The definition of marriage as found in almost all state laws was based on the heavy influence of Christian beliefs at the time they were written. In 1791, the Bill of Rights, specifically the separation of church and state, essentially nullified every state law written on the basis of a religion. Unfortunately it was not enforced allowing religious law to rule the definition of marriage for over 200 years.
Since the middle ages governments have issued or required marriage licenses to wed. A historical marriage was recognized between a man and woman with the intent to reproduce or start a family. This was and still is a natural impossibility for same sex couples, however with the ability to adopt or seek in vitro, same sex couples can also start a family.
The sole purpose of marriage may have only been to reproduce but government involvement has given favorable tax and other advantages to married couples. This incentive was given to entice people to marry and procreate future taxpayers in what the government deems a “stable environment.”
Marriage licenses were issued and controlled by states prior to America obtaining its independence and have been required in states such as Massachusetts since 1639. In post Bill of Rights days (1791), almost all states require the issuance of a marriage license. Most state, and even federal laws, define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. This has prohibited same sex couples from marrying.
The problem is that the definition of marriage that has made its way into many state and federal laws has a religious basis. Our nation is made up of and was founded upon the Christian belief system, even our money still says “In God We Trust”.
So the root of the language of state and federal laws that define marriage is based on the religious belief of a single religion. In 1791 this type of language was declared unconstitutional.
The 1st amendment very clearly states that there shall be separation of Church and State and “prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech…” but this did not happen in 1791.
In order to comply with the Bill of Rights each state should have been required to remove laws that were founded on religious beliefs. Afterall, how can you have freedom of religion when one religion is the basis for your laws?
In 1791, the Bill of Rights, specifically the 1st amendment, should have nullified any definition of marriage and any other law rooted in the beliefs of a religion. Any commingling of church and state was federally prohibited from this point on.
Unfortunately, the majority of states and their constituents were primarily of Christian denomination, therefore, we have Christian laws and the Constitution failed to maintain the separation of church and state allowing these laws to remain unchallenged until now.
Legally and constitutionally speaking, it doesn’t matter how God defines marriage whatsoever when it comes to natural human rights. As far as the Constitution is concerned, It doesn’t matter at all what your religion says on marriage.
The people of the United States are protected under the Constitution to express themselves and their religions in any way they wish per the 1st ammendment.
If marriage is defined as the union between a man and woman in your religion, then by all means, within your religion, continue marriage that way. But this country was founded on religious tolerance and freedom and just because you or your God have a definition of marriage for yourselves, does not mean it applies to anyone else, nor should it be the ruling law over people of many religions.
Let’s face it. Government should have no involvement in marriage whatsoever. It is truly a private matter between consenting individuals. There should be no licenses, no incentives, no subsidies, no tax credits, or any other privileges granted to married couples because it takes away from the modern day fairy tale of marriage.
I say fairy tale because traditionally marriage was a convenience. Some were pre-arranged, others were for financial security, very few of them were for love, and even fewer people had the options we have today.
When people think of marriage today they think of happily ever after, soulmates, and true love.
Government involvement makes marriage into a legally binding contract, essentially a business between couples, and treats it as such.
While I am not for or against the message of this article (I don’t care who marries whom), I am against spreading incorrect information. The incorrect information this article is spreading is the “separation of church and state” First Amendment stuff. The First Amendment was quoted correctly, but it was followed by an incorrect explanation. The part that says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” does not mean “separation of church and state.” That term came from a personal letter written and was never a part of the First Amendment, but is commonly assumed to be the gist of the First Amendment. The First Amendment DOES NOT say, “freedom OF religion,” as is commonly thought and quoted in this article. The First Amendment does say that there shall be no laws made that ESTABLISH a common religion of the people as was the case in the land they escaped from. Over there, their religion was BY LAW, not by choice. The First Amendment protects us from having any religion forced on us by the government. We are free to worship as we choose. The First Amendment IS NOT protection from A RELIGION nor is it AGAINST any particular religion. It simply means that the government will not prescribe the religion the people will follow and that has been taken completely out of context with the presumed meaning of “separation of church and state” thrown in.
Thanks for the comment.
You said it was meant to “protect from a religion”.
What difference does it make as to whether you force a religion upon someone or force them to follow the beliefs of a religion by passing laws over them?
As far as separation of church and state, if an author of the 1st amendment writes about the intent of that amendment, isn’t that indisputable? It’s his creation, not ours to interpret.