Yesterday, the Obama administration took a stand. Okay, so they didn't introduce new legislation and they didn't threaten to invade Korea. No, the administration just made a simple request of the Supreme Court. Please strike down DOMA.
The Defense of Marriage Act is the statute barring the Federal Government from recognizing same-sex marriage. Several lower courts have ruled this law unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court is hearing an appeal of the case of US v Windsor. The fight begins on the 27th of March.
This is all well and good, but the simple fact is that DOMA is – at its fundamental core – unconstitutional. I'm not referring to oft-cited quotes from the Declaration of Independence, such as "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" or "all men are created equal." No, I'm referring to the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting 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.
So, what does this mean? Simply and logically put, Congress cannot interfere with religion. It's called Separation of Church and State. The expansion of this, is that Congress cannot draft and pass a law based upon a religion or religious objection if it is for the sole purpose of promoting that religion's point of view.
In short, murder is illegal. It is not illegal because a religion said so. It's illegal because allowing it would infringe upon another person's rights (the rights of the person murdered). Convoluted, but that's the way it works and should work.
So, why is same-sex marriage illegal? Does it infringe upon the rights of those who want to marry the opposite gender? Does it make it so that I can't marry my husband if another man marries his male significant other? No. It does not.
Then, there is the argument that two men cannot produce offspring. We won't get into the whole surrogacy 'issue.' We won't even look at adoption. I provide one simple argument: I have been married (heterosexually) over a decade. I have no children. Am I any less married?
Fundamentalist Christians provide all sorts of arguments about "cheapening" or "lessening" the "sanctity of marriage." They call it an "affront against God" or a "breakdown of morality." I find those arguments interesting and amusing. After all, according to Jesus the whole of the law was to basically love God and love your fellow man. He also said that he wasn't there to change or deny the law, but to fulfill it. Do you see condemnation of same gender relations in those two statements? I don't.
The Islamic traditions basically agree with the Christians. Not surprising, since they have the same root - Judaism. At the time that they split, the Jews were of the opinion that same-sex friskiness was bad. The religion, as a whole, still condemns it.
(I would like to note here, that some Christians, Muslims, and Jews are either neutral or supportive of their LGBT parishioners, friends and family members. Some are not. There are variations in all three groups.)
Buddhists are also split on the topic. The Dalai Lama insists that sexual congress should only be heterosexual, otherwise it goes against the Third Precept. Early Buddhists, according to some scholars, had no opinion on the topic. And, there are varying opinions depending on the teacher one learns with.
This covers the four most 'popular' religions in the country.
Now, there are other religions in the USA. Since it's mine, we'll look at Wicca (specifically) and Paganism (in general). Many of us could care less. According to the Charge of the Goddess, "all acts of love and pleasure are My rituals." Most Wiccan authors try to teach love and tolerance towards your fellow man, including such notables as Scott Cunningham and Silver Ravenwolf.
So, what does even this limited survey tell us? That even the religious in our country can't agree on the issue. Should it matter where the law is concerned? Not really. Except....
DOMA, as it stands, makes it so that even those ministers, priests and priestesses that do support the LGBT community are not permitted to express this support by performing marriages - religious ceremonies - that are legally recognized in spite of legal recognition being readily available for the same ceremony performed for other groups. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a problem.
Either the government needs to recognize all religions and religious ceremonies that do not infringe on the rights of others as legally valid, or it needs to step back and stop regulating it at all.
Comments
Post a Comment