Judge Roy Moore and the Myth of the Separation Clause

ChronWatch ^ | April 15, 2005 | Christian Hartsock

[Tailgunner Joe]

Chief Justice Roy Moore’s new book So Help Me God is a captivating and unflinching first-hand account of a man on the front lines of the battle between religious freedom and judicial tyranny. This Alabama Supreme Court Justice embodies the true definition of patriotism, inasmuch he has risked his career and reputation to stand by his oath of office and refuses to deny his allegiance to the Constitution and the laws of nature and nature’s God for the mere sake of catering to the frenetic, deep-seated anti-religious paranoia of the uber-secular left.

It was on June 9, 1993 that ACLU member Joel Sogol wrote to then-chief justice of Alabama Sonny Hornsby, threatening to sue anyone who continued the time-honored tradition of praying in court. After Roy Moore took office in 1994 and refused to bring a halt to the tradition, the ACLU stepped up their threats of suit over the prayer and, in addition, began hyperventilating over the Ten Commandments plaque Justice Moore had placed in his courtroom. At the beginning of the third month of Justice Moore’s first term of office on March 31, 1995, the ACLU filed suit in U.S. district court against him on the basis that he had illegally imposed his religious beliefs on others in the courtroom, denouncing the prayer as “a religious test.”

The ACLU apparently didn’t feel up to suing all 550 members of Congress and all nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who have always begun their daily proceedings with prayers. It may even be a sobering revelation to them that our very first president noted in his inaugural address, “no people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States.” Nevertheless, it is doubtful that such words would bear much significance to a pathetic, subversive gang of rogue lawyers who have nothing better to do with their time than to bully public officials out of acknowledging their creator and to throw childish temper tantrums over harmless little plaques.

In a priceless act of civil disobedience, Justice Moore erected a 2½-ton granite Ten Commandments monument in the rotunda of the State Judicial Building. Moore would later write in his book that “[t]he display of God’s law was not done to make any bold statement, to intimidate or offend anyone, or to push any particular religion. It was simply a reminder that this country was established on a particular God and His divine, revealed laws; it reflected the Christian faith of our founders.”

Flabbergasted, on Halloween 2001, the ACLU ganged up with Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Southern Poverty Law Center to file suit over the monument. Demonstrating what loving people liberals can be, in a letter to the legal director of Americans United, Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center referred to Justice Moore as a “religious nut in partnership with a fanatical church.” (And showing how smart liberals can be, the letter was accidentally sent to Justice Moore’s attorney, Steve Melchior. Whoops!)

The case was set for trial on October 15, 2002. Less than a month after it ended, on November 18, 2002, U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson ruled against the Ten Commandments display, declaring it unconstitutional. In his ruling, Judge Myron stated: “[W]hile the Chief Justice is free to keep whatever religious beliefs he chooses, the state may not acknowledge the sovereignty of the Judeo-Christian God and attribute to that God our religious freedom.” Perhaps Judge Myron would be compelled to rethink his words if he actually bothered to read the Alabama State Constitution which Moore had sworn specifically to uphold, inasmuch as it reads in the preamble: “We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama” (emphasis added).

On March 2, 2005, the New York Times expressed its disapproval of similar displays in between the Capitol and the State Supreme Court in Texas, and in county courthouses in Kentucky, accusing the displays’ backers of not accepting the “separation of church and state” while explaining that “[t]he Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws respecting an establishment of a religion.” If nothing else, at least these circumstances have given liberals yet another excuse to evince their maniacal infatuation with the “separation of church and state,” a phrase which we are supposed to believe is somewhere in the Constitution.

If a liberal sneezed and you said “God bless you” he would begin spastically whining about the “separation of church and state.” To appreciate this situation from the perspective of the judicial supremacists, the ACLU lawyers and the New York Times editors, we will just have to pretend for a moment that a) the “separation of church and state” exists in the Constitution, b) Congress is somehow responsible for the placement of the Ten Commandments monuments, and c) the monuments in effect represent an establishment of a state religion.

There. Now it sort of makes sense.

To the contrary, however, the left’s beloved “separation of church and state” mantra originated not in the Constitution, but in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 (11 years after the First Amendment was incorporated into the Constitution) regarding their concerns that the Congregationalists may abuse their power to attain a favored position. Explicitly, Jefferson wrote: “[the] wall of separation between church and state…is a one-directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church, but makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.”

The self-styled progressive elites have typically justified their anti-Christian bigotry by insinuating that religion must stay away from government, and any case in which it does not is an irrevocable step towards theocracy. Their interpretation of the language of the First Amendment demonstrates how little understanding they have of its actual implications.

By including the establishment clause in the Constitution, the framers were preventing the prospects of theocracy such as that which the Pilgrims purportedly fled from in England before settling on the North American shores. However, there is a reason why Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” (emphasis added). What Jefferson was taking into account was the imperative necessity of our leaders and authorities to recognize their inferiority to the divine laws of the solar system and their subordinance to a Higher Power, so as not to confuse themselves with that Higher Power and in due course assume a despotic, tyrannical precedence.

The functionality of our democracy is contingent upon the Hobbesian doctrine that man is inherently corrupt and therefore in need of some degree of governmental supervision. The notion of human fallibility is quintessential of the Judeo-Christian doctrines with which our founders specifically harmonized their vision of a free republic. The acknowledgement of that fallible nature is what distinguishes our system from communism – a system which presupposes that man is basically good, and therefore capable of upholding and preserving a utopian, Edinic society. It distinguishes our system as well from that of monarchism and fascism, both of which presuppose that there is such a thing as Divine Right, or human infallibility; that it is possible for a human leader to take on a godlike authority over his people and govern them in a flawless manner. But because our system recognizes that there is no such thing as human infallibility, our branches of power are balanced, and our leaders are appointed through a democratic process by which the majority of citizens decide who gets to represent them, and for how long.

Secularist liberals tend to accuse Christians of seeing things too much in “black and white,” yet they themselves have adopted a black and white perspective by declining to consider the fact that not everything boils down to the two options of theocracy and secularism. A system of government that is religious in nature does not automatically take on the form of theocracy. It does not mean that its subjects must be coerced into submission to a certain designated religious faith. Whether or not we as individuals decide to subject ourselves to personal dependence on religion, we must recognize that our freedom to do so or not do so at our own will is dependent on our democratic system, and our democratic system is dependent on religion.

It is on account of this brand of narcissistic judicial hubris, this denial of subordinance to a Higher Law that an innocent woman was allowed to be inhumanly starved to death recently, that activist judges have been able to recklessly redefine the institution of marriage, and that an unremitting fetal holocaust has been sanctioned by the highest levels of government for 32 years and counting. The more we forget that we are “one nation under God,” the more we will become “one nation under the State.” If this becomes the case, then our rights will become conditional and susceptible to abuse, rather than God-given and immune to meddling. As many could argue, resting our rights solely on the state is like building a house on sand. (Note to liberals: Please pardon the biblical reference.)

[risk]

Since we're talking about financial impact to the state, it's important to ask why the state originally granted marriage privileges. It was never about mere cohabitation. It was never about mere desire to be together.

We still have to answer the question: what's now in it for the state if it was never considered a rewarding investment until now? The answer from most Americans is "nothing." We don't want it, we don't agree with it, we think it's a danger to the morals of our children, and we really don't want to pay taxes to support it. At least you have to recognize that to many Americans, supporting same sex unions and marriage would be taxation without representation.

What do you want Christian and other ethically opposed parents to tell their children when their mothers can't be home because they're serving on a jury for a contested divorce case involving a same sex couple? Are we going to teach the new definition of marriage, one that had never existed on the face of the earth since time immemorial in public school?

Is this "progress?" I don't think so. What's more, the desperation traditional, Christian families feel when they hear about this kind of thing being taught to their children in schools is, "Let's have Roy Moore for President!" The left is driving the right to distraction. It's critical that people in the moderate center realize that this is not a rights issue, it's not even a human rights issue.

Get them powers of attorney; it's more than enough.

[Old Landmarks]

If you want to defend the moral principle that the government can prohibit private consensual conduct of which you disapprove, then you should say so...

I have always been up front about my personal views of morality, but the legitimate legal and moral history of the United States would be the same even if my moral views were the opposite of what they are. The two are not related.

Again, my point is precisely that the argument is not about the meanings of words.

Maybe I am reading you wrong, but it appears that you are saying that words do not matter because they change (and once they change their original meanings, the one's that prove intent, they are forever lost) and the intent does not matter anyway because the supreme court is free to ignore the intent or change the intent of a law based upon nothing but vapor.

Are they the only branch of government that can ignore the role of the other branches, this is getting more dangerous all the time.

If the words and intent of the lawmakers of the law do not give the true meaning of the law, then why even pretend to have anything but the third branch of government, the court.

The point I am making is that the words meant something to the people who wrote the words that are contained in the law or document. What I am pointing out about what you said about words changing meanings is that this is not what matters. The meaning does not change its meaning anymore than arsenic changes to milk.

My point can be caricaturized in any direction, yet the point remains; the supreme court was not set up to be the only branch of government; one that gets to rewrite intent because the self-appointed mainstream of modern legal dogma likes the political ramifications.

I ought to just say so? You mean they ought to just say so.

[OhioAttorney]

have always been up front about my personal views of morality.

I should have said 'If one wants . . . '. My remark wasn't directed at you, and I noted parenthetically that you wer, in fact, presenting your argument in terms of your own moral beliefs.

Maybe I am reading you wrong, but it appears that you are saying that words do not matter because they change (and once they change their original meanings, the one's that prove intent, they are forever lost) and the intent does not matter anyway because the supreme court is free to ignore the intent or change the intent of a law based upon nothing but vapor.

No, and I don't think I could mean that consistently with my other posts in this thread (and elsewhere). What my remarks about words were intended to convey -- and I think this will be clear if you reread them -- is that I think it's dishonest to present arguments on this subject as though what's really at issue is just a matter of linguistics. People who object to same-sex marriages and relationships are not concerned about 'definitions' or whether judges stick to the dictionary; they're concerned about the morality (or otherwise) of certain sexual practices.

[OhioAttorney]

We still have to answer the question: what's now in it for the state if it was never considered a rewarding investment until now?

What's the nature of the state's 'investment'? I'm not trying to be difficult here, I just don't know what you mean.

[W]e really don't want to pay taxes to support it. At least you have to recognize that to many Americans, supporting same sex unions and marriage would be taxation without representation.

In this sense, all taxation is taxation without representation. You can't possibly think that tax dollars are distributed in strict proportion to what taxpayers do and don't 'support'. If that's what you want, forget the 'marriage' red herring and make taxes voluntary.

What do you want Christian and other ethically opposed parents to tell their children when their mothers can't be home because they're serving on a jury for a contested divorce case involving a same sex couple?

'I can't be home because I'm serving on a jury for a contested divorce case involving a same-sex couple.'

[D]on't tell my children that the state approves.

I won't.

Seriously, I don't understand why the mere legal recognition of a relationship somehow teaches children that 'the state approves' of it. But if it does, you're going to have to deal with the other side of the question. Why is it okay with you that the law be used to teach my children (or Step's children) that the state approves only of Christian-sanctioned marriages?

For that matter, same-sex couples aren'y just going to go away. Why do you think it will be harder to explain to your children that 'Bob and Steve are married' than it is to explain that 'Bob and Steve live together in a committed same-sex relationship but they're not married'?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Just think. Oaths were sworn on a Bible, not long ago. One specific Bible. That was a bedrock tradition in our nation. Now we can't even have a 10 Commandments monument because the wording [King James version] might possibly favor one religion over others, rather than to simply say that was the original wording that our Founding Fathers steeped themselves in.

[juzcuz]

Now we can't even have a 10 Commandments monument because the wording [King James version] might possibly favor one religion over others, rather than to simply say that was the original wording that our Founding Fathers steeped themselves in.
----

Interesting... See this is what I just don't get..
We as Americans cannot have the 10 Commandments. Yet we as Americans have instead these 7 Noehide Laws made PL:102-14. See Post #454. I see nothing that says this law is renewed every year. Jewish law has been imposed under the stance that these 7 Noehide laws are "Ethical Values" and based on the bedrock of society from the dawn of Civilization.. Yet, the 10 Commandments are not?

I wonder if soon we'll see someone post the 7 Noehide laws on walls of schools, courthouses, etc., shouldn't be any conflicts over them since they don't represent 'religious' views, right? YIKES!

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

You are getting me more and more curious about Noehide. Wish I had more time today. Maybe tomorrow morning. FReegards....

[Old Landmarks]

I think it's dishonest to present arguments on this subject as though what's really at issue is just a matter of linguistics.

Hang with me here, long sentences.

I agree with you but at the same time I don't agree with your opinion that this was the point being made.

The point being made as I understood it is that the words and wording had meaning and the meaning that those words represented was and are indeed real meanings.

The problem is not one of mere linguistics, at least from the conservative side. The problem of lingusitics only arises if the activist side chooses to pretend that the altering of a word's original meaning does not really change the legal meaning and in turn its legal impact as intended by those who originally chose those particular words to convey a particular meaning.

[OhioAttorney]

Hang with me here, long sentences. . . . The point being made as I understood it is that the words and wording had meaning and the meaning that those words represented was and are indeed real meanings.

Okay, I see your point. (I like long sentences and in many respects find them easier to follow than short ones that leave out a lot of information. Hey, I'm a lawyer.)

But . . . the 'words and wording' of what? The Constitution doesn't contain any language in which the federal government is delegated any power over marriage and of which same-sex marriage advocates propose to change the meaning. (I'm sure it's possible to 'find' such a power in the 'penumbra' of the Necessary and Proper Clause, but that sounds to me like the sort of 'activism' I'm allegedly engaging in myself.)

At any rate, my ultimate point is that I don't want the fact that there are real flesh and blood people out there, with tremendous personal interests at stake, to get lost in the talk about 'words'. This isn't an issue of 'words' for either side. I know people on both sides (including same-sex couples who have been together for two or three decades), and I think it's very unfair to characterize any part of this as a verbal who-gets-to-make-the-definition issue.

[OhioAttorney]

Sorry, meant to get back to you further on this.

You asked about the 'penalties'. The bit about 'beheading' comes, if I'm not mistaken, from the Talmud, in which it's said somewhere that this is the only civil penalty available for punishing non-Jews who violate the Noahide Laws. I don't have a source at hand for that information but as far as I know it is not strictly part of the Noahide Laws themselves. (Nor, of course, did the resolution that mentioned the Noahide Laws have it in mind.)

'Renewed every year': The resolution in question doesn't enact the Noahide Laws themselves; it just declares Rabbi Schneerson's birthday a holiday. What I think is 'renewed' every year (or at least every so often) is the holiday; the resolution seems to require that it get voted on every now and again so that the day continues to be a holiday every year.

I agree, of course, that it would be altogether inappropriate for the Noahide Laws to be posted in schools, but the resolution in question (however inappropriate it may be on other grounds) isn't calling for that. I'm not at all sure why the Lubavitcher Rebbe's birthday gets to be a national holiday, but it's not the thin entering wedge of a secret plot to submit everyone to the threat of decapitation.

[GoLightly]

Marriage law pierced state boundries long ago, through full faith & credit.

[risk]

What's the nature of the state's 'investment'?

We've talked about that already. Every marriage costs the state something, and some cost it more with tax benefits. Judiciary costs are significant, as well. Can you imagine adding the bureaucratic burden of same-sex relationships, which will have no (non-artificially acquired) children associated with them? But the most important element of the 'investment' is the blessing that overtly comes from the state with the issue of every marriage license: we greet this couple with (possibly minimal) fanfare and encouragement.

Note that in the license to marry box, the statement goes:

Authorization and license is hereby given to any person duly authorized by the laws of the State of California to perform a marriage ceremony within the State of California to solemnize the marriage of the above named persons.

Note that Californians have limited who is authorized to marry its citizens. We have limited who can perform marriages, and when. One stipulation is that those deputized by the state of California to marry citizens must be able to determine the legal qualifications of these marriages. In fact, Californians have voted to disallow same sex couples from using these documents and receiving these ceremonies! Would you use the US Supreme Court's power to overwhelm the authority of the good people of the state of California in this case? Apparently the entire United States of America is populated by citizens who by a majority, prefer to think of marriage as being between a man and a woman. To redefine the term as "anybody who wants to live together for a while" is a gross violation of their right to interpret their own language and culture without the interference of some unprincipled judicial system.

On a related note, in these licenses, we talk about "the bonds of matrimony," which is a word derived through Middle English, from Old French matrimoine, and from the Lation matrimonnium and mater, meaning mother. Explain to me how the state would have ever expected two men can become "mothers?"

In this sense, all taxation is taxation without representation.

False at the outset. Do you think that if at one point, Americans believed that their tax burden were clearly excessive, that it would be fair to tax them at or above the rate that they felt were reasonable? I'll remind you of the stamp act and the Boston Teaparty and so absolutely not. Every April 15th we grumble, but we recognize the fairness of what we are doing when we pay the government, by and large. As soon as that changes, we will have crossed over a line of tyrannical taxation. Furthermore, if there were one department or practice the government were conducting that the majority of Americans felt was immoral, yet it were costing each of them something, would it be moral to require them to pay for it? Absolutely not.

I won't [tell your children that the state approves.].

You don't understand. The state is issuing licenses to these people. The children will learn the "new" definition of marriage from this very fact. Libraries will have books that are rewritten to explain the new notion of marriage. Our schools will have to teach the new definition of marriage. I think you are grossly underestimating the sweeping nature of this change, and how seriously most Americans are opposed to it, and how violated their right to have a say in continuing to express a shared definition of marriage is. It will require a tremendous amount of of tyrannical force to require that every civic context in which marriage is defined will now from this historic moment henceforth define marriage as "anybody who wants to live together."

Why is it okay with you that the law be used to teach my children (or Step's children) that the state approves only of Christian-sanctioned marriages?

We've talked about this already on this thread, haven't we? Some laws have Christian and Judaic content. There is something in common between the laws of nature and the Christian view of marriage, isn't there? Surely you will not deny that nature requires a fertile woman and a fertile man to bear children. The very word 'matrimony' is derived from motherhood, and as hard as you've tried to deny it, marriage is the central underpinning of the family unit in western civilization. If you personally want to teach your children that nature doesn't matter, and that either evolution or most religious views of matrimony and family organization are wrong, then you're welcome to do so. But it is highly irregular to require the state to do so. It's downright absurd.

Why do you think it will be harder to explain to your children that 'Bob and Steve are married' than it is to explain that 'Bob and Steve live together in a committed same-sex relationship but they're not married'?

That's easy. Bob and Steve didn't ask me via the land of California's representatives for a certificate of our collective approval for this ostensibly 'committed' relationship that is irrelevant to me, irrelevant to my family, and irrelevant to the future of my country. They're just another pair of people, doing whatever they want, without my interest or involvement. Because you hold a minority view of morality does not mean that you can enforce your minority view of morality on others. It's simple tyranny to engage the power of the state to help you do so.

I'm free to tell my children whatever I want to at that point, but they'll never ask me "If it's wrong, then why is it possible to get legal approval?" You can tell your children that those evil fellow Americans of yours do not see thousands of years of marriage tradition any differently than they did last week.

[jwalsh07]

So what you're really worried about is that judges might fail to uphold the dictionary?

LOL, of course.

This isn't about words and you know it. This is about the fact that you don't want same-sex couples to be able to receive any legal recognition of their relationships because you don't approve of them. Period.

What I approve of or don't approve of is neither here nor there except for the fact that my vote counts as much as yours. And it's not about words, it's about activists like you who would change the meaning, traditionally and historically, of words with the stroke of a pen and the gavel coming down. Any state has it within their legislative power to recognize contracts of any sort. I can live with that, what I can't live with is lawyers like you who support judicial oligarchy.

Words change in meaning all the time, and it doesn't bother you or anybody else. 'Noon', from the Latin nona (hora), originally meant 'nine o'clock', but it migrated all the way to twelve without even any help from judicial activists. A 'dilapidated' building need no longer be made of stone, and you can 'decimate' your enemy's forces by wiping out considerably more than a tenth of them. This is not the sort of thing you're concerned about.

Exactly right, I am unconcerned that nona hora, which actually refers to the "ninth hour" of daylight not as you say nine o'clock, is the root of noon. I am concerned when murder morphs into privacy rights. Comprende' Counselor?

Words with legal significance change in meaning too, sometimes because a court changes their meaning deliberately. That's not what bothers you either. As I've pointed out before, the framers certainly didn't intend the word 'search' in the Fourth Amendment to include any sort of eavesdropping, yet the Katz court decided that electronic surveillance was going to count as a 'search' for Fourth Amendment purposes. If you genuinely objected in principle to judicial changes in the meanings of words, you'd be complaining that police shouldn't have to get warrants to perform wiretaps.

Why's that, because you don't know the meaning of the word search? I should favor government violation of the 4A because an attorney in Ohio doesn't understand the word search? You're reaching way down in the well Counselor. Perhaps we should pass a constitutional amendment requiring all members of the bar to carry a pocket Websters printed before the Orwellians got a hold of it.

You don't care one way or the other about lexicography (and lexicography may not even be on your side anyway, since a significant minority is in fact willing to acknowledge same-sex marriages as marriages). What you care about is making sure that two gay men, or two lesbian women, are not able to receive legal recognition of any kind for a committed relationship, because you don't approve of such relationships.

Well, actually I think that the act of homosexuality is a sin but what two people do in the privacy of their home isn't any of my business in this Constitutional Republic of ours. It becomes my business when the state puts it's imprimatur on such relationships and inserts it into the public school in order to indoctrinate children with the notion that the homosexual union is the moral equivalent to the heterosexual union. And if you don't like that, well, that's just too damn bad, ain't it?

If you're going to make that argument, at least make it honestly. You don't get to claim the moral high ground by posturing as a bold and righteous defender of the dictionary.

I claim the Constitutional high ground and I'm sick of the aristocracy, represented by you, thinking that they are somehow better suited to decided how Americans shall live than the Americans themselves. Is that clear enough for you?

No, it just held that the state doesn't further any legitimate interest by controlling private consensual behavior. That's actually much stronger, in part because it doesn't require that the rights thus protected be 'fundamental'.

In the first sentence, I concur, the Lawrence decision effectively disallows all states from effecting "morals" legislation, from the private ingestion of drugs right on down to prostitution and all things in between. You may even agree that that is righteous way to go but your support of the oligarchy decreeing it should be a warning to all that you are a supporter of an overly powerful central government as long as that central government abides your ideology, Tenth Amendment be damned.

But again, let's at least try to be honest here. What bothers you isn't the logic of Lawrence, which you didn't understand anyway or you wouldn't be talking about 'equal protection' (the case was decided under the Due Process Clause) or the 'right to sodomy' (the Court couldn't have been any clearer in its opinion that this is a mischaracterization of the right at issue).

Hubris always clouds the judgement of the aristocracy. In your case it has blinded you. I never claimed Kennedy used equal protection to overturn the Texas sodomy law, I said that in my opinion he could have and in fact, that's what O'Connor did in her concurrence.

You think you're smarter than me counselor because you have a law degree and I don't? Or a better man morally speaking because I hold religious beliefs that you find objectionable? Or maybe you even think you're a better golfer, after all you seem to know all there is to know about me.

What bothers you is that you don't approve of certain sorts of private consensual behavior and you want it to be possible to outlaw such behavior -- and Justices Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Bryer, Ginsburg, and O'Connor won't let you subject such behavior to the tyranny of the majority. (Which somehow makes them tyrants.)

No, once again, what bothers me is you and people like you who can't get it through their thick smarmy skulls that judicial edicts simply enflame the culture wars in this country. Every state in the union had disestablished before the ratification of the 14th Amendment and nearly every state in the union had erased the sodomy laws from the books and those that did have them didn't enforce them. But the courts, in their infinite stupidity just had to throw a little gasoline on the fire and you and the rest of the oligarchy supporters just danced around the fire whooping it up.

[risk]

I'm still grappling with the privacy issue, but I agree with a good deal of what you said above.

[risk]

(Correction: I don't know if kali's certificates include 'matrimony' but many across the nation do.)

[OhioAttorney]

Well, we're starting to go in circles here and you're beginning to misstate what I've said. (Not egregiously; on the whole you've dealt quite reasonably with a subject I'm well aware you have strong opinions about.) I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[OhioAttorney]

Well, actually I think that the act of homosexuality is a sin but what two people do in the privacy of their home isn't any of my business in this Constitutional Republic of ours. . . . [O]nce again, what bothers me is you and people like you who can't get it through their thick smarmy skulls that judicial edicts simply enflame the culture wars in this country.

Okay, then you agree with the result in Lawrence after all, but you think it came from the wrong court. Thanks for clearing that up at last.

[jwalsh07]

Okay, then you agree with the result in Lawrence after all, but you think it came from the wrong court. Thanks for clearing that up at last.

Do you think the initials after your name on your business card gives you some sort of immunity in the truth telling business?

[OhioAttorney]

Well, actually I think that the act of homosexuality is a sin but what two people do in the privacy of their home isn't any of my business in this Constitutional Republic of ours.

Do you think it takes initials after one's name to recognize that this is the basis of the Lawrence court's holding?

[risk]

I apologize if I've misrepresented your views. I'll let you have the last word if you'd like to take a minute to correct that. However, it's not just my opinions that are strong. I'm attempting to bridge the gap between Americans who only know how to talk about law in terms of their own religious ethics, and the restrictions we have placed in the interest of representational government on our motivations for law. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. We can have laws that seem at face value to be "religiously motivated" if people can explain why they believe those laws have inherent value. That families have an interest in protecting the limited resources government offers them, that Americans are committed to natural family structures, that there are good arguments in favor of encouraging natural family structures are all rational arguments against dilluting or corrupting our official view of the marriage relationship. Call it "religious" if you like, but many of us are trying to save the family from encroachments of cultural relativism and the humanist notion that we can re-engineer ourselves and remain (or even improve on what it means to be) human beings.