MyFox
 

An Atheist in an ocean of Theists

by dracco73 from Clinton, UT

Last Post 4 days, 16 hours Ago


Utah joining other zealot ran states.
Jun 1, 2008 | 1:38 AM
Category: Political
Report This Post

It appears Utah has joined 9 other states in the quest to legislate Christian dogma regardless of it's unconstitutionality.  Here is a quote from the today's article:

"Utah’s Attorney General is joining the fight against California’s gay marriage ruling. Mark Shurtleff, along with nine other states’ attorneys general, sent a letter to the California Supreme Court. It asks them to delay a final ruling on legalizing gay marriage until California voters decide the issue in November. Shurtleff is concerned about so called “tourism marriages.” He and the other attorneys general are worried that residents will travel to California to be legally married. "

I wasn't surprised to hear the news, but never the less, it angers me.  Do these people not understand the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States?   We are not suppose to be making laws that respect an establishment of religion.  We should not allow Christians to oppress the American people with their dogma.  I applaud California.  This issue is not suppose to be voted on.  It is a violation of the 1st Amendment. 

-D-

30 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 30
Page 1 of 2
1
2
 Last
spacealien read my blog view my photos
Jun 2, 2008 | 9:06 AM

but we should allow the atheists and liberals to oppress the american people.... right??? oh by the way, article 1 of the bill of rights says absolutely NOTHING about marriage.
akiame read my blog view my photos
Jun 2, 2008 | 9:24 AM

Marriage is a RELIGIOUS ideal long ago adopted by the Government... I wonder how that "Snuck through" in the first place?

In my mind marriage has no place in government at all... Straight, gay or whatever!!!

On another note: Why are people so apt to trounce upon the liberties of gay people? If you trounce anothers freedom, you don't deserve yours!
dracco73 read my blog
Jun 2, 2008 | 10:36 AM

Alien, explain to us how giving people the liberty to marry who they choose a form of oppression? This will be rich. Don't just make statements with out clarifying your point. How is it "oppressing you, if your male neighbor marries another male??? TELL US!!! COME ON! We're waiting?

The first amendment covers marriage when it says Congress Shall Make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion. Yet it does when it gives special treatment to married couples through tax breaks, contractual powers to include power to approve surgeries and pulling of "the plug" to end life etc. In our society, marriage is no longer a religious institution and has become a legal one. So you either get rid of it all together and adopt civil unions for everyone and keep marriage in the churches alone with respect to powers of the law, or you say marriage remains a universal legal title for a contract between two or more consenting adults that wish to enter into a domestic partnership that entitles them the benefits that are now given under the current guidelines of marriage. Since marriage is not just a Christian term for said partnerships we cannot apply the Christian definition, without violating the 1st Amendment.

The current legal definition of marriage is in direct violation of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. As are the laws against prostitution, sodomy, adultry etc. TIDE IS TURNING!!! Can you hear it? The people are speaking.
spacealien read my blog view my photos
Jun 2, 2008 | 11:30 AM

drecko.. do you really want to know? or are you just looking for more "ammunition" so you can pat yourself on the back and say "see how much better i am for being so tolerant?" why should i or anyone else be forced to accept this or any other kind of perversion? that is how it oppresses people!
for both drecko and akiame: better recheck your history. marriage was instituted as a secular event long before religion had any role in the matter. i am talking about the origins of marriage, and the protections assigned by the "state" as it existed in the earliest societies. societies that existed long before judaism, christianity, hinduism, etc. i am going to be lazy and not post all the links i have found. why don't you google the word and take a look yourself?
dracco73 read my blog
Jun 2, 2008 | 12:22 PM

Space, look man, you're not even listening to what you are saying. You are using the word "perversion". Where does that view or feeling derive? YOUR DOGMA! So, you have the choice to abstain from it. No one is making you accept it for you. You don't have to accept it personally. However, in turn you can't deny someone else that has a different belief in it, their right to choose for themselves. If two guys get married, it doesn't affect you. It's not forcing you to do anything. However, by trying to deny them their choice, you are forcing a decision on them. You are telling them they don't have a choice. THAT IS OPPRESSION! I don't have an issue with Christianity as long as they practice it within. This is not a Theocracy. We have rights to be free from religious influence and to individual believe what we wish. If I believe in gay marriage, I should be able to freely practice it. You are denying someone else's their own religious and human rights. It's christians forcing their laws not Atheists or Gays. Please show me how you are being forced to accept anything?
dracco73 read my blog
Jun 2, 2008 | 12:32 PM

I would also like to add that your comments on marriage being a secular and not religious, defeats your reasoning to include homosexuals would be a "perversion" of marriage. If marriage is only a legal thing, then it shouldn't matter so much to those opposing it.

Who do you think those individuals opposing it are? It's the Churches that are fightning it. Why do you think Fox did a speculative report as to whether the LDS would use it's resources to oppose what California did. This is a battle against religious oppression.

If it's not a religious thing and only a secular legally binding contractual thing, then your defeating your own argument about it being perverted and therefore should not be allowed.
dracco73 read my blog
Jun 2, 2008 | 12:41 PM

Here're some for you.

http://www.lezbeout.com/ancientgaymarriageoftwomalesain
ts.htm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16
93353

http://michaelscomments.wordpress.com/2007/08/27/gay-ma
rriage-has-ancient-precedents/

http://www.pridedepot.com/modules/wordpress/?p=357

http://ancienthistory.about.com/b/2006/02/21/roman-law-
and-gay-marriage.htm

http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9411/articles/darling
.html
richardcheney read my blog view my photos
Jun 2, 2008 | 9:22 PM

Why do so many misunderstand the first amendment - and, therefore, probably others? It is not a stand for prevention of establishment of principles that may have religious underpinning, it stands for prevention of an official state religion imposed upon the citizens. Elsewise, why do supreme court judges, memebers of congress and the president and others in government habitually pray? It does not contain the verbiage "separation of church and state" - that is emerely the opinion of such as the ACLU. A contract between one man and one woman happens to be the social acceptance of what this republic has established and defined as "marriage" in most of its several states. To insist otherwise is as absurd as the belief that the second amendment does not really say that the citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. To insist otherwise is the bitterness of a minority opinion. The citizens of California had alrready voted down the proposal of gay marriage and that state's surpeme court has trumped that election result in defiance of the will of the people. Utah, as a separate state with existing statute, though not a constitutional amendment, to define marriage as between one man and one woman, has every right within the constitution to support both the people of California as well as the majority opinion of its own citizens.
dracco73 read my blog
Jun 3, 2008 | 2:00 PM

I think it is you that is misinterpretting and many of the "supreme court justices" you speak of. The English is plain. It's not magic or does not have special meanings.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

This simply means that you can exercise freely whatever religion you like, but laws can not be made that respect it. This prevents a state church, but it also prevents any one church having influence over the government. So you are partially right. It does protect against a Theocrasy, but it also prevents any one church from forcing it's dogma.

Think about it this way, How can I freely practice my religion if I am being held to the tenets of yours??? The misinterpretation is by those that have ignored this fact. The tide is turning as more and more people make this country more and more diverse and Christianity fades as the oppressor.

Oh and Utah does fall under the 1st Amendment of the Federal Constitution with respect to no being allowed to make laws that respect an establishment of religion. These laws include, but are not limited to: adultry, prostitution, sodomy and gay marriage. NO STATE IS ALLOWED TO OVERRIDE THAT! Yet they do. So, the fight to preserve the constitution goes on.

Where did it ever say that marriage was to be between a man and a woman??? Who said this??? Where does that idea come from???
dracco73 read my blog
Jun 3, 2008 | 8:34 PM

I don't see any "this only applies to State Church" verbiage in there. The "Seperation of Church and State" need not be verbalized as it is the result of both the Establishment clause and the Free Exercise Clause. It's an effect of the declaration and not the declaration itself.
Scotsman read my blog
Jun 3, 2008 | 9:47 PM

Sorry to disappoint you dear dracco! The establishment clause meant that the Goverment would make no law regarding "recognized/organized religions or in other words they would be fair and even handed and not interfere with religious practice. ( see the Gentleman's agreement of 1788 upon which the Constitution was ratified with the understanding that it would be ammended) As to the issue of gay marriage. It has been looked down upon by almost all cultures since the beginning of time! Not religions but cultures/societies! It is contrary to nature. Plus this is goverment BY THE PEOPLE! Therefore if a majority of the people want something on a referendum vote, then so be it! Once the people have spoken, NO branch of goverment has the right to over rule the PEOPLE!! If the majority chooses we can always ammend the Constitution again!
dracco73 read my blog
Jun 3, 2008 | 10:57 PM

WRONG SCOTSMAN!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

These opening words of the First Amendment to the Constitution set forth a dual guarantee of religious liberty. Both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause operate to protect the religious liberty and freedom of conscience of all Americans. Quoting Thomas Jefferson, the Supreme Court has stated that the Establishment Clause was intended to accomplish this end by erecting a "wall of separation between Church and State." Everson v. Board of Educ. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947).

It is one of the fundamental principles of the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence that the Constitution forbids not only state practices that "aid one religion . . . or prefer one religion over another," but also those practices that "aid all religions" and thus endorse or prefer religion over nonreligion. Everson, 330 U.S. at 15. See Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 53 (1985)("[T]he individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all"); see also County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 589-94, 598-602 (1989); Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1, 17 (1989); Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961).

Nice try though.
dracco73 read my blog
Jun 3, 2008 | 11:06 PM

As far as your ridiculous statement that it "has been looked down upon" throught history, is just another testament to your intellectual deficit and vast ignorance of history. Try Ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt.

How about this one, you bigot.

http://www.gayweddingsinscotland.org

Aparently not all cultures look down on it, including your descendants. HAHAHAHA!
dracco73 read my blog
Jun 3, 2008 | 11:11 PM

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/establi
shment/index.aspx

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendme
nt01/02.html

little snippet for ya:

"''[F]or the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment the 'establishment' of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.'' 41 ''[The] Court has long held that the First Amendment reaches more than classic, 18th century establishments.'' Supp.3 However, the Court's reading of the clause has never resulted in the barring of all assistance which aids, however incidentally, a religious institution. Outside this area, the decisions generally have more rigorously prohibited what may be deemed governmental promotion of religious doctrine."
dracco73 read my blog
Jun 3, 2008 | 11:16 PM

http://www.constitution.org/tj/sep_church_state.htm



Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate 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. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he ha
dracco73 read my blog
Jun 3, 2008 | 11:18 PM

s no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed)
Th Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.



Wow!!! Wasn't Jefferson a "FOUNDING FATHER"!?!?!?!?!
dracco73 read my blog
Jun 4, 2008 | 12:36 AM

Here's another link to Jefferson's Letter:

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html

I would also like to add that you, Scotsman and many of the other zealots I've met have forgotten a branch of the government. Look up the Judicial side. ;-)

Let me also add that the "Gentleman's agreement of 1788 was to ratify the first 10 Amendments. That just means everyone agreed on them. It takes 3/4's of the states to ratify a new amendment. No one has challenged the original meaning of the 1st Amendment with a new Amendment. The intent is clear. You're B.S doesn't hold true. This is why the laws are changing. ;-) The oppressed are being freed, as it was intended.
Mariposa_Xochipilli read my blog
Jun 4, 2008 | 10:16 AM

Dracco,

Thomas Jefferson was, indeed, a religious man who clearly saw that this nation's government should not be a religion itself.

If it had been up to him, there would have been a separate individuals rights (instead of lumping both states and individuals into the Tenth Amendment) and an education ammendment.
Scotsman read my blog
Jun 4, 2008 | 3:45 PM

Dracco: I know that you and I will never agree on the subject of reigion. Our founding fathers designed the Constitution to protect our freedoms against the designs of those who would oppress. One of their chief reasons in founding this land was "freedom of religion". Freedom to worship their creator according to the dictates of their own conscience. They new from the begining that in order for our freedom to last we had to be a moral people. The civilizations of Greece, Rome & Ancient Egypt all fell because of moral corruption. When people stop following a code of moral ethics and just start doing what ever suits them, they lose the ablility to self govern. Whether you agree or not, matters not! Moral behavior and freedom go hand in hand! With out freedom you have tyranny which is immoral. Without moral conduct you have anarchy which is no better than tyranny. I do salute you for your service to are country! I also applaude your study of the Constitution. Too bad it has been so raped and pilaged by the Judiciary!
dracco73 read my blog
Jun 4, 2008 | 8:46 PM

Scotsman, you don't need Christian morals to run a country. Whether you agree or not, the country is changing. Gay Marriages will happen. The supreme court even sides with me ;-) See Lawrence Vs. Texas. Sodomy is no longer illegal because of that ruling. ;-) The Judiciary system helps prevent things like Christian oppression of the government.

I have no doubt in my mind the intent of the Christian church is good, but it's still unconstitutional. Think of it this way, how am I free to practice my religion if I am made to adhere to the tenets of yours???
Page 1 of 2
1
2
 Last


Write your comment below:




dracco73

I am an Oregonian Liberal Atheist, living in Utah. I am passionate about my freedom. I am a military veteran that defended it for nearly 14 years of my life. I believe the 1st Amendment, among other rights are violated in the country everyday through unconstitutional legislation and especially in this state. I have made it my ambition to speak out against the oppression many of us face in this country because of those violations. If I only enlighten one mind to the truth... My work is complete.

Member Since: 2/21/2007


 

RSS: XMLWhat is RSS?