Gay Marriage & Religious Liberty
Josh Harding
April 23, 2009
Religious liberty is one of the most fundamental American principles we have. The very first white settlers in North America were fleeing religious persecution in Britain. Political science researcher Dave Kopel has written "it was American religion, especially New England religion, which provided Americans with an intellectual frame for understanding their disputes with England."
The principle of religious liberty was enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which bars the government from establishing a state religion, and bars the government from prohibiting people from freely exercising their religion. This was emphasized by Thomas Jefferson, in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, when he wrote "religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship."
Unfortunately, religious liberty is under attack in this country.
For example, US District Judge Samuel Kent once declared "any student [that] offends this court, that student will be summarily arrested and will face up to six months incarceration in the Galveston County Jail" simply for saying the word "Jesus" at a school graduation. Also, fourth-grade student Raymond Raines was sentenced to detention for simply bowing his head in prayer over his school lunch. A similar punishment was imposed on kindergartener Kayla Broadus, who was reprimanded for reciting a prayer with two students during snack time.
Imposing statist power against private religious practice, when that practice does not mandate the acceptance and participation of a non-believer, is contrary to our country´s founding principles.
That is why anyone who believes in religious liberty should oppose any efforts to ban gay marriage.
Many religions believe homosexuality is a sin, as is their right. They are not under any mandate to treat same-sex relationships as legitimate. They are not under any mandate to marry same-sex couples.
However, not every religion shares that viewpoint. Unitarian churches, for example, believe in gay rights. Even within religions themselves, there is not a consensus on homosexuality, as some Christian and Jewish congregations are open to same-sex couples having their unions sanctified before God.
The proponents of gay marriage have argued how banning gay marriage violates equal protection under the law. Among those protections violated by the coercive power of the state is the right of citizens to exercise of their religious beliefs freely. For example, Kay Greenleaf and Dawn Sangrey, two Unitarian ministers, were arrested for marrying gay couples because they had not been granted permission by the state of New York to exercise their religious liberty.
Does the government really have a compelling interest to prevent adults from exercising their religious beliefs to enter into unions of their own choice?
Many Christians are worried that the government will eventually force churches, through hiring practices and adoption services, for example, to treat as legitimate practices they find to be sinful. This may be a legitimate concern. But religious liberty is a two-way street. It protects you from a neighbor that would encroach on your right to exercise your religious beliefs, as long as your exercise does not violate your neighbor´s rights. It also protects your neighbor´s right to exercise their beliefs, as long your rights are not violated, regardless of how you feel about your neighbor´s beliefs. Simply being offended by someone else´s beliefs (or non-beliefs) is not equivalent to losing your rights.
Using the power of the state to prevent consenting adults from entering into agreements of their own choice does not strengthen religious liberty. It guarantees a retaliatory statist action that will infringe upon your rights.
Haven´t we seen enough religious oppression in this country?
The principle of religious liberty was enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which bars the government from establishing a state religion, and bars the government from prohibiting people from freely exercising their religion. This was emphasized by Thomas Jefferson, in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, when he wrote "religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship."
Unfortunately, religious liberty is under attack in this country.
For example, US District Judge Samuel Kent once declared "any student [that] offends this court, that student will be summarily arrested and will face up to six months incarceration in the Galveston County Jail" simply for saying the word "Jesus" at a school graduation. Also, fourth-grade student Raymond Raines was sentenced to detention for simply bowing his head in prayer over his school lunch. A similar punishment was imposed on kindergartener Kayla Broadus, who was reprimanded for reciting a prayer with two students during snack time.
Imposing statist power against private religious practice, when that practice does not mandate the acceptance and participation of a non-believer, is contrary to our country´s founding principles.
That is why anyone who believes in religious liberty should oppose any efforts to ban gay marriage.
Many religions believe homosexuality is a sin, as is their right. They are not under any mandate to treat same-sex relationships as legitimate. They are not under any mandate to marry same-sex couples.
However, not every religion shares that viewpoint. Unitarian churches, for example, believe in gay rights. Even within religions themselves, there is not a consensus on homosexuality, as some Christian and Jewish congregations are open to same-sex couples having their unions sanctified before God.
The proponents of gay marriage have argued how banning gay marriage violates equal protection under the law. Among those protections violated by the coercive power of the state is the right of citizens to exercise of their religious beliefs freely. For example, Kay Greenleaf and Dawn Sangrey, two Unitarian ministers, were arrested for marrying gay couples because they had not been granted permission by the state of New York to exercise their religious liberty.
Does the government really have a compelling interest to prevent adults from exercising their religious beliefs to enter into unions of their own choice?
Many Christians are worried that the government will eventually force churches, through hiring practices and adoption services, for example, to treat as legitimate practices they find to be sinful. This may be a legitimate concern. But religious liberty is a two-way street. It protects you from a neighbor that would encroach on your right to exercise your religious beliefs, as long as your exercise does not violate your neighbor´s rights. It also protects your neighbor´s right to exercise their beliefs, as long your rights are not violated, regardless of how you feel about your neighbor´s beliefs. Simply being offended by someone else´s beliefs (or non-beliefs) is not equivalent to losing your rights.
Using the power of the state to prevent consenting adults from entering into agreements of their own choice does not strengthen religious liberty. It guarantees a retaliatory statist action that will infringe upon your rights.
Haven´t we seen enough religious oppression in this country?
Print
Email
