Same Sex Marriage is a Civil Matter
A secular government cannot have religious laws - it cannot impose religious obligations and it cannot forbid what a religion forbids. A secular government cannot base it’s regulations and laws upon religious beliefs — that’s a feature of theocratic governments. Or is this precisely what opponents of gay marriage are trying to achieve?
Deirdre Bourdet writes in the San Francisco Chronicle:
Opponents of same-sex marriage (including President Bush) almost always cite the preservation of “the sanctity of marriage” as their primary motivation. This argument overlooks that there are actually two distinct versions of marriage in this country -- religious marriage under the auspices of a church and civil marriage under federal or state law. The two are entirely separate and unrelated; getting a marriage license from City Hall doesn’t make you married in the eyes of your religious community or God, and having a church celebrate your union doesn’t change your legal status.
A church’s teachings regarding the definition and “sanctity” of marriage have no place in federal law. Let’s not forget what the First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Legislation (such as the Defense of Marriage Act and the “no gay marriage” statute Bush promises/threatens) imposes a religious definition of marriage on the entire country. More accurately, they impose the definition of a few specific religions on the entire country -- some churches in America actually do choose to recognize same-sex marriages. Such action flies in the face of a secular government, and we the voters must speak out now to eliminate religiously motivated discrimination and overrule its proponents.
Marriage has not been a union of one man and one woman in all human cultures throughout human history. It has been the standard custom in Western cultures for several hundred years — but that is not necessarily a reason why our current laws must keep it so defined. Divorce was illegal in Western cultures for several hundred years, but those cultures still legalized it. For several hundred years, women had few rights in marriage — in America, for example, married women didn't own their own property. That, too, has changed.
Religious beliefs are no reason at all, at least when it comes to public laws and policies. If people accept religious doctrines which forbid gay marriage, then they shouldn't enter into any gay marriage — just like people shouldn't get divorced if their religious dogmas forbid it. That's a personal choice, left entirely up to them. What they cannot do is insist that these religious dogmas be imposed on everyone else through the law. If they have secular arguments against gay marriage, then they should state them — but leave the religious arguments in the churches where they belong.
Gay Rights & Gay Marriage:
- Marriage: Religious Rite or Civil Right?
- Gay Rights & Marriage News
- Gay Rights Polls
- Books On Gays, Homosexuality
- Gay Rights & Marriage Timeline
- Evangelical Christianity & Homosexuality
- Catholicism & Homosexuality
Arguments Against Gay Marriage:
Comments
You make a statement attempting to convince your audience that you have a valid point without citing your evidence in support of your point. “Marriage has not been a union of one man and one woman in all human cultures throughout human history.”
Please tell me you have researched and have support for your claim (I for one would be interested to hear your evidnce). Or do you think your audience so infantile that you can say something and convince them to believe what you say because you are world renowned…what’s your name?
No, quite the contrary: I assume that my audience is not so infantile that that they haven’t heard of polygamy or polyandry.
Now, what was it that you needed convincing of?
Austin:
Are you gay?