For God's Sake, Separate Church and State
There are a lot of things that just don't go together-Oil and water. Bleach and ammonia. Me and my in laws-and as far as I'm concerned the church and the state is yet another example of terrible combinations. The first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Congress cannot make laws establishing a national religion or with preference for one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion and it may not prevent people from acting on their moral beliefs. It seems clear enough, and yet some people continue to believe that the law should be based on their idea of God's Will.
On the surface I can definitely see the appeal of a 'moral' society-but the deeper you dig the more trouble you run into. For one thing, whose morals do we enforce? Christian morals? Atheist? Muslim? Buddhist? Jewish? There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of ethical codes represented by the population of the United States-we can't just decide to represent one group of people more than another, that would undermine our founding principle of equality. The idea of morality in law is already undermining the equality of many people within the US today.
Homosexuals are not allowed to get married-why? This is at odds with equal rights. They cannot be denied the right to enter into any other contract or obtain any other licensing because of their sexual orientation, so why can't they marry? "Moral law" is preventing these people from enjoying the equality that is assured to them through the Constitution.
"Values Voters" (besides implying falsely that only Christian Agenda-pushers have values worth respecting) are actually undermining the essential value of equality in this country and, whether they realize it or not, are endangering their own establishments. It seems they somehow forget that the river goes both ways-you put the church in bed with the state the state is also in bed with the church.
The government has no business getting into the church's business-monitoring them, restricting them, legislating them, or otherwise meddling in religious affairs-but if I've said it once I've said it a thousand times; the government is like a vampire. Once you let them in it's nearly impossible to get them out.
This country was established on a set of values-but those values hold no allegiance to any particular religion. Instead they hold allegiance to the absolute autonomy of the people of this country-to protect us all equally regardless of our faith and to give everyone the freedom to believe as they want and to act on those beliefs without oppressive government oversight. It is because of those values that no one can stop you from following your own moral agenda-but it is also the reason that the rest of the country can be protected from those who would foist their will onto the general populace.
As usual, Thomas Jefferson said it best:
Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
November 4, 2009 at 6:23 AM
Why should the government be allowed to dictate to anyone what they do or do not allow to happen with regard to their beliefs? If the catholics, or the mormons, or the baptists say their practice of entering into the sacred bonds of matrimony (and it is their practice, long before we came together as a nation) who are these politicians to say, "No, these people have a right to participate, regardless of what you believe."
Right or wrong, these people believe a marriage should only exist between a man and a woman. To force them into your view of marriage would be akin to forcing the catholic church to allow women to be priests. That is an archaic practice already discarded by many churches, but it is their right to hold onto it if they so choose.
If homosexuals want to form a civil union to take advantage of the tax breaks and health insurance benefits that come with marriage, I say let them. The problem of stepping on religious freedom occurs when a religious act (marriage) is usurped and twisted to encompass a union it was never meant to include.
November 4, 2009 at 8:45 AM
Sorry, that's not how it works. You're right in one respect-churches do not have to marry homosexuals if it goes against their beliefs-but the government, being required to treat all citizens equally, CANNOT deny any state license based on a person's sexual orientation. They cannot deny a marriage license to a gay person any more than they can deny a driver's license.
The church can do whatever they want within their own buildings and their own community, but they have no right to expect the state to hold to their beliefs and deny equal rights to an entire group of people.
November 4, 2009 at 1:18 PM
The problem is almost one of semantics. You want to grant a marriage license to a union that falls outside the definition of the word "marriage". If I went to the courthouse for a marriage license because I wanted to add a camper to the back of my truck, I would be laughed out of the place*.
A marriage license is a validation of a religious rite in the eyes of the state. That religious rite is the union of a man and a woman. Anything other than that union is not a marriage. It is a valid relationship, and should be respected as such, but it doesn't meet the criteria for a marriage since the definition of marriage (and I can't beat this dead horse enough) is the union of a man and a woman.
I am all for creating a separate system to respect the rights of unions other than marriage, but to lump them all together is at best lazy and at worst disrespectful to the religions.
*Now, before you get all up in arms about my belittling gay unions, I have the utmost repect for their right to exist and make any choice they want. This was just the most ridiculous and boorish analogy I could think of quickly.
November 6, 2009 at 1:23 AM
MARRIAGE is a religious rite. A marriage LICENSE is a government sanction contract that grants specific rights and privileges through the law and government.
Give me one single legally sound reason that the government has the ability to deny any two people of legal age and sound mind (whose rights have not been revoked because of criminal convictions) access to any license or a contract.
Being gay is not a crime. They can't deny people access to legal documents because they are gay-that's called discrimination. A church has the right to turn people away as they so choose based on their personal belief system, but the government cannot-it must grant all citizens equal access.
Why are you opposed to gay people being married anyway-because they aren't as good as you are in the eyes of God? Because if they get married that invalidates your religion or your own marriage? Because it "sets a bad example" for your children?
POPPYCOCK.
Even if you believe some or all of those ridiculous statements are true, your personal beliefs have absolutely no relevance in the law.
November 8, 2009 at 3:00 PM
I COMPLETELY AGREE! With you post, and your last comment!