Skip to main content

There was a time when all governments were theocracies.  Theocratic governments exist in the present day, but they are no longer the only style of government.  Today, there are secular governments, societies that relegate civil matters to a civil government, one which governs the country according to a set of civil laws and codes which are separate from the religious dogma of a particular religious sect.

In the secular model, religious law is separate from civil law.  Proponents of the secular model say that the advantage of this separation of church and state is that it democratizes the services and protections that the government provides to its citizens while promoting unity, tolerance and cooperation.  If the population is completely homogeneous in regard to religious belief, then a theocracy could probably represent all citizens equally.  

However, in a multi-cultural, multi-racial society, enforcing religious law as if it were civil law would be extremely impractical and most probably met with much opposition and would promote ill-will.  So we let the civil government run things, provide services and protection for all citizens, regardless of their cultural, racial, religious or political qualities.  A multi-cultural government must be fair and transparent in dispensing its services and protections to all of its citizens.

For that reason, we give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, like fixing the roads, sweeping the streets, keeping the lights on and the water, power and sewage systems flowing freely, and maintaining traffic stoplights and the police officers to enforce them.  These are some of the services that governments routinely provide, and are benefits that should be provided equally to all citizens.  The intent behind the secular system of government is to ensure that all citizens will receive their fair share of the protections and services that a government provides for all of its citizens.

And so, one of the aims of the separation of church and state is to keep sectarian issues from influencing the fair and equitable distribution of the government’s services and protections.  It is upon this point that I see California Proposition 8 as a clear violation of the principle of the separation of church and state.

First, the whole concept of the legality or illegality of being gay and of marrying gay is based on religious doctrine.  The only place we find negative commentary on, or injunctions against homosexuality is in the various Holy Books that have come down to us through the ages.  It is an easily observable fact that all opposition to and condemnation of homosexuality is based on religious doctrine.

If religious sects wish to ban gay marriage within their own institutions, that is their prerogative, but religious doctrine should not extend beyond the particular religion and its followers.  It should not be imposed on members of other faiths or persons of no faith at all.  It should not be transformed into civil law simply because it exists as religious doctrine.  Turning church teachings into civil law clearly violates the principle of the separation of church and state.  For that reason, Proposition 8 clearly violates the letter and the intent of the United States Constitution.

I believe it was clearly the intent of the authors of the Constitution to construct that document in such a way as to insure that the issue we are presently discussing here should never have come up.   They never wanted us to have to say to one another, “Don’t force your religious laws on me.”

Furthermore, consider the consequences of setting such a precedent.  If we allow this particular religious doctrine to pass into civil law, what’s next?  Will it someday be unconstitutional to eat meat on Friday, eat shrimp cocktail, rock Maine lobster or pork chops on any day, or maybe to eat any meat at all?  Could it be that someday it may be unconstitutional not to keep a kosher kitchen, or to answer the phone on the Sabbath?  Those are matters for the individual religious institutions to deal with in their own way and within their own membership.  They should not be made into civil law.

Religion belongs first in the hearts of individuals, not in civil code.

daddeeo

Originally posted to Daddeeo on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 02:24 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Did you mean peck or peek at the Constitution? (0+ / 0-)
    •  A typo? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nonie3234

      Hi again grelinda.  No, I really meant ‘peck’, because that’s what the Bush administration did to the constitution for as long as it was in power.  They pecked away at it, bit by bit, in order to destroy any impediment to the unprincipled political shenanigans we see now described in the media.  If the conservatives could sneak religious dogma into our constitution, then what a splendid coup that would be for those fanatical conservatives who are intent upon destroying government and who wish for the failure of our president’s recovery plans.  To the conservative mind, ‘making government smaller’ also means weakening the constitution.  The present case is just another peck.

  •  Sounds like something to present to SCOTUS (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sherlyle

    and I'm sure it will end up there eventually.

    Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies. -Thomas Jefferson-

    by coloradocomet on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 02:35:07 PM PDT

  •  While opposition to gay marriage may (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nonie3234

    indeed be wholly founded in religious principles, it can't be denied that it also makes up a great part of people's individual outlook. How do you divorce the underlying religious motivation from the purely individual conviction that gay marriage is wrong?

  •  And which Sabbath? (0+ / 0-)

    Could it be that someday it may be unconstitutional ... to answer the phone on the Sabbath?  

    The Moslem Sabbath is Friday, the Jewish Sabbath is Saturday, and the Christian Sabbath is Sunday.  Do Hinduism, Buddism, and Shintoism have Sabbaths?  What about the polytheistic religions native to the Pacific islands?  We may not ever be able to get any work done.  

    Renewable energy brings national security.

    by Calamity Jean on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 05:11:13 AM PDT

    •  Sabbaths for everyone (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      Hi there Calamity Jean.  Good point about all those other Sabbaths.  I’m sure that, considering all of the hundreds of different religions that are practiced around the world, every day of the week is somebody’s holy day.  Having them all apply to everyone would bring civilization to a screeching halt.  Best to keep Sabbaths in the family.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site