What does the U.S. Constitution tell us about Prop 8 in CA?

In brief, the question I am asking is this: If we strictly interpret the U.S. constitution, shouldn’t we allow equal rights for same sex couples? See below ->

A while ago I posted about the phrase “separation of the Church and state” basically reminding folks that specific phrase is not in the constitution itself, it’s in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. The U.S. constitution specifically reads 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.

Most of the community who support proposition 8 do so because of religious beliefs. If proposition 8 was written to respect an establishment of religion, doesn’t that make it unconstitutional? Remember “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” In other words, doesn’t Amendment I of the United States Constitution indicate that Proposition 8 cannot be passed?

If I was running for office, this would be my position:

The government’s role in all legal unions between two people should be a consistent process regardless. The process, documents, and rights obtained should be identical. There should no longer be civil unions and marriages -both should share the same name, processes, and rights (on legal documents). As we learned in the Civil Rights movement, there is no such thing as separate but equal.

As far as the religious ceremony, that decision is up to the religious organization per the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Therefore the government should not protect “marriage” as it is religiously defined and is not obligated (nor does it have the power to) preserve it’s sanctity. It should be up to the religious organization if they perform whatever ceremonies they desire – the government should not interfere with religion. Some religious organizations will decide to perform same sex marriages and that is up to them. Others will decide not to perform same sex marriages – that is also up to them. While religious organizations are not forbidden from providing same sex marriages, they should not be required to perform same sex marriages as that is a violation of their first amendment rights.

With this approach, atheists do not have to be “married” either. Legal unions become a two part process. The government protects the equal rights of it’s citizens. Not separate but equal – everything exactly the same. THEN the type of ceremony the couple wishes to have is up to them. Perhaps atheists will just want to have a party. Perhaps they will want a ceremony that is just like a traditional marriage but without a Pastor/Minister up front. This ceremony (which by the way would be optional) can be called absolutely anything (marriage, joining, grabblesnarfinny, etc).

…and this is my thinking:

I believe that the reason “gay marriage” is such a hot button issue is because the word “marriage” is so religiously charged. Typically, marriages are religious ceremonies typically performed by a spiritual authority. However, the benefits that a marriage enjoy are not religious at all – they are tied to the government. From a political prospective, there should be nothing religious about “marriage” at all. To an extent that is true today – people from all religions (as well as atheists) are welcome to engage in “marriage.”

“Marriage” is in quotes because it can mean different things to different religions/people groups. In that case, the word is too small to encompass the variety of things that marriage means. The government’s shouldn’t use religious words to define civic/legal situations – it confuses the citizens.

The opposition to gay marriage say there is a need to preserve the sanctity of marriage. From a strictly political prospective (not a religious prospective) this claim does not seem relevant. I live near Los Angeles where you can rent wedding rings and have a van drive to your house for a quick and easy divorce. From this prospective, I struggle to believe that same sex arrangements pose more of a threat than opposite sex arrangements to marriage in America today. More and more studies show that children are most successful in homes where there are two parents – many of these studies also indicate that it does not matter if it is a man and a woman, two men, or two women. (for an example, click here). The republic is not going to collapse if same sex marriages are allowed – I have yet to see anyone take that position. Again, opposition to same sex arrangements is not political – it’s religious/personal. Making decisions from those standpoints violates the freedoms that our constitution is supposed to be protecting.

I’m interested in comments on this post – please let me know what you think.

What say you?

related links:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF