Yesterday the courts, in California, took on the question if Proposition 8 is constitutional. For those who have lived under a rock or do not follow this issue, Prop 8 (as it is commonly called) was passed by 52% of Californians in 2008 to establish a State Constitutional definition that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. Gay right groups feel Prop 8 violates their rights and is unconstitutional. What we have here are two separate arguments being made but will be lumped into one. First point of discussion is if marriage is a right. Secondly, is Prop 8 unconstitutional? To answer the second question we need first define the first question.
Is marriage a right of all Americans? To answer this we must acknowledge the institution of marriage is rooted in religious dogma. To exercise one's religion is a right established and guarantee by the Bill of Rights. Since marriage is religious in nature, does that translate to a right for all Americans? Some religious sanction polygamy yet there are rules established that one cannot take on more than one spouse at a time. Even though the law exists those that practice religions that promote polygamy are still able to even if they are highly scrutinized by child welfare agencies. Now, we have laws against drug use in American yet certain religions are allowed to posses and use drugs as outlined in the rites of their religion.
This brings us back to the right of marriage by all Americans. Marriage is a religious rite that has specific guidelines for the married couple to live by. Being a Gnostic the concept of marriage takes place on a spiritual level rather than on the flesh and blood level. But I digress. Since the definition of marriage depends on one religion, then there should be very little discussion on the topic of marriage being a right. In essence marriage is not a RIGHT rather marriage is a RITE.
Now, if we view marriage as a rite, we can answer the constitutional questions in regards to Prop 8. To resolve this question we need to look at how the question is being phrased. The argument put forth against Prop 8 is the use of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection and due process. The groups looking to overturn Prop 8 are equating interracial marriage to same-sex marriage. Is the argument one in the same? Is defining marriage between 1 man and 1 woman a violation of equal protection?
Since marriage is a rite then no one's equal protection or due process is being violated. Now, a better argument on the constitutionality of Prop 8 is if it violates the separation of church and state. The entire process and incorporation of marriage in the laws, IRS filings, and other legal writs are all violations of church and state in so far that marriage is a religious rite. That being said, every American should be outraged by Prop 8 as it violates the separation of church and state clause in the Constitution. The term marriage needs to be stripped from various use by the government and returned to religious dogma from which it was born. If we, as a society, require recognition of living with a life partner then let's rely on legal documents, i.e. power of attorney. The Constitution already allows for same-sex and opposite sex marriages in so far as it protects one's right to practice religion and all ceremonies involved.
Why are we all not demanding the removal of the institutional definition of marriage as it violates the separation of church and state clause in the Constitution? Is that not a more intelligent way to go about the issue of marriage? By taking this approach we solidify the sanctity of marriage for all religions while also removing government control over one's choice of a life partner.
You’re definition of marriage in how it relates to legal operation is wrong. Marriage is very much a right. While the initial concept of marriage is rooted in a religious dogma, the legal operation is not. There are two definitions of marriage that can operate separate of each other. The religious and the legal. The more important one, in this case, is the legal definition which exists independently of the religious definition. I have a marriage license. You have a marriage license. Atheist have marriage license. The state of Minnesota issues and legally recognizes those licenses. If you want a divorce from your spouse, the religion of your choosing does not issue it, the government does.
ReplyDeleteThe case isn’t about recognizing ones religious right to marry, but rather the legal right as recognized by the government. They aren’t suing the church and separation of church and state has no bearing on the case. Your argument that the sole definition of marriage is based in religion is just plain wrong.
You can call it a civil union, reissue everyone a civil union license, rewrite all of the laws to reflect this, and those opposing gay marriage will still oppose gay civil unions because they object to it on “moral grounds” and a hateful heart.
Anon..you illustrate and strengthen my point. We, as Americans, have allowed marriage to become institutionalized by government thus violating the seperation of church and state clause. There is no logical reason why the government needs to issue a license of any sort or even recognize, legally, that a marriage is entered into. If people decide to divorce, one can use the court system to divide property and assist in other decision making.
ReplyDeleteNo where in the Constitution does it say or imply that the government needs to recognize, dictate, or sanction marriage. That is something that all American's ought to be outraged at as the Government is exerting its power over our freedoms and civil liberties. I have no problem if people want to "marry" or "live in sin" with whomever they choose to.
I do struggle with the cottage industry that has sprung up to defend and attack the Rite of Marriage. Simply put, if government did not feel the need to recognize or license the Rite of Marriage and stayed true, and Americans demanded it so, to the Constitutional clause of seperation of church and state then the discussion would be a moot point.
But many in American cannot see the bigger issue at hand; rather they are focused on their own selfish turf. Expand the horizon and see the marriage license and other institutional use of marriage by the Government as it is; a violation of church and state thus unconstitutional.
Here is what a cousin of mine said on Facebook...AGREE 100% Chris. remove the status "married" completely from being a citizen. all bonuses and any negative from being status married would be removed. everyone is same: a citizen. people can definitely do whatever TF they want within their community,, within their personal circles, within their culture in regards being called "married". yes what i purpose has fiscal implications for things like health care ...but companies can certainly cover partners as an attractive benefit and smart companies will cover same sex partners because it is something that can attract high quality candidates
ReplyDeleteYou fail to see the there are two different definitions of marriage going on. The government isn't reinforcing or recognizing any religious rite. They are recognizing two people to have the legal RIGHT. Thus, they issue athesits licenes, too.
ReplyDeleteThe failure is that we, as a society, have allowed for the government to dictate the necessity of marriage as a right. Here is a question that may illustrate it better: Does every American have the right to use hallucinogenic drugs or marry as many women as they like?
ReplyDeleteNo, and it's only allowed on exteremly limited religious circumstances. But again, those seeking gay marriage arent' doing so on a religious ground. We aren't seeking the right based on religious doctrine but rather a legal right.
ReplyDeleteOh, and it's the constitution that dicates the right, not the government
You are correct that the Constitution dictates the right. Within that dictation, please illuminate the phrase or word that states or implies that marriage is a right of all Americans?
ReplyDeleteArdent Viper, I am an occasional reader of your blog from time to time as well as the comments that follow. It is possible that what I say here in this comment may offend you, but I assure you that I do not intend to do so. Please read this comment in the most positive light possible. If anything, take it as a bit of constructive criticism.
ReplyDeleteSpelling, punctuation, grammar and good sentence structure are the foundations of good writing. As a former English teacher, I have had the opportunity to teach students with varying skill levels and writing styles. But one thing held true, good writing (and good writers) followed the rules. They paid attention to detail, checked spelling, utilized punctuation correctly and proofread their papers before submission. Sadly, it appears that you do not follow those rules. Why do I make this comment? One reason only: credibility.
It pains me, in a way, to read some of your posts and comments. The misspelling; the misguided punctuation; the run-on sentences; the sentence fragments; the list goes on. All of these things, in my mind, take away from your credibility as a writer. You may see that as a harsh statement, but again, this is intended as constructive criticism.
If you were to spend just a few extra minutes proofreading your posts or thinking out what you write, you may in fact find people giving more credence to your arguments. While you have made some arguments that are indefensible, there are others that simply get lost in your poor writing skills. Do what you may, but all good writers would agree with what I've said.
Anon..I am always open to ways to improve my communication. I do run my blog entries through the spell and grammar check. Most of the time I do re-read my blog entries prior to posting. Will admit that I do not always do the same thing with my responses to comments left.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your analysis and candor as I understand fully that poor grammar can lose the reader in the message being stated. I will take your statements as constructive and attempt to rectify my errors accordingly. Despite that, please continue to read, comment and participate. Also, keep me on my toes as to my use of structure in my writing as I know I cannot get better unless I learn from my mistakes.
A friend of mine posted this in response on Facebook:
ReplyDeleteEach religion should be free to recognize or deny gay marriage. However religion does not govern our legal rights as Americans to enter into our own marital contracts absent religious ceremonies, or for that fact in presents of such religious ceremonies.
Marriage and public government are undeniably intertwined and always have been in America. Outside of any religious rites that may exist within a particular denomination regarding the union of two people in holy matrimony, the basic fact remains that marriage is treated not as a religious institution, but as a private contract between two people with public implications both as a married couple and in the event of the dissolution of said marriage.
... See More
Marriage is therefore a religious rite as well as a secular right for all (in some states) or some (in other states as well as defined as acceptable in various religions). The legal contract of marriage is recognized by our state and federal governments; and extends over one thousand legal rights to married couples.
The idea of abolishing marriage in the United States is radical and I don’t believe the majority of Americans would embrace the dissolution of legal marriage. If you don’t want to get married then you are free not to, you can live any way you please with as many “common law wives” as you please but the idea that marriage should be broadened to include the union of as many people as any group would like is just as absurd as the notion of doing away with the option for two people to enter into a contract of marriage as it is recognized by our government and for some recognized by their church or religion.
I get that you don’t like laws Chris but marriage is a choice you have the right to enter into or not. What is your issue with others wanting to be married in a legally recognized union by our government…straight or gay?