Who Should be Allowed to Marry?

Last month, the California Supreme Court ruled that banning marriage between same-sex partners was unconstitutional. The reaction was predictably emotional; supporters exuberantly cheered the decision while opponents chided the “activist liberal judges” for overturning the “will of the people.” In November, voters will voice their opinion on a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

It is my fervent prayer that common sense and a respect for the founding principles of our nation prevail, and voters deny the amendment. The judges in California got it right. Until someone can present an argument against gay marriage that is not rooted in religious dogma, the government has no right to deny that right to an entire segment of the citizenry. That argument does not exist. The government, national or state, does not possess the authority to enforce religious teachings. Nor should it. Yet, that is exactly what opponents of gay marriage are asking the government to do. Our founding fathers, who were Christians but also secularists, would be ashamed.

George Washington believed that one’s religion was extremely personal. There are few, if any texts or quotations from our First President about his own beliefs, as he kept them to himself. Thomas Jefferson is credited with the oft-recited clause “Separation of church and state.” His exact words, written in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, were “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 . . . 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, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

It saddens me to see that so many have forgotten the importance our founders placed upon that separation. They came here to escape the oppression of religious tyranny, and it was foremost in their concerns when drafting our Constitution. I believe they, too, would be greatly saddened at the erosion of that wall. It is not just for the protection of the people, but also the protection of religion that Jefferson cared:

“I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them.”

If we ask our government now to enforce religious doctrine regarding marriage, we open the door to government intrusion on all religious doctrine. Perhaps the government can decide it is in the interest of national unity to enforce a national order of worship, or to deny certain forms of worship that do not adhere to beliefs of a religious majority. Opponents of gay marriage, particularly those whose particular denomination might be considered outside the mainstream of Christianity, should think carefully about whether they wish to open that door.

I can respect that there are those who view gay marriage as a sin, or immoral, if that is what their religious conviction dictates. I only ask that they apply their conviction to their own way of living and not insist that others must do the same. If you believe it wrong, then don’t do it. There are a great many things I believe to be wrong or immoral, but I would not dare ask my government to enforce *my* moral code upon the entire nation. To do so is the antithesis of everything our nation was founded upon. Our founders’ ancestors came here to escape the violence and tyranny that necessarily flows from having a government enforce religious belief. Thomas Jefferson kept the knowledge of that history always in mind, as he helped forge our nation, and he said it best on March 4, 1801 in his First Inaugural Address:

“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.”