5 ms·

The Constitution does not enumerate a federal power to govern alcohol. That is left to the states, and it is not a violation of an ammendment. Though the fede

The Constitution does not enumerate a federal power to govern alcohol. That is left to the states, and it is not a violation of an ammendment. Though the federal government did coerce every state into moving their drinking age from 18 to 21 under threat of withholding federal highway funding to states that had drinking ages set lower than 21. That case went to the Supreme Court and is also in dire need of overruling in my opinion.

triceratops 4y ago
> That is left to the states, and it is not a violation of an ammendment Not alcohol specifically, but any law that appears to promote a state religion. Like I said, alcohol sale restrictions are hard to prove as being motivated solely by religion. There are crime reduction, public health and safety, labor safety considerations too. I imagine the bar/restaurant lobby is also influential.
- hellojesus 4y ago
  Can you provide an example of a law that is motivated purely by religion? And can you explain how that differs from legislation/policy crafted based on how someone feels, or even data? The point of the 10th ammendment was to allow people to self govern from the bottom up, realizing that not all solutions are universal because people have different preferences. With regards specifically to abortion, abortion bans are not necessarily motivated by religion. Many people believe life begins at conception, regardless of religion.
  - triceratops 4y ago
    > Can you provide an example of a law that is motivated purely by religion? Certainly. The Pledge of Allegiance. [1] There's no non-religious basis for finding gay marriage objectionable. But it was not legal everywhere in the US until only 7 years ago. And appears to be in jeopardy again. These are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_of_%22under_God%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_...
    - cloutchaser 4y ago
      > There's no non-religious basis for finding gay marriage objectionable. But it was not legal everywhere in the US until only 7 years ago. And appears to be in jeopardy again. Yes there is. You can easily argue that marriage is a cultural or legal system based on making it easier for families with children in a society. Giving them tax benefits, beaurocratic benefits (so one person can represent an entire family for example). Because whatever the fashion in 2022, societies need children to survive and want to incentivise it. Now there might be edge cases in terms of children + gay couples in 2022, historically you can easily make a non religious case for marriage being between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreating.
      - triceratops 4y ago
        > You can easily argue that marriage is a cultural or legal system based on making it easier for families with children in a society And families headed by a non-hetero or non-couple can't raise children? What about other non-traditional family types? (E.g. a grandparent and a parent, two or three adult siblings raising their younger siblings without parents, a couple raising their nieces/nephews/godchildren, the family in Full House etc.) You gonna make those illegal too? > for the purpose of procreating If that were really the case, what about couples who can't have children due to age or infertility? Should their marriages be illegal too? Should hetero couples divorce the minute the woman hits menopause, if they don't already have kids? Are widows over 50 not allowed to remarry? Seems like a heartless society to me, and also contrary to "tradition" (whatever that means). Maybe we can admit that marriage in today's society is also about love, companionship, and deep emotional bonds. Not just raising children.
        hellojesus 4y ago
        > And families headed by a non-hetero or non-couple can't raise children? What about other non-traditional family types? (E.g. a grandparent and a parent, two or three adult siblings raising their younger siblings without parents, a couple raising their nieces/nephews/godchildren, the family in Full House etc.) You gonna make those illegal too? There is raising children and there is the creation of children. The argument was that the government incentivized marriage because it led to both the creation of children as well as their raising in a stable home. Non-traditional guardians (homos, grandparents, etc.) can obviously raise children, but they cannot make them. That is likely how marriage ended up governed by the state. You are correct that it was rooted in religion, so thanks for the example. Imo, marriage should not be regulated by the government. It is a derived of and should remain in religious institutions. Instead, the government can come up with a private partnership, which would easily do everything marriage does without the underlying religious debate and exclusions.

triceratops 4y ago

> That is left to the states, and it is not a violation of an ammendment Not alcohol specifically, but any law that appears to promote a state religion. Like I said, alcohol sale restrictions are hard to prove as being motivated solely by religion. There are crime reduction, public health and safety, labor safety considerations too. I imagine the bar/restaurant lobby is also influential.

hellojesus 4y ago
Can you provide an example of a law that is motivated purely by religion? And can you explain how that differs from legislation/policy crafted based on how someone feels, or even data? The point of the 10th ammendment was to allow people to self govern from the bottom up, realizing that not all solutions are universal because people have different preferences. With regards specifically to abortion, abortion bans are not necessarily motivated by religion. Many people believe life begins at conception, regardless of religion.
- triceratops 4y ago
  > Can you provide an example of a law that is motivated purely by religion? Certainly. The Pledge of Allegiance. [1] There's no non-religious basis for finding gay marriage objectionable. But it was not legal everywhere in the US until only 7 years ago. And appears to be in jeopardy again. These are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_of_%22under_God%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_...
  - cloutchaser 4y ago
    > There's no non-religious basis for finding gay marriage objectionable. But it was not legal everywhere in the US until only 7 years ago. And appears to be in jeopardy again. Yes there is. You can easily argue that marriage is a cultural or legal system based on making it easier for families with children in a society. Giving them tax benefits, beaurocratic benefits (so one person can represent an entire family for example). Because whatever the fashion in 2022, societies need children to survive and want to incentivise it. Now there might be edge cases in terms of children + gay couples in 2022, historically you can easily make a non religious case for marriage being between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreating.
    - triceratops 4y ago
      > You can easily argue that marriage is a cultural or legal system based on making it easier for families with children in a society And families headed by a non-hetero or non-couple can't raise children? What about other non-traditional family types? (E.g. a grandparent and a parent, two or three adult siblings raising their younger siblings without parents, a couple raising their nieces/nephews/godchildren, the family in Full House etc.) You gonna make those illegal too? > for the purpose of procreating If that were really the case, what about couples who can't have children due to age or infertility? Should their marriages be illegal too? Should hetero couples divorce the minute the woman hits menopause, if they don't already have kids? Are widows over 50 not allowed to remarry? Seems like a heartless society to me, and also contrary to "tradition" (whatever that means). Maybe we can admit that marriage in today's society is also about love, companionship, and deep emotional bonds. Not just raising children.
      - hellojesus 4y ago
        > And families headed by a non-hetero or non-couple can't raise children? What about other non-traditional family types? (E.g. a grandparent and a parent, two or three adult siblings raising their younger siblings without parents, a couple raising their nieces/nephews/godchildren, the family in Full House etc.) You gonna make those illegal too? There is raising children and there is the creation of children. The argument was that the government incentivized marriage because it led to both the creation of children as well as their raising in a stable home. Non-traditional guardians (homos, grandparents, etc.) can obviously raise children, but they cannot make them. That is likely how marriage ended up governed by the state. You are correct that it was rooted in religion, so thanks for the example. Imo, marriage should not be regulated by the government. It is a derived of and should remain in religious institutions. Instead, the government can come up with a private partnership, which would easily do everything marriage does without the underlying religious debate and exclusions.