How do you feel when lawmakers try to support/ban/change laws based on religious views you don't agree with?

Question

Question mainly for non-Christians>>>

I don't know if anyone is paying attention to the debate going on right now about the marriage ammendment, but I've noticed many lawmakers talking about their support of it based on the Bible and the 10 commandments, etc. If you do not follow such beliefs, how do you feel about lawmakers trying to pass an ammendment that is soley supported by how their beliefs rule on the issue?

I should clarify, as have many of the lawmakers have already done in this debate, that by "Christian," it is meant "Judeo-Christian."

Also, the question is not whether or not you are for the ban, it's how you feel about lawmakers.

Answer 1

First of all there is no denying that marriage is based in religion.

To bestow a tax advantage or any other legal benefit to those who choose to enter into a religion based coupling is a violation of the first amendment in that these laws in effect help establish religion by providing a financial benefit for those who choose to conform to a religion.

When the government wants to "define" (pass laws) what "marriage" (a religious institution) is, it is in all actuality dictating a religious institution which is an even more obvious example of a first amendment violation.

If you want to get married, fine, it should make no difference to the government and thus you should not get any legal benefits for marriage.

If you want to have some tax advantages or any other legal benefits for couples, a "civil union" can be established. As a non-religious coupling the intrusive Christians of this country would not have a leg to stand on to block the formation of civil unions between anyone.

Marriage cannot be considered a legal civil union because it is a institution of religion and not of law. If the religious want the legal benefits they should have to apply for a civil union to get them.

Answer 2

well that is a very good question. You see America is supposed to be the land of the free. We have freedom of speech, freedom or religion etc, we just have the disadvantage of not being able to separate church from the government. If we live in a country that practices religions other than christianity..than why are the lawmakers, making laws of ethic's based on the bible? I think it's wrong. Then again that's just my opinion.

Answer 3

I am not a "Christian" but I am a moral human being. I am against gay marriage and abortion, for example. But it is not based on a religious doctrine, it is based on what is "right".

And the answerer above is correct, lawmakers are there to represent their constituents values, not their own. Fact is, 80% of Americans are Christian or believe in Christian values. That many are also opposed to gay marriage. Thus, the lawmakers are doing what they are supposed to.

Answer 4

I'm not too sure, but the last time I read the constitution it called for a separation of church and state- that goes both ways. While it is true that are society is inherently judeo-christian, times are changing and we can not enforce religions as has been done in the past. All our laws have their inception in religion, but at some point it goes too far and the religion is dictating the laws of the country. If we allow our religions to dictate the laws of our country, how then can we look down upon the Muslim countries whose religion involves Jihads- completely justifying their terrorism because their religion dictates their laws. And it kind of disturbs me our nations leaders are nothing but hypocrites.

Answer 5

nicely, I do attempt to persist with the bible, yet particularly certainly, how does gays being allowed to marry have any consequence on christianity? If we don't pass the replace, will all of them circulate promptly? No, of direction no longer, so so a techniques as i'm in touch, why all the concern. If church homes do no longer like it, then they shouldn't habit the ceremonies. different than that, i individually don't get it. so as that they'll inherit if their spouse dies, or they'll get the existence coverage. Why could desire to that be this style of terrible element? So, if we don't approve of what our lawmakers are doing, we could desire to continuously no longer vote for them next time. could desire to weed out various the time wasters besides.

Answer 6

I don't support "Christian" law per se, but the Judeo-Christian morals (not stuff on abortion or gay marriage) are reasonable and are practiced world-wide.

As a straight male, I don't give a rat's a$$ if gay people get married. Sure they can, I'm not gay. I shouldn't have huge imput on the matter, neither should the government. Gay people should be able to marry if they want to.

Answer 7

A couple of the wonderful things that our Declaration of Independence and democracy are based upon. "All Men Are Created Equal", "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", the protection of the right of the minority from the majority.
I've failed to see any of this included by politicians in any statemnt on this subject. I've had my faith denied by our current government, been denied the right to marry the one person I choose and have to pay hundreds of dollars to receive the same rights and privileges that another couple pays $50.00 for a marriage license for. Quite frankly, I'm pissed and feel my government has failed me on many counts, including following the standards upon which it is based.
Although I do believe one's belieifs should be a consideration when passing man's laws, the Bible does give us a quote to consider on this. "Give unto Ceaser what is Ceaser, and give unto God what is God's". It is not for man to determine who's life is better than another's, but to determine law based upon what has already been set forth for them to follow.

Answer 8

Like our Founding Fathers, I am a strong supporter of the separation of church and state. Also, I'm straight, but I believe that gays should be allowed to marry and adopt and foster children, and it really pisses me off how the religious fanatics have hijacked the White House, both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court.

Answer 9

I don't believe that it is solely based on how they feel...But more of how the majority that voted for them feel....

You say it's solely based on their belief...Can you back that up?...Or is that solely your belief?

What's the difference in changing laws based on religious views as compared to making laws based on non-religious views..We all have our beliefs...Non-religious views are no more important than religious views...Lawmakers are voted in by the people...It is up to the lawmakers to represent the peoples wishes...

Why should the gays be allowed to change laws based on their beliefs?

Answer 10

Lawmakers are supposed to vote their supporters values, not theirs. For me, if they are in..I want them out...that means vote.