Quote of the day

This is not simply a “public policy” issue. It is a moral issue. And yes, it is a “religious” issue. But it is not a “sectarian” issue. There are several questions that need to be addressed.

First with regard to the Constitution, the establishment clause is simply saying that the U.S. has chosen not to have an official State Church (either, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist,or other) as opposed to the common practice in Europe at the time of the American Revolution. America was built on the principle of Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion. You only have to read the writings of the founding Fathers (including some who are considered Deists rather than Christians) to see that faith was not excluded from public and political life. It was just that no one Church was given official predominance.

Second,all people, without exception, are religious. While people most often associate religion with faith in God (or “gods” for Hindus and other polytheistic groups), “religion” is essentially about faith, belief and trust (or confidence). It may or may not be based on real or perceived objective proof. Faith in God may be replaced by faith in Man, Nature, Government, Science or any number of other things, but it is still religion. My apologies to Allahpundit, but atheism is a religion, albeit an anti-religion religion. In the original Humanist Manifesto, the founders of the Humanist movement recognized that Humanism is a religion when they referred to their movement as “Religious Humanism”.

When the signers of the Declaration of Independence affirmed, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” they were making a religious statement of belief, not only in a Creator, but in “certain unalienable rights”. That “faith statement” is the cornerstone of our Republic.

A person’s affiliation or membership in an organization may not have a significant influence in how they live their lives (i.e. Catholics who voted for Obama and/or who are pro-abortion or pro same-sex marriage). But what a person really believes will always influence every aspect of their life. A person’s moral values are a visible product of their actual religious beliefs. A person’s political views will also be influenced by their foundational beliefs. You cannot remove religion from politics. Those who seek to do so are simply trying to make their religion the official religion of the State, which the Constitution prohibits.

American criminal law, at least in its inception, was concerned with issues of right and wrong (another way of saying “morality”). Why do we believe that stealing is wrong? Or rape, or murder? And why do we believe that in some circumstances killing another human being is not murder? These beliefs come from our underlying religious values. The push for the acceptance of same-sex marriage is a symptom of an effort to establish a new religious and moral foundation for America.

Third, this is not a sectarian issue. Sectarian would be Baptist vs. Methodist, Catholic vs. Protestant, Shiite vs. Sunni. For millennia Judaism, Christianity and Islam (to name only three religious groups) have believed that homosexual practice is morally wrong. Where is Al Gore when you need him? (“There is a consensus. The debate is over.”) Seriously, the fact that there is a debate indicates that there are differing beliefs on this issue, but claiming that those who oppose same-sex marriage are “sectarian” is disingenuous.

Fourth, the question of whether sexual orientation is a choice or genetic is irrelevant. The issue here is not about orientation, it is about behavior. And that is a choice. The quote of the day says, “it is hard to deny the inequality under the law that exists when people of one sexual orientation are allowed to marry and people of another are not…” Where is the inequality? Do heterosexuals have a right to same-sex marriage that is denied to homosexuals? And are there not heterosexual practices, such as incest (and in some States marriage between first cousins) that are prohibited by law because they are deemed to be immoral?

Does “love” somehow make same-sex marriage right and moral? If so, then should bisexuals have the right to marry one man and one woman? And if a man or a woman loves several women or men (or a mixture) should they have the right to marry all of them. And what if someone is in “love” with a six year old? Or what if someone “loves” his dog or his horse or his goat? Where does it end (or does it ever end)? Who draws the line and where is it drawn?

Fifth, what about the “rights” given to heterosexual couples/families such as health care, joint tax returns, social security benefits, etc. Are homosexual couples being discriminated against because they don’t have these “rights”? I don’t think so. Others disagree and think that homosexual couples should have the same rights and privileges as married heterosexual couples.

I have a son who has been living with another young man for several years. Both are heterosexual and both are Christians. They are committed to abstinence before marriage and faithfulness in marriage. That is why they are living with each other rather than with girl friends. But they live together, share the cost of rent and food, etc. Are they, and others like them, being discriminated against because they don’t have the same rights and privileges as a married couple? If you grant those rights and privileges to homosexual couples, but don’t give them to my son and his roommate, would you not be discriminating against my son solely on the basis of his sexual orientation?

I cannot speak for anyone but myself. I am not opposed to homosexuals as people. I believe that they should and do already have the same rights as all other Americans. I believe that this is a question of demanding special rights, not equal rights. I oppose legalizing same-sex marriage because I believe that it is wrong for us as a nation to condone or give official approval to immoral behavior. I believe that homosexual behavior is harmful to both the individual and society. These views come from a heart of compassion and love for the individuals concerned. That said, I believe that this is an issue that should be decided by the States and not by a judiciary that has decided to appropriate legislative authority to itself.

Ordinary American on April 18, 2009 at 10:43 AM

With regard to your point on the founders, they were in favor of keeping spiritual and temporal matters in separate spheres. Madison in 1822 wrote:

An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against…Every new and successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance…religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government.

dedalus on April 18, 2009 at 11:21 AM

I wouldn’t disagree with Madison here, but I think that by “religion” he is talking about Organized Religion and its hierarchy (such as existed between the Catholic Church and the monarchy in France prior to the French Revolution). But as individuals I remain convinced that what we really believe affects all of our life. If we really believe something, we can’t “leave it at the door” when we enter the political arena.

Ordinary American on April 18, 2009 at 11:39 AM

I agree. Running for office and saying my character was formed by my Christian upbringing is, and should be, a positive. However, addressing a legal question for all Americans by referring to the Bible is less likely to convince the opposition.

dedalus on April 18, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Agreed

Ordinary American on April 18, 2009 at 11:50 AM