Organizing for America | Arch' Blog: The Gay Rights Movement, and Church/State Separation

Post from Arch' Blog:

The Gay Rights Movement, and Church/State Separation

By Arch - Apr 26th, 2009 at 6:54 am EDT

Also listed in: Action Wire | Lubbock supports Barack

Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content

Tags: gay rights, Marriage, separation of Church and State

When the California Supreme Court ruled that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional, many of the more conservative districts decided on a solution. Since the courts were stating that, in order to offer hetero-sexual marriages, they had to offer homo-sexual as well; they decided not to offer any marriages. I agreed with that sentiment; albeit on very different grounds, as I will explain. 

Conservatives, particularly the religious right, like to think this is a simple issue. They like to quote Judeo-Christian values, and Bible scriptures condemning the immorality of homosexuality as a defense against the Gay Rights Movement. Unfortunately, while I agree personally with their assessments from a spiritual standpoint, their arguments do not hold a lot of water in a Constitutional debate. In fact, if they continue down this course of maintaining marriage as a state institution, but mandate a requirement that it is for hetero-sexual couples only, they are a threat to themselves; and they will lose this fight. 

If the government decrees, either through judicial review or legislation, that gay marriage must be protected as an equal right; then since marriage is a state institution, they will have legal justification to require churches to marry homosexuals or be penalized for discrimination. However, if marriage is seen as simply a religious observance; it can be stripped from the state entirely, and the churches will have the right to marry whomever they want. In the case regarding these conservative districts in California, this was the more constitutionally-sound way to go. The only way for the religious right to keep marriage as between a man and a woman is to completely take the state out of the picture. Basically, the government should not have the right to marry anyone, period. 

I realize that, for some, this is an emotially-charged issue. Many hold very conservative religious views regarding homosexuality, and I am one of them in that regard. Unfortunately, the Bible, or any religious text, is not admissable in a US court of law as a valid argument for or against in a political debate. This is a fact. Having said that, I am of the opinion that the Gay Rights Movement is right on constitutional grounds. If the government is going to be in the marriage business, they can not discriminate because certain couples do not live a certain lifestyle condoned by a certain religion. 

In addition, I want to set the record straight in regards to hate-crimes legislation. I understand the intent; and I do feel that the far right is exaggerating this a bit. However, I am wary of the slippery slope we are on. There are some on the far left that believe a pastor or priest who condemns homosexuality from the pulpit is somehow committing a hate crime. I disagree. Because of freedom of speech, as well as religion, they should have the same equal protections under the law as the KKK Grand Master who preaches his hate of the Negro. I am not equating these two. I am simply stating that they should have the same protections under the Constitution; and in regards to religious sermons, even moreso. 

Again, the religious right needs to heed some caution in regards to how they fight these things. Quoting the founding fathers as being pro-Judeo/Christian values being legislated from the government is an innacurate and ignorant depiction of what transpired when this nation was created. The Constitutional Convention was extremely heated in regards to religion's influence in our government; and the belief that our founding fathers were in unity on this is intellectually dishonest. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison opposed religion's influence adamantly, in debate and action; and it was of much controversy even at that time. Our government, at the beginning, supported a very strict separation of church and state which could not be any more demonstrated than in regards to their reactions to the treaty signed between the United States and the Barbary Pirates of Tripoli, in 1796. 

The treaty included in its wording the statement that "the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...." When the treaty was presented to Senate for ratification in May of 1797, it was read in its entirety. There were 23 Senators present at this reading. There was no debate over the treaty, and no documented statements criticizing it. When the votes were counted; the treaty was ratified unanimously. John Adams then signed it into law on June 10, 1797 without a word decrying the use of this sentence. I am not arguing that John Adams or the US Senate at the time of this treaty were not Christians. On the contrary, I am simply stating that the separation of church and state was essentially worn into the fabric of the responsibilities of our government. 

In conclusion, I must hold the position that, in spite of my own religious convictions regarding God's view of the immorality of homosexuality, the most powerful enemy of those who wish to keep marriage between one man and one woman is the United States Constitution itself. The Gay Rights Movement's position on this issue is constitutionally sound. The only solution would be to have no secular observance of marriage at the state level; and simply delegate marriage as a religious sacrament the equivalent of baptism or ordination. Anything less than this will only breed a new battle; as the government will be obligated by law to combat discrimination against any organization, religious or otherwise, who refuses to participate and recognize same-sex unions. 

MF

Reader Comments	Comments RSS
Comments are closed for this post.

No comments have been written yet.

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.