According to Article One of the U.S. Constitution, 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.
When it comes to the issue of gay marriage this is the only text we need to reference.

Marriage is a religious institution. Where the issue of marriage becomes fuzzy is when the government gets involved. Everyone who wishes to have a legally binding marriage has to get a marriage license from the state. It’s the state’s involvement that complicates the issue of gay marriage. Since the early 2000s various states passed laws banning gay marriage. This brings to mind the question what right does the government have to enforce a law on a religious establishment such as marriage? Is the state’s position to have a position on the issue Constitutional?

Everyone would agree that regardless of a person’s sexual orientation, race, age, and gender, whatever – that everyone should have the same legal rights as anyone else. Any state telling its residents these people have these rights and these do not sets an extremely dangerous precedent. How do we insure lesbians and homosexuals maintain the same legal rights as heterosexuals while at the same time not encroach on a religious establishment?

How about a compromise? Some states have proposed calling gay marriages, civil unions. I say get the government out of the marriage business altogether and leave marriages to religious leaders. Why not call all legally binding person to person unions - civil unions?

It’s the word marriage that makes the gay marriage issue such a touchy subject. Religious leaders fear that if we allow gay marriage they would be forced to marry these individuals in their church although their religious doctrine explicitly forbids it or face lawsuits forcing them to marry these individuals. The gay community fears using any term other than marriage somehow lessens the bond both individuals made. Both parties have valid arguments.

However, calling all marriages civil unions by a blanket, legal definition and reserving the term marriage to religious practice should satisfy all parties.

Essentially the issue of gay marriage is a war of definitions – the religious definition versus the homosexual definition and religious institutions have the upper hand in this argument.

Since the establishment of western civilization, we have had marriages between a man and a woman. This union is not reserved for Christians, but Muslims, Buddhists and various other religions around the world. Only in recent years have we considered same sex unions. Historically, marriage has always been between a man and a woman so why should we change that?

Conversely, depriving someone of basic rights because we do not agree with their sexual orientation shows a lack of compassion for our fellow countrymen and women. I believe most gay men and women are born gay, it is not a lifestyle choice for them. They cannot snap their fingers and magically become straight. We should not fault them for their sexual orientation.  

Jim Potts is a reporter for the Bossier Press-Tribune and can be reached at \n This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it or (318) 747-7900.

Be first to comment this article

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.6
AkoComment © Copyright 2004 by Arthur Konze - www.mamboportal.com
All right reserved