Lately there has been a lot of commotion from people about whether or not same sex couples should be allowed to be "married". So far as I'm concerned, that's perfectly alright. You find someone you love that much, you should be able to bind yourself to them in that manner. Unfortunately, if the latest trends in legislation are any hint, I seem to be in the minority. With so many states either outright banning same sex "marriage", or adding new definitions to their constitutions to effectively make those marriages impossible, it almost sounds like the majority of the populace is dead set against it. But not the US Constitution.
I've been doing a lot of thinking on this subject, and while what follows may be only a legal argument put forward by an amateur constitutionalist, I think it makes sense.
In short, the state has no right to prohibit or otherwise hinder the rights of any citizen, no matter the sexual orientation, to be married under the religious freedom portion of the first amendment of the constitution. I can already hear some of you asking yourselves what the hell does any of this have to do with the freedom of religious expression. Give me a moment and I'll explain.
You see, there are only two reasons that I can think of for a person to discriminate against same sex couples. The first is a simple, personal dislike of homosexuality because it isn't "normal", or "right" biologically speaking. Okay, I get that. But it doesn't mean they have any less reason to be married than an interracial couple. The second reason, and the one that I think applies the most in this case, is a dislike based on religious principles. Essentially, because a person's faith/religious texts state that homosexuality is wrong, it must be so. It is for this second reason that I believe the first amendment applies.
My contention is that many of the lawmakers, if not all, who have been pushing to prevent same sex marriage belong to a faith which believes homosexuality is wrong because it is what their god or gods have told them. In this case, the legislators who have been pushing so hard to pass these discriminatory laws, have been doing so because it's what their faith tells them to do. By doing this, they are, in essence trying to force the laws of a small group of faiths on people who obviously do not share those beliefs. This, in effect, means that they are preventing the free expression of faith by those not of their faith.
I do realize that many faiths say nothing about gay marriage specifically, and that many same sex couples belong to a religion that, for the most part, does not allow same sex couplings, much less marriages. But by living a life that sees, very obviously, no harm in same sex relationships, they have essentially shown themselves to have different beliefs. So for a group of people to tell them they cannot have a state recognized marriage is essentially the same as the state suppressing the religious freedom of a specific group of individuals, subjugating it to the will of another religion. This is in direct violation of the first amendment's clause on freedom of religious expression.
I am not saying that faiths which have a strict "no gays allowed" policy must be forced to perform same sex marriage. It's against their faith, and as such, they have the right to say no under the first amendment. What I am saying is that the state has no right to prohibit or otherwise restrict a citizen's right to a state recognized marriage based on the sexual orientation of those citizens. Especially when the primary justification for such blatant discrimination is religious.
No comments:
Post a Comment