Let the Joyous news be spread: New Jersey votes yes on Gay civil union!

[gadgetlady 4]

I would personally like the GOVERNMENT to stay the hell out of my bedroom. What gives them the right to say who I can marry? What gives them the right to make a law stating what the definition of marriage means?

There is a very good argument to be made for the government to sanction NO marriage at all, and for marriage only to exist as a religious institution. If the government wants, or wanted, to encourage "heterosexual couples committed to live together, have children, and raise families together" then that's a, for want of a better term, business decision that the government made and decided to codify and reward as they saw fit. There is no right to marry, that I'm aware of, in the constitution.

Isn't there this thing called separation of church and state?

That's a common misconception. The words "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the constitution, but they've been thrown about so much that people believe they do. The First Amendment states, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". In other words, we are to have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Congress was prevented from establishing a national religion; they wanted to make sure that no single religious institution had authority over the state. They did NOT want to ensure that an un-Biblical, anti-Biblical, or athiest state be established.

I am not married, I live with my sweetie, John. I have been in this relationship for 8 years now. How would you define my relationship?

I wouldn't feel a need to define it, but if pressed, I would say it sounds like you're in a committed relationship that doesn't include marriage. [shrugs] It's not really my business and I don't really care. The only thing that matters is how you feel about it.

[Penni60 45]

Gadgetlady guess you missed the part that said you don't have to answer my question about my relationship. Don't really care what anyone else says about it. It was meant as a rhetorical question.

[gadgetlady 4]

Gadgetlady guess you missed the part that said you don't have to answer my question about my relationship. Don't really care what anyone else says about it. It was meant as a rhetorical question.

Sorry! I saw that you said I (or whoever you were talking to) didn't have to answer, but I didn't think that meant you didn't WANT an answer. I just thought it meant someone didn't need to feel compelled to answer if they were uncomfortable with the question. I guess if you had said "Please don't answer; I don't care" instead of "You don't have to answer that you know", I would have gotten the message.

[beversman 0]

I am so glad to see so many logical thinking people here.

Hooray New Jersey!

Everyone has the right to be happy and live their life with someone they love. Life is too short to spend it passing judgement.

[Penni60 45]

In response to your statement of separation of church and state not being in the constitution, that is correct but here is a statement from a site I just read that speaks volumes of what the founding fathers intentions were regarding that issue. I will post a short excerpt then give the link for anyone to read further. LOTS of good info there.

The framers were the very people who established the separation of Church and State, and not only that, but led the Western world by being the first to do so. The separation of Church and State was central to the framing of the Constitution in fact, a document that is purely secular. The founders chose a secular national motto and they wrote frequently about the need for separation of Church and State - as Thomas Jefferson put it: a "wall of separation;" as James Madison put it: a "perfect separation."

Here is the linK:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/history_of_the_separation_of_chu.htm

[gadgetlady 4]

Right back at 'ya:

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/culture/ch_state.html

[Penni60 45]

And one more thing I found as well on this issue.

Quote:

The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". This is a direct reference to the official "established" Church of England of Great Britain. In addition, Article VI states, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

In fact, among the framers of the U.S. Constitution there were actually remarkably few devout religious men. Only one signatory was a former member of the clergy, and even he had given up that profession 20 years before to become a government administrator. The colected writings of most of America's Founding Fathers show that these were men who were far more concerned with secular pursuits, than religious ones. Most were worldly, well-eductated men - they were lawyers, businessmen, soldiers, diplomats, and even scientists.

The model they chose for American government came not from the Puritans, but from the example of the (pagan) ancient Romans & Greeks. The ideas of the Constitution's framers on civil liberties and human rights come primarily from Enlightenment-era English and French philosophers of the 1600s and 1700s (many of whom were well-known religious skeptics). The American Constitution was drafted mostly by colonial attorneys trained in the British legal system. The Bill of Rights comes from English Law, not from Biblical law. UnQuote

Here is the link to read for yourselves if you are so inclined;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#Origins_of_the_phrase

[Penni60 45]

Right back at 'ya:

AND? I am not bashing Christianity. I am one. LOL!! All I am saying is the Government has no business telling me or anyone else what the definition of marriage is and it certainly has NO business making a law to go along with that definition.

It shouldn't be a crime to fall in love and then marry that person no matter race, color, creed, culture, or sex. And from what I have just read I would venture the founding fathers would agree that the government has no business making such a law or butting in.

[gadgetlady 4]

It shouldn't be a crime to fall in love and then marry that person no matter race, color, creed, culture, or sex. And from what I have just read I would venture the founding fathers would agree that the government has no business making such a law or butting in.

So you're OK with legal polygamy, allowing sisters and brothers to marry each other, and legally recognizing as a married couple the woman and dolphin?

[Penni60 45]

That would mean I am judging someone. Christians don't and shouldn't do that. RIGHT?

[gadgetlady 4]

Wikipedia is not known as an arbiter of truth, especially since the general public and add and alter the definitions it contains!

This time I will do a cut and paste from http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html:

The religious affiliations of these individuals are summarized below. Obviously this is a very restrictive set of names, and does not include everyone who could be considered an "American Founding Father." But most of the major figures that people generally think of in this context are included using these criteria, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and more.

Religious Affiliation of U.S. Founding Fathers

by # of Founding Fathers and % of Founding Fathers

Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%

Presbyterian 30 18.6%

Congregationalist 27 16.8%

Quaker 7 4.3%

Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%

Lutheran 5 3.1%

Catholic 3 1.9%

Huguenot 3 1.9%

Unitarian 3 1.9%

Methodist 2 1.2%

Calvinist 1 0.6%

TOTAL 204

I have a degree in Political Science and could pick apart the Wikipedia "information" ad infinitum. But I choose to focus only on this:

"Most were worldly, well-eductated men - they were lawyers, businessmen, soldiers, diplomats, and even scientists."

How obnoxious!!!!! Like being a Christian or a religious person and being well-educated, a lawyer, a businessman, a solder, a diplomat or [gasp] even a SCIENTIST are mutually exclusive? What a crock. This sentence alone should tell you something about the agenda of the writer(s).

[gadgetlady 4]

That would mean I am judging someone. Christians don't and shouldn't do that. RIGHT?

So to directly answer the question, you believe that the legal right to marry should be extended to human beings partnered with animals?

I'm not asking if you JUDGE them. I'm asking if you would bestow on them the legal right to marry.

[Penni60 45]

So to directly answer the question, you believe that the legal right to marry should be extended to human beings partnered with animals?

I'm not asking if you JUDGE them. I'm asking if you would bestow on them the legal right to marry.

I am not the one making the law now am I? What purpose would it serve for me to answer that question? Besides you did not read and comprehend the statement I made regarding this issue.

Here let me restate it here; It shouldn't be a crime to fall in love and then marry that person no matter race, color, creed, culture, or sex. And from what I have just read I would venture the founding fathers would agree that the government has no business making such a law or butting in.

[leatha_g 4]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[gadgetlady 4]

I am not the one making the law now am I? What purpose would it serve for me to answer that question?

Because we live in a democracy.

Besides you did not read and comprehend the statement I made regarding this issue.

Here let me restate it here; It shouldn't be a crime to fall in love and then marry that person no matter race, color, creed, culture, or sex. And from what I have just read I would venture the founding fathers would agree that the government has no business making such a law or butting in.

So your answer to my question, that you would approve of the legal marrying of brothers and sisters, of polygamy, and of people marrying animals, is yes? I'm just trying to get a yes or no. So far no one has given me a straight yes on that answer.