|
Published: February 6, 2009
Not waiting for the court
Same-sex marriage advocates file two initiative proposals with attorney general
Supporters of same-sex marriage in California are moving quickly to undo Proposition 8 in case the state Supreme Court does not strike it down. Two proposed initiatives have been filed with the attorney general’s office for the 2010 elections – one would simply repeal Prop 8, the other would abolish civil marriages altogether.
Before initiative backers can begin collecting signatures to qualify it for the ballot, they must first submit their proposal to the attorney general, who assigns a title to the proposed measure and prepares a summary that appears on the petitions.
On Jan. 12, according to the attorney general’s web site, Kaelan Housewright of Studio City submitted the “Domestic Partnership Initiative.” The summary provided to the attorney general says: “The proposed measure calls for the term ‘marriage’ to be removed from government legislation. The State of California Law code would have ‘marriage’ replaced with ‘domestic partnership,’ while the definition and the rights provided would remain the same. The purpose of which is to provide equality amongst all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, without offending the religious sect. Legally speaking, ‘Marriage’ itself would become a social ceremony, recognized by only non-governmental institutions. Furthermore, the initiative would void Proposition 8.”
 A second initiative proposal was stamped “received” by the attorney general’s office on Jan. 26. Submitted by Charles Lowe of a Sacramento-based group that calls itself “Yes! on Equality,” the proposal would simply repeal Proposition 8 by striking out the wording in the state constitution restricting marriage to between a man and a woman. In addition, the proposed initiative provides, “This section is not intended to, and shall not be interpreted to, mandate or require clergy of any church to perform a service or duty incongruent with their faith.”
Since both measures would change the constitution, the signature threshold on petitions is higher than for a standard legislative initiative. In order to qualify for the 2010 ballot, either initiative would require the valid signatures of 694,354 registered California voters. After the attorney general reviews the proposed initiatives and assigns an official title and summary, backers would have just 150 days to obtain the required number of signatures.
The “Yes! on Equality” web site makes note of the pending cases before the Supreme Court challenging Proposition 8. The court announced last week it would hear oral arguments on the issue on March 5, after which the justices will have 90 days to render a decision. “Arguably, one of the best possible outcomes would be if the California Supreme Court overturned the injustices created by Proposition 8,” according to the “frequently asked questions” section of the web site. “If the Supreme Court overruled Proposition 8, anti-gay advocates would have little recourse. Yes! On Equality recognizes this. We have therefore put together a petition to the courts in hopes that Supreme Court justices will rule in favor of gay marriage. Should the courts refuse to recognize the rights of LGBT citizens, we will obtain signatures to establish a 2010 election proposition.”
|
READER COMMENTS
No reader comments yet - post yours now
|
Posted Friday, February 06, 2009 2:40 AM By Aaron
Using the term "civil union" in the law would seem to placate everyone. In that way, "marriage" would become a religious/social term. It is a good solution.
|
Posted Friday, February 06, 2009 5:12 AM By Fr. M.P.
Truly an example where evil knows no bounds. If you can't get the will of a people corrupted enough to support homosexual joinages as marriage, if you cannot get corrupt judges to override the will of the people and nature, let's just get rid of defined marriage altogether so that anything goes. And this is all sold as "yes to equality." As Our Lady said at Fatima, most people go to hell because of the sins of the flesh. Pray and fight. Come quickly, Lord Jesus!
|
Posted Friday, February 06, 2009 6:05 AM By Eileen
How clever! Just like the father of lies using deceitful slogans like "pro-choice", which really means seeking legal permission to murder a baby." The "yes on equality" means seeking legal permission in an attempt to destroy God's Laws regarding the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. No matter how clever, both slogans lead to the destruction of people and their souls.
|
Posted Friday, February 06, 2009 7:15 AM By OneoftheSheep
Will Jerry Brown change the name of the initiatives to prejudice the outcome again? Perhaps he will entitle them: The Best thing to Ever Happen to the CA Constitution or some other equally "fair" title.
|
Posted Friday, February 06, 2009 8:05 AM By DarkKnight
Unfortunately, a California ballot initiative cannot overturn a constitutional amendment.
Neither can a ballot measure include two goals. For example: removing the word "Marriage" and voiding Proposition 8.
These people need to go back to their civics classes, except that they don't believe in being civil in the first place.
|
Posted Friday, February 06, 2009 10:46 AM By OneoftheSheep
What part of "no" to their plans don't they understand?
|
Posted Friday, February 06, 2009 11:11 AM By john Zakharia
I hope we see Church Bulletins encouraging us to fight this. Otherwise if the churches are lukewarm we will lose.
|
Posted Friday, February 06, 2009 11:51 AM By Rick DeLasno
DarkKnight:
Both the initiatives are constitutional amendments, just as Prop 8 was.
It is also extremely probable that they will bioth disappear without a whimper into the black hole where underfunded, overhyped politics-by-press-release stunts wind up.
|
Posted Friday, February 06, 2009 12:06 PM By Chuck Anziulewicz
How long would YOU want to wait for approval to marry your spouse? A year? Ten years? ONE HUNDRED YEARS??? How long should law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples have to wait to be granted the same rights that Straight couples have always taken for granted?
|
Posted Friday, February 06, 2009 9:08 PM By KC
Eileen, You make a great point in favor of taking the state out of the marriage business! You talk about marriage being "God's law." You make it clear that marraige is a RELIGIOUS institutuion. Having a secular state government enforce 'God's law." is clearly a violation of the principal of seperation of church and state. Thank you for your support of allowing consenting adults to make lifetime committments to whomever they want. And remember no one is forcing you into a gay marriage and no one is forcing your religious leaders to perform marriages for anyone.
|
Posted Friday, February 06, 2009 10:56 PM By Eileen
KC, Every person is given the gift of free will from God. You may choose good or you may choose evil. Each evil choice carries it's own consequence. The Supreme Court of God will take care of the separation of good and evil. KC, That lifetime commitment between same sex partners (unless they repent) could end them both up in an eternally painful commitment too!
|
Posted Saturday, February 07, 2009 1:28 PM By Life Lady
Chuck, dear, how long has confusion on gender identity been around, and how long has it been ignored? It has been around as long as I can recall, and I am 60 yrs old, and has been ignored as a disorder from the time that it was taken off the list of disorders treated by the psych community, those people who are supposedly schooled in treating emotional and psychological disorders. Gay-ness is a identity disorder. No matter what anyone else calls it, it is a disorder. You and I were created man and woman. I cannot couple with a woman and beget a child where my union would then be called a family. It would not happen, Nature would win on that one. You could not couple with another man and beget a child from that union and therefore have a family, nature would win on that one also. You were created by God, in the manner of which your job is to overcome yourself and join in His creation of you, as a man, and act as a man. Joining with another man, sexually, is not a natural act. We can take that down to the wire, down to the "nail on the head" and you would still be a man, created in the image and likeness of God. Sorry, but that is a fact. Now, deal with it. Choose to deal with it, get help for the identity disorder, and join the human race, the one where men and women are living as men and women, and marrying as a man to a woman. It would be less painful, and much more fulfilling than the rebellion going on within you now.
|
Posted Saturday, February 07, 2009 3:29 PM By Elizabeth
To poster Chuck,
How long you ask?
As marraige has been ordained by God himself, I would say people of the same sex who want to get 'married' would have to wait forever..... in other words, marriage is between one man and one woman, that is God's will and his plan for his creatures.
My prayers are with you and all people of the same mind set.
|
Posted Saturday, February 07, 2009 3:50 PM By Peace
Great solution that should make both "sides" happy. Most Yes on 8 supporters I've spoken to seem to think marriage is defined by God but that gays should not be discriminated against. This would keep marriage purely in the religious world. The law, which should not favor any religious views, would treat everyone equally.
|
Posted Sunday, February 08, 2009 6:24 PM By Lot
Two men cohabitating is not marriage; it is unnatural, it creates nothing and is responsible for the spread of a disease that has killed millions. Marriage is rooted in human nature itself and the complementarity of the genders; one man and one woman procreating children and raising a family--the whole future of society. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION. The "gay" lobby wants to have sodomy redefined as "marriage" so they can punish anyone who won't go along with made-up hate speech/and or discrimination laws. Don't be fooled; these "activists" are the same people who physically assaulted an elderly woman in Palm Springs carrrying a cross in support of prop 8.
|
Posted Sunday, February 08, 2009 10:02 PM By stirfry
It is a great solution. Keep religion out of politics and the law.
|
Posted Monday, February 09, 2009 10:41 AM By Jon
In America, religion actions are no more constitutionally accommodated than non religion actions. Actions relating to the exercise of religion are subject to the same laws of the land which apply to all actions, regardless of religion. Not one word of the Constitution authorizes religion or religion actions as being above or an exception to the laws of the land. It is opinion only which is above the law.
|
Posted Monday, February 09, 2009 10:59 AM By Fr. M.P.
Marriage existed even before God came and created the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Check out Genesis chapter 2. And this predates any system of law since marriage goes back to 4500-5000BC (approx). That's the longest legal precedent ever. And we cannot create ex post facto laws, right? So why lie and try to override the obvious biology?
|
Posted Monday, February 09, 2009 12:22 PM By Anne T.
Exactly, Fr. M.P. There is no precedent for same-sex marriage before in history.
|
Posted Monday, February 09, 2009 12:35 PM By Anne T.
By the way, so-called same-sex marriges were just outlawed in India.
|
Posted Monday, February 09, 2009 12:51 PM By Lorita Cambrito
Civil marriage in California is a relatively new invention. It has gone by the word "marriage", which seems to confuse many people into thinking it has something to do with Catholic teaching or other religious extravaganzas because such extravaganzas use similar words. But it doesn't, as no one has to be Catholic or religious or have any capacity for reproduction to get a civil marriage. Civil marriages can be used for any legal purpose, including horse breeding, immigration, property distribution, etc. However one wishes. One actually doesn't even need a civil marriage from the government to be married, or a blessing from a church to be married. One can simply do a happy dance and proclaim oneself married and leave it up to whoever to decide for themselves if you're married. Even the happy dance is optional. Neither church nor state own the words "marriage" and "married". Such words are nothing but symbols which can be used to symbolize anything anyone pleases, or not used at all. Man is not a slave to symbols unless in his own ignorance he enslaves himself so.
|
Posted Monday, February 09, 2009 2:52 PM By Jon
The Constitution is not God; but, it is a written description of political rules for a system of government and of a social contract for a civil society without which anarchy would prevail. You may believe what you will about God; but, in the United States of America, the supreme law of the land is its Constitution.
|
Posted Monday, February 09, 2009 4:43 PM By JLS
Lorita, you've just used a bunch of symbols to say that you are not a slave to symbols.
|
Posted Monday, February 09, 2009 4:45 PM By JLS
Jon, the late U.S. Constitution is not the supreme law of the land, as you dream. But it is a device used by the powerful to manipulate the public.
|
Posted Monday, February 09, 2009 5:48 PM By Anne T.
So Lorita Cambrito, if the man or woman you did the "marriage dance" with decides to do a "marriage dance" with someone else --man or woman it is "tough" for you whether you like it or not. Do you do a "divorce dance" and dance on with someone else or do you keep the manage a trois.?
|
Posted Monday, February 09, 2009 6:00 PM By Jon
I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end ... where Catholics, Protestants and Jews ... will ... promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.
"That is the kind of America in which I believe. ...
"And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died ... when they fought for the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, and when they fought at the ... Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey -- but no one knows whether they were Catholics or not. For there was no religious test at the Alamo." Senator John F. Kennedy, 1960, Houston, Texas.
|
Posted Monday, February 09, 2009 6:28 PM By Anne T.
By the way, the first same-sex couple to be "married" in Massachusetts has already gotten a divorce. It did not take them very long. I wonder who they will be doing Lorita Cambrito's "marriage dance" with next.
|
Posted Monday, February 09, 2009 7:00 PM By Anne T.
Life Lady, you are so right. As a woman I am an alto. I cannot sing soprano or bass nor matter how hard I try. To try to do so, would only hurt the ears of the listeners and help destroy my vocal cords. It is the same thing with unnatural sex. People trying to be what they are not only hurts other people, especially their children if they have any, and destroys their own bodies. There are some some things we cannot be or cannot do no matter how hard we try, and saying the opposite does not make it so. The I think I can, I know I can philosophy carried to extreme is no longer a virtue but a vice.
|
Posted Monday, February 09, 2009 8:49 PM By Jon
The "United States" named in the first sentence of the Constitution is the same "United States" as named in Article VI, Section (3), of the Constitution. The Constitution specifically binds all judges, legislators, and executive officers, both of the United States and of the several states -- which obviously includes "any office or public trust under the United States" -- to support the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. From the beginning, the Founding Fathers got it right: under the United States there is to be no religion test for public office.
|
Posted Monday, February 09, 2009 11:10 PM By tedn
Could someone explain what is "creating an ex post facto law"....???? And if "we cannot create an ex post facto law", does that mean slavery is still the norm, and only while land-owning males are allowed to vote? Now, if you said one cannot be prosecuted for violating a law "ex post facto", I'd go along with that. But "creating ex post facto laws".... what is that, and what does it mean we cannot do that, and where does it say we cannot do that?
|
Posted Tuesday, February 10, 2009 4:09 PM By JLS
Jon, the Constitution is a piece of paper.
|
Posted Tuesday, February 10, 2009 6:24 PM By JLS
I hope it is not thought that I am putting down the U.S. Constitution. What I am doing is pointing out that it is not respected by politicians or the public as well as in past times. Any Supreme Court that could come up with the right to privacy and the right to abortion from the Constitution has no respect for that document.
|
Posted Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:55 PM By Anne T.
Jon, let us not "kid" ourselves. Political candidates have to pass religious tests all the time in spite of the Constitution. Judge Bork did not pass the religious tests of the liberal Democratics because he was an orthodox Catholic with orthodox Catholic ideas, so he did not get to be on the Supreme Court. Many did not vote for Mitt Romney because of some of his Mormon upbringing. Jack Kennedy was asked if the Pope at that time would affect his decisions, although they would never have asked an Episcopalian at that time if the Archbishop of Cantebury would affect theirs. Mike Huckabee was asked about his position on Creation. And so on and so on and so on.
|
Posted Wednesday, February 11, 2009 8:34 AM By JLS
Judge Bork converted to Catholicism in 2003 (per Wikipedia). I wonder how his conversion has affected his political views.
|
Posted Wednesday, February 11, 2009 11:27 AM By Mark from PA
Anne T, your post of 7:00 PM is interesting. I can sing alto too. When I was younger I could sing soprano. I remember when I was in 11th grade in the glee club the nun that lead the glee club put me in with the basses because I was one of the older guys. I can't sing bass because this is not how God made me. Singing alto is natural for me. I have actually had strangers stop me after Mass and tell me what a beautiful voice I have. So in this I feel blessed.
|
Posted Wednesday, February 11, 2009 12:11 PM By Jon
JFK, If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I'd tried my best and was fairly judged.
But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.
But if, on the other hand, I should win this election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency -- practically identical, I might add, with the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can, "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution -- so help me God.
|
Posted Wednesday, February 11, 2009 2:18 PM By Jon
To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any church, is an outrage against that liberty of conscience which is one of the foundations of American life. (Theodore Roosevelt, 26th U. S. President [1901-1909], letter to J. C. Martin, November 9, 1908, according to Albert Menendez and Edd Doerr, compilers, The Great Quotations on Religious Liberty, Long Beach, CA: Centerline Press, 1991, p. 83.)
If there is one thing for which we stand in this country, it is for complete religious freedom, and it is an emphatic negation of this right to cross-examine a man on his religion before being willing to support him for public office. (Theodore Roosevelt, 26th U. S. President [1901-1909], letter to J. C. Martin, November 9, 1908, according to Albert Menendez and Edd Doerr, compilers, The Great Quotations on Religious Liberty, Long Beach, CA: Centerline Press, 1991, p. 83.)
|
Posted Wednesday, February 11, 2009 3:28 PM By JLS
Jon, you sure have a consistency in separating wishful thinking for actions. BTW, do you think Kennedy was right in starting the Viet Nam war or do you think he was wrong?
|
Posted Wednesday, February 11, 2009 7:18 PM By JLS
Jon, what is a "thoroughly upright citizen"? Oh yeah, Jesus said that only sinners need salvation, and that the righteous have no need of it.
|
Posted Wednesday, February 11, 2009 8:34 PM By Jon
There was no fixed beginning for the U.S. war in Vietnam. The United States entered that war incrementally, in a series of steps between 1950 and 1965. In May 1950, President Harry S. Truman authorized a modest program of economic and military aid to the French, who were fighting to retain control of their Indochina colony, including Laos and Cambodia as well as Vietnam. When the Vietnamese Nationalist (and Communist-led) Vietminh army defeated French forces at Dienbienphu in 1954, the French were compelled to accede to the creation of a Communist Vietnam north of the 17th parallel while leaving a non-Communist entity south of that line. The United States refused to accept the arrangement. The administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower undertook instead to build a nation from the spurious political entity that was South Vietnam by fabricating a government there, taking over control from the French, dispatching military advisers to train a South Vietnamese army, and unleashing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to conduct psychological warfare against the North.
President John F. Kennedy rounded another turning point in early 1961, when he secretly sent 400 Special Operations Forces-trained (Green Beret) soldiers to teach the South Vietnamese how to fight what was called counterinsurgency war against Communist guerrillas in South Vietnam. When Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, there were more than 16,000 U.S. military advisers in South Vietnam, and more than 100 Americans had been killed. Kennedy's successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, committed the United States most fully to the war. In August 1964, he secured from Congress a functional (not actual) declaration of war: the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. Then, in February and March 1965, Johnson authorized the sustained bombing, by U.S. aircraft, of targets north of the 17th parallel, and on 8 March dispatched 3,500 Marines to South Vietnam. Legal declaration or no, the United States was now at war.
|
Posted Thursday, February 12, 2009 8:48 AM By Maria
I have heard this solution proposed long before the current Prop. 8 debate. To eliminate the term "marriage" from public statutes that deal with economic and social responsibilities of individuals in our society would be a magnitude change in the entire concept of law, governance, and community in America. Civil libertarians have proposed this type of elimination before and so have the vanguards of the sexual revolution, in fact the destruction of "Marriage" was the first goal of their sexual manifesto. It might be a way for people of faith to crawl out from under the collapsing rubble of western civilization or it could very likely provide the bulldozing of religious liberty-opportunity of historic proportions that ardent atheists and secular humanists have long been dreaming of in creating the "new world order". We must consider carefully and sort it out. I have a sense that the elimination of traditional marriage from secular legal order will mean total moral free-fall for this nation. Look at Europe. Their society continues to function because it has internal social barriers that are complex. The revolution that brought about the freedoms that America enjoys also has a stern corollary, freedom requires vigilance and self-discipline. When we have cast away all structure, how will we stand? Keep praying...hard.
|
Posted Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:33 AM By Word work
Firstly, who came up with the phrase "Yes on Equality?" Given that what this group wishes to do it tamper with nomenclature, you would think they would at least use proper grammar. Secondly, I chuckled when I typed in the website address which could also read "Yes one quality" which made me think that yes, there is one essential quality to marriage... this too eludes the website makers... but thankfully most others recognize what the basic foundational quality of marriage is.
|
Posted Thursday, February 12, 2009 3:15 PM By erin
Men and women have their own God created genitals. Helloooo! God created us for each other to compliment each other. Anything other than a man and woman joining in union in marriage is fake. The flesh will always be in a battle for the spirit. We are debating with non-believers. If gays really believed in God and the Holy Scripture, would we be having this debate? Fast and pray. Remember Jonah?
|
Posted Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:18 PM By JLS
Jon, the history of it is well known. Secretary McNamara was the chief architect; he claims that it was to stop Communist expansion during the height of the Cold War. It can be argued indefinitely whether the US used "creative" intelligence to justify Tonkin ... The issue is the importance of that war ... has it been justified?
|
Posted Thursday, February 12, 2009 5:09 PM By Jon
Why is Massachusetts both the most Catholic and most liberal state in the union?
|
Posted Thursday, February 12, 2009 7:15 PM By Anne T.
Jon, there can never be absolute religious freedom, but just a reasonable amount of it. Would you allow a Satanist who believed in human sacrifice to kill another human being in his religious ritual? Would a man or woman who did not believe in polygamy vote for a person of another religion who did believe in polygamy and promised to legalize it? And so on and so on and so on. Remember when the founding Fathers put freedom of religion into the Constitution this was mainly a nation of Judeo-Christian denominations, and they meant a reasonable amount of freedom of religion. Get real, Jon. Separate fantasy from reality. There are some things that cannot be allowed in the name of religion.
|
Posted Thursday, February 12, 2009 8:20 PM By JLS
Jon, how do you know if Massachusetts is the most Catholic state? After all, California has a Catholic governor, and Catholic legislators who always vote for abortion, and the population here is way bigger than that of Massachusetts. One small diocese in California numbers over a million Catholics. How many in the whole state? Guess maybe more Catholics in California than people in Massachusetts. Bet it's also true of Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri and so on.
|
Posted Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:11 PM By Mark from PA
According to "10 Most Catholic States" Rhode Island has the highest percentage of Catholics and Massachusetts is second. The "Catholic States" tend to be more liberal. The "Baptist States" of the South and Mormon Utah are more conservative.
|
Posted Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:52 PM By Jon
California is 28% Catholic. Massachusetts is 44% Catholic. So, Why is Massachusetts both the most Catholic and most liberal state in the union?
|
Posted Thursday, February 12, 2009 11:25 PM By Thuvia Parth
In reply to JLS: To trash the Constitution, as you do, is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is to fail to distinguish between the Constitution, on the one hand, and the abuse of its provisions, on the other.
|
Posted Friday, February 13, 2009 6:34 AM By JLS
Thuvia P., you'd do well to actually read what I posted. Your accusation is absurd.
|
Posted Friday, February 13, 2009 9:28 AM By Jon
Correction: Why is Massachusetts the second most Catholic and most liberal state in the union?
|
Posted Sunday, February 15, 2009 11:34 PM By Almond Milk
Jon all this info you posted is fine and dandy but what are you getting at with all those political postings? Look at the roots sir and check where they came from? Christian roots with moral conscience this constitution was created by. Jon also laws mean nothing should our Lord decide to end it all, laws won't guarantee you salvation. Man made laws are meant to be broken and changed because as moral people who seek to love and obey God, we need to morally act on what is right and just in God's eye's. Yes I get what you are saying, I can't answer your question regarding those two liberal states, it is more complex and unfortunately shameful to have to answer those question. It is sad indeed but I have a question for you. Why did God's chosen people in the old testament choose to build for themselves a god just after they were free'd from slavery shortly after when Moses parted the sea, with all those miracles, they still chose to commit Idolatry? Why did David take for himself someone else s wife? Why did people choose to have Jesus crucified even after he performed many miracles? God's people are sinners and what do sinners need, they need the great physician, they need Jesus and as long as we put other things first before God, we will keep having these questions as to why? Why? If we honestly seek the answer, we don't have to search for long, the answer is there. Just depends on how honest we are with ourselves.
|
Posted Monday, February 16, 2009 4:30 PM By Jon
Nowhere in the Constitution or in the writings of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison is found one sentence which suggests religion action is above the law. Nothing in their writings is more accepted than the principle of law as drafted in compact with the people. Never did either of them ever assert unrestricted religion action was to prevail or everyone was free to do whatever they pleased in the name of "free exercise." Jefferson and Madison totally opposed any legal establishment of religion tyranny over the minds of men. It was establishment of religion by law which both Jefferson and Madison fought to eliminate in Virginia and in America by forbidding such establishments through specifically drafted prohibitions in civil law, the supreme law of the land being the Constitution. The law which rules America is civil law -- law created "by the people" at all levels of legitimate government. The rules or "laws" of world religions are given no recognition in the Constitution and have no legal standing in any court of law within the United States of America.
|
Posted Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:17 AM By Almond Milk
Jon we all know how this country is being run now, it is self interpretation of the constitution not the will of the people any more, this constitution is changing and being run by liberals. Plus Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were not God, but they certainly had moral consciences unlike many now a days and if they had known that the homosexual agenda (a disorder) would be so easily accepted and now entering a new level as far as they wanting to redefine marriage, they would of protested to what is going on now. People back then had more moral values and that is what created our constitution!
|
Posted Tuesday, February 17, 2009 4:01 PM By Almond Milk
During Thomas Jefferson time most people had the decency that society is lacking now a days. They had their problems too but people where more decent and were more sensitive to sinfulness, they had men with moral character that formed the minds of our youth unlike today, it is the adults who are destroying family values, the liberals who run this country, who mock our faith and bring scandal to our children and family life.
|
Posted Tuesday, February 17, 2009 6:29 PM By Talitha Kumi
Fr M P, AA-men! RE: your post of Feb 06 05:12 am
|
Posted Tuesday, February 17, 2009 7:53 PM By Jon
Religion imposed by law was normal in sixteenth century Europe, even in England. As exploration to the New World expanded in the 1600s, seventeenth century religion dissenters, such as the Pilgrims and Puritans, journeyed to North America where they could freely worship in their own manner. Unfortunately, some of these seekers of religion freedom for themselves brought with them the same mentality to which they objected in England and established governments in some (not all) of the colonies which imposed religion laws upon everyone. Soon Christians were hanging witches.
In the 1700s, enlightened eighteenth century Americans began to make progress in promoting an understanding among some Americans in all colonies and states that religion was not the business of government. In the forefront of this battle for freedom was James Madison. In 1785 Madison wrote his famous “Memorial and Remonstrance” protesting a bill in the Virginia legislature which would levy taxes for financial support of “teachers of the Christian religion.” In his protest, Madison listed fifteen objections.
|
Posted Tuesday, February 17, 2009 10:23 PM By Anne T.
The truth is that the Founding Fathers still had Judeo-Christian consciences. They are "rolling over" in their graves at what is going on today, including Madison. They never knew that corruption and sinfulness would go this far, although they most certainly suspected it could happen from what happened during the Old Testament and the French Revolution.
|
Posted Tuesday, February 17, 2009 11:15 PM By Almond Milk
Jon you sound like you are speaking about what circumstances came forth due to the protestant movement. What you are saying makes sense in relation to what happens when people break away from Christ's true church. Division away from God can cause all sort of problems. Look at today for instance, we have problems in our church but still it is the faithful that will reap rewards in the end. Our faithfulness to Christ and His church, perseverance, oh sweet perseverance.
|
Posted Tuesday, February 17, 2009 11:39 PM By Jon
Genises 1: 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the
sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them
|
Posted Wednesday, February 18, 2009 10:38 AM By Almond Milk
Jon it would be interesting to see what you are trying to convey with your last post, perhaps your own personal interpretation. Forgive me if I'm mistaken if I'm suspicious to what you are trying to convey. Holy Scriptures and Church go hand in hand. Not one without the other because if you separate church from Holy Scriptures people are in danger of heresy and personal interpretation and if you have the church without Holy Word of God then you have no true church, no Jesus. You can't have one without the other. They are one together, God's holy word and God's holy traditions in His Holy Catholic church. The church is the same but people are the ones who change sometimes for the good or for the worst but God never changes. God is perfect and human nature isn't. We are only made perfect in Christ not without Christ. God bless.
|
Posted Wednesday, February 18, 2009 2:27 PM By Jon
The lack of conflict or confusion in the brilliance of the wording of the First Amendment's religion clauses, as finally drafted by the 1789 Joint Senate-House Conference Committee, approved by the majority in the First Congress, and ratified by the states. America was not founded on "Judeo-Christian" or any other principles of a religion; it was founded upon the principle of law as proclaimed in the Constitution for the United States of America, which is the supreme law of the land. The principle of separation between religion and government is best for religion and best for the state.
|
Posted Wednesday, February 18, 2009 4:50 PM By Almond Milk
Jon you are probably not first person (nor the last for that matter) that I have ever heard deny the fact that America was founded on Judeo-Christian values. It just amazes me. But hey pretty neat dialogue we are having here, I find it interesting but I do not totally agree with your views though. I do appreciate the dialogue.
|
Posted Wednesday, February 18, 2009 7:20 PM By Mark from PA
Almond Milk, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had slaves. Their moral consciences certainly were unlike many today. In the US Constitution as written, slaves were considered 3/5 of a person for purposes of representation. There is much less prejudice against black and gay Americans compared to 60 years ago. That is a good thing. We have made progress in this area. Hatred against people due to race and orientation is much less.
|
Posted Wednesday, February 18, 2009 10:09 PM By Almond Milk
Mark from PA God permitted slavery in the old testament as well (even in holy scriptures there were sections that mentioned on how to treat your slaves.) and by your definition/views of hatred you would then say that God hated them. (which you are totally wrong) I am not condoning slavery but I feel that your thinking is not altogether there.
|
Posted Thursday, February 19, 2009 7:18 AM By Grisha
Almond Milk - While the US was founded on basic Judeo Christian values, the Founding Fathers were aware of a whole history of terrible things happening when there was conflict over interpretation of those values. Thus they wrote the First Amendment. When I see my fellow Catholics over at the New Oxford Review website hawking T-shirts saying "I'd Rather be Burning Heretics" I'm grateful for the framers wisdom.
|
Posted Thursday, February 19, 2009 11:08 PM By Almond Milk
Grisha perhaps I misunderstood your last post but do you consider yourself a heretic? I ask because you quoted "I'm grateful for the framers wisdom." I'm sure New Oxford Review had good reasons for having that slogan. I don't think they meant that literally. I guess if one is not a heretic, then why should anyone fear?
|
Posted Saturday, February 21, 2009 6:49 PM By Jon
The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities. (John E. E. Dalberg, Lord Acton, 1834-1902, British historian, The History of Freedom and Other Essays, 1907. From Henry O. Dormann, compiler, The Speaker's Book of Quotations, New York: Ballantine Books, 1987, p. 43.)
|
© California Catholic Daily 2009. All Rights Reserved.
|