CircleTheWagons.net

By Nick Dial

Over the past decade, marriage has become an increasingly hot topic in the world of politics and social reform. When it comes to this topic, the nation is much divided and continues to hash out debates between various interest groups on where the government should stand. The far leftwing pushes for inclusion of gay marriage and state recognition. The far rightwing continues to push for an “official” government role in defining marriage as between “ a man and a woman.” Perhaps both sides are missing the point all together and that point is….why have government define marriage at all?

The United States is a fascinating case in man’s craving for freedom. This nation was carved out by the spirit and grit of those who came before us. Often with a longing for individual freedom and the ability to live one’s life in peace, without retribution or condemnation from others around them. After all, the pilgrims landed at Plymouth for this very reason.  In England, the religiously charged government led in the persecution of these Christians. They fled to this land in hope of a better life, where they could be free to practice out their faith in peace and without government interference. The founding fathers of this great nation did not forget these lessons of the past. Remembering the tyrannical attributes that stem from religiously motivated government, they were careful to make a clear stance in the constitution. The king of England, King Henry VIII, believing to be of divine calling, decided that he no longer needed to adhere to the counsel of the popes (there was more than one at the time). After being refused a divorce by both popes, he went forth with the creation of the Church of England. This resulted in a nationally recognized church, and became the “official” religion of the kingdom. This of course led to intolerance of other’s faiths, which in return helped shape our very constitution today.  In the first Amendment of the constitution, it states the following:

“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.”

This amendment says nothing about government not being able to mention God, nor does it say that religion and government are to be alien to one another. Its purpose is to make it clear that unlike England, this nation would not have a “nationally recognized church such as the church of England.” Nor would this nation prohibit others from exercising their faith. The reason for briefly covering this history is that it is paramount to know where we have been to know where we are going. If we are to uphold the founding principles of this nation, and be true to our founding father’s vision for the future children of this great nation, we must first understand why they chose to word things as they did.

When it comes to the issue of marriage, both the hard left and the hard right seem to be missing the biggest question of all. Why regulate and define the word “marriage.” What right does government really have to interfere with the very personal choice of intimate companionship? Many groups with political motives influenced by their religious beliefs, constantly promote legislation of law based solely on their religious principles. The problem with this is that it gives favoritism of one social philosophical belief over another.  It’s ok to hold these beliefs in high regard, however when is it acceptable to push these beliefs into law, forcing others to adhere to another’s religious principles? The very group of people that often promote smaller government and less intrusion are the same people that call for government to invade our personal lives and dictate to us what an “acceptable union” is. The following argument is often declared, but does it hold up to the test of scrutiny?

This country was founded as a Christian nation, and our laws reflect that reality: This argument holds fragments of truth. This nation was indeed founded by men of great faith and belief in a divine creator, but they were not all of one faith. Just like today, they differed in their beliefs. Many were raised with the foundation of Judeo-Christian principles, however even these men were not all of one uniform belief  in Christianity. These were men of varying faiths and theology. While they may have formulated the creation of this nation in the spirit of Judeo-Christian principles, it was not in the literal sense. Social morality such as thou shall not kill of course is a religious principle that almost anyone can get behind. It is the cornerstone of Christianity however that laid much of the ground work for this nation. A belief that our rights come from our creator, and not given to us by man. We should be free to govern ourselves and not held to the arbitrary standards of another, a belief in social tolerance of others and their right to practice ones faith in peace. America represented a new beginning of social freedom. A place where many walks of life can live as one, but hold on to underlining Christian principles while doing it. It’s the spirit of these principles that helped shape America, not the literal carry-over of Christian law. Just like in law today, there is spirit of the law and letter of the law. Spirit of the law is not literally interpreting by the book, its enforcing law to reflect the true meaning behind its purpose. This helps ensure ethical treatment and avoid abuse of power. A cop issuing a ticket for one mile over the speed limit could be justified in letter of the law. However this would not be in spirit of the law, and would be an abuse of power. If one thinks this nation was founded to reflect Christian law in the literal sense, then this nation failed miserably. This would call for the illegalization of fornication, the simple act of lying, not just in court, but lying all together. A cardinal sin of course would be the denial of Christ as one’s savior. For one to argue that the nation’s laws are rooted in Christian law is short -sighted. Would this not place Jews and Muslims in direct violation due to the fact they do not believe in Christ as their savior? It is impossible for America to uphold its governing principles set forth by the founding fathers if this were the reality. Thomas Jefferson himself,  a man of great faith, believed strongly in separating rule from religion. In response to the Danbury Baptists, who felt they were being discriminated against as a minority religion in their state. Thomas Jefferson wrote the following:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” -Thomas Jefferson 1802

For America to stand on its founding principles, one must be able to separate personal religious convictions, while upholding balanced rule of law.

When it comes to the question of gay marriage or polygamy, where does the government come in? If one studies polygamy, you will find it was outlawed in 1862. Congress passed the Morril Anti-bigamy Act, which stated that polygamy would be illegal. This was a direct response to the growing LDS church of the time, and those who did not believe in the practice pushed for legislation to ban it. In 1878, the Supreme Court ruled that polygamy was not protected under the constitution based on the principle that “laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.” This statement should come with some concern. The 1^st amendment clearly sates “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, and yet they state that this religious exercise of polygamy is not constitutionally protected? To state that laws are “made for the government of actions, therefore they can interfere with practices of others” is an ambiguous statement. The 1^st amendment did not say you have a right from interference of opinion or belief, it clearly says “exercise.” According to the Webster’s dictionary, exercise is defined as “an act of employing or putting into play.” In other words, the Supreme Court contradicted the very language of the constitution based on an argument that law is made to govern the actions of others. While it’s true that law is made to govern, it should be based on sound logic and reason. Not arbitrarily put into place simply because it clashes with another’s personal convictions. With language like this, what other laws can be passed to “govern the actions of others despite the constitution?” In 1838, Missouri governor Boggs signed into law the “Mormon Extermination Order”, which led to further persecution of Mormons, legally killing them and driving them from their land. The very rights of these American citizens were violated, and yet we have another example of “laws are to govern the actions of others.”

Perhaps the government should remove itself from the act of dictating marriage. The solution is not to “legalize” gay marriage or polygamy. Instead, perhaps it should simply take a neutral position on the matter and refrain from “prohibiting” it. As Ronald Reagan once said, “the first duty of government is to protect the people, not run their lives”. If gay marriage or polygamy were legalized, it would put a burden on religious institutions who do not believe in this to uphold this law, which would be a direct violation of their constitutional rights. One must ask, what harm comes from consenting adults choosing to form a union? Regardless of the situation, as long as they’re happy and no innocent persons are harmed in the process, what right does the government, or anyone else for that matter, have to involve themselves in the business of others? Does it make sense that a man may legally live with one “official” wife, and yet can have “girlfriends” in the same home? How can it be argued by the government that this action is acceptable, but the minute they choose to try and “marry” another, it is now illegal? Where is the logic here? You could argue that  it’s more moral for these adults to want to merry rather than live among one another outside of marriage. At least they are all agreeing to form a sacred bond or formal commitment with one another. One must dig deep inside and ask themselves honestly and with conviction, do I have a legitimate complaint or am I just adhering to my own personal bias? Is it right that people of one lifestyle choice be denied basic privileges afforded to others? Such as taxes, visitation rights, custodial rights, and insurance? How is it that in 2011 we remain to have a governing body which in effect creates second class citizens based solely on the fact that people may not “agree” with their lifestyle choice? Just because one has a religious belief that this social action may be wrong, does that give them the right to legislate this belief into law? By doing so, are they not advocating the stripping of ones liberties and individual freedom, solely because they “feel” it’s wrong on a social philosophical or theological level? If one believes it’s an abomination to God, that is their right, but why not let them be free to work it out with God. Since when are we our neighbor’s keeper? Why does one feel the need to dictate individual choice to others? Does Christianity not teach that God’s plan is founded around the concept of free agency? If so, then why do many who believe this feel it’s appropriate to limit another’s free agency? If one feels it’s a crime in the eyes of God, leave that to God and the individual to settle, there is no reason for third party interference to dictate another’s social behavior, so long as it does not harm you or another.  In Mathew 7:1-5, it teaches

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

Again, when it comes to social morality, what one chooses to do is a personal one. If they’re not a religious person, there is no reason they should be held to another’s religious standards. For the religious person who feels they are sinning, they should concern themselves with their own actions, and not the social actions of another. If they truly believe in a just God, then transgressions of another will be handled in the life hereafter, there need not be any interference by them. When it comes to the action of marriage, leave it to churches and religious leaders to formerly merry couples. It could be argued the only role the government needs to take is providing a recognized civil union among consenting adults. This way, the legal issues surrounding a couple are taken care of, such as power of attorney, ownership rights, taxes, and all other legal issues pertaining to a union. Marriage itself is a religious practice, and long has been a sacred ritual. This is why the terminology of “marriage” should be reserved for religious ceremonies and practices. This will help keep the integrity of the term marriage and it’s origins intact. When it comes to the government, they should simply remove marriage from its vocabulary and use “civil union” instead. This will provide a clear distinction between a government recognized practice from a religious one. Perhaps there is no need for defining it any further. The concept of marriage and what it represents should be left between the people and their clergy of choice.

The reason this issue is somewhat of a paradox for the United States, is that this is the land of promise, the land of freedom, and the land of tolerance. Our founding fathers were prophetic in the writing of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. One should remember these words written, when this great experiment of democracy took shape.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

One should then ask…, what is “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”? Is one man’s happiness the same as another’s? When gay or polygamist consenting adults wish to engage into a union together, perhaps their pursuit of happiness and liberty is to be left alone by others, and be free to be happy together without ridicule, persecution, or legislation that penalizes them for not “confirming” to mainstream society. For a nation of people that pride themself on diversity, tolerance, and above all else liberty, maybe we have lost focus of the very thing that made this nation unique in the world. We all have different beliefs when it comes to social behavior and morality. I myself am a Christian and believe in traditional family values. However when people begin to call for the legislating of their fellow American because of lifestyle choice, which dictates that they be excluded from basic privileges afforded to others, perhaps we have lost that driving force which drove us to become Americans in the first place…..freedom.