Quote :

"N.H. governor says he'll OK civil unions By NORMA LOVE ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER CONCORD, N.H. -- Gov. John Lynch said Thursday he will sign legislation establishing civil unions for gay couples in New Hampshire. "I believe it is a matter of conscience, fairness and preventing discrimination," Lynch told The Associated Press. New Hampshire would become the fourth state to adopt civil unions, following Connecticut, Vermont and New Jersey. Massachusetts established gay marriage. Lynch had previously declined to take a public position on civil unions, though has supported expanding health benefits to same-sex partners of state workers. He came under fire from both sides for not weighing in - especially after a delay last week of the Senate vote on the House-passed bill. The Senate votes next week, and Lynch said he is confident the legislation will pass. It would authorize civil unions beginning next year."

While some people say that civil unions are a problem because they placate people without actually solving the issue at hand--a position which, for the most part, I agree with--I think it is still at least a stepping stone towards what we will one day need to achieve.

Another thing that I would be in favor of is getting rid of all government-endorsed marriages and instead having everybody have civil unions, from a legal standpoint. Thoughts?

4/19/2007 12:45:37 PM

i agree.

4/19/2007 12:56:20 PM

a victory for Johnny Cakes

4/19/2007 1:35:44 PM

Quote :

"Another thing that I would be in favor of is getting rid of all government-endorsed marriages and instead having everybody have civil unions, from a legal standpoint."

I fully agree with this.

Marriage is a religious institution and should be kept out of the law books contextually. defining the concept of a "Civil Union" for the purposes of recognizing and facilitating legal affairs of two individuals operating as one unit eliminates the whole gay/straight debacle.

4/19/2007 1:47:15 PM

in a perfect world, this thread would not go past a page, because everything in the initial post is reasonable. unfortunately it's not a perfect world.

4/19/2007 2:00:10 PM

^good point. I will only have a problem with civil unions when they try to sue a church for discrimination bc they want to have their ceremony there and the church refuses.

Also, a point you made, the seperation of church and state was made to keep the govt from interferring with the church..not the other way around. Our constitution and govt was formed on religious backgrounds..look no further than our currency. And no, I dont go to church so dont call me a religious nut job.

4/19/2007 2:03:41 PM

Quote :

"look no further than our currency."

You might want to do some research.

4/19/2007 2:07:32 PM

Quote :

"I will only have a problem with civil unions when they try to sue a church for discrimination bc they want to have their ceremony there and the church refuses."

A church is a private organization that has no obligation to serve anybody that they don't want to. Plenty of churches impose requirements on those whom they marry before performing the service as it is. This is a non-issue.

4/19/2007 2:08:19 PM

Why would someone want to get married at a church that didn't want them there, when there are so many other great places in the world to get married?

4/19/2007 2:09:45 PM

Quote :

"Marriage is a religious institution and should be kept out of the law books contextually. defining the concept of a "Civil Union" for the purposes of recognizing and facilitating legal affairs of two individuals operating as one unit eliminates the whole gay/straight debacle."

This has been my feelings on the subject for quite some time and pretty much everyone I bring it up to sees no problem with it. I think the use of the term "marriage" puts off the religious right before you even get to the heart of the subject simply because they see it as infringing on the religious institution of marriage instead of the civil properties/rights that people are really trying to talk about.

4/19/2007 2:17:03 PM

supplanter, there has already be lawsuits filed bc people were either declined or cancelled bc they were found to be a gay couple. The fact about a church being private doesnt matter. People simply dont like being told no. I have no problem with a civil union, its just that they should not be allowed to sue a church, who disagrees with it, to have their ceremony there... or any other venue for that matter, if they disagree. But they will be able to claim discrimination..no doubt.

4/19/2007 2:59:30 PM

Quote :

".look no further than our currency."

you realize that it was added to the currency after WW2 right? i guess not, otherwise you wouldn't have said that.

4/19/2007 3:06:04 PM

^not true. In God We Trust first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.

I was also using it as an example of how religion is not meant to stay out of govt..but the other way around. Not to imply that we started printing currency with in god we trust before the ink dried on the constitution.

On July 13, 1787, the Continental Congress enacted the Northwest Ordinance, which stated: "Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged." (1) The First Amendment prohibited the federal government from establishing a religion to which the several states must pay homage. The First Amendment provided assurance that the federal government would not meddle in the affairs of religion within the sovereign states.


[Edited on April 19, 2007 at 3:16 PM. Reason : .]

4/19/2007 3:13:58 PM

Quote :

"Despite historical opposition, the motto has been in continuous use on the one-cent coin since 1909 and on the ten-cent dime since 1916. It also has appeared on all gold coins and silver dollar coins, half-dollar coins, and quarter-dollar coins struck since July 1, 1908."

Quote :

"A 1934-A five-dollar silver certificate (top image is the obverse of the certificate, bottom image is the reverse of the certificate). A 1934-A five-dollar silver certificate (top image is the obverse of the certificate, bottom image is the reverse of the certificate). In God We Trust was first used on paper money in 1957 when it appeared on the one-dollar Silver Certificate. The first paper currency bearing the motto entered circulation on October 1, 1957. "

It was not on on all currency until after WW2. It began coin circulation in 1909 despite opposition.

You can hardly call that a 'mandate.'

4/19/2007 3:20:42 PM

It's a wonder we have any laws at all.

Every law discriminates against one person or another. What is any law based on? What's to say anything is right or wrong?

4/19/2007 3:26:52 PM

so you are now arguing that it started in 1909, or that 1909 is after WW2?

And I am right when it first appeared. Dont believe me? Here is a link to the US treasury fact sheet. Enjoy. But Ill qoute this for you, "IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin." Now its been along day, and my eyes are tired...but that looks familar.


http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml


The date isnt important..its the fact that it is there... which somehow you miss in my explaination.

4/19/2007 3:29:31 PM

4/19/2007 3:33:39 PM

My point was that it wasn't on all currency until after WW2. It wasn't on all coinage consistently until the 20th century.


The fact that it's there isn't important, the fact that there was significant opposition is.

4/19/2007 4:05:16 PM

I guess I misunderstood this qoute from you, "you realize that it was added to the currency after WW2 right? i guess not"

Why is the fact there was opposition important? There are people trying to get it removed now. There are people opposing this latest late term ban, who is for crushing a newborns skull? Some nut jobs..named Hillary, Obama, Edwards...etc...

I enjoyed the arguement monky. I think we have hijacked this thread long enough.

4/19/2007 4:10:45 PM

Well it's important to show there is a minority opinion I think. Too many politicians like to make blanket statements. Personally, I could care less if it's written on coinage or not.

As long as the minority is respected and their rights are not taken away I have no problem with certain 'moral laws.' These mainly fall under decency laws (no-smoking in govt buildings, no public nudity, etc.). I do think that not allowing homosexuals to have the same legal rights as heterosexuals is wrong though. Americans are americans regardless of sexual preference and are entitled to the same rights as every other citizen.

4/19/2007 4:25:17 PM

^good post. I agree

4/19/2007 4:35:26 PM

So many failures in one thread.

Quote :

"eyedrb: On July 13, 1787, the Continental Congress enacted the Northwest Ordinance, which stated: "Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged." (1) The First Amendment"

The First Amendment didn't exist when the Northwest Ordinance was passed. Hell, the Constitution wasn't even ratified yet

Quote :

"the seperation of church and state was made to keep the govt from interferring with the church..not the other way around."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

There are two distinct parts of this with two distinct functions. Establishment and Free Exercise-- preventing the government from interfering with the church, and visa versa. The logical extension of this of course is the separation of church and state. If you have any doubt, please "look no further" than the guy who wrote it.

Quote :

"Our constitution and govt was formed on religious backgrounds..look no further than our currency. And no, I dont go to church so dont call me a religious nut job."

Clearly. Our Constitution was formed in 1789 on religious backgrounds; look no further than a coin from 1864. How about we just look at the Constitution? It seems pretty clear on the subject.


[Edited on April 19, 2007 at 7:11 PM. Reason : .]

4/19/2007 6:57:37 PM

ok kid, ill bite.

So, in your opinion the first admendment says the church should stay out of government? I believe it protects teh church, all churches, from being run by the govt. or have a national church, like england did.

Its obvious that religion plays a role throughout our governments history. Its in our declaration of independance, with a mention of god and a creator. Remember this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness.

There has never been the term seperation of church and state in any documents founding this country.

Ok genius, tell me exactly what the constitution says about it? And I would also like YOUR opinion why we have that phrase on our currency?

4/19/2007 8:36:43 PM

Quote :

"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

God? Vishnu? A Really Big Turtle? If the United States was so heavily-influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs, why all the vagueness?

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence; coincidentally he also coined the term "separation of church and state," and fought for said concept pretty fiercely.

Furthermore, I wasn't aware that the Declaration of Independence (or currency for that matter) was a legally binding argument that would have any influence what-so-ever on our nation's laws.

Quote :

"There has never been the term seperation of church and state in any documents founding this country."

This is semantics.

No, there has never been that exact phrase included in any of our documents. That doesn't mean the concept doesn't exist. It's a logical consequence of the 1st Amendment. Thomas Jefferson said so himself (see above)

Quote :

"Ok genius, tell me exactly what the constitution says about it?"

Well for starters, our Constitution, so heavily-influenced by Christianity, says nothing about God. It does have that pesky 1st Amendment, though, which you seem to have a hard time understanding.

Then there's the fact that our founding fathers, so heavily-influenced by Christianity, were (overall) luke-warm Christians heavily influenced by the Enlightenment. There are exceptions such as Patrick Henry, but overall they were either Deists, Unitarians, or Protestants who didn't desire to push their faith on others.

-Washington (save for a few letters here and there) rarely spoke of religion at all
-Adams had no problem signing the Treaty with Tripoli
-Jefferson (see above)
-Madison was of one mind with Jefferson on the matter
-JQ Adams was a Unitarian like his dad

This is where you'll try to find religious quotes from our founding fathers expressing their faith, but that's also where you'll miss the point entirely. There were plenty of faithful founding fathers; this doesn't mean they wanted to create a theocracy. This misunderstanding is much like how many evangelicals today can't understand how a Christian could also desire a secular, liberal government.

Quote :

"And I would also like YOUR opinion why we have that phrase on our currency?"

Tell me how the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed. Or the Dred Scott Decision, or Plessy v. Ferguson, or the Espionage and Sedition Acts, or Korematsu v. US. We don't always follow the constitution to the letter of the law.

4/19/2007 9:26:05 PM

Ok, help me out here. 1st admendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It seems to me this simply states that the government will not choose or legislate to one religion, and allow you to practice, freely, whatever religion you choose. The free exercise clause allows you to practice whatever you want.

4/19/2007 9:53:32 PM

Quote :

"the government will not choose or legislate to one religion, and allow you to practice, freely, whatever religion you choose. The free exercise clause allows you to practice whatever you want."

fixed it for you

4/19/2007 9:55:55 PM

And yet you want to government to legislate religion for teh gheys.

4/19/2007 10:01:05 PM

Again, I think it prevents from having a state government...you know, like they came from. It also provides for freedom of speech and religion.

4/19/2007 10:01:35 PM

naggers settlin down

4/19/2007 10:03:50 PM

Quote :

"And yet you want to government to legislate religion for teh gheys."

Would you quit bringing this pathetic shit in here?

We're wanting to keep your religion from limiting "teh gheys" civil liberties. We're not forcing any religion to do anything.

Quote :

"Again, I think it prevents from having a state government...you know, like they came from. It also provides for freedom of speech and religion."

You mean to say that legislating religion is ok, so long as they don't make it official?

Well that simply wasn't the intention of the 1st Amendment. Please read the following, written by Jefferson with Madison's aid:

http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

4/19/2007 10:07:04 PM

4life was that addressed to me? Im for civil unions. I just dont think they should be able to sue a church or any other group if they refuse to host thier ceremony.

4/19/2007 10:08:01 PM

No it was addressed to boone, since he wants to force the gay lifestyle on something that was at one time considered to be such an understood common practice that it was never even questioned.

4/19/2007 10:10:34 PM

^^No, it was directed at me.

He's under the impression that disallowing evangelicals from violating others' religious freedoms somehow violates their own religious freedoms.


^Wait, we want to change your church's definition of marriage? When did this happen?

[Edited on April 19, 2007 at 10:11 PM. Reason : ^^]

4/19/2007 10:10:35 PM

Violating the very concept of marriage somehow equals expanding a right? Since when was marriage an inclusive right? It never has been until recently.

4/19/2007 10:11:57 PM

Strength through unity. Unity through faith.

4/19/2007 10:12:45 PM

Violating the very concept of marriage suffrage somehow equals expanding a right? Since when was marriage suffrage an inclusive right? It never has been until recently.

4/19/2007 10:13:45 PM

Keep your strawman in your pants. This isn't 1920.

4/19/2007 10:14:18 PM

good discussion fellas, but this old man needs sleep. You all have a good night.

Where is the conflict, if you allow a civil union? Its not a religious binding. It simply allows them to share the same benefits givin to a married couple. Look its not for me, but Im in no position to tell two other adults what they can or cannot do to make themselves happy, as long as it doesnt hurt others.

4/19/2007 10:14:54 PM

Keep your strawman in your pants. This isn't 1920 2007.

Please tell me how the analogy is invalid. They're both liberties afforded to citizens by the US government.




[Edited on April 19, 2007 at 10:23 PM. Reason : .]

4/19/2007 10:16:11 PM

Voting rights is a recent political phenomenon. The concept of marriage = one man + one woman has been commonly understood and practiced for thousands of years, and one that is deeply rooted in religious tradition. Believe it or not, precendent and common law are strongly based on traditional practices and values.

4/19/2007 10:20:21 PM

BUT BOONE, MARRIAGE HAS ALWAYS BEEN DEFINED AS BEING BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN

suffrage has always been defined as being given to land-owning white males.


BUT BOONE, MARRIAGE IS A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION

Government marriage licenses have nothing to do with religion.


Believe it or not, suffrage rights were based on tradition, too. The pathetic thing is that you're so predictable, I was able to start typing this before you responded.



So you're saying the crux of your argument is that marriage is older than democracy? gg dude; your side is sure to win.

Tradition and precedence only goes so far. When it's the entirety of your argument, you lose.


[Edited on April 19, 2007 at 10:28 PM. Reason : .]

4/19/2007 10:24:56 PM

Yes, voting rights for landowning white males only was based on a tradition that didn't even last for 50 years. And yet you want to compare that to a practice that has been common place over THOUSANDS of years.

You're so predictable. Comparing a politcal right to a religious perogative isn't the same, and yet you want to violate the same principles of the 1st amendment that you claim to tout. Basically F religion, F tradition, F precedent, F common law, and anything else that you don't agree with for purely politically pandering reasons.

[Edited on April 19, 2007 at 10:31 PM. Reason : blah]

4/19/2007 10:29:11 PM

Quote :

"Yes, voting rights for white males only was based on aa tradition that didn't even last for 50 years. And yet you want to compare that to a practice that has been common place over THOUSANDS of years."

You mean the tradition of limited suffrage rights only extends for 50 years? What books are you reading? Cite this please, because I could have sworn that limited suffrage rights have been commonplace for THOUSANDS of years, too.

Quote :

"You're so predictable. Comparing a politcal right to a religious perogative isn't the same, and yet you want to violate the same principles of the 1st amendment that you claim to tout."

Wait, so you're saying government marriage licenses are religious documents? Even when they're done by a Justice of the Peace? Very interesting-- see, I thought they were legal documents affording US citizens certain rights.

And the whole "you're violating the 1st Amendment by changing marriage" is pathetic.

1. Marriage isn't owned by a single religion. A number of sects allow gay marriage.
2. If government marriage licenses are in fact religious documents, then we're violating the 1st Amendment simply by issuing them. Removing their religious context would remedy this; fortunately for the 1st Amendment, they don't have any religious meaning.

4/19/2007 10:36:31 PM

Quote :

"You mean the tradition of limited suffrage rights only extends for 50 years? What books are you reading? Cite this please, because I could have sworn that limited suffrage rights have been commonplace for THOUSANDS of years, too."

Voting rights have expanded since the founding of this republic, from those who owned land, to blacks, to women. That hardly makes that some sort of tradition, and besides, it's a man made tradition, and not considered a common religious practice. You might as well compare voting to baptism, last rites, holy orders, or which care bear had the greatest super powers while you're at it.

Quote :

"Wait, so you're saying government marriage licenses are religious documents? Even when they're done by a Justice of the Peace? Very interesting-- see, I thought they were legal documents affording US citizens certain rights. "

I'm saying recognize a time honored tradition that has been commonly understood that defines a marriage. Your persistent efforts to bastardize that tradition violates it that basic concept. Do you want to redefine gender roles as well? Is there anything else that is basic and understood that you want to tinker with?

Call it what you will, a marriage, civil union, etc. but you are violating its core intention, which is the bond/union of a man and woman as the ultimate form of commitment and love. Plenty of good arises out of what is considered a real marriage; conversely nothing good will result from recognizing gay unions. Their lifestyle defies just about everything that is good that comes out of a normal marriage. I will not recite the stats, see the other thread that you and your gay partner in arms guth hijacked a few days ago.

Quote :

"1. Marriage isn't owned by a single religion. A number of sects allow gay marriage."

I don't care what these "latter day" faiths allow. It still violates a marriage's original intent.

Quote :

"2. If government marriage licenses are in fact religious documents, then we're violating the 1st Amendment simply by issuing them. Removing their religious context would remedy this; fortunately for the 1st Amendment, they don't have any religious meaning. "

The government recognizing a basic and fundamental right between a man and woman is not in violation of the 1st amendment, rather a respect for a time honored practice.

But since your side is so persistent on perverting something as pure intentioned as marriage, the best remedy is that the government gets out of the marriage business altogether. No civil unions, no marriage licenses. Couples should, therefore, settle everything legally on their own without the all encompassing marriage privileges.

4/19/2007 10:54:09 PM

Quote :

"and besides, it's a man made tradition"

So is marriage.

Quote :

"You might as well compare voting to baptism, last rites, holy orders, or which care bear had the greatest super powers while you're at it."

Is government involved in any of these functions?

Quote :

"Plenty of good arises out of what is considered a real marriage; conversely nothing good will result from recognizing gay unions. Their lifestyle defies just about everything that is good that comes out of a normal marriage."

Relevance to the debate: zero

Let's ban people from being part of any subset of society that performs poorly in comparison to middle-classed white Christians.

Quote :

"I don't care what these "latter day" faiths allow. It still violates a marriage's original intent."

Hahah, well I'm sure they don't much care for what you think, either. But that doesn't make a good argument, does it?

Quote :

"The government recognizing a basic and fundamental right between a man and woman is not in violation of the 1st amendment, rather a respect for a time honored practice."

Suffrage was a basic and fundamental right of a land-holding white male. You've yet to tell me why the suffrage analogy is invalid.

4/19/2007 11:11:07 PM

Quote :

"Voting rights is a recent political phenomenon. The concept of marriage = one man + one woman has been commonly understood and practiced for thousands of years, and one that is deeply rooted in religious Christian tradition. Believe it or not, precendent and common law are strongly based on traditional practices and values."

Plenty of other religions endorse gay marriage.

4/19/2007 11:43:32 PM

Well that's a moot point; Wlfpk4Life doesn't like those other religions, thus they have no 1st Amendment rights.

4/19/2007 11:57:19 PM

Quote :

"Another thing that I would be in favor of is getting rid of all government-endorsed marriages and instead having everybody have civil unions, from a legal standpoint."

I agree.

4/20/2007 12:18:20 AM

Quote :

"Another thing that I would be in favor of is getting rid of all government-endorsed marriages and instead having everybody have civil unions, from a legal standpoint. Thoughts?"

I agree.

4/20/2007 12:46:24 AM

Any chance of legalizing polygamy in North Carolina? Talk about some multiplied tax deductions!

4/20/2007 12:48:14 AM