Where in the US constitution does it state that the laws of this land are based upon the definitions from the?
The bible defines marriage as one man and one woman bonded in holy matrimony. However this land was defined by freedom. Freedom from religious prosecution. This means not everyone in this land has to believe in the bible, or the same interpretation the bible. So why is this one definition of marriage being force upon us as if it is the law just because the bible says so?
This is why the founding fathers made the statement that state and church should be separate. If they are separate than the definition of marriage is wrong and we should be allowed to marry. Correct?
Renosgurl..Such anger and language. That is nto very christian like.
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
You are absolutely correct, and I have argued this for some time.
The gay marriage fight is really a battle between two groups of religious denominations - Christian and other in both cases. That battle is being missed by the media, and I believe that the battle threatens democracy in America.
One of the reasons for the Revolution, in which ancestors of mine fought -- was to establish freedom of religion in the new nation. Now, we are throwing that away, because contrary to what those on the Right would like you to think, this is not a battle between "people of faith" and "atheists" or some such -- this is a battle between two groups of people of faith, using the government to establish one sides views -- the EXACT THING that the anti-establishmentarian clause of the Constitution is there to prevent.
Of course no one should "make" those whose faiths oppose gay marriage perform such marriages, and no one ever would. So ministers from the Southern Baptists and Assemblies of God and Ultra-Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Muslims should never be asked to perform gay marriages, and certainly not forced to.
On the other hand, why should faith groups that support gay marriage -- such as the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian/Universalist Society, the North American Spiritualist Church, Reform Judaism, and the Correllian Tradition of Wicca -- all recognized Churches and 501c3s be barred from practicing their religious faith, which says it is ok to marry same sex couples?
The first group of faith groups is realistically using the government to prevent the second group of faith groups from practicing what they believe. The founders tried to prevent this, for the stability of the country. It doesn't matter that everyone "thinks" they are right and others are wrong -- it matters that we are plural as a society and the government should recognize everyone's ceremonies the same -- which means that gay marriages committed by churches and faith groups that believe in gay marriages, should be honored by the government regardless of what groups that don't like it say.
Everyone's beliefs can be honored, thus preserving the values that my 12 times removed Great Grandfather died for -- but not if we allow one side to legislate away the rights of the other side.
And that's what I think.
- 1 decade ago
OK here goes.
First. The laws of this land follow court rulings and governing bodies ...essentially the same way as England. When our forefathers came here, established the Constitution etc. the belief was that there would be no state sponsered religion.
THIS WAS NEVER INTENDED to mean that we would not follow a moral code tied to the bible...it meant that there would not be an established religious organization (mormon, jewish, etc.). The society was to be based upon the moral fabric of western religion. Western because this is where they were from.
The documents actually use the name of God in numerous locations.
SO...with the bible saying that a man and woman should not be married then maybe the definition of a same sex couple should be changed to that of union. A man/woman marry which denotes religious tones while a same sex couple are unioned which denotes that the traditional religion does not recognize the relationship of marriage between the two yet the courts and federal government note the individuals are a legal partnership.
This should disarm the far right from arguing that same sex should not be married. THough some may still argue, the arguement becomes weak.
Those that argue religion should recognize the same sex marriage are just as wrong though. A private organization should not be FORCED to view something as correct if they view it wrong. Over time things will change their minds. It would be the equvalent of Gay/Lesbian society viewing marriage as wrong...umm...
- 1 decade ago
The same place it says that church and state should be seperate. The phrase "Seperation of Church and State" is not in the constituion. The constitution says that the government may not restrict the free practice of Religion. Actually, if you are basing your argument on the intentions of the founding fathers since most if not all of them were Christians and the one book that every household in the New World had was the bible you would probably lose right there. But where you really lose your argument is when you refer to Religious persecution as "prosecution", right there you lose any chance of anyone taking you seriously.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Yeah, the bible should not be a decider in the laws that are placed. The laws we have established exist to bring together a country full of peace and acceptance. Putting the bible into play complicates things. and marriage shouldn't be defined if you love somebody that's all that should matter. So yes to same sex marriage and no to the ways of the bible. We need to move towards the future, not live in the past where the bible dictates everything.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- BattousaiLv 51 decade ago
Which is why I feel like every "Gay Marriage Ban" is going to be struck down as unconstitutional, unless the crazies behind them are then going to claim that being gay makes you sub-human and therefore not protected by the constitution.
Man I'd love to see that happen, the outrage would be well deservered and maybe then all this idiocy of trying to force beliefs on others by removing rights will end. As a straight male, I couldn't care less if gay couples get married. It's not going to affect my marriage and personally I believe in equal rights so everyone should have the freedom to do as they choose.
Besides if this is a religion thing, then do muslims, jews and every other faith not get married? We know that isn't true!
- rap1361Lv 61 decade ago
sorry but you find the term came from Thomas Jefferson and not all the founding fathers agreed with him. many would greatly disagree with that idea. try people like John Adams.
we have no government armed in power capable of contendind with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.
or Noah Webster
The moral principles and precepts contained in the scripture ought to form the basis of all our civil onstititions and laws. All the miseries and evil man suffer from man vice,crime,ambition,injustice,... ,slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the bible.
or Dr.Benjamin Rush the father of public schools:
I lament that we waste so much time and money in punshing crime and take so little pains to prevent them....we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of governmentthat is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the bible... equality among mankind....respect for just laws...and sober and frugal virtues.
the idea that the people of faith should have no place in the government, and the government should be void of God is not what the founders invisioned for this country. that idea has been planted by court descions that did not rely on the constition.
- Pop DLv 51 decade ago
You're right. I am a Catholic but just because I am i don't have the rights to impose my beliefs on you let alone make them the law of the land.
- GreenEyedLiloLv 71 decade ago
More than that, there were many polygamous marriages in the Bible. So if they were really being Biblical, it wouldn't be "one man, one woman."
- 1 decade ago
look back the past 100 years
women could not give
blacks and whiles could not marry
constitutionally protect discrimination only 50 years ago
so why are you surprised?
- 1 decade ago
If that is the case, this Boy from Oz is catching the first plane to the US.