Isn't using religion for gay's not to marry against the Constitution?

[FreedomAngel82]

I was thinking about this earlier and not allowing gay's to marry because you're a homophobe bigot and use religion as your purpose is against the Constitution. In the first amendment it states how you can't make a law using religion and even though it isn't a law a lot of state's would never have it even if it was going to be a national law and states can not go by something from DC (I know one state said they weren't going to follow the Patriot Act). Going against the Patriot Act is right because a lot of rules that's in there is against the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Earlier today at church in my class this guy brought up being gay. He's a counselor with a Christian organization and he was telling how he had someone in his office talking to him and before he left he asked if he thought someone could choose to be gay or not. The guy said he thought no because in the Bible it states God created us in his image, man and woman a like. Now I was going to speak up but they already moved onto another subject so fast and I never got a chance to speak (I'm really going to start trying harder cause I'm tired of kicking myself in the butt) but my theory is they don't choose. Why do I say that? Because look at what has happened in this country to people who are gay. Matthew Shepard is the great example. Why would someone one morning wake up and go: "Oh what a lovely day today. I think I'm going to be gay" and risk being beaten and murdered like that and ridiculed among your peers (especially in the Bible belt) and lose friends you once had and not be able to play sports because of a bunch of homophobes? Also you better re-do a lot of the patriotic songs where it talks about the land of the free and the home of the brave and change the pledge because not everybody in this country is free or gets justice. Just my thoughts.

[movonne]

1. Yes but the bible is more important than the constitution...Is that not

what the repugs are telling us...

[FreedomAngel82]

2. Obviously

Which is disgusting and our founding fathers are turning over in their graves. I think it's up to us to show this to people. Obviously when Bush came into office he did illegally and has been pissing on the Constiution and Bill of Rights ever since.

[POAS]

3. Constitution?

We don't need no stinking Constitution!

We got Bush, Bible and bullets!

[bertha katzenengel]

4. But they will argue that they are NOT using their religious beliefs.

Instead they're using an appeal to tradition, which is just as baseless. :shrug:

But you're right: we gay folk do not choose to be gay. And those of us who are harassed, fired, beaten up, burned nearly to death (google Bob La Font of Long Beach, CA), dragged behind trucks, beaten in our barracks, those of us whose churches are picketed, or who attend churches, for special occasions, which are then picketed because we're there, and whose FUNERALS are picketed with signs that say we got what we deserved and that we're burning in hell?

No. We didn't choose it. Given what we face, if we COULD change, many of us would. Many of us have tried. Many of those have died as a result.

[FreedomAngel82]

8. Exactly

So all this "they choose to be gay" is bullshit. Why would someone want that in their life and be treated the way they are in their country?

[bertha katzenengel]

9. You know what answer they'll come back with? It's because

the sex is so good. The debauched, hedonistic, multiple-partner, unprotected sex, the orgies, the drugs, etc. . . . We only work so we can have enough money to party and have as much gay sex as possible. That's why we choose. Why, that kind of sinning just feels so good, we'll do anything for it. Even risk death.

I swear to god, that is what they think. So hell yes, in their minds, we choose.

edit: it really is a masterpiece of mindless generalization, isn't it?

[Coastie for Truth]

5. Using the Bible as justification to pass any law

is an "establishment of religion". Going a step further, if another person's faith permits the conduct -- then the new law "prohibits the free exercise.."(see footnote 1). Going a step further, one can argue that denial of legal rights and benefits to gays in civil unions or gay marriages that are normally granted to married couples violates the "privileges and immunities" and "equal protection" clauses of the 14th Amendment. (see footnote 2)

But, alas, Congressman DeLay and Senators Cornyn, Santorum, and Frist will withold the pay, impeach, and cause physical harm to any Judge who interprets the law that way.

Footnotes

1. Amendment I - 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.

2. Amendment XIV - Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[serryjw]

7. Excellent

you best me to posting the IVX amendment. Nobody in DC has read it. Did you EVER read Scalia's opinions?

[Technowitch]

6. Actually, you're right, in my opinion

Reason? Because there are quite a few religions out there that have NO problem with same-sex marriages -- and have been performing solemnization ceremonies for years, if not decades.

Unitarians, Reformed Jews, Wiccans, and lots of other denominations are perfectly willing to perform and recognize same-sex marriages.

Thus, when the right-wingers and fundamentalists go on about the need to "preserve the sanctity of marriage" -- they are attempting to force *their* definition as to what is 'sacred'.

And 'sacred' is and will always be a religious definition.

From the Encarta dictionary:
sa·cred sáykrid adj
1. devoted to deity: dedicated to a deity or religious purpose
2. of religion: relating to or used in religious worship
3. worthy of worship: worthy of or regarded with religious veneration, worship, and respect
4. dedicated to somebody: dedicated to or in honor of somebody
5. inviolable: not to be challenged or disrespected

<14th century. Originally the past participle of archaic sacre “to consecrate,” via Old French sacrer from Latin sacrare , from sacr- , the stem of sacer “holy, sacred.”>

Thus, we do have one group of religions (those opposed to same-sex marriage) attempting to impose their views on everyone else -- even those whose beliefs include the legitimacy and recognition of same-sex unions.

-Technowitch

[theboss]

10. What Constitution are you reading?

Look...not to be crass...but if we are going to win on these types of issues, we need to know what the hell the Constituion says.

The First Amendment states:

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

No wasy, does it say "using."