the wall between church and state is one referencing the elitism accompanying tradition, as in the case with England and the Church of England at the time of the framing of the US Constitution, which is designated so as the faith adhered to by the Royals of that sovereignty.

In such a traditional establishment as that, the swaying of the Royal family can sway the guidance and governance of the people as subjects of the Sovereign and the sovereign's God given authority as has been assumed to be a 'christian' stance regarding all authorities and governments as being of God and subject to obedience by one particular New Testament letter.

The freedom of religion and the 'separation of church and state' reflected in the US Constitution is more aptly focused on disallowing any to control a representative governance by and of and for the people based solely on the whims and inclinations of those representatives bearing sway at any one time over the levers of power in sovereign governance and collective defence of liberties of a free and united people.

The hope was more about preventing wars between nations and sovereigns and a free people not bound by the traditions and inheritances of the Old World as dictated by the advantaged and privileged of their day, with the hopes and aspirations of posterity and civil society being governed by reason and consensus of and by and for the people so governed.

Alas, that has not come to pass, either.

The politics of greed and avarice have seen to that.

Moral decay that has followed that propensity has obscured the original intent of the first amendment and succeeded in reducing the intent to a quaint footnote, be it Jeffersonian or Madisonian.

As Madison has warned in the Federalsit Papers, it is the Hamltonian doctrines of a debt and credit driven economy that wouldsupplant the premise for our national preservation under the Constitution as given and designed and tratified into law, for and by, and of the people themselves. Especially those with a stake in it's survival or demise, not necessarily those that would burden themselves with further enslaving a free people in servitude to the wealthy ruling classes that reigned over commerce and sought supreme rule over all peoples as their prerogative, seeing that they themselves thought they knew better than sovereigns and publicans and statesmen what was best for the masses.

This Hamiltonian doctrine has roots in Masonry, which has roots in wrestling the sharing of power from sovereigns as their prerequisite justification, by virtue of their successes in negotiating privilege and advantage, historically speaking. After all, they did and do assume that they have the weighted say in the outcome of the fruit of their labors which has and had and does and will continue to make them rich in the things of this world, specifically in the control and dispensation of capital.

Today, this country would feign socialism even while capital flees the borders into global markets and global governance suitable to preserving the stauts quo of capital.

That has nothing to do with religion, just as Hamiltonian doctrines have nothing to do with Madislnian doctrines and the Fedrealist Papers efficacy of purpose and intent regarding the 'separation of church and state'.

NOw, pithy is and pithy was.

Those are the facts, and we are where we are as a people in defiance of the true meaning of what constituted the free exercise of religion as intended by the fathers of the US Constitution.

They, like many others of their day, recognized the dangers presented by both organized religious institutions in league with sovereigns, on the one hand, and the forces of economic enterprise on the other. Both of which were polar influences sought to be emasculated once and for all by the adoption of what appeared to be at the time the most careful of disciplined courses for governance and sovereignty of a free and diverse people to prosper and defend themselves from the most viscious threats purposed in avarice and greed and intolerance for the liberties of the common citizenry not so advantaged and privileged.


It did not work.

But the Hamiltonians did succeed in finally removing the gold standard from the currency protections of this once great nation.

Nixon was their tool to finally accomplish that which had been stayed off since Madison's Federalist paers had been published.

Both Lincoln and Kennedy came out publicly against such a drastic move as that. Robert Kennedy, too.

Winston Churcill ( in 1928) was run out of office the first time in England when their currency was taken off the Gold standard for value, just before the Great Depression. That did not happen in a vacuum then and it has not happened in a vacuum now.

Nor have we seen the end of the matter and what is in store for this country.

It is not the separation of church and state that was central to the issue between these two diverse doctrines when this nation's laws were ratified, but rather, included to prevent what was known to exist as a threat to a democracy by and for and of the people in the form of a representative governance for the pirposes of national defence, not national religous practice.




Dare to suppose that I am off my rocker and ignorant and imaginative.

I laugh at that prospect.

Few there be that understand the smallest details of the founding principles of this nation.


What angered the English was the destrucvtion of goodds and property belonging to those under the protection of the King of England, and the King himself who suffereds loss as well when the taxes anticipated on the tea sent here by the East India Co ( one of many brands under an umbrella holding company whose moniker is eluding my memory at the moment) were thrown in the harbor by the Masons.

It was called the Boston Tea Party. It is wrapped in the ditty about Paul Revere. And it was this one event which precipitated the war between England and the colonies.

This was the brand of 'separation of church and state' being safeguarded against, but being used by the Masons in their attempt to reign supreme as the merchants and captains of industry in the colonies with autonomy.


What remains an abrogation of intent of the framers of this country's laws is not religious but economic, and economic in the form of taxatiuon without representation in the name of revenue enhancement and not by the will of the people in consensus, but by the will of the advantaged and privileged and the sway they hold over office holders of this representative governance gone awry.( i.e., patents and legislating uncompetitive market access and privilege to the advantaged by way of legal machinations assuming validity of purpose in adjudicating 'rules of precendence'.

Now, since religous freedoms required a civics lesson, continue on with your discussion without being"RELIGIOUS" LOL.

Please, it is interesting to witness.

Eljay,

What was the Law? How is it interpreted? And how would a state law change the first amendment of the United States?

I wish you could be more specific for me as I do not keep up on these things.

JB

Anyone who wants to get married and is of age should be allowed to do it. There should be no religious stipulations in the law concerning this concept at all.

Jeannie;

I don't live in Massachusetts anymore, so I didn't have access to the papers to follow up on the specifics. I do get Boston news on T.V. - and they were never specific about which Law it was, just that it existed. It was a broad interpretation of the constitution (again I don't have the specifics) that the Mass SJC used to override the existing law to make Gay marriage legal in Massachusetts. Then Gov Duval Patrick eliminated another "old" law - as he termed it, that would allow anyone outside of the state who was gay to get married in Massachusetts. Let's keep those dollars coming in folks. Come and get your marriage liscences here in Massachusetts - we're givin' em away!

Dragoness, were talking about the concept of marriage, if you can show me somewhere in the historical past where marriage means anything but the union of a man and woman i will be happy to recognize any and all that can be shown - and no - I'm not taking a biblical view on this - but an historical one. i don't care if it happens - and someone wants to call it marriage - i'm just stating that i have found nothing in history to support the fact that marriage is to be anything else but between a man and a women - is there evidence you have that i don't know about? I think I've researched this quite well - but i may not be aware of something you or others here may be aware of? thnx.

Eljay,

You didn't really answer my question clearly, so perhaps you don't really know. I was just curious why you thought that a law in Massachusetts would effect the first amendment.

Another question I would like to ask, why would you care if two people of the same sex whom you don't even know get married? How do you think that would effect your life personally?

JB

Perhaps a union between a gay couple should be established that is similar to marriage but customized for two equal same sex persons.

yeah i agree with that.

and with marriage being a contract with the powers that be - now that can be shown historically be it church or government or both.

You know we had laws in the Southern part of the United States back in the 1960's that called for "separate but equal" treatment of "colored" people. What I never have understood about the "gay marriage" argument is the claim that "they are destroying the sanctity of marriage" part. So I'm going to ask some direct questions and see if I can get a reasonable answer to some.

What part of marriage will be destroyed?

Is marriage really "sanctified" when over half end in a dissolving of the union?

Why shouldn't gay people be just as miserable in marriage as heterosexuals?

If only religion has a problem with same sex marriage, why not just go to a Justice of the Peace or some equivalent. Marriage has nothing to do with religion, so why does someone need a religious blessing to get married? (Now religion has forced itself into marriage, but it isn't required)

What business is it of other people of who makes a life commitment to each other?

Do people gearing up for a "gay wedding" register at different places? (or is the standard ice cream maker present okay?)

Just a few, but thought I might ask a few and see what happens.