Ann Coulter is political

[Two Thumbs]

In her speech to CPAC she said she is a friend of gays.

She said she is against gay marriage. She is a friend who is against the primary objective of the gays.

Why would any sane person care at all who any other person marries?

Ann is also against sodomy. Isn't that the essence of gay intercourse? Does Ann like putting a cock in her own ass? Some women like sodomy with a man. Why does Ann care what other people want to do?

I have friends who are gay. And I'm against gay marriage. I think the confusion comes down to the definition of marriage. I'm Catholic, so the definition of marriage - to me - comes from my faith. It is not a piece of paper, or a license.... it is a union, ordained by God, for the procreation of children. I am not against gays having equal rights - in fact, I'm very supportive of equal rights - for everyone.... but.... I will not tolerate the state deciding what is a matter of faith for me.

I think the rest of your post is just silly gibberish, for 'shock value'... it is mindless, grade school language so I'll ignore it.

I won't tolerate you saying the state cannot approve gay marriage, because of your faith. That's definitely a violation of the First Amendment.

Since there is no Federal level right to get married, each state is free to have it's own laws about marraige.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I have friends who are gay. And I'm against gay marriage. I think the confusion comes down to the definition of marriage. I'm Catholic, so the definition of marriage - to me - comes from my faith. It is not a piece of paper, or a license.... it is a union, ordained by God, for the procreation of children. I am not against gays having equal rights - in fact, I'm very supportive of equal rights - for everyone.... but.... I will not tolerate the state deciding what is a matter of faith for me.

I think the rest of your post is just silly gibberish, for 'shock value'... it is mindless, grade school language so I'll ignore it.

I won't tolerate you saying the state cannot approve gay marriage, because of your faith. That's definitely a violation of the First Amendment.

Since there is no Federal level right to get married, each state is free to have it's own laws about marraige.

Exactly. There is a reason the U.S. Constitution didn't start as a 10,000 page document addressing every damn thing under the sun. I tend to agree that if localities want to allow GM, so be it. This BS of everything having to be the law of the land is ridiculous.

 

[kaz]

In her speech to CPAC she said she is a friend of gays.

She said she is against gay marriage. She is a friend who is against the primary objective of the gays.

Why would any sane person care at all who any other person marries?

Ann is also against sodomy. Isn't that the essence of gay intercourse? Does Ann like putting a cock in her own ass? Some women like sodomy with a man. Why does Ann care what other people want to do?

I agree, but she's a heck of a writer. As a libertarian I tend to agree with her on fiscal issues and disagree on social issues. I'm also against the war. But her books are very good. They don't change my mind, but she is a very intelligent person and very articulate.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I won't tolerate you saying the state cannot approve gay marriage, because of your faith. That's definitely a violation of the First Amendment.

Since there is no Federal level right to get married, each state is free to have it's own laws about marraige.

Exactly. There is a reason the U.S. Constitution didn't start as a 10,000 page document addressing every damn thing under the sun. I tend to agree that if localities want to allow GM, so be it. This BS of everything having to be the law of the land is ridiculous.

I was on Salons free site (I was one of ~12 cons) dickering this point. And I can tell you this, liberals don't give a damn about states rights as long as they get thier demands.

 

[kaz]

I was on Salons free site (I was one of ~12 cons) dickering this point. And I can tell you this, liberals don't give a damn about states rights as long as they get thier demands.

Ditto the Republicans. For example, the War on Drugs is a flagrant violation of State rights and individual liberties with zero Constitutional authority. Republicans vote for earmarks, which are just flat out armed robbery (stealing from one citizen to give to another). They use the Commerce Clause which was intended to smooth trade between States (interstate commerce) to regulate intra-State business. All those and far more are flagrant violations of State authority. But when the Democrats want to do things that violate State rights suddenly Republicans are against it.

 

[manifold]

I have friends who are gay. And I'm against gay marriage. I think the confusion comes down to the definition of marriage. I'm Catholic, so the definition of marriage - to me - comes from my faith. It is not a piece of paper, or a license.... it is a union, ordained by God, for the procreation of children. I am not against gays having equal rights - in fact, I'm very supportive of equal rights - for everyone.... but.... I will not tolerate the state deciding what is a matter of faith for me.

If the state legalizes homosexual unions and calls it 'marriage', how is that the equivalent of the state 'deciding what is a matter of faith' for you?

Is semantics really a matter of faith for you?

 

[Two Thumbs]

I was on Salons free site (I was one of ~12 cons) dickering this point. And I can tell you this, liberals don't give a damn about states rights as long as they get thier demands.

Ditto the Republicans. For example, the War on Drugs is a flagrant violation of State rights and individual liberties with zero Constitutional authority. Republicans vote for earmarks, which are just flat out armed robbery (stealing from one citizen to give to another). They use the Commerce Clause which was intended to smooth trade between States (interstate commerce) to regulate intra-State business. All those and far more are flagrant violations of State authority. But when the Democrats want to do things that violate State rights suddenly Republicans are against it.

good lord

Yes we can spend all day going over and over what each party does that as wrong as the other side.

It was mentioned that marraige is a right. It's not, it's a privalage controlled by the states. but since it's a lot of work to get each state to cater to such a tiny minority, the libs want to push it to the Fed level where it does not belong.

As far as drugs go, there should only be state laws for those also.

 

[Sky Dancer]

In her speech to CPAC she said she is a friend of gays.

She said she is against gay marriage. She is a friend who is against the primary objective of the gays.

Why would any sane person care at all who any other person marries?

Ann is also against sodomy. Isn't that the essence of gay intercourse? Does Ann like putting a cock in her own ass? Some women like sodomy with a man. Why does Ann care what other people want to do?

I have friends who are gay. And I'm against gay marriage. I think the confusion comes down to the definition of marriage. I'm Catholic, so the definition of marriage - to me - comes from my faith. It is not a piece of paper, or a license.... it is a union, ordained by God, for the procreation of children. I am not against gays having equal rights - in fact, I'm very supportive of equal rights - for everyone.... but.... I will not tolerate the state deciding what is a matter of faith for me.

I think the rest of your post is just silly gibberish, for 'shock value'... it is mindless, grade school language so I'll ignore it.

Marriage licenses are legally binding civil contracts. They do not require a Catholic priest to perform a ceremony. I understand that matrimony is a sacrament in Catholicism. I respect that. Civil marriage equality in no way demeans the sacrament of matrimony in your church. Your priests are free to marry heterosexual couples in your church and civil marriage equality will not change that.

I do want to ask you a question though. Would an infertile couple be allowed to marry in the Catholic Church since the whole purpose of marriage in Catholicism is having children? What about older couples who are past the age of child bearing. Can they marry in the Catholic Church?

I don't see any place in the Catholic Church for gay and lesbian people. That's ok. I know they are not welcome in Catholic Churches unless they agree to be celibate.

Lucky for us healthy gays and lesbians, there are other spiritual and religious traditions happy to marry us.

Interesting side note. Both my partner and I were raised as Catholics and we became Buddhists. We met at a Buddhist meditation retreat. We were married in a Buddhist ceremony after being together as married mates for 25 years.

 

[Sky Dancer]

In her speech to CPAC she said she is a friend of gays.

She said she is against gay marriage. She is a friend who is against the primary objective of the gays.

Why would any sane person care at all who any other person marries?

Ann is also against sodomy. Isn't that the essence of gay intercourse? Does Ann like putting a cock in her own ass? Some women like sodomy with a man. Why does Ann care what other people want to do?

I agree, but she's a heck of a writer. As a libertarian I tend to agree with her on fiscal issues and disagree on social issues. I'm also against the war. But her books are very good. They don't change my mind, but she is a very intelligent person and very articulate.

That's the most fair assessment I've heard about Coulter. I don't agree with her politics or her divisive nasty rhetoric, but I do agree she is intelligent, articulate and writes well.

 

[Sky Dancer]

... Some women like sodomy with a man. ...

Who are these women and where were they when I was single???

They are probably married and unavailable to you.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Why would any sane person care at all who any other person marries?

One man, one woman marriage is fundamental to a healthy society.....have you taken a good look at Europe and Canada where the social engineers promoting gay marriage are causing havoc to marriage rates, family stability, and the well-being of children....which is leading to the decline of society?

Do you realize that these leftist social engineers and activist groups have a political agenda....? Do you realize that their targets include the family unit...as well as religion...?

And until leftist lobbyists can attack sharia law and all its gory results as much or more than you attack Christians....you pro-gay marriage pontificators don't have a leg to stand on...

 

[Old Rocks]

I have friends who are gay. And I'm against gay marriage. I think the confusion comes down to the definition of marriage. I'm Catholic, so the definition of marriage - to me - comes from my faith. It is not a piece of paper, or a license.... it is a union, ordained by God, for the procreation of children. I am not against gays having equal rights - in fact, I'm very supportive of equal rights - for everyone.... but.... I will not tolerate the state deciding what is a matter of faith for me.

I think the rest of your post is just silly gibberish, for 'shock value'... it is mindless, grade school language so I'll ignore it.

Thanks to the separation of church and state clause (yes, Christine, it IS in the Constitution), our government shouldn't be deciding ANYTHING on this issue. If gays want to get married and they can find a religion that allows it, more power to them.

Of course, it is not in the Constitution...

Had you a WSJ understanding of the question, rather than the USAToday version, you might understand that the concept was meant to keep government out of religion, rather than religion out of government.

But, it's never too late to learn...

1. As for the famous “separation of church and state,” the phrase appears in no federal document. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.

a. From the 1790 Massachusetts Constitution, written by John Adams, includes: [the] good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend(s) upon piety, religion, and morality…by the institution of public worship of God and of the public instruction in piety, religion, and morality…”Massachusetts Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. North Carolina Constitution, article 32, 1776: “That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of either the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall b e capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit, in the civil department, within this State.” Constitution of North Carolina, 1776

c. So, the Founders intention was to be sure that the federal government didn’t do the same, and mandate a national religion. And when Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, it was to reassure them the federal government could not interfere in their religious observations, i.e., there is “a wall of separation between church and state.” He wasn’t speaking of religion contaminating the government, but of the government contaminating religious observance.

Jefferson's complete letter to the Danbury church;
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Seems to me that Jefferson was quite clear that the Seperation of Church and State was in the Constitution.

Madison was afraid that the state would be a bad influence on religion. Jefferson was afraid that religion would be a bad influence on the state. Both were correct.

 

[hjmick]

"Ann Coulter is political"


Well no shit Sherlock.

 

[AllieBaba]

Thanks to the separation of church and state clause (yes, Christine, it IS in the Constitution), our government shouldn't be deciding ANYTHING on this issue. If gays want to get married and they can find a religion that allows it, more power to them.

Of course, it is not in the Constitution...

Had you a WSJ understanding of the question, rather than the USAToday version, you might understand that the concept was meant to keep government out of religion, rather than religion out of government.

But, it's never too late to learn...

1. As for the famous “separation of church and state,” the phrase appears in no federal document. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.

a. From the 1790 Massachusetts Constitution, written by John Adams, includes: [the] good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend(s) upon piety, religion, and morality…by the institution of public worship of God and of the public instruction in piety, religion, and morality…”Massachusetts Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. North Carolina Constitution, article 32, 1776: “That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of either the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall b e capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit, in the civil department, within this State.” Constitution of North Carolina, 1776

c. So, the Founders intention was to be sure that the federal government didn’t do the same, and mandate a national religion. And when Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, it was to reassure them the federal government could not interfere in their religious observations, i.e., there is “a wall of separation between church and state.” He wasn’t speaking of religion contaminating the government, but of the government contaminating religious observance.

Jefferson's complete letter to the Danbury church;
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Seems to me that Jefferson was quite clear that the Seperation of Church and State was in the Constitution.

Madison was afraid that the state would be a bad influence on religion. Jefferson was afraid that religion would be a bad influence on the state. Both were correct.

Jefferson believed in separation of church and state in that he wanted the STATE to keep its fucking nose out of CHURCH. Obviously he had no issue with religious terms being brought into politics, and in fact on more than one occasion opined that there was no democracy without God.

Dumbass.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why would any sane person care at all who any other person marries?

One man, one woman marriage is fundamental to a healthy society.....have you taken a good look at Europe and Canada where the social engineers promoting gay marriage are causing havoc to marriage rates, family stability, and the well-being of children....which is leading to the decline of society?

Do you realize that these leftist social engineers and activist groups have a political agenda....? Do you realize that their targets include the family unit...as well as religion...?

And until leftist lobbyists can attack sharia law and all its gory results as much or more than you attack Christians....you pro-gay marriage pontificators don't have a leg to stand on...

Well, Screammy, perhaps you should research before posting.

Births to unwed mothers in the US 40%
Netherlands 40
Canada 30%
Ireland 30%
Spain 28%
Italy 21%
Iceland 66%
Sweden 55%
Norway 54%
France 50%
Denmark 46%
United Kingdom 44%

Seems that there are nations both with less and with more single mothers in Europe. And Canada is defintely less than we are.

 

[uscitizen]

$40 billion is nothing.

Who cares?

so the 600 million to fund PBS.....

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course, it is not in the Constitution...

Had you a WSJ understanding of the question, rather than the USAToday version, you might understand that the concept was meant to keep government out of religion, rather than religion out of government.

But, it's never too late to learn...

1. As for the famous “separation of church and state,” the phrase appears in no federal document. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.

a. From the 1790 Massachusetts Constitution, written by John Adams, includes: [the] good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend(s) upon piety, religion, and morality…by the institution of public worship of God and of the public instruction in piety, religion, and morality…”Massachusetts Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. North Carolina Constitution, article 32, 1776: “That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of either the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall b e capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit, in the civil department, within this State.” Constitution of North Carolina, 1776

c. So, the Founders intention was to be sure that the federal government didn’t do the same, and mandate a national religion. And when Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, it was to reassure them the federal government could not interfere in their religious observations, i.e., there is “a wall of separation between church and state.” He wasn’t speaking of religion contaminating the government, but of the government contaminating religious observance.

Jefferson's complete letter to the Danbury church;
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Seems to me that Jefferson was quite clear that the Seperation of Church and State was in the Constitution.

Madison was afraid that the state would be a bad influence on religion. Jefferson was afraid that religion would be a bad influence on the state. Both were correct.

Jefferson believed in separation of church and state in that he wanted the STATE to keep its fucking nose out of CHURCH. Obviously he had no issue with religious terms being brought into politics, and in fact on more than one occasion opined that there was no democracy without God.

Dumbass.

Ah, my ignorant fundemetalist, perhaps one should read what Jefferson's opinions were.

Thomas Jefferson quotes

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782



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

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782



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

What is it men cannot be made to believe!
-Thomas Jefferson to Richard Henry Lee, April 22, 1786. (on the British regarding America, but quoted here for its universal appeal.)



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

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787



History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.



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

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814



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

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

 

[Mr. Shaman]

In her speech to CPAC she said she is a friend of gays.

She said she is against gay marriage. She is a friend who is against the primary objective of the gays.

Why would any sane person care at all who any other person marries?

Ann is also against sodomy. Isn't that the essence of gay intercourse? Does Ann like putting a cock in her own ass? Some women like sodomy with a man. Why does Ann care what other people want to do?

I agree, but she's a heck of a writer.

....If you're into fiction.

​

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thanks to the separation of church and state clause (yes, Christine, it IS in the Constitution), our government shouldn't be deciding ANYTHING on this issue. If gays want to get married and they can find a religion that allows it, more power to them.

Of course, it is not in the Constitution...

Had you a WSJ understanding of the question, rather than the USAToday version, you might understand that the concept was meant to keep government out of religion, rather than religion out of government.

But, it's never too late to learn...

1. As for the famous “separation of church and state,” the phrase appears in no federal document. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.

a. From the 1790 Massachusetts Constitution, written by John Adams, includes: [the] good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend(s) upon piety, religion, and morality…by the institution of public worship of God and of the public instruction in piety, religion, and morality…”Massachusetts Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. North Carolina Constitution, article 32, 1776: “That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of either the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall b e capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit, in the civil department, within this State.” Constitution of North Carolina, 1776

c. So, the Founders intention was to be sure that the federal government didn’t do the same, and mandate a national religion. And when Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, it was to reassure them the federal government could not interfere in their religious observations, i.e., there is “a wall of separation between church and state.” He wasn’t speaking of religion contaminating the government, but of the government contaminating religious observance.

Jefferson's complete letter to the Danbury church;
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Seems to me that Jefferson was quite clear that the Seperation of Church and State was in the Constitution.

Madison was afraid that the state would be a bad influence on religion. Jefferson was afraid that religion would be a bad influence on the state. Both were correct.

Not so, Rocks....

You need to understand the times, and I would recommend Kidd's "God of LIberty."

Itinerant preachers such as the Baptists were held in disrepute, as representing a poorer class, and also because they felt they had the right to preach anywhere and anytime.
Further, they were not Anglians, or, as later named, Episcopanians.

From Kidd:

1. In the colony of Virginia, preaching was illegal without a state license. Baptists were regularly arrested and fined. Quakers were outlawed, as were Catholics.

a. Maryland became a land of exile for a variety of Christian groups since Virginia enforced conformity to the Church of England.

b. Presbyterian preachers moved into Virginia and became a challenge to Anglican dominance, and grew vindictive toward the dissenting competitors. By the early 1760’s, there was a reluctant acceptance- but it turned on the Baptists.

2. Massachusetts and Connecticut established the Congregationalist (Puritan) church by law, whereas many of the mid-Atlantic and southern colonies made the Anglican Church their official denomination.

a. In Puritan New England, Anglicans, Baptists, Quakers, and Catholics were unwelcome….Rhode Island became a haven for outcasts and refugees fleeing Puritan justice.

b. ‘Rhode Islandism’ became synonymous with religious disorder. John Adam’s diary, December 29, 1765.

3. By the time of the Civil War, Baptists, along with Methodists, would be two of the largest Protestant denominations in America.

4. By any estimation, most of the early colonies did not embrace religious freedom! Madison and Jefferson were two of the Enlightenment liberals who rallied to the cause of the persecuted Baptists, and with evangelicals and others, supported disestablishment.

a. In 1771, a writer calling himself ‘Timoleon,’ in Purdie & Dixon’s Virginia Gazette, argued that dissenters should have protection under English law, and he argued that multiple denominations made Virginia society healthier: “Liberty of conscience is the sacred property of every man.” To take it away makes one a tyrant.

5. In early 1776, as the colonies began to organize independent government, they began to think of statements of basic liberties, and Madison helped craft the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which became the impetus for shedding the establishment of a faith, and the tradition of persecution.

a. George Mason has proposed that the Declaration provide full toleration for dissenters, but Madison would settle for nothing less than “free exercise of religion” for all.

b. At this time most of Virginia’s leaders still wanted an Anglican [to be called the Episcopal Church after independence] establishment along with the free exercise of religion. P.53

c. Jefferson explained that “at the time of the revolution, most had become dissenters from the established church but still had to pay contributions to support the pastors of the minority.” “Thomas Jefferson Autobiography,” Ford (ed.), p. 52.
Here, Jefferson was railing against a state-authorized religion which would, in fact, tax all to pay for a particular religious clergy...even though most were 'dissenters'.

The Baptists of Danbury had written to Jefferson to ask for asistance against the state of Connecticut, as far as their religious practices...and the letter to them was to offer assurance ...against the state!


Further, you should be very clear that our Framers were both religious themselves, and firmly believed that religion was necessary in the public arena.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Why would any sane person care at all who any other person marries?

One man, one woman marriage is fundamental to a healthy society.....have you taken a good look at Europe and Canada where the social engineers promoting gay marriage are causing havoc to marriage rates, family stability, and the well-being of children....which is leading to the decline of society?

Do you realize that these leftist social engineers and activist groups have a political agenda....? Do you realize that their targets include the family unit...as well as religion...?

And until leftist lobbyists can attack sharia law and all its gory results as much or more than you attack Christians....you pro-gay marriage pontificators don't have a leg to stand on...

Well, Screammy, perhaps you should research before posting.

Births to unwed mothers in the US 40%
Netherlands 40
Canada 30%
Ireland 30%
Spain 28%
Italy 21%
Iceland 66%
Sweden 55%
Norway 54%
France 50%
Denmark 46%
United Kingdom 44%

Seems that there are nations both with less and with more single mothers in Europe. And Canada is defintely less than we are.

Believe it or not there are more factors than just gay marriage that enter into the cause for unwed birth rates....welfarism, feminism, secularism...

Also consider the higher number of blacks in the U.S. as compared to European countries.....although improving some, that unwed mother rate hovers around 75%....