Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
The Right Tries and Fails to turn Marriage Into a Religious Institution
Most people understand that marriage, matrimony, or wedlock is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship, and its definition varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. The concept of two human beings making a commitment borne of mutual love predates what the modern world refers to as organized religion, and the notion that two people cannot engage in a legal contract to live together without religious approval or definition is the height of absurdity, and yet in America, a secular nation, Christians attempt to control which two people can be married, but that is changing. Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court blog announced that thus far, the nation’s high court will not take up any number of cases or actions on same-sex marriage.
The entire objection and outrage against two people of the same sex entering into wedlock has its basis in Christianity, and the constant refrain from same-sex marriage opponents is that marriage is “the union of one man and one woman” as defined in the Christian bible. Same-sex marriage opponents back up their claim with the fallacy that America is a Christian nation as intended by the Founding Fathers, therefore the Christian bible, and evangelical fanatics, should dictate who gets to marry whom. However, the Founders never said the nation was beholden to the bible and in fact, they claimed America was not a Christian nation. In the Treaty of Tripoli (1796) George Washington, first president of the United States and affirmed Founding Father wrote, “The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
Another confirmed Founding Father, and second president of the United States, John Adams, established that Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli proclaimed “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” The Treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate in June, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved before Adams, having read the treaty, signed it and proclaimed it to the nation. There can be little doubt that in the 1797 Senate, there were several Founding Fathers who heard the Treaty read aloud and unanimously approved it without contention over Article 11′s statement that America is not, in any sense, a Christian nation and yet conservatives persist in their assertion that same-sex couples are forbidden to marry because as a so-called Christian nation, the bible sets the nation’s statutes defining marriage.
It is phenomenally offensive that there were any cases Justices considered hearing to decide if the Christian bible supersedes the Constitution, or to decide whether or not Christians could enforce the discrimination engendered in opposition to same sex marriage. Out of ten cases, eight are about the federal definition of marriage, the Christian bible’s definition of marriage, and whether it holds in states that have legalized same-sex marriage. One of the cases concerns a similar restrictive definition of marriage under Arizona law, and the final case is about California’s Proposition 8, the voter initiative that banned gay marriage after the state courts allowed it. Proposition 8 has been ruled unconstitutional in several courts, but most recently in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In the real law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, the 14th Amendment clearly states that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it remotely mention god, Christianity, Jesus, or assign any standing to religion, or the Christian bible, as the foundation for discriminatory laws or prohibitions of “equal protection of the laws.”
Prohibiting same-sex marriage does have financial and personal impact on same-sex couples by forbidding them right to file as married for tax purposes, and in many states, inheritance, survivors, and next of kin benefits are restricted to opposite-sex couples. Many states have provisions for filing as “registered domestic partners” that accommodates same-sex couples and those who are not married, but set up house together the same as a married couple. Even though California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex-marriage has been struck down on grounds it is discriminatory, and thus unconstitutional, proponents argue the will of the people supersede the Constitution. However, that argument is absurd on its face because if the people voted unanimously to discriminate against left-handed or red-haired people, the law would be declared patently unconstitutional.
At least one Supreme Court Justice has already decided against same-sex marriage in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute promoting his book. Antonin Scalia explained to an audience that he was a constitutional “textualist” that means he applies the words in the Constitution as they were understood by the people who wrote and adopted them. He then listed a few of his favorite statutes “as they were understood and written” including the death penalty and abortion, but the Constitution’s framers did not write about abortion so it is curious how he “textualizes” something not in the document much less applies the words “as they were written or understood” by the Constitution’s writers. Regarding same-sex marriage, Scalia gives a clue as to how he would vote; he said “homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state,” and that may well be true, but it is not in the Constitution and it also informs that Scalia only believes “homosexual sodomy” should be a criminal act, and not opposite-sex-marriage sodomy.
It has been too long in coming, but Americans are beginning to see same-sex marriage as what it rightly is; a personal choice between two people in love, and worthy of equal rights protections every opposite-sex couple enjoys. Same-sex marriage opponents have attempted every possible argument to restrict same-sex couples from marrying, including the lunatic claim they are “protecting traditional marriage,” but whatever absurd claim or excuse they make, the basis always comes down to the bible definition. The recent election witnessed four states approve same-sex marriage and although it is a victory for the gay rights movement, it is a victory for equality and a sign that voters in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington are fair-minded and acted to see that equality prevailed by rejecting discrimination. It is noteworthy though, that many so-called Christians who claim they have nothing against the gay community are the first to oppose same-sex marriage and embrace discrimination belying their assertions they have “nothing against the gays;” except denying them equal rights.
Whether bible-loving opponents of same-sex marriage like it or not, marriage is not a religious institution and this country cannot allow religion to mandate who can, or cannot, engage in matrimony. America is a secular nation as the Founders intended, and regardless how often or loud evangelical fanatics preach otherwise, the Founding Fathers did not intend for America to be, or become, a Christian nation and they certainly did not prohibit same-sex marriage; so why does the religious right?
Related Posts :
California's new motto: we do more before 10am than most people do in a day. Earlier this morning (and it ...
The concept of holding on to a ritual or belief from a previous time that is passed down within a societ ...
It's a little over two years since Proposition 8 in California passed and denied same-sex couples the ri ...
It was a good day for the Constitution when Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge of the Federal District Co ...
In America's first official document, the concept of universal equality was elegantly stated even though ...
22 Responses to The Right Tries and Fails to turn Marriage Into a Religious Institution
Public Service Advertisements
Anne
Dec. 1st, 2012 at 10:20 am
Given the fact that agnostics and atheists also have been getting married since the institution was introduced, the argument that marriage is “religious” is laughable. It’s as laughable as their many other arguments against same sex marriage, given that there is a high divorce rate in this country among “traditional” marriages. Of course, religiously devout people and others make their marriage vows before God, and it’s perfectly okay. However, marriage IS a social contract whether the participants are religious or not, but this is yet another of the many wedge issues the GOP likes to drum up in lieu of actually doing something to help Americans, especially those in need. The fact that they view same-sex marriages as a threat to traditional ones shows just how stuck on stupid they and their lemmings are, when the high divorce rate existed long before the issue of same sex marriages ever even came up for discussion. Their cherry picking of religion to support only what they believe, while disregarding other tenants of Christianity, is cynical to say the least.
Eric Carrig
Dec. 1st, 2012 at 10:35 am
This is more to do with authority than religion. Marriage started as an economic transaction with the role women being consistent with the one they are expected to play in many Christian religions. Same-sex marriage is a not only an affront to the status quo, but to authority. If you want to change who is in charge, elect better leaders, focus on the issues, and hold them accountable between elections.
Anne
Dec. 1st, 2012 at 10:42 am
It IS about authority, as is everything else they endeavor. However, they use religion as a means to this end.
Sabyen91
Dec. 2nd, 2012 at 3:34 am
Marriage didn’t start with Christianity.
RX7
Dec. 1st, 2012 at 12:52 pm
While religions are originally meant to be “ways of life” that any person can choose to follow or not, as long as he or she becomes a good person who cares about themselves and others, many religious institutions have been using the teachings throughout history as a tool to enforce obedience among the populace, while the “men of God” just sit back, relax, and do anything they want.
Elizabeth
Dec. 1st, 2012 at 6:49 pm
First of all, marriage between one man and one women is NOT biblical. Polygamy is widespread. Men are ordered to take on their brother’s wife if he dies without an heir. It does not matter if he already has one.
Second the concept of marriage being strictly religious isn’t the only model in the current world. Much of Europe separates the legal contract, and the religious ceremony. This is the model I think we should follow. All couples go to the courthouse, or whatever, for the legal marriage. How they choose to celebrate that legal marriage is strictly up to them.
Christopher
Dec. 1st, 2012 at 10:24 pm
I agree with this article and have made the same points myself, but since so many experience weddings as a religious ceremony (with the officiant authorized by the state to sign the marriage license) I would cut a little slack to those who conclude that marriage is a religious construct.
Here’s the interesting thing though. Those who say we were founded as a Christian nation often cite as evidence the example of the Pilgrims and Puritans who founded Massachusetts. These groups evolved into Congregationalists, the vast majority of whom joined the United Church of Christ during the second half of the 20th century. In 2004 MA became the first state, and in 2005 the UCC became the first fully Christian denomination, to recognize marriage equality. Therefore it would be really nice if those who insist on denying marriage equality on the basis of our Christian heritage as evidenced by Massachusetts Puritans would ask modern Massachusetts Puritans, of which I am one, what they think of this matter.
Christopher
Dec. 1st, 2012 at 10:27 pm
Just a quick follow up. I meant to point out that the early MA Puritans also insisted that weddings only be a civil matter, a religious ceremony being too “popish” for their tasts. Oh, and they were the only ones in our history who really did ban the celebration of Christmas, which those who scream about the “War on Christmas” might be interested to know.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 1st, 2012 at 10:42 pm
People have a very sanitized version of the Puritans that were dropped off by the Mayflower. Including the fact there were settlements here already engaging in commerce with Britian BEFORE they got here. These people did NOT start America
Christopher
Dec. 1st, 2012 at 11:58 pm
To be picky it was Pilgrims who came on the Mayflower and they were more radical than the Puritans. The former wanted to leave the Church of England entirely well the latter held out hope they could purify the Church from within. Pilgrims settled Plymouth in 1620 while Puritans settled Salem in 1629 and Boston in 1630. There were no English settlements in Massachusetts prior to 1620 though John Smith of Jamestown had mapped the Massachusetts coastline and Tisquantum (aka Squanto) had prior contact with the English and learned the language.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 2nd, 2012 at 9:59 am
Yes my mistake. Thank you.
Jamestown 1607, the first permanent settlement
The Spanish were in Arizona even earlier in Santa Fe 1598.
St Augustine along with Jamestown were the earliest.
The pilgrims were not the original settlers. The pilgrims arew who we are told were the beginning of this country even though a large number of people were here within 20 years of them as I said, selling million in trade to england
A Walkaway
Dec. 2nd, 2012 at 1:58 pm
The congregationalists are still very much in existence. Some may have joined up with the Church of Christ, but definitely a lot did not. I’d also suggest not associating yourself with the Puritans/Pilgrims.
They were Calvinists, and most of the problems we face with modern-day dominionists stem from early (Puritan/Pilgrim era and earlier) Calvinist doctrine. They taught their children to be in constant terror of going to hell, so much so that it was a constant issue to the point of madness. Think of everything bad about today’s dominionists and you have the same issues with them… in some cases worse. In other words, by any decent culture’s standards, they were monsters.
Their treatment of the indigenous people of the area was in a word criminal (think Nuremberg trials). You don’t move into an area and immediately start forcing your own laws and rules on the people who’ve been there for hundreds, maybe thousands of generations – taking their lands, forcing them into subjection, and even selling them into slavery. (It’s recorded that Native Americans were subjected to Puritan religious law and the earliest “cash crop” from New England was American Indians sold for slavery in the Caribbean – and we know how the Pilgrims turned on those that helped them survive!)
“King Phillip’s war” didn’t start in a vacuum, and was the result of long injustice. Even though it means most of us alive today wouldn’t be here, it’s too bad he lost.
Christopher
Dec. 2nd, 2012 at 7:35 pm
There are non-UCC congregationalists to be sure, but relatively few and to be fair even UCCers don’t all agree with each other or with the denomination’s official positions. The beauty of the UCC is we are not required to march in lockstep. I will stand by the Puritan heritage however, just as I am a proud American without endorsing everything the USA has done in it’s history. Puritanism has definitely evolved and I am certainly not suggesting that the original MA colonists would have had enlightened views on homosexuality while they were still hanging accused witches and running out of town anyone they deemed a heretic. The point on which I will absolutely defend Puritanism is that they believed in an educated populace and especially clergy, that all can and should be able to read the Bible for themselves and to apply reason to theology and other aspects of their lives. As unscientific as it sounds today they were even pretty scrupulous about finding “evidence” as they understood it for witchcraft. Even if we don’t like their conclusions they set us on the path of enlightenment that ultimately resulted in more progressive values. This I believe is why Congregationalism ranks near the top of highly educated denominations and MA has always been a leader in public education. Think of it this way. Thomas Jefferson wrote the bulk of the Declaration of Independence with its eloquent defense of the idea that all men are created equal, yet he owned slaves. So while the founding generation hardly perfected their own ideals in this regard they pointed the way for future generations. I submit that the Puritans did likewise and as such made a positive contribution to our history.
A Walkaway
Dec. 3rd, 2012 at 1:09 pm
Uhh… I hope you aren’t trying to claim Jefferson for the UCC. If there is any church he accepted, it was the Unitarians.
As far as the Pilgrims and the Puritans, I have a different history than that taught in American schools… a history, btw, which is often backed up by science.
They weren’t nice people and should be held in the disrespect they richly deserve.
Maranon
Dec. 2nd, 2012 at 12:29 am
…”one Supreme Court Justice has already decided against same-sex marriage in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute promoting his book. Antonin Scalia…”
The operating word here is PROMOTING his book, to the ENTERPRISE.. We already know that the corporations own members of the supreme court to better buy elections, these judges are there not to defend the constitution and the rights of the American people, but are there to make a buck for themselves and the rights of the corporations.
Speaking against the rights of gay marriage, brings out all the gay-haters church-mongers to buy his book = $$$$.
In Mexico, who actually has separation of church and state, the church marriage means NOTHING! so if one wants to make it legal, has to go to the judge, and recently has approved civil gay unions.
SinghX
Dec. 2nd, 2012 at 7:42 am
Funny you should mention “enterprise”…why haven’t these defenders of church domination and superiority over this particular social institution, been kicking up their heels over the fact that gay marriage bringing in lots and lots of revenue for the business supplying all the trimmings? It’s a booming industry in states where same-sex marriage is legal.
I don’t have a link (sorry) but NYC estimated millions are spent by the LBGT communities alone on wedding and they love it!
Funny how they aren’t on board with more cognitive dissonance in terms over how or “why” the LBGT communities bring in “revenue”…I’m sure there is some kind of conspiracy behind all this…I’m sure the church will eventually “touch” on this subject.
KatzKids
Dec. 2nd, 2012 at 9:21 am
The one fact that keeps getting ignored or overlooked in the marriage argument is that you can not get married at all without a secular government license.
Religions, on their own, can NOT marry anyone without that secular license. They should & legally don’t have any skin in the game to say who can or can’t get married. If a couple chooses to get married in a church, fine, but no one needs a religious blessing to their marriage if they don’t want one. No authority – no say. All of the wrangling about it is ridiculous and more than wrong.
A Walkaway
Dec. 2nd, 2012 at 1:43 pm
In Florida, the churches are banned from marrying same-sex couples. Most churches don’t feel the impact, but there are a few that do.
Some still marry same-sex couples, even though it’s against the law. They perform the ceremony in private without letting non-members know.
It has to be done in secret. I think that clergy face problems with the state (and their licenses) if they even perform the ceremony.
In the diocese of Central Florida (Episcopal), if any member of the clergy even ATTENDS a same-sex ceremony of any type, it’s grounds for dismissal and possibly removal from the priesthood/deaconate.
I lean very much towards separating the two… it really IS a separation of church and state issue.
I’m also amused (and disgusted) at the ignorance of the proponents of “One man-one woman” (and always with the men being first, of course). They have no clue as to the variations in marriage around the world, or the relative rarity of the monogamous marriage for most of humankind’s existence. Monogamy IS slowly heading towards becoming the accepted norm for the planet, but that doesn’t always mean one man and one woman.
Christopher
Dec. 3rd, 2012 at 7:40 am
I think you’re overstating things just a bit. Churches are free to bless anything they want, including quasi-marriage commitments, without secrecy. It’s not as if the police are going to come in and arrest people involved in such a ceremony. It’s just that the state won’t recognize the validity of it. Plenty of UCC churches in states without marriage equality do this. Trouble is more likely to come from relgious authorities in denominations that do not favor marriage equality.
A Walkaway
Dec. 3rd, 2012 at 1:13 pm
They won’t arrest everyone involved, but the officiant will have problems.
It’s considered one of the quicker ways to loose one’s license (according to at least one minister I know).
I’m not exaggerating… and I’d suggest that you go back and read some of my other posts. They may SEEM like I am exaggerating, but in some cases I can provide proof (such as pictures of my torched workshop, and pictures of racist graffiti in front of our mailbox).
I don’t have to lie or exaggerate and I don’t – I don’t have to!
Yes, this state and county are really that bad.
Kathie Wilson
Dec. 2nd, 2012 at 2:02 pm
If gay marriage ‘threatens’ your hetero marriage, there’s something wrong with your hetero marriage. The fact that gays are legally able to marry, does NOT have an impact on the fact that my husband and I were legally able to as well.
CatDeville
Dec. 3rd, 2012 at 12:41 pm
Please fix your article. In paragraph 2 you attribute the quote from the Treaty of Tripoli to George Washington. One sentence latter, in the opening sentence of paragraph 3, you attribute it to John Adams. The second attribute (Adams) is correct. There’s only one Treaty of Tripoli, and Washington wasn’t involved in it. ~ Regards.