Holy Crap! I might actually be able to help my gay friends.

[Melodybe]

My husband and I were talking last night about the gay marriages in San Fran this week, the religious right says that religion defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Well if one looks at religions throughout history the concept of marriage differs from culture to culture. The Sioux for example respected that some men chose to live the life of women. They could marry and inherit property. For the opponents of gay marrige to say that religion dictates marriage between a man and a woman is obsurd. To turn their argument on its head, one could argue that this is not only a case of right to happiness but a case of religious freedom. The government has no right to choose which religions we respect and which we do not.

I got in touch with the law offices of Dennis Herrerra, the city attorney suing the state for gay marriage, and his people want me to write up a report talking about the many religions were gay marriage is respected. They said that my arguemen was insightful and that I should gather literature on the subject.

I am so happy that in some small way I might get to help my many gay friends, logically and historically their case does not hold water, lets stick it to the bastards!

[waylon]

1. Judeo christian law....

Thats what the US and state constitutions are modeled on...so I think the argument will go, you can get married in a Sioux ritual, but the state doesnt have to recognize it.

[David__77]

4. Only right-wingers accept that premise.

The Founding Fathers were deists--some were outright atheist--I don't accept that there was a "Judeo-Christian" conception in this sense. The ecumenism was broader than just Christianity or Judaism. In any event, the rationalism of the American revolutionary movement was opposed to making law on the basis of religious dogma--"natural law" was founded upon very different principles of human liberty, not some sort of theocracy.

[waylon]

6. Youll need Ginsberg herself to sell that one...

Your point, sematically embellished as it is, is that the US constitution is NOT grounded in judeo christian law and, everyone should agree on THAT premise because,...you dont accept the alternative. Good luck in court!

[wryter2000]

7. It's not grounded in any religion

The only reference to religion in the Constitution is in the Bill of Rights, Amendment 1, which states that Congress shall write no laws concerning the establishment of a state religion nor prohibiting the free expression of religion.

There's no reference to any God of any kind or Jesus in our Constitution. There is a reference to a Creator in the Declaration of Independence, but it sounds like a Deist Creator to me.

[waylon]

10. here is the distinction...

although no "specific" mention of god or christianity is in the constitution, that WAS their frame of reference in drafting it. To argue otherwise is like saying that kids brought up as Mormons wont incorporate that philosophy into EVERY aspect of their lives. But more importantly, its not my argument to make.

I think I may have sidetracked here in playing the devils advocate. The real question is, how do you think the courts (9th district aside) will handle this?

Perhaps I was suggesting a different way of approaching the issue. Or, are you comfortable in foretelling victory based on this religious argument?

[David__77]

9. The burden is to establish the opposite of what I said.

There is no burden to establish that there is not such foundational basis. The burden is on those who wish to proclaim this. The Constitution is a secular document.

On precisely what basis can one claim that the law is derived from Judaism or Christianity, much less that it must conform to these doctrines?

I think, though, that I would rather like to argue against such a position, with as many linguistic "embellishments" as possible, I might add...

[waylon]

11. Feel free to do so...

But history will kick you in the pants, so to speak.

Again, its not really my argument to make but if you feel comfortable in claiming that the founding fathers didnt incorporate their philosophy into the constitution, by all means go ahead.

The fact is, christians are in the majority and have been since the revolution. To presume, and I use that word specifically, that our founding fathers were able to detach their religious beliefs from their politics is ignorant. More importantly, to think that the courts wont recognize that point, is foolish and a waste of time.

[David__77]

13. But were the Founding Fathers even Christians?

I understand that they were mainly deists whose God was natural law as defined by the "power of reason." The stuff they said wasn't called heresy by the counter-revolutionaries for no reason.

At a minimum, it is highly contestable that "Judeo-Christian" law should govern state actions. And a good many Christians and Jews especially would agree with me.

[waylon]

18. They were politicians in the age of reason....

Naturally they would trend toward pop culture. I assume that they were as subject to the trends of the time as our current political lot. Does that mean christian ideas of morality and perspectives on justice werent part of their philosophy? Hard to believe so.

And, at a minimum, its ridiculous to assume that christian values DONT govern state actions. We can argue point by point but the fact that a huge majority of US citizens are christians should be enough to clarify where most people look to for moral guidance, rules of civility and our codes of conduct. Its doubtful that a good many jews or christians would agree that this nation isnt built on a religious foundation.

[fob]

5. Someone relevant disagrees with that statement

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
George Washington (1732 - 1799)

[jonnyblitz]

17. what in hell is judeo-christian law?

this is all news to me...sounds pretty fucking scary.

[waylon]

19. Old testament, that kinda thing n/t

[mouse7]

2. Excellent work!

Your making a real difference. You should be proud. :)

[BootinUp]

3. bravo! -eom-

[DuctapeFatwa]

8. Cool! You go, girl!

Either we're a secular state, or a theocracy with doctrine of a particular religious sect hardwired into the constitution.

Let's get it out! Clear the air, and settle the question.

[displacedtexan]

12. As you research Native American mores...

Check out the fact that many tribes recognize many more forms of human sexuality (genders) than we do. I remember studying that years ago. They recognize men trapped in women's bodies as a separate gender, women trapped in men's bodies, etc. And all "genders" are considered equal because in their culture, it's not "who" you are but what you contribute to society that matters.

Perhaps the most important concept of sexuality in Native American culture is that of 'Two Spirit' people, who have the superior characteristics of both men and women. They are highly esteemed, because they can communicate and understand the perspectives of both men and women. The Two Spirit people I know would be judged as gay men by the larger society, but because of their spirituality they seem to actually have something different than gay men from the larger society.

Dr. Terry Tofoya (prof of psych) has more info:

www.tamanawit.com

[Melodybe]

15. Thanks I need all the help I can get, I want to do a good job

and I want my arguement to be bulletproof. There are tons of informed folks on this board any help will be greatly appreciated.

[The Traveler]

14. Great!

I have been toying with similar thoughts recently ... you got off yer butt and did something! Good on ya. BTW if you need help researching it I gotta hunch there would be a small army of volunteers found here ...

Your friends should be very proud of ya!

:yourock:

[duhneece]

16. Some 20 years ago, the Mescalero Apache Medicine man

was gay. In some sense, his being gay added to his shamanic position. At least that was how it was explained to me by another Mescalero Apache I knew at the time. If I come up with any contact, I will let you know. I don't have a clue how you would research this.