Should the civil equality of all citizens, and especially members of minority groups, be limited by the bigotry and traditions of particular religious groups? On its face, that sounds like an absurd proposition, but it's precisely what many in the Christian Right seek to establish. They insist that their religious traditions and beliefs constitute limits on the liberties of everyone else.

In God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law, Marci A. Hamilton describes how this occurs in the context of gay marriage:

A powerful, mainstream religious voice composed of numerous denominations ... denounced the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision that the state could not distinguish between homosexual and heterosexual couples to define marriage. The issue was framed as an equality principle, but it charged into the public forum as a debate over morality and religion.

Opponents of gay marriage are actually arguing that their religious worldview should determine the country’s constitutional law. The religious opponents of gay marriage would have the country determine the definition of marriage solely by reference to their religious beliefs and traditions, which are typically taken literally from the Bible and their own religious tradition.

There can be no doubt that religious conservatives’ opposition to gay marriage is strong, deep, and sincere. They don’t like homosexuality, they don’t like the general normalization of homosexuality in modern society, and they don’t like the idea of homosexual couples being able to marry in a way like straight couples — something that would further normalize and integrate homosexuality in society. Why, though, do they think that their dislike of all this should be a foundation for restrictions on others’ liberties?

There is an interesting and instructive parallel between same-sex marriage and divorce. For a long time, divorce was impossible or very difficult to obtain in America. Most religious groups opposed divorce in all but the most extreme circumstances — even if a woman was beaten regularly by her husband, clergy would counsel her to stay with him and learn how to better submit to him in order to avoid the abuse.

Today, that has largely changed. Most religious groups continue to at least disapprove of it, but even the Catholic Church has changed, authorizing more annulments in America than anywhere else in the world. Religious conservatives opposed the liberalization of divorce laws, arguing that civilization would collapse on itself. Did that happen? No — it’s arguable that there are too many divorces, but if that’s so it’s because too many of the wrong people are getting married rather than because divorce is too easy to obtain.

Few Americans would accept greater restrictions on or a banning of divorce simply because some religious groups and traditions forbid divorce. Few Americans would agree that civil law and civil rights should be determined or circumscribed by any one group’s religious beliefs. Why should the question of same-sex marriage be any different? If divorce can be legal regardless of what some religious groups think, why can’t same-sex marriage be legal regardless of what some religious groups think?

 

Quick Poll: If marriage is a sacred institution authored by God, should atheists be barred from marrying?

1. No. Marriage is a civil institution created by society. Religious groups can do what they want, but the state can't discriminate against atheists.
2. Yes. Marriage is a holy institution created by God. Thus, godless people have no business trying to take part in it. When they try, it's sacrilegious.
3. I don't know.
4. I don't care.

Click an option to vote, or View Current Poll Results

 

Read More Book Notes from the Book Reviews on this site.