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. 

By Nick Dial

When I went through the police academy, the subject that resonated with me the most was constitutional law, and search and seizure. Recently, California Supreme Court ruled that police do not need a warrant to search the contents of an individual’s cell phone when arrested. The logic stated by the court was that police generally are allowed to search the contents of the individual arrested, and therefore cell phones would be included. In my opinion, this is very short sighted and simplifies a much larger and more complicated issue. Cell phones today are mini computers. They contain massive amounts of private video, pictures, data, and private correspondence among many individuals, not just the owner of the phone. When discussing this issue among others in the law enforcement community, I became troubled at the various arguments I was hearing in support of the recent California Supreme Court ruling. The following are two arguments that were commonly stated.

1.      “If you have nothing to hide, why should a law abiding citizen care if the police look at their cell phone? They should welcome any liberties at the police’s disposal to prevent crime.” This argument goes all the way back to the seventieth century, in fact, Lord Camden, the Chief Justice in England made this famous statement:

“The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property. That right is preserved sacred and incommunicable in all instances, where it has not been taken away or abridged by some public law for the good of the whole.”

The obvious problem with claiming people should be willing if they have nothing to hide is that it’s a false logic. There are plenty of reasons why an individual may not want their personal belongings looked through. Regardless of those reasons, it should never be assumed by law enforcement that individuals wanting to practice their right to privacy are hiding something. In fact, it’s reasonable that someone may wish to exercise this right based on principle alone. It’s human nature to want privacy and have that privacy respected. For many, having those boundaries respected is what defines us as an individual. Having those boundaries treated as if their trivial and of no importance is not only disrespectful to the citizen, it leaves them with a sense of being devalued by those sworn to protect and uphold the very rights being called into question.  The harsh reality is that police are not infallible, and the first level of protection comes from the citizen and their understanding of their rights. If they wish to allow the police to search, that is their choice, but failing to do so should never be considered an indication of guilt or deception.

2.      “Police already can search bags and wallets incident to arrest. A cell phone is no different. Lack of red tape is a good thing for proactive policing.” It is true that police can search a car or bags and wallets incident to arrest; however these searches are for specific reasons. A bag, car, or wallet may contain a weapon, or contraband such as drugs. Using this to justify the search of electronic files on a phone is flimsy at best.  A phone does not contain a razorblade in a text message, nor does it contain drugs in a text message as well. You can easily make the argument that “search” of the phone should be restricted to physical search, i.e. opening the battery compartment to see if there is a razor blade or drug contraband contained inside the device. However, electronic correspondence itself does not pose a threat to the officer nor does is have the ability to contain an item inside like a folded piece of paper.

One might ask, when would it be reasonable to search a phone’s files?…The 4^th amendment states the following

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The 4^th amendment makes a pretty clear statement that these rights should not be infringed upon without probable cause supported by a warrant attesting to the scope of the search. It has been accepted by the courts however, that the police are permitted to search contents incident to arrest, one major reason being officer safety. However if someone is pulled over and arrested for a DUI, would it be reasonable to search this person’s cell phone and files? For what purpose would this search take place?  What relevance to the DUI would messages between various people have in this setting?  Recently, a person wrote in to a site asking for legal advice concerning an incident that took place after they were arrested on allegations of possession of stolen property. They wrote the following:

“I was arrested for possession of stolen property (Which I had receipts for). While in the back seat of the police car the 8 cops past my phone and camera around looking at nude pics of my wife. When I commented to one of the officers that was our personal property and I did not want them looking at the pic, he laughed and said we will look at whatever we want. When I got out of jail I checked my Verizon online account and there were text picture/slide show sent to personal phones while I was arrested. When I filed a report the officer told me I shouldn’t have had them on my phone I know this is not right but is it illegal?”

This is a perfect example of why restraints such as warrants are put in effect in the first place. It is to protect overreaching by the government and those in positions of authority. It also serves as a safe guard of checks and balances in keeping investigations honest, clean, and solid. The fruits of a spoiled tree will undermine a case every time and warrants help prevent this from happening. While I personally feel this example does not represent the law enforcement community as a whole, and most police officers are much more professional then this, the fact remains that the very threat of this intrusion is real, and is never acceptable under any circumstances. Was the search of his phone justified? If so, a warrant from a judge could have been easily obtained telephonically with probable cause. If there was no legitimate reason, the embarrassment experienced by him, and his wife could have been prevented and their privacy protected. As police officers, we make a commitment to uphold the constitution, and protect the civil liberties of the citizen. If the individual officer expects their civil liberties to be upheld, then they too must strive at all cost to uphold the civil liberties of others. These citizens empower us with great privilege. They are entrusting us with the authority to make ethical and just decisions on their behalf. We are servants of the people, and we must always strive to protect the civil liberties of the individual. This is the only way to ensure the integrity of our justice system. The roots behind the 4^th amendment stem to writs of assistance that were provided by the English Parliament during Colonial America. They consisted of overreaching search warrants that lacked specificity and were extremely vague. This led to unjust search and seizure in the colonies, causing much contempt for the powers that be and distrust between society and law enforcement. When the justification behind what the police do in terms of search and seizure is diminished, so too will the relationship between law enforcement and the communities in which they serve. History should be noted as a stark reminder of this, and not go unnoticed.

References

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-20/tech/tech_mobile_california-phone-search-law_1_cell-search-warrant-new-law?_s=PM:TECH

http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/4th-amendment.html

By Nick Dial

A common phrase seen and heard used by protesters the last several years is “separation of church and state” This phrase has been used to protest the mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance, school, curriculum, nativity scenes in public, and even gay marriage. So….does separation of church and state apply to these activities and venues?  This is where people must dust off that old history book to find the real intentions behind what “separation of church and state” really means.

When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution there was sound reasoning behind why they made specific reference to religion. The U.S. Colonies had lived under the thumb of King George III for some time and had grown weary of monarchy rule and the arbitrary law that came with it. Religions other than the Church of England had been suppressed for quite some time so much so, that the Puritans settled in the Americas in order to freely practice their religion. This was nothing new to the founding fathers; they knew this history as well as anyone else.

The term “separation of church and state” is not found anywhere in the US Constitution.  The phrase was made popular by Thomas Jefferson when he wrote a letter defending the rights of a group of Baptists to practice their faith.

“The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as “favors granted.” (U.S. Constitution, 2010).

Since then Jefferson’s words have often been used out of context and, unfortunately, by those who misunderstand the very reasons the First Amendment addresses the issue.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states : “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” (Us constitution, 2010).

The key words regarding this issue are the following: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

Again, we need to look at history to understand the reasoning behind their position. We know that the Puritans came from the Old World to escape religious persecution so that they could practice their faith freely. Europe’s, and especially England’s, long history of religious oppression was the reason for inclusion of the phrase “make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Although none of Europe was particularly religiously tolerant, the oppression reached intolerable levels during the rule of King Henry VIII. In the sixteenth century, King Henry had failed to have a son born in order to retain a male heir to the throne. There had already been tension between the authorities in Rome and England for some time. King Henry went to the Pope requesting that his marriage be annulled. He was refused. He had fallen in love with a new woman, Ann Boleyn, and wished to be married to her in place of his current wife. After refusal from the Pope, the king met with his closest advisors and developed a novel idea.

“When he met with failure, Henry did what every other king would do. He fired his closest advisor. This was an important move. His closest advisor on the matter was Cardinal Wolsey, the Lord Chancellor of England. The negotiations with the papal court were largely carried out by Wolsey. When he failed, Henry dismissed and arrested him and replaced him with Thomas Cranmer and Thomas Cromwell. Both these men were sympathetic to the new ideas of Martin Luther. They gave the king some radical advice: if the pope does not grant the annulment, then split the English church off from the Roman church. Rather than the pope, the king would be the spiritual head of the English church. If the King wants an annulment, then the King can grant his own annulment” Protestant England, 2010).

Taking the advice of his advisors King Henry did just that. England broke off from Roman Catholic Church, and the Church of England was formed. King Henry was then declared head of the church and was free to annul any marriage he wished. When the Church of England was created it became the official church of the kingdom and an act against the king was viewed as an act against God. This is the very reason why the founding fathers put safeguards such as the First Amendment in place. They knew from their own history the dangers of a church being part of the government and the abuses permitted under a state religion.

The founding fathers were logical men. The point of the First Amendment was to keep any religion from becoming a state sponsored religion, not the government being supported by those of faith or any reference to faith. If their intent was to keep any reference of God or faith out of government, they would not have made such bold statements about their beliefs in God and God’s role in our granted freedoms.

In the Declaration of Independence they wrote, “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”.  George Washington himself called for a national day of prayer during the Revolutionary War.

The notion of keeping God or faith out of governmental matters, or public displays of faith was never the intent behind the first amendment. It was there to keep religions from being empowered by government support and turning into a tool of tyranny. Today, due to lack of understanding and revisionist history behind the First Amendment’s purpose, we see people taking things completely out of context to fit their world views. The First Amendment has nothing to do with the concept of God in school, gay marriage, abortion, or any other political issue involving religion. Being an advocate for or against such things and publicly announcing it is fine, that’s what America is all about.  Before you rush out with a sign saying such things as “separation of church and state” keep one thing in mind; if you don’t learn the history behind what you are saying and its true meaning, you will accomplish nothing except making yourself look foolish.

References

Protestant england. (2010). Retrieved from

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REFORM/ENGLAND.HTM

Us constitution. (2010). Retrieved from

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am1.html