Dennis Miller on the ACLU

[Don Galt]

Bad analogy. Guns are protected by the 2A. Where is homosexuality protected in the BoR.

Depending on which form of criminalization of homosexuality you want to support, it violates either the first, fourth, or ninth ammendments, and almost all of them violate the equal protection clause.

By the way, rock, you should remember that the constitution does not grant rigths, it merely recognizes them. Homosexuality is a god given right, and is explicitly protected by the 9th ammendment.

A gun rights supporter who opposes gay marriage is a hypocrite. You cannot support self ownership and oppose self ownership. (And without self ownership, you have no right to defend yourself, as you have no self to defend... yourself belongs to the state, or whomever.)

Both gun rights and homosexual rights are expressions of the same god given right.

 

[twoblink]

hmm..
Which is better for America?

The Boy Scouts or NAMBLA? That's a tough one..

basically, it's easy, where do you stand on an issue? Look where the ACLU stands, and stand on the other side, you will be ok..

Nativity Scene? THAT is the biggest threat to America? Not gangs, drugs, out-of-wedlock parenting, kids having kids, social security, lack of homeland security, illegal immigrants, the education system, the corrupt government, the decrease in freedom?

 

[Augustwest]

Bad analogy. Guns are protected by the 2A. Where is homosexuality protected in the BoR.

As has been pointed out, several amendments (IX was the first one that came to my mind) cover this.

There's plenty that goes on in this country that doesn't jibe well with my personal sense of morality. But I'm not about to try to get laws passed to prohibit people from living as they see fit, as long as they're not depriving others of the same.

As far as Nativity scenes go, seems to me they're a more a cultural than a religous symbol. Best that they're kept on private property, but I'm not sure it's an issue worth tying up the courts over.

And if the ACLU would really start defending the whole BoR, they'd have my support - financial and otherwise. But they don't, so my meager help goes elsewhere.

 

[dustind]

twoblink: Which group is better is irrelevant, it depends on what they do. Everyone has rights, and no on is allowed to violate other's rights.

It is not the ACLU's mission to fight crime or corruption, it is to fight for civil rights. The government can not endorse religion, the fact that there are bigger problems is irrelevant also. There are murderers out there yet I can not speed on the open road.

Rock Jock: Are you saying people do not have the right to get married? I always assumed that it was my right to live with, be with, and marry whomever I chose. Or is it that some people have rights that others don't? that situation is recognized by the BOR. If you want to ban marriages ban them all or do not ban any. Saying only one group can and the other can not is unconstitutional on its face.

 

[revlar]

The gay lobby's demands for the legalization of gay marriage is not about self-ownership - it's about their concerted attempt to intimidate state governments, the federal government, and the entire spectrum of religious organizations into accepting and patently validating something (namely the institution of "marriage") that has always been solely and solemnly instituted between a man and a woman - not two individuals of the same gender.
If two people want to engage in homosexual activity - fine. Just don't try to coerce me into participation (which I have been subjected to, so don't try to label me a homophobe), and don't try to force or seduce children into participating. If two homosexuals want to enter into some form of "civil union" that grants them rights concerning insurance, inheritance, etc., - fine. Just don't "demand" that either the state or the church officially designate such a union as a bona fide "marriage".
When such attempts are made to coerce the government - and especially the church - into officially validating homosexual civil union through the application of the word "marriage" - it ain't gonna go down without a long and bitter (read "endless") fight. Call it quibbling over semantics if you want to - but NO one is going to require me to perform a "marriage" between two people of the same gender (or for that matter a "civil union" either). I have been granted a sacred responsibility as an officiant at a marriage ceremony - a responsibility firmly grounded in biblical teachings and officially recognized by the state. Don't even begin to tell me what "marriage" is. That's not up to ANY lobby - I don't care how powerful it may be.
You may call a homosexual civil union a marriage if you wish to - call it whatever you want to call it. But no government, lobby or individual will EVER force me to recognize the "civil union" of two people of the same gender as a "marriage". At best that's an attempt to trivialize my religious convictions - and at worst a vile and insidious attempt to lay claim - to "OWN" - my mind, my conscience and my faith.

 

[cordex]

Where is homosexuality protected in the BoR.

In the same paragraph which protects heterosexuality.
Just underneath the section stating that protects your right to breathe and before the enumeration of your right to receive advanced surgical treatment for an otherwise fatal illness or buy ammunition for the arms which you are allowed to keep and/or bear.

 

[morganm01]

The government can not endorse religion,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Does "endorsing" mean making a law establishing religion by congress? Is a nativity scene on public property put there by workers in a courthouse an act of congress establishing a religion?

 

[Daniel T]

If two homosexuals want to enter into some form of "civil union" that grants them rights concerning insurance, inheritance, etc., - fine. Just don't "demand" that either the state or the church officially designate such a union as a bona fide "marriage".

You know, most homosexuals would be happy with just having civil unions that allowed them the same rights and benefits as a hetero married couple. However, except in a few states, they are forbidden that too.

 

[cordex]

If two homosexuals want to enter into some form of "civil union" that grants them rights concerning insurance, inheritance, etc., - fine. Just don't "demand" that either the state or the church officially designate such a union as a bona fide "marriage".

Sure.
I don't feel that the gov't should officially designate any civil union as a "marriage". Marriage is an agreement between two people and perhaps one or more of their gods. Not with the government.

 

[dustind]

revlar: Unless you get tax money, no one should be able to force you to do that, your right.

The problem is that our government grants privileges(marriage) to some people and not others, blatantly unconstitutional. If the state got out of the marriage business or stopped granting privileges that would be one thing. If married people did not get special tax status, and exemption from testifying in court, and all the other legal stuff it would be different.

 

[Andrew Rothman]

Is a nativity scene on public property put there by workers in a courthouse an act of congress establishing a religion?

Yup.

In the same way that a state, county or city can't infringe on your 2nd-Amendment rights, they cannot infringe on your 1st-Amendment rights.

Do I need to draw a picture?

 

[DRC]

Intresting thread.

"Freedom of speech and religion are INDIVIDUAL rights, just like the right to keep and bear arms. The whole point is that the STATE should not be in the religion business -- and that means no state churches, state mosques, state religions, state Ten Commandment monuments, state pagan statues, or state nativity scenes."

States are trying to step in and give added protections to institutions such as mosques to "allow more religious diversity." Intrestingly enough this country was founded on the belief that there should be no oppresion of religion or religious belief and that one should have religious freedom. I realize that you're calling this an "INDIVIDUAL" right but something you missed is that this nation is made up of individuals and the majority of individuals want many of these things be it state, national or individual. The problem is that the minority interprets these things as being infringements on their rights and never once considers what they are doing, by denying, to be the exact same thing they espouse to be wrong.

Don Galt,

"Both gun rights and homosexual rights are expressions of the same god given right."

I hate to say this but by virtue of the scriptures homosexuality is not a God given right. Scripturally speaking God considers it an abomination. Just thought I'd throw that in but yes, all people have rights and protections under the law.

"It is not the ACLU's mission to fight crime or corruption, it is to fight for civil rights."

Like so many other organizations the ACLU tends to fight primarily for those things that gain them the most favor and or airtime. They have an agenda and its not just for civil liberties I'm afraid.

I have to agree with the poster that said that NAMBLA should not even be allowed to exist. Their sole purpose for being is an abomination. What they do, what they espouse and what they stand for is wrong. I honestly believe that if a person is a known member of NAMBLA they should be arrsted or worse on sight. Are they protected under the law? Well if the law and others want to protect pediphiles then I guess they are but that does not change WHAT they are. And what they are is criminal, immoral and sick. Times may change but standards of decency and morality must remain. The selective prosecution of law, in my mind, is perfectly justifiable because some things are just wrong and should not be protected under the law.

Cordex,

"I don't feel that the gov't should officially designate any civil union as a "marriage". Marriage is an agreement between two people and perhaps one or more of their gods. Not with the government."

Gay marriage? There is no such thing in the institution of marriage so why homosexuals want it recognized has nothing to do with the institution of marriage or love. It has to do with priviledges and "special rights" not rights in general. What homosexuals want to do is have the government mandate that these same sex marriages are between them and the government giving them "extra protections" under the law and have their marriages forcibly recognized as "legal" by all other institutions, plain and simply.

Being PC is BS. If it's wrong it's wrong. Who decides right and wrong? For me and mine? I do. For the nation? The majority. Problem is that the minority is given the voice anymore and gets to decide.

Take care,

DRC

 

[Marko Kloos]

Is a nativity scene on public property put there by workers in a courthouse an act of congress establishing a religion?

First of all, Congress is prohibited from respecting an establishment of religion, which is not the same as establishing a religion. The former is far more restrictive than the latter.

Second, the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to all States and municipalities, not just Congress. In other words, if Congress may not violate the Bill of Rights, neither may the States.

It could be argued that a nativity scene is primarily cultural, but it cannot be argued that a nativity scene has nothing to do with religion. The fact remains that a nativity scene on public property is tantamount to an official endorsement of that particular religious tradition. It's fine if the town's Muslims, jews, and pagans also get to erect a display on that same public property, but it becomes unconstitutional if that nativity scene is both a.) erected by public employees, and/or b.) the only thing permitted on that patch of public property.

It doesn't matter if the town is 99.9% Christian, either. The Bill of Rights is majority-proof, and cannot be overridden by majority decree. The solution is to either keep the nativity scene on private property, or give equal access to the public grounds by letting all other religious groups within the town erect their own holiday display.

 

[rock jock]

By the way, rock, you should remember that the constitution does not grant rigths, it merely recognizes them.

I never said it did. And, it does NOT just recognize certain rights, it protects them from the govt.

Homosexuality is a god given right

Who says - you? That is positiely ludicrous.

and is explicitly protected by the 9th ammendment.

Explicitly? The 9A says that homosexuality is protected as a right? Is that your contention? Because if it is, you need to go back to civics class.

 

[Matt Wallis]

I rarely post here. Mostly just lurk and read. But I had to respond to this...

Saying that "I like puppies" doesnt need protecting. Saying "I hate ..... because he is.........." is what the first amendment was meant to protect.

Actually, the founding fathers were mostly dealing with political speech, and especially criticism of the government, when they wrote the 1st. That is what it was meant to protect, not your ability to be as foul mouthed as you want to be.

Regards,
Matt

 

[MrAcheson]

Both gun rights and homosexual rights are expressions of the same god given right.

DRC is correct. Historically, every major religion (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Hindu all do, Buddhism probably does as well) in the world has considered homosexuality to be a sin. God gave us the ability to choose to practice homosexuality, but not the right to do so. Theologically, I don't think anyone has the right to do what is immoral without consequence. However we are talking politically not theologically and what is moral is always up for debate...

A further religious note: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... This is then extended to the states throught the 14th amendment. So why is it kids can't pray or conduct their own student-led bible studies in school in many districts? Why is it that atheists have court backing to remove all practices of religion from public life? Considering that religious belief is the norm, not athiesm, shouldn't a fair compromise be reached on those grounds regarding the use of public lands? Not so says the ACLU. Evidentally "free exercise thereof" does not mean what I think it means...

The ACLU stands up for civil rights, but it is a very liberal definition of civil rights i.e. collective 2nd amendment and state-sponsored athiesm. I do not find either of these to be accurate representations of the true intentions of the bill of rights.

 

[MrAcheson]

Actually, the founding fathers were mostly dealing with political speech, and especially criticism of the government, when they wrote the 1st. That is what it was meant to protect, not your ability to be as foul mouthed as you want to be.

Its arguable that the 1st was also meant to protect the speech and knowledge which would be required to overthrown the government should it become tyrannical. This is not political debate.

 

[Don Galt]

Someone, after advocating that his definition of marriage be shoved down our throats said:
"Don't even begin to tell me what "marriage" is. That's not up to ANY lobby - I don't care how powerful it may be."

Fact of the matter is, you "traditional" view of marriage is historiacally innacurate. The first religious marriage ceremonies were performed by the catholic church to recognize the "special spiritual bond" between priests and, er, uh, younger *male* priests.

Eventually this was extended to recognize marriages within the lay community.

It was actually much later that the bible was re-written in order to support a campaign to persecute homosexuals and others, in order to drum up support for the church.

 

[Don Galt]

"I hate to say this but by virtue of the scriptures homosexuality is not a God given right. Scripturally speaking God considers it an abomination. "

False.

First off, nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality condemned. (And lets not start quoting scripture... I've been down that path, and all of the relevant scripture is either misquoted-- sometimes blatently falsely-- or was re-written.)

Further, the idea that "god given" means only those rights given by your hate filled, insecure god, is an idea that backs establishment of religion.

"God given" rights are universal, objective rights, that all people-- even people who are not christians-- have.

"Who decides right and wrong... the majority".

That's a very unamerican thing for you to say. In fact, it goes against the constitution, which recognizes inalianable rights.

And as for NAMBLA, I suggest that you people stop bringing them up-- or I will tell you what I really think. IF you cannot dicuss homosexualty without bringing up that organization, you simply aren't rational.

Objective morality exists, unfortunately, the christian church often teaches immorality-- socialism -- "You must serve the community"-- as well as hatred and bigotry --"all those others are going to burn in hell, go spread the word (by killing them)".

You have the right to believe whatever you like. You do not have the right to try and force others to follow your religions teachings.

EVEN if you are the majority.

 

[Don Galt]

Rock Jock-

IF you care to make an argument, make it. But your attempts to attack me personally are not going to get us anywhere. And just saying "your wrong" doesn't count as an argument.

 

[Balog]

Don Galt: from whence are you deriving that load of ridiculous drivel?

Edit to show which comment I was referring to

Fact of the matter is, you "traditional" view of marriage is historiacally innacurate. The first religious marriage ceremonies were performed by the catholic church to recognize the "special spiritual bond" between priests and, er, uh, younger *male* priests.

Eventually this was extended to recognize marriages within the lay community.

It was actually much later that the bible was re-written in order to support a campaign to persecute homosexuals and others, in order to drum up support for the church.

 

[Don Galt]

"Historically, every major religion (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Hindu all do, Buddhism probably does as well) in the world has considered homosexuality to be a sin."

False. You may consider it so, but to claim that all religious people do is demonstrably false. The episcopalians just elected an openly gay bishop.

I find it interesting that so quickly this thread has gone from recognizing the constitution to attempting to claim that christianity condemns homosexuality, and thus it is not a god given right under the constitution.

I know christians are taught to think that the constitution only supports the way they think people should live, but that is not what it says.

If "God given" means only "Christian god" (oh, and which denomination?) then the first ammendment wouldn't be explicitly preventing the government from doing what you advocate-- which is establishment of religion.

And at the end of the day, when you fight to undermine human rights--- in this case, the right of self ownership-- you fight to undermine the right to self defense.

I really don't care what you think the bible says. The bible is a work of fiction, re-written to suit the political goals of the church over the years, and is wholely irrelevant to the government of this country.

The constitution recognizes the right to self defense, free speech, the integrity of the person and their affects (4th ammendment) and in the 9th ammendment, all other rights.

Whether you like homosexuality or not, whether you're the majority or not, the constitution has spoken on this issue and you don't get to decide how other people live.

And when you continue to try to, your claims that you have a right to gun ownership ring hollow-- you have taken the liberal side that the "community" or the "majority" get to decide what human rights people have.

And that is to confuse priviledges with rights.

Now, if you were to say that you don't like homosexuality, and you think the state should get out of the marriage blessing business, we'd have no quarral.

It is the idea that the state gets to decide what relationships people can have together, let alone to do so on religious grounds-- that is offensive to the constitution.

Just as every senator and congressman who voted for the 1994 AWB is guilty of a crime (not sure what the crime is, but they at least violated their oath to uphold the constitution) those who voted for the 1996 "Defense of Marriage" act are equally guilty.

They are all criminals in the eyes of the constitution. And that's a hell of a thing!

 

[Marko Kloos]

I'll never understand how people can devote so much energy and time concerning themselves with the sex lives of their consenting adult neighbors.

As for the "My God hates homosexuality" bit...different gods hate different things. Your steak dinner is an abomination to a Hindu. Your game time Budweiser is an abomination to a Muslim. The only way we can all live in peace together is by letting our respective deities deal with those we perceive as sinners. Unfortunately, whenever one religious group gets their hands on the powers of government, they invariably think they need to give their deity a helping hand.

Let's put this one to rest.