Religious Freedom and Gay Marriage
My question involves civil rights in the State of: California
Is there are reason why the attorneys challenging Prop 8 did not bring up the issue of Separation of Church and State (i.e. Establishment Clause of the First Amendment & Free Exercise Clause)?
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
The argument is brought by the people of the state. If those individuals believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, that belief and subsequent argument comes from them, not the church.
Matters not what religion they practice, it's what (the majority of the people) believe in.
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
Quote:
Quoting
M'sta Mikey
The argument is brought by the people of the state. If those individuals believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, that belief and subsequent argument comes from them, not the church.
Matters not what religion they practice, it's what (the majority of the people) believe in.
Wasn't the push funded by not just voters who happen to be religious but also by Church institutions (e.g. LDS)?
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
Quote:
Quoting
samaha
Wasn't the push funded by not just voters who happen to be religious but also by Church institutions (e.g. LDS)?
Prop 8 was challenged based on the constitutionality of the ballot initiative that was passed banning gay marriages. That is by no means a religious issue regardless of who supported it and who didn't.
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
Prop 8 was challenged based on the constitutionality of the ballot initiative that was passed banning gay marriages. That is by no means a religious issue regardless of who supported it and who didn't.
So does that mean that the language in and of itself has to be religious for it to be a violation? Wasn't the Dover trial regarding Intelligent Design vs Evolution based upon Intelligent Design proponents making secular claims yet behind it was a religioius push and the judge found out and did not side with them as a result?
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
Now you're arguing against your original statement which could mean that you need to read more about the decision or it could mean that you're just being antagonistic.
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
Now you're arguing against your original statement which could mean that you need to read more about the decision or it could mean that you're just being antagonistic.
I'm asking questions to better understand. I've also read the decision but my question lies outside of it, given that it wasn't brought up to begin with. To be fair the attorneys didn't bring up federal constitutional rights as well. So their omission doesn't mean it's not a good argument to use. I'm simply wanting to know if my proposal had legal merit given that churches were funding the passing of the proposition for religious reasons. I also brought up the Dover trial because the issue would be similar if we accept my initial proposal.
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
Quote:
Quoting
samaha
I've also read the decision
You have read all 136 pages of it?
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
You have read all 136 pages of it?
I have it right here and I used the search tool to look up the entire document for key words that pertain to my proposal. I also know, from having listened in to the oral arguments made months ago, about what the issues raised were. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just asking questions to those who would know better than I and am only clarifying what you're telling me. Don't take this as antagonism.
Re: Proposition 8 (California)
See, by asking you if you read the entire decision, I had assumed you did in fact do that so my thinking was "you are way ahead of me"... however, this
Quote:
Quoting
samaha
I have it right
here and I used the search tool to look up the entire document for key words that pertain to my proposal.
is not the same as "I've also read the decision". Not by any stretch...
Also, searching the document for "keywords" that pertain to your "proposal" when in fact you already stated:
1. the attorneys challenging Prop 8 did not bring up the issue of Separation of Church and State (i.e. Establishment Clause of the First Amendment & Free Exercise Clause)
2. my question lies outside of it given that it wasn't brought up to begin with...
Means that you wasted your time searching for something that you already knew isn't going to be there...
Quote:
Quoting
samaha
I'm not trying to be difficult... Don't take this as antagonism.
OK, OK.... Maybe you can post a few more details about your proposal... That might entice someone to reply and or clarify...
Quote:
Quoting
samaha
I have it right
here and I used the search tool to look up the entire document for key words that pertain to my proposal. I also know, from having listened in to the oral arguments made months ago, about what the issues raised were. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just asking questions to those who would know better than I and am only clarifying what you're telling me. Don't take this as antagonism.
Quote:
Quoting
samaha
I have it right
here and I used the search tool to look up the entire document for key words that pertain to my proposal. I also know, from having listened in to the oral arguments made months ago, about what the issues raised were. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just asking questions to those who would know better than I and am only clarifying what you're telling me. Don't take this as antagonism.
Quote:
Quoting
samaha
I have it right
here and I used the search tool to look up the entire document for key words that pertain to my proposal. I also know, from having listened in to the oral arguments made months ago, about what the issues raised were. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just asking questions to those who would know better than I and am only clarifying what you're telling me. Don't take this as antagonism.
Quote:
Quoting
samaha
I have it right
here and I used the search tool to look up the entire document for key words that pertain to my proposal. I also know, from having listened in to the oral arguments made months ago, about what the issues raised were. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just asking questions to those who would know better than I and am only clarifying what you're telling me. Don't take this as antagonism.