Civil Marriage and Gay Marriage: The Irony of Religion in American Politics

The following is an old essay of mine written over a year ago as a student in a college level Communication and Gender class. I'm posting it out of a desire to add my thoughts to a current ideological debate.

Please know that while I am a supporter of gay and transgender rights, my primary intent in the creation of this essay was to promote American ideals of equality. I am, above all, a patriot and believer in democracy and support any government that places its power in the hands of the people it serves.

Civil Marriage: The Irony of Religion in Modern American Politics

To deny anyone their constitutional rights to equality and the pursuit of happiness associated with civil marriage, for strictly religious reasons, when no other reasonable justification can be found, is to blatantly oppose the founding ideologies of religious freedom and individual equality that American law is based upon. In fact, it is hypocritical.

The attempts of the ultra-conservative religious to deny civil liberties, in the form of civil marriage, to gay, bisexual, or transgendered individuals, is religious restraint on a civil matter. If “all men are created equal” with “unalienable rights,” as stated by Continental Congress in the Declaration of Independence, then it is wrong, according to American beliefs of universal equality, to prevent the marriage of same sex or transgendered couples. Whether or not one believes that homosexuality is a sin based on personal religious views is inconsequential in a civil rights issue. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “Our civil rights have no dependence on religious opinions.” More importantly, in an 1807 letter to colleague George Hay the founding father declared “An equal application of law to every condition of man is fundamental.” Our rights as Americans are based on our humanity, not our sexuality.

The idea of permitted religious restraint on a civil matter should be terrifying to any American, regardless of personal religious opinion, sexual orientation, or class. If the constitution is altered to legalize discrimination against a certain group, in this case those living an alternative lifestyle, what other changes may follow and what other forms of legalized discrimination and oppression will one day rear their ugly head? If the integrity of the Constitution is altered, along with its ability to defend complete equality for all Americans, it will become a useless document, changed on the whims of those in power to suit their needs or beliefs at the time. When the rights of one group can be constitutionally or legally taken away, all others have reason to fear. Either the constitution remains in force, as it is now, or its power to protect human liberties is made void and immaterial.

Before the United States became a nation, many who would contribute to our spiritual and civil legacies fled Europe for American shores. Religious reformation had swept the western world and millions of Europeans were seeking spiritual fulfillment alternative to that offered by the Catholic Church and Church of England. Facing legally sanctioned discrimination, oppression, and even death, based solely on religious point of view, countless Europeans risked their lives, and those of their families, to cross the Atlantic and come to America and establish a land where religion and government were separate. Recognizing that political control of religion, or religious control of politics, would inevitably result in discrimination and oppression, a government was created “by the people, for the people,” that guaranteed the complete spiritual and political freedom of every American.

Today, the ideals of those founding members of our nation are in danger. Under a banner of religious “righteousness,” large portions of Americans are seeking to use religious faith as a basis for denying equality to other Americans. It is ironic, even hypocritical, that many of those whose religions exist and flourish in America because of the separation of church and state now seek to dissolve said separation. Instead, strictly on religious grounds, they seek to use their beliefs as a tool to control politics. It is their goal to destroy the very laws that saved their own beliefs from persecution in the early days of our nation. To any thinking person this is obviously un-American. What was stated above deserves to be stated again: Whether you believe homosexuality is a sin or not is inconsequential in a civil rights issue. Either all Americans have equal rights, or nobody does. There is no legal justification for discrimination, and for the sake of all Americans, religion must stay out of politics.

The following quote by Laura Montgomery Rutt, the Director of Communications for Soulforce, pointedly illustrates that the legalization of alternative civil marriage is not forcing politics into religion:

"What many people seem to forget is that the rights of civil marriage and the religious ritual of marriage are two different things. Because we have freedom of religion in this country, houses of worship can decide for themselves which rituals they will perform…(regardless of political legislation)…It is not the government’s task to enshrine one religious definition of marriage into the Constitution, thereby undermining the Establishment Clause and destroying our most basic tenet of religious liberty."

Allowing the beliefs of certain conservative religious bodies to influence politically granted rights not only destroys the delicate balance maintained in the separation of church and government, but also forces other religions, many of which support universal civil marriage rights, to concede to specific beliefs not their own. Denying the civil rights of marriage, based solely on the religious opinion of certain powerful sects, eventually and inevitably results in the oppression of other religions of differing views.

The argument has been made that marriages and civil unions are conducted and created by state governments and operate with authority separate from the federal government. Therefore, in accordance with said thought, the decision on universal marriage and civil union rights can only be made on a state by state level and are not protected by the umbrella of the federal Constitution.

Initially, the argument for state by state determination on the rights of marriage and civil union might seem plausible, however, refutation is found upon further examination of the Constitution of the United States. The fourteenth amendment clearly dictates; “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” By law, state constitutions must be in compliance with the U.S. Constitution, and if the goal of the U.S. Constitution is to promote the equality of American Citizens, any restrictions placed on marriage or civil union rights, by any state, violates the Constitution.

The United States of America is a nation founded on the principles of equality and guaranteed rights for its citizens. To deny the universal application of any right to any person or group is un-American. There are no exceptions to equality. Either every American is equal, or none are.



Jefferson, Thomas. Declaration of Independence. Pennsylvania: Continental Congress, July 4th 1776

Jefferson, Thomas, The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom, 1786

The Constitution of the United States of America

Rutt, Laura Montgomery,
http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_religion_factsheet.pdf