Is Marriage a Constitutional, Religious, or Moral Right?


#1

Taken from my blog post today; would love your thoughts…

While eating breakfast this morning I saw the proposed moratorium on homosexual marriage still hasn’t been lifted. Whether this is because the judge is still allowing for appeals to be made to the ninth district court of appeals or there is some other sort of hurdle in the way, I don’t know, but for sure this topic of gay marriage won’t be going away any time soon.

Over the past few weeks I have been reading countless arguments for and against gay marriage, and have found that the majority of arguments against gay marriage have a very strong religious lean on them. Thus, because a non-religious person isn’t going to accept a religious argument as valid when it comes to this debate I searched for a secular reason why we shouldn’t have gay marriage and found this interesting article.

However, I have another argument that isn’t being brought up. It seems at all.

Where is marriage a fundamentally guaranteed right according to the Constitution? It isn’t. Why? Because marriage is a religious practice (sacrament, ordinance, etc…). Unlike voting, right to trial, or the right to bear arms; these rights aren’t given by the religion you profess. They are given by the government you are under.

At marriages core it is a covenant made between a husband, wife, and their creator (whomever their deity may be). Thus, a religious issue and not a state or federal issue. However, states and federal governments regulate marriage for tax, medical, and any other reason that has a dollar sign attached to it. Money, money, money.

Nonetheless, are all persons, including the homosexual crowd, guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by their government? Yes, but are these same gays and lesbians granted the right to same sex marriages within their religion? According to most world religions the answer is no. Thus, the homosexual crowd should cry for reform within their religions and not within their state or country. However, since the state has its hands all over marriage this has morphed from an issue of religion into an issue of morality. Let the majority, religious or not, decide amongst themselves what is best or moral for their city, county, state (in this case; California in 2008 with prop 8) or federal government.

Yet, Judge Vaughn Walker decided the state’s morality was outdated and that his standard measured the true feel of morality throughout the state. Now we wait and see what happens in California and if this doesn’t end up in the Supreme Court.

So, is this issue of gay marriage something that should be regulated alone by religions because it is a religious institute or is something better left alone in the hands of the public to decide whether it fits their standard of morality?


#2

Article 16. of the decleration of human rights recognises tha t(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. And that : (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

But Marriage can only truly happen between one man and one woman. Anything outside of that is not “rights” or “equality” but parody. Like saying I have the right to breath water


#3

[quote="Phillipos, post:1, topic:209348"]
Taken from my blog post today; would love your thoughts...

While eating breakfast this morning I saw the proposed moratorium on homosexual marriage still hasn't been lifted. Whether this is because the judge is still allowing for appeals to be made to the ninth district court of appeals or there is some other sort of hurdle in the way, I don't know, but for sure this topic of gay marriage won't be going away any time soon.

Over the past few weeks I have been reading countless arguments for and against gay marriage, and have found that the majority of arguments against gay marriage have a very strong religious lean on them. Thus, because a non-religious person isn't going to accept a religious argument as valid when it comes to this debate I searched for a secular reason why we shouldn't have gay marriage and found this interesting article.

However, I have another argument that isn't being brought up. It seems at all.

Where is marriage a fundamentally guaranteed right according to the Constitution? It isn't. Why? Because marriage is a religious practice (sacrament, ordinance, etc...). Unlike voting, right to trial, or the right to bear arms; these rights aren't given by the religion you profess. They are given by the government you are under.

At marriages core it is a covenant made between a husband, wife, and their creator (whomever their deity may be). Thus, a religious issue and not a state or federal issue. However, states and federal governments regulate marriage for tax, medical, and any other reason that has a dollar sign attached to it. Money, money, money.

Nonetheless, are all persons, including the homosexual crowd, guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by their government? Yes, but are these same gays and lesbians granted the right to same sex marriages within their religion? According to most world religions the answer is no. Thus, the homosexual crowd should cry for reform within their religions and not within their state or country. However, since the state has its hands all over marriage this has morphed from an issue of religion into an issue of morality. Let the majority, religious or not, decide amongst themselves what is best or moral for their city, county, state (in this case; California in 2008 with prop 8) or federal government.

Yet, Judge Vaughn Walker decided the state's morality was outdated and that his standard measured the true feel of morality throughout the state. Now we wait and see what happens in California and if this doesn't end up in the Supreme Court.

So, is this issue of gay marriage something that should be regulated alone by religions because it is a religious institute or is something better left alone in the hands of the public to decide whether it fits their standard of morality?

[/quote]

I can see an argument being made that marriage is not first and foremost a religious institution but a state one. It's apparent one can be married in a civil service with no mention of any religious aspect. It's also clear that the state, regardless of any clergy involvement, is not going to recognize any marriage without it's own issued legal paper work. I would have a hard time disputing anyone who said marriage is as much a state institution blessed by the church, as it is a religious one recognized by the state. There are hundreds of state benefit to being married that one can't completely mirror without the right to be "married" in the eyes of the state ( I lean toward to the idea of "registered civil partnership" rather than marriage, bypassing any need for forced church involvement) One can only partially mirror them and at considerable expense


#4

"And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3 He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" 4 They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away." 5 But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."
(MK 10:2-9)

**We cannot allow ourselves to be deceived by the semantics or language used in the argument.

"Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." 24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh." (Genesis 2:23-24)

It is impossible for a man to marry another man, or a woman another woman, or a man his dog, or a man 10 women.....

"LET NOT MAN PUT ASUNDER!"

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark
**


#5

If you are asking for the Catholic answer, marriage is not a right.


#6

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.