other areas.

There is the biblical and religious meaning of "marriage" and we have the legal, secular meaing of the term "marriage."

The term marriage is loaded with all kinds of baggage thanks to its religious connnotations----what we need is to come up with an acceptable legal and secular term instead of marriage that confers all the legal sorts of rights to those of the same sex who wish to form a legally sanctioned partnership without the baggage of the term in its religious and socal terms.

The thing with "civil unions"----the way the laws have been written in most states---the courts say that "civil unions' often don't confer the same sorts of rights and responsibilities as does a "marriage." In this case the courts are the right venue to consider such the nature of those rights and such since we are talkiing about issues like contract law, child rearing, passage of property and estates from one person to another and all those sorts of purely legal matters.

As far as churches are concerned----I say that any laws regarding "same sex marriage" or the total legal equivalent should make it clear----that religious faiths, churches and such---should not have to peform same-sex religious marriage ceremonies if that is what they believe.

But any change in the laws regarding marriage--should also remove allowing churches to perform "marriages" that are legally sanctioned and recognized---for people straight and gay to be "married" it would simply become an administrative task--more or less in the form of simply signing legal documents with proper witneses and such and getting the paperwork registered and duly noted as being recognized---any ceremony that people want--thet can be done on their own or in a church that will marry them. This would not be that much of a change since marriages aren't legally recognized until you get a marriage license anyhow.

It would not mean that we could not still have ceremonies with ministers, or fake Elvises presiding--just that those are merely ceremonial in nature to satisfy our own needs or the dictates of a religious faith we are a member of.

In fact--maybe other than some basic training and getting an inexpensive license--even on a one off basis---pretty much anyone should be free to "preside" at a ceremonial "wedding" under my hypothetical situation.

It would be fun for say a marriage of people who have kids already----one or several of them could get a one time license to be the officiating party--that would mean more to most people than getting some outsider to do it.

You could imagine all kinds of scenarios to take place if this were to be allowed. I think it would make for some fun, interesting and unique "weddings."


Volty, you are my hero. :bigrin:;)

[jamiehue]

I. never saw my partners family until his untimely death they showed up to collect.

[MarieDelta]

Oh and one more note-

In som states of the union I can get married to a man, in other states I can only marry a woman. In still other states I can't marry anyone, or is that everyone (?) depending on who you ask...

Its ridiculous to define marriage based upon genitals, in my opinion.

[Lady_Passion]

MarieDelta nailed it, though I would add ROI and costs for overturning established laws and the $ any company would lose/pay out by allowing same sex partners to be covered by each others' insurance and benefits. Our taxes would be raised of course, but that's another topic.

I would back up a step before this discussion should have occurred though, to: we don't have rights anyway. We are all legal chattel, property of our government. Seriously pretending otherwise is naive. Being more realistic is what will lead to change. Our politicians and lawmakers all know what's what, and they sit around doing busy work making more laws most of us can't or don't want to live with, while they keep their business clients happy at our expense. However, if enough people really put their mind to it, we do have the upper hand if we want to change something bad enough.

[12voltman59]

Mike Huckabee was being interviewed by a college news organization recently and that interview made public today---in that interview--he talked about taking away the right for gays to adopt children--and also basically argued that gays should not be allowed to raise children at all since he likened just being gay with things like being a drug addict or a criminal of any sort.

He basically said that just the fact someone is gay--they are so morally depraved they should not have any right to raise children.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alvin-mcewen/mike-huckabee-attacks-gay_b_532884.html

http://tcnjperspective.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/huckabee-rips-steele-romney-lgbt-activists-4/

[olebear]

Personally, I think the biggest problem is the separation of church and state. Our country was founded with the idea that church and state should be separated . . . yet somewhere along the way a legal civil union and a marriage in the eyes of the church have become one in the same. I think that the solution is to separate the two, marrying in the eyes of the church and becoming a union in the eyes of the state can be two separate things. Look at certain polygamous sects . . . they typically view only the first wife as the true wife once they leave the protection of the church. Going and getting a marriage license and getting it signed by someone authorized by the state to say you are married is the state part, you can have that done without the church. Going to the church and doing what the church wants prior, sometimes counseling or becoming a member of the church or whatnot, that is the church part. Sever the tie completely, so that, like in polygamous sects, you can go get married in the church and never have a civil union. You can have a civil union without marriage, why not the other way around. The beliefs of a church, any church, should not be imposed upon those who do not agree. I agree with one thing Huckabee said in that interview. The whole redefining the word marriage thing. It might be hard to convince people to change the definition. However clearly separating the marriage from the civil union, essentially making them two separate things makes sense. They should be two separate things in my eyes. If you can go to a town clerk, get your license, go to a justice of the peace, get married, go to a lawyer, then to a judge and get divorced, all without a church involved, why is the church not stopping this? This is the procedure I think the civil union should follow. And then the church can have you do whatever they say in order to get married in their eyes. Make a marriage a union before the eyes of God, or your chosen deity, make a civil union a union before the eyes of the state. Maybe I am alone in this idea, but maybe not.


Separation of Church and State - Constitution Framers Historical Context

The "Separation of Church and State" metaphor blurs the distinction between a doctrinal religion and a denominational religion.

This places the doctrinal religion we have embraced in the same basket as an organized denominational religion with potential to merge with the state.

The documentary evidence of the doctrinal Christian religion origin of this nation is voluminous. The Supreme Court thoroughly studied this issue, and in 1892 gave what is known as the Trinity Decision. In that decision the Supreme Court declared, "this is a Christian nation."

John Quincy Adams said, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was, it connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

The founders were definitely Christian for the most part. At least 90 to 95 percentage of them were practicing, Trinitarian Christians.

This and the additional supporting evidence below show conclusively that the concern that motivated the framers to include the establishment clause in the constitution was definitely not fear of the doctrinal religion of Christian Theism.

It was understood that Christian Theism was the default state doctrinal religion. As opposed to being something to fear, it was something believed to be vital to the success of our government.

Consequently, the framers feared a state denominational religion not a state doctrinal religion! Some additional evidences that indicate Christian Theism was the national doctrinal religion are listed below:

Emblazoned over the Speaker of the House in the US Capitol are the words "In God We Trust."

The Supreme Court building built in the 1930's has carvings of Moses and the Ten Commandments.

God is mentioned in stone all over Washington D.C., on its monuments and buildings.

As a nation, we have celebrated Christmas to commemorate the Savior's birth for centuries.

Oaths in courtrooms have invoked God from the beginning.

The founding fathers often quoted the Bible in their writings.

Every president that has given an inaugural address has mentioned God in that speech.

Prayers have been said at the swearing in of each president.

Each president was sworn in on the Bible, saying the words, "So help me God."

Our national anthem mentions God.

The liberty bell has a Bible verse engraved on it.

The original constitution of all 50 states mentions God.

Chaplains have been in the public payroll from the very beginning.

Our nations birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence, mentions God four times.

The Bible was once used as a textbook in the schools.




hmm! I don't see much seperation there.

But people should be free to marry whom ever they wish.

[olebear]

What does get confused in our country is what the meaning of marriage is and it shouldn't since we are supposed to have "Seperation of Church and State" in our country---but we see that the two do get comingled on this as in many other areas.

There is the biblical and religious meaning of "marriage" and we have the legal, secular meaing of the term "marriage."

The term marriage is loaded with all kinds of baggage thanks to its religious connnotations----what we need is to come up with an acceptable legal and secular term instead of marriage that confers all the legal sorts of rights to those of the same sex who wish to form a legally sanctioned partnership without the baggage of the term in its religious and socal terms.

The thing with "civil unions"----the way the laws have been written in most states---the courts say that "civil unions' often don't confer the same sorts of rights and responsibilities as does a "marriage." In this case the courts are the right venue to consider such the nature of those rights and such since we are talkiing about issues like contract law, child rearing, passage of property and estates from one person to another and all those sorts of purely legal matters.

As far as churches are concerned----I say that any laws regarding "same sex marriage" or the total legal equivalent should make it clear----that religious faiths, churches and such---should not have to peform same-sex religious marriage ceremonies if that is what they believe.

But any change in the laws regarding marriage--should also remove allowing churches to perform "marriages" that are legally sanctioned and recognized---for people straight and gay to be "married" it would simply become an administrative task--more or less in the form of simply signing legal documents with proper witneses and such and getting the paperwork registered and duly noted as being recognized---any ceremony that people want--thet can be done on their own or in a church that will marry them. This would not be that much of a change since marriages aren't legally recognized until you get a marriage license anyhow.

It would not mean that we could not still have ceremonies with ministers, or fake Elvises presiding--just that those are merely ceremonial in nature to satisfy our own needs or the dictates of a religious faith we are a member of.

In fact--maybe other than some basic training and getting an inexpensive license--even on a one off basis---pretty much anyone should be free to "preside" at a ceremonial "wedding" under my hypothetical situation.

It would be fun for say a marriage of people who have kids already----one or several of them could get a one time license to be the officiating party--that would mean more to most people than getting some outsider to do it.

You could imagine all kinds of scenarios to take place if this were to be allowed. I think it would make for some fun, interesting and unique "weddings."




I like it!

[FalconAngel]

Separation of Church and State - Constitution Framers Historical Context

The "Separation of Church and State" metaphor blurs the distinction between a doctrinal religion and a denominational religion.

Completely wrong. Do your homework.

Have you looked at the difference between doctrine and denomination?

Doctrine –noun
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.

2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.

3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Denomination –noun
1. a religious group, usually including many local churches, often larger than a sect: the Lutheran denomination.
2. one of the grades or degrees in a series of designations of quantity, value, measure, weight, etc.: He paid $500 in bills of small denomination.
3. a name or designation, esp. one for a class of things.
4. a class or kind of persons or things distinguished by a specific name.
5. the act of naming or designating a person or thing

All of Christianity, no matter the denomination, are doctrinal, following a book of prescribed rules and codes of directed societal behavior.

All Christian denominations have their own variation of the same, archaic and out of date doctrines that disregard what we currently know to be scientifically demonstrated to be true.



This places the doctrinal religion we have embraced in the same basket as an organized denominational religion with potential to merge with the state.

See the above definitions (from Dictionary.com) to see where you are really going wrong, here.

All denominations of Christianity, Judaism and Islam are doctrinal.




The documentary evidence of the doctrinal Christian religion origin of this nation is voluminous.

Actually, no. It is not. It is anecdotal, at best. not definitive proof.



The Supreme Court thoroughly studied this issue, and in 1892 gave what is known as the Trinity Decision. In that decision the Supreme Court declared, "this is a Christian nation."

Are you basing this on supporting evidence of your initial statement or are you accepting that statement without using it in context of the era that it was said and society's more's at the time.

Christians have become quite expert at taking things out of context to use them to sound like the opposite of what was actually said and meant. There are a lot of Creationist arguments as proof of that.



John Quincy Adams said, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was, it connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

Again, an out of context statement; What was the rest that he stated before and/or after that?

Was it a published work or just something that he is recorded as having said on it's own?

Quote mining is a bad thing when trying to make a point.


The founders were definitely Christian for the most part. At least 90 to 95 percentage of them were practicing, Trinitarian Christians.

The religion of the man only make it the religion of the nation in cases of a monarchy or a theocracy.

We have neither here.

I don't see any King running this nation, nor is the Pope running this nation. This is a secular nation and there is nothing that any right wing Christian can factually provide to prove otherwise. Quote-mining does not constitute proof.
Our own laws show that. And the opposition to Christian church doctrine proves the fact that Christians have to fight so hard to "prove" otherwise, which demonstrates that this is a secular nation.



This and the additional supporting evidence below show conclusively that the concern that motivated the framers to include the establishment clause in the constitution was definitely not fear of the doctrinal religion of Christian Theism.

The "evidence" that you have provided are anecdotal and out of context.


It was understood that Christian Theism was the default state doctrinal religion. As opposed to being something to fear, it was something believed to be vital to the success of our government.

That may have been true right up until the ratification of the 1st Amendment on 12/15/1791.


Consequently, the framers feared a state denominational religion not a state doctrinal religion! Some additional evidences that indicate Christian Theism was the national doctrinal religion are listed below:

Again, your supposed facts are completely wrong. The framers of the Constitution had all of the history of Europe to learn from and they learned the most important lesson on this issue. That lesson being that theocracies always fail to protect human rights; all of the rights that they were fighting for in the first place.

Making this a Christian nation, as opposed to the secular one that they created, would trade one master for an even worse one. If all Christians would learn the history that our founding fathers did, the right wing would not even exist.


Emblazoned over the Speaker of the House in the US Capitol are the words "In God We Trust."

Anecdotal and you are taking it out of context


The Supreme Court building built in the 1930's has carvings of Moses and the Ten Commandments.

The laws of Moses are a matter of legal history based in Judaic laws, not Christian, it is therefore a legal context, not a Christian religious context as you have implied.


God is mentioned in stone all over Washington D.C., on its monuments and buildings.

But not on all of them.


As a nation, we have celebrated Christmas to commemorate the Savior's birth for centuries.

But it is not celebrated at what would be the right time of year. Making it on 12/25 is a basic conversion tool to convince Pagans that Christianity was not so bad as it was. Before 491AD, Christmas was celebrated at different times of the year in different parts of the Roman Empire. Pope Pius IV changed that. And in addition to that, according to Biblical descriptions, Jesus (if he ever really existed as more than just a re-engineering of a much older archetype) was born in September, not during Pagan Yuletide.


Oaths in courtrooms have invoked God from the beginning.

A policy that is no longer practiced, since a few decades ago. As the people changed, so did the Government policies.



The founding fathers often quoted the Bible in their writings.

They also quoted Plato, Homer and any number of secular Humanists of the day. Your statement is inconsequential to your point and it is deceptive through it's omission of all of the facts. A lie of omission is still a lie.


Every president that has given an inaugural address has mentioned God in that speech.

Really? Where and when? Let's see copies of every inaugural address, or at least links to them.


Prayers have been said at the swearing in of each president.

But that is not the Government. Rather it is the choice of the individuals.

And again, the religion of the individual is not the religion of the government.

Watch what happens if we ever get a Buddhist, Hindu, Islamic, 1st Nations American or Pagan as President. Won't be any Christian prayers in those cases.


Each president was sworn in on the Bible, saying the words, "So help me God."

Don't confuse tradition with religion.
I am not Christian, Jewish or Islamic, but I still say Gesundheit (god bless you) when someone sneezes. Social habits do not always mean a person follows a religion that is part of that society.


Our national anthem mentions God.

Yes, it does. In a verse that is not used and at the end, almost as an afterthought. That seems as if you are grasping at straws. Particularly since the "Star Spangled Banner" was written during the War of 1812, not the Revolution.

And on a related note:
The Pledge of Allegiance, written by a Baptist minister (Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931)) in August 1892, originally did not have the words "under God" in it until the days of MacCarthyism in the 1950's, almost 60 years later.
He understood the idea of what we call "separation of church and state" as established in the 1st Amendment (ratified 12/15/1791).

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"


The liberty bell has a Bible verse engraved on it.

Anecdotal and taken out of context of the society of the day in order to prove a point that cannot otherwise be supported.


The original constitution of all 50 states mentions God.

Here's the link to it, in it's entirety. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Show us where it says that. And who's God does it mention, if any?


Chaplains have been in the public payroll from the very beginning.

Really? Who and when? Show us that this is true with some documentation or a government link to it.


Our nations birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence, mentions God four times.


Four times? REALLY?

Where?

Here is what the Declaration of Independence actually says about "god":

".....the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,......"

That is not the Christian God (God of men), but the God of Nature, not man.

"....that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness........"

"Endowed by their Creator"........doesn't sound very Christian to me. Actually, it is, in fact, rather theologically ambiguous. That would make it secular.

And those are the closest things to any God mentioned anywhere within the Declaration of Independence.

So where are the other two instances where "God" is mentioned?

Here's the entire text:
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm



The Bible was once used as a textbook in the schools.

And that was long before the nation established a standardize public school system. In communities where there were (comparatively) large populations of Jews, it was their religious books, not the Bible.

So what is the point of this statement? To give more anecdotal and out of context "evidence"?

Afraid that the whole "Christian nation" argument has been shot down far too often, by Constitutional scholars who know even more than I do, in too many venues to hold itself up against the facts.


hmm! I don't see much seperation there.

Then you are not doing your research properly or you are editing your pov to comply with modern church doctrine.


But people should be free to marry whom ever they wish.

Now on this last thing, we are in total and unwavering agreement.

[TwylaTwobits]

Of course you realize the entire "seperation of church and state" came about as noted today because of several lawsuits regarding prayer in schools and even later the posting of the Ten Commandments in schools http://www.belcherfoundation.org/aclu_v_mercer_county.htm. The main point of the sixth article of the Constitution was that we were not to use a person's religion as a basis for appointment to public office.

One of the most known challenges to the notion of prayer in school was a lawsuit by filed athiest Madalyn Murray O'Hair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O%27Hair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O%27Hair)

It's been a long debate but really...as long as teachers give pop quizes it won't matter what the laws state.. There will be prayer in schools.

[TwylaTwobits]

sigh and of course I read it after it's too late to edit should be * One of the most known challenges to the notion of prayer in school was a lawsuit filed by athiest Madalyn Murray * I blame lack of caffiene and a distracting kiwi :)

[FalconAngel]

Of course you realize the entire "seperation of church and state" came about as noted today because of several lawsuits regarding prayer in schools and even later the posting of the Ten Commandments in schools http://www.belcherfoundation.org/aclu_v_mercer_county.htm. The main point of the sixth article of the Constitution was that we were not to use a person's religion as a basis for appointment to public office.

One of the most known challenges to the notion of prayer in school was a lawsuit by filed athiest Madalyn Murray O'Hair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O%27Hair

It's been a long debate but really...as long as teachers give pop quizes it won't matter what the laws state.. There will be prayer in schools.

The "separation of church and state came about in the 1st Amendment.

The whole thing with prayer in schools came about when non-Christians began to gain political clout by going to the courts, which began back in the late 1940's.

At that time the point being brought up was exactly that not everyone was Christian and that by forcing Christian prayer on non-Christians (in public schools paid for by public tax dollars, which come from people of all religions) violated the 1st amendment clause by recognizing an establishment of religion by the state.

I can't speak for everyone, but I certainly do not want any specific religion taught in the schools that receive public tax dollars; not even if that single religion is my own.
If they teach any religion, then they must teach all religions. And that is just too much for the schools to handle.
However teaching the basics of all religions for tolerance education or to compare differences is another thing. But focusing on one or two religions does not cut it. A course like that must teach all or none, equally and without any religious preferences.

I may have no respect for right wing Christians, but they still have a right to practice their religion as long as they are not forcing their ways on me, either through "faith-based" laws or policies that promote their doctrine above all others.

It is that right, to be free from religious persecution, that the 1st amendment protects. And those lawsuits that have come about in the past 20 years has been a good thing to remind those right wingers that they do not control the rights of others and may not force conversion on others, like they used to do before this nation was formed.

If any single religion takes power over this country, we will fall into the same mistakes that Europe had under the rule of the Catholic church, with heresy laws, executions and other crimes against humanity. If the right wingers take over, then all but a very small number of Christian sects will be forced to go underground, and that includes a number of other Christian sects as well.

The vast majority of non-Christians are not opposed to other religions, but they are, on the whole, opposed to religious rule of their nation.

[TwylaTwobits]

Falcon I was tired I should have noted originally mentioned in the First Amendment then carried on. so Mea Culpa :) Now heading to bed cause it's late and I sent Kate her birthday gift which I meant to do before I logged off the first time :)

[JP1986UM]

I just have to say briefly that the anti-religious fervor of those on the left-wing is so palpable that I stand in fear of the future. After all, its the left wing of politics that spawned communism and murdered over 100,000,000 people for its cause, many gay and lesbian persons among them.

There is no separation clause in the first amendment, there is a no "establishment clause" and that has thoroughly been defined. Secondly, to this end, the govt at one time actively supported certain churches to take care of many needs in states. It was mostly state run funds, but you get the point, so the hatred against people of faith is rather unfounded. The only document I've ever seen that specifically inclines to a separation of church and state was the Soviet documents.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Some of you are so hard core left wing I think you'd cheer the murder of someone on the right if it fit your cause. Its rather scary and sad. Your vile, vitriolic hatred is so venomous as to confirm that the violence we see on the left will only get worse.

Lets recall the people in california voted and turned back gay marriage and there aren't enough conservatives left in Cali to line up on a street one block long. So the liberals in that state must obviously have decided as well in that same vein.

And I support gay marriage. And bisexual marriage as well.

[MarieDelta]

I just have to say briefly that the anti-religious fervor of those on the left-wing is so palpable that I stand in fear of the future. After all, its the left wing of politics that spawned communism and murdered over 100,000,000 people for its cause, many gay and lesbian persons among them.

There is no separation clause in the first amendment, there is a no "establishment clause" and that has thoroughly been defined. Secondly, to this end, the govt at one time actively supported certain churches to take care of many needs in states. It was mostly state run funds, but you get the point, so the hatred against people of faith is rather unfounded. The only document I've ever seen that specifically inclines to a separation of church and state was the Soviet documents.



Some of you are so hard core left wing I think you'd cheer the murder of someone on the right if it fit your cause. Its rather scary and sad. Your vile, vitriolic hatred is so venomous as to confirm that the violence we see on the left will only get worse.

Lets recall the people in california voted and turned back gay marriage and there aren't enough conservatives left in Cali to line up on a street one block long. So the liberals in that state must obviously have decided as well in that same vein.

And I support gay marriage. And bisexual marriage as well.

None of which excuses Mike Huckabee from his prejudiced comments.


I dont care what religion anyone believes in, as long as we let people live in peace.

Again, your religion , your choice. My sexuality is not a choice, neither is my gender.

I dont have a problem with the practice of religion, however I do have a problem with bigotry.

I wouldnt ever want anyone to be killed over religion.

[JP1986UM]

Marie I am with you there. I can't stand Huckabee and if he got run over by an elephant stampede I wouldn't shed a single tear.

But my point stands, the fervor of anti-religious sentiment by the extreme far left wingers here is dangerous and the justifications are pathetic.

Oh and Falcon, to answer your question:

Show us where it says that. And who's God does it mention, if any?


End of the US CON : Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord

I know yer argument, its anecdotal, but that just makes you an idiot. Because I counted several anecdotal arguments in your response to bear. Yet all those anecdotals seem to miss the point that they are all inter-related. Yer neither a constitutional scholar nor a lawyer who has a frigging clue about the context of US Constitutional law regarding religion. You think you do and you write long responses to bog people down, but simply put, yer as ignorant of the Constitution as Al Franken isn't funny.

I'd suggest you actually read something that's rather scholarly other than Salon.com for your understanding. Here's some help. Good luck with it!

http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Religion-Daniel-Conkle/dp/1599413418/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271558434&sr=1-1-spell
have a nice day.

[FalconAngel]

Oh and Falcon, to answer your question:


End of the US CON : Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord

That is your proof that this is a Christian nation??? That is a pathetic argument. And the most out of context, anecdotal argument that I have yet seen on this subject.

So who's lord were they referring to? Or were they using the colloquial phrasing of the day as was common to stating dates on official documents. Do you even understand the colloquial speech and phraseology of the day? It does not sound like you do, otherwise you would not have jumped on that.

If you do not understand the context of how people spoke in the past, how can you possibly understand what they meant when they used words and phrases that are no longer used, or are hardly ever used outside of very rare and exceptional circumstances? You cannot. That is a fact.

Since you do not understand the context of the phrase, as it was used in the era, how can you possibly use it as a supportive argument?

Typical of people like you. You always assume that taking things out of context constitutes proof.


I know yer argument, its anecdotal, but that just makes you an idiot.

"yer"? after that, you have the temerity to call me an idiot? At least I don't have to resort to name-calling to prove you wrong, particularly since name-calling is what one uses when one is wrong, knows it and has absolutely no argument to stand behind.

Your inability to understand the Constitution or our own nations history is amazing.

I do not believe that you understand what an anecdotal argument really is. And then you demonstrate the audacity to call me an idiot?

The fact that you are falling, almost immediately into name-calling, shows that I have just gotten your best effort. Come back when you are actually worthy to argue the Constitution intelligently.

So far, you are not worthy.



Because I counted several anecdotal arguments in your response to bear. Yet all those anecdotals seem to miss the point that they are all inter-related.

And those were??? If you had actually done so, then you would have posted them. We call that proof.



Yer neither a constitutional scholar nor a lawyer who has a frigging clue about the context of US Constitutional law regarding religion. You think you do and you write long responses to bog people down, but simply put, yer as ignorant of the Constitution as Al Franken isn't funny.

Actually, no, Constitutional scholar is not my occupation, nor is the law; But it is the occupation of my father in law, retired lawyer and Constitutional scholar, my sister in law (lawyer) and my wife, a former lawyer.

Their opinions agree with mine and I trust those opinions of people that are known factors than someone who supports the usurpation of that Constitution by right wingers that would destroy this country by trying to turn it into another failed theocracy.

The fact that they know more about it than you makes anything that you can say, nothing more than the opinion of someone with no factual knowledge of the Constitution, it's amendments or the intent of any of our founding documents.

You do not need to be a Constitutional scholar to understand the Constitution. It was written with people like you in mind. Folks that were of common (read as low) education. The problem comes when people read their religion into it, making the foolish assumption that our founding fathers had absolutely no knowledge of the history of Europe under control of Christianity, even over the power of kings.

Religion has no business in politics. Human history has already demonstrated the simple fact that human rights get trampled on when a single religion is given power. Our founding fathers, as this discussion matters knew far more about this than you ever will be capable of understanding.

Perhaps you may want to not learn your history from religion. Particularly in light of the fact that doing so has, thus far, failed you pretty dramatically.


I'd suggest you actually read something that's rather scholarly other than Salon.com for your understanding. Here's some help. Good luck with it!

I have about 2 dozen links to information on the Constitution, it's amendments (aka Bill of Rights), and the Declaration of independence. That in addition to various other articles on Constitutional law and other directly and indirectly related subjects. And I have read them all. Every one of them, over and over again, just to be certain that I understand them.

No man can serve two masters.

My master is the Constitution and Freedom, which includes freedom from religion as much as freedom of religion.

But it sounds like your master is your religion; and that master wants to destroy one of the most important principles that this nation was built on.

When you have done a proper level of study and soul searching, you will see that I, and others here, are right.

Note that I never had to resort to name-calling to chastise you or your failed attempts to prove what cannot be proven.

[FalconAngel]

I just have to say briefly that the anti-religious fervor of those on the left-wing is so palpable that I stand in fear of the future. After all, its the left wing of politics that spawned communism and murdered over 100,000,000 people for its cause, many gay and lesbian persons among them.

It isn't anti-religious fervor so much as it is a tiredness about a single religion trying, over and over again, to force their religious doctrine on people that do not belong to their religion.

Have you been sleeping through the last couple of decades? Have you slept through the "moral majority" years in the last half of the 70's?

Have you not noticed that Dominion Christians have made very blatant and clear attempts to force their religion's restrictive doctrine on everyone, without regard to the religions of those others?

Check some newspaper archives in order to get caught up. What exactly do you think that "faith based" initiatives are? Most of us know exactly what they are. They are a clear and obvious attempt to force their version of Christianity on other Christians (not of their sect) as well as people of other, or even no, religions.

That is how theocracies get started and by doing so, they are attempting to establishment of a recognition of one religion over all others.

That is unconstitutional.


There is no separation clause in the first amendment, there is a no "establishment clause" and that has thoroughly been defined.

You are right, there is no "establishment clause, but there is a "refuse to establish" clause in the 1st amendment. The FIRST THING SAID IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT......"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion......"

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

That single statement, as well as the next portion which says ", or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" is what we currently call "separation of church and state". It makes a clear delineation that tells us all that religion may not interfere with the state, nor shall the state interfere with any religion's free exorcise by the people.



Secondly, to this end, the govt at one time actively supported certain churches to take care of many needs in states.

Do you understand the pragmatism around that decision at the time? No, you clearly do not.

At the time that those events were going on, and the nation had not, as yet, established a system to handle those issues, the churches were already doing many of those things, already. So they continued to handle those functions until the appropriate offices and infrastructure could be built.

As infrastructure was established, those functions transferred from the churches to the government. Or do you actually believe that all of those functions, from the government are actually still under the control of the churches?

And the churches did such a wizz-bang of a job, too, kidnapping 1st nations children, denying them access to their own culture, language, etc., which finally culminated at a place called Wounded Knee. A massacre of innocent and unarmed men, women and children.

You really do need to get back to school for history, or at least read more than the whitewashed, ethnocentric religio-history that you seem to have learned.



It was mostly state run funds, but you get the point, so the hatred against people of faith is rather unfounded.

See above. You need to learn history from the facts, not from the philosophy of "when the lie becomes true, print the lie".



The only document I've ever seen that specifically inclines to a separation of church and state was the Soviet documents.

Well, to defend some of that statement, the Soviets actually opposed ALL religion and put a lot of effort to squash it altogether. They didn't really succeed, but they did try.


Some of you are so hard core left wing I think you'd cheer the murder of someone on the right if it fit your cause.

That depends, are we talking about members of the WBC? If so, there would be a lot of people, including many other Christians that may join us in the cheers.

But seriously, most of us are not at all, left wing, but all of us are tired of right wing religious nuts doing their level best to force us into the closet, force us back into the broom closet or just trying to force our conversion to religious doctrine that is not part of our religions or to force us into a doctrine when we had none to begin with.

How much pushing and intolerance do people need, in your opinion, before it is okay to push back against a religion that has been corrupted by it's power-mad leadership since the time of the Roman empire? How much violence, hate and harassment by the powers that be from that religion is too much to you?


Its rather scary and sad. Your vile, vitriolic hatred is so venomous as to confirm that the violence we see on the left will only get worse.

And the violence from the right is better, how? You right wingers don't seem to get it at all. You all seem to think that it is okay to force your beliefs on others, but when people do not want to hear it, it is some demented form of justification to you lot for saying we are wrong?

And what is scary and sad is that none of you get it at all. The rest of us, whether for religious freedom, sexual freedom, equality of our sexuality or anything else that the Dominion Christians oppose, are tired of your BS and are fighting back. You get to make the rules ONLY for yourselves, not the rest of us. And none of us would say "boo" to any of you, if you would keep your versions of your religions out of our lives.

Try reading your bible again. Perhaps you have "conveniently" skipped the part where it says that you should "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Well now, others are doing unto you as you have done to others. Consider that we are all responsible for what we do, so when non-Christians push you people, it may be because you people pushed first.




Lets recall the people in california voted and turned back gay marriage and there aren't enough conservatives left in Cali to line up on a street one block long. So the liberals in that state must obviously have decided as well in that same vein.

I call total BS on you. You clearly know absolutely no facts in that case.

Rights don't get voted on. Rights are rights; not priveledges.

Priveledges get voted on, rights do not.

If everyone's rights were up to a popular vote, than most people would have none, not even you.

If rights could be voted on, then Blacks would still be slaves, interracial couples could still not marry and there would be no hate crime laws at all.

You really do need to take some comprehension courses. Are you sure that you are not a troll, because you have said some amazingly uninformed things and outright lies in some cases.

Faith is belief in the absence of facts, but foolishness is belief in contradiction of facts.

Your belief completely contradicts and flies in the face of overwhelming historical and documented facts.

Maybe you actually believe this horse shit that you are saying, or maybe you are here for a different reason. I don't know, nor do I care. Either way, you are saying things that you believe, even though the facts contradict you at every turn.


And I support gay marriage. And bisexual marriage as well.

I find that hard to believe when you just implied that human rights could be up to a vote and that the Prop 8 decision was somehow right, when it denies people rights under the stupidity of popular vote.

Like I said before, rights don't need a vote. They are rights.

But if you are right, then I propose a vote on whether right wing Christians should be allowed to marry, propagate and even be allowed to vote.

I wonder how that vote would go.

Think about that in the context of what you said about Prop 8 and "voting" to give people rights that are an entitlement of citizenship in this country.

[JP1986UM]

Have you not noticed that Dominion Christians have made very blatant and clear attempts to force their religion's restrictive doctrine on everyone, without regard to the religions of those others?


There's a huge difference between some moron named Falwell trying to enforce at the ballot box, what communists and the left wing did by bullets and torture.

But keep dreaming to yourself. Its entertaining to watch your head explode. Perhaps someone will come one day and wrap your dick around your thighs and tie a knot with it.




Do you understand the pragmatism around that decision at the time? No, you clearly do not.

Uh, yeah and thanks asshole for assuming I don't. yeah that's right, now yer an asshole.

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/eighteen/ekeyinfo/deism.htm



And the churches did such a wizz-bang of a job, too, kidnapping 1st nations children, denying them access to their own culture, language, etc., which finally culminated at a place called Wounded Knee. A massacre of innocent and unarmed men, women and children.

I love the gotcha quotes, like, the african tribal clans weren't waring with themselves and selling people to eliminate the competition. Nothing wrong with that, it was tribal africa, nice omission. Which is NOT to excuse the issue you randomly brought up out of the blue while reading from Huffington Posts' Guide to the Illegal Founding of America.


You really do need to get back to school for history, or at least read more than the whitewashed, ethnocentric religio-history that you seem to have learned.

Ten Tortured Words: How the Founding Fathers Tried to Protect Religion in America . . . and What's Happened Since by Stephen Mansfield

The Many Faces of Alexander Hamilton: The Life and Legacy of America's Most Elusive Founding Father by Robert Martin and Douglas Ambrose

Jefferson: On my arrival in the United States, the famous French traveler Alexis de Tocqueville observed in the early nineteenth century, "the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention."
The Faiths of the Founding Fathers (Hardcover) - David Holmes


Here jackass, trying reading. It's fundamental.




See above. You need to learn history from the facts, not from the philosophy of "when the lie becomes true, print the lie".


I like this quote, this I'll use it to reiterate how incredibly banal and disturbing you are in your profound ignorance.



That depends, are we talking about members of the WBC? If so, there would be a lot of people, including many other Christians that may join us in the cheers.

That's not what I was talking about, but if it suits you, yeah, I think the WBBC is a haven for blind, stupid, and hateful people, but I am not into taking away their first amendment rights.



How much pushing and intolerance do people need, in your opinion, before it is okay to push back against a religion that has been corrupted by it's power-mad leadership since the time of the Roman empire? How much violence, hate and harassment by the powers that be from that religion is too much to you?

There's a fine line between civil protest, and in your face losing the battle protest. I remain catholic because of my faith, my belief in the historical aspects of it, and even that which exists only by reason of faith itself. Scripture, tradition,and reason are elements that make that possible. Its not reasonable, however to you because of your blind hatred of it all regardless of your beliefs. I am not a fan of Mr. Huckabee. I find him to be banal, boring, and incapable of completing a sentence that wasn't scripted somewhere by a former deacon at some protestant church based on the new revelation of the week. I do not, however wish him well.



And the violence from the right is better, how?
At the moment, my screens are filled with hateful left wingers protesting Global warming, global business, governments collapsing from enormous debt and them not getting their free checks. I am sorry, I missed the headlines where right wingers were beating store owners up and protesting capitalism.


You right wingers don't seem to get it at all. You all seem to think that it is okay to force your beliefs on others, but when people do not want to hear it, it is some demented form of justification to you lot for saying we are wrong?

Don't get it? get what? No one is forcing you to church. This is your own personal fantasy. Purely fantasy. You've got this boogey man in your head so large, cartoons of people outweighs reality. there is no talking with someone so defensive.


And what is scary and sad is that none of you get it at all.
And we should all bow and worship you because you do. What a fucktard. Please, a little humility would work if you want a blowjob from such a long distance



Think about that in the context of what you said about Prop 8 and "voting" to give people rights that are an entitlement of citizenship in this country.

That wasn't my argument and you know it, sort of. You whirled and twirled to make it to where I was against something I was not.