Athiests should not be aloud to marry....

[JohnCJ]

Constitutional law and morality are not completely seperate. Morality makes up the law, but does not enumerate it. The law can never change your morality as morality is a personal choice.

Constitutional law is interpreted by courts and our constitution enumerates certain rights guaranteed.

To add to our constitution a restriction of rights will leave those laws open to the same liberal interpretation as all the other rights.

With a conservative court a constitution marriage banning gay marriage can be interpreted as a right to moralize the law and therefor outlaw what the court determines is morally wrong.

So the 1st comandment can be interpreted into the law and legalized. With this notion it would ban the marriage of atheists, agnostics, pagans, wiccans, buddists, muslims, hindus, sikhs and and enumeral amount of other religions.

But then the first amendment would be violated because of the amendment determining morality is the law.
But then as christians our most important standard mandate given to us by God in dealing with our neighbors of loving thy neighbor would be twisted into loving thy neighbor unless I don't like what he believes.
Could a constitutional ban against gay marriage be used to ban marriage of people who do not share the same morals of christians?

(this post is in defense of non-christians rights)

 

[paxvobiscum]

"Aloud"

Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice. --Isa. lviii. 1.

LOL

 

[JohnCJ]

"Aloud"

Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice. --Isa. lviii. 1.

LOL

Oh nice avoid the question because of spelling way to go, and my spelling is off topic by the way.

 

[SqueezetheShaman]

I am sorry, what is the question??

 

[tulc]

This was serious?
tulc

 

[JohnCJ]

I am sorry, what is the question??

Could a contitutional ban on gay marriage change the law so as to allow a court to liberally interpret the law to disallow what is concidered moral be used to ban the marriage of people who don't share the morals of the court?

 

[InnerPhyre]

 

[Momzilla]

No.

 

[SqueezetheShaman]

ok i see what you are saying. this is more or less directed at those who think gays shouldn't be married. you want to know, and want them to realize that their opinion doesn't make sense because of this, right? it is a point many of us have made....that by their reasoning (marriage not approved by god) then atheists shouldnt be married either (since obviously, they aren't including god in theirs either) am i getting you now??

 

[Oblivious]

Could a contitutional ban on gay marriage change the law so as to allow a court to liberally interpret the law to disallow what is concidered moral be used to ban the marriage of people who don't share the morals of the court?

So what you're saying is that if you wish to be married, you have to have a "morality check" I don't think so....

It's my understanding that the whole gay marriage issue isn't necessarily a "moral" issues, it's also a marriage=man+woman issue which is a totally different topic and has nothing to do with the OP.

 

[JohnCJ]

ok i see what you are saying. this is more or less directed at those who think gays shouldn't be married. you want to know, and want them to realize that their opinion doesn't make sense because of this, right? it is a point many of us have made....that by their reasoning (marriage not approved by god) then atheists shouldnt be married either (since obviously, they aren't including god in theirs either) am i getting you now??

YES I just thought people would get it..

 

[Oblivious]

Also, why am I posting here after using the

in the other "Gay Marriage" thread

 

[JohnCJ]

Also, why am I posting here after using the

in the other "Gay Marriage" thread

Thanks for the

 

[Firscherscherling]

So what you're saying is that if you wish to be married, you have to have a "morality check" I don't think so....

It's my understanding that the whole gay marriage issue isn't necessarily a "moral" issues, it's also a marriage=man+woman issue which is a totally different topic and has nothing to do with the OP.

The man+woman argument is also a religious one, the idea being that some God defined marriage as that.

In my opinion, yes, such an amendment could be used as the basis for the further restriction of the minority on purely religious grounds.

 

[Oblivious]

Thanks for the

Hardly....

 

[Tangnefedd]

Many atheists, including my own husband, are much more moral than many Christians, so of course they should marry if they wish!"

 

[burrow_owl]

I think what JohnCJ is asking is something like: would a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage enable the courts to forbid other groups - like atheists - from marrying.

The answer is clearly 'no.'

 

[Neu-Timothy]

The answer is clearly 'no.'

Okay, I will bite...

why is this "clearly, no"?
not to say that I disagree with you.

 

[Tangnefedd]

In the UK they are going to legalise gay partnerships, so they have the same property and pensions rights as ordinary married couples. It will not be called marriage, but no doubt some churches will bless their union. I think that is fine an don't have a problem with it.

 

[SqueezetheShaman]

but it is NOT clearly no. if they can amend the constitution to limit rights to homosexuals, what is stopping them from doing it for atheists?