Civil Unions in Hawaii

[MercuryJones]

The right wingers have been opposing civil unions in Hawaii.

So let's remember that next time someone says if we just let go of marriage and fight for civil unions instead: the same haters will fight that too.

They want us dead and gone, or invisible.

 

[bankside]

Well we out here in the rest of the world all thought it was deeply amusing yet entirely unsettlingly strange that Nancy Regan would have consulted an Astrologer to divine the best schedule for her husband's government. But I see that it is still de rigueur in your country to legislate for "the great beyond" as well as the here and now. I hope all of the religious people will have revelations in our favour I suppose.

BTW, if they are to be consulted on matters of civil law, perhaps I could return the favour and give them advice on matters of religious doctrine. Confused about the trinity? Bankside can sort it out for you. Not sure whether to try Buddhism or Zoroastrianism? Well let me tell you what Bankside would do! Step right up!

That's it....Just look deep into my balls...deeper...deeper..clear your minds and fix your minds' eyes on my balls. (Crystal balls of course! What were you thinking?)

 

[Kulindahr]

The right wingers have been opposing civil unions in Hawaii.

So let's remember that next time someone says if we just let go of marriage and fight for civil unions instead: the same haters will fight that too.

They want us dead and gone, or invisible.

There's a big difference between in legislatures and in general votes.

There's also a big difference between giving up on marriage and settling for something else and stuffing marriage in the bigots' faces and saying government should have a neutral term that is open to everyone, and let marriage be a private affair.

 

[MercuryJones]

There's also a big difference between giving up on marriage and settling for something else and stuffing marriage in the bigots' faces and saying government should have a neutral term that is open to everyone, and let marriage be a private affair.

No matter how you slice it, the core of those opposed to same sex marriage are also opposed to civil unions or any legal recognition of same sex couples.

Hawaii is just one more case.

 

[MercuryJones]

It's a sad day when a governor is consulting dueling religious leaders about US civil law.

 

[BostonPirate]

it is an old arguement never settled. Separation of church ans state has been an unacheivable american goal from the start

“The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.”

John Adams

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

John Adams

“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion”

George Washington

“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

George Washington

Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor - over each other.

Thomas Jefferson

I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.

Thomas Jefferson

“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it”

John Adams

These were the main players that developed the idea and they never stopped bickering about it...lol

 

[BostonPirate]

I think they expected that americans would personally use religious values to define the nations actions, but didn't want the organised religious bodies to have the power over the newly formed gov't that it had over the colonies.

Townships like salem showed them what happens when religion becomes law.

which is why I believe the churches have the right to not marry anyone they want, but the gov't has a legal obligation to extend it.

 

[construct]

I think they expected that americans would personally use religious values to define the nations actions, but didn't want the organised religious bodies to have the power over the newly formed gov't that it had over the colonies.

Let's not forget that the founders you quoted were deists, not atheists. Deists certainly did believe in a religious foundation for morality. Immanuel Kant, for example, could not imagine morality without the idea of ultimate retribution. That pretty much explains Washington's seemingly contradictory assertions you quoted.

Not only did they believe that there was a general morality embedded in the warp and woof of the universe but they also believed that they had more of less found it by reason and observation. This operation of reason is evident in Tom Paines' The Age of Reason and Kant's Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone. This approach to religion was the basis of the founders' reliance on natural law as a guide.

The founders were mostly religious men even though their religion bore little resemblance to what we usually think of when we use the term casually.

 

[scream4ever]

Remember too, if Lingle does veto it, it may be overridden in July anyways. Also, Neil Abercrombie is the (by far) frontrunner in the gubernatoral election, and he is a supporter, so the legislature could easily just pass it again, needing only a simple majority (assuming the legislature doesn't try and pass full same sex marriage, which they likely have the votes for if the governor will sign said bill).

 

[BostonPirate]

Let's not forget that the founders you quoted were deists, not atheists. Deists certainly did believe in a religious foundation for morality. Immanuel Kant, for example, could not imagine morality without the idea of ultimate retribution. That pretty much explains Washington's seemingly contradictory assertions you quoted.

Not only did they believe that there was a general morality embedded in the warp and woof of the universe but they also believed that they had more of less found it by reason and observation. This operation of reason is evident in Tom Paines' The Age of Reason and Kant's Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone. This approach to religion was the basis of the founders' reliance on natural law as a guide.

The founders were mostly religious men even though their religion bore little resemblance to what we usually think of when we use the term casually.

its incredible that they were able to clearly mark out the difference between religious freedom and separation of church and state really.

As society has evolved, our ability to deal with the separation has not...lol

 

[Kulindahr]

No matter how you slice it, the core of those opposed to same sex marriage are also opposed to civil unions or any legal recognition of same sex couples.

Hawaii is just one more case.

We don't have to worry about the core -- all we have to do is peel off about 5% of the electorate. The votes on all these anti-gay laws have almost all been that close. We don't even have to flip them, just get them to not vote.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think they expected that americans would personally use religious values to define the nations actions, but didn't want the organised religious bodies to have the power over the newly formed gov't that it had over the colonies.

Townships like salem showed them what happens when religion becomes law.

which is why I believe the churches have the right to not marry anyone they want, but the gov't has a legal obligation to extend it.

Salem showed more what happens when refined bigotry becomes law. Certain stages of the French Revolution, for example, provide similar examples. One these days is Megan's law(s), whereby lives can be turned into a hell of oppression and persecution that lasts a lifetime.

I wish the quote about the churches serving to censor each other really worked. The present concurrent flow with the 'Evangelicals', Roman Catholics, and Mormons in the desire to impose religious values on everyone is frightening.

 

[Kulindahr]

its incredible that they were able to clearly mark out the difference between religious freedom and separation of church and state really.

As society has evolved, our ability to deal with the separation has not...lol

I think government has made progress on avoiding the urge to try to control religion. On the other side, though... sometimes today's 'evangelicals' make me think of the worse side of Oliver Cromwell.

 

[BostonPirate]

Salem showed more what happens when refined bigotry becomes law. Certain stages of the French Revolution, for example, provide similar examples. One these days is Megan's law(s), whereby lives can be turned into a hell of oppression and persecution that lasts a lifetime.

I wish the quote about the churches serving to censor each other really worked. The present concurrent flow with the 'Evangelicals', Roman Catholics, and Mormons in the desire to impose religious values on everyone is frightening.

morality versus religion perhaps? how can you define one without the other? that seemed to be the sticking point for adams and washington. Jefferson did seem to have a bit more clarity

I think government has made progress on avoiding the urge to try to control religion. On the other side, though... sometimes today's 'evangelicals' make me think of the worse side of Oliver Cromwell.

they have proven the founders correct. they will seek control if given the chance. and look... I am not anti religion... i go over to stoughton and volunteer at the church when they have fairs and whatnot.

what a nightmare there, on a side note... they stripped out a historic bell chamber and replaced it with a cell phone tower and a speaker system. now we dont have bell pullers, we have a guy that presses play.... history versus money....anoth4er thread altogether

but i hear the money is great

I participate in my faith and i get that they have the right to define wiothin the church what marriage is. But they don't have the right to define it for the gov't.

The Cavaliers were no better.

Pilgrims never sailed here to escape persecution. What a big lie. They had religious freedom in the Netherlands. They only came here to set up their own system of oppression isolated from the rest of the World.

and the pilgrims weren't the first ones here. the roanoke area was settled long before the plymouth area was. I live in Plymouth county, BTW...

my profile says boston because thats the area I do business and engage in (docs lawyers etc), but I moved out of the city limits, years ago. Small township life in New England is as close to America and the descendants of the people who made america happen, as you can get.

I have to wonder what Adams would think of all of this. I tend to think he would defend the gay movement. He defended the soldiers that committed the boston massacre, and he undestood the importance of laws and courts being available to all, not just a sellect few. I don't think his personal morality was dependant upon his belief in equality. it is troubling in this prop 8 thing and gay marriage as a whole that we have forgotten the republic was formed, not a democracy, to ensure that the tyranny of the majority would not run over the minority, no matter their actions or what they are thought of.

I was out at squaw rock in quincy letting the dog get a good run chasing canadian geese, and I looked across the bay and realised I was standing, looking aqcross the bay, where Abigail Adams stood to watch Boston burn as the english attacked. it was an unexpected moment that made me feel connected to these guys.

in many ways thats how I feel about this radical religious movement to stop gay marriage at any costs. I think these people are strip mining american values out of the fabric of our society by arguing for the tyranny of the majority.

scary

you guys are both great posters here! I love it when people make me think!

 

[Kulindahr]

The Cavaliers were no better.

Pilgrims never sailed here to escape persecution. What a big lie. They had religious freedom in the Netherlands. They only came here to set up their own system of oppression isolated from the rest of the World.

You think they should have sailed to the Netherlands? ? ?

 

[Kulindahr]

I have to wonder what Adams would think of all of this. I tend to think he would defend the gay movement. He defended the soldiers that committed the boston massacre, and he undestood the importance of laws and courts being available to all, not just a sellect few. I don't think his personal morality was dependant upon his belief in equality. it is troubling in this prop 8 thing and gay marriage as a whole that we have forgotten the republic was formed, not a democracy, to ensure that the tyranny of the majority would not run over the minority, no matter their actions or what they are thought of.

Adams would be horrified at what's become of our court system. I think he'd be horrified at how an innocent person can be accused, jailed for months, finally vindicated, and have lost business and home in the process, and get no apology whatsoever. I think he'd be horrified at a probation/parole system that grants absolute, unquestionable authority to a probation/parole officer. I think he'd be horrified at the presupposition that evidence presented by an officer of the court is correct, with the burden on the defendant. I think he'd be horrified at how narrow we've made some legal principles, as though the idea were to make rights as narrow as possible instead of as broad (e.g. the right to insurrection he argued on the Amistad case). I think he'd be beyond horrified that anyone at all who's innocent has ever ended up on death row, let alone the procession we've sent. And I think he'd call for a saying he liked to be put on the wall of every jury room in the land: "Better a thousand guilty walk free than one innocent man be punished."

He'd certainly have some new checks and balances to suggest... and insist on strengthening some old ones, like the powers of the jury.

And I do think he'd make a good co-counsel with Boies and Olson. Franklin would certainly never forgive him for siding with the pile of dreck Cooper has to call a case.

 

[MercuryJones]

Adams would be horrified at what's become of our court system.

This whole post was a lovely example of what makes Kulindahr so adorable.

 

[BostonPirate]

This whole post was a lovely example of what makes Kulindahr so adorable.

anyone that knows adams that well gets an invite for beer on a saturday night

 

[JayHawk]

I think they expected that americans would personally use religious values to define the nations actions, but didn't want the organised religious bodies to have the power over the newly formed gov't that it had over the colonies.

Townships like salem showed them what happens when religion becomes law.

which is why I believe the churches have the right to not marry anyone they want, but the gov't has a legal obligation to extend it.

Thy actually didnt want the govt telling people how to pray to God because that is what they had fled.

 

[MercuryJones]

Thy actually didnt want the govt telling people how to pray to God because that is what they had fled.

Who do you mean by "they" in this sentence?