Post by Rev. Jim Cunningham on Nov 19, 2008 2:03:02 GMT -5
From: Manager Rev. Jim (Original Message) Sent: 3/11/2004 10:23 AM
For anyone who is interested, here is a copy of the second letter which I sent to all of the state Senators last night and the press. Only the first line is the same as the original letter. After I received a few possitive replies from some senators, I thought it might be a good idea to make a second, more detailed, letter. I'd sure love to hear your imput about this letter. God bless you all! - Rev. Jim, Manager
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers charged King George with contempt of Nature for daring to presume that he had power to dictate rights. They made it clear that no person has power to order the life of another person, that no government has the inherent power to grant or deny rights, and that any man or government which claims such power has usurped and stolen that power from Nature and is therefore "a tyrant" and "a threat to human society".
Nature has granted the governments of men this power: to identify, acknowledge and immediately portect the natural rights of Man. Nature has denied the governments of men this power: to deny rights which Nature itself does not deny. Neither human tradition nor personal conviction - religious, political, or otherwise - can supercede Nature's authority on this matter. Since particular morals and religious convictions are valid only to the person who believes in them and are not valid to those who do not believe in them, Morality and Religion cannot, therefore, be used to determine the rights granted by Nature.
The institution of marriage is as old as humanity and found in every walk of life, among every culture and nation of Man, from tribes remote to the largest metropolises. Therefore it is by Nature, not Man nor Man's convictions, that the qualifications for marriage are dictated.
Man cannot determine these qualifications through the principles of religion because no two people hold to the exact same form of religion. Furthermore, religious principles are disqualified in determining Nature's rights in a nation which allows a separation of church and state, which permits the removal of "one nation under God" from the national pledge of alliegence, which bans prayer and scripture reading in public schools, which punishes students for writing essays based on their faith, and which punishes religious establishments with tax audits and the removal of tax exempt status for discussing or participating in politics.
Man cannot determine these qualification through moral convictions because, where one man believes that killing and lying for any reason is immoral, another man believes that killing and lying is not immoral if it benefits him in some way.
Therefore the qualifications must be laid down by Nature, which alone is unbiased.
Man determines these qualifications through two principles of Nature: Consent and Contract, since marriage is a mutual emotional and sexual Contract between mutually Consenting persons for the purpose of unity. By these two principles - and only these two - must Congress identify a natural right of marriage. By these two principles, without the principles of religion or morals, Nature grants or denies marriage in the following forms:
Marriage between handicapped or elderly persons is GRANTED by Nature because
Mutual consent exists.
They are of the same human species.
Reproduction is not a requirement of marriage because it has no bearing on the contract of emotional and sexual unity.
Marriage between differing races/nationalities is GRANTED by Nature because
Mutual consent exists.
They are of the same human species.
Where procreative abilities are present in both parties, Nature grants life to the offspring.
Skin color and genealogy have no bearing on the contract of emotional and sexual unity.
Marriage between a human and an animal is DENIED by Nature because
Mutual consent does not exist.
Animals cannot enter into any contract because they are not sentient, and therefore cannot reason nor comprehend the definition of marriage.
Where procreative abilities are present in both parties, Nature does not grant life to the offspring.
Marrige between an adult and a child is DENIED by Nature because
Mutual consent does not exist (for the following reasons...)
Children cannot fully comprehend the definition of marriage nor fulfill the duties and obligations of marriage.
Children cannot enter into any contract until the age of consent.
A child is emotionally, mentally and sexually underdeveloped for marriage.
Marriage between close family members is DENIED by Nature because
A superceding natural contract of relations already exists, which is not emotionally, mentally or sexually compatible with the elements of marriage.
Where procreative abilities are present in both parties, Nature usually denies health, or even life, to the offspring.
Extensive research has proven that sexual contact between close relatives has a negative impact on the personal identity perception of one or both parties.
Marriage between adult, unrelated human homosexuals is GRANTED by Nature because
Mutual consent exists.
Reproduction is not a requirement of marriage.
The type of genitals of humans and the form of the human body does not prevent an emotional and sexual contract of unity.
To bar two unrelated, adult, human members of the same sex from marriage is then a clear violation of Natural human rights, and therefore it is not within the power of the president, the Congress, or the People through a vote, to deny marriage rights to homosexuals, regardless of personal or public conviction, distaste, opinion, or mores. Note that Abraham Lincoln did not require public opinion to free slaves. He identified, acknowledged and then protected an already existing Natural Right, even though half of the nation was against it and even went to war over it.
Even the most die-hard athiest must admit that the U.S. based many of its founding principles on the Bible, and that the majority of this nation has always been Judeo-Christian; therefore I would be negligent to altogether dismiss the issue of religion. On that subject I will say this:
If it is true that America was founded on the Bible and religious principles, then it is also true that America was founded on black slavery and the subjegation of women, Asians, and Indians, not to mention the imprisoning, institutionalizing, brainwashing, and even murdering of homosexuals. The nation that founded itself on Biblical liberty and religious convictions would appear to have claimed that liberty to be only for heterosexual, white males. Fortunately, with time, that Liberty spread far and wide to almost every type of American citizen before America could even realize that its "foundations" was apparently the very same Arian doctrine of Nazi Germany. Sadly, full rights have not yet been extended to homosexuals, even though slavery - a founding principle of America - has been ruled a violation of Natural rights. It is terrifying to see that, in the last ten years, America has literally adopted the exact same pattern of government that Hitler installed, first with the Gun Control Act, then with the so-called Patriot Act authorizing a police state, and now an anti-gay constitutional amendment. Dear Senator, these things are not similar to Nazi Germany - they are identical to Nazi Germany. I foresee the next act to be the total destruction of religious freedom and the freedom of speech.
To approve the marriage amendment that would crush the rights - and lives - of millions of homosexuals is equal to saying that the government now has power to strip rights away and to abolish our present form of government. Any congressman who would approve of such a horrific thing must be viewed as nothing less than an endangerment and a threat to the People and the Constitution of the United States.
I respectfully urge you to vote against this amendment in order to secure the rights of all citizens. No American citizen, no matter how much we disagree with them, must be relagated to second class. As John Hancock said, "Either we must all walk together, or together we must stay where we are." Voting against this amendment allows us to do both on this issue, because it's better that Congress not acknowledge a right than for Congress to deny a right. Voting against this amendment does not mean that you approve of gay marriage, but that you disapprove of abolishing human rights. A NO vote will not secure rights for homosexuals, but a YES vote will certainly destroy rights, and most certainly our President George will have become the 21st Century King George.
With great respect,
Signed, Rev. James Cunningham, U.S. Citizen
For anyone who is interested, here is a copy of the second letter which I sent to all of the state Senators last night and the press. Only the first line is the same as the original letter. After I received a few possitive replies from some senators, I thought it might be a good idea to make a second, more detailed, letter. I'd sure love to hear your imput about this letter. God bless you all! - Rev. Jim, Manager
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers charged King George with contempt of Nature for daring to presume that he had power to dictate rights. They made it clear that no person has power to order the life of another person, that no government has the inherent power to grant or deny rights, and that any man or government which claims such power has usurped and stolen that power from Nature and is therefore "a tyrant" and "a threat to human society".
Nature has granted the governments of men this power: to identify, acknowledge and immediately portect the natural rights of Man. Nature has denied the governments of men this power: to deny rights which Nature itself does not deny. Neither human tradition nor personal conviction - religious, political, or otherwise - can supercede Nature's authority on this matter. Since particular morals and religious convictions are valid only to the person who believes in them and are not valid to those who do not believe in them, Morality and Religion cannot, therefore, be used to determine the rights granted by Nature.
The institution of marriage is as old as humanity and found in every walk of life, among every culture and nation of Man, from tribes remote to the largest metropolises. Therefore it is by Nature, not Man nor Man's convictions, that the qualifications for marriage are dictated.
Man cannot determine these qualifications through the principles of religion because no two people hold to the exact same form of religion. Furthermore, religious principles are disqualified in determining Nature's rights in a nation which allows a separation of church and state, which permits the removal of "one nation under God" from the national pledge of alliegence, which bans prayer and scripture reading in public schools, which punishes students for writing essays based on their faith, and which punishes religious establishments with tax audits and the removal of tax exempt status for discussing or participating in politics.
Man cannot determine these qualification through moral convictions because, where one man believes that killing and lying for any reason is immoral, another man believes that killing and lying is not immoral if it benefits him in some way.
Therefore the qualifications must be laid down by Nature, which alone is unbiased.
Man determines these qualifications through two principles of Nature: Consent and Contract, since marriage is a mutual emotional and sexual Contract between mutually Consenting persons for the purpose of unity. By these two principles - and only these two - must Congress identify a natural right of marriage. By these two principles, without the principles of religion or morals, Nature grants or denies marriage in the following forms:
Marriage between handicapped or elderly persons is GRANTED by Nature because
Mutual consent exists.
They are of the same human species.
Reproduction is not a requirement of marriage because it has no bearing on the contract of emotional and sexual unity.
Marriage between differing races/nationalities is GRANTED by Nature because
Mutual consent exists.
They are of the same human species.
Where procreative abilities are present in both parties, Nature grants life to the offspring.
Skin color and genealogy have no bearing on the contract of emotional and sexual unity.
Marriage between a human and an animal is DENIED by Nature because
Mutual consent does not exist.
Animals cannot enter into any contract because they are not sentient, and therefore cannot reason nor comprehend the definition of marriage.
Where procreative abilities are present in both parties, Nature does not grant life to the offspring.
Marrige between an adult and a child is DENIED by Nature because
Mutual consent does not exist (for the following reasons...)
Children cannot fully comprehend the definition of marriage nor fulfill the duties and obligations of marriage.
Children cannot enter into any contract until the age of consent.
A child is emotionally, mentally and sexually underdeveloped for marriage.
Marriage between close family members is DENIED by Nature because
A superceding natural contract of relations already exists, which is not emotionally, mentally or sexually compatible with the elements of marriage.
Where procreative abilities are present in both parties, Nature usually denies health, or even life, to the offspring.
Extensive research has proven that sexual contact between close relatives has a negative impact on the personal identity perception of one or both parties.
Marriage between adult, unrelated human homosexuals is GRANTED by Nature because
Mutual consent exists.
Reproduction is not a requirement of marriage.
The type of genitals of humans and the form of the human body does not prevent an emotional and sexual contract of unity.
To bar two unrelated, adult, human members of the same sex from marriage is then a clear violation of Natural human rights, and therefore it is not within the power of the president, the Congress, or the People through a vote, to deny marriage rights to homosexuals, regardless of personal or public conviction, distaste, opinion, or mores. Note that Abraham Lincoln did not require public opinion to free slaves. He identified, acknowledged and then protected an already existing Natural Right, even though half of the nation was against it and even went to war over it.
Even the most die-hard athiest must admit that the U.S. based many of its founding principles on the Bible, and that the majority of this nation has always been Judeo-Christian; therefore I would be negligent to altogether dismiss the issue of religion. On that subject I will say this:
If it is true that America was founded on the Bible and religious principles, then it is also true that America was founded on black slavery and the subjegation of women, Asians, and Indians, not to mention the imprisoning, institutionalizing, brainwashing, and even murdering of homosexuals. The nation that founded itself on Biblical liberty and religious convictions would appear to have claimed that liberty to be only for heterosexual, white males. Fortunately, with time, that Liberty spread far and wide to almost every type of American citizen before America could even realize that its "foundations" was apparently the very same Arian doctrine of Nazi Germany. Sadly, full rights have not yet been extended to homosexuals, even though slavery - a founding principle of America - has been ruled a violation of Natural rights. It is terrifying to see that, in the last ten years, America has literally adopted the exact same pattern of government that Hitler installed, first with the Gun Control Act, then with the so-called Patriot Act authorizing a police state, and now an anti-gay constitutional amendment. Dear Senator, these things are not similar to Nazi Germany - they are identical to Nazi Germany. I foresee the next act to be the total destruction of religious freedom and the freedom of speech.
To approve the marriage amendment that would crush the rights - and lives - of millions of homosexuals is equal to saying that the government now has power to strip rights away and to abolish our present form of government. Any congressman who would approve of such a horrific thing must be viewed as nothing less than an endangerment and a threat to the People and the Constitution of the United States.
I respectfully urge you to vote against this amendment in order to secure the rights of all citizens. No American citizen, no matter how much we disagree with them, must be relagated to second class. As John Hancock said, "Either we must all walk together, or together we must stay where we are." Voting against this amendment allows us to do both on this issue, because it's better that Congress not acknowledge a right than for Congress to deny a right. Voting against this amendment does not mean that you approve of gay marriage, but that you disapprove of abolishing human rights. A NO vote will not secure rights for homosexuals, but a YES vote will certainly destroy rights, and most certainly our President George will have become the 21st Century King George.
With great respect,
Signed, Rev. James Cunningham, U.S. Citizen