Should US body of law on same sex marriage consider religious views in determining policy?

Question

I've been reading around the news stories about how this state officially ratifies a constitutional ammendment banning same sex marriage and how that state brings up the issue again, how some reverand says procreation takes place between a man and a woman, then some activisit asks what marriage has to do with procreation in the US when so many are born out of wedlock. It seems to me that issue of religon shouldn't be a consideration to governmental policy, especially in a country that is forbidden to have a national religon, given that some religons advocate same sex marriage and sanctify it. The US is not supposed to be in a position of choosing one faith over another. Religous centers in the US enjoy tax free status. It seems to me that this tax free policy should be scrutinized if political lobbying in order to impose their belief upon a nation of freedom is continued.

Answer 1

I fully and 100 percent agree with you...they say seperation of religion and state and yet they are about to try and get the bible in public schooling..the minority is imposing itself on the unorganized majority.
the problem with alternative communities is they never band togeather I work with the leather,lesbian,pagan and holistic community. The biggest problems with getting these communities to do something about these problems is people cant get over their egos.
What needs to happen is people need to stand up for what they belive in togeather get petitions going and make it known that we want the same rights. I work with several groups one that organizes pagan pride day localy and the biggest problem is no one wants to invest in publicity get it publically known

Answer 2

Seperation of church and state is not in the constitution. Our country was founded upon religous faith, specifically a prodestant belief in God. Our founding fathers beleived that the state should stay out of the church but church and God should be in politics. That is why they always started each meeting with a prayer and ended it in Jesus name.

Since our politicians and lawmakers are elected by the people and are there for the people, I do agree that they should take a long hard look at what the religous veiwpoints are.

Some things are just common sense. I feel that with this issue it is a waste of time and money. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, that is the way it has been since the begining of creation, and abortion is murder. Its common sense.

D

Answer 3

There was a change in accounting policy which was under the radar . . . basically before Bush church's and other religous institutions enjoyed tax free status as long as they stayed out of politics. Preachers could not advise congregation on whom to vote for, donate to a particular candidate, etc. Now the churches can. This is why the neo conservative movement has become so powerful. They have a huge lobbying force which are paid through church donations. Under the new accounting regulations this is no longer illegal.

Answer 4

I agree that we cannot take religious views as a group when determining policy. And maybe religions should NOT enjoy tax free status if it imposes it's beliefs through political lobbying.

But no matter how much I disagree with the politics of those religious groups, they certainly have as much right to political lobbying, according to the present laws. I see nothing right now that tells me that we should not allow them.

Answer 5

It's my opinion that the laws separating church and state are there for a reason. Not everyone agrees on religion or politics. Unfortunately, there's a large enough majority that still feels we should have a national religion and impose it on the rest of the population - something I've honestly never understood. Foisting opinions, politics, religion or what have you on the rest of the population leads to dissention and unrest and occasionally political and moral upheaval.

My other feeling on the matter is if you're against gay marriage, don't marry a gay person. Call me crazy. :p

Answer 6

Ok, I actually asked my uncles ( there gay just fyi) what they thought on this. And here is what they said in a nutshell. They are not looking for ahuge religious ceremony to announce them as married. A "marriage" is a religious ceremony. They relize the christian church as a majorty will not accept this. Mainly they want a common law marriage. They just want to be recognized by the state and country as being a partnership. In quote, "I couldnt give a rats behind if a church thinks I am married or not, its the country that matters more."

Answer 7

Hard question but I think the answer would have to be no. Most religions say it is wrong, but they also say GOD gives a person the right to choose that lifestyle so who are we to say otherwise? Can we take away their GOD-GIVEN right to choose?
On the other hand, laws are made by the vote of the people and if the majority vote no, then no it is. And being most vote no because of "religious" reasons, then in the end it is the same determining it. Weather it's really "religion" they say no for or hate and incomprehension is another question altogether.

Answer 8

They could just consider nature and common sense. That would be enough, I think.
On the other hand, they should consider the views of the population. Since religious views are inlcuded in that, then yes, they should consider religious views as well as all other views.
One thing is clear:
No person should be obliged to perform a marriage that would be against his personal beliefs, whether relgious or otherwise.

Answer 9

Mr Ed, you're a ******* moron. No one *has* to perform a marriage on anyone in the first place. Don't believe me? Try getting married at the Mormon cathedral if you're not a life-time mormon. Try getting the pope to marry you and your fiance. They'll both tell you the same thing, **** off.

This isn't about religion, it's about equal protection under the law.

Answer 10

My religion is in favor of same-sex marriage. There are several relgions that are okay with it, so I don't see how government can cite a religious basis for banning it without favoring one religion over another.

And there is NO non-religious reason for banning it.