Democratically elected representatives are typically expected to swear to uphold the laws and the Constitution. Some, though, act like part of their job is to uphold their particular interpretation of their favored religious scriptures - as if being an elected representative were somehow the same as being a religious leader.

The Baltimore Sun reported on an exchange in the Maryland Senate over a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage:

Sen. Nancy Jacobs, a Republican who represents Harford and Cecil counties, engaged in an impassioned debate with Jamie Raskin, a constitutional law professor from American University, over the influence of the Bible on modern law.

“As I read Biblical principles, marriage was intended, ordained and started by God - that is my belief,” she said. “For me, this is an issue solely based on religious principals.”

Raskin shot back that the Bible was also used to uphold now-outlawed statutes banning interracial marriage, and that the constitution should instead be lawmakers’ guiding principle.

“People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution; they don’t put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible,” he said.

Pay attention to how Nancy Jacobs frames her argument: “As I read Biblical principles...“ First, her position is based upon biblical principles rather than legal or constitutional principles. Second, her position is based upon how she reads those principles, as if her personal interpretation of the Bible should define the boundaries of the law, regardless of whether those expected to follow the law follow the Bible or agree with her interpretation of it.

Nancy Jacobs doesn’t for a second try to hide the fact that she is determined to enshrine her religious principles in Maryland’s state constitution — it’s not a legal, social, or political matter for her. It’s solely a religious one. If gays were allowed to marry, this would violate her religious principles and this just isn’t acceptable to her, so she would like to not just outlaw it, but make it unconstitutional.

The question is, how many more of her religious principles would Nancy Jacobs enshrine in the state constitution? Why not just insert the entire Bible, complete with margin notes explaining her interpretations, into the state’s laws? That would make Maryland the sort of theocracy which Nancy Jacobs appears to desire.

 

Quick Poll: Should the laws and Constitution reflect and enforce religious principles?

1. Yes, if they are the religious principles of the majority. Minorities should submit or move away.
2. Yes, if they can reflect and enforce religious principles generally, not just one religion.
3. No, the laws must treat all religions equally and thus be secular, not religious.
4. I don't know.
5. I don't care.

Click an option to vote, or View Current Poll Results

 

Christian & Religious Privilege:

• Religious Privilege
• Christian Privilege
• Hidden Christian Privileges
• Christian Supremacy

 

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:

• What's The Point of Marriage, Gay or Straight?
• Definition of Marriage in 1886
• What is a Marriage Between a Man and a Woman?
• Marriage is for Raising Children?
• Will Gay Marriage Undermine the Institution of Marriage?
• Are Gay Couples are Unnatural?
• Marriage is Sacred and a Sacrament?