Supreme Court won't test constitutionality of Ten Commandments monument on statehouse grounds

[sctmom]

I keep looking but I just don't see an answer.

 

Please type slower for dumb little old me

< grin >

 

HOW does it weaken traditional marriages?

 

[evmori]

OK. Soap box down. Standing on top.

 

Would someone please show or tell me where in the Constitution it says church & state should be separate? I have never seen this. What it does say is the government shall endorse no religion or deter the free expression of any religion.

 

Step down. Pick up soap box.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

Here's the supreme court's interpretation, from EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947), which also cites some of REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES

 

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

[Dedicated Dad]

HOW does it weaken traditional marriages? (Revisited)It weakens the concept of the traditional, best equipped, ideal family unit. It weakens the traditional family unit because giving equal status perverts the concept of a man/woman relationship and its role in survival of the species. Based on the procreative aspects of marriage the best equipped family is one that has both a stable man and woman for parenting, each to give the lessons and values unique to each gender, giving equal status weakens this concept down the raod. And, because it is the best equipped family unit it is the ideal family. If equal status is given to same-sex couples, then its fair to say bi-sexual triads or more should be granted similar status and next of course would be the incestual marriage followed by the bestial marriage all of which deserve similar status based on the concept of equal opportunity. The ideal is the only legitimate argument for favored standing in the first place otherwise no preference should be granted period, it would all be considered the same, right? Oh, and please save the what about when age, hysterectomy, vasectomy, et al arguments for when procreation is unlikely and why they should have equal status, its because deference is given for the possibility that exists/existed that reproduction could occur at all. Obviously those who pretend an anus is a vagina have no possibility of producing anything but dirt babies. Dont forget its immoral and should not be legally recognized as having the same status as traditional marriage, also please insert usual analogy of how incestual marriage doesnt deserve the same status. Leaglly recognizing same-sex marriage as equal status would of course make marriage legally as immoral or amoral if you will.

 

 

 

[ScouterPaul]

Thank you DD for responding to my question. I've only read your reply once, please allow me time to digest it. My off the cuff response is this:

Would it be acceptable to you if only the commandments pertaining to illegal acts, such as murder, stealing ect., be posted with a statement to the effect that these tenets of various religions have played an important role in the formation of the American legal system?

 

As to your second part "Respectfully Paul, Im not sure that you ever responded to one of my queries previous while I answered to both yours and Bobs questions with regards to your imperfect analogy on the other thread. And, I still look forward to those responses, I hold no resentment and am happy to answer this question." Allow me the time to review the thread in question (I'll be scouting Friday,Saturday and Sunday). I believe that I didn't respond to you because you only answered portions of my questions. Once again allow me to review the posts to see if I'm wrong. Which I might add my wonderfull wife says I am all the time.

[slontwovvy]

Sctmom,

I did what you asked and went on the ACLU homepage. This is what I found (things I most definitely "did not agree with"): "Federal Appeals Court Will Weigh Effort To Use Personal Religious Beliefs To Evade Gay Bias Laws," "Ruling 7-0, NY High Court Delivers Victory in First-Ever Challenge to College Housing for Married Couples," "In Setback for Religious Liberty, High Court Ruling Permits After-School Evangelism," all things I don't believe in. Spent over half an hour searching, couldn't find one thing I agreed to.

[sctmom]

Slont,

You don't believe people of different color or race should have equal rights? That women should have equal rights? That people (of any gender, race or religion) should not be harrassed in the workplace? That free speech is a good thing?

 

 

[evmori]

Merlyn_LeRoy,

OK explain something to me. If there is "separation of church & state" then why does Congress have a chaplin that opens each session with prayer? Why hasn't the ACLU stopped this? And if this is OK, why can't religious groups (regardless of religion) meet in a public school?

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

 

[Dedicated Dad]

You don't believe people of different color or race should have equal rights? AGAIN mom, watch youre innuendo, this again is out of line. Just because you put a question mark at the end of a sentence doesnt mean it isnt an accusation.

[sctmom]

Dad, It was a rhetorical question. I was not accusing anyone of anything.

 

With all due respect, if you are against homosexuality, you aren't going to find anything to agree with under the tab of "gay rights" on the ACLU webpage.

I'm not sure what Slont looked at, but I feel confident that there are large sections of the ACLU webpage that he would disagree with.

 

 

[slontwovvy]

"Slont,

You don't believe people of different color or race should have equal rights? That women should have equal rights? That people (of any gender, race or religion) should not be harrassed in the workplace? That free speech is a good thing?"

 

 

Sctmom,

 

No offense taken. If you give a few, you have to be willing to take a few.

Still, though, nothing I said stated or implied that I was against equal rights for people of a different color, race, or gender. I don't know where you're getting that from.

 

Secondly, after school religious clubs are constitutional. Free practice of religion remember? As long as they're not forcing people to join, it's ok. I'm not saying free speech is a bad thing. By not allowing their religious clubs, you are however.

 

Thirdly, why should gay couples have the same rights as married couples if their unions are not legally recognized in most states? Again, that's the same as if two random people walk in and want to rent a married apartment. Doesn't work.

 

That's why I don't like the ACLU. They always push the rights they want while destroying others' rights.

[sctmom]

The article I saw on the ACLU web page where they objected to a after school religious club was the one that spent the whole time on "saving" the children, even going so far as separating them into the "saved" and "unsaved". Our local middle school has a Christian Athletes group that meets at the school. That's fine with me.

 

The point about gay marriages not being legal --- the issue is that they want them to be legal so that partners can get health benefits, get to visit their loved on in intensive care. They put as much time and effort into relationships as heterosexual couples but cannot have the legal rights. Marriage is NOT about sex, it's about love, give and take, the laundry, paying the bills, fighting and making up, taking care of each other, growing old together. If 2 people spend 40 years together taking care of one another, why can't they get health insurance on one another? If one dies, the other is treated as a stranger off the street.

 

Slontwovvy writes:

"Still, though, nothing I said stated or implied that I was against equal rights for people of a different color, race, or gender. I don't know where you're getting that from. "

 

I applaud your efforts to look at the ACLU webpage, but I thought you would have found some of the same articles I did where the ACLU was helping with those type cases. The ACLU is not just about gays. That may be what you hear about a lot, but over the years they have done a lot that all of us have benefitted from.

I did start another thread that listed some of the other things ACLU has helped with. A few others have added more cases that are beneficial to most of us.

 

Thank you for taking the time to look and be open minded.

 

[bigbeard]

Kind of off topic, but what the heck.

 

Several of the posts on this thread have discussed the traditional marriage as the ideal family. Tend to agree; got myself into one many years ago, like it fine.

 

As a Scout age kid, I was a big fan of science-fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein (still am). In his book The Moon is a Harsh Mistress one of the characters has to explain his lunar family structure to Earthbound reporters. The so-described "line marriage" required that the adults (8 or so) vote unanimously to "opt" in

or marry a new spouse, children were common to the group, the marriage was over 100 years old due to its organization, etc. Don't remember everything.

 

The arrangement out-performed the "traditional" marriage in a number of ways. The design enabled the family to continue in perpetuity, the children had several loving role models, all dedicated to their well-being, the structure allowed conservation of assets over time, ensuring financial stability, and the death of one of the partners did not remove half of a child's world and so on. Our hero was steadfast in defending his family (and racial variations within)to the local authorities, and was jailed for his dedication. The time frame (early sixties?) lent credence to the incident's outcome.

 

The book's main themes were Good over Evil, Don't Judge a Book By Its Cover, and Think Outside the Box. Good Scout themes all. The morals are presented as wholesome, just different. A little loose for me, but hey, that's me.