However, references to a state religion are historical artifacts and are not enforceable or official law.
Ban on same sex marriage ruled unconstitutional by Texas Judge
- Thread starter MOe
- Start date
Which was "answered" in post 249. Your argument is circular and does not withstand reasonable scrutiny.
The "tradition" was never to have government playing a part in marriage, that is recent development and IMO a negative development based on an effort to write law that is based on your (the majority's) religious view. It is silly to say it is "traditional" to have laws on this when such laws are a recent development. First it was to stop them Mormons from marrying more than one girl at a time, then later to stop inter-racial marriage... Yeah, so "traditional"...
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
If it wasn't official it wouldn't be part of the current Constitution.
Rubbish. Just like Alabama and the inter-racial marriage provision in their Constitution (removed by a slim margin of votes in their Senate in 1999, 32 years after the ruling that it was unconstitutional).
You clearly just want to live in total ignorance, refusing to even pay attention to the simplest of well-understood Constitutional law. The state of North Carolina doesn't, and cannot have, an official State Religion.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
LOL claiming a post that occurred after mine answers it is the very definition of a circular argument.
I'm curious as to when you think that the State governments started involvement into the definition of marriage. It seems to me that they have been issuing licenses for a long time.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
You don't appear to have anything new to add to your argument. Perhaps its time to move on.
You really are trying hard to prove your ignorance in this thread.
Pointing out that your post didn't "answer" anything in the other post doesn't change that it is circular reasoning.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
I am interested in your answer to Damo's question.
"There is also a provision in the North Carolina Constitution that prohibits Atheists from holding office. Are you going to argue that it is enforceable?"
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Where is that provision? http://www.ncleg.net/Legislation/constitution/ncconstitution_whole.html
I wish you would. Nothing new needs to be added when your sole argument is based on a total fabrication based on your fantasy rather than the reality.
Again, a current provision in the North Carolina constitution excludes atheists from being able to hold office. Since, per your repeated contention in this thread, it is "official law", you must be saying that it is an enforceable provision and that atheists cannot indeed hold office in NC. Is this your contention?
Article VI, Section 8.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Another ad hom: Point for me.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
ARTICLE VI
SUFFRAGE AND ELIGIBILITY TO OFFICE
Sec. 8. Disqualifications for office.
"The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."
Do you think it could be enforced?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
...
Pointing out flaws in your argument and how the argument appears is not an ad hom, according to your post in this very thread. Now, stop repeating this inanity.Another ad hom: Point for me.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Clearly, anyone who denies God's existence is not qualified.
Do you believe this to be enforceable? According to your previous posts you must because it is in the constitution of the state and therefore is "official law"...