So, I thinking the opening blog went well. Its been kindly received by all two of my readers. The pressure is now on to come up with a good followup. Well, we all know how sophomoric efforts turn out....
Topic of the evening. Carrie Prejean and the controversy surrounding her. First off. Who really cares about the Miss USA pageant? I mean, before her answer to a very loaded question, who knew that the Miss USA event was going on? I didn't. And I still don't care. But thanks to a very hot button issue, and an answer that did not please a loud mouth, she is news. Carrie, sorry girl, I could care less about you. As to her answer, well that going to take a bit. This is one of those issues where we have to start with seperation of church and state. Then we have to look at each sides hatred and put that aside. Before I go any further, let me give you my take on gay marriage. From a governmental stand point, I think a person has a right to declare a union with any other person. What does it matter to me if you want to make some one of the same sex your legal heir and to have all the benefits of being your spouse. Its no skin off my back, I just don't want to hear you crying when they take half in the divorce. From a Christian standpoint, I don't consider it a marriage in the eyes of God, and is a sin. But then again I'm not God, so its not me that you have to answer to. I'm not the one that will sit in judgement on you soul. Gay marriage, if you want it then go for it, I still talk to you and treat you as a friend. Now, on the reverse side. I think the hatred has been going both ways here. Miss Cali expressed her opinion in a way that did not demean the homosexual community. Alot of hatred came her way for it though (especially from a certain gossip columnist). Here me now, forcing you beliefs on someone else, especially in the face of centuries of tradition does not help your cause. I think the homesexual community has gone to hard core on this issue. Trying to push acceptance on the Christian right, is like the Christian right telling you to conform. Instead, try by changing the law, work on the moderates, get those that think like myself on your side. There are enough moderates out there, that think like myself. So that dead horse has been beaten to death. One last thought on Shanna Moakler. You resigned and the Christian right won. You should have stayed on.
Did I do well? I don't think so, but true debate takes feed back. Agree? disagree? Let me know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While I mostly agree with your stance on gay marriage, there is one thing that stuck out in your post that I wanted to address, and that is this "myth" of separation of church and state. Now while I consider myself an apt enough writer, I will quote an essay by Mark Alexander, editor of The Patriot Post:
ReplyDeleteUnbeknown to many liberals, the words "wall of separation between church and state" do not appear in our Constitution -- nor is this notion implied. Thomas Jefferson penned those words in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in response to a letter they wrote him objecting to Connecticut's establishment of Congregationalism as their state church. Jefferson assuaged their concerns, telling them the First Amendment prohibited the national government from establishing a "national church," but he concluded rightly that the Constitution (see the Tenth Amendment's federalism provision) prohibited the national government from interfering with the matters of state governments -- a "wall of separation," if you will, between the federal government and state governments.
There is ample evidence that Jefferson did not intend for that metaphor to become an iron curtain between church and state. Though he favored a secularist state, he knew that the Constitution offered no such proscription on religious observance and practice in the public square. Those, including judicial activists, who insist such was Jefferson's original intent, and that of our Constitution, are either historically nescient or they harbor a disingenuous motive to serve a secularist constituent agenda.
American University professor Daniel Dreisbach and University of Chicago law professor Philip Hamburger argue, correctly, that the "wall of separation" has its ironic and erroneous origin in 1947. It was then in the case of Everson v. Board of Education that conservative Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote in the majority opinion that the First Amendment created a "wall of separation" between religion and government at the state level.
Black unwittingly opened the door for Fourteenth Amendment application of the First Amendment to the states. By invoking the Establishment Clause, he set legal precedent, and you know the rest of the story. The Everson decision launched a new era of constitutional interpretation by judicial activists, creating precedent to remove prayer and virtually all reference to religion from state and local public forums.
This fundamental violation of federalist principle was the central issue in 2003, when Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore defied an order by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state's justice building rotunda. Of such judicial diktats, Thomas Jefferson warned, "The Constitution [will become] a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
Indeed, it has become just that.
The "Wall of Separation" myth, From Patriot Post Vol. 05 No. 18; Published 6 May 2005.
http://64.203.107.114/alexander/edition.asp?id=306
I apologize for the wordiness of this post, but I feel that this is one topic that needs to be explained and reinforced among many of those who pull the "separation of church and state" card. Looking back at your post, you failed to really expound on what exactly you meant by
"This is one of those issues where we have to start with seperation of church and state."
so I'm not quite sure where you were going, but I thought a good historical refresher on the matter was in order. I am afraid for our country - not just because of who is President or who is in control of congress - but because of the fact that the Constitution has become a fluid document in the eyes of the Judicial Branch. Thomas Jefferson also wrote:
"The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch. ... It has long been my opinion ... that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped."
Point well made. I did not know the origins "seperation of church and state." I shall research more. So, let me define what I mean by seperation of church and state. To me it means that church should not directly control government, nor vice versa. That each can stand alone, and side by side. Take prayer in schools. I'm against school lead prayer mandated by the faculty, Board of Education, or government, but support self prayer if the students wish it, be it Christian, Islamic, or Jewish. Let's take the issue of Roy Moore that was mentioned. As far as I'm concerned the issue was not that The Ten Commandments were on display, it was his defiance of the courts to remove them. He let his religious views trump the law that he was sworn to uphold. Had a vote been taken in the state of Alabama on whether the Ten Commandments should have remained, the majority would have supported it staying. Now on to another point you made and is a topic for intense debate. Judges setting themselves up as law makkers. My thoughts are they are the interperters of law, not its makers. Our country is not made up of only Christians. If it were, there would be a whole new set of problems. We are a country that is made of a lot of different people. My personal belief is that we can all have or individual faith, and government cake too. When we try to remove a persons faith from them, then we trully create a dangerous person. Again, thank you for you well thought out and well written response. It has given me somethings to think about.
ReplyDeleteI am an opinionated person, which you likely already knew. And I have opinions about this.
ReplyDeleteBut, after reading the first posters comments, I wanted to respond to what I perceived as an implied criticism that our Constitution is a "fluid document."
Yes, it is. And yes it should be. Otherwise, slavery would still be legal, women still wouldn't have the right to vote, and workers would still be at the mercy of their bosses.
So, yes, "the separation of Church and State" isn't in the Constitution, but I don't think it needs to be. Legally, I don't think there is a justification for preventing gay marriage. And the commercials coming from the issue whereby Conservitives express "fear at the coming storm" *piss me the hell off.*
Fear of what? Give me a break.
The statement made by Miss CA is her right to make, but it is the right of everyone who hears it to respond with various shades of disgust, support, encouragement or disparagment. She took a rather vehement stance, and a lot of people took exception with it. Including me.
I don't know that it was an appropriate question for her to be asked. Whatever she answered, it was bound to incite controversy.
And if I keep going, I'm going to end up on a soapbox. But, I'm happy to discuss further, if you'd like. :)
Soapboxes are welcome here. Just remember that those made of suds tend to flow away with the water.
ReplyDeleteYour right that she should have expected push back. I mean when you take a stance normally there is someone on the other side taking the opposite point of view. But if people want me to respect their view points, on either side of an argument, keep it civil, bring some facts, and be prepared to listen to the opposition.
Again, I could careless whether they enter into a governmental marriage.
My apologies as to the lateness of this post - I have involved in some of the same work related activities as tracyd which consume an inordinate amount of time.
ReplyDeleteI received a response about my first post from Bewize which stated:
"I wanted to respond to what I perceived as an implied criticism that our constitution is a "fluid document". Yes, it is. And yes it should be. Otherwise, slavery would still be legal, women still wouldn't have the right to vote, and workers would still be at the mercy of their bosses."
Let me start off by saying this: read my entire post, and don't take things out of context. I stated that I felt the constitution is a fluid document IN THE EYES OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH. And no, it should NOT be. The only, ONLY purpose of the supreme court is to enforce laws already in place. NOT create them and legislate as they see fit based on their own personal feelings and agendas. The only reason there is no slavery, women have the right to vote, and worker's rights are recognized is because of the voices of the PEOPLE of this nation. Not the supreme court.