Skip to main content

“Is it possible to decide what marriage law should be without entering into moral and religious controversies about the moral status of homosexuality and the purpose of marriage?”

I think that it absolutely is possible. In fact it’s essential in the United States. We don’t legislate religion in this country. Whatever religion may think about the moral status of homosexuality and the purpose of marriage is irrelevant when it comes to legislating the laws in the US. In fact, the first amendment to the constitution prohibits congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion. Allowing religion to dictate any laws in the US, establishes religion as a legislative priority and that’s unconstitutional. Religion; the “church”, may not like this, but they don’t have to pay taxes so they have no say in the matter when it comes to legislation and the secular laws of this country. They are more than free to hold their opinions about the subject, but our laws cannot be based on religious objections.

In Thomas Jefferson’s famous letter to the Danbury Baptists, he’s mostly known for his metaphor on the separation of church and state. But he also said this; “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions,”

Our government should never engage in the practice of legislating moral or religious opinions. Those kinds of value judgments are best left to individuals. It seems that we’re splitting hairs here on what is the proper role of legislation. (tax laws v moral laws) The proper role of legislation in America is summed up by Jefferson’s statement that “that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions”. Morality and religion are always matters of opinion. What are those opinions based on? I think trying to determine that leads to infinite regress or at best circular reasoning.

 Attempts to legislate morality always fail. Laws that excluded women or ethnic minorities were once considered appropriate, but over time we found no logical argument to support that view. Today we’d object to those views. What changed? Morality?? Is morality so flexible and malleable that it has no meaning, or means whatever is popular for the moment? This is always the danger that legislating morality presents. Slavery was once considered morally justified, and the Southern Segregationists felt that this tradition and history was acceptable. When this kind of attitude surrounds a conception of morality that is embedded into religious beliefs, all attempts to reason with that person becomes an attack on their religion, and their identity which is defined by these beliefs is challenged.

Marriage is a contract. It requires a license issued by the state. It requires a court of law to divorce. One doesn’t need a church to get married so religious considerations are not involved unless a person wants a church wedding. A Church would of course be within its rights to deny that kind of ceremony.

Regardless of all of this, the state is necessarily to be involved in marriage because it is a contract and there are property rights involved. It also makes no sense for two people to be considered married in one state and not another. A civil contract is valid in every state.

Furthermore, the idea that marriage is for procreative purposes would rule out people who can’t have children but choose to love each other and share their lives without children. You don’t need to be married to have children, and you don’t need children to be married.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (0+ / 0-)

    Never trust a naked busdriver.

    by Adagio4639 on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 11:26:45 AM PDT

  •  I agree with all the points in your diary, (0+ / 0-)

    and I think that "It also makes no sense for two people to be considered married in one state and not another." is the battle that needs to be fought.

    Marriage equality is a civil rights issue, and should not fall under the purview of "states rights".  I think it will take a while for marriage equality to be universal in the U.S., but the sooner the better.

    •  I believe... (0+ / 0-)

      and I think that "It also makes no sense for two people to be considered married in one state and not another." is the battle that needs to be fought.

      ...that this battle has already been fought, during the civil-rights era when some states banned interracial marriages, but I'm not sure about the details.

    •  never forget (0+ / 0-)

      Yeah...I agree entirely. It is a civil rights issue and it makes no sense for two people to be married in one state and not another.

      Never trust a naked busdriver.

      by Adagio4639 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 11:58:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You've convinced me. (0+ / 0-)
  •  Good article. I'm a little put off with equating (0+ / 0-)

    morality and religion. We have plenty of laws that have a moral basis. In fact most laws have a moral basis.

    •  JeremySchro (0+ / 0-)

      I think you're right Jeremy, but it does seem that the morality leans toward fairness and justice. Our laws should express those qualities. If they do, I think we can find the morality that lies within them.

      Never trust a naked busdriver.

      by Adagio4639 on Sat Aug 31, 2013 at 12:04:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site