Church and State????

[Jason Tandro]

Okay, so bear with me.

Today Prop 8 was overturned. That bothers me because it's a step backwards for democracy, but also it's a step forward for the LGBT community so it's partly good, although I would have preferred another voting over it just being overturned and a big fuck you to the constituents.

(insert tyranny of the majority argument here)

(insert state's right counter argument here)

(insert "if that were the case slavery would still be blah blah blah" argument here)

(skip all that crap to get to the main point of this debate.)

But they are maintaining the recent Obama travesty of forcing religious institutions to provide health care for things they are against, such as contraceptives and abortions.

So, essentially, what Congress and the Obama administration have told us is "there is separation of Church and State when it is convenient for us."

This is not America!!!

And Catholic Chaplains have protested it and are being told by the Army to basically shut up and deal with it, which, to be fair I can kind of see because again soldiers do not have the same rights as civilians and they have to back the commander-in-chief, but REALLY?!

I am telling you, the day is coming, and coming soon for a violent insurrection against the government of this country. The attacks on religion have gotten more and more audacious and I, for one, am sick of it.

Please, Mitt Romney, get elected and bring some sanity back to this country. And maybe just forget about your promise to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act, because we can't go swinging the compass back in the other direction, that is just as wrong.

[Flamez]

Wow, I have never disagreeded with you more Jason.

First of all, I will put this out there. I am Catholic.

Obama is leading America in a direction that will actually benifit it, not back into the era of "God told me to do it". Honestly I think there if far to much religious influence in politics, especially in American politics.

Prop 8 even being passed in the first place was a failure of democracy and of your own constitution. When a group can influence a political decission based on there religious beliefs the world is heading down a very very dark track. It being overturned has somewhat restored my faith in American politics and law.

As for health care. Anyone who is against it is and idiot, plain and simple. America has some of the worst health care in the world. Austrlaia has had a decent health care system for decades and without it, my father would be dead.

If Mitt Romney gets elected I think you will see your country crash and burn even more then it has the last 4 years. Remember that financial crisis? It wasnt Obamas fault, it was Bush's.

Anyway, I respect your opinion, even if your wrong by having it

<3 Jason

[Jason Tandro]

Flame war with Flamez? Coincidence.

First off, you are WAAAAAY off-track in saying that Prop 8 was influenced by a single group. I know people like to blame the Mormons, but the Mormon population of California is 2%.... hardly a vast majority.

[Edit: And as I said, I would have been fine if it had been sent to another vote and it turned out differently, but just overturning it is saying that "we don't care what the populace thinks."]

Second these religions have no problem providing health care for heart attacks, strokes, cancer, STDs (in most circles), or any number of things that are causing humans to die. They have a problem being forced to support Abortion and, in effect, helping pay for something that kills infants.

While I think Abortion should be legal in certain instances, I agree that no religion should be forced to provide the care for something that they are morally opposed to.

Study the American Constitution, friend, this clearly violates church and state.

And I like how you refer to the "God told me so" era as if it was a mistake. Yes there have been some religious nutjobs out there, but would I rather put my faith in the hands of God or the hands of the corrupt US Government.

And yes, Obama was not the fault behind the economy collapsing, but his ridiculous ObamaCare crap has slowed down the recovery, though to be fair everything else he's done has been working wonders and he is, at least getting people back to work.

[inferiare]

Seperation of church and state = the church will not dabble in the affairs of the lawmakers and force them to do anything by exerting their power, and lawmakers will not dabble in the affairs of the church and force them to do anything by exerting their power.

That said, Prop 8 was voted for by the majority. Overturning it is a slap in the face to those voters.

Religious health care places shouldn't be forced to do things they don't believe in, such as abortion.

The health care here needs to be reformed, but not the way Obama wants because his makes us worse off.

Debate over.

[psychokind]

Religious health care places shouldn't be forced to do things they don't believe in, such as abortion.

I agree with raini here. despite a doctor's oath to help people being more important than the religion his employer belongs tom abortion is no urgent emergency that overturnes this.

there might be one thing to think of though: most institution in germany that have a religious founder like clinics, kindergardens or retirement homes are almost and often completely financed by the state. if this is the same case in the US, the churches shouldn't have the right to be against it in such institutions.

[Jason Tandro]

Religious health care places shouldn't be forced to do things they don't believe in, such as abortion.

I agree with raini here. despite a doctor's oath to help people being more important than the religion his employer belongs tom abortion is no urgent emergency that overturnes this.

there might be one thing to think of though: most institution in germany that have a religious founder like clinics, kindergardens or retirement homes are almost and often completely financed by the state. if this is the same case in the US, the churches shouldn't have the right to be against it in such
institutions.

Pyschokind agreeing with somebody???

It's a sign of the end times, my friend. JK, bro.

[Sgt.Pepper1983]

People seem to be forgetting that prop 8 was unconstitutional to begin with. When a law violates the constitution it doesn't matter who wants it. The judges didn't change anything. All they did was aknowledge the fact that an unconstitutional law has no right to exist.

[Jason Tandro]

People seem to be forgetting that prop 8 was unconstitutional to begin with. When a law violates the constitution it doesn't matter who wants it. The judges didn't change anything. All they did was aknowledge the fact that an unconstitutional law has no right to exist.

Fair enough and that is checks and balances in action, but the wholr health care thing is just as unconstitutional and they aren't saying boo. Don't be selective about your application of the law.

Although you claim that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Just playing devils advocate which ammendment does it violate anf why? (Now I sound like a history teacher...)

[psychokind]

Although you claim that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Just playing devils advocate which ammendment does it violate anf why? (Now I sound like a history teacher...)

haha now that you say it... good question well I can tell you germanys idea of gay marriage: marriage in state terms means a companionship of two people vouching for each other. this has certain effects on other laws, like in front of court, in terms of heritage and decision-making when one of two can't anymore.
a marriage is telling the state that there is someone he has to confront first, even before parents and children. and the state has accepted that there can be someone important like that (that means there can be love ) for you even if he has the same gender. and they shouldn't be discriminated by the state declining their partnership isn't as good as the ones of heteros. this "everyone is to be treated equally" should be in your consitution too.

besides: why should the gays get all the fun and not experience being under the thumb of someone else?

there are limits to that, however. tax reduction is minimal to none, because gay couples can't produce children to justify paying less for society, for example (that's official).


and btw: I often agree with somebody - I just don't like to admit it

[Sgt.Pepper1983]

I won't pretend to be an expert on the issue, but I believe it's the 14th ammendment that requires equal treatment under the law for everyone.

[Jason Tandro]

I won't pretend to be an expert on the issue, but I believe it's the 14th ammendment that requires equal treatment under the law for everyone.

Well, actually this is a great misconception about this ammendment. Here is the direct article:

Code: Select all

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

In essence this says that anybody born in the United States are all citizens and entitled to equal status under the law. It DOES NOT, specify what the law indicates per any protected status. And it still allows private institutions (non-government institutions) to use any manner of discrimination they so desire.

People often recite this as the catch-all "you're discriminating and therefore in violation of this amendment" and while technically it does guarantee all citizens equal rights under the law, it does not specify what is and is not a "protected status."

The idea of this law was to guarantee slaves US Citizenship because Dred Scott vs. Sanford has resulted in the ruling that slaves were property and NOT US Citizens. Since US Law is based not only on the constitution but precedent and Common Law, the amendment was required to prevent any mistreatment of the former slaves.

So technically you are right to say this could be argued as in violation of the 14th amendment, but not entirely.

That's all for now class. Will, you'd better go straight home or your Uncle will think your were forced to stay late again.

[psychokind]

In essence this says that anybody born in the United States are all citizens and entitled to equal status under the law. It DOES NOT, specify what the law indicates per any protected status. And it still allows private institutions (non-government institutions) to use any manner of discrimination they so desire.

that's up for your judges to decide. constitutional law normally protects the citizen from the state and applies in only very basic manners to private persons.

example: "sir, please leave my bathtub. it might be open to the public, but I generally don't want women in it." -> legal

example 2: "sir, you can't enter. this federal state bathtub is for blacks only, and you are obviously asian." -> illegal discrimination