"On Wednesday, March 1, 2006, at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested to testify.
At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"
Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
The room erupted into applause."
The difference between the Bible and the US Constitution
by daystar 4 Replies latest social current
-
daystar
-
Legolas
Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
-
Narkissos
Good retort.
From a French perspective the role of the Bible and "God" in public debate and official setting is really startling. We once had a right-wing deputy (representative) wielding her Bible in the Parliament during the debate on "Pacs" (a civil union contract for homosexual partners which was still very far from "gay marriage") and she made a fool of herself, much to the shame of her right-wing colleagues.
-
-
one
why use the bible then when they take their oath of office ?
this matter someday can initiate a long debate, and revisit the 'separation of church and state'... if has not been initiated already,
actually the bible is, let's say, inclined to particular doctrine(s) which are not supported by many citizens who don't even care about the bible.
