Cute. No, I win!! *runs*

Perhaps you could explain this doosey:

-------
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

----

It would seem to me that the basis for the equality you pursue is ultimately founded in a morality based on stated religious truths. So true they were believed "self evident".

Perhaps you can also explain where the separation of church and state occurs in this declaration.

Well, I could explain it as nonsequiter. ;)

But, instead I will endeavor, though this is out of my range. "The Creator" was an agreeable phrase acceptable to all the delegates at the signing of the Declaration -- many of whom were Pantheists or otherwise non-Christian in their beliefs. Think of it like the phrase "sustainable development" -- ambiguous enough to be acceptable to all.

As for the separation of church and state, you'd need to delve into the federalist papers to find the best discourse. You've quoted the Declaration of Independence, which was put together a decade before the Constitutional Convention, so that makes a comparison difficult. Nevertheless, the document you've quoted goes on to (1) state the MAJOR underlying justification I argue supports civil unions -- that all men are created equal, and then (2) identify 3 inalienable rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness -- changed slightly in the Constitution to be life, liberty, and property) that all men should not be denied by the government, especially without representation. That goes to support the argument I made that generally one of our underlying principles is that the government should remains "hands off" in controlling our lives. [See Footnote.]

I think you're just making connections that aren't there. Look, as I stated, no one is saying your church should be forced to marry gays. All we are saying is that if the government is going to dole out privileges to couples, the notion of equality, backed by the 14th Amendment, prevents it from doing so on an arbitrary basis such as gender. It's fine for churches to refuse to marry someone, but the government has no business in it.

That said, an equally acceptable solution is to do away with LEGAL marriage. Either you give these legal benefits freely to all couples, or you don't give it at all. Understanding this requires you to take a step back and realize there are 2 types of marriage -- (1) the church/spiritual union and the (2) set of legal benefits of coupling (also called "marriage"), which include inheritance, property, tax, and other privileges. If #2 is causing us so much constitutional trouble, either make #2 available to all or do away with #2 altogether.

[Footnote: Another thing to note about the Declaration as something that makes it a difficult document to compare with the Constitution is that it serves a wholly different purpose. The Declaration does not set up a government or governing principles. Rather, it is a list of charges against a sovereign that gives way to a conclusion that the sovereign's rule is unjust and unlawful, and further gives way to a statment that the colonies will now be a new, independent sovereign. It is a "Declaration of Independence," an announcement of an action, not a governmental structure or statement of governmental principles that the colonies will follow.]

[ 04-28-2005, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Keep jumping through those hoops Timber. I don't see how an athiest could comfortably sign off on created rights bestowed by any creator. Suit yourself though. If you can't see your contradictions that's your problem not mine.

What are you trying to prove here? And how can you point at "creator" and ignore "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" and "all men created equal" and that other good stuff? You can't pick out the stuff you like and leave out the rest. Doesn't work that way.

I didn't ignore or leave anything out.

........ Excellent. Then we're done with this.

<span style="color: lightblue">It is not our choice what entertains us. Do you choose to be tempted, or do you simply choose whether to act according to that temptation?
Do we, as members of this forum, come to Ironworks because we decided we should enjoy it, or do we come simply because we do enjoy it?
Do we, as citizens of our repective nations, choose our religious and political swayings by flipping a coin, or do we push for what seems most plausable and advantagous to us?

Do we, as heterosexuals, choose to like women, or do we choose which women we like? And why should we assume that gays are any different?

<font color = lightgreen>*sigh* They're always playing the same old movie on this channel.

Homosexual unions/marriages should be allowed--and be legally equivalent to--heterosexual marriage because there is no logical reason for there to be any inequality. No, the law should not force any church or person to officiate such a union if they disagree with it, but that merely serves to point out the major problem with freedom: if you have the freedom to agree with something or think it should be allowed then others have the freedom to disagree with that thing and think it should not be allowed.

One of our highest ideals is, of course, "all men are created equal". Lawmakers carried this a little further and tried to make sure that the law protects and guarantees equality for everyone; whether or not you think equality exists is irrelevant because equality already exists. Any person who thinks they are somehow "less than equal" winds up creating their own reality in which they are less than equal. Don't bother citing specific examples of inequality because other specific cases could be found to support the notion that equality exists; the "yes, but" game would wind up wasting only your own time. If, in a worst-case scenario, a law is found that does support inequality then it should be immediately struck down because the Constitution already guarantees equality.

That last sentence raises one other interesting point. The law must be made to support equality and fairness for everyone because one function of the law is to provide a "level playing field". Unfortunately, one cannot outlaw an individual from discriminating against others because that is a personal choice. </font>

I choose to be happy, sad, entertained or in love. Dunno about anyone else.