BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning

Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 07:11 PM

Sure takes your mind off the war, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 06:31 PM

Well delineated, John.

As far as this "protecting the institution of marriage" codswallop is concerned, I fail to see how the fact that Paul and Philip llve together as a married couple, as do Linda and Margaret, is, in any way a threat to Barbara'a and my marriage. I don't see that it affects us or any other heterosexual couple at all.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: pdq
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 06:31 PM

JohnInKansas,

Thank you for another intelligent and informed answer. I will re-read it a few times before commenting (or not).

There are at least 20 thousand men in the state of Utah alone who have taken more than one wife. Their children may total 1/4 million, most of whom are well cared-for and healthy, unlike many children produced in our big cities. From a practical standpoint, anything done by the authorities will cause great hardship on these people, especially the children.

Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 06:31 PM

Observation:

Those attempting to counter this latest BusShite gambit (dare I say Hail Mary Pass?) which is founded upon total rejection of rational thought and solid information by employing facts and reasoned argument are wasting their time.

Fundamentalism revels in and celebrates its ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 06:22 PM

It's worth noting that whether in a religious marriage or a civil one, the the couple do not "get married" by the priest, minister or registrar (or whatever). The job of the priest etc etc is not to marry the couple, but to to act as a kind of special witness to a marrtiage actually carried out by the couple. In circumstances where it is impossible for the priest etc etc to be available, it's perfectly possible for the couple to marry in their absence.

Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 05:48 PM

In partial response particularly to pdq.

Traditionally nearly all religions have their own sacraments and rules pertaining to the "holy union" of two persons. Most religions provide rules for declaring the intent to "marry," prescribe particular promises to be made, provide for witnessing by the congregation and blessing by the leader(s) of the faith. Church records of all this "sacred joining" have been kept "religiously" in the churches.

When civil authorities began to attempt to require Civil Licensing of marriages, there was tremendous complaint from the churches that the government was infringing in their religious rites.

The Civil justification for licensing, and requiring the public declaration of "an agreement to be married" is based on the right of the community to know when a "Civil partnership" is formed, since such partnership affects how the parties to the agreement are able and entitled to act in their Civil (legal) relationship with the rest of the community.

The principal way in which the Civil Marriage Contract affects the parties to the contract and the rest of the community with which they deal is in the ownership of and responsibility for property, the contracting of, and responsibility for repayment of, debts and obligations by either of the parties on behalf of the "partnership."

It has, in its legal intent, no "Sacred" value, anymore than the Civil filing of intent to form a corporation or any form of business partnership.

It is permitted by law, but NOT REQUIRED, that persons forming the association that is, unfortunately, named a Civil Marriage, may observe whatever sacrements, rites, and obligations their faith may separately impose.

It is permitted by law in most places that those who render the sacraments and rites of any faith may have those rites stand in lieu of the taking of oaths (or making of promises) before a Civil Authority, provided in most cases that parties to the "contract" include the minimum requirements of the law. This typically means that they each assert that they intend to take the Civil status required by the law, that they each do so freely and voluntarily, and that there are witnesses to their acceptance of the legal requirements of the contract.

The church/faith may add to the minimum declarations required by the Civil contract any and all additional promises, conditions, rites, and observances are appropriate to the Sacred Union demanded by their faith.

It has taken many years to get the distinction between Civil requirements and Sacred rites somewhat clear in the law, and many people have devoted a great deal of time and effort to assuring that the Civil law (for the most part) does not encroach on the Sacred rites of any religion. The job is imperfectly done in many places.

If the definition advanced by the "fundies" is to be taken seriously, that the Civil Marriage Contract and the Sacred Marriage Rites and Sacraments are interchangeably the same, then all existing Civil Marriages are illegal, since according to the Constitution:

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.

The prohibition against polygamous marriage is "justified" in the lawbooks as reflecting the need for the public to have clear knowledge of the ownership of property adherent to the marriage. IMO this is a farce, since this law is clearly the imposition of religious doctrine without satisfactory demonstration of an attendant Civil need; but nothing's perfect in this world - yet.

Most of the laws relating to Civil Marriage, and the dissolution of such contracts, relate quite specifically how the property and debts of the partners are affected by the Civil Contract. Even the custody of children treats them as a "property" of the marriage, (since this is the only legal pretext the CIVIL law has found to assert control over the childrens' welfare) which may explain some of the bizarre laws extant.

There is no good reason why persons who exist in the eyes of the law should not be able to form any CIVIL Contract of Association, whether corporate, partnership, or charitable trust, on the same basis as any other persons - unless one insists on imposing ONE RELIGION'S DOCTRINE on all the people.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 05:44 PM

I suppose if people want to marry flags it's harmless enough. No worse than worshipping them.

Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 02:51 PM

Amos,

Do the same thing the Poor People did: March on Washington.

I chose not to add my name because in fact it isn't my business that your Constitution is being corrupted. And, I have many times been to jail for civil disobedience. Maybe it's time some Americans got disobedient and let their government know that all is not right with the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 02:46 PM

The Constitution does not put restrictions on marriage, and should have no business doing so. Essentially the rationale of "legitimacy" in marriage is a cultural issue born from the minds and religous or other convictions of individual citizens. Mandating it at a Federal level flies into the teeth of the whole concept of individual freedoms, and makes the national charter into a goddamned theocracy willing to impose shallow moral judgements on its entiore citizenry out of purblind shortsighted bigotry.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: Scoville
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 01:49 PM

I'm so mad about this I can't even come up with words to describe it. If they want to protect marriage, mandate premarital counseling. See how that one goes over with the smaller-government set.

None of my gay friends has ever tried to convert me. None of them is out to destroy the institution of marriage. Some of them have, however, been deeply adversely affected by the fact that same-sex partners do not have the same civil rights as opposite-sex spouses.

Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: pdq
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 01:48 PM

If the government has no right to define a marriage as "between one man and one woman" how can they have the right to put other restrictions on it? Many countries and some religions allow a man to have two or more wives. That is much more reasonable (and traditional) than marriages between two men (or between two women).

Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 01:37 PM

Good timing on Turner Classic Movies' part. They just showed Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

Democrats say the amendment is a divisive bow to religious conservatives, and point out that it conflicts with the GOP's opposition to big government interference. Sometimes I am still proud to be a Democrat.

Gay friendly orgs. in Colorado have been spending a good amount on very well-done tv ads, recently, to combat the social conservatives. It's good to see someone fight back.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 01:30 PM

Dear Guest,

Since you are clearly willing to stand up and be counted in your wisdom, what do you believe us poor ignorant citizens of the United States should do by way of "fighting"?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 01:27 PM

While Americans have purchased ATVs and new CDs, the Bush administration has corrupted that noble old document. If you are not willing to fight for your liberty, you deserve to have it taken away from you.

Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 01:20 PM

This is another glorious demonstration that the Bush League doesn't have a clue—or more likely, doesn't give a damn—about the purpose of the Constitution of the United States. The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the government. It is not its purpose to regulate the behavior of private citizens.

Two important principles upon which the government of this country is founded:

1. The government is not allowed to do anything, unless it is specifically permitted by the Constitution.

2. Private citizens are free to do anything they want, unless it is specifically forbidden by the Law.

Various government officials—including (particularly) the President of the United States—are required, before taking office, to take an oath that they will "preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States." The Constitution is not to be used as a tool for partisan politics. It is most definitely not to be used for partisan politics!

To use the Constitution in this manner degrades it and demotes its importance. There are crypto-tyrants in this country who would find a weakened Constitution very convenient. So it's not just a political move. There is more going on here than meets the eye.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 01:01 PM

I've never said that flag burning WAS impossible outside cop shops, etc. Just that those sorts of places (including military recruiting stations) should be where it's allowed. Of course, those who do that sort of thing should be willing to take the consequences....

If the 60s taught "protesters" nothing else, it taught them how to manipulate the media.

Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: GUEST,right wing zealot
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 12:53 PM

I would not deem flag burning impossible outside the VFW, Marine base, fire station etc.

Veterans benefits have taken huge hits during this administration...the Marine Corps has taken a big hit from Rumsfeld's policies - explicit and illicit... and many firemen can not afford to live in the city they protect and have taken large budget, HSS and salary cuts.

gay burning however will be allowed to flourish under religious law.

Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 12:42 PM

Bobad, read "effort", not Agency.

And what did Boabard exprees in a nutshell - arrogance, Amos?

Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 12:32 PM

"Governments should not be in the business of social engineering."

They shouldn't be, but they are. Think 'school systems' and curriculums.

Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: Sorcha
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 12:27 PM

Hey ho, let's ban right turns (or left, depending) on red lights! Surely they are unconstitutional!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 12:16 PM

The arrogance of these pig-eyed narrow-minded bigots never ceases to astonish me.

Bobad has expressed it in a nutshell.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 11:31 AM

I think that flag burning should be illegal except in designated areas: outside the American Legion, VFW, Marine Corps League, etc., police stations, fire stations, and so on. Otherwise it should be treated as something like "outdoor burning without a permit" or "air pollution." Don't make a big deal of it, rob it of its new value.

"Marriage" consists of two parts: the civil union and the church ceremony. If the church doesn't want to give its blessing, fine. But religion services is not the baliwick of civil society. "Render unto Caesar" etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: bobad
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 11:24 AM

"I think it would be more advantageous for Society if we spent this effort on preventing divorce."

Governments should not be in the business of social engineering.

Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: Sorcha
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 11:08 AM

So, what will happen to the same sex couples that were married under Massachusetts law???? And their children????

Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 10:58 AM

I think it would be more advantageous for Society if we spent this effort on preventing divorce.

With regard to flag burning, I read where the US had only 6 to 8 flag burnings last year. Why? Not illegal, so no photo ops of Cops making arrests or possible brutality mention.

Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: MarkS
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 10:53 AM

Rapaire, you are right but at least our representatives now have something they can put into their newsletters to show the voters in their districts that they really care.
But hey, I'm from New Jersey so when it comes to politics, I do not have any high expectations.

Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 10:44 AM

Both are red herrings, setting up false trails away from the REAL problems the country faces.

Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: GUEST,Donald Hakman
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 10:42 AM

The marriage ammendment is bigoted and mean spirited but more importantly it removes all states rights to decide their own standard regarding domestic relations/love.

It is Federalism at its most intrusive.

btw the ammendment would deny people from caring for children if they are not bound by lawful marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 10:07 AM

If we can't use the United States Constitution to make people behave properly, then what the hell IS it for? That's what I wanna know. We should add an amendment outlawing the consumption of fish on Friday (just as well, because as of next Friday there won't be any) and also washing one's hands before dinner. Hey -- this here is the UNITED States, remember? We should set some standards. And throw in driving on the right, the normal way, while you're at it. Oh, and natonal ID tags and no drinking until you're eighteen, too. Make it twenty one. I don't care what the French think, either. Twenty-one.
And handkerchiefs. Make 'em use handkerchiefs, especially the menfolk. It was good enough for Granpaw, and he was a REAL gentleman. He even kilt an Injun once, even it if it was a young one.


A

Subject: BS: Flag Marriage and Gay Burning
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Jun 06 - 09:50 AM

Constitutional ammendments by the Rove machine have one purpose, and that is to mobilize pea brained zealots (otherwise known as "the base".

Such crass and base ammendments are laughable but are currently taking up the grueling 3 day work week of Congress.

As a result important matters are being ignored.

How about a Constitutional ammendment to pass an SAT test to sit as President? Or ban more than two left hand turns on a yellow light...
Or: