Comments on: First Amendment for We But Not for Thee http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/15/first-amendment-for-we-but-not-for-thee/ Firedoglake weblog Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:11:37 -0600 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: MsAnnaNOLA http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/15/first-amendment-for-we-but-not-for-thee/#comment-1726770 MsAnnaNOLA Sun, 16 Nov 2008 04:35:26 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/15/first-amendment-for-we-but-not-for-thee/#comment-1726770 <p>Hypocrites all.</p> Hypocrites all.

]]> By: Jett http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/15/first-amendment-for-we-but-not-for-thee/#comment-1726697 Jett Sun, 16 Nov 2008 02:19:51 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/15/first-amendment-for-we-but-not-for-thee/#comment-1726697 <p>The issue at hand isn’t about the right of RELIGIONS to accept gay marriage, but for GOVERNMENT to recognize contractual mergers between individuals, which, from a government perspective, is what marriage is. All the arguments about whether gay marriage will tear apart the fabric of society is bogus. The fact that the Mormon church voted for the proposition shows that the Mormon church isn’t interested in a separation of church and state. The issue with the proposition was to extend to gay couples the same rights that straight couples enjoy. Specifically, those rights include:</p> <p>a. the right to merge assets<br /> b. the right to visit a partner in the hospital ill<br /> c. the right to execute the will of their partner<br /> d. the right to buy property where a married couple is treated differently than two non-married individuals (e.g., buying a house)<br /> e. the care of children in the even of the death of one partner<br /> f. the right to divorce and divide up the assets</p> <p>I find it ironic that the Mormon church is against a proposition that is pro-family, as shown by points b,c, and e. points a,d, and f are essentially legal issues that the legalization of gay marriage would ensure. By the Mormon church moving against such tenets, and funding the voter drive against such a proposition, they are inherently violating the separation of church and state as defined in the Constitution.</p> The issue at hand isn’t about the right of RELIGIONS to accept gay marriage, but for GOVERNMENT to recognize contractual mergers between individuals, which, from a government perspective, is what marriage is. All the arguments about whether gay marriage will tear apart the fabric of society is bogus. The fact that the Mormon church voted for the proposition shows that the Mormon church isn’t interested in a separation of church and state. The issue with the proposition was to extend to gay couples the same rights that straight couples enjoy. Specifically, those rights include:

a. the right to merge assets
b. the right to visit a partner in the hospital ill
c. the right to execute the will of their partner
d. the right to buy property where a married couple is treated differently than two non-married individuals (e.g., buying a house)
e. the care of children in the even of the death of one partner
f. the right to divorce and divide up the assets

I find it ironic that the Mormon church is against a proposition that is pro-family, as shown by points b,c, and e. points a,d, and f are essentially legal issues that the legalization of gay marriage would ensure. By the Mormon church moving against such tenets, and funding the voter drive against such a proposition, they are inherently violating the separation of church and state as defined in the Constitution.

]]> By: james http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/15/first-amendment-for-we-but-not-for-thee/#comment-1726695 james Sun, 16 Nov 2008 00:16:34 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/15/first-amendment-for-we-but-not-for-thee/#comment-1726695 <p>I hand delivered the rest of my envelopes to the rectory yesterday and told the secretary to scratch my name off the list of people who belong to the parish of my church.</p> <p>Time to go.</p> I hand delivered the rest of my envelopes to the rectory yesterday and told the secretary to scratch my name off the list of people who belong to the parish of my church.

Time to go.

]]> By: unsinkmolly http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/15/first-amendment-for-we-but-not-for-thee/#comment-1726694 unsinkmolly Sun, 16 Nov 2008 00:09:45 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/15/first-amendment-for-we-but-not-for-thee/#comment-1726694 <p>Thanks, Eli</p> <p>“this ethical freakshow of a universe” … (Rachel Maddow)</p> <p>why again don’t they lose their tax-status, church and state separation?</p> <p>and how is gay marriage hurting anyone? (Ron Reagan)</p> Thanks, Eli

“this ethical freakshow of a universe” … (Rachel Maddow)

why again don’t they lose their tax-status, church and state separation?

and how is gay marriage hurting anyone? (Ron Reagan)

]]> By: Synoia http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/15/first-amendment-for-we-but-not-for-thee/#comment-1726689 Synoia Sun, 16 Nov 2008 00:02:27 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/15/first-amendment-for-we-but-not-for-thee/#comment-1726689 <p>Let’s put a petition on the next California ballot to make mariage illegal.<br /> Define vote yes: marriage as between two people.<br /> Define vote no: no one can get married.</p> Let’s put a petition on the next California ballot to make mariage illegal.
Define vote yes: marriage as between two people.
Define vote no: no one can get married.

]]> By: HarpoSnarx http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/15/first-amendment-for-we-but-not-for-thee/#comment-1726666 HarpoSnarx Sat, 15 Nov 2008 23:46:34 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/15/first-amendment-for-we-but-not-for-thee/#comment-1726666 <p>Could we PLEASE have a 2012-free zone, for a week at least! I damn near didn’t get through this election. Besides there are wolves in wolves clothing who need to reap the consequences of their anti-American authoritarian oppression.</p> Could we PLEASE have a 2012-free zone, for a week at least! I damn near didn’t get through this election. Besides there are wolves in wolves clothing who need to reap the consequences of their anti-American authoritarian oppression.

]]> By: laurastrand http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/15/first-amendment-for-we-but-not-for-thee/#comment-1726657 laurastrand Sat, 15 Nov 2008 23:35:18 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/15/first-amendment-for-we-but-not-for-thee/#comment-1726657 <p>The Mormons, and every other religious organization ought to get used to citizens exercising their civil rights yesterday! I am as close to certain as I can possibly be that the State Supreme Court will find that Prop 8 offends the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. I cannot understand how a rational individual cannot comprehend that a fundamental civil right cannot be abridged by a vote, especially when that vote was based upon the religious views of the electorate.<br /> If I wanted to live in a theocracy, I would have moved to Iran - or Utah!<br /> I got to marry my honey, why shouldn’t everyone?</p> The Mormons, and every other religious organization ought to get used to citizens exercising their civil rights yesterday! I am as close to certain as I can possibly be that the State Supreme Court will find that Prop 8 offends the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. I cannot understand how a rational individual cannot comprehend that a fundamental civil right cannot be abridged by a vote, especially when that vote was based upon the religious views of the electorate.
If I wanted to live in a theocracy, I would have moved to Iran – or Utah!
I got to marry my honey, why shouldn’t everyone?

]]> By: earlofhuntingdon http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/15/first-amendment-for-we-but-not-for-thee/#comment-1726641 earlofhuntingdon Sat, 15 Nov 2008 23:14:10 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/15/first-amendment-for-we-but-not-for-thee/#comment-1726641 <p>Prohibiting abortion but advocating war and discrimination, counseling sexually abused children to keep hush, hush, “For the good of Holy Mother Church,” is not an expression of a “culture of life”. It is a demand for institutional power and to be immune from liability for its excesses. So, too, is its need to monopolize the attributes of marriage and parenthood, and the path to heaven. Christianity seems peculiar in believing that the path to eternal bliss can be walked only after the demise of competing religions. Perhaps that’s the historical legacy that comes with starting life as the unwanted offspring of a parent religion. Like other sibling and Oedipal rivalries, it has nurtured enormous harm.</p> <blockquote><p>People of faith have a democratic right to express their views in the public square without fear of reprisal.</p></blockquote> <p>That Mormon commentator displays ignorance of the law and skill at political spin in equal measure. He (it could only be a male speaking for the church) willingly conflates “reprisal” with criticism, in an effort to stifle it and protect his church from the logical consequences of its actions. That’s what political consultants do, not good parents or guardians.</p> <p>The First Amendment’s right to freedom of speech does <strong>not </strong>protect the ideologically arrogant from criticism. Its purpose is to subject them to it. It is designed to promote an <em>exchange </em>of opinions and values, without which there is no community, only followership, no <em>democracy</em>, only dictatorship. But then, the Catholic Church, and presumably its Mormon cousin, has long sought to monopolize ideas and history, not to explore them or tolerate any but their own.</p> Prohibiting abortion but advocating war and discrimination, counseling sexually abused children to keep hush, hush, “For the good of Holy Mother Church,” is not an expression of a “culture of life”. It is a demand for institutional power and to be immune from liability for its excesses. So, too, is its need to monopolize the attributes of marriage and parenthood, and the path to heaven. Christianity seems peculiar in believing that the path to eternal bliss can be walked only after the demise of competing religions. Perhaps that’s the historical legacy that comes with starting life as the unwanted offspring of a parent religion. Like other sibling and Oedipal rivalries, it has nurtured enormous harm.

People of faith have a democratic right to express their views in the public square without fear of reprisal.

That Mormon commentator displays ignorance of the law and skill at political spin in equal measure. He (it could only be a male speaking for the church) willingly conflates “reprisal” with criticism, in an effort to stifle it and protect his church from the logical consequences of its actions. That’s what political consultants do, not good parents or guardians.

The First Amendment’s right to freedom of speech does not protect the ideologically arrogant from criticism. Its purpose is to subject them to it. It is designed to promote an exchange of opinions and values, without which there is no community, only followership, no democracy, only dictatorship. But then, the Catholic Church, and presumably its Mormon cousin, has long sought to monopolize ideas and history, not to explore them or tolerate any but their own.

]]> By: Millineryman http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/15/first-amendment-for-we-but-not-for-thee/#comment-1726633 Millineryman Sat, 15 Nov 2008 22:56:08 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/15/first-amendment-for-we-but-not-for-thee/#comment-1726633 <p>Here is South Jersey we flirted with breaking from North Jersey. We got 2 roads finished and that was the end of that.</p> Here is South Jersey we flirted with breaking from North Jersey. We got 2 roads finished and that was the end of that.

]]> By: JoyB http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/15/first-amendment-for-we-but-not-for-thee/#comment-1726613 JoyB Sat, 15 Nov 2008 22:38:38 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/15/first-amendment-for-we-but-not-for-thee/#comment-1726613 <p>lol… It is Constance the Constitution Cow. It is supposed to be a cow, not a bull.</p> lol… It is Constance the Constitution Cow. It is supposed to be a cow, not a bull.

]]>