GovCentral

Thats right...I'm posting about same sex marriage even though people started responding to my other threat on Georgia.  Sue me.

Ok, relevant background on me:  I'm male, straight, and an atheist.  And now...to see how many people I can make angry!

The baseline of my argument is that religion has no place in government.  Although we have an OFFICIAL seperation of church and state, in FACT that is untrue, and same sex marriage is one reflection of this.  I believe that marriage is/should be a religious ceremony ONLY and completely under the control of t he church (remember...atheist here).  What does this mean, you ask?  What it means is that if the church wants to say no gay marriages, then it gets to.  If it wants to make polygamy legal, thats cool too.  However, if a church wants to allow same sex marriages, that is ALSO FINE.  I know that there is a similar controversey even within the church what with openly gay bishops and all that...but that should be the church's problem to figure out, not the governments.

Now...this probably seems like I'm just letting the gay-bashing, church-going, conservative right win.  Not so!  I'm not even close to done yet!

Now...the seperation of church and state.  Marriage is a religious ceremony...hence, it should have NO LEGAL STANDING.  None.  The Bible may (and I'm not even so sure about this one, myself) prohibit same sex marriage...at least if you interperet it that way.  However, I'm almost 100% sure that it says NOTHING about insurance, home-ownership, the US census, child custody battles, legal inheritance, familial relationships, etc.  So why the hell does marriage have such a huge influence on those things, and more?

I, personally, am a FIRM believer in civil unions.  Lets just call them unions for now (I like that better).  In my humble (hah!...yeah...sorry) opinion, UNIONS, not marriages should be the basis for legal standing for two joined people.  Marriage would be relegated to being a SUBSECTION of unions.  As unions have no religious basis at all, and as a matter of federal law would be open to everyone equally except where federal law prohibitted it, such as in the case of polygamy, for which they could still be married, but the government would not recognize that marriage as a union as a matter of law.

Ok!  I can give examples if you aren't sure how it would work in certain circumstances!  Questions, comments, call toll free!  No, I'm not giving you my number!

Deep!

Ok, lets start with the philosophical problem.  Allowing Christian doctrine to influence US government and law is supportive of the country's Christian heritage and majority, but it discriminates against other religions by not giving them the same influence and possibly creating laws that conflict with their religious principles.  For example, what if there is a religion that specifically ALLOWS homosexuality (and there very well may be).

Lets say that Pastafarians allow homosexuality and gay marriage.  If a law against homosexuality was passed based on Christian doctrine, wouldn't that mean that the US government gives more weight to the beliefs of Christians than to Pastafarians?  Would a situation that protected one particular religion at the expense of others be acceptable under our constitution/bill or rights?  Not to mention the numerous situations and rules in the bible which would be ridiculous and unconstitutional in today's society, such as the rights and treatment of women and punishments for all types of crimes.  How much can rules written thousands of years ago apply today?  And if only some are appropriate, who gets to decide which ones?

First of all, check the bill of rights.  You don't seem to be very familiar with it AS THE FIRST LINE READS, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

Now, here's some case law that explicitly supports the interpretation of what is often referred to as the "Establishment" clause that amf refers to.  This clause serves as a guarantee to keep Church and State seperate and that is how it has functioned in the eyes of the courts-

In 1947, the Supreme Court attempted to define the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment.  Justice Hugo Black, writing for the court, held:

Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.  . . . In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against the establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a "wall of separation between Church and State." [Everson v. Board of Education (1947).]

http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/lark_v_gren.html- Larkin v. Grendel- Mass law lets churches block applications for liquor permits.  The court finds this unconstitutional because it gives power to religious authorities that should be vested in civil authorities

http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/lee_v_weis.html- Lee v. Weis.- Prayer led by school leaders or school endorsed clergy at school functions found to be unconstitutional due to the violation of the establish ment clause.

http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/edwa_v_agui.html- Edwards v. Aguillard- LA law made it illegal to teach evolution without teaching creationism.  This was found to be in violation of the Establshment.  It was found that the law did not have a secular purpose and was therefore illegal.

Now, I actually think the establishment clause is a red herring when it comes to gay marriage.  I think it's best to look at the Declaration of Independence which states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Now, I'm sure you know the history-

First they told us it was right to own slaves and was Biblically defensible

Next they told us a woman didn't deserve to vote and that casting her as a second class citizen was Biblically defensible (hell, they still do)

Next they told us that blacks and whites should never intermarry and that it was Biblically defensible.

Now they tell us that only men and women can marry and it's Biblically defensible.

But here's the point- The Bible is not the highest law of the land in the US, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are.  And if we want to talk about what our founders thought (which I don't think is very productive, as it merely places the act of interpretation back one step), I think the clearest statement comes from the Declaration of Independence and also the Bill of Rights.  Decisions on governing this country and the rights of the people should not be based on specific religious beliefs or religious beliefs at all.  They should be based on applying Constitutional standards to current issues along with statutes that have been found to be Constitutional.

Your interpretation of the Bible is simply not a Constitutionally sound reason for not allowing the freedom of adults to contract with each other in any way they see fit.  That is your right as an American, as long as the contract is not signing yourself or another into slavery or violating the rights of others it is your right to contract as you see fit.  In a similar manner, it's the right of gay men and women to contract as they please.  There is simply no argument based on US law or legal tradition to not allow gay marriage.  Just as bans against interracial marriage were overturned as the country became more progressive, bans against gay marriage will be overturned as well.

Again, I could start another sentence in exactly the same way, "Human history has long established that slavery is fair and just." Or, "Human history has long established that the African is a inferior species."  Or, "Human history has long established that women do not have the same mental faculties as men."

These arguments are spurious.  They should hold no water in an examination of the fundamental rights granted by our Constiution and Bill of Rights.

The treatment of women as chattel property has also been a hallmark of marriage throughout the ages and one of its main functions.  Surely we don't see that to be true now, right?

Desegragation was, in the eyes of its opponents "a recent development that was promulgated by a small but influential group of elites."

The test to whether something is illegal should not and is not asking ourselves "What would the Romans have done?"

It's analysing the situation based on the fundamental rights our country was founded on.  Can anyone give me a reason to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples based on legal arguments?

Can't you see the parallels you're drawing?

First- the civil rights movement was groups of opressed people + northern elite (mostly young and extremely well educated).

Most gay rights supporters are the opressed + "elite" (better educated people who tend to make more and live in more cosmopolitan environments).

"By moving into this issue of same sex marriage the Federal Government set a spark to a great powder keg, hence the litmous test of religion applied to both Obama and McCain. Or have we forgotten the intensity of that event and the real-politik that forced those two men to bow to the demands of it.  To ignore the realities of our society or the power and influence of religion, despite the seperation of church and state is to bury your head in the sand."

The exact same thing could have been said in the Civil Rights era.  To ignore the realities in the South and the power and influence of ingrained systems of belief (racism, religion, etc.), despite the clear meaning of the Bill of Rights, is to bury your head in the sand.

It was during that time we decided that seperate was not equal.  Don't want gays getting married? Then withdraw the Federal and State from what it means to be married and have all marriages as we now know them become civil unions.  If someone wants to get married in a church and the church will allow it, that should be a completely different matter.

The reason why this is an issue at all is because the Republican elite continuously use it as a way to motivate their base.  It is a non-issue in the same way abortion is a non-issue, it does not effect the security or the prosperity of the American people and is instead used as a wedge issue to convince people to vote against their economic interests and for the economic interests of the people who control the party.

Quite simply, the Bible isn't the law of the land and if you want to live in a land where beliefs based on a religious text that limit personal freedom are normally made law, I would suggest that you might feel more comfortable in a country like Saudi Arabia or Iran.

MrsTooTs says ...

First- the civil rights movement was groups of opressed people + northern elite (mostly young and extremely well educated).

Most gay rights supporters are the opressed + "elite" (better educated people who tend to make more and live in more cosmopolitan environments).

"By moving into this issue of same sex marriage the Federal Government set a spark to a great powder keg, hence the litmous test of religion applied to both Obama and McCain. Or have we forgotten the intensity of that event and the real-politik that forced those two men to bow to the demands of it.  To ignore the realities of our society or the power and influence of religion, despite the seperation of church and state is to bury your head in the sand."

The exact same thing could have been said in the Civil Rights era.  To ignore the realities in the South and the power and influence of ingrained systems of belief (racism, religion, etc.), despite the clear meaning of the Bill of Rights, is to bury your head in the sand.

The reason why this is an issue at all is because the Republican elite continuously use it as a way to motivate their base.  It is a non-issue in the same way abortion is a non-issue, it does not effect the security or the prosperity of the American people and is instead used as a wedge issue to convince people to vote against their economic interests and for the economic interests of the people who control the party.

Quite simply, the Bible isn't the law of the land and if you want to live in a land where beliefs based on a religious text that limit personal freedom are normally made law, I would suggest that you might feel more comfortable in a country like Saudi Arabia or Iran.

First, the Civil Rights movement was not predominately “northern elite (mostly young and extremely well educated)” people and it didn’t start in the 1950’s and 1960’s when the educated were finally able to fight for the cause.  The Civil Rights movement began when the first slave arrived in North America, long before the U.S. was officially formed.  Eventually, enough people were able to be heard, and unfortunately many lives were sacrificed – remember that slavery was the reason for the Civil War – for the Civil Rights movement to finally succeed.

Second, the Civil Rights movement fought an outwardly oppressive condition forced on people without their choice – human slavery.  Gay rights supporters are not outwardly oppressed because their situation is their choice – to live an alternate lifestyle to societal norms – more on this below.   As an aside, politicians will always use contentious issues to speak to their constituency.  They should do just this, since their constituencies are who they work for and can and should vote them out of office if their representatives do not address the issues that matter to them.  A good republic, founded on a representational democracy, is properly run in this manner.  

Third, the marriage debate is far from a non-issue because marriage is the primary building block of society in the form of a family.  This may sound too much like a Christian answer, but the primary reason for marriage is the perpetuation of the human race – all ethnicities.  Procreation is impossible in a homosexual marriage without an outside party.  Essentially, homosexual unions require three people for procreation, at least one member of the opposite sex who is not in the union – so technically homosexual unions cannot be marriages – by definition the “joining” of two people.  Their choice is alternate to societal norms because historically any society that normalized homosexual unions disappeared off the face of the earth within two generations. 

Fourth, abortion is also far from a “non-issue” for many of the same reasons stated above and more.  Over one million HUMAN BEINGS are killed by abortion in the U.S. every year (and more internationally), for no other reason than choice of lifestyle.  This atrocity is affecting the world in a dramatic and extremely frightening way – a return to slavery.  Because of the lack of females in Asian countries – read China and surrounding countries – women around the world (including the U.S.) are abducted and forced into sexual slavery without any opportunity for freedom.  There are so few women in China because of the one-boy-only baby rule, that there are not enough females for the many men so they rely on the sex-trade.

Last, the original intent of this topic was to discuss the Church and State related to marriage.  One significant piece of legislation was passed in 1996 by President Clinton, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws, and provides that states need not recognize a marriage from another state if it is between persons of the same sex. Forty states have their own Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMAs). The very name of this law resounds loudly: Defense of Marriage, meaning between one man and one woman.  Also, whenever the court decides a case it is always required to keep to the original intent of the law, or Constitution, as possible.  Because of extensive case law since the constitution was originally written, the original intent has been abrogated.  To determine original intent of any document written in history, it is important to read comparable works of the same time, especially by the same authors.  This is especially true of the Constitution and concerning the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment.  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”  Thomas Jefferson, who penned the words, fought over the wording, which he intended to read, “Congress shall make no law respecting an established denomination, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”  The intent by all of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution was that the U.S. would be a Christian nation, just not one where the government chose the particular denomination of Christianity.  Our strong Christian heritage is testament to this fact. 

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams

ScoobyDoo you are correct, though the secession of the southern states was over the issue of slavery following the Kansas massacre over allowing the state to decide on its own whether it would be a slave or free state.  True, President Lincoln declared war on the Confederacy for seceding and to try to regain the union of the states, but the core issue remained over slavery - the southern states did not want to give up their free labor for cotton and tobacco industries.

My simple two cents on this issue is this, if two people, regardless of race, color, creed, religion or sex, want to explore the ebbs and flows of marriage, who are we, as a society, to say they can't?

amf85, I have to agree with Scooby that this is a great topic and a volatile one that a lot of people have deep concerns and feeling about. 

That said, I don't completely agree with you amf that marriage cannot both be recognized as a religious union and be used to determine legal rights.  This isn't because I have deep seated religous beliefs (which I do, practicing Catholic and all), but because of the historical significance that I mentioned in my much longer post.  Because marriage is the the basis for society, then legal rights should be based on the foundation of society and the status of whomever on that basis.  If someone is married with children, they should be given compensatory rights for contributing to the perpetuation of society on this very basic level.  Of course, we all have to contribute through work, social interactions, and so on, which should also be considered.   The fact that marriage has religous significance should not exclude it from being recognized at the governmental level.  The government is in place to govern the society and to provide laws and stability for society to continue and move forward.  Our forefathers understood this and learned from the mistakes being made in England and Europe to set up our government as a stable republic with a representational democracy.  As such, the government is obligated to represent the interests of the people it works for, most especially at the most basic level of society and survival, the family through marriage.

...whew...and if it's raining on Tuesday, you could resubmit the paper to whomever and..........come on, a marriage is a marriage, it's dictated by personal emotions and comitment.

Oh no, now we actually agree.

Yeah, lets blame it on that!  

Bill-So are we to be governed by law or biblical text?