• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Homosexuality and the U.S. Constitution

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
From another thread...

... The First Amendment is about freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. "Separation of Church & State" is nothing more than a secular fabrication...


(snip)

...I'm saying the US Government never endorsed homosexual marriage to begin with, therefore, it's unconstitutional...

I'm saying the legal definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Until the SC [Supreme Court] rules otherwise, gay marriage will remain unconstitutional.



My question to anyone who supports the above statements is, where in the U.S. Constitution is the banning of same sex marriage found?

What has the Establishment clause to do with same sex marriage, other than preventing theocratic laws about homosexuality?

And when did the 9th Amendment become meaningless?
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Nowhere; nothing; it never did.

The First Amendment does provide for freedom from religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Banning of same sex marriage will ultimately be found to be a violation of the 9th and 14th amendments, respectively:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

" ...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That heterosexuals can marry under state laws, and homosexuals cannot, is unequal application and protection of the laws.
 

murtaad

Member
No, the First Amendment provides an establishment of a secular state in which religion should play a part (separation of church and state). Since we understand that marriage can be performed under civil law, excluding gay people from getting married using religious reasoning is a violation of the constitution.
 
Touchedbythelord seems to have a good handle on the issue.

Freedom of religion is unfortunately taken by some as meaning that they are able to practice their particular interpretation of their religion without restriction. They do not recognise that this is balanced against others being able to live their lives without suffering discrimination, and instead feel that they are being subject to discimination because they can't do things as prescribed by their interpretation of their religion.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Part of the "spirit" of the Constitution, which though not written yet has always been upheld, is that an individual's rights cease when they infringe on another individual's rights. That is, your right to throw a punch ends before it connects with my jaw. This is something lost on the sort of people Oneatatime is referring to.
 
Part of the "spirit" of the Constitution, which though not written yet has always been upheld, is that an individual's rights cease when they infringe on another individual's rights. That is, your right to throw a punch ends before it connects with my jaw. This is something lost on the sort of people Oneatatime is referring to.

In a democratic society I don't think such a thing is possible even if government and citizens embrace secularity. It's inherently difficult to disentangle an individuals religious and political views because the two often develop hand-in-hand. As an atheist I would be influenced by the religious beliefs of theists and vice-versa through no fault of either party.

With that in mind it's more a case of setting the boundaries on how far we are able to influence one another.
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
With that in mind it's more a case of setting the boundaries on how far we are able to influence one another.
Right. And that boundary, when it comes to matters of equal protection and due process, is the extent to which a state must demonstrate a compelling state interest for imposing on these rights - and it must do so by recourse to matters of policy rather than arguments based on a particular religious point of view. How compelling the policy justification must be, and how carefully it is to be scrutinized, will be determined by how consistent the court is with precedent in its view of the importance of marriage rights. In Loving, the court treated them like fundamental rights in overturning state law bans on mixed "race" marriages as violating equal protection. The arguments about societal harmony were seen as flimsy cover for the racism that motivated these laws.

I think the intellectually honest approach to the question would require the same result in the instance of gay marriage. The flimsy arguments about health and the wild slippery slope arguments are merely a cover for personal religious and more likely aesthetic objections rather than legitimate state interests. Of course, my opinion ultimately isn't the one that matters.
 
Last edited:

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I really don't have anything else to add, other than reason the judge who struck down prop. 8 on his decision should easily and legally be recognized and honored by Congress and the Supreme Court. His decision was based on the idea that being opposed to homosexuality is an exclusive set of morality that only applies to some, making it a breach of the separation of church and state to ban homosexual marriages.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
I live in the United States but sadly I think the constitution is not very explicit on this. I really think the constitution has NO right to supercede religion.

According to Shariah homosexuality is an abomination. As a straight Conservative Muslim male, I actually find myself agreeing with many Christian groups such as the catholic church or the westboro baptists (although the westboro baptists seem to dislike muslims, we can agree on this) on the topic of gay marriage. We need moral lawmakers who will put a stop to this kind of thing!
Shariah has no place in a secular democracy. There are plenty of theocracies you could immigrate to, if that's what you want.
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
I live in the United States but sadly I think the constitution is not very explicit on this. I really think the constitution has NO right to supercede religion.
And it doesn't, which is why you are both allowed to practice your religion and live according to your personal values AND why others should not have YOUR personal values and religious beliefs forced on them through the government activities - such as by giving preferential legal rights in marriage, the distinctions for which are based on matters of religious belief rather than legitimate matters of public policy.
 

Faxecura

Member
doppelgänger;2620560 said:
And it doesn't, which is why you are both allowed to practice your religion and live according to your personal values AND why others should not have YOUR personal values and religious beliefs forced on them through the government activities - such as by giving preferential legal rights in marriage, the distinctions for which are based on matters of religious belief rather than legitimate matters of public policy.
He sounds a bit like a troll to me.

I don't think that very many people would admit to agreeing with the WBC in a thread like this.
 

T-Dawg

Self-appointed Lunatic
I live in the United States but sadly I think the constitution is not very explicit on this. I really think the constitution has NO right to supercede religion.

According to Shariah homosexuality is an abomination. As a straight Conservative Muslim male, I actually find myself agreeing with many Christian groups such as the catholic church or the westboro baptists (although the westboro baptists seem to dislike muslims, we can agree on this) on the topic of gay marriage. We need moral lawmakers who will put a stop to this kind of thing!

Hmm, so Muslims ARE just as dangerous as Christians?

I didn't realize that you too were out to betray our (barely) secular society.
Thanks for informing me.


We need moral lawmakers who will put a stop to the spread of this Christianity (and Islam) nonsense. For example, we need better education standards, especially in the field of science, so that creationists don't try and attack the minds of our children. We need to regulate parenting privileges, so that dangerous people don't pass their ideologies down their offspring. We need to tax religious institutions, both to fund government programs (and pay off debts) and for justice in general.
Of course, some of what I want (like the eugenics) could never happen in a free society, so I'm not going to go insisting that those particular things happen anytime soon. But I will insist that our government and society be free of religious influence on it's law.
 

Faxecura

Member
Seriously. Where's Castiel when you need him?

Most Muslims I've met take the same position as Catholics, that's true. But 99% of both groups probably don't agree with the WBC.

The Catholic position is that canon law applies only to someone who's Catholic, and as a majority of gay or lesbian people are secular, it wouldn't apply to them anyways.

I know plenty of Catholics and Muslims who don't really care, as long as it doesn't happen in their church or mosque; the reasoning being to defend freedom of association of private organizations.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
I live in the United States but sadly I think the constitution is not very explicit on this. I really think the constitution has NO right to supercede religion.

According to Shariah homosexuality is an abomination. As a straight Conservative Muslim male, I actually find myself agreeing with many Christian groups such as the catholic church or the westboro baptists (although the westboro baptists seem to dislike muslims, we can agree on this) on the topic of gay marriage. We need moral lawmakers who will put a stop to this kind of thing!

If you want a theocracy, America is not the country for you. the constitution was put into place to prevent such tyranny.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Most Muslims I've met take the same position as Catholics, that's true. But 99% of both groups probably don't agree with the WBC.

The Catholic position is that canon law applies only to someone who's Catholic, and as a majority of gay or lesbian people are secular, it wouldn't apply to them anyways.

I know plenty of Catholics and Muslims who don't really care, as long as it doesn't happen in their church or mosque; the reasoning being to defend freedom of association of private organizations.
I know. :)
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I really think the constitution has NO right to supercede religion.
The Constitution is still the law of the land for a diverse society wherein no single religion/philosophy dominates.
Certainly, there are many who believe their faith is supreme, & should rule where there is any conflict. But this
is moot, since it isn't feasible to give everyone the legal right to do anything their religion allows or commands.
There will be compromise & accommodation, but not unlimited free reign.

According to Shariah homosexuality is an abomination.
That matters not to me.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
From Nontracts - FFRF Publications

The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 8). If we are a Christian nation, why doesn't our Constitution say so? In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
—The First Amendment To The U.S. Constitution
What about the Declaration of Independence?

We are not governed by the Declaration. Its purpose was to "dissolve the political bands," not to set up a religious nation. Its authority was based on the idea that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority. It deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, and so on, never discussing religion at all.
The references to "Nature's God," "Creator," and "Divine Providence" in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, its author, was a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.
What about the Pilgrims and Puritans?

The first colony of English-speaking Europeans was Jamestown, settled in 1609 for trade, not religious freedom. Fewer than half of the 102 Mayflower passengers in 1620 were "Pilgrims" seeking religious freedom. The secular United States of America was formed more than a century and a half later. If tradition requires us to return to the views of a few early settlers, why not adopt the polytheistic and natural beliefs of the Native Americans, the true founders of the continent at least 12,000 years earlier?
Most of the religious colonial governments excluded and persecuted those of the "wrong" faith. The framers of our Constitution in 1787 wanted no part of religious intolerance and bloodshed, wisely establishing the first government in history to separate church and state.
Do the words "separation of church and state" appear in the Constitution?

The phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state," was coined by President Thomas Jefferson in a carefully crafted letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, when they had asked him to explain the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, and lower courts, have used Jefferson's phrase repeatedly in major decisions upholding neutrality in matters of religion. The exact words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution; neither do "separation of powers," "interstate commerce," "right to privacy," and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles.
What does "separation of church and state" mean?

Thomas Jefferson, explaining the phrase to the Danbury Baptists, said, "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." Personal religious views are just that: personal. Our government has no right to promulgate religion or to interfere with private beliefs.
The Supreme Court has forged a three-part "Lemon test" (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971) to determine if a law is permissible under the First-Amendment religion clauses.

  1. A law must have a secular purpose.
  2. It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
  3. It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.
The separation of church and state is a wonderful American principle supported not only by minorities, such as Jews, Moslems, and unbelievers, but applauded by most Protestant churches that recognize that it has allowed religion to flourish in this nation. It keeps the majority from pressuring the minority.
What about majority rule?

America is one nation under a Constitution. Although the Constitution sets up a representative democracy, it specifically was amended with the Bill of Rights in 1791 to uphold individual and minority rights. On constitutional matters we do not have majority rule. For example, when the majority in certain localities voted to segregate blacks, this was declared illegal. The majority has no right to tyrannize the minority on matters such as race, gender, or religion.
Not only is it unAmerican for the government to promote religion, it is rude. Whenever a public official uses the office to advance religion, someone is offended. The wisest policy is one of neutrality.
Isn't removing religion from public places hostile to religion?

No one is deprived of worship in America. Tax-exempt churches and temples abound. The state has no say about private religious beliefs and practices, unless they endanger health or life. Our government represents all of the people, supported by dollars from a plurality of religious and non-religious taxpayers.
Some countries, such as the U.S.S.R., expressed hostility to religion. Others, such as Iran ("one nation under God"), have welded church and state. America wisely has taken the middle course--neither for nor against religion. Neutrality offends no one, and protects everyone.
The First Amendment deals with "Congress." Can't states make their own religious policies?

Under the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868), the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states. No governor, mayor, sheriff, public school employee, or other public official may violate the human rights embodied in the Constitution. The government at all levels must respect the separation of church and state. Most state constitutions, in fact, contain language that is even stricter than the First Amendment, prohibiting the state from setting up a ministry, using tax dollars to promote religion, or interfering with freedom of conscience.
What about "One nation under God" and "In God We Trust?"

The words, "under God," did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Likewise, "In God We Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956. It appeared on some coins earlier, as did other sundry phrases, such as "Mind Your Business." The original U.S. motto, chosen by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum ("Of Many, One"), celebrating plurality, not theocracy.
Isn't American law based on the Ten Commandments?

Not at all! The first four Commandments are religious edicts having nothing to do with law or ethical behavior. Only three (homicide, theft, and perjury) are relevant to current American law, and have existed in cultures long before Moses. If Americans honored the commandment against "coveting," free enterprise would collapse! The Supreme Court has ruled that posting the Ten Commandments in public schools is unconstitutional.
Our secular laws, based on the human principle of "justice for all," provide protection against crimes, and our civil government enforces them through a secular criminal justice system.
Why be concerned about the separation of church and state?

Ignoring history, law, and fairness, many fanatics are working vigorously to turn America into a Christian nation. Fundamentalist Protestants and right-wing Catholics would impose their narrow morality on the rest of us, resisting women's rights, freedom for religious minorities and unbelievers, gay and lesbian rights, and civil rights for all. History shows us that only harm comes of uniting church and state.
America has never been a Christian nation. We are a free nation. Anne Gaylor, president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, points out: "There can be no religious freedom without the freedom to dissent."
 

9Westy9

Sceptic, Libertarian, Egalitarian
Premium Member
I live in the United States but sadly I think the constitution is not very explicit on this. I really think the constitution has NO right to supercede religion.

According to Shariah homosexuality is an abomination. As a straight Conservative Muslim male, I actually find myself agreeing with many Christian groups such as the catholic church or the westboro baptists (although the westboro baptists seem to dislike muslims, we can agree on this) on the topic of gay marriage. We need moral lawmakers who will put a stop to this kind of thing!

What do you feel should happen to homosexuals then?
 
Top