Same-sex marriages are now legal in Florida

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

The fact is that in this nation, the enforcement of a particular religious system was the express prohibition of the Constitution (not separation of church and state but rather Anti-Establishment).

Something we agree on.

 

[hankroberts]

Something we agree on.

Heh. Well, I was confident there had to be something.

 

[imind]

Just a general note to everyone: I'm experiencing some severe bandwidth problems with my internet provider, so if I don't respond promptly it is not because I refuse but because I cannot. If you've posted to me and not gotten a response, prompt me and I'll try.

no problem...don't know if you missed my post...
http://www.christianforums.com/t7859765-20/#post66998300

 

[hankroberts]

no problem...don't know if you missed my post...
http://www.christianforums.com/t7859765-20/#post66998300

I did. I'll try to get to it shortly. Still having problems.

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

Technically, since that is the law, you actually would have a moral duty to do that.

And technically this is incorrect.

Compliance with a law for the sake of the law or it's consequence constitures a legal obligation, not a moral duty.

Now, if one were to perceive an inherent sense that to violate such law would be "wrong" or otherwise unconscionable and the person felt compelled to only act in accordance with what they perceived to be "right", only then would it become a moral duty.

 

[Metal Minister]

And technically this is incorrect.

Compliance with a law for the sake of the law or it's consequence constitures a legal obligation, not a moral duty.

Now, if one were to perceive an inherent sense that to violate such law would be "wrong" or otherwise unconscionable and the person felt compelled to only act in accordance with what they perceived to be "right", only then would it become a moral duty.

Question, if you fail to use your signal light, and cause a collision that kills another driver, is that not a moral issue?

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

Question, if you fail to use your signal light, and cause a collision that kills another driver, is that not a moral issue?

No, it is not a moral issue in the eye's of our justice system.

If you are asking if I (personally) would feel sympathy or that I was responsible for the death in some part than yes, I would feel guilty on some level.

And if you are asking if I believe that a person should feel some duty to act in a manner that does not victimize others than yes, I do. But that sentiment is idealistic and not mirrored by the legal system.

I do not think you understand the context of my comment towards HankRoberts so I will ask a question that might help:

Is morality in itself a legally enforcable ideal according to the US Constitution?

 

[hankroberts]

And technically this is incorrect.

Compliance with a law for the sake of the law or it's consequence constitures a legal obligation, not a moral duty.

Now, if one were to perceive an inherent sense that to violate such law would be "wrong" or otherwise unconscionable and the person felt compelled to only act in accordance with what they perceived to be "right", only then would it become a moral duty.

You seem to presume the two are mutually exclusive. On what grounds?

My point was that the grounding for the law is in the religious value of life and property, not that any specific religious teaching carries moral obligation to the individual ( I think it does, but that's a separate topic).

 

[hankroberts]

I'm still experiencing internet bandwidth problems, but I'll try to get through this.

We've already been through all of this a couple of times, but I'll try once more before giving up...

you are the one making the claim that "we have a clearly established and longstanding meaning of the term as a man/woman union"...you support it.

Already asked and answered:
• "What is marriage? Marriage is defined according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Jones v. Hallahan like this: "Marriage was a custom long before the state commenced to issue licenses for that purpose. In all cases, marriage has always been considered as the union of a man and a woman, and we have been presented with no authority to the contrary."
• If you look in Black's Law Dictionary it says this: "Marriage is defined as the civil status, condition or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life for the discharge to each other and the community of duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex."
• Webster says this: "Marriage is a state of being married or being united to a person or persons of the opposite sex as husband and wife. Also the mutual relation of husband and wife abstractly, the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social, legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."

where in the law does it state that clearly established things cannot change?

Already asked and answered:
If someone wants to claim that marriage is an inherent right, then it comes from our Creator and we do not get to change what it means. If someone wants to decide it is NOT a right, but a privilege and liberty (which is actually the truth) then it is subject to being changed, given appropriate warrant. So far, no on has offered sound reason to do that.

they must show a legitimate reason for excluding gays from marrying.

Already asked and answered:
Homosexuals are not excluded from engaging in marriage: the law treats homosexuals exactly as it treats everyone else. They are free to engage in a marriage (by definition) exactly the same as anyone else.

no, loving doesn't touch 'legitimate' discrimination as applied to marriage and makes no mention that its ruling applies solely to discrimination based on immutable traits.

I was referring to the Supreme Court criteria for inclusion in a "suspect class" for legitimate claims to (unlawful) discrimination:
Shortly after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the U.S. Supreme Court began to issue (and reaffirm) a series of Civil Rights decisions which soon added limitations (to counterbalance the incentives) to the process of seeking suspect class status. In essence, the High Court put a “fence” around suspect status, in the interest of ensuring that the status remain open only to disadvantaged, politically powerless classes that truly needed government protection. The High Court did so by establishing three criteria by which prospective suspect classes might be evaluated, and by which some failing to meet the qualifications might be fenced out if necessary [note that the Court required any group to demonstrate that they meet all three of the criteria]:

Criterion #1: Prospective suspect classes should have experienced a history of severe societal oppression, evidenced by an entire “class-averaged” lack of ability to obtain economic mean income, adequate education, or cultural opportunity.

Criterion #2: Prospective suspect classes should, “averaged” as entire classes, clearly demonstrate political powerlessness.

Criterion #3: Prospective suspect classes should exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics, like race, color, gender or national origin, that define them as discrete (and permanent) groups.

[Cf. San Antonio Independent School Distric vs. Rodriguez, 1973; Massachusetts Board of Retirement vs. Murgia, 1976; Plyler vs. Doe, 1982; City of Cleburne vs. Cleburne Living Center, 1985; reaffirmed in Jantz vs. Muci, 1991, denied cert., U.S. S.Ct; cf. also Frontiero vs. Richardson, 1973.]

equal protection and due process are not limited merely to discrimination

Already asked/answered. Homosexuals have equal protection under existing laws, to engage in marriage as recognized by the courts.

they are not seeking the right to redefine marriage AS THERE IS NO 'RIGHT' TO DEFINE MARRIAGE

Ah, finally something on which we agree. The court does not define marriage; it recognizes the pre-existing definition of marriage. As already established. And of course, your point clearly states that homosexuals are inappropriate in petitioning the government to change that definition. Thank you for verifying that.

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

You seem to presume the two are mutually exclusive. On what grounds?

Which two, moral duty and legal obligation?

If so based on the fact that though I might have a legal obligation to comply with a given law I may choose to comply only because I do not want to experience the ramifications of non-compliance all while never perceiving myself to be acting in any manner that might comprimise my personal ethic.

My point was that the grounding for the law is in the religious value of life and property, not that any specific religious teaching carries moral obligation to the individual ( I think it does, but that's a separate topic).

I think that value of life and property is not exclusive to religion nor that the Founders expressed any religious grounding when they said "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

I understand that at this point you often like to interject the Founders mentiong of "their Creator," but this was not specific to any one entity. Which is why Constitutional scholars argue that the word being used is "their"- which is personal and exclusive to an individual -instead of "our" - which is general, indicative of a group, and inclusive of all persons that may be part of said group (The American People).

 

[hankroberts]

Which two, moral duty and legal obligation?

If so based on the fact that though I might have a legal obligation to comply with a given law I may choose to comply only because I do not want to experience the ramifications of non-compliance all while never perceiving myself to be acting in any manner that might comprimise my personal ethic.



I think that value of life and property is not exclusive to religion nor that the Founders expressed any religious grounding when they said "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

I understand that at this point you often like to interject the Founders mentiong of "their Creator," but this was not specific to any one entity. Which is why Constitutional scholars argue that the word being used is "their"- which is personal and exclusive to an individual -instead of "our" - which is general, indicative of a group, and inclusive of all persons that may be part of said group (The American People).

I think that value of life and property is not exclusive to religion

The statement was not that these things are in any way "exclusive to religion".

nor that the Founders expressed any religious grounding when they said "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

actually, yes, they did. Those historical records are still there if you care to go back and look at them.

I understand that at this point you often like to interject the Founders mentiong of "their Creator," but this was not specific to any one entity.

Actually, yes, they were: they referenced specifically the Christian God and the teachings of Christianity. As mentioned, those references still exist if you care to look at them. From the writings of virtually all of those founders we can get direct, specific references to Christianity and to God, and from many references to the Bible, specifically.

The Founders were very careful to prohibit the founding or funding of any specific religion as a state institution, but their own beliefs were clear, openly expressed, and are well documented.

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

The statement was not that these things are in any way "exclusive to religion".

Ok, than I agree.

I want to add a clarification regarding mutual exclusivity:I am not saying that these two things cannot exist concurrently. But that legal obligation does not necessitate moral duty. Though, in a given circumstance that both legal obligation and moral duty might exist certainly is a possibility.

actually, yes, they did. Those historical records are still there if you care to go back and look at them.

I think we are touching on a separate issue here that is important and relevant, but could derail the SSM conversation in this thread.

I believe that the amount of disagreement amongst Constitutional scholars speaks towards the issue of Christianity being the grounding of the US Constitution.

At best it might be said, "A number of scholars and historians believe Christianity is the grounding of the Constitution based on ______. While another number believes that the grounding is natural religion, epicurean thought, universalism, or some other thing based on ____."

It is a debated issue, we must admit that.

Actually, yes, they were: they referenced specifically the Christian God and the teachings of Christianity. As mentioned, those references still exist if you care to look at them. From the writings of virtually all of those founders we can get direct, specific references to Christianity and to God, and from many references to the Bible, specifically.

In regards to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" many argue that Jefferson (a professed Epicurean thinker who once said to his nephew, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.) was actually referencing The Two Treastises of Government by John Locke.

My point being that the US Constitution being grounded in Christianity is at best debatable, and that all Founders being Christians is inaccurate. That is based on specific references, just the same ad you purport to have.

However, I think this issue begs another thread separate, though relevant to, this one.

The Founders were very careful to prohibit the founding or funding of any specific religion as a state institution, but their own beliefs were clear, openly expressed, and are well documented.

As individuals, yes. But beyond what natural moral grounding that belief structure presented which would exist regardless of their possible inference of religion, my understanding is that religion itself or any reference to a specific religion (absent of dating) was absent in the actual Declaration and the US Constitution.

This was affirmed in the language used in The Treaty of Tripoli which wad unanimously ratified by the US Senate in 1797, just 21 years after the Declaration was signed. It says:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

You would think that if the language was not correct that then President, signer of the Declaration, and practicing Protestant Congregationalist John Adams would have at least asked for a revision. But he did not, he signed willingly.

Now again, I think we are bordering on a separate issue here.

 

[StephanieSomer]

John Adams, not Sam.

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

John Adams, not Sam.

Yes, thank you. My mistake. Samuel Adams was also a Congregationalist and signed the Declaration.

To add, later in life John Adams became a Unitarian. So by this forums Statement of Faith he would not be considered a Christian.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread is closed for staff review

 

[James Is Back]

Mod Hat On

This thread has been reopened and undergone a thread cleanup due to flaming,graphic detail and discussions of homosexuality that is in violation of this thread Discussion of Same-Sex Marriage and Gay Rights so if your post is missing that is why. Please read the Sitewide Rules,Statement Of Purpose,Posting Protocol and other sticky threads relating to the rules of conduct of CF.

Mod Hat Off​

 

[TheChristianSurvivalGuide]

Such policies are ridiculous and archaic. There should be some place within these forums to discuss these current and relevant issues amongst other Christians.

 

[NewEnglandGirl]

I don't believe that religious organizations/churches should be coerced into accepting/conducting same-sex or other non-traditional marriages, nor should they be punished, civilly or criminally for NOT doing so. Nor should they be "infiltrated" to force change from within. Separation of church and state means the state keeping its nose out of the church's business as well. There are plenty of other venues and methods to conduct non-traditional marriages without forcefully bending the religious bodies to your will.

 

[Aldebaran]

The reason you can't seem to win is because there are many Christians, like myself, that do recognize the legitimate and just claims of some who do not name the Name of Christ, simply because their claims agree with Scriptural tenets. And, you can't see it. Not everything an unbeliever supports is automatically anti-God. You need to drop the idea that everything you support is necessarily Scriptural, because is isn't. Not a one of us has everything in Scriptural order. To believe that we do is incredibly arrogant.

You didn't really address what I said at all.

 

[David Brider]

I don't believe that religious organizations/churches should be coerced into accepting/conducting same-sex or other non-traditional marriages, nor should they be punished, civilly or criminally for NOT doing so. Nor should they be "infiltrated" to force change from within. Separation of church and state means the state keeping its nose out of the church's business as well. There are plenty of other venues and methods to conduct non-traditional marriages without forcefully bending the religious bodies to your will.

True.

It is, however, worth bearing in mind that there are Christian churches, and other religious organisations, who are more than happy to conduct same-sex wedding services, and they should be perfectly entitled to do so according to their conscience.