In the United States of America, marriage is the result of indoctrination, peer pressure, and pressure from authority. Only recently have states been attempting to alter the definition of what marriage is in this country by claiming banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional because sexual orientation is not a legitimate basis to deny legal rights. Currently, California and Florida are the only two states that allow same-sex marriage, but other states have shown their admiration to this unrighteous tenacity. Marriage in America is a religious ritual typically sanctioned by a religious official and the government. The controversy with homosexual marriage is that the government is attempting to allow same-sex marriage, regardless of the religions' beliefs. The government is delving into a strictly religious ritual and trying to brutishly conjure a solution and are invariably failing. This government is supposed to have a secular viewpoint, yet from noticing the laws trying to be passed—or claiming a law is unconstitutional—it would seem as though the viewpoint is in fact, the antipodal of a secular view. What does a religious ritual and the government have to do with each other? What are the solutions to this controversy? These questions will be brought up throughout this essay and they will be accompanied by the strong opinion that same-sex marriage should not be tolerated in this country.
For the sake of time, I'm going to skew this essay to focus mainly on the two most popular religions in the United States of America, Christianity and Judaism. Both books that Christian and Jewish people subscribe to, The Bible of the Old Testament for Judaism and The Bible of the New Testament for Christianity, expresses their opposition to same-sex relationships. Lisa Schiffren also holds no question about both religions' point of view, “Though it is not polite to mention it, what the Judeo-Christian tradition has to say about homosexual unions could not be clearer.” In both books' scriptures, homosexual relationships are referred to as “abominations,” “unnatural,” or scriptures blatantly condemn the act altogether.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
This excerpt is from The Bible of the New Testament, Romans 1:24-26. After reviewing this scripture, Vincent McCann of Spotlight Ministries said, “A straightforward reading of this text appears to be a clear condemnation of homosexual behavior.” Another scripture, but from The Bible of the Old Testament would suggest that homosexual relationships are detestable. This except is from Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." To spread the icing on the proverbial cake, here is the final quote from 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, The Bible of the New Testament.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
“Nor homosexuals will inherit the kingdom of God,” to most person's cognitive being, homosexuality should be avoided if their desire is to be accepted into the “Kingdom of God,” or presumably heaven. It would be hard-pressed for someone to assume that these scriptures do not refer to homosexuality as inherently evil or immoral according the Christianity or Judaism without a predisposed bias towards the affinity of homosexual preference. This conclusion is obviously the result of the two main religions in America expressing an overall disdain towards same-sex marriage. Although, even as I utter the word “improbability,” there is still a chance that some people may perceive my interpretations of the scriptures in both doctrines as too literal or inaccurate. So why does the government continue to intervene and cause a ruckus? In short, the government is blinded by their own beliefs and biased opinions to make clear judgments.
After reviewing the actions—or reactions—of the Founding Fathers in reference to religion when instantiating this government, it's apparent this country was founded on secular views, with the intent of perpetuating secularism. According to the historian Robert T. Handy, "No more than 10 percent--probably less--of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations." The Founding Fathers also rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy, even though they supported the right for the citizens of the United States of America to choose their beliefs freely. Most of the Founding Fathers believed in deism and attended Freemasonry lodges. “Deism” is not a term that the majority of Americans keep in their vocabulary repertoire, so what does it mean when someone believes in deism? According to Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, deism is described as “The belief that there is a God but that God is not involved in the world. Deism denies any revelatory work of God in the world whether it be by miracles or by scripture.” Clearly, this nation was built upon secular views with the intention of this country staying as secular as possible. Would more proof that this country is suppose to represent a secular nation be beneficial to my argument? The United States Bill of Rights holds the answer, specifically the first amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” most would infer that marriage is most definitely an establishment of religion. It's pretty arrogant of the government to assume power that they don't truly have; Lisa Schiffer states her amazement at the audacity of the government's assumed authority:
If the American people are interested in a radical experiment with same-sex marriages, then subjecting it to the political process is the right route. For a court in Hawaii to assume that it has the power to radically redefine marriage is a stunning abuse of power.
How is there this much confusion on how the government should act in accordance to marriage. It's quite simple, as plainly as it can be read, there should be no laws regarding religion or their institutions. Therefore, the government should not intervene with religious acts and should remain secular.
What can we do to remedy the dilemma between marriage and sexual orientation? The most obvious and apparent solution would be simply to let religions decide for themselves who should be anointed and who should be exiled from their rituals. As stated previously, the government really has no right to create laws that are in reference to religion, to the point where it is actually unconstitutional. What are the ramifications of allowing the designated religion to choose who they wed? Basically, any law that was created for marriage, should be decomposed and banished from our law books. Thus, being married would be an explicitly religious ritual, but on paper—and in the government's eyes—it would mean absolutely nothing. The issue with this solution is that most people have an affinity with matters that are legally binding and find comfort in this fact. What's the point of being legally married? Lisa Schiffren claims “In traditional marriages, the tie that really binds for life is shared responsibility for the children.” She may be correct that initially that was the intent of marriage, but in today's society, it's doubtful this argument for getting married holds true. There are many families that grow up only knowing one father, one mother, neither, double of one, or double of both. Not only that, an argument could be made against her claim by reviewing the number of parents that get divorced in this country (the divorce rate currently in America is 50%). The only other logical conclusion for marriage would be if even disillusioned, people that get married believe they are going to spend the rest of their lives with their spouse and a document affirms this state of mind. The only true, empirical benefit of being married—without a prenuptial agreement—is everything that each person owns, becomes everything they own. There are also tax breaks for people that are married as well, but honestly, if this is the only reason for getting married, maybe marriage is not the right choice.
The next logical solution would be to completely strip marriage from its religious roots and allow anyone to participate in this ritual; to modify the ritual into something everyone can engage in without a religious affinity. Fortunately, there is an act that does just this and it's called a Civil Union. Civil Unions are essentially the same as marriage, only they are not sanctioned by any religion. Not only are Civil Unions free from religion's grasp, but some states are allowing same-sex unions. According to Information Please, states started to allow same-sex unions in the year 2000:
On July 1, 2000, Vermont became the first state in the country to legally recognize civil unions between gay or lesbian couples. Building on a state Supreme Court decision in Dec. 1999, which ruled that denying gay couples the benefits of marriage was unconstitutional discrimination, the ground-breaking law grants the same state benefits, civil rights, and protections to same-sex couples as to married couples. In Oct. 2005, Connecticut became the second U.S. state legalizing civil unions. New Jersey became the third in Dec. 2006, and New Hampshire the fourth in 2007.
This solution seems more plausible and a more logical path to follow for our government. Same-sex unions have no quarrels with religions and vice-versa.
The government constitutionally has no right to impede on religions' establishments or their beliefs. Tolerating the facade that the government should have a say in same-sex marriage is the opinion of a person that doesn't fully comprehend what marriage entails. There are alternatives to marriage and instead of arguing if the government should act or not, we should focus on separating marriage from the government's control. The controversy with homosexual marriage is that the government is attempting to allow same-sex marriage, regardless of the religions' beliefs. The government is delving into a strictly religious ritual and trying to brutishly conjure a solution and invariably failing. This government is supposed to have a secular viewpoint, yet from the laws trying to be passed—or claiming a law is unconstitutional based on religious acts—it would seem as though the viewpoint is in fact, the antipodal of a secular view.
End Notes
