Myths & Facts On Immigration as presented by socialistworker.org

On 29 July 2010, Arizona's Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (SB 1070) is scheduled to take effect.


When you look at other recent legislation from AZ, you see that SB 1070 fits into a pattern of intolerance and racism. Last year AZ regressed in its tolerance of the gay community, including ending same-sex partners benefits, but that is a different conversation. Let's talk brown people.


AZ, in addition to this immigration bill, wants to outlaw teachers with accents, end the bilingual education program started under the previous governor, end ethnic studies programs, and ban any school course which may cause negative sentiment against the government. Further, State Senator Russell Pearce is poised to introduce legislation this fall that would deny children of illegal immigrants born in America US citizenship. This is a direct violation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. AZ is moving towards an xenophobic police state, hell-bent on ethnically cleansing the brown right out of its borders. OK, strong language, possibly hyperbole, i know, but it IS a bad, bad thing what Governor Jan Brewer and her Republican party are doing in AZ. So if you plan on going to AZ, don't forget to take your passports and birth certificates and say, "Heil, meine Führerin Brewer!"


-ry

THIS ARTICLE FROM socialistworker.org TACKLES SOME OF THE MYTHS OF IMMIGRATION.


x

Priest wants homosexuals burned at the stake.

A Polish priest reveals the "truth" about homosexuality.


So Gays, or FAGGOTS as Father Raphael Trytek says, whose only crime is LOVING the same sex, should be BURNED AT THE STAKE? I wonder what he thinks the penalty should be for REAL CRIMINALS, like, oh..., i don't know..., say, PEDOPHILE PRIESTS?! Would it be as harsh? WHAT WOULD JESUS DO? Would Jesus burn "FAGGOTS" at the stake? What should be the punishment for intolerance and hate? Father Trytek, will you confess to someone that you've had impure thoughts about murdering humans?


-ry

IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THE LAW!

This is what i filled out for a form for a website that asked me to help repeal anti gay marriage laws. It asked me to fill out an "About Me" and a "What marriage means to me." I had nothing to say about me, but each section only 1500 characters and it takes more than 1500 characters to even briefly explain what marriage means to me so i had to utilize the "About Me" section to write a semi-description of how i felt.

[website is: http://www.signforequality.com/ i tried to sign up thru Safari, but it wouldn't work so i opened up Firefox to sign up successfully]

Though i never plan on getting married and am atheist, this is not about love or religion for me; this is about equality! If i had my druthers, i'd not let the state "marry" gays--OR straights! Marriage seems more suited for religious institutions. But alas, the issue it seems, is already married to government. This is the kind of shit that happens when church and state mingle. If it really is about "protecting" the institution of marriage, then relegate it to the church. Then we shall see how many back down and how many bigots are still resistant to equal rights for the LGBT community. Like i said, this about EQUALITY. Civil Unions are the LGBT's "colored only" water fountains. We learned from Brown v. Board that SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL. SEGREGATION IS WRONG. DISCRIMINATION IS EVIL. Civil unions are NOT totally equal, in fact. All this does is make us 2d class citizens! This is not India, damn it! I will NOT be relegated to a lower caste! This is America, founded on idea of equality. Though Equality did not originally apply to all, America has come to realize it's wrongs and been corrected and the general poulation has come to see such decisions as right. Women, Blacks, Irish, Amer-indians, Catholics, children (by proxy), the un-unionized et al. have had to fight and struggle to show America as a whole the right path. This is OUR cause, OUR future path. We must again show America the correct path.

They say ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law! I say that the law is no excuse for ignorance! People must be set straight!

For the religious objectors, i say, we are not trying to change your religion! You may continue to believe and practice whatsoever you may wish. Religious organizations are private organizations and if you wish to be discriminating, that is your prerogative. All we ask is that you not ask our government, which should represent ALL of the people, to discriminate based on your religious sect's beliefs and values, which represent only SOME of the people of the nation. Surely you cannot deny the logic in this statement if you exist in a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. We do not ask you to live our "life style," as you call it, we ask that you live and let live. Two people in love and wishing to express that love through a government sanctioned institution should not be denied such an opportunity. The government grants certain rights, benefits and privileges to those married. All we ask is for the same rights, benefits and privileges, for we pay the same taxes. Actually we pay more taxes, because we do not share the same rights, benefits and privileges as married folks. That's right, some of us pay more to be discriminated against! Oh, the privilege of that!! >:o(  

We do not seek to degrade your institution, indeed i think that heterosexual actions such as incest, polygamy, rape, spousal-rape, adultry, and divorce have already done enough harm to the institution. Outlaw such things; but not love!

What a bunch of mullarkey!

~​~​~​~​The Calif​ornia​ Supre​me Court​ recen​tly ruled​ that all donor​s to the pro
~​~​~​~​Prop 8 campa​ign shall​ be made publi​c.​ This story​ was poste​d on
~~~~Towle​road.​com on 3 Feb 08:

NEW YORK ARTIS​T KNOWN​ FOR 'GAY PRIDE​'​ SUBJE​CTS IS PROP 8 DONOR​

On her websi​te,​ Chapp​aqua-​based​ artis​t Maure​en Mulla​rkey write​s,​ in respo​nse to a quest​ion about​ why she uses gay pride​ parad​e image​ry in her work:​

"​Becau​se it is a marve​lous spect​acle,​ an icono​graph​ic lode.​ There​ is so much to look at. Art is not about​ '​appre​ciati​ng.​'​ It is about​ looki​ng.​ Peopl​e get accus​tomed​ to viewi​ng art throu​gh a filte​r of words​:​ theor​ies,​ press​ relea​ses,​ the pieti​es of art appre​ciati​on.​ Spect​acle cuts throu​gh the stati​c.​.​.​I'​ve never​ reall​y liked​ parad​es that much.​.​.​But when the major​ette is a middl​e-​aged man in a tutu and sneak​ers you know you are not in Kansa​s and you might​ want to stay awake​.​"

But Mulla​rkey appar​ently​ has other​ thoug​hts about​ her subje​cts as well,​ which​ she expre​ssed throu​gh a finan​cial donat​ion of $​1,​000 to pass Propo​sitio​n 8, revok​ing marri​age right​s from milli​ons of gay and lesbi​an Ameri​cans.​

The New York Daily​ News repor​ts:​ "​Maure​en Mulla​rkey,​ 66, made her sizab​le contr​ibuti​on to the Natio​nal Organ​izati​on for Marri​age'​s 'Yes on 8' fund in June,​ a Daily​ News revie​w of campa​ign recor​ds found​.​ The Westc​heste​r Count​y woman​ was one of tens of thous​ands who poure​d a total​ of more than $83 milli​on into the coffe​rs of Propo​sitio​n 8 suppo​rt group​s - money​ that helpe​d convi​nce Calif​ornia​ voter​s to overt​urn an earli​er court​ decis​ion grant​ing gays the right​ to marry​ in the Golde​n State​.​ Quest​ioned​ outsi​de her home in tony Chapp​aqua - the same town where​ Bill and Hilla​ry Clint​on live - she refus​ed to discu​ss her donat​ion last night​.​ When asked​ how she could​ have donat​ed money​ to fight​ gay marri​age after​ makin​g money​ from her depic​tions​ of gays,​ she just said,​ '​So?​.​.​.​If you write​ that story​,​ I'll sue you,​'​ she said.​"

~​~​~​~​FYI,​ Maure​en Mulla​rkey'​s home page:​

http:​/​/​www.​ maure​enmul​larke​y.​ com/​home/​home.​ html

Maure​en Mulla​rkey'​s email​s:​ maure​enmul​larke​y@​earth​link.​net
and
maure​enmul​larke​y@​gmail​.​com

Mulla​rkey is a Contr​ibuti​ng Edito​r at ArtCr​itica​l:​ http:​/​/​www.​ artcr​itica​l.​ com/

~​~​~​~​and,​ Mulla​rkey is a real piece​ of work havin​g also given​ $​500.​00 on 09/​02/​04 to the Swift​ Boat Veter​ans smear​ campa​ign:​

http:​/​/​forms​.​ irs. gov/​polit​icalO​rgsSe​arch/​searc​h/​Print​.​ actio​n?​formI​d=​21305​&​formT​ype=​E72

Maure​en M. Mulla​rkey
81 Dougl​as Rd
Chapp​aqua,​ NY 10514​

Some of Mulla​rkey'​s work is sold by:

Silve​rmine​ Guild​ Arts Cente​r
1037 Silve​rmine​ Road
New Canaa​n,​ CT 06840​
Phone​:​ 203-​966-​9700

http:​/​/​www.​ silve​rmine​art.​ org/​galle​ry/​artis​t_​detai​l.​ cfm?​artis​tID=​137

http:​/​/​www.​ silve​rmine​art.​ org/​index​.​ cfm

Ferguson’s Folly Re-formulated from Fear of Fags

So the deed is done! seems that chickens got more civil rights out of the last California election than gays. But gays are not chicken-- they will fight on! Not only does the California Constitution now prevent an entire minority from enjoying a civil right of the rest of the populace, but due to the election we have Plessy v. Ferguson reincarnate.

Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896), of course, being the 1896 US Supreme Court case upholding the "separate, but equal" doctrine regarding separate facilities for whites and blacks. Well this is exactly what we have here in California: Marriage for heterosexuals, civil unions for homosexuals. Those who support civil unions for gays as opposed to marriage would say that civil unions offer the same rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage under the law, so why complain? Those who oppose civil unions in favor of marriage for gays say that all rights, privileges and responsibilities are not quite the same. I've not studied these claims personally, but I need not in order to be opposed to this separate, but equal mentality of the state.

First, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka 347 U.S. 483 (1954) stopped nearly sixty years of de jure discrimination by overturning Plessy. This case was decided, in part by psychological evidence that determined that separate facilities for blacks and whites, made black children feel inferior to whites, as, in most cases, black facilities were inferior to white ones. An experiment determined that black segregated schoolchildren preferred to play with and attributed more positive characteristics to white dolls than black dolls. (Kenneth and Mammie Clark doll experiments)* [see footnote below] Aside from that, the fact that the government of the people as a whole, can make separate laws and/or provide separate facilities for said people based solely on race being inherently discriminatory also led to this landmark overturning of codified segregation. Substitute 'Gay' for 'Black' and the vehicle of discrimination from schools to marriage and here we prove the old adage that history repeats itself.

As I have said before, governments should unite and protect the people, not discriminate and separate its people. Yet, this is what is happening now. Instead of race, it is sexual orientation. Gays can no more change their sexual orientation, than blacks can change the color of their skin. Government should not punish, denigrate and/or discriminate against people in their natural state. Blacks or Gays are unlike, say, drug users or murders, in that the latter may be treated through psychology and/or medical science and become productive members of society. The former are born as such and are natural occurrences. The latter are social deviants and products of their environment, rather than their being being determined by genes or chromosomes. Skin bleaching or so-called sexual orientation conversion centers, do not truly change the person inside. One's skin may be lighter or one may be brainwashed to no longer outwardly manifest homosexual behavior, yet they remain black or homosexual inside. The former are how God or nature made them. They cannot change and though one need not embrace them, one must accept them for who they are and let them live and enjoy the same rights of the population at large. ** [see footnote below]

Segregation is wrong. Separate is not equal. Discrimination is evil.

Secondly, with concern to the amending of the state constitution, I think it is a travesty to let such an important document be altered by a simple majority of the people. The constitution should be the most revered document of the people. The constitution is not to be taken lightly. It should not be changed on a whim. It is the ultimate law of the land. It should stand for generations to come. A constitution is written for its people, place and time and it is true that some constitutions of the states of the world may contain discriminatory passages, these will be amended once society realizes the wrongs of its past. The law of the land, the law of the people, should not discriminate against any of its natural-born people. It is the ultimate authority over people and law. It is written and decided upon a vast majority of people or else it would not be much of a mandate for law and governance. Simple majorities mean a society is too divided on an issue. For a document to be the final word in a society, it should be accepted by the vast majority of people. Although 51% of the population are in support of something, that leaves 49% unhappy. This is too great a discrepancy for a stable democracy. Further debate, compromise or investigation is needed. To change the ultimate law of the land, a super majority should be required. Sixty-six percent would be better, but may I suggest 80%? Unanimity would be ideal, but in an un-ideal world, and on such a large scale, unanimity is unreasonable.

One cannot please all of the people all of the time. But if the vast majority approves of something, then that gives the remaining minority something to think about. Maybe then the minority is wrong, or maybe they know in their hearts they are right and need to migrate to another land that accepts their beliefs (because everyone deserves the right to live and think free, even their opponents). Or perhaps, they feel they are so in the right that they rebel against their oppressors for the greater good of the human race. Thomas Jefferson said that a little rebellion every now and then is a good thing.

The recent amending of the California constitution was the result of a simple majority. This leaves too many people (based on percentage of registered voters who cast ballots) unhappy and risks civil unrest. My position is clear. This is discrimination 100%. Though I don't advocate immediate civil unrest, I support and have and will continue to protest. If the discrimination is not overturned in the next 4-6 years, and definitely if it grows, I deem it time for major civil disobedience. Yes, if 80% percent of the people passed the amendment, I'd not have such a strong will to protest as I would the urge to move to a different state or country. Yet I might still protest given my still uninhibited right of protest and my belief that I am morally right. But as it stands, a simple majority is too simple a solution for a complicated debate. A super- or ultra super-majority should be used to vote on a proposal to amend the constitution. Much like Massachusetts, I believe that there should be a waiting period of at least one election to have a second confirmatory vote. Also, I would have the state legislature confirm the vote as well--maybe even a review after 10 years or so time.

Keep government honest and healthy: protest or revolt!!!

*critics of the doll experiments note, that children of integrated schools, as well as children of intregrated schools who originally came from segregated schools also preferred white dolls to black dolls.

**there is research showing that birth order may determine a gay man's sexual orientation. The research shows that the more males to which a mother gives birth, the higher the chance of the male being homosexual. The thinking is, a male entity is a foreign one to a female body and therefore, the female host bombards the male entity with female hormones or chemicals, much like the human body bombards foreign viruses with antibodies to purge then from the host. The more males a mother has, the more the female body recognizes it and thus, sends an increasing amount of hormones or chemicals to the fetus as it develops, increasing the chances of it becoming homosexual or sexually confused. (as described in "For the Bible Tells Me So," documentary directed by Karslake, Daniel G.) Likewise, drug addicted mothers who are using during pregnancy will likely pass an addiction on to their babies. These are a couple of ways, in contrast to my argument, in which being gay or a drug addict may be a product of environment rather than being innate or natural.

Heterosexual Tendencies Let the Gays Be Institutionalized

So i read an article recently about how preachers are telling their congregations to vote in favor of Prop 8. Why must these and other pro-8 people force their belief on the whole of society? I fail to understand how limiting marriage to heterosexuals protects the institution of marriage. Seems to me, that heterosexuals have been doing a fine job of disgracing the institution of marriage themselves. The divorce rate was near 50% before states like MA and CA started letting the gays marry. The real threats to the covenant of marriage are "lack of communication, infidelity, domestic abuse and economic pressures." I'd be interested to know just how many of the thousands of homosexual couples who have already married are directly affecting any of these pro-8 people. Whatever happened to live and let live? ....

I'm also sick of these TV ads saying that marriage will be taught in schools. I don't ever remember learning about marriage in school. What the hell are these people talking about? Contrary to some people's beliefs, the gays are not after our children. I've never heard of an organization that is trying to convert heterosexuals into homosexuals. No one is out to teach our kids to be gay. Some people are just so damn afraid of the unknown, that they prefer not to know; to remain ignorant. They have some false sense that they can protect their kids from anything that does not fall in line with their own beliefs. Children know about the gays--they watch TV too, they surf the net, they hear the news, and, oh yes, they may even already have gay friends! Keeping children ignorant, leads to prejudice and hate! Knowledge is power! ....

Interracial marriage used to be illegal. Now that it isn't, tell me how it has negatively affected you personally; the institution of marriage; society as a whole. California used to discriminate against an entire group of people, but how did the Japanese internment camps really help us? Codifying discrimination is wrong! ....

The bottom line is, if government is going to be in the business of granting marriage licenses and doling out benefits tailored specifically towards married couples, then it ought not to discriminate against who can marry and who cannot. Government should be here to protect us and unite us, not discriminate against us and divide us into first and second class citizens. All you religious sects and private organizations can discriminate against other humans all you want, I didn't wanna join your stupid club anyway! Just don't ask my government to do it!

P.D.A. (The Public Eye)

[PDA...#1(the original)]

P.D.A. (The Public Eye)

Her hand on your thigh
Yours 'round her waist
All in the public eye
A kiss so easily placed

You whisper sweet nothings
You know we're all in earshot
But no one cares it seems
That you two get caught

In the bus
On the street
Wherever you choose to meet
On the train
At the station
And anywhere across this nation
I'm watching you
And you're so happy
I think you take for granted
Your freedom of affection

On the neck or her cheek
Just a simple peck
O but if i repeat
It's nausea i'd expect

And you only remind
Of what i cannot do
Because of your kind
But maybe you never knew

At the beach
On the pier
But i'm left only to leer
Inside a store
Within a mall
For you there's nothing wrong at all
I'm watching you
And you're so sappy
I want the same, but granted
I'd only incur rejection

As soon as you meet
Fingers interlock
Well isn't that sweet?
Is it me you mock?

Made my decision
Now i've envy
At affection given
Wild and carefree

In the bus
On the street
Wherever you choose to meet
On the train
At the station
And anywhere across this nation
I'm watching you
And you're so happy
I think you take for granted
Your freedom of affection

Ryan J. Nelson ©2006


written about how some "crooked" people might feel about public displays of affection
-ry

P.D.A. (My Mind's Eye)

[PDA... #2 (the sequel)]

P.D.A. (My Mind's Eye)

I'm just so jealous
This life is just hellish
Watching them meet
Watching them greet
A tongue in her cheek
Quite literally i speak

What of our kind
The thoughts in their minds
At the first detection
Of our free affection
What if they could see
Would they turn against me

O not to be confined to parades
Acting like them is such a charade
Held to a certain part of town
Only serves to bring me down
But us we segregate
So us they'll not castigate

And do they realize
The effect on my eyes
I guess it quite silly
For whose fault is it really
Well mine i have to say
So why do i feel this way

Then their thoughts be damned
Go on grab my hand
Hands on your hips
I plant one on your lips
And now it's understood
That now i feel good

So i blink my mind's eye
And realize that i
Think of one thought
Don't mind being caught
Come here and and give me a kiss
Now i know what i've missed

Ryan J. Nelson ©2006

fuck it, crooked lovers of the world united (and make out in public, hahaha!)
-ry

Silly queer, marriage is for heteros!

Of concern to the present:

The state should not grant the gays the honor of marriage.  The state ought instead to let gays enter into a civil union, in which they have every single right, privilege and responsibility as state-recognized married heterosexual couples currently have.   The state should make no distinction of sexual orientaion, whatsoever, concerning the creation or enforcement of laws concerning marriage, or of any topic.

Of concern to the history of the subject at hand:

The institution of marriage is a religious one.  It has existed for thousands of years, and can be found in most religions.  In the beginning, human communities were small, localized tribes or bands of people.  The religious leader was often the chief leader, or held a station not far removed from him/her, in which case the religious leader was most likely consulted in all affairs concerning the internal management of the group and the relations between the group and external entities. 

As human societies grew and more complex governments formed, the relationship between religious affiliates and governmental ministers continued in the same way; either the head of state and religion were one in the same, or the head of religion was an integral part of the decision-making process of governments.  In some societies, the doctrine of divine right was invoked by heads of state as justification of one's station.  In others, heads of state were considered gods themselves, rather than mortals.  For a time the Pope held considerable power and influence over several governments from afar.  In any case, religion was interwined in the workings of all governments.  Religious doctrine was the basis for laws created by governments. 

Into the present day a great many nations on Earth have governments with an established religion or work in concert with a particular religious doctrine.  On the other hand, some societies have evolved, to where government has become less dependent on religion.  Ours is such a society.  Founded in part by those who wished to practice religion in their own way rather than how the state dictated it, some of the first Americans set up communities  in which freedom of the practice of religion was tolerated.  To be sure laws were still based heavily on reigious doctrine, but there would soon be sympathy for those of other religious affiliations as the population grew and became more diverse and dense.  Freedom of religion was incorporated into the constitution of the new nation:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof." -1st Amemndment.  After the creation of the Constitution the land continued to attract people of all different nations, religions and beliefs from the world over.

Of concern to what is proper:

In a country so diverse in people and beliefs, it is only proper that there be a separation of church from the state.  Such a separartion should, on principle, be total.  The state's role in marriage may not have been an issue if it did not have such an adverse impact on the lives of some of its citizens.  From early on, however, the state has been discriminatory in the granting of marriages.  Early discrimination was less in the name preserving the honor of marriage, than in the name of eugenics.  But now we know that the inter marrying of the races did not bring about the end of the world; i don't believe same-sex marriage would either, but that should not be for politicians to decide.  Today politicians talk of the sanctity of marriage, but whether or not people of the same sex marrying would ruin the institution, is not something that should be debated by governmental assemblies, but in religious councils.  To define marriage on a governmental level, imposes that definition on all religions practiced within the country, which prohibits the free excercise of religion. 

It is not the role of our so-called secular government to interpret religious doctrine/institutions.  It is also not proper for our government to discriminate against its citizens.  In the current struggle over gay marriage, our government intends to do both. 

First, as we do not live in a theocracy, we should not turn to any religious text or teachings, or interpretation thereof when considering the creating and application of legislation. When the state choses one or several similar sects' beliefs that marriage is only to be between a man and a woman, it is conveying a message of exclusion to all others and establishing the favorability on one or some.  This should not be the case in a land where all are supposedly "created equal."  Nor can the state claim that all religions and sects view marriage as that between a man and a woman.  There is an historical record of same-sex marriages being performed by clergy across many religions.  Also, different groups of worshipers of the same faith interpret, preach and practice their religion in differnt ways and divide themselves into differing sects.  As the state cannot prevent the creation of differnt sects or denominations, who is to say that one or several will not form in which gay marriage is allowed and performed (much as in the Anglican split from the Roman Catholic Church, so Henry VIII could divorce.)?  Already we have certain churches among various sects that will perform a same sex marriage, and the Anglican Church is seeing a ideological split between its African and North American clergy over the issue. 

Second, the state should not discriminate against any group whatsoever.  Governments should be the protectors of the people. The gays pay taxes, contribute to the economy, serve in the military, and in government and are otherwise just as productive as any other members of our society.  If you believe in God as the creator of all in the universe then, they are made by the same creator as heterosexuals-they are human.  They are people, who deserve rights and privileges, the same as any other person in this country.  With regard to taxes and marriage, it is wrong to for the state to tax all couples and then to turn around and offer privileges to only opposite-sex couples.  Particularly offensive to the spirit of the American Constitution and that of the founding fathers is the idea of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as that between one man and one woman.  Such an amendment would in effect, dicriminate against an entire group of loyal American citizens.  In such a case the government ceases protecting the people, at which point a revolution might be in order.

Of further concern to the present:

The state should not grant heterosexuals the honor of marriage.  The state should let all couples, regardless of sexual orientaion, enter into a legal union of co-existence and dependability that in every aspect has the same rights, privileges and resposibilities of what are currently recognized as marriages.  The issuance of marriage licenses by the state should cease immediately, and all currently recognized marriages should be converted into the aforementioned legal unions.  In effect then this is simply a change of title.  In a like manner, state should no longer grant divorces, but rather hear cases for and grant the dissolution of legal unions of coexistance and dependability.

Conclusion:

Marriage is a purely religious institution.  Neither the president, nor any person of government below him/her has the authority, by virtue of his/her office, to define or grant marriage.   At present, their is no honor to marraige, insofar as government can be concerned--honor in marriage can only come through a god.  Only god through his/her earthly representatives can bestow the honor of marriage. 

As a religious institution, marriage can only be governed by a religious body, thus precluding it from any alteration by a secular government. With concern to the government, marriage is a state of economic convenience.  The state ought not give the title of "marriage" to couples, but rather "legal union" or "civil union" or the like.  Marriage granted by government, is simply a set of legal advantages conferred on two people for use in such areas as the filing of taxes, property rights, inheritance law, health care, power of attorney, et cetera.  To try to add any kind of religious beliefs on the bureaucratic definition of marriage would be contrary to the Constitution.  Let us, therefore, take the title of marriage out of the equation, lest any of the fallible members of humanity who hold office be tempted to bring religion into the realm of government.

The religious entity, then,  shall be the sole grantor of marriages.  In a land that guarantees the freedom of religion to its populace, there are sure to forever be many different religions and sects established and practiced.  Among these, individuals will select the religion or sect best suited to their personal beliefs, or convenience.  By furthering the wall of separation between the church and the state, we take the controversy out of the realm of government, leaving legislators to far more pressing issues.  Let, then the churches, mosques, temples, etc decide amongst themselves which will allow homosexuals to marry and let the homosexuals flock to them.  By this solution, the debate shall be diffused and legislatures and courts shall be freed from an unnecessary burden.  Let not then the debates be carried on by representatives and their constituents, but rather by radio talk-show hosts and their callers; clergy and their congregations; humans, and their god.

your thoughts?

---

a note on terms:
i used "the state" to refer to either a state or federal government or to governments in general, not to refer to any specific US stategovernment

i used " the church" to refer to any religious entity or to religion in general, not to the Catholic Church or to any Christian church.  Please forgive me if this has offended any non-christians.  It is simply a term of convenience.  It is generally used  in the debate of the separation of church and state, and understood by all.  It is was first used by Jefferson and then Madison and others, and, of course, it is in the title of the debate itself.

my use of the word "evolved" should not be construed as "progressed."  I do not believe that theocracies are inferior to secular governments, i simply mean to say that our government changed its role with religion, or went in a different direction than previous ones.  I have no problems with theocracies, especially if their citizens are well rooted in their land and beliefs, and do not have a large permanent immigrant population with different beliefs.

                                      ------------------------------------

This is an essay advocating the separation of church and state, the topic of gay marriage is simply its vehicle.  It is an idealistic essay.  I believe we'll see a female and black president (we've already had a gay one) before we see the state ending its role in marriage and religion.  It just isn't going to happen.  So now that i've got my head out of the clouds and my feet again planted in terra firma...

The state should grant gays the right to marry.  To exclude them is contrary to the principles of our Constitution.  Prohibiting gays from marrying establishes a segment of the population as second-class or inferior.  Even  civil unions which grant gays the same rights, priviliges and responsibilities as marriages are discrimanatory in language and on principle, but it is the least the state should do for the gays.

There are a great many reasons as to why people wish to exculde gays from the institution of  marriage, most of which are ridiculous and quite refutable, but those are topics for another essay.

Back to the separation of church and state.  Some other issues:
"In God we trust."  This phrase should be purged from our money on principle.  I have no other problem with it, though.  It doesn't offend me, even as an atheist.  I don't see it a doing a great harm to anyone in the way that excluding gays from marriage does.
"...one nation, under God..."  This phrase should be taken out the Pledge of Allegiance.  It is an official pledge of a secular nation, and therefore, there is no room for religion in it.  In fact, it was not part of the original Pledge, but added by an Act of Congress during the McCarthy era to show that Americans were good, God fearing people, unlike those shady communist, atheist Soviets.  Eventually we came to our senses and censured McCarthy, and even made peace with Russia, so i think its time to rid ourselves of this relic of that paranoid era.  Personally, i used to remain silent for the "under God" line, but it needs to go regardless.
Oath of the President.  The phrase "...so help me God" is not a part of the oath.  The founding fathers consciously left out any religious oath as a requirement to holding public office.  Those who don't wish to swear before god, may simply affirm to uphold the Constitution.  Simiarly, nowhere is it written that the Bible be part of the ceremony.  Placing one's hand on the Bible while swearing the oath, like adding the clause "so help me God," is a personal choice of the office holder-elect.
Prayer opening legislative sessions.  Inappropriate.  At the most, there might be allowed a moment of silence before the session so that those who wish may pray.  Still inappropriate, though.
Prayer in public schools.  A thornier issue.  Student- or Instructor-led prayer in the classroom or in a general assembly should not be allowed, even if you allow students not to participate.  A moment of silence should not be allowed as an atheist child may feel awkward and excluded and might be subject to ridicule or be excluded from the other social activities of his/her peers, either at their own will or their parents behest.  Honestly, if you feel the need to pray can it not be done before class or school?  I don't think the prayer will wear off between home and school, or is your god not that powerful?  Student- or Instructor-led prayer in a separate club or group is fine if religion is the topic of the group or all agree to it.

ok, this is begining to be longer than the essay itself.
your comments?
-ryan