Alert!

March 1, 2006
Constitutional church/state separation in jeopardy
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Tomorrow (3/2), the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to determine
whether to send a Constitutional Amendment defining civil marriage using a
theological definition (male/female only) out of committee. If such an
amendment were to pass, it would be the first time in our nation's history
that a religious definition of a civil contract was placed into the United
States Constitution.

Take a Stand: Regardless of what state you live in, your calls or e-mails
to the Chair and Ranking Member of the committee will be important. They are
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) respectively.
For those of you who live in their districts, calls and e-mails to the
following members asking them to be present at the "mark-up" of the Federal
Marriage Amendment and to speak against it, will also help in the effort to
keep the Constitution from reflecting a specific religious interpretation of
a civil contract: Sen. Edward Kennedy(D-MA); Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE); Sen.
Herbert Kohl (D-WI); Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA); Sen. Russ Feingold
(D-WI); Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY); Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL).

You can contact these Senators using the legislator lookup feature on our
Web site at http://www.secular.or.... More information
about this issue appears at http://www.secular.or...
.

Best regards,

Lori Lipman Brown

Director / Lobbyist

With all due respect, Norm, I think you're carrying things a bit too far here. What grounds do you have to say that the male/female distinction is one established by religion? I would say on the contrary, that this is a distinction deeply rooted in biology and one that animals, which have no religion, have no difficulty in understanding. So please explain yourself, or forever hold your peace.

Nativity scene erected in Illinois Capitol
SPRINGFIELD [Illinois] -- Organizers who put a Christian nativity scene inside the Illinois Capitol Tuesday say they want to see similar religious displays erected in government buildings across the nation.

With all due respect, Norm, I think you're carrying things a bit too far here. What grounds do you have to say that the male/female distinction is one established by religion? I would say on the contrary, that this is a distinction deeply rooted in biology and one that animals, which have no religion, have no difficulty in understanding. So please explain yourself, or forever hold your peace.

Did I say that? Maybe you should read this again from the original post......

"Tomorrow (3/2), the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to determine whether to send a Constitutional Amendment defining civil marriage using a theological definition (male/female only) out of committee. If such an
amendment were to pass, it would be the first time in our nation's history that a religious definition of a civil contract was placed into the United States Constitution."

Your ability to understand in the correct context of what is written seems to be severely limited. As usual, you want to debate/discuss and you don't even understand the what is being said.

With all due respect, Norm, I think you're carrying things a bit too far here. What grounds do you have to say that the male/female distinction is one established by religion? I would say on the contrary, that this is a distinction deeply rooted in biology and one that animals, which have no religion, have no difficulty in understanding. So please explain yourself, or forever hold your peace.

Actually, homosexual relations are well documented in the animal kingdom. A quick google search for "homosexual animals" brought back 1.3 million hits. Youtube brings us this gem from National Geographic: http://www.youtube.co...

However, discussing the male/female relationship brings you to an unlikely conclusion: that marriage is based around sexual activity, and in specific the need to produce offspring. Supporters of dual sex marriage claim that it is biologically imperative to maintain this narrow definition, if only to propagate the species. Yet they also allow for the condescending footnote that "if the gays want to have gay sex, they still can (it will all just be for naught)." Ultimately the biological supporters (as I have just named them) have two main arguments:

1. The need to reproduce is fundamental to the act of marriage.

2. Homosexual relations do not fit within this narrow framework, and for all intents an purposes (as they apply to marriage) they are simply wasting their time.

Sounds a bit harsh when you put it that way, but in reality that is what they are saying.

I suppose the point of this rambling post is to inject a new way of thinking of marriage into at the very least our friend Carl Stoll's mind: that marriage is based around love. That the true motivator for any couple to get married is a desire to spend ones life with the other. Shouldn't that, and that alone, be the basis for marriage?

I'll turn finally to Carl's last point: marriage is not defined by a religious authority.

I cannot possibly comprehend the level of willing ignorance it would take to type such words; and willing it must certainly be. I say this because one only need to look at the massive debate in America and see there are truly 3 sides:

- those in favor of gay marriage

- those against based on Carl's wildly inappropriate "biological" theory (which I contend is bigotry in disguise)

- Those against based on deep religious convictions

If indeed another group exists I'll gladly add them on. But I think it is important to create an ad hoc argument based on the 3 groups I have stated. If CNN's recent poll data is to believed, 75% of all Americans self identify as christian. One in three self identify as "Evangelical," one of the most hate filled and bigoted sects of the christian world. Also a sect which embraces the literal translation of the bible. If such a large portion of the Christian world in America believes strongly enough in the literal translation of the bible, it is right to assume their opposition to gay marriage is centered on the bible, and in particular the book of Leviticus.

Its not a decisive argument, I know that. I don't have the tools or time to show what portion of Americans believe that gay marriage should be banned solely because god said so. However, I do think that the argument is clear, and has at least some logical standing.

Finally I would like to state that even if the religious right do not compose a majority of those against gay marriage, they certainly do speak the loudest (as is common with extreme groups within politics).


EDIT: Oooo, I forgot the nutballs who claim the sanctity of marriage. To which I respond only with these telling numbers from the CDC for the year 2005 (source: http://www.cdc.gov/nc...

# Marriage rate: 7.5 per 1,000 total population
# Divorce rate: 3.6 per 1,000 population (46 reporting States and D.C.)

If marriage is so sacred, why is it that nearly half fail?