Originally posted by EladarThat depends on your church. Some will marry you even without a State marriage license.
Civil marriages are performed by religious leaders and not civil servants.
That's not a combination of church and state?
When you get married in a church they do not give you the option of saying no to the civil aspect.
Originally posted by EladarThe People of the States desire that a church be able to perform a legally recognized marriage if the civil requirements are met.
Come now No1, why should a religious leader be given any public power?
Nothing that a religious leader does nor says should be totally ignored by the government. A religious leader should never be both a religious leader and a government official at the same time.
If you don't like that, talk to the People in your State and convince them to change the law.
Originally posted by no1marauderSo you are saying there is not such thing as the Separation of Church and State as long as it is what the people want? You are a hypocrite.
The People of the States desire that a church be able to perform a legally recognized marriage if the civil requirements are met.
If you don't like that, talk to the People in your State and convince them to change the law.
You want your cake and eat it too. According to your point of view, there is no reason to make sodomy laws illegal as long as the people want them.
Originally posted by EladarYou're an incredibly stupid man.
So you are saying there is not such thing as the Separation of Church and State as long as it is what the people want? You are a hypocrite.
You want your cake and eat it too. According to your point of view, there is no reason to make sodomy laws illegal as long as the people want them.
Making it easier for people to get married doesn't violate any type of Natural Right. It's a convenience to allow a pastor to perform a civil marriage ceremony, nothing more. If the Church doesn't want to perform marriage ceremonies, they don't have to. There is no compulsion and therefore no violation of any Church-State separation principles.
Laws against consensual sodomy (we're really talking about them again?) are a clear violation of individual Natural Rights whether the majority want them or not.
Originally posted by no1marauderI can see why you'd believe I am stupid, I'm calling you on your hypocrisy. How else can you avoid facing your hypocritical point of view.
You're an incredibly stupid man.
Making it easier for people to get married doesn't violate any type of Natural Right. It's a convenience to allow a pastor to perform a civil marriage ceremony, nothing more. If the Church doesn't want to perform marriage ceremonies, they don't have to. There is no compulsion and therefore no violation of any Church-St ...[text shortened]... gain?) are a clear violation of individual Natural Rights whether the majority want them or not.
I'm not talking about natural rights. I'm talking about Constitutional 'rights' and the concept of separation of church and state.
You use natural rights to rationalize your hypocrisy. You are a sick individual.
Originally posted by EladarThere is no hypocrisy just a failure of your ability to grasp the rather clear philosophy the Framers and others before left us. They must have been "sick individuals" as well (I guess finnegan would agree).
I can see why you'd believe I am stupid, I'm calling you on your hypocrisy. How else can you avoid facing your hypocritical point of view.
I'm not talking about natural rights. I'm talking about Constitutional 'rights' and the concept of separation of church and state.
You use natural rights to rationalize your hypocrisy. You are a sick individual.
Originally posted by no1marauderAs long as you define what is Constitutional by what you believe is 'natural' there is not hypocrisy at all. I can see why you are blind to your hypocrisy.
There is no hypocrisy just a failure of your ability to grasp the rather clear philosophy the Framers and others before left us. They must have been "sick individuals" as well (I guess finnegan would agree).
Originally posted by EladarYou do realize (well apparently you don't) that the Framers totally believed in Natural Law and Natural Rights and did not believe that a Constitution or even a government was required to give someone rights?
As long as you define what is Constitutional by what you believe is 'natural' there is not hypocrisy at all. I can see why you are blind to your hypocrisy.
It's there in the Declaration of Independence BTW in case you want to look.
Marauder, of course the Framers believed in Natural Rights. However, you and the other enlightened members of the progressive movement are making it up as you go. Rights you like, like gay marriage, are given the utmost protection. Rights you do not like, like freedom of association, the 2nd Amendment, and property, are given little to no protection. Honest people are tired of the wish-washy tyranny of the Living Constitution.
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeI don't believe in "the Living Constitution", so you're barking up the wrong tree.
Marauder, of course the Framers believed in Natural Rights. However, you and the other enlightened members of the progressive movement are making it up as you go. Rights you like, like gay marriage, are given the utmost protection. Rights you do not like, like freedom of association, the 2nd Amendment, and property, are given little to no protection. Honest people are tired of the wish-washy tyranny of the Living Constitution.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm glad you didn't disagree with the 'making things up as you go' comment. At least you are being honest there. Of course you do not believing in a living Constitution, you believe in a dead Constitution. Only your beliefs about what are natural rights should determine law.
I don't believe in "the Living Constitution", so you're barking up the wrong tree.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat they believed doesn't really matter. Do you know what else doesn't matter? What you want to believe they believed.
You do realize (well apparently you don't) that the Framers totally believed in Natural Law and Natural Rights and did not believe that a Constitution or even a government was required to give someone rights?
It's there in the Declaration of Independence BTW in case you want to look.
What does matter is the Constitution and what it says and the limits put in place on the Federal Government and that the State governments were never meant to be branches of the Federal Government.
Originally posted by EladarEladar: What they believed doesn't really matter.
What they believed doesn't really matter. Do you know what else doesn't matter? What you want to believe they believed.
What does matter is the Constitution and what it says and the limits put in place on the Federal Government and that the State governments were never meant to be branches of the Federal Government.
So much for "original intent".
Originally posted by Eladar🙄🙄😴😴
I'm glad you didn't disagree with the 'making things up as you go' comment. At least you are being honest there. Of course you do not believing in a living Constitution, you believe in a dead Constitution. Only your beliefs about what are natural rights should determine law.
The "Living Constitution" (notice the quotation marks) is a particular interpretative method. Google it if you want to be enlightened.
I believe in Original Intent as to Constitutional terms and the Natural Law as to rights. The Constitution did not and indeed could not override Natural Law/Rights according to the Framers' philosophy.