Of concern to the present:
The state should not grant the gays the honor of marriage. The state ought instead to let gays enter into a civil union, in which they have every single right, privilege and responsibility as state-recognized married heterosexual couples currently have. The state should make no distinction of sexual orientaion, whatsoever, concerning the creation or enforcement of laws concerning marriage, or of any topic.
Of concern to the history of the subject at hand:
The institution of marriage is a religious one. It has existed for thousands of years, and can be found in most religions. In the beginning, human communities were small, localized tribes or bands of people. The religious leader was often the chief leader, or held a station not far removed from him/her, in which case the religious leader was most likely consulted in all affairs concerning the internal management of the group and the relations between the group and external entities.
As human societies grew and more complex governments formed, the relationship between religious affiliates and governmental ministers continued in the same way; either the head of state and religion were one in the same, or the head of religion was an integral part of the decision-making process of governments. In some societies, the doctrine of divine right was invoked by heads of state as justification of one's station. In others, heads of state were considered gods themselves, rather than mortals. For a time the Pope held considerable power and influence over several governments from afar. In any case, religion was interwined in the workings of all governments. Religious doctrine was the basis for laws created by governments.
Into the present day a great many nations on Earth have governments with an established religion or work in concert with a particular religious doctrine. On the other hand, some societies have evolved, to where government has become less dependent on religion. Ours is such a society. Founded in part by those who wished to practice religion in their own way rather than how the state dictated it, some of the first Americans set up communities in which freedom of the practice of religion was tolerated. To be sure laws were still based heavily on reigious doctrine, but there would soon be sympathy for those of other religious affiliations as the population grew and became more diverse and dense. Freedom of religion was incorporated into the constitution of the new nation: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof." -1st Amemndment. After the creation of the Constitution the land continued to attract people of all different nations, religions and beliefs from the world over.
Of concern to what is proper:
In a country so diverse in people and beliefs, it is only proper that there be a separation of church from the state. Such a separartion should, on principle, be total. The state's role in marriage may not have been an issue if it did not have such an adverse impact on the lives of some of its citizens. From early on, however, the state has been discriminatory in the granting of marriages. Early discrimination was less in the name preserving the honor of marriage, than in the name of eugenics. But now we know that the inter marrying of the races did not bring about the end of the world; i don't believe same-sex marriage would either, but that should not be for politicians to decide. Today politicians talk of the sanctity of marriage, but whether or not people of the same sex marrying would ruin the institution, is not something that should be debated by governmental assemblies, but in religious councils. To define marriage on a governmental level, imposes that definition on all religions practiced within the country, which prohibits the free excercise of religion.
It is not the role of our so-called secular government to interpret religious doctrine/institutions. It is also not proper for our government to discriminate against its citizens. In the current struggle over gay marriage, our government intends to do both.
First, as we do not live in a theocracy, we should not turn to any religious text or teachings, or interpretation thereof when considering the creating and application of legislation. When the state choses one or several similar sects' beliefs that marriage is only to be between a man and a woman, it is conveying a message of exclusion to all others and establishing the favorability on one or some. This should not be the case in a land where all are supposedly "created equal." Nor can the state claim that all religions and sects view marriage as that between a man and a woman. There is an historical record of same-sex marriages being performed by clergy across many religions. Also, different groups of worshipers of the same faith interpret, preach and practice their religion in differnt ways and divide themselves into differing sects. As the state cannot prevent the creation of differnt sects or denominations, who is to say that one or several will not form in which gay marriage is allowed and performed (much as in the Anglican split from the Roman Catholic Church, so Henry VIII could divorce.)? Already we have certain churches among various sects that will perform a same sex marriage, and the Anglican Church is seeing a ideological split between its African and North American clergy over the issue.
Second, the state should not discriminate against any group whatsoever. Governments should be the protectors of the people. The gays pay taxes, contribute to the economy, serve in the military, and in government and are otherwise just as productive as any other members of our society. If you believe in God as the creator of all in the universe then, they are made by the same creator as heterosexuals-they are human. They are people, who deserve rights and privileges, the same as any other person in this country. With regard to taxes and marriage, it is wrong to for the state to tax all couples and then to turn around and offer privileges to only opposite-sex couples. Particularly offensive to the spirit of the American Constitution and that of the founding fathers is the idea of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as that between one man and one woman. Such an amendment would in effect, dicriminate against an entire group of loyal American citizens. In such a case the government ceases protecting the people, at which point a revolution might be in order.
Of further concern to the present:
The state should not grant heterosexuals the honor of marriage. The state should let all couples, regardless of sexual orientaion, enter into a legal union of co-existence and dependability that in every aspect has the same rights, privileges and resposibilities of what are currently recognized as marriages. The issuance of marriage licenses by the state should cease immediately, and all currently recognized marriages should be converted into the aforementioned legal unions. In effect then this is simply a change of title. In a like manner, state should no longer grant divorces, but rather hear cases for and grant the dissolution of legal unions of coexistance and dependability.
Conclusion:
Marriage is a purely religious institution. Neither the president, nor any person of government below him/her has the authority, by virtue of his/her office, to define or grant marriage. At present, their is no honor to marraige, insofar as government can be concerned--honor in marriage can only come through a god. Only god through his/her earthly representatives can bestow the honor of marriage.
As a religious institution, marriage can only be governed by a religious body, thus precluding it from any alteration by a secular government. With concern to the government, marriage is a state of economic convenience. The state ought not give the title of "marriage" to couples, but rather "legal union" or "civil union" or the like. Marriage granted by government, is simply a set of legal advantages conferred on two people for use in such areas as the filing of taxes, property rights, inheritance law, health care, power of attorney, et cetera. To try to add any kind of religious beliefs on the bureaucratic definition of marriage would be contrary to the Constitution. Let us, therefore, take the title of marriage out of the equation, lest any of the fallible members of humanity who hold office be tempted to bring religion into the realm of government.
The religious entity, then, shall be the sole grantor of marriages. In a land that guarantees the freedom of religion to its populace, there are sure to forever be many different religions and sects established and practiced. Among these, individuals will select the religion or sect best suited to their personal beliefs, or convenience. By furthering the wall of separation between the church and the state, we take the controversy out of the realm of government, leaving legislators to far more pressing issues. Let, then the churches, mosques, temples, etc decide amongst themselves which will allow homosexuals to marry and let the homosexuals flock to them. By this solution, the debate shall be diffused and legislatures and courts shall be freed from an unnecessary burden. Let not then the debates be carried on by representatives and their constituents, but rather by radio talk-show hosts and their callers; clergy and their congregations; humans, and their god.
your thoughts?
a note on terms:
i used "the state" to refer to either a state or federal government or to governments in general, not to refer to any specific US stategovernment
i used " the church" to refer to any religious entity or to religion in general, not to the Catholic Church or to any Christian church. Please forgive me if this has offended any non-christians. It is simply a term of convenience. It is generally used in the debate of the separation of church and state, and understood by all. It is was first used by Jefferson and then Madison and others, and, of course, it is in the title of the debate itself.
my use of the word "evolved" should not be construed as "progressed." I do not believe that theocracies are inferior to secular governments, i simply mean to say that our government changed its role with religion, or went in a different direction than previous ones. I have no problems with theocracies, especially if their citizens are well rooted in their land and beliefs, and do not have a large permanent immigrant population with different beliefs.
------------------------------------
This is an essay advocating the separation of church and state, the topic of gay marriage is simply its vehicle. It is an idealistic essay. I believe we'll see a female and black president (we've already had a gay one) before we see the state ending its role in marriage and religion. It just isn't going to happen. So now that i've got my head out of the clouds and my feet again planted in terra firma...
The state should grant gays the right to marry. To exclude them is contrary to the principles of our Constitution. Prohibiting gays from marrying establishes a segment of the population as second-class or inferior. Even civil unions which grant gays the same rights, priviliges and responsibilities as marriages are discrimanatory in language and on principle, but it is the least the state should do for the gays.
There are a great many reasons as to why people wish to exculde gays from the institution of marriage, most of which are ridiculous and quite refutable, but those are topics for another essay.
Back to the separation of church and state. Some other issues:
"In God we trust." This phrase should be purged from our money on principle. I have no other problem with it, though. It doesn't offend me, even as an atheist. I don't see it a doing a great harm to anyone in the way that excluding gays from marriage does.
"...one nation, under God..." This phrase should be taken out the Pledge of Allegiance. It is an official pledge of a secular nation, and therefore, there is no room for religion in it. In fact, it was not part of the original Pledge, but added by an Act of Congress during the McCarthy era to show that Americans were good, God fearing people, unlike those shady communist, atheist Soviets. Eventually we came to our senses and censured McCarthy, and even made peace with Russia, so i think its time to rid ourselves of this relic of that paranoid era. Personally, i used to remain silent for the "under God" line, but it needs to go regardless.
Oath of the President. The phrase "...so help me God" is not a part of the oath. The founding fathers consciously left out any religious oath as a requirement to holding public office. Those who don't wish to swear before god, may simply affirm to uphold the Constitution. Simiarly, nowhere is it written that the Bible be part of the ceremony. Placing one's hand on the Bible while swearing the oath, like adding the clause "so help me God," is a personal choice of the office holder-elect.
Prayer opening legislative sessions. Inappropriate. At the most, there might be allowed a moment of silence before the session so that those who wish may pray. Still inappropriate, though.
Prayer in public schools. A thornier issue. Student- or Instructor-led prayer in the classroom or in a general assembly should not be allowed, even if you allow students not to participate. A moment of silence should not be allowed as an atheist child may feel awkward and excluded and might be subject to ridicule or be excluded from the other social activities of his/her peers, either at their own will or their parents behest. Honestly, if you feel the need to pray can it not be done before class or school? I don't think the prayer will wear off between home and school, or is your god not that powerful? Student- or Instructor-led prayer in a separate club or group is fine if religion is the topic of the group or all agree to it.
ok, this is begining to be longer than the essay itself.
your comments?
-ryan
