Do Traditional Marriage Beliefs Violate First Amendment?

[Gipper]

Do Traditional Marriage beliefs violate the First Amendment? The first line of the first amendment is: "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Since Traditional Marriage beliefs are purely religious, doesn't this violate the first amendment and separation of church and state? 

[rserling]

Sept 18, 2013 12:29:58 GMT Gipper said:

Do Traditional Marriage beliefs violate the First Amendment? The first line of the first amendment is: "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Since Traditional Marriage beliefs are purely religious, doesn't this violate the first amendment and separation of church and state? 

No. There are a few reasons why I do not believe that it's a violation of the First Amendment:
1.) There is not just one religion that supports the "traditional" definition of marriage, and some secularists support it, so it cannot truly be considered establishment,
2.) Some apparently support it because it builds what they believe to be ideal family units, regardless of religion,
3.) There is nothing that prevents someone from voting, or even legislating, on religious conscience. If religion is part of their moral or logical reasoning, it does not make that reasoning illegitimate.

The better question is whether marriage itself, regardless of who its benefits are awarded to, belongs in the grasp of the federal government at all. If it is indeed a religiousinstitution, as many Christians suggest, why is the government involved? There is no constitutional provision for distributing marriage benefits. I say, get the federal government to divest its interest in marriage. I'm honestly not sure why any of my money needs to fund anyone's union that I am not party to.

[Gipper]

Sept 18, 2013 15:31:18 GMT rserling said:

Sept 18, 2013 12:29:58 GMT Gipper said:

Do Traditional Marriage beliefs violate the First Amendment? The first line of the first amendment is: "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Since Traditional Marriage beliefs are purely religious, doesn't this violate the first amendment and separation of church and state? 

No. There are a few reasons why I do not believe that it's a violation of the First Amendment:
1.) There is not just one religion that supports the "traditional" definition of marriage, and some secularists support it, so it cannot truly be considered establishment,
2.) Some apparently support it because it builds what they believe to be ideal family units, regardless of religion,
3.) There is nothing that prevents someone from voting, or even legislating, on religious conscience. If religion is part of their moral or logical reasoning, it does not make that reasoning illegitimate.

The better question is whether marriage itself, regardless of who its benefits are awarded to, belongs in the grasp of the federal government at all. If it is indeed a religiousinstitution, as many Christians suggest, why is the government involved? There is no constitutional provision for distributing marriage benefits. I say, get the federal government to divest its interest in marriage. I'm honestly not sure why any of my money needs to fund anyone's union that I am not party to.

"God's law" says that homosexuality is wrong. Legislating God's law is respecting an establishment of religion, since his "law" differs from religion to religion. I can think of several religions that have no problem with homosexuals at all.

I agree that the government needs to get out of marriage, period. Privatize it. 

[John Liberty]

Sept 18, 2013 15:31:18 GMT rserling said:

Sept 18, 2013 12:29:58 GMT Gipper said:

Do Traditional Marriage beliefs violate the First Amendment? The first line of the first amendment is: "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Since Traditional Marriage beliefs are purely religious, doesn't this violate the first amendment and separation of church and state? 

No. There are a few reasons why I do not believe that it's a violation of the First Amendment:
1.) There is not just one religion that supports the "traditional" definition of marriage, and some secularists support it, so it cannot truly be considered establishment,
2.) Some apparently support it because it builds what they believe to be ideal family units, regardless of religion,
3.) There is nothing that prevents someone from voting, or even legislating, on religious conscience. If religion is part of their moral or logical reasoning, it does not make that reasoning illegitimate.

The better question is whether marriage itself, regardless of who its benefits are awarded to, belongs in the grasp of the federal government at all. If it is indeed a religiousinstitution, as many Christians suggest, why is the government involved? There is no constitutional provision for distributing marriage benefits. I say, get the federal government to divest its interest in marriage. I'm honestly not sure why any of my money needs to fund anyone's union that I am not party to.

I can not think of anyone that is non-religious and supports Traditional Marriage, because the "sanctity of marriage" is a Christian concept. Also, it seems that the only people that dislike homosexuals at any level are Christians. There are some religions that also disapprove of gays, but like Gipper said there are several religions that do approve of gays. And every Atheist I have met approve of gays as well. So Traditional Marriage is a concept that favors Christians and religions that run close with Christianity(like Judaism and Baptism).

[rserling]

Sept 18, 2013 16:06:40 GMT Gipper said:

"God's law" says that homosexuality is wrong. Legislating God's law is respecting an establishment of religion, since his "law" differs from religion to religion. I can think of several religions that have no problem with homosexuals at all.

I agree that the government needs to get out of marriage, period. Privatize it. 

Actually, it's not respecting an establishment of religion when someone votes on religious conscience. Let's look at sodomy laws. As Ron Paul says, they are ridiculous, but they are not unconstitutional. The Supreme Court struck down these laws using right to privacy as justification. This is pretty weak justification; that's like saying something should not be a crime if you do it in the privacy of your home. There are other reasons to strike down laws besides them being unconstitutional. Sodomy laws are not unconstitutional, they are simply RIDICULOUS and not something that belongs in a free society.

Is someone not justified in supporting legislation on religious grounds? Are we to ask them their reasoning first? Because many would mention things like "natural law" when asked their views on marriage equality or sodomy laws (which is also a crock in my eyes, but it's not necessarily religious). The Establishment Clause is not meant to scrutinize the reason why voters or legislators support certain legislation. It is meant to bar legislation that would associate the federal government with a SPECIFIC religion. 

[John Liberty]

Sept 18, 2013 17:36:37 GMT rserling said:

Sept 18, 2013 16:06:40 GMT Gipper said:

"God's law" says that homosexuality is wrong. Legislating God's law is respecting an establishment of religion, since his "law" differs from religion to religion. I can think of several religions that have no problem with homosexuals at all.

I agree that the government needs to get out of marriage, period. Privatize it. 

Actually, it's not respecting an establishment of religion when someone votes on religious conscience. Let's look at sodomy laws. As Ron Paul says, they are ridiculous, but they are not unconstitutional. The Supreme Court struck down these laws using right to privacy as justification. This is pretty weak justification; that's like saying something should not be a crime if you do it in the privacy of your home. There are other reasons to strike down laws besides them being unconstitutional. Sodomy laws are not unconstitutional, they are simply RIDICULOUS and not something that belongs in a free society.

Is someone not justified in supporting legislation on religious grounds? Are we to ask them their reasoning first? Because many would mention things like "natural law" when asked their views on marriage equality or sodomy laws (which is also a crock in my eyes, but it's not necessarily religious). The Establishment Clause is not meant to scrutinize the reason why voters or legislators support certain legislation. It is meant to bar legislation that would associate the federal government with a SPECIFIC religion. 

Here's an interesting article to read on the topic:
www.dissentmagazine.org/article/a-right-to-marry-same-sex-marriage-and-constitutional-law

Also, if you don't think it violates the First amendment you can still argue that it violates the First Article of the constitution because marriage is out of Congress's jurisdiction. If government even has the right to legislate marriage at all(this is brought up in the article), it would be the states' rights to legislate it.

So either way Federal Traditional Marriage laws and Sanctity of Marriage laws violate the constitution.