The Bill of Rights
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.
In reading this First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, it is clear the founders did not want government to restrict religion. Agreed? Therefore, it is clear, marriages performed and condoned by any established religion or religious organization are therefore fully legal and must be duly recognized by any state in the Union of States and the Federal Government.
State amendments and laws which prohibit marriage between two people of the same sex or civil unions between two people of the same sex, and the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) are therefore unconstitutional by application of the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and should be abolished, trumped by the U.S. Constitutional powers. It is very clearly stated in the 1st Amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,”
This clearly states religions have the authority to marry people religiously should they decide to do so, and the government has no authority to prohibit it or any right to abolish nor ignore it. Only a new amendment or the abolishment or change to the first amendment can change this authority. The U.S. Supreme Court must recognize the broad authority and freedom provided by the 1st Amenment, as must the people and the States of the United States of America.
Comments (58)
Add commentOK, Reader, I'm convinced
that you are indeed out of your mind.
Not all marriages are done as religious ceremonies so, using your logic, then could only those gay marriages performed in churches or by religious officials be legal?
LOL
You may be convinced the moon is made of cheese, it matters not to me. It is a free country and you have the freedom of choice to think what you want.
I am not saying that "only" marriages performed by churches or religious officials are the only legal marriages, I am saying that the 1st Amendment says the government has no right to restrict churches from performing marriages as they please, and the government must honor them because they cannot restrict them. The government has the ability to offer "civil" marriage also, but they cannot prohibit marriages performed by church / religious organizations.
The argument has been for years, marriage is based on Judeo / Christian principles, and there are Judeo / Christian churches today willing to marry two people of the same sex. If they do so, the government has no right to restrict it, abolish it, or to fail to recognize it, according the the 1st Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
The Best Thing
Would be to NO longer comment on any blog, thread or comment READER makes since it is the the same OLE CARP all the time.
If everyone on the LCD online gave him the reaganesque treatment and act like he doesn't exist then he might stop all his crying and whinning.
'The Best Thing would be to
'The Best Thing would be to NO longer comment on any blog, thread or comment READER makes since it is the the same OLE CARP all the time.
If everyone on the LCD online gave him the reaganesque treatment and act like he doesn't exist then he might stop all his crying and whinning.'
Oh boo on you, buzz...if you don't like what he's saying don't read it. I don't like much of what's posted, especially all the silly grade-school humor, but I either ignore it or answer accordingly. But given the totality of your posts, I'm not surprised that you'd label anything outside of your comfort zone as unworthy of your attention.
Of course anyone who has grown up in this state, like reader, knows that any time someone outside of the state's right-wing 'norm' posts about oh-so-radical things like equality for gays, minorities and women is almost always met with the same ole dismissive bs. Ridicule is and has always been the tool of bullies.
I enjoy your heartfelt posts, reader, and please continue...if but to irritate all the folks whose worldview begins with 'me' and ends with 'me.'
Thanks Kim
I'll stop boo hooing over my online audience's dislike of me and my posts. LOL. The ridicule I receive just lets me know I hit a sore point. So many people will use the 1st Amendment as grounds for the introduction of religion "X" into any type of situation. But if I try to introduce the same amendment into my argument to expand freedom, the very first comment was "you are out of your mind". LOL
I'm pushing and supporting the first amendment and the expansion of its grasp, but my online audience does not care for the direction I am pushing it, for fear I am right.
Who's crying and whining? I believe it is you Buzzby
You do not like what I say so YOU constantly whine and cry about it, and attempt with your extremely weak intelligence to condemn, harass and personally attack me for my beliefs. These are the reactions of a weak person who cannot stand the fact everyone does not believe as they do, not the reactions of a person who believes in freedom. If the LCD online posters choose to shun me as you ask, so be it, but they will be following an ignorant, bigot lemming to the cliff. Telling people to close their minds to free thinking is the message of idiots.
Gay marriage by any church is legal and the SCOTUS must recognize it and overturn all state constitutional amendments and laws prohibiting it. Even if they don't, the churches, such as MCC should stand in an act of Civil Disobedience and perform the marriages as they please, offering certification from their church. Those who marry under these acts of Civil Disobedience should stand their ground, and demand their church marriage be recognized by the state, because the 1st Amendment says the government cannot restrict the "free exercise thereof".
Um....
Constitutional scholar that you are, you're kind of leaving out an important thing here.
If you are correct, and your interpretation is sound, and if it is so obvious as to be as plain as the nose on your face, why has this not been argued to the Supreme Court? The gay rights community certainly has the resources to do so.
A: Because it's not as plain as day. States have certain rights which they retain not in the least, and ample law to show that (just as ample law to show where Federal kicks in).
Worse, were this to be argued as you argue, and were it turned down, then the (case) law of the land would be such as to further restrict marriage rights. The point being not to ask any question where the answer might be "no."
Because the real problem isn't constitutional interpretation as much as it is the semantics of the word marriage.
Marriage is generally regarded to be two things, a civil union (a union in law) and a sacred covenant (a union in the spirit). This is why marriages are often held in church, and why the person who preforms the marriage, usually a religious figure, signs a piece of paper which is entered in to public record. It's a place where religion and civil law intersect.
Which your scholarship does not acknowledge, but most certainly is a point of concern for those who would be willing to argue same-sex marriage rights to the court, and why they have yet to do so despite the resources in place.
One suggestion has been to adopt the French model, of civil unions being state-sanctioned, and marriages being church sanctioned, which is a church could not recognize the marriage, but on the civil side it is still legal.
The problem here is it would require a fairly profound retooling of social order -- which is kind of at the root of this thing after all.
The point being your argument is fairly simplistic (Internets LOL).
More condescension from Igor, the wise.
What a surprise. In one thread he says I wrongly complain of condemnation as does Buzzby the wise, then he condescendingly refers to me as a constitutional scholar, in an obvious attempt to downplay my thinking and conclusions.
Religious bigots don't like it when their argument gets turned on its head. I believe in the freedom of religion and the freedom of choice. The marriage of the two, presents arguments and possibilities we have not yet approached.
Religious groups for years have argued marriage is based in the history of Judeo/Christian faith. That faith out dates the USA by several thousand years. Using this argument, and the fact that not all Judeo/Christian faiths now agree marriage is between only a man and a woman, the churches therefore have the authority, unrestricted by the U.S. Constitution, to marry people, as they please.
Just because it has not been the argument before, does not mean it cannot be now. The issue is coming before the court soon, if my interpretation is any help, then great. If not, then so what?
To quote a famous author:
"There are more things in heaven and earth," 'Igor and Buzzby',
"Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Get over yourself and get back to that mind bending blog about sucking. I'm sure Morris Publications is just seething about it. LOL!
Username complainer vs reader
" Using this argument, and the fact that not all Judeo/Christian faiths now agree marriage is between only a man and a woman."
I think you might be wrong on that fact. There is one CHRISTIAN faith (but many denominations). And even if it was the case, there may be a few Churches that would go off this principle, in general, the RELIGION as a whole does not.
Maybe the homosexuals should just go off and form their own religion... They're forming their own society of norms....
Reader, this is EXACTLY what I was talking about when I said some gays put all the effort into putting into everyone's face (and hence the big problem a lot of people have with the whole issue).... All you did for your cause was one step forward (the first post you made), and two steps back (the other two posts you made). All you've done is annoy and anger people at this point.
Ad hominem
Hehe
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
It's a very old trick (Aristotle first made note of it): Attack the person making the point, make that person part of a group, so therefore, it is implied, all members of the group are as horrible as the person you are attacking.
Since this is a horrible person, than (the supposed "logic" goes) then the argument is not to be considered.
(aka "The Fox News Pundit approach")
Yet it remains flawed that a pure Amendment I interp makes this thing happen. Were it that simple this would've been brought before the court ages ago, but it has not.
Come to think of it, Civil Rights would've been justified by I using your scholarship, and they were not.