Amendment One, North Carolina Gay Marriage Ban, Passes Vote

Jiro said:
I'm sure he meant Amendment. Constitution is constantly evolving... you know that, right?
Click to expand...

Yup, you are correct and I'm saying about new constitutional amendment.
 
Foxrac said:
Yup, we have one but indirect - First Amendment, however it isn't clearly to say "Separation of Church and State".

We should have new constitutional amendment about Separation of Church and State but it won't happen because of political opposition.
Click to expand...

Ah, so there is no separation of Church and State mentioned currently... :ty:
 
Jiro said:
it is.... all over....

but of course... there is no law against being obtuse.
Click to expand...

Foxrac said:
It is already under First Amendment, even if specific words aren't there.
Click to expand...

Nope it is really not. In fact this has been left up to the interpretation of the court on many occasions with varying results (as even your wiki page pointed out). Case law shows this. If you disagree with case law your argument is with them....not me. :)
 
TXgolfer said:
Nope it is really not. In fact this has been left up to the interpretation of the court on many occasions with varying results (as even your wiki page pointed out). Case law shows this. If you disagree with case law your argument is with them....not me. :)
Click to expand...

You seems confused about my post.

There is "Separation of Church and State" style in First Amendment.
 
TXgolfer said:
Nope it is really not. In fact this has been left up to the interpretation of the court on many occasions with varying results (as even your wiki page pointed out). Case law shows this. If you disagree with case law your argument is with them....not me. :)
Click to expand...

and what is this case law that you speak of? care to cite a specific one?
 
Foxrac said:
You seems confused about my post.

There is "Separation of Church and State" style in First Amendment.
Click to expand...
correct!

TXgolfer said:
You seem confused by the first amendment.... :)
Click to expand...
You seem to be purposely obtuse because you know very well that Foxrac is correct.

Do you know why the federal government does not tell you or church what to teach and what to believe in? Do you know why government does not enforce or mandate or regulate or promote its religious doctrines?

First Amendment with separation of Church and State in mind:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...
 
TXgolfer said:
You seem confused by the first amendment.... :)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jiro said:
I'm sure he meant Amendment. Constitution is constantly evolving... you know that, right?
Click to expand...


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 edited:
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.
 
airportcop said:
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?!
Click to expand...

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.
 
airportcop said:
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!
Click to expand...

airportcop said:
I think you are discombobulated and misconstrued with this answer! It is all over where? Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

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

Read First Amendment - that all you need.
 
Foxrac said:
No, Jiro and I are correct.

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

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.
 
rolling7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Read First Amendment - that all you need.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Foxrac said:
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.
Click to expand...



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.
 
Back
Top