terramoon 52M
0 posts
6/23/2006 8:36 am

Last Read:
9/15/2006 7:37 pm


It is naive and simple-minded of any elected official within the United States Government to believe that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with liberty and justice for all to be ambiguous or mystifying. It is a constitutional foundation that strongly prevents the United States Government and our elected representation from dictating and/or defining an amendment that would violate the rights which are embedded within the same.

It is the Framers Wisdom and Conduct that defines our Constitution and those it protects. It is clearly indicated that neither an amendment nor law will be established that denies any citizen of the United States the civil rights indicated within these paragraphs and within the historical documents that guide our elected officials to do what is constitutionally appropriate regardless of their subjective and/or personal ideations.

This is a government that has either failed to remember or deliberately ignores or is just ignorant and/or blind of the fact that “We the People of the United States” in order to form a more perfect union, establish government…” Never disregard that this is a government recognized by the people for the people and it is the people who have the right to disband any sitting President or Representative who attempts to violate the simple rights that are clearly defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Deviation is neither acceptable nor is it tolerable for any elected official to support an amendment that defines marriage. Marriage is a sacrament of Church and the God it Worships. Guided by the aforementioned belief, marriage must remain separated from Executive and/or Judicial corruption. Religion already defines marriage.

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. It was Thomas Jefferson who penned the First Amendment. It clearly defines a "wall of separation" between the church and the state. The Amendment clearly defines that government will not establish, support, or otherwise involve itself in any religion or topic thereof. There is one other direct bow to religion in the original Constitution, and it is a bit obtuse. The Presidential Oath of Office is codified in the Constitution:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Again, the reference might be obtuse, but it is the inclusion of language in the oath that allows an incoming President to swear or affirm the oath. It is this that cements the pledge as all-inclusive and religion-neutral.

Finally, the Constitution refers to the year that the convention created the same as "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." Some have argued that the use of the term "Lord" in this way is indicative of something, but it is indicative of nothing more than a standard and acceptable means of defining years.

The Framers of the First Amendment believed that they had structured a complete and comprehensive document; however, the opposition had many issues with the Constitution such as the necessity for a bill of rights. Most state constitutions established a bill of rights; rights that the people of the states were guaranteed to enjoy regardless of any law or rule to the contrary. The supporters of the Constitution felt that a bill of rights was precarious because a list of rights could potentially limit the rights of the people. Ultimately, it was undeniably supported, and a bill of rights to the Constitution was ratified. The First Amendment focused on religion.

Through the debates in the House, Senate, and Conference Committees; the words of the many were studied and managed into one well established clause:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

In view of the fact that marriage by definition is an institution of religion and believing strongly or for good reason or knowing for a fact that this is true and the case; the proxies participating in the definition of marriage would be violating that established within our Constitution and the Amendments thereof. Therefore, a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage would simply be Unconstitutional and a violation of the people’s Civil Liberties.

Defining a Civil Union without violating the people’s Civil Rights would be a more appropriate avenue of discussion; however, this to would be a difficult curb to maneuver without violating the people’s Civil Liberties. It is without doubt that any attempt to define a Civil Union would be simply impossible and a subject matter of the profoundly insane. It would be a waste of taxpayer’s money and their Representatives’ schedule. We live in an epoch where any measurable representation should be devoted to objective measures rather than the subjective perceptions of the Sitting President of the United States, George W. Bush. His is based on opinions or feelings rather than on facts or evidence and is a philosophy existing only in his mind and not independently of it. The prospect of creating such an amendment is simply and profoundly impossible. I would ascertain that the destruction of brain cells by consuming copious samples of alcohol is permanent and has the obvious result of stupid and ignorant cognitive judgment.

Brian Baum
June 24, 2006

Become a member to create a blog