Gay marriage and religion's role in politics

In his article “Religion, Politics and Culture” Jonathan Thompson argues that any initiative that bans gay marriage infringes on the rights of homosexuals and that religion does not belong in politics. Thompson explains that the constitutional amendment in Colorado and proposal 8 in California “erode equality and codify bigotry”. These laws have denied US citizens their rights to “freedom from” and “freedom of” religion. Thompson claims, just as Wald and Calhoun-Brown do in their book Religion and Politics in the United States, that religion has permeated politics. Thompson concedes that religion has been used in a positive manner in politics by citing the examples of the civil rights movement and the abolitionist movement but then claims that religion belongs “in the churches and the homes”.
While I agree with his argument about the laws pertaining to gay marriage, I do not agree that religion should not have any part in politics. As Thompson points out, religion has played a positive role in politics and I think there’s a lot of potential for the future. Religion should not be used in politics to deny citizens inalienable rights such as the right of privacy and of freedom from religion (as it does in the gay marriage legislation) but instead used to foster a sense of awareness of other people’s problems and bring about more social change. There are certain concepts that are prevalent in most religions that could be useful in politics. For example, “love thy neighbor” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” are both concepts that encourage tolerance and would be useful in addressing gay marriage. In addition to these universal concepts, religion imbues its followers with a sense of individual responsibility and accountability, which are definitely lacking in politics now.
While Thompson is correct that religion does have the potential to infringe on the rights of citizens who do not follow that specific religious code, he is also naïve to think that religion has no place in politics. True, religion’s role in politics can be flawed but without it would there have been a civil rights movement or the possibility of a tolerant enough constituency to elect the first African American president?

Labeling the Other Side

Proposition 8 is a ballot proposition in California to ban gay marriage in response to a California Supreme Court ruling legalizing it. Not surprisingly the vote is a hot topic in the newspaper opinion section. In Al Martinez’s LA Times editorial, God, Gay Marriage and One Unhappy Man, he argues for gay marriage and against the proposition. In order to prove that he is right he comically uses an example of a man whom he depicts as behind the times. According to Martinez, Harvey is not happy about anything. He hates gay people, believes in Creationism, and is only useful to Martinez as a way of keeping in touch with “the blurry thinking of the religious right.” By taking this approach Martinez loses any chance he had of appealing to those who disagree with him and he is not impressive to those who agree with him either.

In some sense, Martinez is taking the viewpoint opposite of Jerry Falwell’s. Falwell argued that homosexuality, feminism, and abortion were ruining America. According to him, we needed to deal with these problems or we faced certain failure as a nation. All Martinez is basically saying is that the people who agree with Falwell, even only to some extent, are the ones really ruining America. Martinez ends the article by saying he want to “see how [Harvey] feels about forbidding marriage between a man and woman with IQs lower than 75 to prevent more idiots from populating the world.” As someone who is pro-gay marriage I have always laughed when someone claims that gay marriage will lead to bestiality or something of the sort. But, by implying that all Creationists and anti-gay marriage people are too stupid to procreate Martinez is making an argument that is just as offensive and unproductive to a logical discussion about the issue.

When we look back through American history it quickly becomes apparent that our greatest heroes are those who could articulate their opinions in a way that did not create and us against them argument. Martin Luther King is a great example. Obviously, in many ways he was fighting an us against them battle, but he did so without making dishonest and unwarranted claims about his opposition. Instead, he appealed to a sense of justice that he saw at the heart of American ideals.

In the debate on gay marriage we have a long way to go in understanding where people on both sides of the argument come from. Columnists like Martinez only hurt the chances of this happening by mocking and labeling the opposition. And, in an increasingly polarized America it seems unlikely that these types of columns will stop anytime soon. The political world seems to do nothing to ease this polarization. Is this another issue that religion will have to somehow come to terms with if America is to move past the current us against them debate?

Marriage for Logistical Purposes

The controversy over the legalization of gay marriage is not new in this country, but has been receiving a lot of press lately because of California’s Proposition 8, which will ban gay marriage in the state if passed on November 4th. Gay marriage is currently legal based on a California Supreme Court ruling earlier this year. The religious right and Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority have been fighting against gay marriage for decades and primarily use the Bible to support their campaign. Some Christians view homosexuality and homosexual relationships as sins, and these people believe that if gay marriage is legalized, this country will fall into a state of moral decline. The desire to maintain the sanctity of marriage and promote “family values” also motivates the fight against gay marriage. These ideas cropped up in the 1970s and continue to influence the culture today. While these views can be extreme, many Americans hold beliefs similar to these, which is why gay marriage is currently legal in only a few states.
Rick Jacobs highlights a couple of very important but often-neglected areas of the debate in his article “Do Mormons deserve equal protection under the law?” He describes his lifelong struggles with his sexual orientation in the context of the Jewish religion and the final acceptance that “some people’s religions tell me I am not welcome. It’s okay. That’s their choice.”
Jacobs desire to keep gay marriage legal in California comes not from a religious standpoint, but a legal one. He explicitly states, “If I do (get married), it’ll be for business reasons.” He does not want to get married in any of the churches that oppose gay marriage; he just wants his partnership to have the same protection under the law as a heterosexual couple. Because of complications like property ownership and health care, marriage is not simply a religious institution; the state has to get involved as well. I doubt this debate would exist if marriage was contained to just one entity – church or state. Unfortunately, that is not currently an option.
This leaves us with huge unresolved questions. What happens when religious rights also have legal implications? How can we more fully separate church and state, specifically in terms of gay marriage, while keeping all parties involved relatively satisfied? Jacobs is arguing that his rights be protected under the law just like the rights of religious groups are protected under the first amendment. Throughout history, the government has tended to side with the most vocal majority. November 4th will be an important day to let Californians decide and to see where a least a section of America stands on this issue.

Same Sex Marriage and the Establishment Clause

On the 2008 California General Election ballot voters will be deciding yes or no on Proposition 8. Proposition 8 is an initiative measure that will take away the right for same sex couples to be married legally in the state of California, one of only three states to recognize same sex marriage. The initiative will appear on the general election ballot even though the California Supreme Court unequivocally held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution. But my question is this: Does not recognizing same sex marriage under the law show a preference for religions that also reject the concept of same sex marriage? If it is preferencing some religions over others, then isn’t the government violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

The institution of marriage is a religion one that has been accepted by the federal government for legal purposes such as filing taxes and insurance benefits. Marriage as a legal institution has long been tradition in the United States but is now out of date and out of touch. Marriage needs to be taken out of legal context and left up to religions to decide whether or not they want to recognize same sex marriage. In the eyes of the federal government we should all be entering into civil unions, same sex couples and heterosexual couples alike. Then if respective religions want to further recognize the unions as marriage that’s up to them, not the government.

Many employers and insurance companies already recognize same sex couples as partners and therefore cover them under their benefits packages. But there is no legal binding for the insurers; these couples are at the mercy of the companies. Employers and insurance companies alike can arbitrarily decide to stop covering same sex couples when it is no longer convenient for them.

There needs to be a fundamental alteration of the division between marriage in the legal sense and marriage in the religious sense. The government entanglement with religion preferences those religions that believe marriage is solely between a man and a woman. An alteration of marriage in the legal world would include the provision of marriage defined as one between two consenting adults. The need for a bride and groom is best saved for the alter, rather than the legal world.

So by removing marriage from civil union law and instituting a policy of civil unions where the government is concerned would allow for equal protection and application of the laws for everyone. This change would also ensure the unnecessary entanglement of church and state a final end. The interest of the protection of all is an enough compelling federal interest than a single religious or state conviction.

The article can be found here: http://media.www.thepinelog.com/media/storage/paper954/news/2008/10/13/Opinion/SameSex.Couples.Face.Civil.Rights.Struggles-3483011.shtml