A recent article from the San Francisco Chronicle claims
that Rick Santorum supports the creation of a constitutional amendment which
would not only prohibit same-sex marriages, but also nullify the validity of
same-sex marriages that already exist. Such an amendment would affect over
100,000 couples whose marriages have already taken place as well as those who plan
to marry in the future. Despite increasing public opposition, Santorum appears
confident in his position, stating that, “Just because public opinion says
something doesn’t mean it’s right.” True enough, but public opinion does have
significant influence in both Congress and the House of representatives, which require
a majority vote to pass a new amendment. Santorum is not alone in his sentiments,
however. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich also support an amendment which would
ban gay marriage, though neither has voiced support for nullifying those that already
exist.
Such widespread support among
Republican candidates is troubling, but not surprising; American history is
plagued with instances of government support for Christian morals and
traditions over those of other religions. One such case is that of the Pueblo
Indians, whose dance ceremonies were considered “barbaric” and “immoral” in the
eyes of the American Government. Though they were eventually permitted to
practice their dances by claiming protection under the First Amendment, they
endured years of religious persecution and personal sacrifice in the process.
The Mormons were another group to experience such persecution at the hands of
the Federal Government, though their use of the First Amendment as a means for
defending the practice of polygamy was significantly less successful than that
of the Pueblos. In the 1879 Reynolds v. United States case the Supreme Court
ruled that religious freedom was not a sufficient defense for the practice of
polygamy, citing examples of human sacrifice as practices akin to plural
marriage. Once again, the government imposed its Christian morals on a group
whose practices were considered inferior or immoral. The same is true of
Santorum and his support for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage –
he would be using the power of the Federal Government to impose his own
religious views on the American people.
This imposition of Christian morals
and traditions by the government and its leaders is detestable. You cannot in
one moment argue for “freedom and justice for all” and in the next moment
impose your beliefs on another. Often we talk about the First Amendment in
terms of Americans’ freedom to choose which religion they wish to practice, but
what of the freedom from religion? Is Christianity the necessary default for American
citizens who do not wish to practice any one religion or can they determine “right”
and “wrong” for themselves? Certainly, a person’s private practices should have
minimal bearing on other people’s rights (i.e. no human sacrifice or
destruction of private property), but there is absolutely no valid reason why
Rick Santorum or any other candidate should be permitted to ban gay marriage or
nullify existing marriages, the least of which being established Christian
morals and traditions.
4 comments:
This is a case that definitely plays to the separation of church and state. People try to find various reasons concerning family stability, but I have never had anyone show me their sources on this. It seems very much to be a case of this is how we have always done this and this is what I am comfortable with and I do not think that is a good basis for law. Nussbaum in Cultivating Humanity argues that tradition should not make something untouchable, that we should only keep what holds up to logical examination and I do not believe that banning gay marriage will do that.
Issues like this are absurd. It makes me wonder if these candidates know what separation of church and state mean. This seems to be a reoccurring theme. Americans target and try to wash out anything that is out of the "ordinary." With the Mormons, Native Americans and Jehovah's Witnesses so many Protestant Christians freaked out because these other groups were different. Now the new group that is being targeted is the LGBT community. It is just sad. If separation of church and state was enforced and truly understood, then this would not be an issue. Without church beliefs guiding the state, the state would not have any issue with homosexual marriage.
As much as Santorum would like to nullify existing gay marriages, even if he became President he would have an uphill battle in front of him. The nullification of official marriages would be something the judicial system would spend multiple years in court fighting lawsuit after lawsuit. As the article says, the amendment would affect over 100,000 people, just the amount of paperwork this hypothetical amendment would generate is absurd. In the end, it is pointless to even speculate about the impacts of an such an amendment because it will never get through Congress. Santorum knows it too, this is just him playing the political game as his candidacy fades into the background.
I do not believe this is an issue of separation of church and state; I believe it is an issue of tradition as Angela said. People do not like change of tradition, however, America has already change to accept same-sex marriages and integrated it into tradition. Of course there are some exceptions, but in general it is accepted. In order to nullify same-sex marriages, Americans would have to change again and redefine tradition once again. I think it would not pass in Congress or the House because of the need to change and the affect it would have on thousands of people. I also believe nullifying same-sex marriages will not be passed because it is hard to take away freedoms once freedoms have been awarded.
Post a Comment