Comments on: First Stop: The American Thinker

By: SCSIwuzzy

SCSIwuzzy — Thu, 18 Nov 2004 02:48:10 +0000

actus,
How does it?

By: Gary M. Volin

Gary M. Volin — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:24:44 +0000

Hello Jab!

I agree with your post! Again, none of this is to say that current definitions of marriage are unreasonable, that respect for tradition is irrational, or that the opposition of some religions to same-sex marriages is illegitimate. But we can see that definition, tradition, and religion by themselves are NOT rational bases for the government to ban same-sex marriages.

By: actus

actus — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:03:08 +0000

‘But nowhere does it say that the two cannot work together (faith based initiatives to help the poor/sick)’

doesn’t that violate the mandate that govt not ‘respect the establishment of’ religion?

By: SCSIwuzzy

SCSIwuzzy — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:50:26 +0000

jab,
So, where is seperation mentioned in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or Declaration?
The first ammend forbids the govt from establishing a state-church. It forbids the govt to restrict religious speech and religious observance so long as the observance is itself already defined as a crime (ie no ritual human sacrifice, no festival of the summer burglary etc).
There is room for debate about how far the establishment clause extends… and the state and church are seperate institutions, there is no doubt of that. But nowhere does it say that the two cannot work together (faith based initiatives to help the poor/sick) or that people of faith cannot be in government; the objections to these many on left have and prosecute are what most on the right object to.

By: jab

jab — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:11:24 +0000

Gary,

The problem is that many on the right even deny the concept of separation of church and state… they loudly proclaim that the words “separation of church and state” never explicitly appear in the Constitution… and perpetuate this myth that it is merely a construct made up by liberals in the past 40 years.

By: Gary M. Volin

Gary M. Volin — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 15:47:17 +0000

Religion is NOT a rational basis for the same-sex marriage ban. First of all, not all religions oppose same-sex marriage. Many religion groups support it, including the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, which performs over two thousand same-sex marriage ceremonies a year. If the seperation of church and state means anything, it surely means that state cannot prefer the views of, say, Catholics and Baptists over those of Unitarians and Reform Jews because the former outnumber the latter. Remember, no one is proposing that faith communities be required to change their definition of marriage….The question at hand is civil marriage and civil marriage only. In a country where church and state are seperate this is no small distinction. Many chruches, for example, forbid divorce. But civil divorce is still legal. We need to stop discriminating in this country against gay and lesbian families. Enough is enough!! I happen to think that once people are informed with the facts it gets awful close to bigotry…..it is a fine line!

By: Shari

Shari — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 06:34:43 +0000

If our Constitution says we are given unenalienable rights by our Creator. We are one nation under God how can it be said that the right of two men laying up is a right from God. Aside from biblical world view civilizations have alwyas had men and women in a marriage, otherwise there woujld be no more people. There are some cultures such as muslim who still have polygamy. But to say taht if someone wants to be in a gay “marriage” adn shoyld be given certain rights I dont think is right. There aer already using legal remidies. Power of Attorney, ect. They just want the public to say its normal. and the aclu will defend them just as it did the man boy love association NAMBLA

By: Allan

Allan — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:58:17 +0000

The problem I have with secularist values is that each person’s value system is based on her/himself. In other words, each individual becomes the measure of all things.

Christians obtain their values from an objective source, God. Those values are immutable, unchanging, eternal. Secularist values can change depending on the situation giving way to confusion and lack of clarity.

Thank you La Shawn for helping provide that moral clarity.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 01:39:24 +0000

Mr. Abrams,

I knew (theoretically) that there were reasonable minded people on the “other side” so to speak…but I don’t know that I’d ever actually heard from one until now.

Cheers to you.

By: Wade Calvert

Wade Calvert — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:57:23 +0000

In response to Mr. Abram’s comment above:

I respect your opinion, but we differ on a key point. The “right” to enter into legal contracts is not the same to me as the priviledge of the entitlement of marriage. Like most other privileges in life, it is the responsibility of the people to define the qualifications that deserve the privilege. We are always free to disagree on these qualifications. But it seems clear to me that the people have spoken.

Wade Calvert

By: Montie

Montie — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 18:42:41 +0000

Will,

Check out some of LaShawn’s archived posts and some of the blogs she is linked to and I’m sure you will find more than enough to back up your opinions.

La Shawn,

Your posts just get better and better. I have been in withdrawal for over a week, as I was out of the office and didn’t get a chance to read your blog the whole time. now that I’m caught up I feel so much better!

By: Asher Abrams

Asher Abrams — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 18:12:05 +0000

LaShawn,

Just when I thought I’d heard everything social conservatives could possibly say on the marriage and culture debates, you’ve come along and added a fresh perspective. Very fine column and I wish you success in getting it published.

Many of my friends are in gay marriages. I am proud to honor the sancitity of their relationships – but I recognize that many others, for religious reasons, simply cannot. This does not make them bigots; it means that reasonable people of good conscience, like yourself, may take a different view based on their religious beliefs.

I believe it is precisely the sacred nature of marriage that places it outside of the Government’s purview. The State should recognize the rights of people to form legal contracts with one another – including marriages and domestic partnerships – but should not undertake to determine whose union is “blessed” and whose is not.

Again, thanks as always for a great piece.

PS – Go Condi!

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 18:06:14 +0000

While certainly many of our nation strive for God and do so by practicing what the Bible states, it is also true that our country is founded on the Constitution, not the Bible. While some of your article has strong points, I’m most concerned w/the homosexual marriage part.
Gay marriage can be had in this country, legally. Essentially what would happen is the term “union” would replace “marriage” in many circles of life, but realistically, they are the same thing. When a man and a woman marry at a courthouse, it is just a “union” but we term it colloquially as a “marriage”. Thus, the state should perform these ceremonies as a civil right granted to all human beings. Churches have the option to perform them as well, but that’s a choice to each faith.
The institution would still be preserved to those who oppose, while the rights would also be afforded. Let’s not forget, when married/unioned (if you will), there are other rights granted to the partner such as tax rights, visitation rights, etc. which simply being in love doesn’t warrant in our laws. These need to be b/c if we don’t grant them, equal rights as we know them would be a red herring.

By: Will

Will — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:59:40 +0000

LaShawn!

I am impressed with you and your blogs and articles. Ever since I discovered you, I’ve been going back to read your old stuff.

I’m a right-leaning black American myself, and I catch flack from family and friends who think Bush is the Devil, and conservatives live to hate them. Can you point me to any resources/blogs/articles to answer them? Especially the older folks who have ACTUALLY seen real and repeated racial discrimination. Thanks

Will

By: Vanyogan

Vanyogan — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:29:58 +0000

I like the piece but please don’t hate me for this late critique.

I think you should have started with a clear statement of your point in the first paragraph. I’m just a consumer of op-eds, but it is so much clearer when you state the point in the opening paragraph and re-state it at the end. I think George Will is a master of this format. State the point, develop the point, restate the point. Will is so good that sometimes the first paragraph is definitive and the balance is redundant. You rarely get to the end of his columns without having already formed an opinion of his opinion.

Just some novice feedback…

I love your writing LaShawn.