Wax_off

So it doesn't seem like there are many gay marriage opponents here, but here is a modest proposal that I'm sure has been put forward before.

How about making marriage a religious institution that is blessed by your church only, not by the govt. and confers no legal benefits. Then make a govt. institution called civil union that has all the legal benefits of marriage that is available to any two people who want those benefits.
This way when a couple wants to get married, they would go to the church and get married, then down to the courthouse to fill out a document for a civil union. Or it could happen in any order you wanted. That way the goverment is out of the business of deciding who's religion is right and churches can decide who they want to marry.

So what's wrong with that idea? (other than that it will never happen because of entrenched bureaucracies and idiolgies.)

hiredgun

Your parenthetical comment is pretty much the only thing wrong with it.

pan6467

I actually agree with you 100%, and could not have said it better.

In my opinion the government has learned there's money to be made in politicizing and institutionalizing the personal.

And religions have learned the easiest way to control the masses and do what the religious leaders bid is to inspire fear, retribution and guilt by saying what you do now affects your afterlife and your eternity, instead of just your here and now.

When one of the religious tenets or canons are then challenged the religion has to strike out and inspire more fear, and use political control to keep the flocks in line. For if they don't and lose that particular tenet or canon or whatever you'd like to call it, they lose a certain amount of control over the people's lives, and fear vanishes even more.

While, not always a bad thing that religion uses this technique, it does hinder progress and it does at times send civilization back into a warlike conciousness.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

matthew330

....so it seems everyone agrees that a traditional marriage serves absolutely no social benefit to a "democratic" society, an any attempt to define and limit marriage further than a contract between two consenting individuals is an infringement of that persons civil liberties.

Well, marriage is a religious institution with what I believe social benefits. It's broader than two peoples confessing their lifelong commitment to one another, it extends further than legal benefits (in many peoples eyes). In essence, society is consenting to this "marriage."

Should one gay person that has devoted his life to a partner be denied legal leverage when it comes to matters of medical care for their loved one - absoltely not. But that's not what marriage is.

So in respone to Sparhawk's "Why are people exerting so much energy preventing gay couples from gaining the marriage label in the first place?" - Why are you fighting for it. What your really trying to say is exactly what ART said - marriage means nothing and serves no social benefit. There should be no marriage, and this contract should extend no further than the individuals that agree to it.

matthew330

I'm trying to just be a lurker - there was just too much love in this thread - i had to break it up

Wax_off

yeah, I wanted to make sure to mention the obvious problem so that no one could jump all over it.

One of the interesting things about this solution is that it points out the stupidness of govenment having a say over a religious instituion.

analog

The 'slippery slope' argument is so laughable i'm surprised anyone bothers debating it.

Let's combine some classic slippery-slope arguments... porn leads to rape... gay marriage will lead to polygamy and beastiality... buying weapons means you intend to hurt people. So i guess since i watch porn, think gay marriage is ok, and like weapons, I'm going to eventually wind up knife-raping a nun while I give hand jobs to my 4 husbands and suck off a horse.

This type of argument never has, cannot now, and never will prove anything to anyone with half a brain in their head.

History will record these days, and we will all look back in wonder, years from now, curious how anyone could be so closed-minded. Currently, we think this about slaves, racism, and bigotry. At some point, lots of us thought the earth was flat- including Kings and Queens. We thought that making a machine that could fly in the air was absurd. We once thought that diseases were caused by evil spirits, and that women should NEVER be allowed to own property or to vote. Even as recently as a few years ago, we thought that Mars could never have sustained life... and yet now we all know not only did it once have water on it, there were vast oceans.

I have never seen an anti-gay-marriage sentiment that made any sense, actually used any fact to back up wild assertions about tax laws, or be anything other than logically and in all other ways flawed to hell.

It's called progress, people. Marriage is a word. Let them hold hands, recognize it, and give them equal rights that hetero couples in love do.

I can't wait to pull "i told you so"s out of my pocket when i'm old. It's gonna be great.

pan6467

Just the thought of that has made me lose my appetite for the week, possibly longer....... Thanks Analog.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

matthew330

"... gay marriage will lead to polygamy and beastiality... "

Yeah no one ever said gay marriage caused polygamy and beastiality.

Marriage means something to some people. What proponents of gay marriage are saying is, we're just broadening the definition just a tiny lil bit, but promise it will stop there. The slippery slope argument is perfectly ligimitimate in this case. You're other examples were way over simplified as well. The ironic thing i'm noticing is people pointing out the inherant fallicies in the "slippery slope" argument when the first time i ever heard the term mentioned on this board (on multiple occasions) was from pro-choice liberals arguing against any form of abortion regulation.

matthew330

It seems to me your fighting for some sort of definition of marriage - so marriage "as a word" apparently means something to you. It doesn't mean 1st cousins can get married, it doesn't mean i can marry a goat, but it does mean i can marry my bud. You are fighting for a definition of marriage, and berating others for fighting for thier's.

I don't believe you think much of marriage, so why bother. Get right to the heart of it. Say what your thinking, marriage doesn't have a place in this society, and then argue that.

HarmlessRabbit

Yes. Someone did. That's why we are discussing it. Re-read the thread.

It's also a common defense by NRA 2nd amendment advocates, along the line of "if we allow any gun regulation then the liberals will ban all guns up to and including slingshots." The funny thing is that those people usually favor *some* form of gun control. Say, no guns for convicted child-killer felons on the day they get out of jail.

In the same way, very few abortion advocates favor abortion past the first trimester.

So, in almost every case an "all or nothing" argument is invalid because it really isn't all-or-nothing, people just frame it that way to make it more polarizing.

analog

It's just a word.

What's the name of that thing, you know that big thing inside cars that makes them go? Ah, whatever, it doesn't matter what it's called, it serves the same purpose. I could call it an ass stain. I have a 3.8L V6 ass stain under the hood. Goes 0-60 in 6.3 seconds.

"...a rose by any other name would smell as sweet..." - Juilet, Romeo and Juilet, William Shakespeare

They're just words. Let 2 LGBTG (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) people love each other, and give their love the same respect and rights you give hetero people. Call it what you want.

gondath

The establishment I was referring to is the current state of laws. On that issue, you're nitpicking. You never did address my point. Why is marriage such a big deal, since these people are already living together and screwing anyways? Are they looking for tax breaks? What is it? It seems to me to be a cry for attention and a need to force other people to give validity to their lifestyle.

Furthermore, marriage itself is a pretty much a social construct. Maybe it needs a bit of definition to keep people from marrying sheep, etc. As to the love part or the social progress part, that's laughable. I don't believe in either. Society hasn't advanced past Roman times, and love is fading like belief in God, but you're free to believe in either. Thankfully, delusion isn't a crime.

analog

You're not special (not YOU specifically, i'm speaking in the infinite "you") because your sex and/or love partner has opposite sex organs from you.

They deserve the same consideration and rights as you.

But, let's play devil's advocate here. Let's remove the rights you have (infinite you) as a married person, since 'the gays must just want attention'. If they don't need it, neither do you.

Your husband or wife falls ill, gets sent to the hospital. No, you can't see them. No, you have no right to. They wither, alone, for months. They cannot speak to ask for you, and are in horrible, excruciating pain. Their family does things you know they would never allow- but you have no say in the matter. By law, you could be removed from the hospital premises by force and charged with various things.

Sorry, they're dead now- but you had to read about it in the obituaries, the doctor won't tell you. You have no right to that information. I hope they print the time you can view the body publicly, if the family is allowing that, otherwise you'll never even see them buried. The person you love dearly, who completes you, who you share your soul with- is dead.

Oh, and the home you two built together- which was in your beloved's name- yeah, you don't live there anymore. It went to the kids. You're now trespassing in "your own home". So goes your car, which was under their name. All the money you put aside, in their name?

Ha. Not in this country, bucko, we don't respect the rights of two people in love.

HarmlessRabbit

Thanks Analog, you summed up some stuff I was going to type up earlier in the thread.

I don't think people realize just how estate law and visitation rules at hospitals work. In many cases, you have rights that you CANNOT give away or assign to just anyone. For example, you CANNOT just sign a power of attorney and let a loved one come visit you or make decisions for you in the hospital. The hospitals get to make the rules. And no matter how iron-clad you try to leave your estate to your gay lover, there are many ways in which family, even if you hated them, can make claim to your estate.

With HIPAA regulations, hospitals are even worse now.

Great summary, analog, thanks. As you basically said, I think the next generation will look back on this issue the same way we look back on the interracial marriage issue that our parents and grandparents went through. They will think "how could those backwards-ass old fogies think stuff like this?"

filtherton

My argument is that people like you don't have the monopoly on definining how certain words can be used. You pretend that the definition of an acceptable marriage hasn't changed more times than the justification for invading iraq.


I can just imagine a suitable representative for your position circa thirty or forty years ago:

-or, probably even further back-

The point is that you cling to exactly one definition for a word whose definition has clearly changed numerous times to fit whatever society is using it. When the crux of your argument against something is based on whether or not to use a specific word, especially when said word has had an evolving definition since before your messiah was born, your position is a sham.

StormBerlin

Hey, that would totally work for me.

I'm not trying to sound like a bigot, I'm just confused as to why I feel the way I go but can't logically back it up. So stop attacking me. I'm not here to fight to the death like it seems a lot of you are out to do, I just want to express my opinion.

__________________
"if anal sex could get a girl pregnant i'd be tits deep in child support" Arcane

gondath

Alright, given that you want gay marriages because of the potential abuses resulting from a hospital stay while you were incapacitated, why not afford the same rights to an institution known as a civil union? Why, specifically, does it have to be marriage?

I would like also to comment that some states are breaking federal law to let these gay marriages take place, a clear violation of any semblance of order here in this country. Following this lead, states and even individuals are encouraged to break any laws that go against their beliefs on what society should be.

filtherton

And the slope gets slippier...

Why do you and your ilk get to define marriage?

And to your second point. We all remember what a boon to crime all of the sit-ins were during the civil rights movement. People were all like "Well, if those negros can just go in and sit at a white lunch counter just because they don't agree with the idea that they don't deserve the same rights as white people than i think i should be able to go out and rob as many banks as i want because i don't agree with any law that says i can't rob banks."

In case you're not aware, civil disobedience has a rich tradition in america. Hello boston tea party.

gondath

Finally, I receive an answer from someone. You want the very definition of marriage changed. It seems like a lot of effort to go to to change a word, but alright. I don't see this as a matter of civil disobedience. The Boston Tea Party was about getting unfair taxes removed, not changing what taxes mean. If I'm missing the hospital issue in here, maybe hospital laws can be changed to accomodate non-married couples too. We have power of attorney and definition as the only basis established so far to change who can specifically be known as a married couple. Hmm. I thump this argument a few times, and it still sounds hollow.

filtherton

Changing the definition of marriage isn't civil disobedience, like i said, i was addressing your second point, the one where you claim that civil disobedience makes everybody more likely to break the law.

As it stands, i don't want the definition of marriage changed, i want people like you to realize that your definition of marriage lacks a much needed link with the reality of the history of the word marriage. You use a defintion of marriage that allows you to exclude others from something for reasons that i have yet to hear rationally expressed. To you marriage is hetero and monogamous and fruitful, whereas historically, marriage has been defined as a multitude of different relationships. For you to claim that your way is the only way is laughable and lacking in honesty.

Maybe you can finally give me an answer: Why is it that the people who favor the denial of gay marriage rights believe that they are they only people with the right to use and define the term "marriage"?

Asuka{eve}

An interesting view.

dchurchw

You know, the whole gay marriage thing is difficult for me. I am against it morally, not because of the bible, but just how I was raised, but at the same time I have a sister in-lawy who has a long-term companion, and a friend in he same situation. It's hard for me to really think what they are doing as wrong as they are more commited to each other than most married folks I know who are hetrosexual. I guess it seems to me that it's just the term marriage I am opposed to, and if it was named something else I wouldn't care. Guess that makes me a hypocrite.

gondath

Well, I suppose the dictionary has the final say on what a word means, but you can invent any definition you want. I find it amusing that you think when a state disobeys federal law, that equals civil disobedience. I would say I have the right to define personal definitions. I have no more justification in the naming of something than you, but you seem determined to define the word for everyone. All I can do is examine what a word means in the context of how it is used and the given history of the word. Marriage in the dictionary is defined as a legal union between a man and a woman as husband and wife. I see no need to extend that definition to anyone else for any reason. Civil union means much the same but any gender, and it already exists. The laws of marriage currently define what it is and how it is used. I see no reason to change that. I take more issue with people getting married in a church than anything else and other inattention to separation of church and state, being an atheist. Yet I don't go out and cause a big stir to get every legal document and the Pledge of Allegiance to remove the mention of God. The big debate over gay marriage is more rabble rousing by a minority special interest group for no apparent cause.

matthew330

This may surprise you filterton but i haven't set foot in a church in probably 15 years, so i couldn't in good conscience lay claim to some "messaih."

To keep it simple: A traditional marriage (i.e- nuclear family) is a religious institution with social benefits, and as such the government has a vested interest in encouraging. Race, differeng faiths, etc. plado not affect this stability.

It boils down to - I believe that a one Mom and one dad is in general the healthiest environment for a child to grow up in. Now before you point to 50% of all marriages ending in divorce etc etc, I think the reason for this is because marriage means next to nothing to people anymore. Marriage is "just a word" and a vow is "just a sentence." You've fallen in love in the last three days? - run to Vegas. You're arguing over who's gonna do the dishes? - fuck your neighbors wife and leave your current one. I don't think the divorce rate is a good rationalization for writing the insitution off.

Off topic, humurous little story - Overheard some overspoken jackass at a bar ask a gay bartender out of the blue "What do you think of gay marriage?" He must have been drunk and just looking for an argument or to piss someone off (but of all poeple the guy who's serving your drinks).

So much to his surprise the bartender says "Oh my god, I'm totally against it!!"

"HUH???!!, How come?"

"Cause that would just make me an old maid"

matthew330

Without sounding too pompous, I don't have too. I'm saying with 100% confidence no one said it the way analog apparently interpreted it. No one said if you believe in gay marriage you're going to start having sex with farm animals. However this person articulated themselves, everyone here knows what he meant - extending the definition of marriage to gays will eventually lead to extending it to polygamists, etc. (i.e.-pointing to the slippery slope argument).

Now it's all making sense, now i see why you don't think the slippery slope is in the least bit valid. It's because you believe that it in essence says if you watch porn you'll rape people, if you are for gay marriage you'll rape animals.

so much time wasted on semantics...you all know what he meant.

Stompy

People people people (those against gay marriage)... society is moving forward while you are remaining behind. Plain and simple.

You are trying to justify arguments that cannot be justified. Your parents/grandparents grew up in a time when the country believed that blacks and whites should be separated. Remember... colored bathrooms, water fountains, sit at the back of the bus, etc? You know why we don't have that today? Because it was wrong. We (as a society) understand how wrong it is now so many years down the road, but at the time no one understood how and why it was wrong because they had their heads shoved so far up their asses.

Being against gay marriage is no different than being FOR a segregated society. In this case, you are promoting and encouraging exclusion of another person based on sexual preference instead of skin color.

How can you NOT understand this?

__________________
I love lamp.

Superbelt

Yesterday



Today


And I truly believe that this opposition to gay marriage will define him in the future. Especially since he is pushing for a constitutional ammendment. Much like how George Wallace, and Strom Thurmond have been defined.

matthew330

wow. Pretty powerfull. The plight of the black man 30 years ago sure does come in handy sometimes doesn't it. Thanks Alphonzo.'

Being that this demographic is one of the most outspoken critics of gay marriage, i'd love to hear you explain this correlation to them.

Superbelt

I know very well that the black demographic is one of the most socially conservative groups in america. Just because we can identify the hypocracy of that sad fact, doesn't make the comparison less true.

filtherton

I hate to rain on your parade, but your traditional marriage is a result of your traditions. You can't pretend that all marriages fit your definition of traditional and you can't pretend to know what's best for individuals or society in general based on your traditions. Besides, what makes your traditions so much more useful than anyone else's so that you feel the need to force all others to conform to your definition of what marriage should be.

Well, if you believe it to be true, than by all means, let's pass a constitutional amendment based on one man's common sense observation. Until you can provide some kind of proof as to the unquestioned superiority of the nuclear family in terms of child rearing, don't use that as a basis for your argument. Besides, we aren't talking about which kinds of relationships are more conducive to raising children here.

I agree with this, but gay marriage isn't your problem here, since marriage as an institution has been crumbling since long before a gay couple ever got married.


Let's check the dictionary, shall we.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...iage&x=13&y=24

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

italics added by me.

It's like i've been trying to say. Words are living things whose definitions change to suit whomever is using them. You don't own words and you aren't the sole definer of that which our culture may deem relevant.

I missed the report where civil unions were already in functional existence in america.

So you take issue with people exercising what should be their religious freedoms as protected in the constitution? That's really swell of you, especially in light of the lack of any evidence that gay marriage will have any, ANY negative effect on the quality of life of society in general. Good for you, as long as you get to keep your definition of the word marriage.


If you can't see an apparent cause than i think we should stop talking. Clearly you're playing games for the sake of argument. Unless you think the civil rights movement was just rabble rousing by a minority special interest group for no apparent cause too. In which case you need to take your cold, unfeeling robot self back to the 25th century.

matthew330

"but your traditional marriage is a result of your traditions. You can't pretend that all marriages fit your definition of traditional and you can't pretend to know what's best for individuals or society in general based on your traditions. Besides, what makes your traditions so much more useful than anyone else's so that you feel the need to force all others to conform to your definition of what marriage should be."

My traditions? Marriage being exclusive between a man and a woman are a result of MY traditions, and i am forcing them on society as a whole. This is what marriage has meant since it's inception, everywhere (at least to my knowledge). I'm not forcing them on anyone, to the contrary it appears gay people are forcing themselves on everyone else.

And what do we have this traditional marriage to compare to to date. Single parent homes? what else? I think the statistics/evidence is enough to prove which is a better environment for children. Therefore I think that this burden falls on you:

"Until you can provide some kind of proof as to the unquestioned superiority of the nuclear family in terms of child rearing, don't use that as a basis for your argument."

....what do you mean, you can't PROVE that there won't be some negative impact to on society/children (whichever), then that shouldn't be the basis of your argument.

hannukah harry

actually, marriage as we know it is really not that old, in relative terms. originally, marriage was nothing more than a contract. that's where dowery's come from. in india, there are still arrainged marraige, and in the states, dowery's were still used in the 18th century, i think. i'm pretty sure that's where the whole bride's family paying for the wedding tradition came from. in american society, polyamy was practiced for a while, and outside of america, marriage has been legal between one man and multiple women (still legal in some muslim countries) and in the past was nothing more than a business arraingement, a way of solidifying relations between family's and nations. so the "one man one woman" may be the predominant thing today and for the last 100 years, marraige has not always been that way and it has not always been about love.

/unreadable rant, over.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

matthew330

right - i guess i typed faster than i thought, that should have been obvious enough.

tecoyah

I was wondering....are you married?

I am, and have been for quite some time. Was married by my mother(ordained) and have a wonderful life with great kids and government supported benefits. What a sweet life it is.
As I also have friends who are of different sexual orientation than myself, I would very much like them to enjoy such a pleasant life, and be recognized by society as having the rights, and responsibilities that I enjoy.

Guess this is simply too much to ask.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

gondath

I have a feeling filtherton wants to corner me into saying that I'm against gays, therefore that's why I'm against gay marriage. The two are actually mutually exclusive concepts. I've heard others who accept the lifestyle still oppose gay marriage. Arguing over a definition is a silly thing. At some point, we all have to agree on what a word means. Otherwise, no communication would be possible because everyone would be speaking their own invented language. Maybe this is the real problem today.

I agree with matthew330 that a natural (in the sense of a species carrying on its numbers and instilling some sense of gender) union of opposites sexes is the best environment for children. I don't see how people can argue that because polygamy has existed in some parts of the world at various times, then my definition of the word must be wrong and any arguments I might have had with it. However, if you accept the argument that every word is personally defined, then I can never be wrong about what any word means because I'll always be defining it based on my own criteria. That's a little extreme, but you can see my point.

Segregation isn't even remotely related to this issue. The two issues are so far apart it isn't even funny. What is funny is that even after all these years of desegregation, some recent studies show that races tend to stick to their own kind in group environments like school and prison. I smell another thread brewing for that one.

On my comment about separation of church and state, I'm saying that why do practically all people get married in a church, regardless of whether they are religious or not. The practice has become a standard. That's why I mentioned it. Marriage and religion are so closely related in this country that it's unbelievable. I mean, how many people don't get married by a priest of some kind? I don't see this argument as a game, but I would appreciate being called a bastard, instead of a robot. Don't take the cop out route of arguing that the time we live in has anything to do with an argument. I could show you many ways in which modern society is not any better than previous cultures. All I'm saying is that gays could be arguing for civil unions, instead of the word marriage. Thus they dodge the religious bullet somewhat in their quest for marital benefits or God knows what. It would be very hard to argue that religion and marriage are separate in this country.

analog

I'm liking the conversations we're generating here, but we need to lighten up on the sarcastic jibes and snide remarks, and stick to the subject matter please.

Much appreciated.

-analog.

tecoyah

My aplogies....*bows out*

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

hannukah harry

i honestly would love for you to start a thread on why you think modern society is no better than previous ones.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

filtherton

Well, if were going talk of marriage in a traditional sense, than we can't really outlaw polygamy, can we. As for the terms of a traditional marriage, is it not traditional for a woman to become her husband's de facto property? How far back does your concept of tradition go? The problem i have with your DOMA is that you use the word tradition like your tradition is the only one. You use the word marriage like it has a set-in-stone definition handed down by some marriage legislator from time immemorial. If you're going to play the tradition card you can't do so without acknowledging the fact that tradition changes, and is by its very nature subject to the whims of the society that employs it. Your traditions aren't the traditions of the whole world, and you'd probably be horrified if they were.


I mean that there is no basis for your position that a child raised by a two father household will be any worse off than one raised by a father/mother household.


The problem is that a select group of people think that they own a word and refuse to let another group use it even though the first group is very hard-pressed to provide a consistent, logically sound reason for denying them access to said word.

Do you also agree that you lack any evidence for such an assertion?

Words are powerful things. If you base an argument on the idea that a traditional marriage is a monogomous, reciprocal, respectful relationship than it kind of puts a damper on said argument if you completely leave out what traditional marriage has been for most of the history of civilization.

I gave you the dictionary definition that you asked for. You must realize that you(the impersonal you) personally define every word that you use. You have to, you can't understand anything unless you put it in terms that you understand and can relate to. I think your problem is that you think that your definition is the real one and that others are trying to co-opt it. The ironic thing is that you have already co-opted it for yourself, hence your rush to define marriage as something it has, for thousands of years, not been. You seem to think that marriage has not been a rite of ownership, a means to transfer familial wealth or a way forge alliances with other families. Marriage is and has been all of these things, but to you the only definition of marriage is the one you try to use against those who you would deem unfit to carry the torch of marriage. Marriage is what it is, and for you to attempt to claim a monopoly on it usage is a bit presumptuous.

Don't be so quick to separate the two issues when both are so clearly a matter of civil rights.


What if gays took a different route. There are at least a handful of christian denominational churches in our nation who allow and even perform gay marriages. You must realize that by trying to deny them this you are in effect stifling their ability to practice their religion in peace. I don't think you'll get a lot of the folks screaming for the ten commandments in courthouses to acknowledge this fact though.