Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleLETTER TO THE EDITOR:
Don’t confuse moral fights for religion’s
Monday, Jan. 5, 2009 | 2:02 a.m.
Regarding Richard Mundy’s Saturday letter to the editor, headlined “Religious extremism isn’t foreign to U.S.”:
Mr. Mundy accused religion of forcing its views on the nation. With this attitude, I suspect he would have been distraught at religious leaders leading the fight against slavery when they were taking a moral stand. So it is with abortion. It is not a religious issue; it is a moral issue. Opposition to abortion is not confined to religion.
Embryologists are in general agreement that a cell distinct from either the sperm or the egg is formed after fertilization. It contains all the genes of the adult. It is a distinct life form that invariably results in a human being. To terminate the intrauterine baby is to terminate a life.
Our Declaration of Independence affirms “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life ...” Is this “right” now to be denied to a life simply because it is still developing? If this is the case, why not allow infanticide when raising a child is inconvenient and it is still developing?
Regarding marriage, all the legal benefits of marriage are available to other couples. Filing the appropriate legal documents will give a “partner” rights equivalent to those inherent in marriage. The status of marriage gains them nothing not now available to them. Perhaps their real issue is not a matter of rights but opposition to religion.
Protection of marriage is not a religious issue, it is a moral issue. From the beginning of recorded history, societies have provided protection for a man and woman who come together to produce children. Society distinguishes marriage so that future generations may be raised responsibly and assume their place as responsible citizens. It is a practical device for the growth and protection of a society. That religious views coincide with the state’s interests does not make it a religious issue.
On Mr. Mundy’s third point, about stem cells, let me correct him. The only stem cell research that has opposition is embryonic, because it results in the death of the embryo — reference earlier comments about abortion.
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Everything Under the Sun
Blogs
The Kats Report
Las Vegas Philharmonic says search for new music director to begin 'immediately' (1 Comment)
With Shenandoah project stalled, Wayne Newton hits back legally (7 Comments)
Where does a Playmate play when she turns 21? Vegas! (3 Comments)
Ice Ice Billy
The road to six-toed cats and Mayor Bubba
The Kats Report
David Itkin tells L.V. Philharmonic officials he's on his way out (14 Comments)
Diamond Dave sells it well as Van Halen pours out the power at MGM Grand (2 Comments)
Entering debut at Tryst, Nick Hissom is a model for a rapid rise to prominence (3 Comments)
- Locally owned and independent since 1950; Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, best news website in the nation & DuPont Award for broadcast journalism
Always strikes me funny when such anti-abortion speeches are made by those who don't have wombs.
Mr. Brennan, if marriage is "for a man and woman who come together to produce children" then all heterosexual couples who are too old to produce should not be allowed to marry. And perhaps we should test for fertility before allowing the younger heterosexual couples to marry?
In this day and age we surely don't need to promote growth there's plenty of that without marriage. Join the 21st century and admit that the old definition of marriage no longer applies. It isn't about morals it is about belief systems (sometimes called religions) and you want to impose yours on others.
Yes, you can do many of those if you campaign for it and get majority to support for it.
Many of the below requirements are based on the collective understanding of morality by its citizens which often has some basis in their religous beliefs.
States have different requirements for marriage which citizens from one state have a different collective understanding of morality than another state.
Some states require a blood test for STD's. Some don't.
Most states have a waiting period between the time you get the license and you get marriage. Some do not have waiting periods.
All states have age requirements. But it differs state by state.
Some states allow one to marry their 1st cousins and others do not.
Some states require consummation of the marriage by the act of sexual relations.
Some states recongize common law marriages.
All these are examples of where the majority is imposing their morality on the society as a whole.
Almost all of our laws are based at some point in time on our collective understanding of right and wrong which is influence by people's religious beliefs.
If you want gay marriage then you should campaign for it. You should support those who support it. That would exclude Reid and Obama.
jfnance32 -- So here you are again. You're like a broken record no one can turn off.
Well, the price of free speech is to endure it when others exercise theirs. Even when they're ignorant.
You misrepresent the true nature of law, and seem to not understand the difference between organic and positive law. There are certain fundamental liberties each of us are born with -- "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" among them -- which our Constitutions (organic law) don't create, they expressly protect. All Constitutions are social compacts which limit the governments they create. Any law passed by any legislative body (positive law) cannot conflict with anything in their particular Constitution (federal or state, whatever applies). That's why all government officials, from the President all the way down to your local cops, take oaths in which they swear to support the Constitution(s).
Unfortunately as we've seen government is more interested in power than it is in staying within the limits -- currently it's more like the central government is "might makes right." When government acts without proper authority, that's tyranny.
Since the federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Supreme Court over its more than two centuries of existence has reminded government many times of those limits. Two examples: Miranda v. Arizona's "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them" and the more recent (last June) D.C. v. Heller's "the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table."
In other words anything Constitutionally protected must trump anything like a conflict with "collective understanding of morality by its citizens." The majority cannot always overrule a minority. Otherwise it's just mob rule.
Although it doesn't seem so in this day and age, we are still a government of laws, not of men. We as citizens must constantly remind governments of that fact.
"Well, the price of free speech is to endure it when others exercise theirs. Even when they're ignorant."
Killerb, You do not need to be so hard yourself. I am sure that some people do not think you are ignorant, like your mother perhaps.
"we are still a government of laws"
That is very true.
You have no power to declare laws as constitutional or unconstitutional even if you turn blue in the face. That power resides in the judical branches of government.
In 2005, a Federal Court ruled that the US government can allow states to ban same-sex marriage.
Currently, there has not been one federal court that has rule that gay marriage is a protected right.
It is very doubtful that the US Supreme Court will rule gay marriage is a protected right anytime soon.
In Nevada's state Constitution, gay marriage is explicitly prohibited. Your pal, Harry Reid, supported that constitutional admenment to ban gay marriage in Nevada.
To bad, you seem to be ignorant of these facts and I have to remind you of them.
If you believe that gay marriage is a protected right then you should put your money where your mouth is and file a case in Federal District Court.
According to you, Mr. Law Expert, you will have an very easy time winning your case.
jfnance 32 -- AGAIN I remind you the only one calling me "expert" is you. I can read and think and express my opinion, that's all.
I mentioned nothing about gay marriage. And I don't know Mr. Reid.
Since you have decided to get personally insulting you have proven you have nothing valid to contribute to this or any other discussion and not worth any future response.
"Since you have decided to get personally insulting you have proven you have nothing valid to contribute to this or any other discussion and not worth any future response."
You were the first one to open fire, dude.
I remind you.
"jfnance32 -- So here you are again. You're like a broken record no one can turn off.
Well, the price of free speech is to endure it when others exercise theirs. Even when they're ignorant."
So do not whine about personal insults when you are the first one to cast a stone.