The 1st amendment part 1Posted Monday, September 5, 2011, at 10:29 PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
The 1st amendment is broken into 4 sections as can be seen above. This blog is about the 1st section. It is also referred to as Freedom of Religion. There can be no freedom of religion without the freedom from religion. The 2 are tied together. As I read it, the forefathers saw the need to keep religion out of the relationship between the people and the federal government. At the moment this concept is under assault, lead by those who seek to impose their religious views on others. They seek to invalidate certain actions of churches such as the Episcopalian church, which is in clear violation of the free exercise clause. Of course this isn't the first time the free exercise clause has been tossed under the bus. Prior to the territory of Utah becoming a state, it was required to ban the practice of polygamy, which was a practice of the LDS.
All churches are allowed by rule of law to perform marriages between consenting adults, or between a minor and a consenting adult, with parental consent and subject to certain age restrictions. This appears to be questionable under the 1st amendment.
I'm sure by now most of you know where this is going. Certain sects of the Episcopalian Church, as well as other major denominations have chosen to perform same sex marriages. That is their right.
This where things get sticky. If marriage is both a religious ceremony as well as a legal civil contract, then the Defense of Marriage Act, as well as all state constitutional amendments and laws banning same sex marriages, are unconstitutional under the 1st amendment. If marriage is a religious ceremony that bestows legal privileges, then it is both a religious ceremony as well as a civil contract. Civil contracts that discriminate based on gender have been held to be unconstitutional.
If 2 consenting adults of legal age join in a civil contract via a ceremony performed by a Judge or other designated civil servant, is it still a marriage? If not, then what is it?
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]
A View From The Independent Side
- Blog RSS feed
- Comments RSS feed
- Send email to Roy Pratt
I'm an almost 61 year old transplant from California 6 1/2 years ago. I work in road construction, those dastardly flaggers. My family roots go back to New England farms, not the big city. The last town I lived in when in California grew from 16K to 40K in 10 years, and that was enough to drive me out. I don't engage in or tolerate name calling. Name calling reduces an adult discussion to grade school play yard level. I have never served in the military, but have family members who have, dating back to WW1. I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I am neither extremely Liberal or Conservative. I am raising my 16 year old grandson, not what I expected at this age, and dealing with those issues as well as my health and near retirement which are 2 things I intend to talk about. I decided to try my hand at this thanks to the warm welcome I have received on Mike's blog. When I take a position, I will defend it until I am shown that I am mistaken, and when that happens, I apologize. There are other things about me that will come out over time I'm sure.
Hot topicsThis is a Man and a Company that GETS IT! A celebration of what America should be about!
(43 ~ 7:25 AM, Mar 2)
What the next World War might look like
Ever wonder what the air could look like without the EPA?
News flash from Fox News
MARRIAGE IS CIVIL RIGHT ( RITE) AS WELL AS RELIGIOUS SACRAMENT