[CS-FSLUG] Federal Marriage Amendment Struck Down for Today

[Clawman]

I see,

>Christopher:
>Interesting revisionest twist to the history and founding of our Great Nation. 
>Our Great Nation was founded by the Puritans, who fled Europe seeking 
>religious freedom. 
>
Perhaps I can help us shed some light on the subject.

Jamestown was the first (if you can call it) successful British colony 
in North America. By
1600 the land of modern America was the onlyland in the America's not 
colonized,
claimed or, by the pope's decree, granted to another foreign power.  The 
Puritans first fled
to Holland (then a center for liberal thinking and not in league with 
the Catholic or Anglican
churches).  They decided then to head to the America's to find refuge 
from the constant
fighting in a Europe englufed in religious wars and still in the midst 
of the Inquisition.

They landed in Massachuttes and almost starved there the first winter.  
Luckily for them, some
French trappers had given a disease to the local indians and killed them 
off, so their crops
were just waiting to be harvested (it seems that God had prepared the 
way).  The puritans lived
much, much longer than the settlers at Jamestown and had a strict, 
sometimes overly so, policy
about almost everything. The puritans were the first to even bother 
attempting to Christianize
the indians (a.k.a. anglitize them). After the French-Indian war, the 
distrust and hysteria led to
fierce indian hatred and not even their most faithful defenders could help.

After Cromwell's successful revolution in England, the reason for coming 
to America was no longer
there, and many who had suffered the harsh conditions of America 
returned to their homelands of
England and Scotland.  The single government mandated church with the 
king as it's head was no more.

All the while, the Jamestown residents were squabbling to keep from killing
eachother while at the same time keeping the indians from killing them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>When the colonies final broke from England, the founding 
>Father's, granted all the freedom of religious worship (that is the right to 
>worship God as they saw fit). The founding Father's acknowledged the 
>importance that God and Religion played in there lives and the life of the 
>nation. But they clearly spelled out that while the constitution was founded 
>on religious principles of their day, that there was a clear separation of 
>Religion from Government. 
>
The states after the revolution did struggle with Church-taxes (Germany 
still has this by the
way) and the role of denominations.  Aside from Jefferson and Franklin, 
who were theists
and staunch members of the enlightenment, the remaining members of the 
founding fathers
were men who believed in the Jesus of the Bible.  Most were former 
Anglicans, and that
was a dilemma uniquely their own at that time.  The founding fathers 
knew that a state
sponsered religion was at the whim of whomever was in power, and decided 
against a
king (Geroge Washinton refused) and against state sponsered religion 
(i.e. a denomination).

It was a common understanding that the Christian religion was the one 
thing holding the
country together as civilized men (i.e. keeping men restraining 
themselves).  It was well
known that if people don't control themselves (as we see in the middle 
east) that you must
always have a boot on their necks to keep them in line.  Church services 
were held in the
Congress building and the Christian ideals were defended in the law.

Then there was that "pesky" letter from the Danbury Baptist Union to 
Thomas Jefferson
asking about state sponsered religion.  Jefferson assured them that 
there would always
be a wall between church and state (i.e. no pope-kings in america and no 
Anglican
monarchy) to prevent the state from attempting to control the people via 
that Church
and for preventing smaller denominations (the baptists at the time) from 
being outlawed
or persecuted. Then, after writing his letter, we can imagine him taking 
the carriage
trip to the congress building in time for Church services (which he did 
do, though
probably more for propriety than for piety).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>You know that pesky separation of Church and State 
>thing, that forbids prayer in school and sees backhoes ripping out Granite 
>statues of the Ten Commandments from Court Houses and Crosses removed from 
>public land and seals. 
>
The constitution allowed such things for 200 years and just now forbids 
it ... I think it's
that pesky revisionist memmory of yours that needs a backhoe ripping it up.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>To ensure the primary freedom granted by the 
>constitution (religious freedom), the founding fathers, put a clear 
>separation between the governance of the people and religion.
>  
>
Indeed, passing the bill of rights was a prerequisite for delegates 
agreeing to ratify
the constitution. Religious freedom was only seen in the Christian sense 
at the time.
God-believers of all kinds were accepted. Even today, an atheist can't 
serve in
Congress since a person who doesn't believe in judgement for their 
actions can
and (as we have seen) will do whatever they want.  That said, they were 
keeping
government out of the business of religion, not keeping religion out of 
the state.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is sorely mistaken.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>As thoughtfully written as our Constitution is, it has been amendend from time 
>to time to add new freedoms. It has never been used to restrict or remove a 
>freedom. Without a clear separation of Church and State, religious freedom 
>would soon disappear from this Great Nation, One Nation under God.
>  
>
Nice speech, however, it must be remembered that (once again) marriage 
is a matter of
corporate benefits, social security, property rights and federally 
mandated laws.  The
existing laws have always been about making sure that the family (i.e. 
two people that
can naturally reproduce, where one cares for the children while the 
other works to
provide for their needs) is protected.  Laws made marriage of no 
advantage (as it is in
Sweden, where you can be penalized for it) for a while. However, most of 
that situation
has been rectified. Gay marriage isn't about religion, it is about 
thumbing their noses
at religion and at God, while reaping the benefits of laws designed to 
protect reproducing
couples so as to ensure our nation's future.  Their perverted love is 
only an illusion brought
on by severe spiritual hardness and pain.  They may be alive on the 
outside, but they are
dead on the inside (have a talk with some gay people and see for 
yourselves).

Is the admentment a religious issue ... yes. Is is also an issue about 
the spirit of the laws ... yes.
Indeed, without religion marraige is just an illusion, too.  I don't 
care if gay people want to
romp around (sinners will act like sinners), but I don't want their 
lifestyle protected nor do
I want it receiving benefits designed for the good of the future 
children of this nation.