SCOTUS decides on Prop 8 :D

**PvtPrivate** · 03-30-13, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Do i need to once again point out that one is a right the other is not?

Fair enough, but that doesn't explain why the government should regulate who we can or can not marry.

**Warprosper** · 03-30-13, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Separation of church and state is not about that Frost. In fact, it is defined as follows... The First Amendment to the United States Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI says that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

You show me where the constitution coins the phrase "Separation of church and state". The first amendment doesn't separate anything. It grants religions freedom. The religious test in article VI was put in place because the Quakers required an oath to Christ upon gaining office or voting.

So exactly where does "Separation of church and state" come into play? The answer; It doesn't. There never was a separation of church and state and it's unreasonable to even think that given the labels on our currency and pretty much all historic documents.

**deathgodusmc** · 03-30-13, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Warprosper

You show me where the constitution coins the phrase "Separation of church and state". The first amendment doesn't separate anything. It grants religions freedom. The religious test in article VI was put in place because the Quakers required an oath to Christ upon gaining office or voting.

So exactly where does "Separation of church and state" come into play? The answer; It doesn't. There never was a separation of church and state and it's unreasonable to even think that given the labels on our currency and pretty much all historic documents.

The phrase is not there but it is interpreted as such and has been by the supreme court on a number of occasions. That is what is implied by saying the government shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the exercise thereof. Come to think of it its not only implied it says exactly that without using the specific wording of separation of church and state.

However i will say its just a myth because our government has done every thing but separate church and state.

**deathgodusmc** · 03-30-13, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by PvtPrivate

Fair enough, but that doesn't explain why the government should regulate who we can or can not marry.

Why should they be able to regulate anything if we're going to go down that road? Why should they be allowed to levy taxes because we didn't always have them? Why are they allowed to even have doors to close when the conversations taking place our by our employees? We could ask a million questions of why should the government be able to do what they do. So why should this topic be any different then whats par for the course?

**deathgodusmc** · 03-30-13, 02:25 PM

And while im at it why are they allowed to close the White house? We own it so why the hell would they think they can lock us out if?

**DJ Ms. White** · 03-30-13, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by Warprosper

You show me where the constitution coins the phrase "Separation of church and state". The first amendment doesn't separate anything. It grants religions freedom. The religious test in article VI was put in place because the Quakers required an oath to Christ upon gaining office or voting.

So exactly where does "Separation of church and state" come into play? The answer; It doesn't. There never was a separation of church and state and it's unreasonable to even think that given the labels on our currency and pretty much all historic documents.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

The labels on currency were added well after the US came to be. Same as with the Pledge of Allegiance.

**deathgodusmc** · 03-30-13, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

The labels on currency were added well after the US came to be. Same as with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Shit the pledge has been redone what 4 or 5 times now.

**PvtPrivate** · 03-30-13, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Why should they be able to regulate anything if we're going to go down that road? Why should they be allowed to levy taxes because we didn't always have them? Why are they allowed to even have doors to close when the conversations taking place our by our employees? We could ask a million questions of why should the government be able to do what they do. So why should this topic be any different then whats par for the course?

Well what a government should and shouldn't varies between country and time really. Different people will draw the line at different places. I just find it ironic that how some people here who I honestly think would prefer the articles of confederation all of a sudden say it the governments job regulate marriage, a deeply personal and intimate vow, of all things.

And to be more specified to your question I believe that the government shouldn't regulate marriage because it really doesn't benefit society. We can at least agree that some regulations/laws protect or benefit society or individuals in theory. That's why there made, after all. Of course it rarely works out so well all the time and we can argue until were blue in the face about how much laws/regulations we should have and for what, but in the case of gay marriage there is no good reason to regulate it other than a weak religious one and that's not even going to stop homosexuals from living together and raising families and what not so why even bother? Just let them live there lives and get married.

**Warprosper** · 03-30-13, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

The labels on currency were added well after the US came to be. Same as with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Do you know what that phrase means? It means that the government will not set a particular religion for people to follow and they will not restrict what you choose to follow. This was due to the protestant reformation and it's many exiled peoples. This is not separation of church and state. This is just granting religious freedom.

The labels on currency were added during the civil war. If separation of church and state were in fact separations, why did we put that label on our currency? Because there is no such thing as separation of church and state, and there never was..

I believe that this term didn't actually catch on until the later 1940s and the whole busing issue. It's been said in the past by presidents and such, but it was never interpreted to encompass things like marriage and restrictions on marriage.