- Posted July 30, 2014 by
This iReport is part of an assignment:
Marriage, Equality and the Constitution
Blame it on what seems to be a recurring bronchial infection wreaking havoc with my mind and body for my thoughts turning today with questions and pondering marriage, equality and the Constitution.
As my brain has been churning, I have begun to wonder if both proponents and opponents of providing equality to same-gender couples for legal recognition of their relationships with the wrong lens.
Is the real issue whether the government - state or federal - may have any say or may provide any benefits to any couples and which of those couples who commit to one another may receive legal recognition?
Opponents of same-gender equality cite religious beliefs for opposition to conferring legal recognition to same-gender couples. Opponents note that marriage is a religious sacrament or at least a religious ceremony.
If indeed marriage is religious in nature, should this be an alarm sounding that the "Establishment Clause" of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution is being violated?
Opponents cite biblical grounds for keeping legal recognition limited to one man and one woman. Opponents cite "Christian" principles to deny equality to same-gender couples.
But, there is the rub.
Not all Christian denominations, churches, sects, organizations define or translate the Bible the same way - even when it comes to same-gender couples. Some churches now solemnize same-gender unions and even allow gays and lesbians to fill the pulpit.
That automatically pits conflicting positions among those of the Christian persuasion.
Again the wire is tripped on a possible violation of the "Establishment Clause".
Which Christian belief is marriage or denial of equality to same-gender couples based?
For government to intervene and choose one over the other is a clear violation of the Clause.
Then you have other religions which may or may not also see marriage as something holy.
If the marriage laws are based on a certain Christian belief, does this not give preference to that belief over the beliefs of other religions and thus unconstitutional under the Clause?
What about those with no religious persuasion or no belief in a higher power?
Should those without religion be subjected by the government to a Christian sacrament in order to receive legal recognition of their commitment to one another?
This again would have red flags flying.
Is not the correct constitutional path for government, both state and federal, to remove any and all laws providing for legal recognition to committed couples from the books?
Is not the correct constitutionally mandated course of action to provide no tax breaks, tax deductions or treat any taxpayer differently based on whether the couple has gone through a religious ceremony determined to be the belief of a specific sect of Christianity?
As one CNN iReporter, Democritic, has pointed out many times that he, as a single man, is being discriminated against by the tax laws.
Should not all taxpayers be treated with equality?
To maintain constitutional muster, should not the states and the federal government be instructed that all laws on marriage or recognition of married couples with special benefits not afforded single taxpayers be scrapped?
Maybe it is the infection.
Maybe it is the meds.
From the Cornfield, jumbled thoughts passing through this fevered brain this last day of July make life interesting if not delusional at times.