that is so true... and very sad that it is that way... it is so well
written... what a child!!!! his parents must be so proud. i know i
would be.

red in this one instance I must disagree.

Not because I think it is wrong.

I do believe it is other religions besides christians that feel this to
morally wrong.

QUOTE
"Gryph, you throw the word moral around as if it had one single meaning
-
a christian one. My fight is indeed from a minority standpoint, but it
affects a much more vast population than you seem to be aware of.
Morality is just one of those words whose definition gets lost in a
quandary of beliefs and belief systems.

Further, I am not offended by the word God, I am not offended by those
who choose to believe, whatever they believe about God. I am, however,
offended that there are those in this country whose safety and security
is disregarded because of "the moral majority" and I do use that within
your appearent definition.

Again, you come across with this idea that, you as a Christian, is being
singled out. This fight for civil rights is being fought by mostly
Christians against Christians. Because I am an atheist, please do not
associate the causes of this battle with that one thing. In this, I
truely am a minority. Also, you may not be able to pray at work, but
neither can a Jew or a Hindu. You, Christians have not be singled out.

One other thing, if you really think that it's the minorities that are
taking away your freedoms, then that is in the hands of those legal and
political agencies that affect me too."

I throw nothing as you term christian beliefs, you keep telling me that
the "Christians" are the ones fighting for religion in school. Where did
I once say I want religion in school? Sorry that doesn't hold water, If
I ever have children they will learn my feelings on religion and what
true spirituality is from me and nobody else. If they decide to learn
about "Religion" then I will let them, however religion is not how I
became who I am.

I am well aware of how many people are effected by this fight in the
courts and politics, I am one of them. As a result of Liberal courts I
was driven from my home of 18 yrs by my X. She was able to break into my
home steal my serenity and tell the sheriff I invited her to do this. As
a result of this liberal court system I was forced to leave my community
and try to find another place to call home, I have been effected by
everything you speak of. The laws of yesterday are being used in todays
society to break down the Moral Majority.

It doesn't matter if the ones doing it are lawyers. It matters that the
ones who whine the most and have the most time to waste will waste the
time of those who wish to have peace with themselves. I stated it
earlier, if you want something all you have to do is whine enough and
those who are tired of listening to it will eventually give in. It is a
fact.
I am done for tonight and IF I see something worth replying to I will
otherwise as I said I will concede this fight for now, however in so
doing I prove once again that the loudest whiner gets the last word.



G

previos post

adj4, this is for you and anybody who bought what you recently posted.

Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine which
states that government and religious institutions are to be kept
separate and independent of one another. Primarily discussed in the
context of United States law and politics, the term most often refers to
the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom
of religious exercise.[1]

The prevalence of the term "separation of church and state" is generally
said to derive from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the
Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment of the
United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between
church and state. The phrase was then quoted and endorsed by the United
States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases
starting in 1947
_______________________________________________________

my post


actually seperation of church and state is not really in the
constitution

more like -----congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof-----

which even makes it more wrong to prohibit the use of prayer and holy
books on an individual basis in the school
____________________________________________________

so a letter from a politcian outweighs what is in the constitution

interesting

G
AMEN
Not to start anything but the the wining part is so so ture....
where i work if you wine you get the good hours if you work hard you get
crap... want something for nothing you can get just wine and it happens
just hope all you winers out there remember to ware rubber bootes in
make all that wine because when we see those purple feet the world will
know whom was the loudest

adj4, if everyone agreed today and the law was changed tomorrow that
prayer was to be allowed in school, where, how, and who would use it?
In the morning to bless the day? Let's get real, seriously. Holy crap,
if one can do it anyone can, and if all must attend, all better sit
through every form of worship. Then what would be accomplished.

This, alone is not even the whole picture. Religion is a 'hot' topic for
everyone. There's no telling what each is being taught in their home
and NO YOU CAN NOT SPEAK FOR ANY 'GROUP', because you do not know the
lengths to which bigotry is taught at home. If each child paraded their
faith on the clothes they where, than you can bet that there would be
others parading their bigoted responces on their clothes. It happens, I
saw it, I lived it, that is why, children can not pray or where anything
of a religious nature on their clothes. Even tatoos pertaining to
religion are asked to be covered.

Get over the prayer in school thing, the kids are better off without
this THING that has proven to be the by far the largest contributor to
all wars than anything else in history. If adults can not stop
themselves from bickering, argueing, fighting and creating wars, why
would we expect children who are being taught by these same adults to?

Adventure, If a man and a woman have lived together for 8 years and
each brought a child into the relationship. Now the woman begins to
abuse drugs, sleeps around and neglects the kids and worse brings home
other drug abusers who a child accuses of sexual advances. Do you
think this man has the right THE RIGHT to protect 'her' child that he
loves and has hepled to raise? The law say he does not, because they
are not married.

If a man and woman are living together for several years and they take
her sick uncle. They take care of this man lovingly, even though he can
provide nothing financially to the family. For several years they do
this and the woman is killed in a car accident. The man she lived with
want to continue to care for the uncle, the only family member this
woman had, now depends on this man. Can the man get help, does the man
even have any say in the matter of his physical welbeing, can the man
even gain access to or determine the best way to handle a medical
situation for this man, if he is unable? NO, because the man and woman
were not married.

This goes on and on and on. It gets rediculous, all because the word
marriage is defined with a Christian moral agenda by the law. These
same exact scenerios involve same sex long term realationships, because
of that, these laws are not being addressed.

So tell me, is it worth upholding your moral conviction, to make same
sex couples from attaining the benefits that every married couple has -
Is it worth that conviction to any man and woman, unmarried not to have
the same rights, the same protections under the law.

Gryph, you say you lost everything because of the law. If we were all
held equal under the same law, perhaps we could all work together to
change those things you consider unequitable.
But divided we can only fight for our own agenda.

Without equality, we fight against each other, not together.

Happy 4-20!!!

Red, that is correct. Due to the law I was responsible to keep my X in
the fashion she was accustmoed to living in. It doesn't matter if she
cheated on me or lied to me, HER RIGHTS we violated when I filed for
divorce, she is accustomed to a lifestyle and I am resposible to pay for
it? How fair is that? She is the one who created an unlivable situation
for me and I am supposed to pay for it? She was the one who spent money
as it grew on a money tree, and she was fired for not showing to work on
time for years, almost every job she had, and I am supposed to pay her
for the rest of her life?

That is considered equal rights in the state of California, I say BS it
cost me everything I worked for in a relationship of 25yrs and now I
have no place to call home. My income has been reduced 30%+ trying to
find another place to call home. I have moved 7 times in 3 yrs, trying
to gain/find what I lost, All in the name of equality.
You complain about your rights to not hear about religion? Then don't
listen!! You complain about your right to not see? Then don't look!!!
You complain about your right to not speak? Then don't talk!!!
You complain about your right to be married in a same sex marriage? Go
to Ca and have one, write a contract between those involved and I
guarantee the courts will uphold it to the letter of the law. The laws
are outdated and injurious to those it was intended to protect.

These so-called rights are not equal in application the way they were
intended to be, they are mis-used by a few who can afford to do so, the
laws are changed in application and those who it effects most are unable
to protect thier own rights.

Don't tell me its isolated in in this fashion, its not!!! Laws and
government are changed to suit the one who has the ability ($) and drive
to see it through for thier own personal gain. If those who wish the
same rights under the laws of marriage want them write the contract
binding you and be done with it. A contract is just that, a legal and
binding document that must be honored by the law!!!

When these So-called rights are changed to honor the wishes of the few,
they effect they many and as a result are destroying thier ability to
have a normal life. When this is done you will have people GOING POSTAL,
and performing the attrosities they are allowed to due, due to thier
rights. Criminals are released on a daily basis due to inconsitantsies
in how the laws are supposed to be applied. Application to the letter of
the law without any MORAL applications, without any MORALITY applied the
community has no MORAL rights of thier own.

Your statement like others of "Everyone will be treated the same" is BS.
I am not the same as you in mind body or spirit. My way of thinking is
completely different, and as a result I treat others differently. Do I
steal from the thief who broke into my truck last week? Did I destroy
what he worked for? NO!!! I worked very hard for what was detroyed and
what do I get? A police report and a statement for the officer that they
have leads on who is doing it, and it appears to be a ring of thieves.

HHHhhmmmm seems to me if they know who is doing it they should arrest
them? The problem is these thieves have the same rights I do and as a
result of the numerous times they have been in court they KNOW how to
ABUSE them, so the police MUST be very careful and Very sure they Don't
abuse these rights so that Maybe they can Prove who did it Without any
rights being trampled, to convict these thieves who will not do much
time anyhow due to overcrowding in the prison system.

Do you understand why I ask you to stop trying to change everything?

Each time a law is passed to protect someones Rights it allows many
more the opportunity to use the change to be used where it was NOT
intended to be used!! It is pulled from context and applied to the
LETTER of the New law and distorted to break the law it was created to
protect.

Show me where I am hurting another in my beliefs where they do not have
the opportunity to walk away from it, and I will show you many, many
more who choose to walk away. I could walk away from the contract I sign
at work, however I choose not to. I could choose to work elsewhere
however I choose not too. Show me where you can not write a contract
with your friend stating division of assets in case of death would Not
be binding? Show me where walking away from a given situation is that
hard to do.

I have given and if necessary I could find the laws that apply to the
statements I have given, however most are common knowledge and I feel do
Not require that type of backup.

Can you see why I make my stand as I do?

I am completely for the rights of others. They are what makes this
country great, however when Morality is removed from them(christian
beliefs?) they are distorted and used for devious ways.

Moral Majority has many different definitions, and if applied to law in
the nature it was intended to be applied many like myself would be far
better off, and not as strongly against your applications of rights.

Read what I have written without dragging my Christian beliefs into
them, apply these beliefs of rights without morals and you will be doing
the same thing as the courts do to the laws you are trying to change.

I aggree Whole Heartedly in a persons rights, but remember each time a
law is changed for the betterment of Law, it is Distorted by those who
will use it to break the same law.



G

Gryph, you have been sacrificed in the name of the law. I cannot
'empathize' as I have not been where you have, however, I can
sympathize. It would be better if you were to say,

"This is what the law gave me for my right to marry - is this what you
fight for?"

Instead you see only the pain, the suffering, and the injustice that was
doled out to you. You have a raw nerve when it comes to the legal
system with regards to marriage. I tell you sir; you are not the only
one. Thinking clearly through your pain, I'm sure you would see that
the laws that affected you, are not the laws to which I refer. Yes, in
any 'marriage' there is the possibility of divorce, in which case these
laws or your pain would affect any under divorce conditions. I cannot
say that I agree with them, and I would most hardily try to amend them
with you. However, for those who 'CHOOSE' not to marry under the law or
ARE NOT ALLOWED to marry, under the law we see a different side of the
picture. We see the inability to equal parents to the children we call
'OURS'. We see the lack of spousal insurance benefits, the lack of
recognition by society and it's law enforcement policies in domestic
abuse situations. We see a lifetime of partnership of material and
financial security taken away from us NO MATTER TO ANY LEGAL PAPERS WE
MIGHT SIGN. They do not normally supercede the common federal laws. We
have no rights when it comes to the medical treatment of those we
consider our spouses, partners, children and in some cases we are not
even allowed to visit in a hospital environment. And if this were not
enough we suffer the inability to comply with a partners last wishes
because some alienated family members decision supercedes even the last
will of the deceased.

In these matters I am not only talking about same sex couples and
families, I am speaking of any family unit that has not complied with
the federal standard of marriage.

When we, all those I have talked about, finally have the same rights
afforded us as any other married couple, then sir, I will be with you to
fight the injustice that plagues your wellbeing. Until then I am not
equal to you in these matters, and I can never suffer the losses you
have.

So I ask you, are you the minority because your divorce was not a fair
trade? If you think so, I will take the chance of suffering that
injustice, if all the other rights that go with marriage are afforded to
others and me under the laws of this country. Then will I be able to
see beyond the union of marriage to its demise.

Gryphyn, you feel wronged because what happened to you was morally
wrong. As red likes to keep pointing out, your morals are based on
christian beliefs that have no place in our society.

i seriously doubt this was written by a child.

HHHHhmmmmmm, My morals are based on christian beliefs? What a crock, My
morals are based on eons of Moral majority. Prior to christianity laws
of the land were still very much as we have today. However punishments
were far more severe, in old times if a thief was caught with the goods
a hand was cut off if he was lucky. If a woman was found unfaithful she
could be mutilated, sold to slavery, or even worse. If a person spoke
out against a king he could be executed. A man could kill another and
there would be no court he would be put to death by the relatives, he
might have even been ransomed for his life. These are only a few
possible sentences for breaking the laws of the land.

Were these sentences based on Chrisianity? I don't think so, they were
based on what the King or ruler decided, and what the
population/peasants would put up with.

Today we are able to vote on what laws may be enacted, however certain
rights never get a vote, the courts make a decision based on previous
judgements or points of law and as a result we are to abide by these
laws that are set forth and no vote is necessary due to the rights of
law.

Red, I support your right to have same sex marriage. It is not my
position to judge. I support a persons rights to marriage, and to be
able to administer as a spouse/parent. What I posted was what occurred
to me as a result of so-called equality in a marriage, yet when it was
over I was the one who was supposed to bare the burdens because I did it
for over 20 yrs.

I am not angry at how the laws were administered, I was angry at the
laws themselves. From my reasearch in these laws most of them were based
on so-called equal rights, where both parties were to bare the burdens
of debt equally, however due to certain cases where massive amounts of
money were used to abuse the original IDEAS/RIGHTS of equality in a
marriage changed the laws to what they are now.

It is hard for you to understand why I am against certain things, yet
would fight for other things that appear to be the same. It is how I
have seen certain laws and rights used to abuse the original idea of
particular laws.



G

Gryph, patience while I check my understanding of your responce.
It's not the issues of Federal law, written for the purpose of granting
equality to all, that are in the spot light. You are referring to the
system of law in which a judge makes decisions based on previous case
judgements. In other words a similiar case that had an outcome that
becomes a president. If these presidents are used often enough they are
seen by some as 'law'. However, this is not fair because every case, no
matter the outside appearance is different. This is a lazy judicial
system and I do not agree with the way it's run, never have.

I see the judicial system and the federal govenment in two separate
lights. The Federal government is supposed to provide the conditions
that will allow a system to uphold the inaleinable rights, as secured in
our bill of rights, to every citizen. However, in our society it seems
that the judicial system has been given far too much power to 'dictate'
the when, where, why and how of those rights. Often times redefining
them to suit some agenda. This defiles the true nature of the court
system. Instead of upholding 'equal rights' they are dictating rights
either based on their own bias, thier incorrect interpretation, or
worse, taking a lazy, safe way out of a decistion by stating some
president in another case.

Am i getting there yet?
I gotta go to bed, have to be up in 4 hours for work. out for now.

previous post

adj4, if everyone agreed today and the law was changed tomorrow that
prayer was to be allowed in school, where, how, and who would use it?
In the morning to bless the day? Let's get real, seriously. Holy crap,
if one can do it anyone can, and if all must attend, all better sit
through every form of worship. Then what would be accomplished.
_________________________________________________________
my post again

my post


actually seperation of church and state is not really in the
constitution

more like -----congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof-----

which even makes it more wrong to prohibit the use of prayer and holy
books on an individual basis in the school
_______________________________________________________

again missed the point

constitution says no law establishing a religion
means govt can not say you need to use this religion

nor prohibit the free exercise there of
which means if ya wanna pray or read your religious papers they can not
prohibit it neither

it appears you are missreading what i have posted i suggest
you go back over my posts

i have not condoned an established religion be used in the school

i have said that it should not be banned from those who want
to practise their relgion

Quote

"Gryph, patience while I check my understanding of your responce.
It's not the issues of Federal law, written for the purpose of granting
equality to all, that are in the spot light. You are referring to the
system of law in which a judge makes decisions based on previous case
judgements. In other words a similiar case that had an outcome that
becomes a president. If these presidents are used often enough they are
seen by some as 'law'. However, this is not fair because every case, no
matter the outside appearance is different. This is a lazy judicial
system and I do not agree with the way it's run, never have."

Now your catching on, It is not the law I am against, it is the way in
which it is used out of context or in a way it was not originally
designed to be used. By all means I would walk with you arm n arm for
just about anything in regards to rights. My fear is that when certain
things/ideas are tossed to the side it will set a precident that some
will turn to be used against the very thing we all wish to have.

The judicial system is supposed to protect our rights, however when one
thing is accepted it opens the door to abusing the precident set because
they quote it word for word and take it out of context, so too speak.

I used my divorce as an example of what can and did happen, because the
laws that were to protect me were changed by precident and over a period
of time it became common practice to apply it the way they tried to
apply it toward me. If I hadn't done my homework I would be paying
spousal/alimony for the rest of my life, AND I would have to assume all
the debt just so she could live in the lifestyle she was accustomed too.
Due to my homework on the subject I was able to get most of the debt
paid from community assets, however the lawyers recieved the bulk of
what I worked so hard for. I can take comfort in knowing that she didn't
get what she wanted, which was everything plus support. All she got is
what was left after the lawyers got thiers. lol



G

Quote

"I see the judicial system and the federal govenment in two separate
lights. The Federal government is supposed to provide the conditions
that will allow a system to uphold the inaleinable rights, as secured in
our bill of rights, to every citizen. However, in our society it seems
that the judicial system has been given far too much power to 'dictate'
the when, where, why and how of those rights. Often times redefining
them to suit some agenda. This defiles the true nature of the court
system. Instead of upholding 'equal rights' they are dictating rights
either based on their own bias, thier incorrect interpretation, or
worse, taking a lazy, safe way out of a decistion by stating some
president in another case."

One of the reasons the writers of the bill of rights and the
constitution seperated the Judicial system, from the government is so
there would be a fair distribution of control over our rights. The
problem today is due to presidential favors certain judges are being
given the Highest positons in order to sway judgements one way or
another.

My fear is not when will these rights be guaranteed, but how they will
be misused when they are written in black and white. Someone will come
along and use the letter of the law, without morality, and out of
context and as a result it will allow rights to be taken away. I have
seen it happen more than once when a distorted law was used for ill
will.



G

Oops, I came in here thinking this would be uplifting religious chat.
Obviously clicked the wrong thread.
Seeya!:njavascript:add_smiley('noway','post_text')
Nowayoway:

Adj - I didn't miss the point. I do understand what you are saying.
But bringing a bible to a public courthouse to read while you wait is
not the same thing a displaying the ten commandments on the wall for all
to see, when they walk in the door of that courthouse. For one thing,
those who do not believe in the Christian faith, will automatically feel
seperate, excluded and may even fear unfair judgements and bias, simply
based of the fact that what seems to be dominant is the faith, not the
people.

It's not a matter of being picked on, so much as it is a matter of
making everyone 'feel' equal, 'feel' part of this country.

The reason, and the only reason, I would not want any religious
material, even a cross displayed on a t-shirt, is that, I think, at
least it was so in the past, that this would cause unrest within the
student body. It could be used to manipulate all manner of things, from
a student fight, to a student saying the teacher flunked me or
reprimanded me because I wore my pentigram shirt.

I believe that religion is and should be of a personal nature. There
is nothing wrong with a person carrying a bible or a packet of blessed
herbs around their neck, or a shirt that proclaims, God is Mighty.
These displays, however, are not beneficial to the mindset of a student
nor should they be used in any state, or federal building.