[hrothgar]

Jimmy asked me to clarify some of my own thoughts about Separation of Church and State, including the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and the the like.

I am a strong advocate of what is often called strong separation of Church and State. I believe in a separationist / no aid interpretation of the Establishment clause. I believe that Federal and State governments should be banned from providing any type of aid that would promote a specific religious denomination, or, for that matter promote the concept of “religion” (as opposed to an inherently secular world view). In accordance with this, I believe the following

1.The words “under god” should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. (I'd be perfectly happy to do away with the Pledge of Allegiance, but that's another story)
2.Phrases like “in god we trust” should be removed from currency
3.Official government functions should not include any kind of “prayer”. (This includes school board meetings, congressional sessions, and court sessions)
4.People should not swear on the bible when they appear in court
5.Government should not not provide any funding to quasi-religious organizations / faith based initiatives / whatever.
6.Schools that receive government funding can require any kind of prayer, nor can they use concepts like a “moment of silence” to sidestep prohibitions of school prayer.

As a general theme, the US government should not be formally sponsor any kind of activities that suggest that the government favors religion over secularism.

As a specific example, here are my thoughts on the whole “gay marriage” debate.

I believe that the most logical way to deal with this whole fight is to side-step the entire issue. I think that society needs to clearly recognize marriage (as defined in the US) merges two very different concepts.

First: Marriage as “ceremony”. People enjoy using ceremonies to mark significant occasions in their life. Pledging some form of commitment to another individual is one such occasion.

Second: Marriage establishes a legal contract. For better or worse (I'd argue for worse), the government made a conscious decision that participating in a marriage ceremony establishes a legal contract between the participants. The scope of this contract is enormous and encompasses issues including but not limited to inheritance, tax exemptions, health coverage, survivor benefits, visitation rights, alimony, and child support.

I would argue that the government should formally sever any/all links between these two concepts. Marriage as ceremony should be left to the discretion of individuals. The Southern Baptists are welcome to define marriage as a union of a man and subordinate woman. The Mormans are welcome to practice polygamy. The Unitarian Universalists are welcome to marry two men (or, for that matter, two men and a woman). Society should remain neutral about these types of private ceremonies.

In contrast, the public sphere has a very strong vested interest in “marriage as contract”. Given that marriage as contract grants specific rights and privileges all standard legal precedence surrounding non-discrimination needs to apply. If you are granting a specific set of legal privileges to a man and a woman, you can't deny them to a pair of men.

[P_Marlowe]

hrothgar, on Jul 17 2006, 07:38 AM, said:

<snip>
If you are granting a specific set of legal privileges to a man and a woman, you can't deny them to a pair of men.
<snip>

You can. Simply asked yourself, why do you grant those
privileges, and does the given situation fits into the muster.

The state has an interest that children get born / raised, and
two men can raise children, but there will no child be born.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[helene_t]

P_Marlowe, on Jul 17 2006, 04:31 PM, said:

The state has an interest that children get born / raised, and
two men can raise children, but there will no child be born.

How many gay men do you think will respond in this way: Oh, I can't legally marry my spouse, so I have to marry a woman and become a father?

Anyway, the point is this:
- if some wicked religious sect thinks that a gay couple shouldn't have the blessing of whatever-heavenly-mandate-they-recognize, it's their own business. The law does not interfere with religious ceremony.
- if the constitutions says that civil law can't discriminate between men and women (and, therefore, can't discriminate between hetero- and homosexuals), it's none of the sect's business, since religion should not interfere with civil law.

[P_Marlowe]

helene_t, on Jul 17 2006, 09:52 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Jul 17 2006, 04:31 PM, said:

The state has an interest that children get born / raised, and
two men can raise children, but there will no child be born.

How many gay men do you think will respond in this way: Oh, I can't legally marry my spouse, so I have to marry a woman and become a father?

Anyway, the point is this:
- if some wicked religious sect thinks that a gay couple shouldn't have the blessing of whatever-heavenly-mandate-they-recognize, it's their own business. The law does not interfere with religious ceremony.
- if the constitutions says that civil law can't discriminate between men and women (and, therefore, can't discriminate between hetero- and homosexuals), it's none of the sect's business, since religion should not interfere with civil law.

Hi Helen,

that argument is beside the point, is it not?
The question was, does the state have the
right to grant specific privileges depending
on sex only?

The state has the right, as long as he does not
discrimintate the other.
Subsidies are allowed, not being eligible is not the
same a being discrimintate.
One simply does not fullfill the requirement for the
subsidies. (*)

I would say, if two man raise a child, they should
have similar support as a woman and a man
raising a child,
and I would also say, that a childless married couple
does not need special priveliges,
but that is beside the point.

With kind regards
Marlowe

(*) The gay man can marry a woman and get the
priviliges, assuming, that one household / living together /
sharing the same bed is not required for the priviliges.

... There is point were the state has no rights to know anything
about, the knowledge living together / sharing the same bed
belongs to those area of information.

[luke warm]

there is an ongoing debate as to the intention of the founders when certain documents were penned... many quotes can be found which show a dichotomy between some of their beliefs regarding christianity and the new government and the freedoms granted *all* the people... it does seem safe to say that most, if not all, of the founders viewed this new country as being inseparable from religion in general, and christianity in particular... george washington's words

"While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support."

show, in my opinion, that he felt gov't should nurture religion and that religion, in turn, should support that gov't... he isn't the only founder to offer views

john adams, 2nd president of the u.s. - "We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."

benjamin franklin - "I have lived, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"

alexandar hamilton, speaking of the constitution - "In my opinion, the present constitution is the standard to which we are to cling.... Let an association be formed to be denominated 'The Christian Constitutional Society,' its object to be first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States."

patrick 'give me liberty or give me death' henry - "The great pillars of all government...[are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible."

john jay, 1st chief justice to the supreme court, showing that subsequent court rulings might have missed the original intent - "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

thomas jefferson, 3rd president of the u.s. - "No nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has ever been given to man, and I, as chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example."

george mason, who is considered the author of the bill of rights - "The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth."

thomas 'common sense' payne - "The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Where, say some, is the king of America? I'll tell you, friend, He reigns above."

to be fair, most if not all of the above (and many others) felt that gov't in and of itself was a necessary evil in the lives of men... as such, they felt that the less the gov't infringed on the personal freedom and liberty of the governed, the more efficient, productive, and solid that gov't could be... they believed that no gov't had the right to impose religious views on the governed, either pro or con...

as to the issue of how God was viewed when our gov't was established, here are a few facts...

the supreme court opens each session with, "Oyez, Oyez, Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United States and the Honorable Court."

the declaration of independence mentions God, or the Creator, on four separate occasions... congress opens each session with a prayer to God...

as i stated in a separate thread, and for whatever it's worth, i think that without a separation of some sort between the church and state, no religion is safe from government... i just happen to believe that the founders intended for that separation to protect the freedoms of the people TO practice or not practice religion according to individual concious, not to protect either the gov't or the people FROM religion

as for richard's other points, i agree with most of them... i don't think it's gov't's business to get involved in marriage, for example... but let's be consistent, at least... gov't is involved in far too much of our lives, at least the federal gov't is.. it's extremely difficult to fashion a central gov't that is strong enough to protect the principles upon which this country was founded yet not so strong as to threaten those very liberties... the difficulties can't be ignored, but neither can the necessity

[hrothgar]

P_Marlowe, on Jul 17 2006, 05:31 PM, said:

You can. Simply asked yourself, why do you grant those
privileges, and does the given situation fits into the muster.

The state has an interest that children get born / raised, and
two men can raise children, but there will no child be born.

This suggestion is flawed on any number of grounds:

From my perspect the biggest flaw is that you assume an explicit linkage between marriage and raising children. Its far from clear that that spawning rug rats is the central focus on marriage. There are any number of examples of individuals who chose to marry with no intention of procreating. There are even more example of people who have children outside of the a "traditional" nuclear family.

Second: Lets assume that society decides that it has a vested interest in "artificially" encouraging people to have children. I'd argue that encouraging people to marry is a bad way of achieving this end. Subsidies work best if they directly target the activity that you are trying to promote. If you want to encourage people to have more kids implement parental leave policies, subsidize child care and primary education, off set health costs and the like. Hell, just hand people $10K every time they pop out another brat...

Finally, I'd argue that it is far from clear that we want to increase the rate of population growth.

[lalislol]

hrothgar, on Jul 17 2006, 07:38 AM, said:

If you are granting a specific set of legal privileges to a man and a woman, you can't deny them to a pair of men.

I find this argument unacceptable, and must label it 'queer' propaganda.

The primary purpose of the natural union (marraige) of a man and a woman, and the privileges/benefits accorded this union, relates to children...the begating and/or adoption of children and the raising of children to responsible adulthood.

Society recognizes and applauds this union by granting it these privileges, and bestows certain benefits upon it...often money-related, one way or another... in an effort to reduce the social and financial burden of this beneficial activity.

Queers cannot begat children (no matter how hard they try), nor should they be permitted to adopt children (thereby exposing the young to this perversion). So such an unnatural union is not entitled to said privileges/benefits. How they 'get their kicks' in private is their own business, not society's, but they're much better off back in the closet.

[hrothgar]

P_Marlowe, on Jul 17 2006, 06:45 PM, said:

The state has the right, as long as he does not discrimintate the other. Subsidies are allowed, not being eligible is not the same a being discrimintate. One simply does not fullfill the requirement for the subsidies. (*)

Policies should be judged by net impact, not on the vocabulary that is used to describe them. I see no different between subsidies and taxes.

Equally significant, there are an swful lot of rights and privledges associated with a marriage contract that don't involve direct financial transactions between the individuals and the federal government.

1. Inheritance: There are numerous cases in the United States where members of a family have challenged legal wills in which one member of a homosexual couple left their property to a partner. In some cases, the family has successfully been able to over turn the will.

2. Visitation rights: Many states refuse to recognize that a homosexual couple has any rights to co-parent. For example, in the case of adoption or artifical insemination, parental rights are often assigned to one member of the couple. This can lead to some ugly issues if the couple breaks up or if the sole "parent" dies.

3. Medical treatment: Homosexuals are often barred from visting their partners in the hospital. They are unable to make medical decisions involving medical treatment or end of life decisions for their partners.

Its should be noted that many States in the US are passing laws to permanently enshrine this type of discrimination.

[Elianna]

To both of you who say that the "natural" reason of marriage is to have children: If someone is medically infertile, do you think that should take away their right to get married? They're not fullfilling the "primary" reason of marriage.

And why should laws be based on what SOME people think is "natural"? What's natural to you may not be natural to me.

[P_Marlowe]

hrothgar, on Jul 17 2006, 11:26 AM, said:

<snip>
Finally, I'd argue that it is far from clear that we want to increase the rate of population growth.
<snip>

World wide no, localy certainly, just look at the thread
about the upcoming ... trillions of dollar payment for older persons.
The problems of a shrinking population cant be solved
with immigration alone, and with respect to this problem,
a state is a local organisation.

Richard, you hopefully understand, that I dont argue
with you about some of your statements.
I agree with some of them, not with all.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

Elianna, on Jul 17 2006, 12:39 PM, said:

To both of you who say that the "natural" reason of marriage is to have children: If someone is medically infertile, do you think that should take away their right to get married? They're not fullfilling the "primary" reason of marriage.

And why should laws be based on what SOME people think is "natural"? What's natural to you may not be natural to me.

First of all I have used the example given by Richard, to illustrate that
a certain conclusion was wrong (at least in my opinion).
Second, I am in favour of supporting parents, even if they are not
married, and parents may even mean, that the child lives with his
gay father, who may have adoped the child, but that is irrelevant for
this discussion.
Third, we hopefully live in a society, which follows democratic
rules, and if the majority thinks, that certain things are "natural",
than those things are "natural".
One can try and educate the majority, ... history shows that this
can be done, but that it takes a lot of time.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Winstonm]

It always amazes me the arrogance some have by thinking they know what is best for both individuals and society as a whole. What has sexual preference to do with anything? Should men and women of non-child-bearing years not be allowed to marry? What about blacks, or Asians, or Mexicans? Who, based on his own individual beliefs, has the right to say who can and cannot marry if those parties beliefs are opposite? Tell me why your belief system is better, more right, than theirs?

What do we call people who think they know the answer and others don't?

Arrogant. And the worst kind of arrogance - cloaked in a mask of humility.

[mike777]

Agree and why not Polygamy and marriage to snakes( saw this one on the news in India).
Why any rules on sex and marriage?

If you start putting one limit on this stuff then you can justify any set of limits.
Race, sexual preference, age, etc....
Why should one person's beliefs stop others from marriage?


People for thousands of years got married very young and they still do in many parts of the world. If it is moral and ok there why not anywhere, why all these silly rules with such arrogance.

As robots develop, why not marriage to robots, they can have sex, wombs and make babies one way or the other in a test tube and carry them to term in the robot womb? Do not see why this cannot happen in the next 50 years.

Many will want to marry their pets/leave the money in a will/have hospital visit rights/be buried with and dump their husbands.

[DrTodd13]

hrothgar, on Jul 17 2006, 08:42 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Jul 17 2006, 06:45 PM, said:

The state has the right, as long as he does not discrimintate the other.  Subsidies are allowed, not being eligible is not the same a being  discrimintate. One simply does not fullfill the requirement for the subsidies. (*)

Policies should be judged by net impact, not on the vocabulary that is used to describe them. I see no different between subsidies and taxes.

Equally significant, there are an swful lot of rights and privledges associated with a marriage contract that don't involve direct financial transactions between the individuals and the federal government.

1. Inheritance: There are numerous cases in the United States where members of a family have challenged legal wills in which one member of a homosexual couple left their property to a partner. In some cases, the family has successfully been able to over turn the will.

2. Visitation rights: Many states refuse to recognize that a homosexual couple has any rights to co-parent. For example, in the case of adoption or artifical insemination, parental rights are often assigned to one member of the couple. This can lead to some ugly issues if the couple breaks up or if the sole "parent" dies.

3. Medical treatment: Homosexuals are often barred from visting their partners in the hospital. They are unable to make medical decisions involving medical treatment or end of life decisions for their partners.

Its should be noted that many States in the US are passing laws to permanently enshrine this type of discrimination.

Policies should be based on right and wrong, not on "impact." The ends do not justify the means. I'm an anarchist so I don't believe government should exist but if it does exist then its only legitimate purpose should be to protect people's rights and provide an infrastructure for enforcement of contracts. Government has no business trying to engineer society. If everyone died the government shouldn't give a damn. The government should not care about marriage. There should be no such concept or reference to marriage in any law. Let individuals write their own marriage contracts.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Jul 17 2006, 09:26 PM, said:

Agree and why not Polygamy and marriage to snakes( saw this one on the news in India). Why any rules on sex and marriage?

I see nothing wrong with polygamy. I have no problem if a group of consenting adults wants to enter into a group marriage.

I do believe that there is a difference between polygamy and bestiality (or, for that matter, a marriage between and adult and a minor). A sheep can't give informed consent. In a similar fashion, the law holds that children below a certain age are not mature enough to make certain types of decision.

In short, I my opposition to a hypothetical marriage between a man and a goat would be based on laws related to the protection of animals, not any inherent sanctity of marriage.

[mike777]

In many countries they are mature enough. Do you argue that our children are less healthy or educated than 1000 years ago or in other countries. Are we somehow turning what used to be mature people into immature ones with your law?

Why should one persons belief on maturity be the rule of law. Again why should animals have a right to consent, those seem to be your beliefs and not based on any facts. We own dogs without their consent, why can we not marry them?

Marriages happen all the time without consent..look at arranged marriages around the world. Why have a law against that? They work for thousands of years.

[hrothgar]

>In many countries they are mature enough. Do you argue that our children
>are less healthy or educated than 1000 years ago or in other countries. Are
>we somehow turning what used to be mature people into immature ones
>with your law?

People change.
The concept of marriage changes.
Societies change.

If you look back a 1000 years ago, folks didn't see anything wrong with a mature man taking a 9 year old as a his wife. Today, we label this as statutory rape. I say that we're better people because of it.

>Again why should animals have a right to consent, those seem to be
>your beliefs and not based on any facts. We own dogs without their
>consent, why can we not marry them?

I couldn't care less if someone wants to claim that he is married to his dog. I doubt that the dog would understand the difference between being a "pet" and getting married. Hell, I'm willing to bet that the dog would even like the wedding cake.

I did comment that I felt there are issues with beastiality. There are laws that prohibit people from engaging treating their pets cruely (cock fighting, neglect, beating, hording).

I think that these same laws should apply if you shove your dick into a sheep.

[DrTodd13]

Sheesh. These issues are not that difficult if people would only shed their authoritarian, I-know-what-is-best-for-you attitudes. The government should have nothing to do with religion or marriage. The government should not be in the business of trying to engineer society to fit some mold. If government is to exist at all, it should protect people's right, period. No wealth redistribution, no charity, no "common good." W.r.t. marriage, if two or more entities are capable of assenting to a contract and they want to enter into a contract and call it a marriage then so be it. They can establish whatever rules they want for their marriage. The only question then, is who or what is capable of assenting to a contract. Non-humans can't read so they can't possibly understand a contract so they are out. For humans, the decision is obviously murkier. A 9-year old can't really understand the full ramifications of what they are doing if they were to sign a contract. What is the right age? Who knows but we can have a debate.

For once, I mainly agree with hrothgar. Even though I'm a Christian I don't want government to have anything to do with religion...of course, I don't want government to have anything to do with anything so in that way I'm consistent. The whole legal precedent is a mess regarding historicity of faith versus pronouncement of faith. Thanks supreme court. I find it mocking and offensive that the biggest bunch of crooks on the planet wrap themselves in a cloak of God and country. Hummers in the white house, church on Sunday, massive theft of the american people everyday...some great so-called Christian leaders are.

[mikeh]

I have long held a morbid interest in the extent to which we humans continue to allow our views of morality to be determined by the writings of long-dead individuals who, if they were to appear today without the historical authority embodied in the old texts, would be viewed as ignorant and superstitious crackpots.

The truth is that those who wrote the documents later assembled as the New Testament, or the author of the Koran or the drafters of the American (or any other old) constitution were, by todays standards, woefully ignorant and irrational.

Before declaring jihad or placing me on a list of subversives, let me stress that it is highly inappropriate, in my view, to judge historical figures by todays knowledge and belief structures.

An accusation that an individual is ignorant is NOT an accusation of stupidity or lack of cognitive ability. Ignorance relates to knowledge: intelligence relates to the use of knowledge. The most intelligent human in the history of the world would have been unable to come up with the theory of quantum mechanics in Newton's time, because of the prevailing ignorance of (and inaccessability of) the invisible world.. the world beneath our limited ability of direct perception, amongst other obstacles.

This is as true of the drafters of the US constitution as it is of other historical figures. Thus, for them, racism was not an evil: it was a self-evident truth of life. A white man WAS superior to a white woman who in turn WAS superior to a black man and so on. From my readings of history (and, in particular, to my readings of Stephen Jay Gould who often treated this question of historical context), it seems fair to assume that all of the drafters of the constitution shared this world-view... indeed, how else do we explain that the census required by the constitution provided that negroes were to be counted as the equivalent of a fraction of a white person? And, of course, women had no vote.

No-one these days suggests that the US constitution TODAY require discriminatory attitudes such as these, but many persist in interpreting the religious and other moral implications of the constitution as if the deciding factor is how the drafters viewed such matters.

There are powerful arguments for this approach. If rigorously applied, it ensures that the laws of the land are not distorted by a short-lived abberation in the philosophical makeup of the court of last resort: in the US, the US Supreme Court.

And, of course, if a particular moral view became largely and persistently out-dated, it could be changed by amendment. However, the amendment process has become increasingly bulky and is itself susceptible to relatively short-lived abberations.

In fact, however, the US Supreme Court (and maybe this is inevitable and I am not suggesting that this is a problem unique to the US or to that court) has in the past made many far-reaching rulings that recognize, implictly if not explicitly, that the constitution can and should be interpreted in accordance with moderm cultural values, rather than constrain it to the views that (presumably) the drafters would have expressed had they thought about it.

For example, I would be very surprised to hear an argument that Thomas Jefferson would ever have protested a law that required blacks to ride at the back of the bus..... as a slave owner and the secretive adulterer with slave women, he would not today be well-regarded if we judged him by todays standards.

It seems to me unfortunate, but inevitable, that many of those who are against less discrimination or more equal treatment of individuals whose characteristics place them in a minority or a socially disadvantaged position call on the writings of
dead, ignorant, and superstitious people to justify their bigotry. Not that all opposed, for example, to abortion or to gay marriage are bigots, but a substantial number of them appear so to be and to utilize such arguments.

To argue that something is wrong because it is condemned in the bible (ignoring, in many instances, other passages in the bible that appear to contrary effect) is to allow one's view of morality today to be governed by the morality prevalant in Roman times: a time when unimaginable (by today's standards) cruelty was the norm... when crucifiction was not a torment designed to punish the 'son of god', but a normal sentence for a variety of not-so-terrible crimes.

I am rambling somewhat, but that is unavoidable when the thread raises such wide-ranging questions. And I have someone waiting for me, so I end here...

[mike777]

Hmm so it seems you guys are arguing for some set of rules based on what is natural and what you believe is best after all? Rules that are imposed on others?
I only ask what countries rules are best, natural and are you enforcing?
As for a debate, I thought we have those they are called elections or should we just let unelected people tell us what is best?

Do you have any prove that your methods are better than say polygomy or arranged marriages where very young boys and girls get married? Or other common marriage cultures in other countries?

I thought elections were debates but you guys seem to want another way to make up these laws? If elections are not going to matter in this issue so be it. Let us just set up a wise council of elders who tell us what rules will govern us. I think the Pope has just the thingy.....