[zurich]

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/eu...ges/index.html

Bush said it is "important for society to welcome each individual," but administration lawyers are looking for some way to legally limit marriage to heterosexuals.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or another," Bush told reporters at a White House news conference. "And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that."

Of interest:

http://edition.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/4942.html

Should marriage be legally defined as only a union between a man and a woman?

Yes 32% 220767 votes

No 68% 475224 votes

Total: 695991 votes

A far cry from CNN's quoted poll of Americans only showing 40% approval for gay "civil unions", and 48% for endorsing "legal gay relations" (wtf is that). Damn liberalist-communist-destructionist-socialist-obstructionist-greasy-Europeans reading our CNN and skewing our polls!

And in other news,

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/eu...ges/index.html

The Vatican issued a 12-page set of guidelines with the approval of Pope John Paul II in a bid to stem the increase in laws granting legal rights to homosexual unions in Europe and North America.

"Marriage exists solely between a man and woman ... Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law," the 12-page document by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said Thursday.

"Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior ... but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity."

Hopefully someone will "pie" Bush and the Pope, like what happened to Ralph Klein (Alberta's far-too-right-wing Premeir) a little while back. (a couple of disgruntled gays hit Klein in the face with a cream pie to show their discontent with his over-my-dead-body stance on gay rights)

[zurich]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

A good article on how the Vatican is pressuring (Catholic) Canadian MPs to vote against the upcoming same-sex marriage bill.

In an interview with The Globe and Mail, a Canadian bishop warned Chretien that he risks burning in hell if he allows the bill to pass.

"He doesn't understand what it means to be a good Catholic," Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary told The Globe in an interview.

"He's putting at risk his eternal salvation. I pray for the prime minister because I think his eternal salvation is in jeopardy. He is making a morally grave error and he's not being accountable to God."

Later in the day, Henry told CTV News that the Vatican instructions means Chretien and members of his cabinet could face serious consequences in the eyes of their faith.

"They may be very well risking in the sight of God their eternal salvation. I did not say they should be cast into hellfire and all the rest of that, but I suppose in the popular mind the two may very well be equivalent," Henry said.

So much for seperation from Church and State. It would seem that most MPs are shrugging it off, but it's still a bit of a piss off.

[Joe DeFuria]

No one created a new topic (I least I didn't), beacuse this subject has been more or less beaten to death (and because the positions of the Vatican and Bush are not particularly surprising).

[Natoma]

I didn't create a topic because these responses were expected. The vatican? That's a no brainer. Thank goodness they don't set the laws anymore. That practice stopped a few centuries ago.

And Bush? Please. All I did was give a friendly when I read his comments on the matter. Thank goodness for him that no matter what his lawyers come up with it will still be unconstitutional.

Now, if Bush or the Vatican, or both, came out stating that gay marriage is acceptable, then that would have raised eyebrows and I would have certainly posted that.

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Hello All,

Could you guys point me to a good thread discussing both sides pro's and con's of same sex marriage? (please, no talk of the word "natural" with regards to different dictionaries) /gahhh =P

It is my belief that homosexual acts are wrong, a mortal sin if you will. I also believe that same sex marriage, from a moral standpoint, is wrong as well. Both of those beliefs are very easy for me to come to, but the problem is when I ask myself if my moral beliefs should dictate my government and it's laws. Some morals, yes, but I have many questions to imposing my moral views on others when they would not directly affect me or impose on me.

I understand the camp that says, "Homosexual acts are wrong". (Because of my beliefs I am in this camp)

I understand the camp that says, "Do not dictate your morals to me. I am not hurting anyone, or imposing on anyone. I love this person, I wish to be with them forever. I wish share the same privileges that other share when they get married."

I don't quite understand the camp that says, "Homosexual marriage is wrong, and I won't allow people in my country to do it." Why do feel you can do this? What is the justification?

Care to shed some light?
Dr. Ffreeze

[jvd]

I really don't care what anyone does . If you want to marry a sheep go for it . But if you want to be married in a church and you are a man. Then you have to marry a women. That simple . Why everyone needs to make a big deal out of nothing is something i will never understand. Perhaps it shows how childish we all are .

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by Natoma

Thank goodness for him that no matter what his lawyers come up with it will still be unconstitutional.

Maybe, Maybe not. Regardless, if "what he comes up with" is a constitutional amendment...

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by Dr. Ffreeze

It is my belief that homosexual acts are wrong, a mortal sin if you will. I also believe that same sex marriage, from a moral standpoint, is wrong as well. Both of those beliefs are very easy for me to come to, but the problem is when I ask myself if my moral beliefs should dictate my government and it's laws. Some morals, yes, but I have many questions to imposing my moral views on others when they would not directly affect me or impose on me.

Agreed.

However, there can be arguments made that even though something doesn't "directly" affect you, it can have an effect on society, of which you are a part. So it's not quite as black and white as "it does, or does not, impact me, so what should I care?"

I understand the camp that says, "Homosexual acts are wrong". (Because of my beliefs I am in this camp)

Me too.

I understand the camp that says, "Do not dictate your morals to me. I am not hurting anyone, or imposing on anyone. I love this person, I wish to be with them forever. I wish share the same privileges that other share when they get married."

Me too.

I don't quite understand the camp that says, "Homosexual marriage is wrong, and I won't allow people in my country to do it." Why do feel you can do this? What is the justification?

People do this when they feel that that the moral wrongness of what they are opposing will impact their life in some way. We all want a world that's "better for our kids." When people have beliefs that certain things have a strong negative impact on society, then they feel that ultimately, it does impact their life, or the life of their future generations.

It's pretty similar to other issues like prostitution, gambling, and the legalization of drugs. If you don't use drugs, who cares if others do or not? Well, some people believe that drug use is in and of itself "bad", that the proliferation of it has all kinds of negative social fall-out. I can see the case both ways (for and against legalization of drugs, gambling, etc.)

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by jvd

I really don't care what anyone does . If you want to marry a sheep go for it . But if you want to be married in a church and you are a man. Then you have to marry a women. That simple . Why everyone needs to make a big deal out of nothing is something i will never understand. Perhaps it shows how childish we all are .

No one is trying to do that. You can get married outside of a church jvd. And marriage is also not confined to a particular religious sect. So you could get married in a mosque for instance.

Personally I'm not religious at all, so I'd just as soon go down to city hall and get married, rather than have a ceremony in a church. I feel that marriage should be a religious construct, like baptism (which is not recognized in any way shape or form by the government), and that in order for your relationship to be recognized by the government, you have to go to a judge or whatever. So you'd be married in the eyes of your religion, and in the eyes of the government. That would seem to satisfy most people who feel marriage is a sacrament or some other form of religious construct. This would also allow religious gay couples a chance to be married in the eyes of the government, and in the eyes of their god, as there are some sects of christianity and judaism that allow gay marriage within the religious construct.

On the flip side of the coin, if marriage is to be deemed a legal construct, then gays should have every right to enter into it, given our "doctrine" of separation of church and state. Realistically I don't think that will fly, but I do think the first will fly.

[Althornin]

Hmm, Joe and Dr. Ffreeze, would you canre to tell me why you feel it is morally wrong?

I find myself looking at that viewpoint with incredulity - that otherwise intelligent men would have such a view seems as out of place as if you had told me that you really truly believed in the "monster under the bed" or the "boogeyman".

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Althornin,

That is an easy one. I am a Christian. I believe in the Bible. I did a quick search and came up with this...

1 Corinthians 6

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

Religion is a tricky thing. It is not something based on tangible or scientific fact, but rather faith. It is easy to prove or disprove (or easier) statements of fact. I would content that it is impossible to prove or disprove religious beliefs.

Dr. Ffreeze

PS. Some people feel that religious people think that they are better or superior to those not of their faith. I would like to state the fact that I do not consider myself superior to others. In fact, I am a sinner and fail practicing my beliefs quite often. I do however acknowledge that they are wrong and repent. I strive not to do them again.

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by Althornin

Hmm, Joe and Dr. Ffreeze, would you canre to tell me why you feel it is morally wrong?

Ugh...read the past few overblown threads. If you go and search and can't figure it out, It should suffice that we inherently believe it to be wrong.

I find myself looking at that viewpoint with incredulity - that otherwise intelligent men would have such a view seems as out of place as if you had told me that you really truly believed in the "monster under the bed" or the "boogeyman".

I find it offensive that you associate intelligence with moral beliefs. Or are you one of the kinds of athiests, for example, who also have the attitude how "otherwise intelligent men" could possibly have faith in any type of religion?

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by Dr. Ffreeze

Althornin,

That is an easy one. I am a Christian. I believe in the Bible. I did a quick search and came up with this...

Religion is a tricky thing. It is not something based on tangible or scientific fact, but rather faith. It is easy to prove or disprove (or easier) statements of fact. I would content that it is impossible to prove or disprove religious beliefs.

Dr. Ffreeze

PS. Some people feel that religious people think that they are better or superior to those not of their faith. I would like to state the fact that I do not consider myself superior to others. In fact, I am a sinner and fail practicing my beliefs quite often. I do however acknowledge that they are wrong and repent. I strive not to do them again.

Uh oh. We're not going to start quoting scripture on the evils of mankind are we? I can certainly go medieval on your buttocks with the book of leviticus which makes an abomination of everything from eating pork to women leaving their houses while menstruating.

Not to mention nods to killing your children if they disobey, with stones at that, along with other fun things.

I was a deeply immersed christian from 2yrs old until i was 19. Spent much time reading the bible. hehe.

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by Joe DeFuria

Maybe, Maybe not. Regardless, if "what he comes up with" is a constitutional amendment...

Nevertheless, amendments to the constitution can certainly be unconstitutional.

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Natoma,

Uh oh. We're not going to start quoting scripture on the evils of mankind are we?

Althornin asked why I felt the way I did. I responded and answered his question. =)

Dr. Ffreeze

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by Dr. Ffreeze

Natoma,

Althornin asked why I felt the way I did. I responded and answered his question. =)

Dr. Ffreeze

Understandable. In fact, it was my deeply rooted religious beliefs that caused me the most psychological grief growing up. But then I began looking at the bible and understanding that there are many things in there that are deemed abominations and evil and whatnot, that make absolutely no sense to us today.

However, looking at them from a historical context, i.e. why those laws were created in the first place, certainly shed the light of application upon them.

I completely understand why you feel the way you do, frankly because I used to share those beliefs as well, deeply at that. However, there are other things in the bible that I'm sure you overlook, or do not address, because it would call into question either your own behavior, or the behavior of those you love. The bible is an extremely contradictory piece of literature, cobbled together over thousands of years and translated through at least 7 different languages.

It's funny you know. It is my belief in one of the sacred tenets in the bible that led me to renounce christianity. Jesus stated that you either believe and follow all of the bible, or none of it. There is no middle ground. Because I could not reconcile my beliefs with my sexuality, not to mention other facets of the bible that had nothing to do with me in particular and moreso with common sense, I chose to leave christianity behind.

Ironic isn't it?

[RussSchultz]

Originally Posted by Natoma

Nevertheless, amendments to the constitution can certainly be unconstitutional.

No, they cannot be. By definition, they cannot be.

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Natoma,

First, take a look at the Bishop thread. I stated some things that goes along with what you are saying in the last post. In general it is about my seeking to learn more about my Faith.

Because I could not reconcile my beliefs with my sexuality

Something else I find interesting. I have reconciled my beliefs with my sexuality. I desire to enjoy the pleasures of women, many women. Heck I might even make King Solomon proud (700 wives, 300 concubines). I desire something that is wrong. Heck, my desire is wrong. You could even substitute the word wrong for sin. I have no issues with the fact that I desire ungodly things.

Dr. Ffreeze

PS. I don't know why, but I keep wanting to say that I am not attacking you Natoma (or other gays). It is so hard to communicate effectively though the written word. I cannot tell when the reader is gettin what I am saying, or when they are offended. I cannot see when I have stepped over the line, and encroached into a "hands off" line of questions. I myself am very open. I am also very curios. I get myself into trouble that way.

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

No, they cannot be. By definition, they cannot be.

So you're saying that if a bunch of congressmen got together and created an amendment to the constitution stating that only white men can vote, and it passed in the house and senate, that that wouldn't be unconstitutional, despite it's inclusion in the constitution?

http://www.constitutionproject.org/c...appendixd.html

First, it is a bad idea to politicize the Constitution. The very idea of a constitution turns on the separation of the legal and the political realms. The Constitution sets up the framework of government. It also sets forth a few fundamental political ideals (equality, representation, individual liberties) that place limits on how far any temporary majority may go. This is our higher law. All the rest is left to politics. Losers in the short run yield to the winners out of respect for the constitutional framework set up for the long run. This makes the peaceful conduct of ordinary politics possible. Without such respect for the constitutional framework, politics would degenerate into fractious war. But the more a Constitution is politicized, the less it operates as a fundamental charter of government. The more a constitution is amended, the more it seems like ordinary legislation.

Two examples are instructive. The only modern federal constitutional amendment to impose a controversial social policy was a failure. The Eighteenth Amendment introduced Prohibition, and, fourteen years later, the Twenty-first Amendment repealed it. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., once wrote, “a constitution is not meant to embody a particular economic theory,� for it is “made for people of fundamentally differing views.� Amendments that embody a specific and debatable social or economic policy allow one generation to tie the hands of another, entrenching approaches that ought to be revisable in the crucible of ordinary politics. Thus it is not surprising that the only amendment to the U.S. Constitution ever to impose such a policy is also the only one ever to be repealed.

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by Dr. Ffreeze

I don't know why, but I keep wanting to say that I am not attacking you Natoma (or other gays). It is so hard to communicate effectively though the written word. I cannot tell when the reader is gettin what I am saying, or when they are offended. I cannot see when I have stepped over the line, and encroached into a "hands off" line of questions. I myself am very open. I am also very curios. I get myself into trouble that way.

I've never taken your statements as attacks or anything like that. Frankly you write and speak about your faith and your religion in much the same way I used to. We just took different paths. I renounced my faith completely. You did not.

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by Natoma

So you're saying that if a bunch of congressmen got together and created an amendment to the constitution stating that only white men can vote, and it passed in the house and senate, that that wouldn't be unconstitutional, despite it's inclusion in the constitution?

No, we're saying that if 2/3 of congress passes said amendment, and 3/4 of the states also ratify it, then the amendment is not unconstitutional. The amendment IS part of the constitution.

Amendments cannot be by definition unconstitutional. They are either passed, or they do not pass.

[Natoma]

They can be unconstitutional in that they violate the spirit of the constitution. I'm looking at this from a non-literal viewpoint.

[RussSchultz]

Originally Posted by Natoma

They can be unconstitutional in that they violate the spirit of the constitution.

No, they cannot.

The constitution is not some holy ethereal being that is involate and incapable of being morally wrong that will somehow reject any "wrong thinking" amendments.

You possible could get a supreme court that construes the amendment in such a way to make it meaningless, but it does not make it unconstitutional. It is, by definition of being in the constitution, constitutional.

May I refer you to some previous advice:

You should never, ever, try to get a job as a legal scholar.

[Natoma]

I suppose Prohibition wasn't unconstitutional then. What a failure that was eh?

[Joe DeFuria]

Originally Posted by Natoma

They can be unconstitutional in that they violate the spirit of the constitution. I'm looking at this from a non-literal viewpoint.

The sprit of the constitution is derived from the contents of constitution itself. I'm looking at this from every point of view.