Until Death Do Us Part
A couple of days ago, I had a friendly discussion of the movie, Brokeback Mountain. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I understand the plot to be about two homosexual men doing their best to have an intimate relationship in an environment that is hostile to such associations.
Associations? Recall that not too long ago, there was a lot of news about courts approving/disapproving gay marriages. Mayors would sometimes take the law into their own hands and preside over gay marriages just to see what the courts would do - and to do the right thing.
Enter the conservative right. Here they say that the institution of marriage is purely a religious institution, and thus, religion should have control over it. Hmmm. Well, then. How do you explain the marriage license? The marriage license is provided by the state. So the enabling law that created the license and the authority to grant a license is sanctioning a purely religious institution? Not under the First Amendment it isn't. If this is a problem of separation of church and state, then perhaps the marriage laws, and all the benefits associated with the institution of marriage are ready for re-examination.
But back to the guys at Brokeback Mountain. They were attempting to exercise a right under the First Amendment, the right to peacefully assemble. This is also known as the right to peacefully associate with one another. In modern times, the discussion on gay marriages should be framed as a discussion of freedom of association. Typically, the Republican Party is the association that speaks out against gay marriages. Since gay marriages haven't been sanctioned by their god, a gay marriage should not have the same rights and privileges as a heterosexual marriage.
So, on the one hand, Congress shall enact no law respecting the establishment of religion. On the other, conservative Christians feel that heterosexual marriages (that's *Christian marriages* to you and me) should get preferential treatment under the law. Seems to me that conservative Christians really *do* want a law respecting the establishment of religion. Um, they meant preference to the Christian religion, didn't they?
If gay people cannot freely associate among themselves, what about the rest of us? If they cannot exercise the right to peacefully assemble, why should the Republicans be able to to do so? Who says that heterosexual marriages should get preferential treatment over other marriages?
People in favor of a law respecting the establishment of religion. I guess they forgot why people came over here on the Mayflower in the first place: to peacefully practice their religion without interference from government. So if Christians want government to create laws that give preferential treatment, they better be ready for the sidelines when Budhists or Muslims get a majority in a legislative body. I'm not saying it will happen, but it could. That might not be a bad thing.
This brings up an interesting question: if the institution of marriage is purely religious, can it be sanctioned by government under the first amendment and state constitutions that express the same position?
Mr. Scott
Associations? Recall that not too long ago, there was a lot of news about courts approving/disapproving gay marriages. Mayors would sometimes take the law into their own hands and preside over gay marriages just to see what the courts would do - and to do the right thing.
Enter the conservative right. Here they say that the institution of marriage is purely a religious institution, and thus, religion should have control over it. Hmmm. Well, then. How do you explain the marriage license? The marriage license is provided by the state. So the enabling law that created the license and the authority to grant a license is sanctioning a purely religious institution? Not under the First Amendment it isn't. If this is a problem of separation of church and state, then perhaps the marriage laws, and all the benefits associated with the institution of marriage are ready for re-examination.
But back to the guys at Brokeback Mountain. They were attempting to exercise a right under the First Amendment, the right to peacefully assemble. This is also known as the right to peacefully associate with one another. In modern times, the discussion on gay marriages should be framed as a discussion of freedom of association. Typically, the Republican Party is the association that speaks out against gay marriages. Since gay marriages haven't been sanctioned by their god, a gay marriage should not have the same rights and privileges as a heterosexual marriage.
So, on the one hand, Congress shall enact no law respecting the establishment of religion. On the other, conservative Christians feel that heterosexual marriages (that's *Christian marriages* to you and me) should get preferential treatment under the law. Seems to me that conservative Christians really *do* want a law respecting the establishment of religion. Um, they meant preference to the Christian religion, didn't they?
If gay people cannot freely associate among themselves, what about the rest of us? If they cannot exercise the right to peacefully assemble, why should the Republicans be able to to do so? Who says that heterosexual marriages should get preferential treatment over other marriages?
People in favor of a law respecting the establishment of religion. I guess they forgot why people came over here on the Mayflower in the first place: to peacefully practice their religion without interference from government. So if Christians want government to create laws that give preferential treatment, they better be ready for the sidelines when Budhists or Muslims get a majority in a legislative body. I'm not saying it will happen, but it could. That might not be a bad thing.
This brings up an interesting question: if the institution of marriage is purely religious, can it be sanctioned by government under the first amendment and state constitutions that express the same position?
Mr. Scott
posted by Mr. Scott at
6:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home