Amendment One, North Carolina Gay Marriage Ban, Passes Vote - Page 2

**Foxrac** · 05-09-2012, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

You seem confused by the first amendment....

No, I'm correct about First Amendment but you disputed it due to political nature.

You and some other members have difficult to recognize about what First Amendment saying.

airportcop · 05-09-2012, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And yet you still post this! There is no where written in the Constitution the words separation of church and state. Even if there were which there aren't they never intended for it to be construed the way it is currently by those that are misinformed!

airportcop · 05-09-2012, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

I'm sure he meant Amendment. Constitution is constantly evolving... you know that, right?

Really? Can you tell me the last time it was amended? I'll give you a hint! Probably before you or foxrac were born maybe?!

whatdidyousay! · 05-09-2012, 08:00 PM

I really do not get this!! When people get married they plan on spending a lot of money on food, flowers etc this help businesses and create more jobs .

I see this as a bad move on helping the economy getting stronger and it should be no one business who a person want to marry. The NC just loss a lot money it could had made on taxes too.

**Foxrac** · 05-09-2012, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

Really? Can you tell me the last time it was amended? I'll give you a hint! Probably before you or foxrac were born maybe?!

I said constitutional amendment, not replace entire of constitution.

Twenty-seventh Amendment was last amended in 1992 when I was in kindergarten and Jiro was in middle school.

**Foxrac** · 05-09-2012, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

And yet you still post this! There is no where written in the Constitution the words separation of church and state. Even if there were which there aren't they never intended for it to be construed the way it is currently by those that are misinformed!

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

I think you are discombobulated and misconstrued with this answer! It is all over where? Your thoughts?

I'm suggesting you to refrain from attacking and his statement is correct.

Read First Amendment - that all you need.

rolling7 · 05-09-2012, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

No, Jiro and I are correct.

Rest of your posts are nonsense so I think you should let go instead of trolling us.

What gives?? In your post #14 you admit you are wrong and Jiro's link in post #19 proves you are wrong. Thomas Jefferson is just one signer and we all know that each and every signer's opinion and thoughts have to be taken into consideration. Jefferson express his independent thought AFTER the signing, so these thoughts count as only his and have no bearing on the instrument produced by the total group of signers.

**Foxrac** · 05-09-2012, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

What gives?? In your post #14 you admit you are wrong and Jiro's link in post #19 proves you are wrong. Thomas Jefferson is just one signer and we all know that each and every signer's opinion and thoughts have to be taken into consideration. Jefferson express his independent thought AFTER the signing, so these thoughts count as only his and have no bearing on the instrument produced by the total group of signers.

No, I don't admit that I'm wrong and I'm just explain about this style in First Amendment, even Jiro post doesn't prove that I'm wrong but just stand me as correct about of First Amendment.

Something is wrong with your reading compensation and go re-read rest of my post carefully.

Read First Amendment - that all you need.

airportcop · 05-09-2012, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

I'm suggesting you to refrain from attacking and his statement is correct.

Read First Amendment - that all you need.

I wasn't attacking you or jiro but you were both wrong about the Constitution mentioning separation of church and state! I know the first amendment well! Remember what I do for a living?! Don't depend on jiro to defend you, he is not always right. Stand up for yourself, be strong! Have a good night!

rolling7 · 05-09-2012, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

No, I don't admit that I'm wrong and I'm just explain about this style in First Amendment, even Jiro post doesn't prove that I'm wrong but just stand me as correct about of First Amendment.

Something is wrong with your reading compensation and go re-read rest of my post carefully.

Read First Amendment - that all you need.

You also need to read THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE and the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE, both upheld by the Supreme Court.

The ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the U.S. CONSTITUTION, stating

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Together with the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE, also upheld by the Supreme Court,

("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof")

the two clauses make up what is called the "religion clause" of the First Amendment.

The ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE has generally been interpreted (by the Supreme Court) to prohibit

1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress

2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another

The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation.
The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another but does NOT prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to active the purpose of the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE.

**Foxrac** · 05-09-2012, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

I wasn't attacking you or jiro but you were both wrong about the Constitution mentioning separation of church and state! I know the first amendment well! Remember what I do for a living?! Don't depend on jiro to defend you, he is not always right. Stand up for yourself, be strong! Have a good night!

Both of Jiro and I are correct - look at First Amendment.

No, I don't depend on Jiro and we support to share whatever is fact.

**Foxrac** · 05-09-2012, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

You also need to read THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE and the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE, both upheld by the Supreme Court.

The ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the U.S. CONSTITUTION, stating

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Together with the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE, also upheld by the Supreme Court,

("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof")

the two clauses make up what is called the "religion clause" of the First Amendment.

The ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE has generally been interpreted (by the Supreme Court) to prohibit

1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress

2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another

In bold, you prove that I'm correct.

**Foxrac** · 05-09-2012, 09:45 PM

Read - First Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

enough and enough...

**Jiro** · 05-09-2012, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

Really? Can you tell me the last time it was amended? I'll give you a hint! Probably before you or foxrac were born maybe?!

last time it was amended? 1992. 27th Amendment.

so yea it was after our birth dates.

**Jiro** · 05-09-2012, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

You also need to read THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE and the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE, both upheld by the Supreme Court.

The ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the U.S. CONSTITUTION, stating

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Together with the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE, also upheld by the Supreme Court,

("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof")

the two clauses make up what is called the "religion clause" of the First Amendment.

The ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE has generally been interpreted (by the Supreme Court) to prohibit

1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress

2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another

The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation.
The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another but does NOT prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to active the purpose of the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE.

for proving my point.

**Jiro** · 05-09-2012, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airportcop

I think you are discombobulated and misconstrued with this answer! It is all over where? Your thoughts?

all over the Constitution and legal cases.

for starter... Engles vs Vitale (1962) on prayer in school. Supreme Court ruled that prayer in school violated the Establishment clause of the First Amendment.

**Foxrac** · 05-09-2012, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

for proving my point.

Hello, could you care to explain?

Some portion of rolling7's post is confusing me.

Quote:

does NOT prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to active the purpose of the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE.

What is religious domain?

**Jiro** · 05-09-2012, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

Hello, could you care to explain?

Some portion of rolling7's post is confusing me.

What is religious domain?

anything relating to religion like church, synagogue, etc.

rolling7 · 05-09-2012, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

anything relating to religion like church, synagogue, etc.

The key words..."does NOT prohibit"...start smiling

**Jiro** · 05-09-2012, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

The key words..."does NOT prohibit"...start smiling

".....to make accommodations in order to active the purpose of the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE."

Steinhauer · 05-09-2012, 11:40 PM

So, what is wrong with praying in school? Can children pray in school or do they serve detention if caught praying in school?

(one of the many reasons I left Gallaudet is because a group of Christians were told they were not allowed to pray on campus grounds by a LGBT group - the LGBT group even tried to have campus security enforce their will on the Christians - I think Congress should cut funding of Gallaudet if Christians are not free to practice their faith on campus).

Also, aren't we straying off the topic a bit?

**TXgolfer** · 05-09-2012, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

I'm saying that First Amendment has some concept - separation of government and religion, that's not really my opinion but definition in this amendment should be clear.

Yet it's not the same concept at all....

**Foxrac** · 05-10-2012, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Yet it's not the same concept at all....

Well, that's your problem.

My post stands correct, thorough.

**Foxrac** · 05-10-2012, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

So, what is wrong with praying in school? Can children pray in school or do they serve detention if caught praying in school?

(one of the many reasons I left Gallaudet is because a group of Christians were told they were not allowed to pray on campus grounds by a LGBT group - the LGBT group even tried to have campus security enforce their will on the Christians - I think Congress should cut funding of Gallaudet if Christians are not free to practice their faith on campus).

Also, aren't we straying off the topic a bit?

Any students are allowing to praying on their own in public school, however they should not disrupt teacher's instruction. Do it during lunch time or free time are fine.

When is your last time to enroll at Gallaudet University? I don't see your situation is existing anymore. You are free to praying anywhere whatever you want, except for classes or programs that where instructors are in session that can't be disrupted. There are worship groups on campus every week and I haven't hear any complaints from Christians about situation with GLBT and anti-gay bullying are extremely rare, except for few immature freshmen who can't accept and doesn't know how to respect, however good thing about upperclass have influence on freshmen about how college is running. Gallaudet University has anti-bullying policy that cover sex orientation and you can't directly provoking at gay students to explain about their sex orientation is unnatural, sin or wrong. None of worship groups carry sex orientation as major issue and they are just focus on spiritual.

My thread is already went off topic and destroyed by infested with trolling. I'm not pleased at all and I ask ALL MEMBERS to refraining from trolling. Whoever agree or disagree with side should let go. My thread isn't place to discuss about separation of religion and church so all of them should goes to debate section, however religious discussion are forbidden in Alldeaf.

I'm concerned about having you could make my thread so much worse and I don't want my thread to be locked. I had request a moderator to review and clean up. I'm very disappointed about how members are behaving like that.

FYI, your post is off topic and please sticking with this topic as possible. Rest of remaining quote can be answered by PM me.

**TXgolfer** · 05-10-2012, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

Well, that's your problem.

My post stands correct, thorough.

Not a problem for me.....I'm glad that is not what the constitution says.

**Foxrac** · 05-10-2012, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Not a problem for me.....I'm glad that is not what the constitution says.

No, I disagree, your glad is nowhere.

Don't put your silly belief in my mouth, period.

Please back on topic and let forget about separation of church and state.

**TXgolfer** · 05-10-2012, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

No, I disagree, your glad is nowhere.

Don't put your silly belief in my mouth, period.

Please back on topic and let forget about separation of church and state.

I don't believe I put anything in your mouth....

This is from Jiro's link

Quote:

The court's decision argued that the separation of church and state could never be absolute: "Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable," the court wrote. "Judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of separation, far from being a "wall," is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship."

But yes....let's get back to topic. Not surprising that North Carolina voted this way.

**Foxrac** · 05-10-2012, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

I don't believe I put anything in your mouth....

This is from Jiro's link

But yes....let's get back to topic. Not surprising that North Carolina voted this way.

Yup, that's correct about not total separation, just some part and I think it is good thing to keep government away from religion, especially try to adopt the regulation to restrict the preach or something.

Of course, North Carolina - not surprised because I think it will pass without doubt, hence, there are still some options in other state.

**Jiro** · 05-10-2012, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

I don't believe I put anything in your mouth....

This is from Jiro's link

But yes....let's get back to topic. Not surprising that North Carolina voted this way.

still...

for proving me right. you might want to check bunch of legal cases that had separation of church and state in mind. and plus government will have to intervene if religious group is going too far like Branch Davidian and Heaven's Gate.

a tip for you - if you're going to say get back on topic... then try not to have the last off-topic word in.

I too am not surprised that North Carolina voted this archaic constitutional amendment and it's just a matter of time till it's ruled unconstitutional. I imagine it will happen quite soon.

**TXgolfer** · 05-10-2012, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

still...

for proving me right. you might want to check bunch of legal cases that had separation of church and state in mind. and a tip for you - if you're going to say get back on topic... then try not to have the last off-topic word in.

I too am not surprised that North Carolina voted this archaic constitutional amendment and it's just a matter of time till it's ruled unconstitutional. I imagine it will happen quite soon.

Not sure what you are claiming to be right about.

The fact that the court has ruled on both sides of religious issues proves that matters are at the court's discretion and that the court is not bound by a strict separation of the 2.

05-09-2012, 09:45 PM	#43 (permalink)
Foxrac Need Stormtroopers? Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Zaphias Posts: 32,399	Read - First Amendment \| U.S. Constitution \| LII / Legal Information Institute enough and enough... __________________ In Moto We Trust

05-09-2012, 11:40 PM	#51 (permalink)
Steinhauer Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 8,191 Blog Entries: 1	So, what is wrong with praying in school? Can children pray in school or do they serve detention if caught praying in school? (one of the many reasons I left Gallaudet is because a group of Christians were told they were not allowed to pray on campus grounds by a LGBT group - the LGBT group even tried to have campus security enforce their will on the Christians - I think Congress should cut funding of Gallaudet if Christians are not free to practice their faith on campus). Also, aren't we straying off the topic a bit? airportcop likes this.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

05-09-2012, 08:00 PM	#34 (permalink)
whatdidyousay! Registered User Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 8,585	I really do not get this!! When people get married they plan on spending a lot of money on food, flowers etc this help businesses and create more jobs . I see this as a bad move on helping the economy getting stronger and it should be no one business who a person want to marry. The NC just loss a lot money it could had made on taxes too.