Terri Schiavo (Page 9)

Don't quote me on this but I believe there was a good deal of animosity and bitterness between the Shindlers and Michael Schiavo. I don't think they saw eye to eye on things related to Terri.

Sometimes a person's actions make no sense to us because we don't know what's in their hearts or minds. It's easy to project nefarious motivations; harder to simply not judge and accept that we don't know the truth of their experience. Personally, I find it a wiser pursuit to try to understand the truth of my experience and leave others to theirs. I think luminous figures such as Buddha and JC had something to say about that.

I agree that we more or less agree, but seeing an opportunity to flex the dust off my philosophical muscle, (insert Samuel L. Jacksons vocal outrage from Pulp Fiction) ALLOW ME TO RETORT:

"By your argument does that mean you can marry a 12 year old. Of course not, because a state government has the right and power to regulate the age of marriage." -John

The intent of a state not allowing a 12 year old to marry (and I will have to take your word for that... sounds reasonable) would be rooted in a more fundamental opinion/consensus that a 12 year old is not mentally or emotionally capable of making that kind of decision and marrying a 12 year old would ultimatley be legalized rape, based on statutory rape laws already in effect.

Gay marriage and the legitimacy or lack thereof is not based upon a law, but based upon the religeous conviction that marriage can only be between a man and a women. State legislatures and dumbgress can write laws so that it would become illegal (or may already have them on the books), but that is my point. Legislatures have no moral or ultimately legal right to block this. Hick states can write all the laws they want defining marriage as between a man and a woman, but the fact that they avoid stating simply that marriage is denyed to gay couples is becuase to do so would be illegal.

What these lawmakers are in effect saying is, we will tolerate the behavior, but we will not formally acknowledge that is it happening because we don't like it. It's discriminatory at its base and not far removed from the government saying "we know you are going to die, but we refuse to acknowledge your right to do so."

 To make the connection comparing the states right to deny marriage to a 12 year old who is not emotionally equipped to marry and is already legally barred from all that marriage entaills, to a fully capable, well..., that dog just won't hunt. A 12 year old's rights in society are already curtailed - a 12 year old is a minor, therefore does not have the same rights as an adult. A gay adult has, under the law, every right a straight adult has. Except when it comes to marriage. Discriminitory and ultimately illegal, no matter how you slice it.

His father is a convicted sex offender. But the crime wasn't his fault - according to him, evolution made him do it.

I hate to alarm you, but it's not just "hick states" that have passed discriminatory marriage laws. The Henny Pennyism of the extreme right has swept much of our nation, even the blue states. Pennsylvania, the cradle of our democracy and home to the City of Brotherly Love, is among the hicks. Allegedly liberal Massachusetts was trying to draft a DOMA and asked their judiciary to examine the DOMA language to make sure they weren't violating their constitution  (turns out they were!).

Here's the list:

Asa, I get what you are saying, however, you are using "power" and "right" interchangeably. The government has the power to do many things we'd like them not to do. However, that does not mean they have the right. Sometimes the government will exercise powers without rights and eventually the Supreme Court says "Uh uh." This is my hope for these putrid DOMA laws.

The government doesn't have the right to unconstitutionally limit the rights of gay people. At the moment, they have the power to do so. Ultimately, I hope, the Supreme Court will force the States to play nice with our gay brethren and give some real teeth to "liberty and justice for all."

Segueing back to our thread topic, State of Florida legislature had the power to pass Terri's Law and subsequently (or in spite of already knowing) discovered they didn't have the right to pass the law when it was later deemed unconstitutional.

I was trying to state that Government shouldn't regulate marraige, not couldn't. Obvioulsly the state can and does. I see your point, but I think we are arguing legal ability as opposed to moral right and one point of view does not negate the other.

If anything, Amendment 1 would protect houses of worship from being required to conduct marriages betwixt gay folks when gay marrige finally becomes legalized (which, I think, is where Scout was going with her post).

The "separation of church and state" phrase was given to us by Thomas Jefferson in his interpretation of the first amendment in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802):

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

A letter does not an amendment make, but it certainly gives insight into the intent of the man whose contribution to the crafting of the Constitution cannot be overstated. 

Whoa!!!!!!

Power and rights are clearly not interchangeable. I have the power to get a gun, walk next door and shoot my neighbor in the face. I do not have the right to do so. Simple rebuttal, but rights exist solely to prevent the abuse of Power. The two are most definately not interchangeable, even for the sake of arguement. 

"As a christian lawyer I believe that there is an assault upon established religion under the guise of "seperation of church and state" claims."

Interesting. I think your probably right, but I would like to hear your reasons why the church should not be seperated from the state... or more directly, why should god play any role in governance?

Who are you billing while we chat church and state?