Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
janus we will annoy the jury what's up faceless and a_b_c_ pero bellowing
rococo and like cholera pocket or here
on every level point here and i got one of the vocal dissent never wanted to
locate that day i'm a christian i'm a believer i we look at the vision of
church and state so what let's get them cleary here i would say the christian
what my concern is is not benefits but the sacrament sacrament of marriage here
and i don't have clearly from the other side of the aisle its part it at all
about benefits
or is it about i would call the desecrations sacrament which one is more
important here could then you have a battle on your hands with christian
paper it's all about trashing sanctity of marriage if it's about benefits
hate what aggression from
pretty much mantra is fellow of the world and i think that it so frankly a
pipe at eleven the problem with yeah someone in a civil union that wants all
this trade benefits i have a marriage
well lately reassure you then j
if you're catholic for example
and you're married
you cannot get divorced
because that sacramento as the church so i think you never had sex that sacrament
is is solid right if you if you are if you are jewish and you want to get
married in in many of the uh... of the jury sensing uggs uh... you can't marry
somebody who's not jewish who has been you know if you are indian in many
protestant denominations if you're a member of a particular nomination on
debt you know the latter-day saints at the london pretty sure if you're mormon
and you wanna marry somebody and they have uncovered a mormon is in the church
is not gonna recognize that merits of the sacramental part of marriage and
frankly he kind of anti sacramental part the divorce
all of that is still
only in the hands of churches
and synagogues and
walls and whatever you want it whatever you want to call but the the the
government's making no decisions right the the the the catholic church
probably does not recognize i don't know her facial position on it but newt
gingrich i believe is converted to catholicism now idon't i don't
understand how they could recognize his second and third marriage both of which
happened from affairs he was having while he was marriage was previous white
or forgot okay let me know raho don't let a bigger interval your pocket
hypocrisy no one's rampant ok have a corporate control centers
now mike what are you missing my point yes or no estimate we have a is absent
empathetic
well ok well what i'm saying is that that
if we put it in and frame it that way could it be that the other side of the
allen the statement that something i want to bring a miracle hepatoma say
alrighty got us we're trying to turn we're trying to change what god so
that's what it's about it not in the senate but not
but nobody's saying and i a l a i don't know there are some denomination this
later
there are some dessert nominations for the the uh... united church of christ
has come out and said we believe that
gay marriage is consistent with jesus is message
and big labor until they're always shin for almost a decade are all wrong and
they're all going to get workout somehow this busy and there's nobody and however
requires evelyn adriano dot said
and and but the
but the political constitutional position is that
it's not the business of government to decide what god says
and so in a large can recognize a marriage of or not the sacramental part
of a marriage the sacred part of the marriage
that's up to the churches
what we're talking about here is contract law
we're talking about two people saying
when it when i got you get my stuff they got to get the word marriage out of
there than there that it should be cool on us and i think that the word marriage
at
is parked uh... contract law i at logger word marriage means contract
in church
if that were in a synagogue or in a temple or a mas the word marriage means
something quite different right but that i think that the debate to the point i
would think that the bone of contention to the point is quite simple
and that out
what you don't have any part of what they're trying to reconstruct and affect
the contribution well you know what to do
now they're not art it's a hand and changes but i think the night of the
word bible nor the word god was ever art was ever brought up in the supreme court
pleadings either yesterday or today at the in estes park were through there was
no
that absolutely no discussion about the religious dimension of this that is not
the business of government
there is you know the establishment clause the constitution's as the
government shall not establish any religious test republican office
and uh... the first amendment cells that there should be no official religion for
the united states essentially three-week out though
that every predicated about it dot we try to not what now in god we trust is
not in the constitution it's not in the diana foster is something that i resigns
in nineteen fifty three right
and the president balked they gobble up america
yeah opt for the country but will compute i'm a little confused and woods
at what which one is that the other interrupt
i get that the real question here now we have a secular republic
george washington wanted to know about that george washington refuse people at
that that blood
we have a secular it's as we are we are government of laws we are not a
government of religions
and will provide but president clinton gotten a bit better but it's good
because he finds a politically expedient
but i do agree then that it took a critical that's a problem stock to
identify with this
you know i mean you could if you could make that argument in a lot of the
theorists doing a lot of people who are atheists think it's kinda cool the
president mba mentions there a particular dot of their favor god or
whatever
uh... you know there there were but they get picked up a like him and my
optimistic about that i'd rather
probably what will be more in on that
yeah i do you know i could do it like thomas jefferson and just you know
you know i just it was just open about it right out he'd he took the test a and
heat with a razor blade cut out all the miracles
and reassembled it and still there is still in print jefferson vital
no miracles jesus right he was just a wise philosopher and you know you said
you know enough of these dusty books we he said we didn't when dad this is
paraphrasing burns
pretty close he said we serve this country we didn't have to look in the
dusty books or you know ancient scripts we looked into the laws of nature common
repair parts j thank you for the call the people
you're listening to the com hardman program colleagues execs in nineteen
seventy eight joanne by the way i would say things have changed since that day
because back then when it was an entry was done and i was slavery