"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
The First Amendment of the Constitution
If recent events regarding gay marriage have taught us anything, it is that marriage is certainly a religiously charged term, and according to many, a religious establishment. In fact, the people who declare that marriage is a religious establishment are the very ones who call for laws relating to gay marriage. If their first point is accepted, then the second is automatically invalid. If marriage is an establishment of religion, then it is valid to change the excerpt of the first amendment to "Congress shall make no law respecting marriage". To sum up, anyone who says that marriage is a religious institution is also stating that any law about it is unconstitutional.
However, if we use the doctrine of "Separation of Church and State", then one can exclude Congress and the government from marriage altogether. I propose that Civil Unions take the place of marriage. These Civil Unions would have all of the rights of marriage, they would be open to any two people at the age of consent. This would leave marriage to serve the purpose it was originally intended: the religious union of two people. Marriage was never intended to be an way to guarantee visiting rights in a hospital, or cheaper health benefits or insurance. A religious institution would issue a civil union, and a marriage certificate specific to that institution. If the Catholic Church doesn't wish to accept the gay marriages of the Wiccan Church, it doesn't have to. This would eliminate both the accusation that gay marriage infringes on the right to religion of others, and the accusation that that its absence restricts the personal liberties of individuals. People are free to get the rights of marriage, which have nothing to do with religion, and each individual religion is free to make whatever judgment on marriage that it pleases.
NOTE: Has been edited for basic grammar since posting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
i totally agree with your second paragraph. In an ideal world yes I as a conservative would prefer if everyone was recognized as a civil union and a matter of government policy but each church could deside on its own. The only problem is that marriage between a man and a woman has been accepted for ceturies and has been part of government reconition. Gay marriage is not something people are ready to recognize, nor should it be thrust upon the churches that they are required to recognize gay marriages, that is an intrusion of the free exercise clause.
ReplyDeleteYour first paragraph however I disagree because you want to make the point that the constitution intended for the government to be void of anything related to religion. I disagree for many reasons. One of which, Seperation of Church and State has not been in our legal juristprudence until 1947 and it is a quote from Jefferson's letter 14 years after the constitution.
My first paragraph does not mention Separation of Church and State; it is only invoked in the second paragraph. However, the moment something becomes part of the establishment of religion, it is covered by the first amendment. Whether it used to be seen as an establishment that affects religious freedom before is immaterial.
ReplyDeleteRight now, marriage is an establishment that affects religious freedom. If it wasn't, then nobody would have any issues with gay marriage .