Wouldn't blocking same sex marriage be making a law concerning religion?

Question

"Congress shall make no law concerning 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."

Answer 1

Yes. The government should get out of the business of marriage and look at only those relationships that can be governed legally.

Look at it this way, if two people (man and woman) get a marriage certificate but don't get married by a preacher/priest/rabbi/etc. are they married in the eyes of the church? If they never said their vows to God, probably not. But by the government's standards, they still have the same benefits and liabilities. Or look at it the other way around, if two people marry in a church but don't get the license, do they still get the tax benefits? No, because to the government they're not married.

And you want it this way. Do you want the government telling you what a valid marriage is? Or do you want your church to give you the rules for marriage? Isn't marriage between two people, not two people and the government?

Also look at it on the back end, if the government says what a marriage is, it can also tell you when your marriage is over. So if I'm Catholic and get a divorce through the courts, am I still married according to the church? You bet you are. You have to get the marriage annulled or you can't get married in the church again. But if the government says you aren't married, why can't you get married in the church? Because the church doesn't care what the government says, they make the rules for marriage.

Keep them separate. It makes it a lot easier.

Answer 2

Not "concerning an establishment of religion." "RESPECTING an establishment of religion..."
But just because a law might have religious supporters doesn't make it a law "respecting an establishment of religion."
There is more to say on this topic than can be written here, but suffice it to say, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause as prohibiting any governmental acts that "endorse" religion or "coerce" people into religious exercise (depending upon the justice and the particular issue). So, government can't say
(a) Pray at this church or we'll fine you;
(b) Pay taxes to this church;
(c) We favor the Episcopal Church;
(d) Kids, pray to God before we begin our lesson plans
(e) Kids, Creationism is the only right theory of how the world began because it comes from the Bible, which is infallable.

There are other activities that Government can't do as well re: the Esablishment clause, but that's the general nature.

Just because a proscription on human behavior may come from a religious source does not necessarily mean it violates the Establishment Clause. For example: Blue laws still exist in many states that prohibit car sales and/or alcohol sales on Sunday. We know why those laws originated (remember the sabbath...) but they are not religious laws in and of themselves, and they have secular justifications (basically work restrictions on entire industries to avoid weekend competition and allow workers to rest). Thus, they don't violate the E.C.

Same thing here -- while the reason people may be voting fora constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is religious, the law itself is merely a secular regulation of marriage -- i.e. no gay marriage, no incest, etc. (The outlawing of Polygamy, which is definitely related to a specific religious minority, is a closer question. The Supreme Court, however, noted that there was a secular interest in the protection of the family and especially wives of polygamists, who are generally young, taken advantage of, impoverished, and sometimes abused by their husbands and declared those laws constitutional).

Answer 3

No. Marriage is BOTH a state and a religious institution. It isn't as if the law would be saying you can't have a gay-Catholic wedding, only a gay-Pagan wedding. It is simply about same-sex marriage.

And, btw, the law reads that Congress shall not ESTABLISH a religion (meaning, force you to worship a certain way). It does NOT say that Congress cannot be guided by religion.

Answer 4

To violate those clause, the law must either directly (in its text) make some kind of religious distinction, or be so clearly one-sided for or against one particular religion that prejudice can be inferred.

While all of the laws prohibitting same-sex are based almost exclusively on religious grounds, there is no mention of this in the laws themselves. So, there is no direct claim of religious bias.

And given that the laws are evaluated under Rational Basis standard (the lowest form of review), anything that is not directly invalid is generally presumed valid.

Answer 5

I think your point is a little lost. What you are saying is that in the US the same freedoms should be given to everyone. The right to legally marry someone shouldn't only be restricted to straight people. It is like saying black people shouldn't be allowed to marry. So the only reason why it would remain illegal is that there must be some moral reason that is influencing it. And the only real group that has a moral objection to it is religion, which means religion is influencing the laws.

Answer 6

No it would not. Marriages happen all the time, entered into by people of all religions. A law blocking same sex marriage, simply states that the people of the society which enacts such a law are making only man-woman marriages legal. Doesn't say anything about religion.

Answer 7

A highly intelligent question.

Marriage was originally a religious contract, certain features of which were enforceable by civil law.

Civil marriage then came along. This is a civil union, with no religious overtones. Gay marriage is about civil unions and not religious marriage.

Answer 8

I agree. The Gov't should stop issuing "marriage" licenses & giving "married" couples preferred tax treatment.

"Marriage" should be only a religious custom. Then people could marry whom they want; how many they want; for as long as they want.

Children could be protected by the state just as those belonging to unmarried parents are now.

Answer 9

how would it be having anything to do with religion? Marriage is between a man and a woman--both in the bible and in the laws--same sex marriage is not a religious choice, banning it is only following the laws of the land....period........same sex marriage has no place in any kind of religious conversation--it should be put in abnormal conversation....

Answer 10

No religion is involved in your sexual preference!
P.S. Aviator, you are wrong being a color is not a choice, being gay is! Gay ppl choose to go against thier true nature! That's more like a white person trying to be black and that's just annoying!
Nature or God created a Man & a Woman to procreate...can u prove it wrong!