Glenn McCoy by Glenn McCoy

Glenn McCoy

Comments (66) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. comicgos

    comicgos said, over 3 years ago

    KEEP CHURCH OUT OF THE CONSTITUTION!

  2. PianoGuy24

    PianoGuy24 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    @comicgos

    And what makes what YOU want more important than what I want…?

  3. Newshound41

    Newshound41 said, over 3 years ago

    @PianoGuy24

    Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land:
    -
    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

  4. PianoGuy24

    PianoGuy24 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    @Newshound41

    And yet, the Libs are constantly striving to change it to their liking…or work around it…

  5. Newshound41

    Newshound41 said, over 3 years ago

    @PianoGuy24

    Since 1803, the Supreme Court has ruled on the Constitutionality of laws. We Americans will have to abide by whatever decision is made.

  6. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    About that “there shall never be any religious test”, in the Constitution. It isn’t a fight in any form, it’s the wisdom of the framers of the Constitution who feared “religion” (organized) even though many were “religious”.

  7. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, over 3 years ago

    The issue here is less about whether gay marriage is legal or not, imho, but about what the repercussions will be to those religious organizations who refuse to execute and recognize gay marriages. Because that’s the place we’re going with this. If the SCOTUS rules that gay marriage is legal, then what will happen if churches refuse to marry same-sex couples? Can they be forced to marry same-sex couples? Can those same couples sue the church for refusing to do that?

    These questions boil down to this main point: If the answer to that is yes, then they are violating the US Constitution in forcing those religious peoples to violate their religiously-held beliefs. Scott quoted the correct section of the Constitution, because it will be directly impugning the right to freely practice one’s religion. THIS is the fundamental issue at hand.

    The only way out of this swamp, as I see it, is to separate all marriages from the law and define Marriage as one held in a church, and a civil union as one held in a court. Both have the same legal standing, but then you cannot force churches to “Marry” you, thus protecting the constitutionality of it all. The institution of marriage is intact (albeit poorly, given our current divorce rate), and same-sex couples have their legal status that they want. It’s not perfect, but it’s constitutional and accomplishes the goals of both sides.

  8. Fourcrows

    Fourcrows said, over 3 years ago

    You know, you and Tigger are both conservative don’t you? Although I believe Tigger leans more libertarian.

  9. dannysixpack

    dannysixpack said, over 3 years ago

    Wraithkins issue is a red herring.

    if it is the ‘fundamental question’ why is it not being argued before the court.

    the government can not and never will force religious institutions to marry people they don’t want to. Though i’d LOVE to make the case they have to because of the over 4.1 billion dollars the church takes from the federal government each year.

  10. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, over 3 years ago

    You do know that my post is not a rant, right? I am stating a very plausible outcome of legalizing gay marriage. I’m going to bounce it back to you:

    Would you sue the Catholic church for not marrying you if you were from a different religion?

    The obvious answer is “no,” because that’s legal for them to hold their religious beliefs. It’s been a long-standing understanding about what to do in mixed-religion marriages, because it’s been going on for so long. But everyone has accepted this is the norm and to accept that each church defines what it deems an acceptable course of action.

    But now, with our litigious society, I can all but guarantee that the LBGT community will start throwing lawsuits all over the place, arguing discrimination against them by the churches (regardless of religion). This is my concern, because I know it will happen. They may even present lawsuits against individual bishops/fathers/popes/pastors/etc. for refusing to marry them. And that violates the Constitution, because it attempts to coerce religious organizations to violate their core tenants, just like with the PPACA and forcing Catholic-based organizations to provide birth-control coverage.

  11. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 3 years ago

    @Wraithkin

    Damn good idea my brother.

  12. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, over 3 years ago

    Agreed. But I would take it further than that. We have crumbling bridges and a failing electrical grid, among other problems. Why pay people not to work? If we pay them, let’s get something out of it. I’m not saying that picking up litter is not important, but we have bigger fish to fry.

  13. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 3 years ago

    So isn’t your last word a confirmation that a religious denomination can and does make rules for their group without government control? AND, if you are a member of that specific group, the group can require you to abide by those rules? All without government enforcement.

    Or would you rather that the current ruling power be able to come into your church, change those rules to fit their idea of right and wrong regardless of what you believe and require you to abide by it or pay a “fine”?

    Currently, no one in the government can do that. However, Obama IS testing the water with his signature legislation and IF SCOTUS rules on gay marriage as “legal” then Wraithkin has a very valid point. How will that ruling be enforced? How can the government ignore the constitution where it says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” and require that a specific church practice something they feel is diametrically opposed to the requirements of their God?

    Since you are Catholic, would you see it as progress for the government to say that the confessional is not privileged information since Priests are not lawyers and are not “retained” to defend the parishioners? Just wondering……

  14. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 3 years ago

    @dannysixpack

    Gee, do you think it may be that if that was the argument then the ruling would be in favor of the Church and it’s constitutionally protected rights.

    AND, there are cases in court today where the courts have ruled that – religious tenets be damned – you will obey the government first. So isn’t that the government ruling that you may NOT exercise your religion as you see fit?

  15. PianoGuy24

    PianoGuy24 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    Can you show EXACTLY where in the constitution it’s stated? Didn’t think so…cause it’s NOT in there stated that way!

  16. Load 15 more comments. | Load the rest (51).