Rychard the Lionheart Wrote:One Senator is not saying and not one atheist in the bunch. :frown:
Unfortunately, far too many of my fellow Americans are heavily biased against atheists. This means that the probability of an atheist actually winning a Senate seat is lower than the probability that the National Organization for Marriage will run an honest campaign opposing marriage equality.
Heck, even atheists who win local elections over here find themselves having all kinds of problems, as Cecil Bothwell of Asheville North Carolina learned after being elected to the city council. (I'd post a link to the news story but apparently I need to make 98 more posts first. :biggrin
As someone who finds a politicians stance on political issues far more important than their religious views or lack thereof, I think it's a shame.
TBS, I'm not very happy living here in America for many reasons (suburbs, mentality, race card, politics etc...). and even though I know older generations had live hell, that doesn't mean I can't have these feelings.
marshlander Wrote:So where does the separation of church and state come into all this then?
Separation of Church and State is enshrined in the US Constitution not the North Carolina State Constitution. In any case the separation of church and state is only really the corollary of the decision not to have an Established Church in the newly formed United States. That decision was only because they couldn't agree which church should be Established, not because of confidence in non-God-Fearing men.
Fred
Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans.
fredv3b Wrote:Separation of Church and State is enshrined in the US Constitution not the North Carolina State Constitution.
While that's certainly true, there's plenty of case law that indicates that in such matters, the U.S. Constitution trumps individual states' Constitutions. This is particularly relevant to the Bothwell case. The fact that the U.S. Constitution that declares that no religious test shall be required for public office overrides the religious requirements for public office in the North Carolina Constitution. In fact, there's existing precedent, in which other state constitutions have had similar requirements that were successfully challenged in Federal Court.
Quote: from Winterfront: I'm not very happy living here in America for many reasons (suburbs, mentality, race card, politics etc..
You could leave the country and begin a better life in another country, or stay and try to change America into a better country.
I would love my government to bring back transportation to our ex colonies (Australia, New Zealand and Canada) for the crime of sheep stealing in England for an example. There would not be a sheep left in England dead or alive.
Anti-Gay District of Columbia Marriage Equality Vote Lawsuit Dismissed.
This was taken from the Lezgetreal.com website today. Article dated 15.01.10 (UK date)
A District of Columbia Superior Court Judge has dismissed a lawsuit aimed at putting marriage equality in the District of Columbia to a vote.
In September, a group led by an Anti- Gay Maryland preacher, Bishop Harry Jackson, had asked the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics to approve a ballot measure establishing that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in the District of Columbia.” However, finding that that such a referendum would violate the D.C. Human Rights Act by discriminating against gays and lesbians, the board decided to deny that request and Jackson sued, arguing that the Human Rights Act could not be used to stop citizens from putting ballot initiatives to a vote. Earlier this month Yesterday Thirty-nine Republican legislators, including 37 members of the House and two senators, also filed an amicus brief to Jackson’s lawsuit and were supporting a public vote on the issue.
Yesterday, Judge Judith N. Macaluso ruled in favor of a District motion asking the suit be dropped and agreed with Board of Elections and Ethics decision, saying the board’s action were justified because the initiative would in effect authorize and “ostracize a disfavored minority in violation of District of Columbia law.”
In her 23 page ruling Macaluso wrote, “If enacted, the initiative would deprive only same-sex individuals of the legal status, rights, and privileges they enjoy as married persons,” wrote the judge. “Such an initiative patently ‘authorizes or would have the effect of authorizing discrimination based upon . . . actual or perceived . . . sexual orientation [or] gender identity.”
Last month the District of Columbia moved one step closer to making our Nations Capital the sixth jurisdiction in the United States to permit same-sex unions after the DC’ council voted to legalize same-sex marriages in the District and DC Mayor Adrian Fenty signed the measure into law, sending it to the US House of Representatives for a mandatory 30 day review. Barring any action in the US Congress to derail the law, DC marriage equality will become effective in March.
The National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, said in a statement last month…“the fight is not over… Politicians on the city council are acting as if they have the right through legislation to deprive citizens of D.C. of their core civil right to vote, but we will not let them get away with it,” said Brian Brown, the organization’s executive director. “We will go to Congress, we will go to the courts, we will fight for the people’s right to vote,” Brown added.
While an appeal by forces opposed to marriage equality in the District of Columbia of Judge Macaluso ruling is likely and second attempt to get the issue on the ballot is currently underway … Most Capitol Hill insiders say it is highly un-likely that those looking to oppose the bill in Congress, will even be able to get a hearing on the matter in the Democratically controlled House.
"Fredv3b I agree and I am thankful for the rights that I do have, such as having the right to write the above rant without fear of sanction by the state. I was just outlining the hypocrisy evident in American society."
There is something else you should realize. The ideals of equality, liberty, and justice are not things that the founding fauthers thought would just happen because they wrote it down. Indeed, most would question whether or not such things can be actualized. The founding fauthers knew that these things were to be faught for, strived for. They had a plan in mind for America and they knew it wouldn't happen over night nor would people's definitions of libery and justice and equality be the same over time. The thirteenth and fourteenth amendmends are a testament to that. As for it taking much longer than it has in many other nations, America has always been a nation that has had to argue excesively before much action was taken. These things you hope for will come to fruition or else we must abandon the constitution and the ideals behind it entirely. But as a nation of dissent, it will not come at an too quickly.
Here, listen to the introduction of this. The rest you should know.
Utah congressman seeks to block D.C. same-sex marriages.
Report taken fromm the Washington Post.com website today.
By Anne Bartlett | January 27, 2010; 6:54 PM ET
U.S. Rep Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) introduced a disapproval resolution today in Congress to block the city's attempt to legalize same-sex marriage.
If approved by the House and Senate, as well as signed by President Obama, the resolution would override the same-sex marriage bill signed by Mayor Adrian M Fenty (D) last month.
But Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) issued a statement Wednesday evening saying she has received assurance from House Democratic leaders that the House will not even vote on Chaffetz's resolution.
"I am pleased it will not be taken up by committee," said Norton, adding her Democratic colleagues believe District officials should make their own laws.
Without Congressional intervention, same-sex marriages could begin in early March in the city.
Also this report.By Anne Bartlett | February 3, 2010; 6:05 PM ET
Utah senator tries to block D.C. same-sex marriage.
Sen. Bob Bennett(R-Utah) has introduced legislation that would require the District to put same-sex marriage on the ballot before issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as planned next month.
The proposed District of Columbia Referendum on Marriage Act, similar to legislation already introduced in the House by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), would halt the implementation of the new city law.
The D.C. Council approved the legalization of same-sex unions in December, and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) signed the bill into law. Under Home Rule, there is a 30-day congressional review period. Without congressional intervention, the law will go into effect next month.
Opponents of same-sex marriage have tried several legal avenues to block the law. But the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics has rejected the putting the issue on the ballot because it would violate District human rights law, and a judge has upheld the decision.
A news release by Bennett called the rulings by the judge and elections board "an activist interpretation" of the city law.
"The definition of marriage affects every person, and should be debated openly, lawfully, and democratically," Bennett said in the release. "The board's decision to deny the people of Washington, D.C. a vote was incorrect and reminiscent of the judicial activism that has imposed gay marriage by fiat and stimulated such discord in other venues. Congress should act to ensure that the question is settled by a democratic ballot initiative process."
Why are two Senators, both are from Utah, challenging a local law in DC.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
