"Seperation of Church and State" in regard to gay marriage?!

[peabody71]

Seriously is that not the real issue? It's a civil rights issue that is being critisized on the basis that marriage is a sacred religious bond between a man and a woman.
Could not candidates or anyone else stop the debate cold if they simply stated "Seperation of Church and State?!

[noiretextatique]

1. it's the bottom line...that, and

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[ShimokitaJer]

2. I've always thought so

Since there are some churches that are willing to perform gay marriages, I have never understood how the government is able to selectively recognize marriages performed in certain religions.

As far as I'm concerned, there should be no debate about whether we should "allow" gays to marry. We should be talking about the fact that the government has no right to deny them marriage in the first place.

[peabody71]

4. There should be a Constitutional amendment to allow gay marriage.

No, really the Constitution should never be a consideration for much of anything.

[ShimokitaJer]

8. Actually, it shouldn't even be an issue

We don't need a Constitutional amendment, because there is nothing in the Constitution to forbid it, and there is an explicit acknowledgement by the government of marriages performed by religious institutions. Therefore, it should already be permitted under the Constitution.

The Constitution defines the LIMITS of the governement's authority over us, not the entirety of our rights as citizens.

[DuctapeFatwa]

3. Yes, the 1st amendment will have to be amended, & 14th repealed

It is not clear how Reform Jews and Unitarians who refuse to recant will be punished.

[MsUnderstood]

5. States control marriage--religion is granted a privledge to complete

The states control marriage. It is s state issue. That is why you can marry in some states at 14 and some at 18.

As a nicety, states grant religious groups the authority to complete the "ceremony" (or the couple can have the ceremony completed in a state authorized location ie city hall).

So the sepration issue is already handled (except that the relgious right is hell bent on making this a moral issue over a civil rights issue!)

[noiretextatique]

6. so is the constitutional amendment an effort to trump states' rights?

based on religious (moral) beliefs? still seems to be a question of separation of church and state.

[AP]

7. That's where Edwards is going. He's says that in every respect in which

the Federal Gov't has anything to say about marriage, the rights conferred should be conferred equally to people who are married and people who are same-sex couples.

He's separating out the rights from the religion parts and saying the government should not be in the business of looking for religioun to give government the nod when dolling out material rights.

[TheRedMan]

9. Were it not a constitutional amendment, yes

But the fact that it is being considered as an amendment changes the perspective. If an ordinary LAW were unconstitutional, it would be DOA. But the amendment changes the definition of constitutional, even if it flies in the original spirit of the Constitution (e.g. 18th, and for different reasons, the 17th).

Especially given that the "separation of church and state" argument is NOT taken for granted by the right, who have developed the inane argument that "the 1st amendment keeps the government out of church, not the church out of government." In fact, the establishment clause does EXACTLY keep the church out of government. That said, there is nothing to stop the debate COLD, because most people insane enough to like this amendment also won't buy your argument against it.