Text 8824, 100 rader
Skriven 2005-02-08 06:31:44 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
   Kommentar till text 8816 av THURSTON ACKERMAN (1:10/345)
Ärende: RE: Proud Democrat
==========================
08 Feb 05 00:05, THURSTON ACKERMAN wrote to JOHN HULL:

 ->>snipped<-
 VH>>TA>VH>When you kill people and attempt to suppress their religion, 
 VH>>TA>VH>it doesn' matter what you call it, it's wrong.

 VH>>TA>I certainly agree qith your point; especially since such action 
 VH>>TA>would also be unconstitutional (nothing herein should be 
 VH>>TA>construdied as a confession of contributuing to the death of 
 VH>>TA>anyone, desevering or not!-)

 VH>>The point being, it isn't an official "war" he sent troops to -- it 
 VH>>was something far worse, the suppression of the religious rights of 
 VH>>American citizens.

 VH>>I think I stand vidicated on my assertion that all US presidents 
 VH>>have committed troops.

 VH>>TA>VH>The US government passed laws confiscating all church 
 VH>>TA>VH>property over $50,000, depriving polygamists of citizenship, 
 VH>>TA>VH>and so on.

 VH>>TA>Marriage is a matter of contract law; not of religion of course. 
 VH>>TA>If one
 TA>                ^^
 VH>>TA>breaks the law, one must expect to pay a penalty for such 
 VH>>TA>illegalities.

 TA> Please note I was useing the present tense. The various 
 TA> commentaries
 TA> did prompt me to refreash my ageing memory by visiting:

 TA>   www.law.cornell.edu/topics/marriage.html

 TA> Which starts its legal observations: "In English law tradition....
 TA> a marriage was a contract based on a voluntary private agreement
 TA> by a man and a woman to become husband and wife...."; and much
 TA> more legalize you may also appreciate when you visit the site.

 TA> Massachusetts Title III, Chap. 207, Sec. 38, establishs who may
 TA> be authorized to solemize a marriage in the Commonwealth I am in.

 TA> There are citations for every other jusidiction in the USA you
 TA> may wish to familarize yourself with.

 VH>>There's a slick way of justifying suppression of civil rights!

 TA> My kid brother lawyer (who spent a few decades in the USA Justis 
 TA> Dept.
 TA> (before being forced retirement during the Nixon missdeeds several
 TA> years ago 8-( has taught me to never apply slick ways to civil 
 TA> rights!

 VH>>Are you saying the Catholic Church, for example, must accept 
 VH>>divorce and remarriage?

 TA> The Catholic Church can not prevent a divorce of a couple (whether 
 TA> or
 TA> not they may have participated in the initial somelization of a 
 TA> given
 TA> legal marriage contract or not); but the priest or deacon may not 
 TA> be
 TA> forced to solemize a marriage they may object to (as they did in 
 TA> the
 TA> case of my grandson and his Catholic baptized bride last Oct. 16th
 TA> because he had not been baptized a Roman Catholic; so their 
 TA> marriage
 TA> was solemized by a woman minister in her father's Methodist Church 
 TA> 8-(

 TA> Or are troops to be used to force the Catholics to change
 VH>>their doctrine?

 TA> Fortuanately our troops are fully occupied surpressing Islamic 
 TA> facists
 TA> at the moment in Iraq, where our Constitution does not prevent 
 TA> same.

 TA> I shall be quite busy the next few days celebrating the win of our
 TA> New England Patriots National Football League Championship again 
 TA> for
 TA> this year; so I am sure your will comprehend why I probably won't 
 TA> be
 TA> available for future discussions regarding marriage (and I will 
 TA> then
 TA> be busy celebrating my own 63 wedding anniversity in a couple 
 TA> weeks 8-!

Doesn't alter the fact that it was a religious ritual long before it became a
civil contract.  Even in cases where there was no priest (religious functionary
if you prefer), it was still carried out between the man and the woman
according to religious custom.  

John 

America:  First, Last, and Always!
Go to www.madgorilla.us for all your Domain Name Services at the lowest rates.

--- Msged/386 TE 05
 * Origin: We are the Watchmen of our own Liberty! (1:379/1.99)