Separation

[digitaldiscipline]

On Wednesday, March 1, 2006, at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at American University, was requested to testify. At the end of his testimony, Republican State Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"

Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible." The room erupted into applause.

[edited to remove irritatingly large image]

For anyone who remains unclear (read: willfully ignorant) on the subject, here's your clue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

"The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another."

Separation of Church and State: It's actually what those "Strict Constitutionalists" are shitting all over in their zeal to make the United States a "Christian" nation. Knock it the fuck off. One, you're hypocrites. Two, you're assholes.

Comments

[eglantine-br.livejournal.com]

A Thousand Times Yes! Yup, yup yup.

[miss-adventure.livejournal.com]

Word.

[mimerki.livejournal.com]

I'm not actually certain that it says in the Bible that marriage has to be between a man and a woman. It's assumed and implied, sure, but I'm not sure it's ever actually spelled out in that many words.

Which is, as you say, utterly beside the point since the text of our national founding documents makes it clear that Biblical approval isn't required, and I'm pretty sure that "marrying whatever consenting adult suits your fancy" falls solidly under "pursuit of happiness" and is a liberty that oughtn't be curtailed. While I'm sure some of the Founding Fathers would be scandalized, I suspect some of them must have known same-sex couples of whom they couldn't be bothered to disapprove.

[the_axel]

On a religious note, the Bible is explicit about endorsing marriage between one man and one woman, however it also endorses:
Polygynous marriage
Levirate Marriage
A man, a woman and her property -- a female slave
A man, one or more wives, and some concubines
A male soldier and a female prisoner of war
A male rapist and his victim
A male and female slave.

That being said, in a non-theocracy it doesn't matter what a religious document may or may not say.

(www.religioustolerance.org is a pretty interesting site for info about religon).

[mimerki.livejournal.com]

Actually, none of the cited locations say that marriage is between a man and a woman. They talk about marriages between men and women, but none of them limit marriage to such. Like I said, I'm not sure it actually exists within the text.

While I support enforcing the separation of church and state, I also think it's important to deny the fundies Biblical authority. They don't have it. There are alternate interpretations. There are important counter-arguments within the text (starting with "what part of letting whomever is without sin throw the first stone are you not understanding?") and those are every bit as valid as theirs.

[the_axel]

Ah! I didn't spot that you were taking the point of view that anything not explicitly disallowed is allowed as opposed to only things explicitly allowed are allowed.

Which of those two basic legal philosophy The Bible intends is a whole different ball of hilarious theological fun times.

While I support enforcing the separation of church and state, I also think it's important to deny the fundies Biblical authority.

Absolutely. And there's lots of room for different interpretations.

Similarly, it's worth remembering that Darwin was originally heavily attacked by the scientific community, and supported by evangelical Christians.

[mimerki.livejournal.com]

I figure that the authors of Leviticus could be bothered to spell out what to do if an ox gores someone, how to deal with leprous houses, and who precisely you're not allowed to see naked. If they couldn't be bothered to define marriage, I don't see any reason to let people who typically don't know that the house-leprosy bits are in there pretend that they did. :P