Who can describe a site, when it can describe itself? DISCLAIMER: for the self-critical, self-aware, self-humored ONLY.
Whatever happened to Church and State?
Published on February 5, 2004 By Poi Dog In Current Events
Ok, regardless of whether or not you are conservative Christian, or if you are in the gay community, or even if your best friend or relative is gay, this issue skirts the, well, issue. It doesn't matter what I think, either, and I'll spare you the majority of my own opinion. What I'm talking about is the Separation of Church and State.

A wonderful rule, it is. It keeps religious ethics from interfering with logical progression. We all know that some religions progress slowly. The Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Judaism, and Islamic tradition come to mind. Whether or not that progression is beneficial to humankind is another matter entirely. When we created the doctrine of this country, we made the distinction that religious beliefs are to remain apart from the affairs of the government. As a religious person myself, that is a wonderful decision.

Which brings me to my point: The Bush administration publicly decries same-sex marriage, as if we were all a southern Baptist community; as if the nation had to swallow the ethics of its President just the same as a third world country must cater to the the likings of its despotic dictator. I can't believe that we, as a nation, are so tolerant to the whims of our ELECTED government. Marriage is a foundation of religion, as well as the union of same-sex couples. Far be it for me to decry the motives...what is right for one man or woman, should be right for another. It doesn't mean that I have to agree, that is not the point of our legislature. The point is 'humanitarian rights'. I mean, our nation has been subject to things such as polygamy, same-sex unions, and fights over female clergy. That is not the battle of our government. It is the battle of the synods, elders, pastors, and congregations.

I know this is a touchy subject, but how can we deny the foundation of our country? It has maintained through the years, because essentially it is timeless (to an extent). We regulate our country, and we are allowed to criticize, support, and defend. It is truly wrong for Bush, as the President of the United States, to make his will known. His job is to uphold the Constitution, and not let personal might take hold. A good President can live life the way he or she wants to, but when it comes to the reflection of the populace, the President is a conglomerate image. He or she represents you and me. I believe we should make the note of the division of Church and State known once again, because it is a wonderful devotion to live our lives by. It is great that we can celebrate our own beliefs, and greater still that we can progress while maintaining those beliefs. George W. Bush needs to re-evaluate his line of thinking, and realize he is now an institution, and not a congregational member.

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Feb 09, 2004
Personally I think peopel should mind their own business, if two men or two women wish to declare their love for each other and have all the righst that the state bestows on that union, then I see no problem, I am sure if JC was here today he would be on the same side, only qualification I would have is why the is a marriage, civil union of some sought and state recoginition, but guys, get your own ideas happening, marriage itself but its defination does mean the union of man and woman for the procration of offspring, or a least that is what trdadition dictates, why not come up with some fresh ideas.
on Feb 09, 2004
Yeah if Wardell had his say, blacks would still be sitting in the back of the bus too. GCJ
on Feb 09, 2004
Watch yourself GCJ. You don't know Brad. I don't know where you got that kind of attitude. He never said he had anything against gay unions and supporting them having the same rights and priveleges. He said, as I also said, it shouldn't be called marriage.

Poi Dog, I get your point about the separation of church and state. It is another one of those rules of government that gets taken to extremes. Like it or not, our government was based around religion. It is still considered one nation under God. Our currency still says "In God we trust". It is still what the majority of our citizens believe. Call it tradition if you like. It is part of our culture. We respect all races, creeds, colors and religions. We don't change our way of living to embrace them neccessarily though.

You don't see how redefining marriage would change our society? You and many others see the difference between a union of two people and the union of any other number of people but I would bet good money that a lot of lawyers could argue a winning case to the contrary. If you redefine "marriage" to include people of the same sex, it will open the door to other redefinitions. There are some things that people hold sacred. Marriage is one that I am not willing to give up on.

I agree that any two people should be able to commit themselves legally to each other and get the same benefits as a married couple. I just don't agree that it is marriage.

BTW, I gave you points for an interesting article. It is very thought provoking and you present your thought very well. Well done. I wasn't even going to add anything until I saw GCJ's nasty comment about Brad.
on Feb 09, 2004
GCJ: That was a text book troll. So next time someone asks "What kind of comment can cost me points due to trolling?" We can point them to yours.
on Feb 09, 2004
The point is, it was never created by this country, it was created by religion, and the nation cannot regulate personal freedom based on religion


A question- the State (government) made a law recognizing same sex marriages. Marriage was defined by religion(church) as the union beween a man and a woman.
If the (government) makes a law changing this, isn't it forcing itself on religion and therefor going against the Constitution?

I think this is going to be a mute point anyway. As soon as a same sex couple gets "married" in say Massachusetts and moves to another state that has not passed or recognizes such. They'll be turned down for the same marriage benfits as a "man and woman" marriage. It'll go the the Supreme Court where I don't think that it will be upheld and Massachusetts will have to change the law back. Huh?

Just a thought.
on Feb 09, 2004
No, I don't see why gays should be given special rights.


Exactly. We should not confer more rights to gays. But other way also applies. We should not confer LESS rights to them either.
2 Pages1 2