http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/01/27/from-bad-to-worse-according-to-dale-carpenter/ An intellectual climate favorable to marriage Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:17:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/01/27/from-bad-to-worse-according-to-dale-carpenter/#comment-927 nerdygirl Sun, 07 Feb 2010 05:16:51 +0000 http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=1263#comment-927 Fair enough, the phrase was used by Jefferson, and has been used by the Supreme court, and it itself does not appear in the constitution. However it is 200 years later, and christianity is not the only religion followed in this country, and plenty of people follow no religion at all. But on a federal level marriage is acknowledging two people combining households, and assigning them to a different tax bracket. A federal marriage doesn't need a religious component, so why should religion factor into the federal definition of marriage? Why can't two men who love each other get married? Fair enough, the phrase was used by Jefferson, and has been used by the Supreme court, and it itself does not appear in the constitution. However it is 200 years later, and christianity is not the only religion followed in this country, and plenty of people follow no religion at all. But on a federal level marriage is acknowledging two people combining households, and assigning them to a different tax bracket. A federal marriage doesn’t need a religious component, so why should religion factor into the federal definition of marriage? Why can’t two men who love each other get married?

]]> http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/01/27/from-bad-to-worse-according-to-dale-carpenter/#comment-919 Jennifer Roback Morse Sun, 07 Feb 2010 03:49:45 +0000 http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=1263#comment-919 that doesn't say "separation of church and state." it prohibits the govt from Establishing religion, and protects the free exercise of religion. it doesn't say that no religious people are allowed to vote, or that religious voters have to check their religion at the polling booth before the pull the lever. that doesn’t say “separation of church and state.” it prohibits the govt from Establishing religion, and protects the free exercise of religion. it doesn’t say that no religious people are allowed to vote, or that religious voters have to check their religion at the polling booth before the pull the lever.

]]> http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/01/27/from-bad-to-worse-according-to-dale-carpenter/#comment-903 nerdygirl Thu, 04 Feb 2010 03:30:44 +0000 http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=1263#comment-903 <a href="#comment-876" rel="nofollow">@Jennifer Roback Morse </a> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." @Jennifer Roback Morse “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

]]> http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/01/27/from-bad-to-worse-according-to-dale-carpenter/#comment-876 Jennifer Roback Morse Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:16:31 +0000 http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=1263#comment-876 Show me where the phrase "separation of church and state" appears in the Constitution. Show me where the phrase “separation of church and state” appears in the Constitution.

]]> http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/01/27/from-bad-to-worse-according-to-dale-carpenter/#comment-840 nerdygirl Sat, 30 Jan 2010 03:46:32 +0000 http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=1263#comment-840 What I want to know is how can prop 8 not be unconstitutional. In our constitution is the phrase "Separation of church and state", so how does one defend against gay marriage without getting into religion. What I want to know is how can prop 8 not be unconstitutional. In our constitution is the phrase “Separation of church and state”, so how does one defend against gay marriage without getting into religion.

]]>