Written in response to the article "In Response to 'Legality vs. Morality'" by Nicholas Johnson, which appeared in The Flip Side Volume 1, Issue 8 (March 17th - 30th, 2004).

My intent when writing this article was to avoid religion as much as possible and appeal to the rational thought process most of us have. Whether the words "separation of church and state" appear in the Constitution, it's a basic principle of this country and has been used by the Supreme Court.

The conclusion Johnson makes at the end of his first paragraph, "The letter was written to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut (sic) assuring them that no single denomination would prevail for our government" lends itself well to my argument--we cannot base legality solely on one religious belief system of morality. If we did, it would be our government.

Johnson remarked, "there is no doubt that the 'creator' they had in mind when writing this document was the God of Christianity, who is against homosexuality." Yet many of the framers of the Constitution were not Christians but Deists. If "no single denomination would prevail for our government" than how can this basic principle be based on Christian beliefs? This is a critical contradiction!

The statement that "all men are created equal" has changed its meaning since being written. Originally it meant "all Caucasian male property owners are created equal." Africans could be slaves, women could not vote, and even after emancipation African-Americans were not allowed equal rights. How could this be? All men were equal; these groups were not men. Yet Johnson asks us to consider the possibility that homosexuals are not men and therefore are not protected by this clause. However, this clause in contemporary times could be interpreted as "all humans are created equal." Under this interpretation, perhaps Johnson would like us to think that homosexuals are not humans. The 14th Amendment states, "No person shall be denied equal protection under the law." I would like to see how Johnson would argue that this clause does not protect homosexuals, one of the main points of my article that Johnson was unable to attack.

A little advice for you, Johnson, learn to make an argument, learn how to write it, and then try to attack mine.