Polycarp>".. I don't support gay marriage.. not in the slightest.
I more than "don't support" it..I would actively oppose it. (No Bron, -no boot this is an emotion neutral political statement...:)

Polycarp>"I would do so for the same reasons advocates of such a lifestyle choice would advance it... "democracy"."

Perhaps secularists and gay people should begin advocating for the outlawing of religion, or for it's significant reduction? Considering your deliberate, meaningful intolerance toward gay marriage, I think that would be a more than an appropriate response.

I made a thread before that religion is child abuse. There is a great case to make for this... particularly when the church has harboured and protected child rapists across the world and threatens children with punishments as indicated very finely by Frank_Blunt

Careless as ever with your research, B/P.

>>It was the 14th amemendment which was used to greater effect from my rather quick reading of the judgement..and even that was misused as far as I can see.<<

The Fourteenth amendment was invoked here to ensure that the State conformed to the requirements of the First, i.e.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Merely ensuring the State didn't wriggle out of its responsibilities.

>>.. it goes without saying that a judgement can reflect the Judges socio political views more than 'evidence & justice'<<

The bench has also been thoroughly right-leaning on a number of occasions since 1962, B/P. Plenty of opportunities to right this egregious wrong, if anyone had felt sufficiently strongly about it.

But the point is that there is no impediment in their constitution to the private conduct of religious rituals; only those imposed by the government - including, thanks to the Fourteenth amendment, State Government.

Verstehen?

Pericles...

<The Fourteenth amendment was invoked here to ensure that the State conformed to the requirements of the First, i.e.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.">

In reality it was invoked to ensure that a false interpretation of the 1st was imposed.

Here is some very very interesting material

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXN24q4Y1z8&feature=related

Don't mind the speakers baby face..he has plenty of good things to say.

What is often not realized though, is how the outcome of this case discriminated directly against millions of Americans who also have protection under the law and consitution...

It is too easily assumed that the Constitution and the cited amendments simply mean 'my way' for those who don't want school prayer.. no..the shoe is on the other foot.. the mis-use of those amendments has had the opposite effect against the status quo..and your 'right leaning' comment says it all....

It's not about what the amendments say, but how particular judges of particular political/religious flavor decide to interpret them.

Hmm..that reminds me of another rather lengthy thread. "interpet"

There is this kind of 'default' attitude among those who do not wish to fit in with the majority that the various amendments are a blank cheque for them alone to re-write the issue of 'rights'.

Nope..I totally disagree and hope that others join this 'crusade' :)

Boaz, this is silly.

>>In reality it was invoked to ensure that a false interpretation of the 1st was imposed. Here is some very very interesting material..."

If you have a point to make, just make it. What was the "false interpretation" that you claim was imposed, enforced by the Fourteenth Amendment?

I have told you dozens of times that I am not going to watch stuff on YouTube - especially now that Viacom is going to get ahold of the details of everyone who has ever watched one.

But that's not the silly bit - can we stop this Polycarp business. It is a crap monicker anyway, even more pretentious than your last.

Come on, out of the closet with you. Face the music like an honest Christian.

Notice his use of the word 'crusade'.

A crusade against secular principles of our society.

A crusade to make Australia a theocracy, in all but name, through law-making.

If you look at who is driving religion, it is the core extremists who hold the power in their churches.

The 'velvet glove' as Frank_Blunt put it is used to gently sway moderates and secularists and lull them into a sense of security, much as a criminal or murderer might smile to avert suspicion and hide motive.

Steel's on the right track.

Let's ask groups of people involved in public life whether they're prepared to base their professional activities on faith.

It wouldn't be those working in the hospitals and surgeries. Their treatments are evidence-based, not faith-based. We don't need more quacks.

And how would you train these people? Universities would love running faith-based medicine 101!

And a faith-based law degree. What elements of law would you include in that? Mosaic Law where you kill people who disagree with you; Catholic law, in which blasphemy, homosexuality and birth control are criminal offenses? Taliban law?

What about a faith-based CSIRO, or ANSTO, or the ACCC. Or better still a faith based Police Department. They could go around locking people up for dropping papers, on the pretext that god doesn't like people dropping papers.

The scientists working out at Tidbinbilla could focus on astrology instead of astronomy and keep searching the heavens for heaven!

The word 'faith' is code for things we can't prove, for things that don't exist, for things harking back to the myths, legends and superstitions of primitive cultures. It's also code for 'control by the few.' And of course it would be based on the faith of one select group of people, not the faiths of many people.

In a pluralist society we let people have faith in what ever they want to have faith in. What we need to protect ourselves from is the faith of any one group of people dominating us.

Steel is right, the crusaders just want to drag us back to a boys own theocracy where those in power can get their kicks from dominating the rest of us.

At least in this country, with the exception of the theological organisations, if you don't like the powers that be you can stop electing them. There are laws governing the running of governments, companies and organisations that people like Ratzinger and Pell snub their noses at. And you want to give people like this more power?

Heaven protect us from these people.

I'm off to Rose Hill.