Please read the links first, thanks...\nhttp://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/living/religion/14179181.htm\nhttp://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/opinion/14187133.htm\n\nFirstly, wouldn't that trample the rights of all others?  Secondly, wouldn't that be unconstitutional?
120364
It's a terrible idea.  The founding fathers had not intentions of there being a nationally endorsed religion.  It would seriously trample the rights of others.  Look at what happened in Iraq, they have a national religion of Islam and a guy was going to be killed for converting to Christianity.  It also is a violation of the first amendment.\n\nQuotes from sources below:\n\n"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992.\n\n"Thomas Jefferson, as president, wrote a letter to the  Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut  on 1802-JAN-1. It contains the first known reference to the "wall of separation". The essay states in part:\n\n    "...I contemplate with solemn 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..."\n\nDuring the 1810's, President James Madison wrote an essay titled "Monopolies" which also refers to the importance of church-state separation. He stated in part:\n\n    "Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."\n\nThe US Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment as if it requires this "wall of separation" between church and state. It not only prohibits any government from adopting a particular denomination or religion as official, but requires government to avoid excessive involvement in religion."
31973
They are people correct? Are we not all entitled to certian unalienable rights? The constitution protect everyones rights regardless of race creed or orentation.\n\nAs far as marrage goes why not,it is more of a sosciety issue not a right or legal issue, it is not really covered under the constitution.
618290
In my opinion, you have hit the nail on the head.  In my opinion, the acceptance of the current Judeo-Christian definition of marriage violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment.  It may be struck down by the supreme court on those grounds.  I think it is also important to remember that just because the majority is in favor of something does not make it right.  That is a part of the genius of our political system.  We have a judicial branch that is not directly accountable to the people.  This, in theory, enables them to make the right decision even when that decision is not popular.  I am a Christian, but I have to admit I have some serious problems with the constitutional amendment banning Gay marriage.
583779
My religion supports gay marriage 100%. I'm Wiccan. Should I not be allowed to have a relgious marriage because some other people's religions disapprove? That is a stupid way to run a system. Whose religion is on top? Whose religion gets veto rights? Even within Christianity, United Church of Christ supports gay marriage 100% and Southern Baptists oppose it 100%.... who gets to win there? I want the blessing of my faith on my committment, why should I be denied that?\n\nAlso marriage comes with a host of legal rights. I already have the committment with my partner, I don't need a piece of paper to validate that. But it sucks that I don't get the same legals then straight people who make their committments. For instance:\n\nIf my gf was in the hospital, I can't visit her in the ICU since I'm not family. I can't make medical decisions for her. If she dies, I can't decide where to bury her. If she has to go in an ambulence, I can't ride along.\n\nIf she dies, we loose the house together since legally I'm considered a roommate not a spouse. Similarly for the car.\n\nI can't adopt my own children, the children we concieve together, birth together, and raise together. That means I can't pick them up from school without a note from her, I cant take them across national boarders without her, and I can't take them to a doctor and make any medical decisions for them. (Some of this I can do if I shelve over about $20,000 to lawyers to get a couple of the things that a straight couple gets for a $50 marriage liscense).\n\nIf she dies, I don't get access to her social security or pension. I can't take funeral leave from my job because she is not family.\n\nWe file income tax as two single people so we pay twice as much in income tax.\n\nWe have to get health insurance for both of us, since we're not married, I can't share my insurance with her. Similarly since I can't adopt my kids, I can't give them my insurance either.\n\nIf we go into a nursing home together, they don't have to put us in a room together. They can place us on seperate ends of the building.\n\nWe can't get a gym membership or a AAA membership together. We have to pay twice as much.\n\nIf we break up, I will get nothing. No alimony. She wont be able to get child support from me. No one wants to think about divorce, but divorce laws do protect both halves of a couple in the event they should split. No protections for me or her.\n\nAnd that is just a handful of the things I can think of off the top of my head.  In my religion, I can have a handfasting and be 100% married.  But to the secular world, I'm not at all.  How is that fair?  How is that a good way to run a democracy?  How does that bring us closer to living out the promise of our creed that ALL men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights?
83709
Mosi hit the nail on the head. You've either misunderstood what you've heard or the legislators in Missouri are all bone-headed. I suspect the former.\n\nThere's probably some talk going around about letting people exercise their right to practice their religion. This is often interpreted by anti-Christians to mean what you describe.\n\nAlso, Buddhists aren't supposed to worry about these kinds of things, anyway.
173030
I have nothing against same-sex marriages. I think it's really stupid how the government is not allowing it in the US. We have the freedom of religion. Wouldn't that mean that we have the freedom to choose what sex our marriage partner is? This topic is purely religious, and what happened to "seperation of church and state"? For the land of the free, there are a lot of useless things restricting our freedom.
100639
The ACLU should be called the Anti-Christian Liberals Union.  One thing is to stand up for the rights of some poor uneducated person who just got fired for no reason and can't defend himself from the big corporation, etc... but to be so totally against religion that you would proactively and without a single complaint, spend time and effort to stamp out prayer, etc from all government ceremonies, etc., is just insane.  The lawyers who work for and the people who support the ACLU really should look at themselves and ask, "isn't the fact that I am against religion (which in its best form, molds family values and keeps kids from being raised in broken homes, etc.), make me participant to the destruction of the very thing I am trying to protect (the well-being of the average person).  It is actually leading to the deterioration of our values as a society instead of contributing to them.  Don't be fooled... unless you are trash in society, you will never need their help.  Who knows if you are trash?  Not me.  I don't know, but you should... and if you are, you still have a chance to remedy yourself. But remember, once you do, they will no longer be interested in helping you because there will be no news value to it.
569986
I think that it should be up to the states to define the legality of the marriage.  I admire the thought behind the marriage amendment but didn't think that it would work since most people don't really speak up for their feelings.  I am personally very against same sex marriage.  It is not the way marriage was intended to be.  If you look at the reasons that gay/lesbians want to get married, you will not see that it is for love or for kids, but for money reasons.  From the studies I have read, which may have been biased toward this conclusion, many of the homosexual community want the same benefits and tax credits married people have.  It is not for other reasons such as Love but it is for money reasons.  I saw an interview with a spokesperson during the short time San Fran was doing the marriage cerimony and she said that they wanted the same benefits that the heterosexual community had because they were just as entitled.  They are not entitled and the tax breaks for the heterosexual community  are there to help families survive and thrive in the economy.  People who say two can live as cheaply as one are lying unless both plan to eat half as much or shower every other day like a single person would live in the first place.
543622
A simple reading of the English language words of the American Constitution and those of the various 50 states indicates that government is barred from establishing laws governing religion.  Why is this bad?  Do you want government telling people where and how to or not to worship?  Worked great in the Soviet Union and Iran.  Why not here?  \nAs to the second component of your question, I don't see government sponsored ads on tv telling people to be gay, so can you clarify this "cramming" that you might make a better case for the media or Hollywood doing, but certainly not any government where I hail from.
115476
How come they are not protecting the CHRISTIAN RIGHT???  We as Christian have rights too...but they want to rip them apart!  Tired of the DOUBLE STANDARDS!!!  Can we sue them?
275280
I'm not sure how you are defining "separation of church and state".  That phrase doesn't appear in the constitution in any form.\n\nI agree with what the constitution says, in essence and I paraphrase... that "the congress (government) shall establish no official mandated religion" which it never has nor ever will. If that is your definition, YES.  I do believe and support no "state mandated religion" which is what the writers of the constitution clearly intended.  \n\nIf you define it like that idiot out in funny land (California) Michael Neudow does, who wants "in God we trust" off all our money, all our buildings and all references to any higher power expunged from all government related materials of any kind, the answer is NO.\n\nIf you don't remember Mr. Neudow, he is the same looney that filed the phoney lawsuit "on behalf" of his 7 year old daughter to take "under God" out of the Pledge of Alleigence.  My answer to that perverted interpretation of the constitution is a big, BIG NO and I don't believe in it for the simplest reason in the world, THATS NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS. nor what it means.\n\nAs for tax status, I could care less since the IRS will stick to just as bad either way.\n\nOh, yeah, by the way.... <lord_dups76> (the first reply) should really, REALLY be back on his Lithium.
54266
Within reason they should be able to follow the "laws" of their religion. less so, things which may just be custom. Certainly, a limit needs to be placed on anything which would place an undue tax burden on the taxpayer or create an unsafe situation. In the cases , where money is the issue, a religious charity organization could be appealed to.
326176
Make it optional, no need to pledge allegiance to the flag every morning at all, and make the "God" part optional when saying it.  I think it's more important for kids to understand the Constitutional principles for which this country is founded and is the LAW than some abstract references to what the "proper religion" was at the time of its creation.  I can't find a single reference to a "state religion" in that or any document, including all the articles of confederation.  All I see is that Congress shall make NO LAW regarding the establishment of religion or the free excercise thereof.\n\nMeaning to me that people are freely allowed to excercise their right or abstain from referring to God or Gods in a public forum.  On another note, I don't want any reference to religion in school, that's what the home, church, and parental responsibility are for.  If a religious group wants to meet after school, go for it, but don't make it compulsory or degrading.
581170
I see no reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.  Some people say it detracts from the marriage of straight people.  How?  If  a man and a woman have a good marriage, how does the fact that two guys across the street or two girls across town are married make their marriage any less valid?  How does preventing gays from marrying make an abusive marriage better?\n\nFrom what I see, the opponents of gay marriage mostly oppose it because it's against their religion.  If that is so, then they should come out and say that.  But they won't, because then gays could cite "Freedom of religion" arguments, and thus claim a constitutional right to marry.  Remember, "Freedom of religion" also includes "Freedom from religion".  And every conservative with 2 brain cells to rub together knows that they will lose this issue once they start fighting on that front.  \n\nIn my opinion, if the US ever does manage to pass a so-called "defense of marriage" amendment, it will soon become the 2nd time an amendment was repealed.  To me this issue looks like the civil rights debates of the 50's and 60's.  That has pretty much resolved itself - this will, too, with the same result.
165179
Absolutely.  It's funny that Christians call it persecution when they are forced to obey the law.  No other religion gets to put up their commandments in the courthouses, but block the Christian 10 commandments suddenly it's persecution!\n\nOur country was not founded on any god, it was founded on the Constitution.  The consitution has an amendment barring Congress from making any law that respects the establishment of religion.\n\n[edit] for the person below who mistakenly thinks the constitution allows establishement of religion:\n\n"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."\n\ncongress cannot do anything that even touches on establishement of religion.
426703
Again, what rentals.....depends by who.  If it is say church housing, for rental by Christian followers, then yes, it's constitutional.
74096
I'm not sure that theocracy is quite the right word for where I'm worried we're headed (even though I did use it in my previous post), but there is definitely a significant population of Christian extremists who are trying to errode the separation of church and state.  Look at abortion, gay marriage, censorship of the media, abstinence-only education, etc.  People quote the BIBLE as justification for banning abortion, for banning gay marriage, for restricting content of television and radio programs, for banning books from schools, for teaching kids only abstinence by way of sexual education.  Sure they have the right to practice Christianity, but what about MY right NOT to be Christian?  If citizens want to push for laws that reflect their religious beliefs they have every right to, but when judges and legislators start making decisions that favor the minority of Christian fudimentalists over the general population we're in trouble.  The current adminstration has made numerous attempts to circumvent the constitution and give money to Christian organizations, and that's more than a little troubling.  I don't like how much political power the Christian Church is gaining.  In order to protect our constitutional right to freedom of religion, no religious institution should have a significant influence in politics.\n\nAnd before anyone jumps in about "separation of church and state" not being in the constitution, I realize that these are not the words that appear in the first ammendment.  However, the first ammendment states "congress shall make now law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  That means know giving money to religious establishments (as this is done via the budget which is a law, albeit a short-lived one) and no favoring the beliefs of one religion over another.  If you stop and think about it for two seconds, all congress can actually do is pass laws, and since those laws cannot be about religion, "separation of church and state" is just a more convienent name - the principle is definitely in the constitution.