Isn't a ban on gay marriage violating the first amendment?

Question

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" First amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
I admit marriage IS a religious notion, and I feel churches have every right to refuse marrying a gay couple if it is against the religion. BUT marriage is recognized by the government and married couples are granted special privileges. Therefore isn't the government promoting christianity, against the first amendment?
I feel that it is violating the first amendment since people can get married if they have no faith as long as they are heterosexual, but if they are gay then they cannot even get married by a judge.
All the aruments against gay marriage are religious ones, such as marriage is "sacred", and to argue as such violates the first amendment by mixing state and religion. I don't care if it's called something else, but if the state grants rights to one, they must grant rights to all.

I regret that I put "christianity" in the question, the main reason I did is because christians are the ones that seem to be against it the most, I mainly mean ANY religious argument from ANY religion.

again due to the lack of space they grant details, I again must clarify myself here, the "rights" I refer to that must be granted to all is not the right to marry, it is the rights that go WITH marriage, and that's why I said it can be called something else than marriage, such as California's domestic partnership.

Answer 1

THE BAN IS CERTAINLY A VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

YOU ARE ABSOLUTLY CORRECT

Answer 2

The Supreme Court already answered your question concerning the 1st amendment in the 19th century, when Utah was annexed. Nor are all arguements against gay marriage religious in nature. Also, if a church does not marry gays when it becomes legal, they will loose their tax exempt status with the federal and state governemtns.

If you think the last is an embellishment, it has already happened. The oldest private charity adoption agency in Mass. has to close because they lost tax exempt status. They lost their status because they would not marry gays. They were a Catholic Institution.

The motivation of the government to regulate marriage is that it is an institution that has shown historical and statistical relations to the prosperous rearing of the next generation of tax payers. People that are married generally have more children, and the children they have are less likely to fail in sociaety via drugs, mental problems, crime, and other ills. They generally achieve higher educational and income results as adults. Married people themselves generally commit less crime.

All the above are a statistical reason for government to promote marriage, and the simple fact that gays cannot breed themselves in a way that the children they rear are biologically tied to both, legitimizes a secular governing interest in marriage. Once a governing interest is determined, it is the will of the people as regulated through congress that determines the regulation of marriage. Hence, it no longer becomes an issue for the courts.

Marriage is not a "right". It is a licensed privelage granted by the state. People can marry without the government, but to be recognized by the government, hence the people, they must respect the regulations the people place on the law. If you beleive the law should be changed, work through the congress and not the courts.

Spellcheck broke down, so please forgive my spelling errors.

Answer 3

No it is not a violation. Marriage does not have to be affliated with a religion. Any man and woman can go down to the courthouse and have a judge marry them or in my state a Notary Public can marry them. Your arguement about rights being grated for one it must be granted for all does not have legal precedence nor does it make sense. So you would agree that everyone who is physically able to drive should be allowed to to no matter what age? How about gambling and drinking alchol. In the law there is such thing and time and place and history. Historicaly since the begiging of time it has been a man and a woman that get married. If two men or two women want to have a regligious cermony the governemnt can't stop that. What is wrong with having your church "marry" you? It does not have to be suppoted by the govt. In some states they ahve the corrt policy of allowing cival unions and besides what can't you do as a couple that you do as a tradtional married one. Wills can be created, Joint Tendencty with right of surviorship can be created, and many other leagal documents can be created all that have nothing to do with someone being married to each other.

Answer 4

No.

1. The government has made no laws regarding establishment of a religion. If so, which religion did they supposedly 'establish'? Did you know that Judaism, Islam, and most other religions are also opposed to homosexual marriage? So which one did they establish? Shintoism? Hinduism?

2. As far as granting rights, every person has the right to marry somebody of the opposite sex, with a few exceptions, of course. How is this a violation of equal rights? Sounds pretty equal to me. Since everybody has this same right, how does it somehow become a 'violation' of anybody's rights?

3. The 1st amendment does not, and never did, prevent people from voting their religious consience. To suggest such an absurdity is a gross and disingenuous mischaracterization of the foundations of this country.

4. Every state, even 'blue' Democrat states, where this has been put to a popular vote has soundly rejected the legalization of same-sex marriage. The only way it has become legal, like in Massachusetts SSR, is because of 5 or fewer tyrants in black dresses (judges) imposed their social views upon the people. That is why states voted to amend their state constitutions - to prevent judicial tyranny.

5. There are other rational arguments against same-sex marriage. First, there is no compelling social reason to cavalierly change the fundamental institution of marriage, upon which human society, culture and civilization have been built. Second, studies from Scandanavia and Netherlands have shown that legalization of same sex marriage has had a significant deleterious effect on marriage overall, to the detriment of society.

Answer 5

You are completely wrong. The reason for state recognition of marriage and granting of special privileges is to promote families, which are the building blocks of society. Since a gay couple cannot have a family, there is no need for these special privileges.
Your argument that "if the state grants rights to one, they must grant rights to all", is false as well. First of all, marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. I know that whenever liberals want something they just declare it a "constitutional right" (abortion comes to mind) so that all debate is turned into one group denying the "rights" of another, but this is stupidity. States are free to grant certain privileges to any group it wants, for example, should the state be required to let a person marry a dog? Or marry his sister? Or marry his self? Or marry 4 of his sisters? Or marry his mom? Why not, according to YOUR argument? Your argument turns marriage into a meaningless institution, which means that families will no longer have any special status, much as Marx and Lenin would have loved.

Answer 6

To prove a violation of the establishment clause you need to prove that the government had a non-secular purpose.

In this case, the govt. does have a nonsecular purpose - most people think marriage should only be between a man and a woman. The fact that many people believe this because of thier religion does not create an establishment clause violation.

That would be like arguing laws against murder violate the estblishment cluase because the ten commandts also prohibit murder. All that is needed is an independent, secular reason.

(just for the record, I am in favor of gay marriage - just don't think it's a constitutional issue)

Answer 7

"BUT marriage is recognized by the government and married couples are granted special privileges. Therefore isn't the government promoting christianity, against the first amendment?"

no, there are people of other faiths that also oppose gay marriage. laws banning gay marriage have absolutely nothing to do with promoting a specific religion.

Answer 8

The gay marriage issue is really two fold: religious and civil.

People get married in the church of their religion so that their religion 'recognizes' their marriage. People get married civilly so that there is legal recognition of their union.

Why people need to have their religion recognize their marriage is personal. But government needs to recognize marriages so that property rights (who gets what when) are determined.

So, I believe that it is a violation of the First Amendment. If a religion doesn't want to recognize a marriage, for whatever reason - color, interfaith, homesexual, that is their right. But the purpose of the goverment recognizing a marriage is to legal and that MUST continue and that MUST occur.

If government bans gay marraige, they government bans property rights to a segment of the population. Which in my humble opinion is no different than denying voting rights, the right to own property, or any other right guaranteed to us by the Founding Fathers.

Answer 9

There is no Constitution right to get married. The Constitutional issue falls under the "equal protection" clause. A ban on gay marriage is Constitution because it applies to everyone equally. Laws that promote marriage between a man and woman also apply to everyone equally. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as a straight man. The current ban stops a straight man or a gay man from marrying another man. There is no discrimination by on sexual behavior.

Answer 10

The argument you miss is that marriage is a spiritual journey of a man and a woman. The government had absolutley nothing to do with the joining until they figured they could make some money on it charging people a fee for the licensing and then later the ceremony. The first amendment does protect homosexuals right to state their beliefs, protest, and in general make their voices heard. Do I agree that marriage between two people of the same sex is good? I am inclined to disagree, but two people who have accepted each other in the eyes of God? Well in that i defer to the almighty.

Answer 11

I agree with your argument. Married couples are given privileges that are not available to unmarried couples. Those privileges include special tax breaks, and rights of inheritance. The unmarried partner of a person can be excluded from being with the other partner if either is hospitalized, and also can't inherit under intestate laws.

I hope that someday the US will stop discriminating against a portion of the population. It took a long time until mixed race marriages were allowed. Now those marriages are accepted. Someday gay marriages will also be accepted. It can't happen too soon.