The Power Of Prayer

"It's not a sin to be black, but it is a sin to be gay."

At the beginning of the 20th Century there were racists who would have disagreed. That is why there are many people who believe that the general analogy is valid. Not the specifics per se but the general analogy, the fight for equal rights. I would remind you that many people who opposed the civil rights movement (which included the right to interracial marriage) utilized their bibles are the basis for their opposition. The chapters that they quoted may not be the same (although apparently some may be) but the idea of basing civil discrimination on religious beliefs was.

On a side note (actually a main note but separate from the LGBT community making analogies to the civil rights movement.) I understand that many of those who oppose same-sex marriage (especially the African American community) do so on religious grounds. That does not make those valid reasons for the government. That may in fact exclude them as reasons for the government to make laws. Not all religious believers or denominations oppose same sex marriage. It does not matter what the bible may or may not say. The fact that there is not one uniform interpretation of that text is the reason that the government may not accept one (or several) groups??? religious views on the issue. To do so would clearly violate the Establishment Clause. It does not matter if you think that the interpretation of the religious groups that support same-sex marriage is wrong, Their interpretation has equal standing as far as the law is concerned as yours does (which is basically no standing whatsoever). For the government to say that Rick Warren and his followers' view on what the bible means is the correct one would be analogous to making the Church of England the official religion of the US. The beliefs of the masses do not get to determine what is constitutional. As far as the law is concerned (and we are talking civil marriages not religious ones) it does not matter if you think it is sin.

Wallowing in your self evident bigotry,ignorance and your religious co-dependence will change no fact concerning the Constitution. And we will win our rights despite bigots and religious fear mongers like yourself. And the deadly proof is the utter ignorance you display in your belief that we somehow "chose" our sexual orientation. The statement is a patent lie.None of us chose to be Gay- it is a fact of our lives, as simple as the color of my eyes and skin. My choice came when i decided it was better to leave the self hate self loathing and mental instability that is "The Closet". And in the light of the hell my life would have been had i stayed there, or the self acceptance i gained by coming Out 35 years ago, that was not much of a choice either.
Your choice to live your belief in the close minded ignorance of Right Wing Evangelical Christianity is your choice. The fact of my being what i am was not mine. Do not assume that we will go away simply because you believe that God will make us. God made us the way we are, and is not going to change that fact.
There is an assumption within the work of the Framers of the Constitution which assures American Citizens not only freedom OF Religion- but also freedom FROM Religion.
You are on the wrong side of history.Period.

Wallowing in your self evident bigotry,ignorance and your religious co-dependence will change no fact concerning the Constitution. And we will win our rights despite bigots and religious fear mongers like yourself. And the deadly proof is the utter ignorance you display in your belief that we somehow "chose" our sexual orientation. The statement is a patent lie.None of us chose to be Gay- it is a fact of our lives, as simple as the color of my eyes and skin. My choice came when i decided it was better to leave the self hate self loathing and mental instability that is "The Closet". And in the light of the hell my life would have been had i stayed there, or the self acceptance i gained by coming Out 35 years ago, that was not much of a choice either.
Your choice to live your belief in the close minded ignorance of Right Wing Evangelical Christianity is your choice. The fact of my being what i am was not mine. Do not assume that we will go away simply because you believe that God will make us. God made us the way we are, and is not going to change that fact.
There is an assumption within the work of the Framers of the Constitution which assures American Citizens not only freedom OF Religion- but also freedom FROM Religion.
You are on the wrong side of history.Period.

"I mean,- you did have a mom and a dad, correct? You were born either vaginnally, or by C-section from a WOMAN, correct? I mean some man did not crap you out of his anusssss, right, or did he?"

That is not relevant to the issue of same-sex marraige. Civil marriage is NOT primarily (maybe not even secondarily) about procreation. It is about property/estates/medical/end-of-life issues. One does not have to have children to get those rigths. And one does not have to be married to get the tax benefits for having children. They are separate issues.

The real truth is EVERYONE WHO IS ALIVE NOW, HAS BEEN, OR WILL EVER BE BORN, WE ARE ALL SINNERS ."

That is religious belief not actual fact or secular or scientific truth. It may be "religious truth" but that is only valid to those who choose to believe in said religion Nothing wrong with people having that belief but it has no standing or relevance to US law.

The supposition that Marriage began as a religious ceremony is misguided. Anthropologists agree that the custom was begun to assure property rights- and religion co-opted it.

"Marriage began as a religious ceremony. And if a religion defines a marriage as a union between a man and a woman, then I think our principles of freedom of religion mean that we should not condemn that definition."

The problme with that viewpoint is that once the government decided that it would be involved in issuing marriage licenses and that many rights and privileges were tied to being married (and having the state issued marrige licence, since if one had a purely religious marriage ceremony in the Us without the state issued license those rights and privileges do not exist) then the defintion of what marriage is was taken out the exclusive control of religions. Also remember that there ARE religiouns that recognize same-sex marriages and call them same. To say that ONLY certain religions get to define marriage is a clear and absolute violation of the Establishment clause.

"Just as people who chose not to practice a religion do not want those that do telling them how to live their lives, those that chose to practice a religion should reasonably expect the same courtesy."

No one is telling relgions that they have to provide same-sex marriage ceremonies (well a few extremist nuts may be but they can be as easily dismissed as the extremist religious nuts who want to re-criminalize homosexulity). What they are bieng told is their religious beliefs have no standing in civil law.

"That is why I think civil unions are a reasonable compromise. It does not intrude upon the practices of various religions, but it allows equal access to legal rights."

Unfortunately it does not. Also you are giving religions a veto power over what the government can do. That is wrong. Marriage is no longer a primarily religous institution. As long as the state issues marriage licenses and uses the word "marriage" or "married" in its laws, then ALL qualified couples must be able to use that term. If the sate wanted to get out of the marrige business and issue civilunion licenses to all couples and change ALL the laws to remove the word marriage and married from its laws (and grant true equal rights to sme-sex couples) then your idea might work. They could make iit so that only religous institutions could perform marriage ceremoneies. Mind you, there would still be same-sex marriage because at that point only the various religions could say what they considered marriage and there are some that grant that term to same-sex couples. OF course that would also mean that clerics would have to be forbidden to act on the states' behalf in civil union ceremonies so anyone who wanted a religious marriage would have to get a civil union ceremony at the courthouse before they could get any other legal rights and privileges.

"You are forgetting the right to religion which is also in the constitution. Its going to happen, just because you think its wrong doesn't mean it is."

The right to religon is a private right, not a government right. The government is to stay out of religon. The inauguration is a government affair. The prayers have no place there.

"It feels good pointing that out from your perspective huh. I was basically describing the fact that you have face what is happening and either accept it don't, but it will still happen despite your opinion on the matter."

I recognize that it will happen, this time. But my hope is that eventaully he courts will make a ruling one way (or the other) as oppoed to doging the issue, and the the Chief Justice will alos stop doing the prompt as it is not needed or appropriate. If the court rules that the prayer is NOT a religious activity on government time, I will not be happy but I will live with it.

"however i dont like the whole protesting outside his church thing for something so stupid"
Well I agree that the protest was wrong, but the general issue is not "stupid".

"Just let the president have his inauguration how HE wants it, after all he is the one who is becoming president."

It is a nice idea except that it is not just HIS inauguration. It is ALL the people's inauguration. And he is supposed to be guarding the Constitution, so making him aware of the concern and issues this raises is important. That being said, once the inauguration starts I will be celebrating his becoming President, and worry about the other stuff later. I may mute the TV durig Warren's prayer since I have no use for him (or I may listen to it just to see if he pulls a Franklin Graham and says something completely stupid). But I will actually want to hear what Lowery says since he is man deserving of respect and honor.

"It has been done since washington to lincoln to john f kennedy,"
Actually there is very real arguement that it has NOT been done since Washington's time.

" if he is prohibitted then how is it happening,"
Because no one has put together a salient case agasint it. The real issue is that the Chief is not supposed to prompt it, not that the President can't finish the Oath and THEN, on his own, with no outside promting, make his own personal supplication, separate from teh Oath. On the other hand, the court must eventually rule on the prayersers as they are, arguably, a violation of the Establishment Clause.

" i tell you its not prohibited, so eat it."
Very mature. Actually very childish.

" there is nothing you can do about it. "
Putting together a salient case, wihtout Newdow, is what can and eventually will be done.

"Its within his rights to do this as is within your rights protest it. End of story, the end."
Maybe not. As I said, the issue of the Chief prompting it is not over. Maybe for this innauguration, but not over. And neither is the issue of the prayers. It is just a bump in the road. Luckily I will be digitally recoding the ceremony and be able to edit out the illegal prayers thereby leaving me a copy of a good innauguration. I already have several people who want copies, some of whom are teachers who want ot use it in future classrooms. And the benefit is that it is in the public domain.

And the Bible says that those who fail to observe the Sabbath should be stoned to death. So if a Pastor preaches that and the congregation goes out and stones the first person they see working on the Sabbath, that would be fine according to your reasoning.

You are not stating facts, you are supporting hate.

O.K. - idiots like you make my head hurt.

"The purpose of life is procreation "

You must have a very empty life.

"The purpose of life is procreation and the end result is having a progeny, and that is the universal law obeyed by the animal world, plants and insects. "

You don't have much of a life do you.

Let's see, by your assertion anyone who does not want children is not having a life.
Therefore Catholic Priests and Nuns do not have a life.

BTW Gays and Lesbians can have children. The purpose of marrriage is not primarily to have children.

You are entitled to your opinion - that is what makes this country great. Personally, I disagree with it, which I am entitled to do.

But be careful about using the Bible and the "word of God" to justify that opinion. No one can say for sure that the Bible accurately represents the will of God.

There are many contradictory passages in the Bible. There are a number of passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery - as long as the slaves are treated well. Somehow I don't think God would condone slavery under any circumstances. There are other passages that say the penalty for working on the Sabbath is stoning. Do you really think God would want someone stoned to death for working on the Sabbath? I find that hard to believe.

The problem with people who like to quote the bible is they like to pick and chose what they want to quote.

"DID GOD CREATE GAYS, SELFISH PEOPLE, AIDS ?"

Presumably.

"They want equal rights by taking the rights of others."

Are you serious? Forget putting the right shoe on the left foot. You need to start by taking your foot out of your mouth.

"They want equal rights by taking the rights of others"
Not at all. They do want Obama to recognize that Warren is not a good choice. Warren has the right to say what he wants. He is welcome to voice his interpretation of the his bible. That does not mean that the innauguration is the proper place for him to say it.

"Once you sign the contract, you are the property of the United States Government, your name is soldier and your opinions are the governments opinions. "

That is not true. The idea that a person who serves in hhe US military is government property is obsceneand And you are saying that the government's opinions is hat sexual orientation makes one a second class citizen or less capapble to serve. That is bull. Actually what is happening is that the military is taking the opinion of its some of personell. The simple fact is taht many other highly skilled militaries already hallowed openly gay and lesbian peole to serve and have experienced NO loss in unit cohesion or effectiveness. Canada, the UK, Israel asre just three examples.


"Finally, comparing homosexuality with being a person that is Black is absurd . It is an insult to the Black community and their continous struggle."

Not at all. It is a recognition that ALL types of discrimination are wrong.

"Sexual orientation does not allow anyone extra rights or equal rights to any one thing. "

Actually, simply being a resident of this country allows one equal rights and EQUAL rights is all they are asking for. And it is not jsut one thing it si all thins. There is still job, and housing discrimination allowed based on sexual orientation in some places.

"Have you ever seen a parade of people with signs saying I want extra rights because I am a heterosexual or I want to be recognized as a heterosexual? "

But they are not asking for extra rights they are asking for equal rights. It should not matter whether one's chosen spouse is of the same sex jsut as it shoudl nt matter if one's shosen spouse is of the same race, or religion, hair color, height, handedness or eye color.

Apparently not all of our forefathers had benedictions or innvoactions at their innagurations, so it is very possible that they did think it was appropraiute eiher.

BTW, Jefferson's inaugural address, athough he did mention an "Infinite Power" at the end did not specify what power that was leaving it up to the individual to decide for themsleves (including the possibility that it was just nature.)

Roughly one million people living with HIV/AIDS in the United States.
Since the start of the AIDS epidemic, 1.5 million Americans have been infected with HIV and more than 524,000 have died of AIDS.
At least 40,000 people are infected each year.
African Americans account for 48% of new HIV infections.
AIDS is the leading cause of death for African American women aged 25 to 34 and HIV rates among Hispanic women are increasing.
The number of women living with HIV has tripled in the last two decades.
At least half of all new infections are among people under the age of 25.
Washington, DC has the highest HIV/AIDS prevalence rates in the United States - one in 20 people are living with HIV or AIDS.WHERE EXACTLY DOES IT SAY HOMOSEXUALS IN THIS?

Ah, full diuaper boy is back. Someone call him mommy and have her come and clean him up. His diaper is leaking into the web.

"But the bible is irrelvant to US law and government the innauguration is part of US law and giovernment NOT religion. Therefore the prayers themselves (from either cleric) have a valid place in the ceremony.//
Then case closed, he can choose what he wants to be inaugurated in, gay people have no valid reason whatsoever, just hissyfits.

Actually I meant to say that the Prayers have NO valid place in the innauguration as they can considered a clear violation of the Establishment clause. As for the word "so help me god" as long as Chief Justice Roberts does NOT say them as a prompt then Obama could say them as a personal request (preferrably after a seconds or two break so that they would not mistaken by undeducated people as being a legitimate part of the oath.)

Most Gays have no problem with him saying "so help me god" They do have a legititmate problem with Warren saying the prayer (but the realiity is that neither Warren nor Lowerey should be allowed to say a prayer.)