You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #56: the problem with interjecting a religious view [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
fnottr Donating Member (365 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-04 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #50
56. the problem with interjecting a religious view
into the civil domain is that it is a direct violation of the 1st ammendment. It is, quite explicitly 'making a law that respects an establishment religion'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -"Covenant" Marriage-Good or Bad? classicfilmfan  Dec-05-04 12:14 PM   #0 
  - Let's go back to the bad old days  ayeshahaqqiqa   Dec-05-04 12:17 PM   #1 
  - That's what I thought too  classicfilmfan   Dec-05-04 12:19 PM   #4 
     - No, they need low paid workers  ayeshahaqqiqa   Dec-05-04 12:21 PM   #6 
  - Stupid idea......  Liberal Veteran   Dec-05-04 12:18 PM   #2 
  - I think Louisiana  varun   Dec-05-04 12:19 PM   #3 
  - The word "mandatory" in this context is misleading  sangh0   Dec-05-04 12:20 PM   #5 
  - Personally, I think anyone stupid enough to get one of these....  Liberal Veteran   Dec-05-04 12:24 PM   #7 
     - I can imagine certain churches pressuring their member to get one  DBoon   Dec-05-04 12:35 PM   #10 
     - In other words, it's slavery, not marriage.  Liberal Veteran   Dec-05-04 12:42 PM   #14 
     - You are right  DBoon   Dec-05-04 01:11 PM   #19 
     - In that case, most if not all marriages are "slavery"  sangh0   Dec-05-04 01:11 PM   #20 
        - If you don't like what I said, feel free to ignore me.  Liberal Veteran   Dec-05-04 01:32 PM   #28 
           - Fat chance  sangh0   Dec-05-04 01:38 PM   #32 
              - I am hostile to the notion because I feel it would detrimental...  Liberal Veteran   Dec-05-04 01:52 PM   #37 
                 - And so you called it "slavery"???  sangh0   Dec-05-04 02:13 PM   #43 
                    - A person is able to extricate themselves from a "normal" marriage...  Liberal Veteran   Dec-05-04 02:47 PM   #53 
                       - And people can extricate themselves from convenant marriages too  sangh0   Dec-05-04 03:25 PM   #60 
                          - Leave it alone. I disagree with your position wholeheartedly  Liberal Veteran   Dec-05-04 03:38 PM   #66 
                             - Do you really think there's any chance I will obey your orders?  sangh0   Dec-05-04 04:15 PM   #69 
     - That's what the article said  classicfilmfan   Dec-05-04 01:00 PM   #16 
        - Which underscores the point that if you can be pressured into...  Liberal Veteran   Dec-05-04 01:04 PM   #17 
           - Yes, and we know no one has EVER been pressured into getting married  sangh0   Dec-05-04 01:12 PM   #22 
              - I didn't say that they hadn't....  Liberal Veteran   Dec-05-04 01:20 PM   #24 
                 - True, you just criticized one for something that applies to the other also  sangh0   Dec-05-04 01:23 PM   #25 
                    - Um, did you even read where I replied exactly to someone...  Liberal Veteran   Dec-05-04 01:26 PM   #26 
                       - Of course they would be pressured  DBoon   Dec-05-04 01:32 PM   #29 
                          - I don't think pressure is ALWAYS going to be a factor.  Liberal Veteran   Dec-05-04 01:38 PM   #33 
                             - Pressure is a factor in traditional marriages also  sangh0   Dec-05-04 01:40 PM   #34 
                                - It is easier to get a divorce than it is for a slave to buy their freedom  DBoon   Dec-05-04 01:55 PM   #38 
                                - I agree with most of that  sangh0   Dec-05-04 02:16 PM   #44 
                                   - Of course you totally leave out the factor of pressure...  Liberal Veteran   Dec-05-04 02:53 PM   #55 
                                      - That's because the law takes coercion into account  sangh0   Dec-05-04 03:22 PM   #59 
                                         - Yeah, imagine trying to prove social coercion?  Liberal Veteran   Dec-05-04 03:32 PM   #64 
                                            - You'd have to define it first  sangh0   Dec-05-04 03:37 PM   #65 
                                - Perhaps it's because "non-covenant" marriages...  Liberal Veteran   Dec-05-04 02:00 PM   #41 
                                   - Well, that's the first time you've said that  sangh0   Dec-05-04 02:21 PM   #45 
                                      - I wouldn't have had to had you not jumped to rash conclusions...  Liberal Veteran   Dec-05-04 02:49 PM   #54 
                                         - So now I imagined you calling it "slavery"??  sangh0   Dec-05-04 03:26 PM   #61 
                                            - No you imagined me calling ALL marriage slavery...  Liberal Veteran   Dec-05-04 03:30 PM   #63 
     - Exactly, what's wrong with all those red staters*...  Salviati   Dec-05-04 01:16 PM   #23 
        - The Repugs want to keep gov't out of business  classicfilmfan   Dec-05-04 01:43 PM   #36 
  - That has to be the stupidest thing I ever heard of.  coloradodem2005   Dec-05-04 12:25 PM   #8 
  - Why would anyone enter into this contract?  BattyDem   Dec-05-04 12:32 PM   #9 
  - On the flip side, it would be a good sign....  Liberal Veteran   Dec-05-04 12:37 PM   #12 
     - Exactly! If a guy suggests this contract ...  BattyDem   Dec-05-04 12:58 PM   #15 
  - To protect marriage, just outlaw divorce and be done with it.  SharonAnn   Dec-05-04 12:36 PM   #11 
  - Well, I suppose if they're going to create a special class of people  neebob   Dec-05-04 12:41 PM   #13 
  - I can't beleive they are going to monkey around with Marriage  BR_Parkway   Dec-05-04 01:06 PM   #18 
  - Tell your daughter that getting married is NOT a good thing.  cornermouse   Dec-05-04 01:12 PM   #21 
  - What's the point of "convenant" marriages?  Solly Mack   Dec-05-04 01:29 PM   #27 
  - To make it more difficult to get a divorce  classicfilmfan   Dec-05-04 01:37 PM   #31 
  - But it's not mandatory..per the info given  Solly Mack   Dec-05-04 01:41 PM   #35 
     - No more pointless than banning something that doesn't exist  classicfilmfan   Dec-05-04 02:34 PM   #49 
        - there any NEED for this kind of variation?  Liberal Veteran   Dec-05-04 03:06 PM   #58 
        - so it's a standard of measure as well as being pointless  Solly Mack   Dec-05-04 05:40 PM   #91 
  - It's super-duper marriage. For Mormons, it extends beyond death, etc.  elehhhhna   Dec-05-04 01:58 PM   #40 
  - James Dobson, Don Wildmon, et al have been endorsing these  doni_georgia   Dec-05-04 01:35 PM   #30 
  - And this is exactly the sort of coercion I meant  DBoon   Dec-05-04 01:57 PM   #39 
     - That's misleading  sangh0   Dec-05-04 02:23 PM   #47 
  - It's another instance of religion  BrewerJohn   Dec-05-04 02:09 PM   #42 
  - The main problem I have with these  fnottr   Dec-05-04 02:21 PM   #46 
  - If marriage is simply a contract  sangh0   Dec-05-04 02:41 PM   #50 
     - the problem with interjecting a religious view  fnottr   Dec-05-04 02:56 PM   #56 
        - I think we mean different things by the "public domain"  sangh0   Dec-05-04 03:30 PM   #62 
           - Does the "why" of this law have any bearing on its merit?  Kingshakabobo   Dec-05-04 04:14 PM   #68 
           - Very good question  sangh0   Dec-05-04 04:17 PM   #70 
           - Though I don't wish to limit the freedoms of consenting adults  fnottr   Dec-05-04 04:24 PM   #73 
              - I still am wary of coercion and social/religious/emotional pressure...  Liberal Veteran   Dec-05-04 04:44 PM   #77 
              - Oh I completely agree  fnottr   Dec-05-04 04:57 PM   #80 
              - And I share those concerns, particularly your 2nd point  sangh0   Dec-05-04 04:54 PM   #79 
                 - No, these will not cause a sudden merging of state and church  fnottr   Dec-05-04 05:06 PM   #81 
                    - My thoughts on possible constitutional objections  sangh0   Dec-05-04 05:13 PM   #82 
                       - Well, I'm certainly no legal or constitutional expert  fnottr   Dec-05-04 05:19 PM   #83 
                          - Then we're at basically the same point  sangh0   Dec-05-04 05:25 PM   #87 
                             - Let's hope so! n/t  fnottr   Dec-05-04 05:29 PM   #88 
  - This was true in NY .......  serryjw   Dec-05-04 02:24 PM   #48 
  - painfully stupid  Lexingtonian   Dec-05-04 02:42 PM   #51 
  - Both Lynne Cheney and Laura Bush had to threaten their husbands  barbaraann   Dec-05-04 02:45 PM   #52 
  - Here's an idea  NicoleM   Dec-05-04 03:05 PM   #57 
  - what the fuck is wrong with the fundies?  enki23   Dec-05-04 03:52 PM   #67 
  - To put it crudely, they can't stop their daughters from fucking  sangh0   Dec-05-04 04:21 PM   #71 
  - I think it's a GREAT idea...  regnaD kciN   Dec-05-04 04:24 PM   #72 
  - Another good argument for getting the state OUT of marriage.  SmokingJacket   Dec-05-04 04:27 PM   #74 
  - Petition to outlaw divorce.  Kingshakabobo   Dec-05-04 04:27 PM   #75 
  - yeah, I heard those ideas too  fnottr   Dec-05-04 05:22 PM   #84 
  - I think all Republicans should be required to get these marriages  jmowreader   Dec-05-04 04:38 PM   #76 
  - Speaking of full faith and credit clauses....  Liberal Veteran   Dec-05-04 04:46 PM   #78 
     - Not at all.  jmowreader   Dec-05-04 05:24 PM   #86 
        - Exactly, so would we be able to make their divorces unbinding...  Liberal Veteran   Dec-05-04 05:35 PM   #90 
  - While I think plain marriage is enough  supernova   Dec-05-04 05:23 PM   #85 
  - Jeez - no freaking way!  Delphinus   Dec-05-04 05:32 PM   #89 
  - Ok, this is a good thing in a backward way.  progressoid   Dec-05-04 06:07 PM   #92 
  - Huckabee and his ilk  oneighty   Dec-05-04 06:45 PM   #93 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC