NoGodBlog.com

Going back to what I said about religious music on the last post... some of it's really good. Like now, after I read this article, I'm playing Handel's Hallelujah Chorus.

Well, NJ has always been on the forefront of controversy - some of it good and most of it bad - however, I'm proud to say that I am from New Jersey on this issue!

It is about time and, hopefully, that will knock some sense into the biggots that oppose all forms of social progress. Can't wait to see other states follow suit!

Hmmm! That makes me wonder if Jim McGreedy will now divorce his wife and pursue his true calling...






"Read the Bible – It will scare the hell out of you!"

Not to debate one's personal view on the bill...

The greater concern is the over reaching ruling by the NJ Supreme Court...

The bill was drafted in response to a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling in October that required the state to extend the rights and benefits of marriage to gay couples within 180 days.

So now the courts (unelected and unaccountable) are dictating to the legislature what they must do...?
This power is not granted to them (the courts) in the state constitution...one better hope and pray the courts are always friendly to their side...

MA has marriage, VT, CT, and now NJ have civil unions, and CA has domestic partnerships-things are looking up!

phreedm -- A couple paragraphs on the NJ court's ruling, from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/25/gay.marriage/index.html

The New Jersey high court held that state laws prohibiting gay and 1esbian couples from receiving the "financial and social benefits and privileges" of marriage violate the equal protection clause of the New Jersey Constitution and served no "legitimate governmental purpose."

Noting that New Jersey already prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, the high court said there was "no rational basis for giving gays and 1esbians full civil rights as individuals while, on the other hand, giving them an incomplete set of rights when they enter into committed same-sex relationships."

The NJ Supreme Court did what supreme courts have always been empowered to do -- it reconciled legal contradictions created by politically motivated legislators, many of whom did not study and do not understand law.

There's obviously an alternative to marriage equality in NJ -- the legislators and/or voters could enact anti-gay discrimination into the state constitution. That's probably not going to happen.

A good turn for equality in America... and I read it first on the NoGodBlog!

"So now the courts (unelected and unaccountable) are dictating to the legislature what they must do...?
This power is not granted to them (the courts) in the state constitution...one better hope and pray the courts are always friendly to their side..."

Phreedy: That sounds familiar? Could it be like our Supreme Court? I hope you don't argue against ANY of their rulings, ever.

Phreedum:

Why should that be any different than the church telling the state what to do? At least the courts have some logic, sensibility and common sense. Too bad they don't "over reach" and tax churches so that all of you can put your money where your bables are!


"I’m intellugently desined by the Baby Jesus, mon!"

Phreedum:

Why should that be any different than the church telling the state what to do? At least the courts have some logic, sensibility and common sense. Too bad they don't "over reach" and tax churches so that all of you can put your money where your bables are!


"I’m intellugently desined by the Baby Jesus, mon!"

Sorry about the double post - This damn thing is acting up against and I'm half asleep ~yawn~




"Adjust your perspective"

Don't ask don't tell has resurfaced as "cival union" not "Marriage". I would rather not have the government involved in anyones living arrangements. Would a straight couple be able to get a cival union if they wanted one?

For once something good comes from my homestate !!! About time NJ stood out for reason and peoples rights. I am proud to be a NJ resident today.

Yea NJ! Today I am proud to have been from NJ. Generally I think that civil unions, which would provide all the same benefits as marriage but without religious affiliation, should be open to any two non related consenting adults. Churches should be free to marry, or not marry, any two non related consenting adults they like. It's a good day for freedom.

Phreedm, don't you think the courts should STOP ENFORCING EQUAL RIGHTS for people we don't like? After all, that's just NOT what America is all about. Maybe they should run everything by the pope for approval? Would that be better?



My aunt has been with her partner since I was in high school (late 70s). They have 3 kids. They FINALLY were able to get married last summer!!!!! YEAH!!!!! Sadly, they were only able to do this because they live in Massachusetts. If they were to move out of that state, their marriage would not be recognized.

I'll freely admit that I'm not the "marrying kind". However, I do think that ALL marriages (recognized by our federal government) should be civil unions. If a couple then would like religious blessing, let them do the church thing. But, that would be far too easy....no money to be made here....move on.

When I got married we did it non religiously, no metion of anything religious , we wrote all the vows and had a JUDGE perform the ceromony. WE did it outside at a lake nothing religious about it at all. That was my only request for our wedding NO Mention of A GOD !!!!

Beyond the hollow biblical justfication, is there an official reason for states to refuse to recognize same sex marriage? Is there some negative effect on the average person or family that I'm missing? As a straight married guy from the 'burbs, I just don't see any reason to oppose it, nevermind the fact that it's obviously unconstitutional to deny you that right. Get married, adopt kids that would otherwise be without parents, move in next door and have me over for coctails. Seriously, I need someone to displace the religious family with the 6 home school kids next door...

Timx13, the argument I've heard most often is that gay marriage does not provide the best environment for child rearing. The argument goes something like children need both a male and female role model to develop appropriate and normal relationships with people of the same or opposite sex. Mind you, this is not what I think, this is the argument that I've heard.

That's the argument I hear too spanders.

But we should point out to these people that 100% of homosexuals had a mother and father and it surely did not stop them from being gay.

Have 2 dads or 2 moms won't make a kid gay. Kids born from previous heterosexual unions but raised by two moms or two dads after a divorce should be encouraged to speak up and share their experience; it might dissipate some myths...

[blockquote]Have 2 dads or 2 moms won't make a kid gay. Kids born from previous heterosexual unions but raised by two moms or two dads after a divorce should be encouraged to speak up and share their experience; it might dissipate some myths...
[/blockquote]

My best friend for one. My wife's younger siblings for more. (My wife was in college when the divorce happened, but the siblings ranged from 6-12). These people are as normal as anyone.

Although, my one sister-in-law still has some anger and resentment toward her mother. But the anger is NO different than had her mother left her dad for another man. She's mad her parents broke up, and blames the mom and step-parent.

As I said, as normal as anyone.

Angle blockquotes here. Bracket blockquotes there. Bah!

That seems to be James Dobson's absolute favorite FALSE argument. I'm sure this has been posted before, but

Facts about kids with gay and 1esbian parents
In the United States alone, there are millions of people with one or more 1esbian, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender (LGBT) parent(s). While research shows that there are no significant developmental differences or negative affects on children of LGBT parents, these youth do report facing significantly more prejudice and discrimination because societal homophobia and transphobia. Youth report that schools are a key place where they face intolerance- from peers, teachers, school administration, and school systems that are affected by the homophobia in our society. According to a 2001 study, students who have LGBT parents experience harassment at the same rate as students who themselves are gay.

As of 1990, 6 million to 14 million children in the United States were living with a gay or 1esbian parent. (National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, a service of the U.S. Administration for Children and Families.)

There is absolutely no evidence that children are psychologically or physically harmed in any way by having LGBT parents. There is, however, much evidence that shows that they are not.

People with LGBT parents have the same incidence of homosexuality as the general population, about 10%. No research has ever shown that LGBT parents have any affect on the sexuality of their children. (Patterson, Charlotte J. 1992)

Research claims that children with LGBT parents are exposed to more people of the opposite sex than many kids of straight parents. (Rofes, E.E., 1983, Herdt, 1989)

Studies have shown that people with LGBT parents are more open-minded about a wide variety of things than people with straight parents. (Harris and Turner, 1985/86)

Daughters of 1esbians have higher self-esteem than daughters of straight women. Sons are more caring and less aggressive. (Hoeffer, 1981)

On measures of psychosocial well-being, school functioning, and romantic relationships and behaviors, teens with same-sex parents are as well adjusted as their peers with opposite-sex parents. A more important predictor of teens' psychological and social adjustment is the quality of the relationships they have with their parents. (National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, 2004)
Most "problems" that kids of LGBT parents face actually stem from the challenges of dealing with divorce and the homophobia and transphobia in society rather then the sexual orientation or gender identity of their parents.

There may be a lot of ego involved in opposition to same-sex marriage. This is what I believe... this is right... this doesn't get scrutinized -- it's sacred. When theistic worldviews boil down to having a "sense" of God, placing any aspect of that "sense" on the examination table may be threatening to a theist's self concept. For many theists, that "sense" becomes associated, over a lifetime, with a lot of political views served up under the guise of religion.

I write as a gay man willing to put my own sense of sexual orientation on an examination table -- something most gay folks are encouraged to do. Being honest with it can feel threatening: I COULD have sex with a woman, I COULD marry her, I MIGHT be happier than I am now, sleeping alone after a night of cliquish, smoke-filled gay bars....

If I were to oppose same-sex marriage, jealousy would probably factor -- I try to be good, some other guy gets the husband, and I'm left feeling pissed off with the unfairness of it.

I imagine that heteros who oppose same-sex marriage also have an ego-boosting sense of "fairness" to maintain -- maybe something that places them comfortably in relation to a God.

I am also the son of a gay man. I was not raised by my father and his partner, but I did visit once a week. My father and I had a strained relationship until I grew up and accepted reality. My life has been 1000x better since I realized that he was a human being who loves me, but won't go against his natural feelings.

Actually, his partner was one of my groom's men at my wedding.

Which brings me to another point. My wife and I wanted to have a secular wedding. My wife is a non-practicing, non-judgemental catholic. We met with a "secular" preacher who signed a contract with us using a secular ceremony that my wife and I selected. It had NO mention of ANY religious tones or ideas, of which my wife and I agreed on.
Then, during the ceremony at a state park, our preacher threw in a section about god's unending love, and some other crap like that. I WAS SO PISSED OFF, but what could I do in front of our families? My wife and I made eye contact and just went on with it.

Boy! I sure do love those religious types!

podry
Sorry the preacher breached contract with you at your wedding. Did you withhold his pay? You could have.

At my wedding in the park, we used a JP who owed my boss a favor. (My boss had reputed mob ties.) The JP was very unhappy about it, but he left out any mention of god, as asked.
I think I've always thought of my marriage as more of a civil union.

I got this email the other day. Here's a link to sign a petition in favor of gay marriage.

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/millionformarriageac/forward

Sorry
that was the link for forwarding the message. But you can get to the petitition by clicking on the "Sign the Petition" button at the top of the page.

Good for NJ, but we can't forget, separate is not equal. If it's not called marriage, it's not exactly the same.

How is it that more people (out there I mean, not here) aren't pushing the glaringly obvious fact that marriage is already not necessarily religious in nature? Alone, the fact that two atheists can get married by the state in a courthouse should be enough to tank this argument. To some extent, I blame moderate/conservative Democrats in government--at least the GOP is straight up about how it doesn't like gays, the Dems talk about equality and then hypocrtically wuss out on marriage instead of pushing the very logical arguments that support it. The good arguments won't get far if more people don't use them!

Re: A marriage between a man and woman is the 'best' environment for raising children, as an argument against allowing homosexual marriage.

To take this argument to it's logical conclusion; Individuals that are infertile, wheather through natural causes or through vasectomy/tubaligation, should not be allowed to marry since the pairing will not result in offspring.

Widows and widowers that are beyond their child bearing years...destined to live out their lives alone, since their marriage will be another dry well, as far as children are concerned.

People that choose to live professional lives and forgo children, will have to forgo marriage as well.

Talk about your straw men. What a stupid argument.

Karen:
Actually, the preacher was a female, and honestly, I didn't think much about her after that crap. My wife was too beautiful and we were heading to Key West in a few hours, so my mind was wandering.
But, for a while, I was still pissed and we did cut her "gift" short of what she had told us of her expected "tip."

Nackles, what do you think is the difference between civil unions and marriage?

sword_strike:

But we should point out to these people that 100% of homosexuals had a mother and father and it surely did not stop them from being gay.

I know a kid who was adopted by two gay parents and she's a lesbi@n. The number is more like 99% or some decimal after. It's not accurate to say all gay people come from heterosexual parents. Of course they come from heteros biologically but some have been raised by gays.

But I get what you're saying. It's like saying a white kid adopted by blacks is going to be predisposed sickle-cell.... an exclusively black disease.

At least I'm pretty sure it's exclusively black. I could be wrong.

podry,

Actually, his partner was one of my groom's men at my wedding.

In the spirit of Lynn Truss (Eats Shoots and Leaves), I feel the need to point out the unfortunate placement of an apostrophe in the quote above.

As written, we are to assume that you were about to be married to a groom who in turn has "had" some men. I suspect you meant "groomsmen", and I apologize for being a complete arse and pointing it out in public.

In my defense I found it amusing and wanted to share it as such.

Reed Braden, I did mean that 100% of homosexuals have a biological dad and mom. Same sex reproduction is not possible at this time.

I know two gay men quite well, a coworker and a cousin. I have questionned both and the two of them have known since they were kids, even before puberty.

My coworker told me that while at the beach at around 10, all his friends spied on girls while he secretly spied on them :)

My cousin also told me he remembers always feeling different. And both he and my colleague were both raised by a married man/woman couple.

"...separate is not equal. If it's not called marriage, it's not exactly the same."

I agree but right now NJ has decided that same sex civil unions in that state are identical to marriage except in name. However, the director of Garden State Equality expects the term civil union to be replaced by marriage within two years through court action. We are heading in the right direction!

"A marriage between a man and woman is the 'best' environment for raising children..."

Not all, or even most, gay people want kids but for those who do shouldn't they be granted the security and responsibility that marriage bestows?

Same sex marriage (civil unions) are expected to bring $100 million per annum into the economy of NJ.

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?date=2006/12/14/3&navpath=/channels/business/money/

In the spirit of Lynn Truss (Eats Shoots and Leaves), I feel the need to point out the unfortunate placement of an apostrophe in the quote above.

As written, we are to assume that you were about to be married to a groom who in turn has "had" some men. I suspect you meant "groomsmen", and I apologize for being a complete arse and pointing it out in public.

Thanks! I was writing during a break and I didn't check my work.

He was one of my groomsmen. Is that who you spell it?

I agree but right now NJ has decided that same sex civil unions in that state are identical to marriage except in name. However, the director of Garden State Equality expects the term civil union to be replaced by marriage within two years through court action. We are heading in the right direction!

Placing a distinction between the terms "civil union" and "marriage" is the equivalent of putting up two public water fountains, but labeling one "coloreds only". Both fountains serve up the same cool water, but somehow, one is implicitly "inferior".

The gays I know consider the distinction an insult. I agree.

I wish that Corzine would have at least publicy considered a veto, to make this point. But in all practicality, there are too many gay couples and their children who need the protection and benefits a civil union provides.

We need that now. The insult can wait a little bit.

Baby step to four o'clock, folks.

At last, something has gone right for once! Well I hope the ohter states will wise up and let gays marry. I don't see the problem in gay couples. Why do others?

Simple, they fear something diffrent.

PS: I'm mainly healed fully. I no longer have the Chicken Poxes (quite a late age to catch them!). The Prince has returned!

"The only miricle about religion is how people can swallow that shit!"

From my experience at my church, my pastor performs unification ceremonies, which he refers to as weddings, but they lack the legal rights of hetero wedding. The feelings, love and commitment are there and even the pastor calls it a wedding, but it lacks the legal advantages of other weddings. If NC were to ever approve civil unions for gay couples (I think Jessie Helms just felt a chill run down his spine), but not use the term marriage, would it be equal? What I think many of you are saying is that no, it wouldn't be. Now, if a gay couple came to our church, had a wedding and had all the same legal benefits, but only the state called it civil union, would that be equal? In other words, if you now get married by a secular person and you are both atheists (let's assume hetero) and you don't get married in a church, does the state now refer to it as marriage or a civil union? I just want to make sure I'm framing the issue correctly.

Dave Silverman actually performed the wedding of two of my dear atheist friends. Does the state refer to that as marriage or civil union. We all call it a wedding and they are married, but I'm curious what the state currently refers to that as.

Spanders,
As a gay man I would accept civil unions in NC and then fight to have it called marriage. The rights that come with the government sanction is more important than the terminology in the short term.

My dad and his partner do not agree. My dad wants to be married, but he is not looking for the opportunity to wear a dress and walk down the aisle. On the other hand, his partner wants at least a civil union. Right now, Kentucky really screws with them and their legal rights.
I see both points, but I have to lean more heavily to civil unions being equal with marriage. I think Spanders has it right. But, all I can think about is Plessy v. Ferguson: Separate, but equal. And, we know that it is not really equal.

Anthony:

Glad you're back and in one piece instead of many poxes... :-)




"God is Santa Claus for adults."

Yeah!! for the gays. The different words used to describe a commitment shouldn't matter but the state needs to be consistent. I think it would be good if the state recognized only civil unions for everybody. Marriage has too much religious baggage to be used as a legal term and the legal status is the only thing that the state should be concerned with.

I'm still waiting for equal status for singles and atheists.

Anthony, glad you are better.

"I'm still waiting for equal status for singles and atheists"

HELL, YEAH! (for the atheist part...I'm a married man)

JP...

The NJ Supreme Court did what supreme courts have always been empowered to do -- it reconciled legal contradictions created by politically motivated legislators, many of whom did not study and do not understand law.

No, they are creating law. It is not their duty to tell the legislation what to do. That is what both the NJ courts are doing and what the Mass court did 2 years ago.

And it wasn't until Mayberry vs Madison that the Supreme Court usurped the duty of declaring a law unconstitutional...

As I stated...one better hope and pray the courts are always friendly to their own personal issues...

Comment from: Bones [Member]
Phreedm, don't you think the courts should STOP ENFORCING EQUAL RIGHTS for people we don't like?

Different topic from what I posted.
My concern is the power the courts claim they have...

But since you asked...what is the difference between a civil union and marriage?

phreddy:
Mayberry vs Madison? You mean Mayberry, RFD? The Andy Griffith Show?
Aunt Bee was a l_esbian?

But since you asked...what is the difference between a civil union and marriage?

"A legal union of a same-sex couple, sanctioned by a civil authority."
Marriage is a pinochle term.
Hehehehe.

If you end a civil union, is it called divorce?

Karen,
I think it would be called a "civil dis-union." (Or maybe a "non-civil dis-union???")

:-)

***OFF TOPIC AND TOTALLY SELF-INDULGENT***

Pixel Gets On The Air!

There is an Orlando talk radio station with a very popular afternoon show ("The Philips Phile").

Today they were discussing all the controversy about stores saying "Merry Xmas" vs. "Happy Holidays."

The host of the show says that he is "basically a non-believer."

He was talking about the different holidays celebrated in Dec. and wondered if atheists celebrated anything.

I called up and had my 30 seconds of fame, telling him that we celebrate winter solstice. He said he thought that atheists don't celebrate anything.

I told him that not all of us celebrate solstice, because we are all so different and we are not an organized group, but that some of us do celebrate solstice because it is a naturally occurring event.

I wish I could have promoted this website, and American Atheists, but he cut me off at this point.

Oh well, at least I maybe let people know that we atheists actually do exist!

Phreetard you just don't get it! The ruling by the Supreme Court was just enforcing the already existing non discrimination clause of the NJ constitution which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation (among other things). No new law was created. Go back and read the story.
Are you worried that this somehow infringes on your own marriage or your right to be a bigoted bastard? What is your real reason for opposing this decision? It certainly has nothing to do with your "concern [of] the power the courts claim they have..." and everything to do with your hatred of homosexuality.

Go, Pixel! Rah Rah Rah...


Alex: Don't you get it? Phreedum's problem is that he has penis envy because his penis belongs to the Lord, Jesus Christ...


Hey, Phree, this is for you:

"Every time there is a rainbow, God is having gay sex."


May I burn in hell for all my sins. Amen! And Awomen!

phreedm -- Regarding the NJ Supreme Court:

It is not their duty to tell the legislation what to do.

They weren't telling the *legislature* what to do; they were telling the legislature what it couldn't do, because of the state's constitution.

And it wasn't until Mayberry vs Madison that the Supreme Court usurped the duty of declaring a law unconstitutional...

Usurped from whom? Are you suggesting that legislatures are entitled to pass unconstitutional laws (overriding a presidential veto, if necessary) without check or balance?
And what difference does it make if a law wasn't declared unconstitutional until Mayberry v. Madison? Some supreme court was going to be the first one to do it.

As I stated...one better hope and pray the courts are always friendly to their own personal issues...

Get a civics lesson. The legislatures of America could remove the entire Bill of Rights from the constitution -- as allowed by the constitution -- and there wouldn't be a damn thing the Supreme Court could do about it, except make rulings based on the amended constitution.

Wow...you know it's human nature to start name calling when one has a very weak argument during a debate...

JP...ha ha. Me civics class...?

Let's see...what did you say?

Get a civics lesson. The legislatures of America could remove the entire Bill of Rights from the constitution -- as allowed by the constitution

OK...exactly where in the constitution does it grant the legislature the ability to remove the "entire Bill of Rights"?

Alex...you too. Name calling is so beneath you. You my friend are the one filled with hatred and I'm truly sorry that you miss so much of life's enjoyment because of it...

How many time's has someone on this board commented on how superior Europe is over America...well I'm sure will see some back peddling here...

Ireland High Court Rules Against Gay 'Marriage' Citing Harm to Children

"Having regard to the clear understanding of the meaning of marriage as set out in the numerous authorities opened to the Court from this jurisdiction and elsewhere, I do not see how marriage can be redefined by the Court to encompass same sex marriage."

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/dec/06121502.html

Comment from: alexatheist

Phreetard you just don't get it! The ruling by the Supreme Court was just enforcing the already existing non discrimination clause of the NJ constitution which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation (among other things). No new law was created. Go back and read the story.

Who's the "tard"?

Ordered by New Jersey's highest court to offer marriage or its equivalent to gay couples, the Legislature voted Thursday to make New Jersey the third state to allow civil unions.

Ordered by the court? Hmmm....

the Legislature voted? Hmmm...no new law? Exactly what did they vote on then...?

How long ago was it that Dave was complaining about the sales tax in NJ being raised?

So now the truth comes out about this "new bill"...

The [UCLA] study figured that New Jersey qay couples would spend an average of $9,000 on their weddings. Out-of-staters would spend between $3,500 and $4,200 to marry, depending on how far they have to travel.

The total revenue generated in the state would be $307 million over three years. The state's take in sales taxes would be at least $7 million per year.

http://www.queerty.com/queer/news/nj-to-make-qay-nup-bank-20061214.php

It's always a shocker when those we trust actually exploit us...sorry Alex...using the qay community to help balance the budget...how disgusting...

"Alex...you too. Name calling is so beneath you."

Agreed but you and those who share your worldview frustrate me, phreedum.

"You my friend are the one filled with hatred and I'm truly sorry that you miss so much of life's enjoyment because of it..."

Not hatred so much as frustration and hurt. Phreedum you will never understand what it is like to be gay or an atheist in America and although things are heading in the right direction there is still a lot of work to be done. People like you have stolen so much from people like me and it causes an incalculable amount of unneccesary hurt. Whenever I lash out at you phreedum or call you names it is from this place of hurt that I am viewing you becasue your commnets so often drag out all of the negative issues that I deal with becasue of my sexual orientation.

"the Legislature voted? Hmmm...no new law? Exactly what did they vote on then...?

They voted that NJ state law must confrom to it's own constitution. Isn't that what we expect from the rule of law?

phreddy:

using the qay community to help balance the budget...how disgusting...

It's really not so different than luring tourists in to boost a town's economy, is it?

JP:

The legislatures of America could remove the entire Bill of Rights from the constitution -- as allowed by the constitution

Ummm...where is that exactly? I just re-read the constitution, & I'm not seeing it.

Perhaps in the beginning it all started with a homo-n-id..I mean the id part just has to somehow get satisfaction. Evolution isn't meerly about a brain size increasing over a span of time. There's so much more that comes into play! As for marriage or civil union, I'm not sure it matters what its called anymore than where the knot gets tied or who performs the ritual. Any Tom or Harry Dick is ok by me.

phreedm & Krystalline Apostate -- Here's a link on amending the U.S. constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

Any part of the document can be changed. The site above also touches on what phreedm alludes to as a supreme court "usurping" legislative powers. A supreme court has to *interpret* a constitution -- maybe because there isn't enough paper to spell out, in advance, every scenario liable to come before U.S. courts.

There is more than one way to amend the U.S. constitution, but the Web site shows that the most common approach has been via approval of state legislatures.

As with the Bible, the authority of the U.S. Constitution derives fully from people. People wrote it, people interpret it, people can change it. A big difference between the Bible and the U.S. Constitution is that the Constitution acknowledges that Godless reality.

Be patient, phreedm... you'll get it!

It's always a shocker when those we trust actually exploit us...sorry Alex...using the qay community to help balance the budget...how disgusting...

I think we "exploit" you for the sake of entertaining conversation in this blog, phreedy. Maybe the only thing that keeps it from being "disgusting" is that you don't "trust" us to begin with!

Phreedm:

Irrelevant as it may be, the sales tax raise in NJ date back to the late 1980's - that's right - the late 1980's when it was raised from 6 to 7%. That little stunt cost Jim Florio (the ex-boxer/governor and architect of that fiasco) his office. Taxpayers were up in arms and moved to impeach him, then, out of the goodness of his heart, he rescinded the hike in taxes and tooted his horn about how great he was because he had lowered taxes in the state! The idiot then had the audacity to run for a second term as governor on that platform which, of course, he lost! Gee, does he remind you of anyone else? At least his excuse was brain damage caused by the punches to the head he received in the ring instead of brain damage due to alcohol and drug abuse...

Sometimes, I just don't give the residents of NJ enough credit for being smart but that was one instance when the proved me wrong! :-)


"Have faith in science and reason."

In the end does it really matter why NJ decided to start enforcing it's own laws? Altruism or greed as long as the end result is the same and all people are now allwed to marry the person they choose.

*MEDIA ALERT*

Tonight at 9P Fox News is airing a programme called "One Nation Under god: Religion and History in Washington DC".

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,236618,00.html

Altruism or greed as long as the end result is the same and all people are now allwed to marry the person they choose.

I don't agree. Essentially this is saying the ends justify the means. I agree that people being allowed to marry the people they choose is a realization of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness and disagree with phreedm that the courts are writing laws. They are doing what they are supposed to do: interpret the law and in this case say there is no legitimate reason to discriminate against homosexuals and we should allow them their rights. By focusing on the end result and disregarding the means is a dangerous game. For phreedm I imagine that this is not a good end result at all as I suspect he doesn't think that homosexuals should be allowed to get married and thinks the constitution has been usurped. To me, the means are very important as they create a frame of checks and balances. In this case more freedom was added without harming anyone else's freedom. Phreedm, can you make the case that your freedom was infringed upon?

Spanders,
You are right of course but at this point I really don't care so much about the "why" as I do about the fact that NJ took a stand for equality even if it might not have been motivated purely out of wanting to do the right thing. My doctor performs a very important service but she is not motivated purely by her altruistic desire to heal people but by her nice fat paycheck too I should imagine. The point is I am glad that NJ decided to enforce it's own constitutional ban on discrimination regarding marriage and I'm glad that my doctor decided on medicine as her career. Now if only NC would approve marriage equality...

Personally, I don't even see why anybody would ever want to get married.

"Hunny, what we've got is so good we need to get the GOVERNMENT in on it"

Comment from: alexatheist

Not hatred so much as frustration and hurt. Phreedum you will never understand what it is like to be gay or an atheist in America

Alex, do any of us really know what it's like to walk on anothers path?

People like you have stolen so much from people like me

Oh really? You know it's always dangerous to paint with a broad brush.

You have no clue who I am, aside from posting on this blog. Do I have an opinion about gays in America? Of course. Just as you do about christians in America. But I dare say you're much more hostile towards christians then I am towards gays...

Resorting to name calling and accusing everyone of faith as being homophobic is NEVER going to help your cause...

Now tell me...exactly what did "I" steal from you?

Comment from: JP

Be patient, phreedm... you'll get it!

Uhmmm...JP. Perhaps YOU'LL get it.

You're original claim...

Get a civics lesson. The legislatures of America could remove the entire Bill of Rights from the constitution -- as allowed by the constitution -- and there wouldn't be a damn thing the Supreme Court could do about it

You're link clearly points out...

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states.

Do you understand JP? The states. That's you and me...not the "legislature" as you claimed.

Thanks for pointing out to everyone your knowledge of the US political system...

JP...FYI

Other than establishing it, Article III of the U.S. Constitution spells out neither the specific duties, powers nor organization of the Supreme Court.

"[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
Instead, the Constitution left it to Congress and to the Justices of the Court itself to develop the authorities and operations of the entire Judicial Branch of government.

Lacking any specific direction from the Constitution, the new U.S. Judiciary spent its first decade as the weakest of the three branches of government. Early federal courts failed to issue strong opinions or even take on controversial cases. The Supreme Court was not even sure if it had the power to consider the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. This situation changed drastically in 1801 when President John Adams appointed John Marshall of Virginia to be the fourth Chief Justice. Confident that nobody would tell him not to, Marshall took clear and firm steps to define the role and powers of both the Supreme Court and the judiciary system.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa081400a.htm

Alex...thanks for the heads up about the Fox special...tough to argue against "HISTORICAL FACTS AND WRITINGS".

Now tell me...how's the myth of Sep of Church and State?

Only and organization with it's own agenda would still believe the lie...

Totally off-topic (who can stomach another semantic rant on the sep of church and state?)

A nice piece on NPR

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6632129

Atheist Brigade Takes Arguments to the Tolerant

Listen to this story... by Brooke Gladstone

All Things Considered, December 15, 2006 ·
In response to the growing power of religious extremism, a small group of atheists has taken a new approach. Going on the offensive, they target the tolerant, with both reason - and ridicule. Brooke Gladstone, host of NPR's On the Media, reports.

"Now tell me...exactly what did "I" steal from you?"

As I stated above it was you and people LIKE you that stole from me and those LIKE me i.e. gay. Since I don't know you personally you could have never taken from me but I'm certain that your own actions and words help keep the closet door of someone you know shut a whole lot tighter. People with your attitudes were my neighbours during my formative years in rural Virginia and their collective remarks and attitudes were a prime factor in me lying awake in bed at night shaking and crying and being sick because I was worried someone might learn my terrible secret. I used to contemplate suicide as a teen and young adult becasue I believed that gay people were unable to ever live honest and happy lives. Much of my childhood and my early chances to find love and connections were stolen by people who held the same views that you do and for this reason, and others, I freely admit that I despise religion and the inhumane things it makes otherwise ethical people do.

"Alex...thanks for the heads up about the Fox special...tough to argue against "HISTORICAL FACTS AND WRITINGS"."

You are most welcome. Yes it is very hard to argue effectivley against the historic Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to our Constitution.

phreedm

If the bible is the inspired word of god, that makes it the highest authority in the land. Any time the constitution contradicts it, the bible should prevail, right? Why don't the supreme courts cite bible verses as the final authority in their rulings?

Hint. Most people, religious or not, don't like to be told they have to follow someone else's religion.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are pretty much denied to homosexuals in various passages of the bible. Surely the pursuit of happiness includes the freedom to choose a life partner.

It is nice to see that the trend is against the religious bigots on this score. Otherwise we could expect homosexuality to again become punishable by stoning to death.

Comment from: alexatheist

Now that was interesting...?

Comment from: alexatheist

...but I'm certain that your own actions and words help keep the closet door of someone you know shut a whole lot tighter.

Alex...you're a bigot.

It is so obvious you're filled with hatred towards one segment of our society...don't you see...you've become just like those you hate.

Maybe you're looking for Peace in all the wrong places...let me know the next time you're going to be in Virginia...I'd love to take you out to dinner and let you see the real me...

Hey, phreedm --

Do you understand JP? The states. That's you and me...not the "legislature" as you claimed.

I'm not a state, and neither are you. If we were, there'd be 52 stars on the U.S. flag! Amendments to the U.S. Constitution have historically been approved by state legislatures.

Other than establishing it, Article III of the U.S. Constitution spells out neither the specific duties, powers nor organization of the Supreme Court.

Now you're posting evidence AGAINST your point. So the U.S. Constitution is general, and the specifics of running a country are worked out by the powers that be, provided that they don't contradict the founding document.

"Alex...you're a bigot."

I hate religion and what it makes so many people do but I don't despise religious people just for being religious. If that were the case I would lose a good portion of my friends.

I'll be in VA next week but I plan to spend all the time with my family. I appreciate the invitation but to be honest phreedum I really don't think it would be a good idea to meet you in person.

phreedm

Alex, do any of us really know what it's like to walk on anothers path?

My answer is no, it's very difficult if not impossible to understand what it is precisely. However, it is a fair assumption that straight men have kept gay men from enjoying a full realization of their freedoms and rights. What have gay men kept straight men from doing?

You have no clue who I am, aside from posting on this blog.

Like me and everyone else here, we only know each other by what we write. What you have written indicates at least for me that:

- mixing church and state is a good idea
- homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry
- abortion is murder
- Islam itself is a threat to western culture, not just extremists
- "Activist" judges are writing laws, not simply interpreting them
- the bible is the inerrant word of god

I disagree with these ideas. People have gotten to "know" me here and if they met me in person they would likely hear a lot of the same ideas that they see on the blog. It's not like when they meet me that I suddenly think the Bible is inerrant or mixing church and state is a good idea. The real me is just as real here as I am in person. I am better at discussing ideas here than I am in person. Usually in person I speak faster than I think and it gets me in trouble ;-)

Alex, at a christmas party I went to last night I was talking to a man who explained that it can be easier for me as a straight guy as social cues are more straightforward. For instance, I could flirt with a woman and generally nothing bad would come from it. However, he continued, if he were to flirt with a guy and there was a social miscue, it could get ugly fast. I never really thought about it in those terms, so I suspect that if homosexuality were more accepted, more clear social cues would be developed and there wouldn't be as much fear from straight men. He said that he has more straight friends who know that he's gay as a way of dealing with this issue. Our culture currently seems to be so set up for straight people to figure out social cues growing up and even as we get older, I guess it's no wonder that there's such a high level of anxiety for gay people. It's a shame that there is so much fear and anxiety.

Phreedm, can you make the argument that allowing homosexuals civil unions infringes on your freedom? Would allowing church and state to mix infringe on the freedom of others? If so, is that okay?

HeatheNZ

Atheist Brigade Takes Arguments to the Tolerant

Listen to this story... by Brooke Gladstone I heard about that coming up. I didn't hear it yet... I'll check it out. Can't we all just get along ;-)

rotton blockquotes:

I heard about that coming up. I didn't hear it yet... I'll check it out. Can't we all just get along ;-)

At least New Jersey is listening.

i have come to the view gay marriage is going to be legal nationwide so why drag this out anymore.make it legal gays will stay gay and heterosexuals will stay heterosexual.
not allowing gays to marry is not going to stop people from living together or loving each other just as sodomy laws have not stop people
gay or straight from engaging in sodomy.lets focus on protecting children thats a real family value.

question for gays are most gays religious and if so what kind jewish,catholic,protestant.the gays in my area are regular church goers
is this standard behavior?

Like most people in America the majority of gays and 1esbians are raised by xian families and retain their conditioning into adulthood. However, the extreme hostility that religion has towards us turns a lot of gay people away from religion and I do belive that gays and 1esbians as a group have a much higher percentage of atheists than the general population. There are gay friendly churches out there, most notably the unitarians and the metropllitan community church.

Spanders...

WOW!!!??? You don't believe abortion is murder...?

Exactly why type of church do you go to and exactly what do you learn there...?

Comment from: alexatheist

I do belive that gays and 1esbians as a group have a much higher percentage of atheists than the general population.

Agreed. One of 3 major groups that make up atheists IMO.

I appreciate the invitation but to be honest phreedum I really don't think it would be a good idea to meet you in person.

I'm sorry you feel that way Alex, but it doesn't surprise me...

Hatred is a very strong addiction...

Comment from Spangers

Would allowing church and state to mix infringe on the freedom of others?

Infringe on others freedoms...?

Uhmmm...no.

If so, is that okay?

Of course...why wouldn't it be?

phreedm what are the other two groups?

"Hatred is a very strong addiction..."

phreedum, in spite of your martyr complex it might shock you to learn that I do not hate you. However I do find you to be obnoxious and infuriatingly ignorant.
What would be the point in me meeting with you anyway? It would just serve as a chance for you to witness to me and give you the smug satisfaction of spreading the good news and attempting to save a poor lost soul such as myself. There would be no reconcilliation or change in your attitudes or beliefs nor would their be in mine. Thanks, but no thanks.

phreedm

WOW!!!??? You don't believe abortion is murder...?

Haven't we been over this ad nauseum? I can go over this if you like, but it does go on a while and based on your comment, you don't really listen so I don't think it's worth it. However, if you ask, I will go through it again with you.

Comment from Spangers

I don't know if it is a conscious mispelling, but I liked Spankers better.

Uhmmm...no.

If you think it wouldn't infringe on other's rights to mix church and state, would it be okay for Iraq to have a theocracy? If it wouldn't infringe on other's rights here to mix church and state, shouldn't we have the same standard for Iraq?

Exactly why type of church do you go to and exactly what do you learn there...?

It seems to me that when I say something especially heretical you ask me what my church teaches me. I find it interesting that you don't ask me what I have thought out for myself rather than what some authority told me. Do you see ideas as only coming from the organized church?

I think this is the lynchpin:
Against gay marriage?
You're a bigot. Pure & simple.

spanders:

- mixing church and state is a good idea
- homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry
- abortion is murder
- Islam itself is a threat to western culture, not just extremists
- "Activist" judges are writing laws, not simply interpreting them
- the bible is the inerrant word of god

I apologize for butting in here, but for me, you captured it pretty well—except for that last one. The Bible is the infallible word of God.

Also, if you don’t mind (since phreedm brought it up, and I apologize for forgetting what your position on this is), but would you mind tell me again if you believe in the existence of a soul, and if so, how and when does a fetus appropriate it?

jcc
...believe in the existence of a soul, and if so, how and when does a fetus appropriate it?

What I find amusing here, is that an imaginary concept is presupposed as real, upon with sensible questions are posed.

It's surely necessary to define and discover the presence of a soul before asking from where and when it appears.

As far as I can tell jcc's question is pointless. An answer stating "it's always there" and "it is appropriated by magical incantations" is as accurate (or inaccurate) as any other explanation one might care to pull out of thin air.

evidence = none

reliability of conclusion = 0

Against gay marriage?
You're a bigot. Pure & simple.

In deference to the axiom that absolute truth is a double-edge sword:

Calling someone who makes a principled stand on an issue a bigot simply because you disagree with their position, regardless of how well grounded that person’s reasons are in logic and reason, is itself, indicative of bigotry.

HeatheNZ:

What I find amusing here, is that an imaginary concept is presupposed as real, upon with sensible questions are posed.

What I find truly sad is that those who argue against the existence of the soul (a consciousness separate from the brain) are also those who fail to exhibit properties of it.

It's surely necessary to define and discover the presence of a soul before asking from where and when it appears.

The evidence for it exists—why else has money been spent on scientifically researching the phenomena of post-mortem memories?

As far as I can tell jcc's question is pointless.

Apparently, to only anyone who has closed their mind to the subject.

Calling someone who makes a principled stand on an issue a bigot simply because you disagree with their position, regardless of how well grounded that person’s reasons are in logic and reason, is itself, indicative of bigotry.

Tu quoque? Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, etc.
There is no 'logic' or 'reason': it's an Iron age code that's an anachronism.
Or, to paraphrase Lewis Black, those were rules for a group of people who were 10 hairs away from being baboons.
P.S
2 Cor. 6:14

jcc,

The evidence for it exists

Really? Where might that be? Seriously, either put up or shut up. Links please. References. I'm happy to be shown to be wrong.

—why else has money been spent on scientifically researching the phenomena of post-mortem memories?

Why do people spend money on any number of crazy things? The act of spending money on something in no way reflects it's degree of truth. By such criteria, you should also consider the Loch Ness Monster, and the Yeti to be scientifically proven.

I must ask ... isn't being a homosexual atheist a walking contradiction? Is there scientific proof of homosexuality that I am unaware of, or is the proof of one being homosexual solely based on personal experience. I mean, why does the atheist community not insist on scientific proof before embracing the homosexual agenda? Otherwise, you really are having "faith in" the homosexuals' word ... or, if you will "testimony" about the plight of the homosexual. And if the atheist community can be open-minded enough to embrace the word of others as enough proof (which clearly, on this board, they can), then why, when one shares a testimony of what Christ has done in one's life, is that disregarded so readily as "brain-washing", "illogical", or "not proven by science"?

Am I the only one who sees this as a glaring contradiction?