The Numbers

This is not a matter of majority rules. This is a matter of constitutionality. Do the states have the right to deny the ability to marry based on the sex on the participants? If that is so, then why can they not deny marriage on the basis of race, religion or political belief? At the core of this argument we need to find whether or not sexual orientation is a freedom protected by the consititution. I personally believe it is, it does need to be specifically enumerated. It is arguably under all three inalienable rights so proclaimed: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This is not a matter of mob rule or is this a matter of what some liberal court judge rules.

If the people voted and reject it, so be it. This is a Republic.

This is what the Constitution was founded on, not radical judges ignoring the people.

GTA, by that measure if the people voted to have a national religion we should have one. yes we are a republic, actually a democratic republic, all that means is that the people are represented by those elected by them. The constitution is in place to hlep prevent the ascention of government over the people. The majority is not always right. Nearly every progress made as a society has been made over the majority. Being gay is not a crime, nor should it be. the government should not be in the business of deciding who should and should not be married once necessary issues of protection: consent, age and blood relationship are addressed. Exactly what is put in danger by allowing same sex marriage?

^^Do the states have the right to deny the ability to marry based on the sex on the participants?^^

They don't.

All men, homosexual and heterosexual, may marry women, homosexual and heterosexual.
No man, neither heterosexual, nor homosexual, may marry another man.

All women, homosexual and heterosexual, may marry men, homosexual and heterosexual.
No woman, neither heterosexual, nor homosexual, may marry another woman.

The heterosexual man has no more, nor less, Right to marry than the man claiming to be homosexual, and vice versa.
The heterosexual woman has no more, nor less, Right to marry than the woman claiming to be homosexual, and vice versa.

There is no inequality in marriage law. No one is prohibited from marrying. No one is barred from marrying.

Nothing is stopping a homosexual man from marrying a heterosexual woman.
Nothing is stopping a homosexual man from marrying a homosexual woman.

Nothing is stopping a heterosexual man from marrying a heterosexual woman.
Nothing is stopping a heterosexual man from marrying a homosexual woman.

Nothing is stopping a homosexual woman from marrying a homosexual man.
Nothing is stopping a homosexual woman from marrying a heterosexual man.

Nothing is stopping a heterosexual woman from marrying a homosexual man.
Nothing is stopping a heterosexual woman from marrying a heterosexual man.

All are barred from same-sex marrying.

In other words, nothing stops any man from marrying a woman, and nothing stops any woman from marrying any man. All men have the same Rights, and all women have the same Rights.

This is equal protection. This is equality. This is equity.

Therefore, there is no inequality and no inequity.

^^why can they not deny marriage on the basis of race, religion or political belief?^^

Not the same thing as the basis and reason for marriage in the first place.

In any case, men and women of different races are still men and women.

Men and women of different religions are still men and women.

Men and womenof different political parties are still men and women.

^^...we need to find whether or not sexual orientation is a freedom protected by the consititution.^^
I can settle it for you now: It isn't.

^^ I personally believe it is...^^

Those who claim to be homosexual, their activists and supporters would.

^^...It is arguably under all three inalienable rights so proclaimed: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.^^

Uhhh, except that you people tell us that the Declaration of Independence is NOT law.

Now, if, as Jefferson says, we have theRight to life, for example, when does that Right begin? Jefferson says it begins when we are created. When is that?

so Mr. Incredible. So it would be ok for states to say that you cannot marry outside your declared race or religion? As long as it applied to everyone? How about hieght? Those above 5'10" are not allowed to marry those under and vice versa. Perhaps eye color. No two people of different eye colors can marry. Are any of those any less arbitrary? If yoru church does not want to marry two men or two women they don't have to, any more than a synogogue is required to serve bacon with breakfast. The state discriminating on such an arbitrary basis is unconstitutional.

Louis: "Do the states have the right to deny the ability to marry based on the sex on the participants?"

From a State Constitutional question, that depends on the state. But from a US Constitutional question, the answer is "yes".

The SCOTUS has applied "strict scrutiny" to race and religion but not to sex (i.e. discriminatory laws re: against race and religion are considered illegal unless the Govn't has an overwhelming argument to exclude.). Sex and gender equality issues are dealt with using "hightened scrutiny", which is a lower level of scrutiny and in which case the govn't must prove a "rational basis" for discrimination, such as the excluding women from "combat situations" in the armed forces.

From the standpoint of the state of CA, the question may be resolved when and if the voters opt or opt out of adding a ban in the State's Constitution. Only a simple majority can change the CA Constitution.

That will be the litmus test of how all of these polls are doing.

^^So it would be ok for states to say that you cannot marry outside your declared race or religion?^^

"Marriage" is between a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife. Men and women can be of different races and religions and still be men and women.

^^ As long as it applied to everyone? How about hieght? Those above 5'10" are not allowed to marry those under and vice versa. Perhaps eye color. No two people of different eye colors can marry. Are any of those any less arbitrary?^^

See answer above.

^^The state discriminating on such an arbitrary basis is unconstitutional. ^^

That all men may marry women and vice versa is not arbitrary. All are treated the same.

When does homosexuality begin?

Those who claim to be homosexual agree with Jefferson that the Right to life begins at creation. That means conception.

If that's the case, then they disagree with Jefferson and the pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong-choice crowd who say that the Right to life begins at birth, even though, clearly, something was created befor that.

So, which is it?

they disagree with Jefferson >>>>> they agree with Jefferson but disagree with...

I find some of these arguments weird: if straight-only proponents actually work on strengthening marriage in general instead of working to prohibit others from marrying, then they may stem the 50% divorce rate.

That divorce rate is the fault of hetros, it is pointless argue otherwise. Straight marriage has been failing for generations... how does gay-marriage prohibition help that. It is red herring.

Ok tying same sex marriage to abortion is a ridiculous argument.

I am an activist for freedom. there are those that appear to believe that freedom should be avaialble only under the narrowest of vison and to the majority opinion. I take the opposite view. state a single reason why two or more consenting adults should not be permitted to wed? What threat is manifested by having such a union. What is allegedly being protected though this limiting of marital privilege? Traditions particularly ones regarding marriage have changed significantly, and despite what you think, they have not aleays been one man and one woman.
The same arguments you make to prevent same sex marriage are the same ones used to try and deny women and blacks the vote and interracial and interfaith marriages, not to mention non-white marriages at one time. In the history of this country there have been laws passed against both. You don't have to like homosexuality nor practice it. Marriage is a legally recognized union between two individuals that have declared their commitment to one another. If there is a non-religious based argument I'll happily listen, otherwise, there is no reason to deny people this proviledge based on sexual preference. tradition is not an answer, it used to be tradition that my ancestors were property, right up until someone of the minority opinion saw that that was wrong.

^^What threat is manifested by having such a union.^^

Against tghis society, this culture, this country.

^^ What is allegedly being protected though this limiting of marital privilege?^^

Family, this society, this culture, this country.

^^ Traditions particularly ones regarding marriage have changed significantly...^^

They can change regarding wifebeating, bank robbery and murder, too.

^^...and despite what you think, they have not aleays been one man and one woman.^^

With God, they have. What falls outside what He has ordained is ungodly.

^^The same arguments you make to prevent same sex marriage are the same ones used to try and deny women and blacks the vote and interracial and interfaith marriages, not to mention non-white marriages at one time.^^

That's the fault of humans. Blacks and whites are still men and women.

^^ Marriage is a legally recognized union between two individuals that have declared their commitment to one another.^^

No, it isn't.

You wanna redefine it to mean that.

^^ If there is a non-religious based argument I'll happily listen...^^

We understand that you wanna limit your intake of information.

^^...there is no reason to deny people this proviledge based on sexual preference.^^

You have to believe that so that -- shave off thecorners -- to fit a square peg into a round hole.

^^...it used to be tradition that my ancestors were property, right up until someone of the minority opinion saw that that was wrong. ^^

Oh, you mean the tyranny of the minority. We see.

to address the right to life issue and abortion: at some point after conception and prior to birth a zygote becomes an embryo and eventually a person. The extreme anti-choice crowd says conception, I've yet to meet a pro-choicer that was pro-abortion. I have also found that the majority of anti-choice advocates are also pro- death penalty, a schism I find telling. The question becomes, when does a person, become a person? If brain function ceases and there is no heart or lung activity a person is declared dead, a non-person. So I would think it applicable, that at a minimum for a person to be declared a person they would need to meet those condidions of human life, a heart, respiration and brain function. consevatively this brings us to 8 weeks. Which would be my personal limitation for abortion. I can see the argument for extending that to 12 weeks, but I think that is too far. I do think that 8 weeks is enough time for a mother to be given options and make a decsison. Taking that right to what is going to happen to her body out of the mother's hands at conception is wrong.

--...at some point after conception and prior to birth a zygote becomes an embryo and eventually a person.--

Sooo, those who claim to be homosexual were NOT created homosexual. That's what we've been saying, and, now, you say that we are correct. We thought so.

-- The extreme anti-choice crowd says conception...--

If those who coaim to be homosexual believe that they were created homosexual, they'd have to believe that, from the very start, when the chromosomes meet, is when they were created so.

--I've yet to meet a pro-choicer that was pro-abortion.--

And, yet, they are.

-- I have also found that the majority of anti-choice advocates are also pro- death penalty, a schism I find telling.--

Yes, the unborn are innocent, and the criminal who has been judged is guilty.

-- The question becomes, when does a person, become a person?--

No, what I want to know is when a person who says he was created homosexual created homosexual. At birth, or conception?

^^...and despite what you think, they have not always been one man and one woman.^^

"With God, they have. What falls outside what He has ordained is ungodly."

And that is the fallacy of the argument. to deny same sex marriage based on religious belief is a violation of the 1st amendment. I've yet to hear an argument not based on religious dogma that opposes same sex marriage.

I clearly have more faith in family, culture and this country than you do.
those same arguments were used to propogate slavery, segregation and womens rights. Because it is traditional, doesn't make it the correct or right thing to do.

How does a same sex marriage damage your marriage? how does it harm yoru family? how is it somehow inherently inferior?

It doesn't matter when someone recognizes they they are homosexual. Did you know at birth that you would be attracted to a particular type of person? I didn't. I didn't figure out what kind of women I liked until I was in my teens. Some homosexuals appear to have always known who they were attracted to, some didn't fiugure it out until later in life. trying to make homosexuality some kind of birth defect is laughable. I've never bought into the 'gay' gene theory. Sexual attraction is as individual a thing as can be, I'd find it very difficult to believe there was a specific genetic trigger for it.

== to deny same sex marriage based on religious belief is a violation of the 1st amendment.==

To require that we deny it is a violation.

== I've yet to hear an argument not based on religious dogma that opposes same sex marriage. ==

You don't get to decide wht evidence we bring.

If you don't wanna listen to evidence, that's YOUR choice.

==I clearly have more faith in family, culture and this country than you do.==

You'd like to think so.

==those same arguments were used to propogate slavery, segregation and womens rights==

Irrelevant.

You wanna tray to dismiss and dilute the current argument by appealing to the faults of others at a different, unenlightened, ignorant time. Doesn't work here.

== Because it is traditional, doesn't make it the correct or right thing to do. ==

Iniquity is in the business of justifying itself.

How does a same sex marriage damage your marriage? how does it harm yoru family? how is it somehow inherently inferior?

faisal, you actually do have the right to tell her how you feel just as she would have the right to leave me should she choose to. I also see no issue with plural marriage, if three or more people should desire to commit to each other, why should they not be allowed?

"How does a same sex marriage damage your marriage? how does it harm yoru family? how is it somehow inherently inferior? "

It harms this society, this culture, this country. I'm a citizen of this society, this culture, this country.

religion is not evidence. it is not proof, and it is not, cannot be the basis for law in this country.

"you actually do have the right to tell her how you feel just as she would have the right to leave me should she choose to."

We're not talking about leaving you. She wants to stay with you but get funky with me, too. We're committed adults and, as you have said, that's all that's needed.

" I also see no issue with plural marriage, if three or more people should desire to commit to each other, why should they not be allowed?"

Ahhh, cuz it's Morally wrong. We understand that you people don't get it.

^^religion is not evidence. it is not proof, and it is not, cannot be the basis for law in this country.^^

That's the PR, anyway.

"How does a same sex marriage damage your marriage? how does it harm yoru family? how is it somehow inherently inferior? "

It harms this society, this culture, this country. I'm a citizen of this society, this culture, this country.

Specifics faisal, specifics! Saying something is harmful is not the same thing as it actually being harmful.

How does a same sex marriage damage your marriage? How does it harm your family? Why is it somehow inherently inferior?

Faisal, you seem to confuse Love with sex. they are two separate and distict things. Now, the sexual issue you bring up is known as swinging, and if consenting adults wish to indulge in such an activity, I don't see where I get to tell them they can't.

We don't pass laws for morality. we pass laws for public safety. Show me the public safety issue regarding plural marriage. For that matter, since you brought it up, where is the immorality of plural marriage between consenting, non-related adults?

^^It doesn't matter when someone recognizes they they are homosexual.^^

Except to those who claim to be homosexual who say that they were created homosexual. I'ts up to them to prove that they were created homosexual. All I'm asking is "when?"

^^ Did you know at birth that you would be attracted to a particular type of person?^^

We're not discussing "knowing." I asked those who say they are homosexual when they were created homosexual. THEY say they were created homosexual. It's a simple question.

^^I didn't figure out what kind of women I liked until I was in my teens.^^

You're skewing the issue.

^^trying to make homosexuality some kind of birth defect is laughable.^^

It's choice, and THAT's laughable.

^^ I've never bought into the 'gay' gene theory.^^

A choice. Thanks for agreeing.

^^ Sexual attraction is as individual a thing as can be, I'd find it very difficult to believe there was a specific genetic trigger for it. ^^

Except that God joined a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife.

Mr. I you don't get to require that I legally subscribe to your religion anymore than I can require you subscribe to mine. Your religion and the role of the state regarding marriage must be two separate issues. The state cannot say these people cannot be married because Mr. I's religion says so. and that is really the only argument there is against allowing same sex marriage, or plural marriage for that matter. This decision is CA. is not a liberal judge, it is one that has understands that there is no public safety component to a ban on same sex marriage. that there is no other relevant or applicable argument beyond the religious.

^^We don't pass laws for morality.^^

Legislative members vote for laws that conform to their sense of Moral right and wrong.

^^ we pass laws for public safety.^^

"Marriage" being for a man and a woman being one of them.

^^ Show me the public safety issue regarding plural marriage. For that matter, since you brought it up, where is the immorality of plural marriage between consenting, non-related adults?^^

God joined a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife.

^^you don't get to require that I legally subscribe to your religion anymore than I can require you subscribe to mine.^^

Nobody is requiring you to do anything that you want not to do.

^^ Your religion and the role of the state regarding marriage must be two separate issues.^^

There you go requiring me to follow YOUR religion.

^^ The state cannot say these people cannot be married because Mr. I's religion says so.^^

However, those who vote for laws may do so based on their sense of Morality.

"Specifics faisal, specifics! Saying something is harmful is not the same thing as it actually being harmful."

I WAS specific. You don't accept it. So what?

"How does a same sex marriage damage your marriage? How does it harm your family? Why is it somehow inherently inferior?"

It harms this society, this culture, this country and family.

faisal, there is plenty of love without sex out there and plenty of sex without love, it is sad that you do not believe you can have one without the other. Sex can be an expression of love and there is certainly a component of attraction there, but you can be attracted to and have sex with someone and not love them. You can be in love with someone and not have a sexual attraction.

so we are at an impasse. Mr I cannot separate church and state.

Faisal thinks saying something is harmful without actually saying how it is harmful is somehow meaningful.

Mr. I did hit the nail on the head though - the constitution is probably the closest thing I would refer to as my bible. I hope he takes the time to read it some time.

Faisal - homosexuality is not going to be the downfall to the family, this society or this country. Those that are intolerant of others will be. Those that say, you are wrong because I say so and expect that such a statement should be enough for condemnation.

"there is plenty of love without sex out there and plenty of sex without love..."

I don't doubt it, and immorality is rampant in the world. We understand that that's the kind of world you want, and you got it.

" Sex can be an expression of love and there is certainly a component of attraction there, but you can be attracted to and have sex with someone and not love them."

German shepherds do that, too. That's what the world has become.

" You can be in love with someone and not have a sexual attraction."

Being friends with somebody of the same sex is not homosexuality.

Homosexuality is something more than friends, and it involves -- as repulsive as it is -- a sexual arousal.

^^Mr I cannot separate church and state.^^

Sure I can.

^^...the constitution is probably the closest thing I would refer to as my bible.^^

You mean the one that mentions God in Covenant Name?

"homosexuality is not going to be the downfall to the family, this society or this country."

That's the PR, anyway.

" Those that are intolerant of others will be."

When you gonna start to be tolerant of us?

They're chokin' on that, Paula.

faisal, so the issue is that you find homosexual desire repugnant. and that is the basis of passing laws against them being able to marry. Are you under the impression that you would be required to watch? I remember being told once that becasue I was attracted to women of another race that it was somehow disgusting.

Are you under the impression that there was no premarital sex in the world before christian marriage? You do understand that marriage had nothing to do with emotional commitment or even physical attraction when it was instituted and continued under christianity.

the worlkd has not become. the world has always been. You sound like a good candidate for fundamental muslim faith. Under that dogma you can beat a woman with impunity for being in the company of a man that she is not related or married to. You can stone her to death for sex outside marriage and homosexuality also carries a death penalty. yes Christianity can trace its beginnings all the way back to the beginnings of Islam.

They understand that Jefferson said that the Right to life starts when we are created, and that means conception.

That conflicts with the pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong-choice crowd who say that the Right to life begins at birth. Clearly, though, something was created before that, and Jefferson knew that.

So which is it?

one is created homosexual at the same point one is created hetorsexual, if such a point exists. Since both orientations clearly exist there must be a time in human development either pre or post birth that would determine it.

As far as being tolerant, while I disagree with your points of view, I have not required that you change them, only pointed out that you cannot impose them on others.

"you find homosexual desire repugnant."

That would be one word for it, yes. There isn't enough room here for all the other terms.

"... and that is the basis of passing laws against them being able to marry."

They ARE allowed to marry. They have no less "Right" to marry than anoybody else.

" I remember being told once that becasue I was attracted to women of another race that it was somehow disgusting."

So?

"Are you under the impression that there was no premarital sex in the world before christian marriage?"

The world is chock full of immorality, isn't it.

" You do understand that marriage had nothing to do with emotional commitment or even physical attraction when it was instituted and continued under christianity. "

Your point?

"the worlkd has not become. the world has always been."

No, it hasn't. It fell. Willingly.

" You sound like a good candidate for fundamental muslim faith."

Muslims feel that they can perform their way to Heaven. Christians know that they cannot.

" Under that dogma you can beat a woman with impunity for being in the company of a man that she is not related or married to."

Oh, so, now, you make up an argument and argue with that. We understand.

" You can stone her to death for sex outside marriage and homosexuality also carries a death penalty."

That's up to God, as Leviticus says.

"yes Christianity can trace its beginnings all the way back to the beginnings of Islam."

No, it cannot.

Islam traces back to Ishmael. he was not the promised child. Isaac was, and he was the line to Christ.

Jefferson did say we are created with the right to life, he did not say that that creation began at conception.
I take it you would be in favor of outlawing all premarital sex?

Faisal - based on your writings here, you believe that we should all submit to your religious beliefs, that the laws of the US should confoirm to the bible and that your moral stance be the sole measure of right and wrong. Have I missed anything?

^^Jefferson did say we are created with the right to life, he did not say that that creation began at conception.^^

If not at conception, when? What other point of creation was he talking about?

^^I take it you would be in favor of outlawing all premarital sex?^^

God outlaws it.

"based on your writings here, you believe that we should all submit to your religious beliefs, that the laws of the US should confoirm to the bible and that your moral stance be the sole measure of right and wrong. Have I missed anything?"

Based on your writing here, you believe that we should all submit to your religious beliefs, that the laws of the US should conform to your code and that your moral stance be the sole measure of right and wrong. Have I missed anything?

So, if a person who claims to be homosexual was created homosexual, WHEN was he created homosexual? Who created him homosexual?

"So, if a person who claims to be homosexual was created homosexual, WHEN was he created homosexual?"

When he imagined himself homosexual, he created his homosexuality. Then, he went out and acted homosexual. Then, he claimed that he was created -- trying to leave everybody with the impression that God created him so -- homosexual. Yet, the homosexual rejects God.

" Who created him homosexual?"

He, himself, did. By his having chosen to go homosexual.

"So, if a person who claims to be homosexual was created homosexual, WHEN was he created homosexual?"

When he imagined himself homosexual, he created his homosexuality. Then, he went out and acted homosexual. Then, he claimed that he was created -- trying to leave everybody with the impression that God created him so -- homosexual. Yet, the homosexual rejects God.

" Who created him homosexual?"

He, himself, did. By his having chosen to go homosexual.
Posted by: Faisal Smith | May 28, 2008 5:25:23 PM
---------------------------------
All iniquity arises outta the sin nature with which we are all born, thanks to Adam and Eve. That's why we must be born again, and even that is no guarantee cuz men fall from Grace. They are at fault, not Grace.

The sin nature is not dead in those who are born again; they are dwead to the sin nature because they love God through Jesus. They change their want'-to's. They don't let their bodies rule them cuz they know that their bodies are influenced by any ol' impulse and they, by themselves cannot control that. That's where homosexuality comes in, having reared its ugly head outta the sin nature.

--Is there a specific set of rules you are required to follow in order to be considered a Christian of of good faith? yes. --

Uh, no. There are no "rules" of worship.

--If it is such an internal relationship then why spout on boards...--

First, because there is a First Amendment to the Constitution. We have a Right to speak.

Second, according to the Word of God, those who are born again are fellow laborers with God. The Mission is to spread the Gospel.

--... And seek to discriminate those that do not adhere to your faith... --

God discriminates against those who disobey Him. We are also to discern.

Jesus came to separate. He separates the goats from the sheep.

--... In denying them the right to marry those that they choose because they are of the same sex? --

They do not have the "Right" to marry. There is no such "Right." If it were, it would be in the Constitution. It isn't.

No one has the "Right" to marry the person they love.

If I love somebody's wife, I don't have the Right to marry her. Also, I do not have the Right to marry someone who doesn't love me.

All men are treated alike in that they have the same opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex.

All women are treated alike in that they have the same opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex.

No man may marry another man.

No woman may marry another woman.

Equality. Equity.

-- I'm sure if you asked Catholics, Muslims, protestants, and Lutherans they would each tell you that it is about their relationship with god.--

Yet, they would also tell you that they must demonstrate their worship through ceremony and rule-following. Just like the Pharisees.

^^Those who are gay are BORN gay.^^

Their choice birthed them.

--There is a big 9 month gap between conception and birth that he has failed to recognize as existing.--

The discrepancy is between what those who claim to be homosexual think, and those who are pro-choice = pro-abortion = wrong-choice.

Those who claim to be homosexual say they were created homosexual.

Jefferson said that the Right to life begins at creation. Creation happens at conception. That's when the chromosomes link.

However, the pro-choice = pro-abortion = wrong-choice people say that the Right to life, in "disagreeance" with Jefferson, begins at birth. In other words, to them, birth is creation.

So, which is it?

-- Did any of you know that as soon as you have sex a baby pops out? --

Who taught you sex education? Bullwinkle?

We still need to know when those who claim to be homosexual were created homosexual.

Does such creation occur at conception, or at birth?

Thomas Jefferson told us, in the Declaration of Independence, that, for instance, the Right to life begins at creation. He said that all of us are created equal.

Therefore, in order that we apply this "Right" to life, we need to know when this creation began.

Since those who claim to be homosexual also claim that they were created -- by whom, they don't tell us -- homosexual, it's critical to know WHEN they were created homosexual. We need to apply this information to the Jeffersonian notion of the Right to life so that we may adjust our thinking on whom to protect by law.

Paula,

I'm sure that those who claim to be homosexual, their activists and supporters and the phony "scientists" who want everybody to believe that they see homosexuality in the animal kingdom, also want us to believe that there's a Dr. Saius, or a Dr. Monkey Ruth, runnin' classes for us out there.

Except that God gave Man dominion over the animals, not the other way around. So, we can understand why those who claim to be homosexual, et al. look to the animals for life and sex tips. That's cuz they reject God. So, they don't know what to think. To them, everything is permissible. Also to the animals, everything is permissible. So, they turn, for instance, to a snake. Something familiar about that.

Seperation of church and state! Come at me with an argument not based on religion and I will happy to destroy it but until you have that argument, I have to go put my round peg in the round hole!

^^Seperation of church and state!^^

It's not in the Constitution but they already are separate.

^^ Come at me with an argument not based on religion...^^

You don't get to tell us what evidence we bring. We bring what we know is necessary. You can reject it, if you want.

^^... and I will happy to destroy it...^^

No one has yet.

^^... but until you have that argument, I have to go put my round peg in the round hole!^^

You get to choose what you want and be big enough to accept the consequences of your choice on Judgment Day.

"Seperation [sic] of church and state!"

Really??? The same "separation of Church and State" Jefferson wrote about, then, a week later, went to church services in the halls of Congress??? THAT one??

"The country is in the toilet right now ..."

Thanks to the godless.