10th Amendment

Originally posted by Eladar
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.

That depends on your church. Some will marry you even without a State marriage license.

Originally posted by Eladar
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.

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.

Originally posted by no1marauder
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.

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.

Originally posted by Eladar
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.

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-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 no1marauder
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 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 Eladar
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.

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 no1marauder
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).

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.

Originally posted by Eladar
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.

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.

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 MoneyManMike
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.

I don't believe in "the Living Constitution", so you're barking up the wrong tree.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't believe in "the Living Constitution", so you're barking up the wrong tree.

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.

Originally posted by no1marauder
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 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.

Originally posted by Eladar
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.

Eladar: What they believed doesn't really matter.

So much for "original intent".

Originally posted by no1marauder
Eladar: What they believed doesn't really matter.

So much for "original intent".

Original intent? Of which of the people who agreed to the Constitution?

Only an ignorant person would believe they were a monolithic group.

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.