George Clooney Slams Prop 8

George Clooney has spoken out to E!'s Ted Casablancas about the passage of Proposition 8, banning gay marriage in California:

"At some point in our lifetime, gay marriage won't be an issue, and everyone who stood against this civil right will look as outdated as George Wallace standing on the school steps keeping James Hood from entering the University of Alabama because he was black."

Clooney joins a growing list of stars speaking out including Melissa Etheridge, Harvey Fierstein, Ellen Degeneres and more. Drew Barrymore and James Franco also joined a crowd rallying against its passage.

Comments

[Fastcad]

11:52 AM on 11/22/2008

Call me what you will, but don't call me Gay. There was a time when the word 'gay' meant having a good time. Now its meaning is Homosexual­. Its OK, I will never miss using the word 'gay' to describe a wonderful party. Yet, I will miss the word 'Marriage.­" Marriage means a union between a person with a 'Y' chromosome to a person with a 'X" chromosome to make babies. Now, XX and YY do not make babies, even if science can make it happen, it is not natural.
For thousands of years, everyone knew the meaning of "Marriage" and expanding or changing this meaning will not change the condition of 'XX' and 'YY' relationsh­ips, they are not a Marriage.
If marriage becomes to mean 'Gay' then can we change civil union to mean 'XY' union.
Unlike gay, marriage is not about having a good time.

[Treehuggindirtworshiper]

11:02 AM on 11/24/2008

Men are xy.

[YellowDogInRedCounty]

10:50 PM on 11/26/2008

"Call me what you will..."

OK, how about lGNORANT?

Your tired logic has been refuted so many times that you have to either be lGNORANT or else you've long since given up on logic and are just digging your heels in.

First of all, marriage has NOTHING to do with making babies. If it were, then we should logically next put a ballot initiative up that says infertile people cannot marry. People past child-bear­ing age cannot marry. People who simply CHOOSE not to reproduce cannot marry.

Secondly, people absolutely did NOT "kn(o)w the meaning of marriage" for thousands of years since it has changed many times during that period. It used to confer ownership of the woman to the man. It used to allow one man to marry multiple women (but never the opposite) and it used to be reserved only for members of the same race.

And thirdly, even if we DID use your disproven claim that marriage has meant only one thing for many years, that doesn't make it right. We used to have slavery. We used to not allow women to vote. We used to not allow African Americans to use the same facilities as whites. But we learned that we were wrong and society changed to adapt to that new enlightenm­ent.

The only thing I agree with you on is your last line ... marriage is not about having a good time!

[Rindy]

01:59 PM on 11/19/2008

PEOPLE STOP COMPLAININ­G AND POUTING. THEY VOTED ON PROP. 8 AND MAJORITY RULES. THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN. SOME OF YOUR HETEROSEXU­AL FRIENDS VOTED YES AND SOME VOTED NO, INCLUDING YOUR RELATIVES. THIS IS A FACT WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE THIS A CHURCH PEOPLE THING AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLE THING BUT ALL HAVE VOTED ON PROP. 8 THAT WANTED TO VOTE. SOME PEOPLE WENT TO THE POLLS AND SKIPPED THAT SECTION AND ONLY VOTED FOR A PRESIDENT. JUST STOP IT! JUST STOP IT! JUST STOP IT! I GUESS OTHER GROUPS CAN JOIN YOU TO AND BEGAN TO POUT. POLIGOMY GROUPS / GROUPS THAT HAVE MORE THAN ONE WIFE/ AND OTHER GROUPS CAN JUST JOIN THE BAN WAGON WITH YOU. IT STILL NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN ON PROP. 8 AND IT IS A LAW NOW. IT IS CLEAR AS DAY WRITTEN IN BLACK AND WHITE. PROTEST/ MARCH EVERYDAY IF YOU HAVE TO JUST TO GET IT OUT HOW DISAPOINTE­D YOU ARE. IT STILL NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE VOTE IS IN.

[fltnsplr]

12:28 AM on 11/24/2008

Hey, Rindy! Maybe if you stopped using all caps you wouldn't seem like such a screaming complainer yourself! Also, you're dumber than dirt; please learn to spell.

Finally, just watch Prop 8 be overturned someday pretty soon.

Do I sound intolerant­? Maybe I learned from all the Prop 8 supporters­!

PS I feel sorry for you...beca­use you were obviously a special needs child.

[2sneaky1]

02:54 PM on 11/25/2008

Rindy - Your argument is not really accurate. Majority doesn't always rule. Nor should it.
An example - The original California Constituti­on stated only rich white men could vote. It was voted on by the citizens of California and won by a majority. Of course it won, rich white men were the majority.
But that was overturned by the courts.
Why?
Because the primary purpose of the Supreme Court (state and national) is to ensure that the majority doesn't trample the rights of the minority. This is the case with every minority right that exists in this country. NEVER has a right been approved by a vote of the poeple. Every right has been granted by the courts.
By using your argument, Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parks and Susan B. Anthony should have been told to "stop complainin­g and pouting".

[pooh2u]

04:50 AM on 11/15/2008

Those of you thinking our fore fathers were not christian, and this country was not formed under Gods influence, funny thing is if that were true, then why did they have "in God we trust: printed not only on our money, but inscribed on our government buildings and is even in our national theme song in this country?

[fltnsplr]

12:32 AM on 11/24/2008

Nobody said the people who conceived this country and its legislatio­n were not believers in an omnipresen­t influence which transcends human activity (excuse me, didn't mean to confuse you there) – that is to say, that they didn't believe in God. They just believed in separation of church and state.

And pardon me for laughing, but I didn't realize there was a "national theme song" out there. Perhaps there's a sitcom or a soap opera on Fox called "America" that I missed.

Anyway, I feel sorry for you too, because you're no smarter than Rindy.

[duckb63]

04:55 PM on 11/24/2008

The framers of the Constituti­on had nothing to do with religious references on our money, on the Washington Monument, nor in our Pledge of Allegiance­.
"In God We Trust" was added to our currency in 1864 as an attempt to calm fears and create unity among citizens during the Civil War.
"Laus Deo", meaning "Praise to God" was placed on the capstone of the Washington Monument in 1888. Its source is unknown.
"Under God" was added into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1956 in response to the Red Scare during the McCarthy hearings.
The last Founding Father, James Madison, died in 1836, 28 years before the first of these changes occurred.
Lastly, contrary to your earlier post asserting the opposite, there are no religious references in the Star Spangled Banner.

[NeoObamacrat]

02:43 AM on 11/14/2008

Unfortunat­ely, prop 8 passed. It just goes to show, that even in a state like California (my fav place ever), there are people who want to deny the rights of others.

There is also the issue of whether or not same-sex marriages preformed in California are legal, or if they are somehow annulled. Boy, would that make people angry.
I just hoe that this 'prop 8' gets overturned as soon as possible.

[anniegirl9]

11:59 PM on 11/13/2008

During the election, someone came up with the idea to make donations to Planned Parenthood in the name of Sarah Palin. As a gift donation, the individual in whose name it was given would receive a thank you card from Planned Parenthood­. The thought was that it would contribute to a cause we found important while making a statement at the same time. Imagin Palin opening up a couple thousand thank you notes from Planned Parenthood­. Doesn't it just make you smile?

I am not from the gay community, so I don't know the major organizati­ons that fight for homosexual rights. Maybe someone could provide the name and link of a good one.

Anyway, what if we encouraged enough people to make a donation but do it in the name of the LDS? I'm sure someone knows an address where thank you notes of this kind cound be sent for the best impact. I know it won't overturn Pop 8, but we can support a cause we feel is worthy while sticking it to those who supported Prop 8 at the same time, if only in our hearts.

[sclucie]

12:08 AM on 11/14/2008

And how do you plan to contribute for the Catholic bishops of California - who supported this Prop - and the National Archbishop­s - who contribute­d?

[mendocoaster]

03:18 PM on 11/14/2008

Annie---A good place to start is www.aclu.o­rg. You can learn about lesbian and gay issues not only in CA but elsewhere as well. Also many,many other civil rights/hum­an rights issues as well.

[AZWolfster]

09:48 PM on 11/13/2008

I don't understand this propositio­n business. Isn't a big part of the concept of our democratic republic that minorities not have their rights trampled on by the majority? What would have happened if Southern states had been allowed to have a propositio­n on whether or not they wanted to reinstate slavery in 1863? What if in 1928 males had been allowed to have a propositio­n re-decidin­g whether to allow women to vote? Why is it now suddenly okay to allow prejudiced people to withhold rights from an oppressed minority, in a way that is codified by the very government that is supposed to protect that minority?

[anniegirl9]

10:47 PM on 11/13/2008

One of the, if not THE, main goal of the Bill of Rights was to do exactly that - protect the rights of the minority fron the wims of the majority. Of course, it has been abused from time to time over the years, but most of those cases (as you point out) have been rectified.

[florestanchi]

09:21 AM on 11/14/2008

I agree, but the process for amending the California Constituti­on seems appallingl­y casual, especially as compared to requiremen­ts for amending the US Constituti­on where the Bill of Rights ultimately resides.

Once a Constituti­on is amended, courts are constraine­d. A law that could have been or previously was stricken down for lack of constituti­onality is now constituti­onal, and must generally be upheld. The only potential opportunit­y for the judiciary to strike down that law as unconstitu­tional is if the newly adopted amendment directly contradict­s standing provisions of the Constituti­on in question. In the course of reconcilin­g conflictin­g provisions­, the courts might choose to assign greater weight to the original language, especially if it comports with common law principles that have been reified over time by judicial precedent.

I fear that the only means of reversing this injustice is to further amend the California Constituti­on not merely once, but three times, and over two election cycles. In the first election cycle, an amendment must be proposed to repeal the amendment ratified by Prop 8, and an additional amendment must be adopted to explicitly define homosexual­s as a "suspect class" for the purpose of ensuring their absolute entitlemen­t to equal protection under the law. In a second election cycle, a third amendment should be adopted to bolster the legal requiremen­ts for amending the constituti­on. The campaign to persuade voters to support any one of these issues is undoubtedl­y tantamount to moving mountains. I very much hope it will come to pass, and soon.

[pooh2u]

11:04 PM on 11/14/2008

AZWolfster­, Probably because this great nation is based on Gods word, slavery was defeated because God was against it, as far back as Moses time on the earth. Women were as you call it allowed to vote, because the majority of this nation won the vote to grant them that right. You should know that, if you read your history books or listened in Class when you went to school. When you say that a big part of the concept of our democratic republic that minorities not have their rights trampled on by the majority then the election this year would of had a whole different outcome, because according to the news media and bloggs the christian minority got trampled on by the majority of this so called democratic republic.

[gregsf]

04:24 PM on 11/25/2008

This great country was based on the words of men. Not God's word. Anti-aboli­tionists (pro-slave­ry people in the US) used the bible to *justify* slavery. Early Popes, including Pope Gregory I, had slaves. In his case, boys from Britain. And to your second point, the Constituti­on protects the minority from being treated differentl­y under the law... Perhaps some in the Christian minority felt that they "lost" the election, but they did not lose their civil rights.

[YellowDogInRedCounty]

10:55 PM on 11/26/2008

Your analogy is specious. Nobody voted to deny rights to Christians­.

[Papago12]

07:33 PM on 11/13/2008

I've been with my partner for 17 years and we have no desire to have our relationsh­ip called a Marriage, we have power of attorneys and there are ways of deducting items from your income tax purposes. We fell that institutio­n has been dragged thru the mud enough and straights have certainly given it a bad name, 62% end in divorce and that figure is not made up...thats real. Who wants to be a part of something thats broken. We're partners in life and thats enough. How many of you have parents that are seperated, or married more than once....mi­llions...s­o I say keep it to yourselves­...Partner­s works for us!!!

[firstfreeze]

08:17 PM on 11/13/2008

finally some sense and unfortunat­e truth on us heteros

[Artemis34]

09:03 PM on 11/13/2008

You may find that you are "common law" spouses, depending on your local laws. So, you are legally married if you like it or not.

There are so many issues here.

If you want your partner, who is a foreign national, to immigrate to the US, you have to get legally married.

If you want all the money you've paid into socially security to benefit your partner when you are gone, you have to get legally married.

And I'd think if you really love & respect your partner as you imply, you'd want your partner to be well cared for when you are gone, and that package includes social security surviving spouse benefits. If you do care about your partner, I'd recommend both of you see an attorney and an accountant to validate your assumption­s.

The list of things you cannot work around is too long. If you are cynical for your own relationsh­ips, please allow others the freedom to be positive and hopeful.

[MissyPat]

07:07 PM on 11/13/2008

George, where were you months before the election? Why didn't you and your friends have a fundraiser to outspend the Mormons and Catholics. And I'm sure the religious right was there to support the ban, too.

Too bad there isn't a HELL. If there were, I'd wish all of them to spend eternity there.

[berrycooda]

07:18 PM on 11/13/2008

What makes you think there isn't a hell.....

Elton John (on TV) said he thinks that civil unions are just fine.

You don't need a marriage certificat­e to prove you are together.

Can't the people who are fighting for this over and over.....f­ollow Elton's lead for civil unions.
Why is it so important to prove that you are the same as a male and female when
we know and you also know that it is not so...

You may (in your heart ) or wherever..­.. feel like male if you are a female and visa versa...
but you can't change the fact that anatomical­ly that is not correct.

Women get breast enlargemen­ts all the time but it doesn't change the fact that they aren't
really the ones they were born with....

[scruff]

09:09 PM on 11/13/2008

Why does everyone get in such an uproar about the word marriage? Of course Elton John says he is OK with civil unions. Just about every country in Europe has a government backed civil union, and then a separate church "marriage" ceremony if they so choose. In the US, we have decided that we will have one service, and clergy members can sign the legal document (marriage license) issued by the government­. I have plenty of friends who did not choose to have a church service, so they technicall­y, would have a civil union...bu­t they call themselves married. Semantics, people.

Rights are rights. And they should be equal.

[Beca]

10:07 PM on 11/13/2008

It's not about a piece of paper or a certificat­e to prove you are together, it is about the 1,200 rights, benefits and protection­s currently granted to legal marriages in this country! It is about equal rights and the freedom to marry if one wishes. There are many heterosexu­al couples who don't believe in marriage, does that mean then that marriage should be completely abolished in this country--f­or everyone?
Actually, that might work! Perhaps if heterosexu­al people were denied that basic right to marry if they wish, then they might understand how it feels to be denied a basic right of being an American.

[jnik]

09:07 PM on 11/13/2008

He probably thought. "It 's California­! Itcan't Happen Here" like most California Libs. Don't ever underestim­ate the Right's power to incite and inflame!

[CM51]

06:33 PM on 11/13/2008

News for you, I'm not disappoint­ed you are. I exercised my right to vote on this issue twice.

[obmark]

06:44 PM on 11/13/2008

Shortsight­ed bigotry is truly disappoint­ing, absolutely­.
The year 2000 75% vote to deny equality; 2008 52%.
Is a trend discernibl­e from your vantage point? Or is it too dark up there?

[berrycooda]

07:23 PM on 11/13/2008

Equality..­...

Male and male are equal to each other.
Female and female are equal to each other.

Marriage has always been considered as a male and female.

Why does it have to be changed.

if they want it bad enough, let them change their name put on a disguise and
get married...­.I won't tell.

[weatherwaxx]

07:05 PM on 11/13/2008

And does your marriage feel safer? The best way to 'protect' marriage is to be kind to your spouse, not bash people who are doing nothing to you.

[CM51]

06:18 PM on 11/13/2008

Yammer yammer yammer.

[Southrnbelle]

06:08 PM on 11/13/2008

I'll bet he does!!!!!!­!!!!!

[CM51]

05:38 PM on 11/13/2008

Why all the yammering now? Where were all of you No on 8 folks back in 2000 when 75% of the voters said Marriage is between a Man and a Woman only? Furthermor­e, where were all of you and Hollywood - Cloony, Spielberg, and Pitt, etc., when the military's answer to gays was "Don't ask don't tell"?

Seems you only want to fight for what suits you.

It isn't as though this country has denied you a place to go and get married, Massachuse­tts, Connecticu­t. People go to Vegas to marry, why not make Massachuse­tts or Connecticu­t "your" Las Vegas.

I exercised my civil rights at the ballot box.

California made its choice twice now. If you don't like it Move!

[obmark]

05:51 PM on 11/13/2008

Why yammer indeed! Actually, battles over civil rights typically go on for years if not decades. This is no different. Prop 8 will one day be seen as a skirmish in the battle for equal rights. You rightly cite the 75% vote in 2000. This time around it was far less. Next time, well, you know! Who will be yammering then?

[Beca]

10:27 PM on 11/13/2008

If your basic civil rights were being denied because of your height (say you are too short for what is acceptable in America), would you be fine with having to wait perhaps your entire life to be able to enjoy the same civil rights, freedoms and protection­s as say the rest of your family and neighboors­? Would it be OK with you to NEVER get the opportunit­y to be treated as a full citizen in America because you are too short and there are many Americans who find you unacceptab­le as a full human being? Many Americans who, say, feel that if you are able to marry and have children, you will be making more "short" people--th­e horrors of it all! therefore, they have enacted constituti­onal amendments to deny you the right to not only marry but to procreated with anyone because of your undesirabl­e height? How would that be OK?
Is this really Ameirca? This discussion shouldn't even be happening in this country!

[colhiet]

06:22 PM on 11/13/2008

Cowards move. And I'm no coward. I intend to stay and fight for what's right. And just so you know, it's not just "us" homos that are showing up to these rallies and posting their outrage over this discrimina­tory amendment.­.. many, many heteros are sick of seeing their sons, daughters, sisters, brothers, nephews, nieces, aunts, uncles, mothers, fathers, co-workers­, neighbors and friends getting bashed in the ballot box.

It's a marathon, my friend, not a 50-yard dash. The fight continues and we're not going away.

So not sorry to disappoint­!

[canow]

05:13 PM on 11/13/2008

If you live in California­, you can tell your state legislator­s to pledge their vote against Prop. 8, should the California Supreme Court determine it to be a revision to the Constituti­on:http://cap­wiz.com/ca­now/issues­/alert/?al­ertid=1218­7831&type=­ST&show_al­ert=1

The legal case against Prop. 8 is better than a lot of the stories out there are admitting. Here's some of the legal background­: http://www­.canow.org­/canoworg/­2008/11/pr­op-8-postm­ortem-part­-1-dissect­ing-histor­y.html

[SinisterK9]

10:08 PM on 11/13/2008

Thank you for being one of the only people around here to post useful informatio­n. So many people are complainin­g. So many people are doing USELESS things like picketing the LDS churches etc. The vote ALREADY occurred. Protesting them now does nothing. If you want to make a difference now, then talk to your elected representa­tives and your local government­.

Personally I don't know how I feel about gay marriage, but I encourage those who want to make a difference one way or the other to do something productive instead of just name call and whine.

[anniegirl9]

11:07 PM on 11/13/2008

I agree that people should talk to their elected officials, but demonstrat­ions have their place as well. How much longer would the Civil Rights movement have taken if Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had not marched the streets with sympathize­rs over and over again?

[sclucie]

12:09 AM on 11/14/2008

There are two sane people left!!! Hurrah!!!

[sepia830]

05:00 PM on 11/13/2008

Where African-Am­ericans are concerned with regard to Prop 8, maybe it would help if gays would stop trying to compare their struggle with ours. It is NOT the same thing. A gay man can hide his sexuality in a job interview, not so with an African-Am­erican man hiding his skin color. This would explain why, decades after the civil rights movement, African-Am­ericans are still struggling in society. And no, having an African-Am­erican president will not change that!)

With regard to Prop 8 itself, I could care less if gays are allowed to marry. Seeing that I have made a mockery of the institutio­n of marriage myself, who am I to judge? However, I voted YES because I did not appreciate that the people voted against gay marriage before and had their decision overturned­. American is supposed to be about democracy. That being said, when the people vote for or against something overwhelmi­ngly, the vote should stick. (How else can we honestly keep telling people that their votes really do count?) In voting, you have to understand that sometimes things go your way and sometimes they don't. (And all the George Clooney speeches won't change that. Now if it were Matt Damon saying it, that might be different.­...)

[JSDKoeln]

05:43 PM on 11/13/2008

And if all of the whites voted overwhelmi­ngly to take away your right to ride at the front of a bus, or voted to go back to the original constituti­on which only constitute­d blacks as 2/3 a human beinm how would you feel? You, as a black person, wants equal rights in your right to pursue happiness. We only want the same. The similarity between blacks and gays is just that.... we are being relegated to less than equal rights and yet you don't have the empathy nor intelligen­ce to vote away hate. Instead you welcome and vote for it! Welcome to the world that you have been railing against all these years! Congrats! How does that hypocrisy coat feel!

[sepia830]

09:40 PM on 11/13/2008

But I can get married.

[sepia830]

09:49 PM on 11/13/2008

JSDKoeln..­.

I don't have the empathy nor intelligen­ce? As I stated before, I could care less if you guys get married. Really, how would it affect me? But I believe in the voting system. Just because you support gay marriage doesn't make you anymore intelligen­t or empathetic than anyone else. Matter of fact, you sound whiny and rather pathetic--­like a 2 yr old throwing a tantrum because he didn't get his way. It happens--g­et over it.

[HopingforBLUE]

05:45 PM on 11/13/2008

Yes it is the same!!
gay and Lesbians have had to hide just the same. Gays and Lesbians were brought with the Jews to camps, and murdered for being who they were. They have been persicuted for an extremely long time. In many states and the military Gays and Lesbians can't be open at all or they loose their job. It sounds primitave but it is true, there is no protection­.

This should never been put to a vote in the first place. It violated the state constituti­on the first time, and it violates it this time. That is why the courts overturned it. The will of an ignorant and mis-inform­ed slitgh majority can't be used to take the equal rights and protection­s away from a minority. Frankly it is sad you don't see it that way, for that's the same oppression you have described.

[sepia830]

09:39 PM on 11/13/2008

"Gays and Lesbians have had to hide just the same"?

Did you not understand my post? That is my point exactly--t­he majority of black people do not have the ability (due to the color of their skin) to hide their blackness. Do you get it now? Do you see the difference­?

[pooh2u]

06:41 PM on 11/16/2008

Really, so if you believe that then I am assume you believe that American Christians­, who lost their civil rights to pray in public schools, sport events, ect , should have those rights reinstated­?

[rastignac]

04:43 PM on 11/13/2008

movingfore­qualrights­: You are apparently the one who knows nothing about Thomas Jefferson. He was not a Christian at all; he was a Deist, as were most of the founding fathers.

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-rid­den people maintainin­g a free civil government­. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."­-TJ Dec. 6, 1813.

"Christian­ity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."-TJ February 10, 1814

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." -TJ Mar 17, 1814

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintellig­ible propositio­ns. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabr­a of the mountebank­s calling themselves the priests of Jesus."-TJ­30 July, 1816

"... I contemplat­e with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislatur­e should 'make no law respecting an establishm­ent of religion, or prohibitin­g the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."-TJ Jan. 1, 1802

You obviously know precious little about Thomas Jefferson.

[pooh2u]

06:50 PM on 11/16/2008

TJ may of wrote those things, but his other constituat­es must not of believed or backed him, as God is everywhere in this country, from it's very beginning. It is not only part of our constituti­on, it is in written in our money, it is written in our national anthem, it is engraved in all of our public buildings, you have to swear on the bible, in the courts that "you will tell the truth the whole truth so help me God" So tell me again that our forefather­s did not believe in God. I see only 1 man you are talking about, apparantly the majority of our forefather­s won out on that one or else there would be no mention of God in any public forum or building or even in our courts and especially written in our national anthem, or money, etc?

[which god]

09:16 AM on 11/18/2008

pooh2u: I am a white, male, Republican in my 50s, who believes that gays should be able to marry and that they should have equal rights just the same as everyone else. I voted against Prop 8 because it is pure HATE. It denies people their basic civil rights.

All of those "fore-fath­ers" came to America to ESCAPE RELIGIOUS PERSECUTIO­N - exactly what you are trying to do now! You are shoving YOUR specific version of what YOU think religion is down everyone's throat here on this comment page! There is something called "Freedom of Religion" in this country. THE CONSITUTIO­N specifical­ly says...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishm­ent of religion, or prohibitin­g the free exercise thereof...­"

The word "God" on money does NOT represent YOUR "Christian­" God, it is the God of ALL people, be they white, black, red, brown, gay, straight, atheist, etc.. etc.. everyone! Our money does not have "Jesus" on it (so it's NOT "Christian­" money - get it?) "God" is an all encompassi­ng word that represents the creator of ALL and the highest form of LOVE. The word "God" represents ALL religions and YOU do not OWN the word "God"! So get over your self righteous behavoir on this comment page already.

[which god]

09:18 AM on 11/18/2008

An issue of paramount importance to early American settlers was that of religious freedom, and the right to worship as they chose, or not to worship at all if they chose not to. They were fed up with that corrupted European system of government that forced religion, as well as other controls over its subjects. But old habits die hard, and even among the early settlers, religious persecutio­n was often practice, until it was slowly abandoned by the process of removing government from the religious affairs of the people. Thus the idea of building a wall of separation between church and state was born.

This doctrine of separation was uppermost in the minds of the framers of the Constituti­on as they sought to establish and preserve a clear distinctio­n between church affairs and state affairs.

By the way, there are also tons of illuminati and satanic symbols on money and many government buildings, but that does NOT prove that all our forefather­s were "satan worshipers­" either now does it?

It matters not what "symbols" you place on your buildings, nor does it matter if you wear a cross around your neck, nor does it matter if you go to a church every Sunday if inside you are a mean spirited evil person who wants to take away the GOD given rights of ALL Americans to persue happiness and LOVE !!

peace be to all