Role of Religion in Same-Sex

Role of Religion in Same-Sex Marriage

Homosexuality and gay rights have always been controversial issues, particularly in the more conservative states of America. This is clear in legislative guidelines that make marriage between same-sex partners illegal. The most recent case of this is Proposition 8 in California. Claimed reasons to justify such legislation range from general morality and aesthetics to the Constitutional rights of voters to decide the issue in each state. However, statistics, such as those quoted by Geoffrey R. Stone (2008) appear to suggest that religion is the strongest driving force behind Proposition 8, and also other manifestations of prejudice and intolerance towards those who adhere to such a lifestyle.

Stone (2008) correctly describes the situation surrounding Proposition 8 as something of a dilemma. It is indeed difficult to reconcile the different forces surrounding the issue, all operating under the umbrella of democracy. Religious liberty and the separation of church and state are issues that depend upon the democracy value for their existence. Yet it is these very issue that threaten true democracy for all sectors of society. Indeed, the very argument used by proponents of Proposition 8 demonstrates the religious drive behind it.

Stone demonstrates this by noting that, in a democracy, the majority of voters have the right to enact laws as they see fit. On the other hand, he also notes that the Constitution provides for freedoms that the majority may not agree with. These freedoms are protected and cannot be changed even by the majority vote. Such laws include the rights of minorities such as African-Americans to vote and Muslims to attend public schools without being harassed under the Equality Clause.

Stone points out that the main conflict with the constitution arises in terms of the religious mandate underlying Proposition 8. It seeks to connect the legal tenets of the state with the tenets of a specific religious belief. To substantiate this claim, Stone quotes the voting statistics surrounding the Proposition, in addition to the clear and particular efforts made by religious groups in the promotion of the new law. The Proposition was enacted by a majority of 52% to 48%. More significant however is the statistics connected to certain groups of ideologies. Evangelicals and those professing to attend church regularly for example supported Proposition 8 by a majority of 81% and 84%, respectively. On the other hand, non-Christians and those who do not attend church on a regular basis opposed the Proposition by 85% and 83% respectively.

According to the author, the statistics irrefutably demonstrate the fact that a particular religious groups sought to and succeeded in promoting their beliefs and ideologies, even though these oppose the Constitution. At the basis of this is religious intolerance, which has historically proved itself to be the cause not only of misunderstanding and misery, but also of a lack of adherence to the Constitution, as is the case with Proposition 8. Stone furthermore notes that it poses a threat to the separation of church and state.

The separation of church and state has been deemed important in history when it became clear that the combination of the two does not make possible equality under the Constitution. The Constitution inherently strives for the separation of the church and state precisely for these reasons. While this may appear simple enough, it is not so in reality.

Stone notes that a further problem underlying Proposition 8 is that it does not explicitly either restrict or endorse religious activity. Instead, it seeks moral grounds for the ban on the right to same-sex marriage. From a legal perspective, it is therefore more or less impossible to determine the true motivations behind the Proposition in terms of its wording. Hence, it is very difficult for courts to rule against Proposition 8 on the grounds of religious endorsement, even though this is clearly at its basis.

Proponents of Proposition 8 base their views upon general morality, family values and tradition. However, they fail to recognize that their particular view of these values is based upon the religious mandate. Although religion is generally recognized as a social necessity to promote morality and spirituality, it is nonetheless not recognized as legal authority on any constitutional matter, including equality.

Another argument to justify Proposition 8 is freedom of religion, which is as clearly guaranteed by the Constitution as equal rights. However, practicing religion in the privacy of the home or within the constructs of the church community is clearly not the same as using it as grounds for the legal constriction of a large social sector. According to stone, the adherents of a certain religion have no right at all to manipulate the state in this way, as it is exactly such manipulation that inspired the separation of church and state in the first place. The issue is however so embedded in legal terminology and construct to such an extent that it is difficult to separate religious ideology from political paradigm. This is why, as mentioned above, it is so difficult to simply discard the Proposition from a legal perspective.

Tom Hart (2008) is in agreement with authors like Stone, in that the religious community provided the main driving force behind Proposition 8 and its perpetuation. To substantiate this, Hart cites the case of protesters at Mormon churches in Los Angeles, Utah, and New York, all standing up against what they see as a serious infringement of Constitutional rights, as well as a danger to the separation of church and state.

Hart continues to list specific religious organizations who have been supporters of Proposition 8. These include the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and the Catholic fraternity Knights of Columbus. Furthermore, the Internet has also been used to promote the prejudiced principles of such groups, in the form of the California Family Council, a Website run by Ron Prentice. The mission of the establishment is to "protect and foster Judeo-Christian principles in California's laws," according to Hart. The author continues to focus on what precisely is meant by these "principles," and how they relate to specific religion rather than to general social morality, tradition, or values. Judeo-Christian values are based upon the Bible, which prohibits homosexuality and marriage among such couples.

Hart however argues for the absurdity of this in the light of other long-forgotten legal requirements also outlined by the same biblical principle. He furthermore points towards the historical legalization of gay marriage, as substantiated by the finding of Egyptian male mummies buried together as marriage partners.

On the grounds of this, along with the Constitutional right to marriage, Hart joins the many others calling for the abolition of Proposition 8 in favor of granting the same rights to all members of society, including homosexual people. He indicts religious leaders of playing a misleading role in general society, encouraging their followers to do "God's work," when this is in fact only a human interpretation of what the religious leaders themselves believe.

An interesting repercussion of such public and legal prejudice is a rising negativity towards Christianity and its offshoots. Indeed, Hart cites a study suggesting that young persons under 30 years old are increasingly negative towards the religion, while the majority of non-Christian perceptions of Christianity were also negative. Hart blames this phenomenon upon the lack of adaptability within Christianity, particularly regarding issues such as homosexuality, gay rights, and gay marriage. Although religion has played a vital part in constructing a sense of peace and joy within the human psyche, its future is threatened by internal prejudice.

In terms of Proposition 8, it is however unfortunate that many of these religious views also prevail among political decision-makers, who appear loath to succumb to public protests against the legislation.

Indicative of the extent of the problem is its countrywide range. Proposition 8 is only the latest manifestation of the controversy surrounding gay rights and same-sex marriage. George White (2009) for example cites the case of Massachusetts, where a lawsuit was filed against the government to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by President Bill Clinton during 1996. In the Act, marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman, husband and wife. Massachusetts is opposing the Act on the grounds of state rights to define marriage according to their own mandates.

Interestingly, Massachusetts do allow same-sex marriages. However, DOMA prevents these couples to take part in federal benefits, excluding them for social security, Medicare, Medicaid and tax breaks. Such prevention subjects gay married couples to blatant political prejudice in addition to the social and religious prejudice they are already suffering. The problem is further complicated by the fact that some states have legalized same-sex marriages, while others have not.

In the light of these issues, it appears that the gay marriage issue is a purely political one. However, when the deeper-lying issues are investigated, it becomes clear that the politicians behind the decisions to enact bans on gay marriage do so on religious grounds. White places the origin of these grounds in ancient history, when societies were mostly governed by religious laws. Such is a world from which the Old Testament emerged.

With the onset of the New Testament and Christianity, polygamy was replaced by monogamy, mainly because the former was considered immoral from the Christian viewpoint. The church therefore dictated the format of marriages. Furthermore, men were generally favored in terms of laws governing marriage, property, adultery, and the like -- all the tenets of which were based upon religion rather than government, which played a role only so far as it adopted the laws of the church.

According to White, laws began to change during the 1800s, with the first manifestations of such change relating to women's rights to property and children. Government had begun to play a larger role in the law governing marriage. Religious conflict however remained at the order of the day, with the Judeo-Christian government passing laws against the polygamous practices of the Mormons during the second half of the 19th century. This set the precedent for violating human rights on religious grounds -- polygamists would often be held indefinitely without trials.

In this way, the government, as White puts it, formed a partnership with organized religion, as is clear in the current legislation regarding same-sex marriage. Federal government seeks to control not only state governments in terms of this issue, but also all individuals within the country. Human rights continue to be violated by the partnership of the government with religion.

Some religious community members as well as officials are showing encouraging signs of adapting to the dictates of society, rather than trying to force society to follow rules and regulations that have long been outdated. William Wan (2009) for example mentions the case of Episcopal Church officials, who voted in favor of bishops to bless same-sex unions. The author also however hinted that this vote was more likely to further divide an already torn community within the wider context of the Anglican Church. While it is therefore a victory for gay rights, it is hardly a stepping stone for religion as a whole.

The vote was taken in Anaheim, California, and involves allowing bishops to bless same-sex unions particularly in states where these are legal. Significantly, this follows the approval of ordinating gay bishops. Both measures resulted in strong reactions from the Anglican Church, creating a division among those who are for the new measures, and those against them. Anglican officials are generally against approval for gay unions and gay officials, accusing the Episcopal Church of consciously breaking from the Anglican parent.

Advocates of gay rights however welcome the new open attitude within the confines of the church, and are hopeful that further measures will follow. This hope is also an indication of the important role that religion still plays in government and legislation. If church officials can begin to see the merits of allowing same-sex partners to marry, government may soon follow suit.

It appears that the younger generations of Episcopal clergy are more open to gay rights and marriage than the more established officials. Wan for example quotes Mike Angell, an Episcopal student of the priesthood, who was happy about the ruling, and believed in equality among all parishioners, whether gay or not.

The devastation among the ranks of the church is however undeniable Wan notes that many parishes and dioceses left the Episcopal church to either affiliate with the Anglican Communion overseas or in the United States. Irresolvable divisions have therefore occurred within the church as a result of this issue.

This appears to indicate then, that gay rights and same-sex marriage is as much part of religion as it is part of politics. Religion informs politics as much as politics does the same for religion. The two appear to go hand-in hand, with little hope of achieving the church-state division intended by the Constitution.

David Boies correctly places the issue in the same category as cross-racial marriage. The ban on these was already lifted during the 1960s, as it was regarded as unconstitutional (Boies, 2009). Boies emphasizes that the issue is not a so much a political one as a Constitutional one. A large amount of the issue has been confused as a result of the political involvement in the enactment of Proposition 8. This does not however change the fact of the Constitution, its guarantees or those these guarantees apply to.

Boies cites the Supreme Court opinion that marriage between persons who love each other is a fundamental and constitutional human right that cannot be removed by state legislature. This is demonstrated by the many cases in which the Court provided for the constitutional right to marry of various types of individuals, such as imprisoned felons.

Boies notes that no legitimate state policy underlies Proposition 8. One argument that proponents tend to raise is that same-sex marriage poses a threat to heterosexual marriages. Boies however points out the absurdity of this argument by stating that a "love struck" heterosexual couple would not be deterred from marriage by the knowledge that homosexual people are also allowed to tie the knot. On the other hand, those who have marital difficulties would hardly base a decision to divorce upon the relationships of same-sex partners.

Furthermore, preventing same-sex marriage does not by association create more loving, stable heterosexual relationships. By contrast, allowing same-sex marriages would create more stable, loving households, as more individuals are allowed to marry people that they truly love.

A common religious conception as that being homosexual is somehow a disease that can be "cured." In this light, they advocate against same-sex marriage as one such possible cure. However, Boies also disregards this notion as entirely separated from credibility. Depriving homosexual people of their fundamental constitutional right has no possibility of effecting a "cure" for the "condition.

Boies further emphasizes that gay people are as much a characteristic of diversity as race, nationality and ethnicity. Like race, it has also often be used as a basis for often violent discrimination and abuse. In contrast to race, however, the fear of marriage between partners of the same sex is based upon religious intolerance, for the reasons mentioned above. There is no legitimate political or moral grounds for depriving such couples of marrying each other.

Boies furthermore points to the legitimacy of gay marriage as demonstrated by the success of legalizing it in several countries and states without any adverse effect on heterosexual couples and families. There is no threat to social or family stability by allowing this type of marriage. Instead, it serves the very function of increasing stability as a result of increased happiness created by marrying for love.