There has, since the writing of the constitution been a platform for the separation of church and state based on the first amendment. The first amendment specifically states that the government will not establish a religion, or prohibit the exercise of any religion. Unfortunately, what this means and how it should be applied has remained unclear. However, the original writer of that Amendment, Jefferson, reportedly stated that he hoped the Amendment could be used to build a “wall between church and state” fully separating one from the other (Hamburger 1). However, there have still been a number of cases in which the Supreme Court was asked to legislate issues which appear to limit the rights of certain persons or groups, based purely off of religious objection. Examples include the prohibition, the right to pray in schools, and, most recently, gay marriage. Should Gay Marriage be allowed or prohibited as a result of separation of church and state? I believe it should be fully allowed
In Favor of DOMA
Those in favor of preserving these state laws argued that churches should not be forced by the state to perform gay marriages, because it violated their belief, and in accordance with separation of church and state, allowed the state to limit their rights to practice their religious beliefs (Stanley 1). The “Defense of Marriage” act (DOMA), or other similar state legislature designed to prevent the union of same-sex partners were created to defend the biblical definition of marriage, by limiting state granted marriages to be between a man and a woman.
Traditional marriage supporters also argue that preserving the definition of marriage, as it exists between a man and a woman, is actually designed to protect children and ensure they have both a mother, and a father. According to activist for traditional marriage, Backholm "From a policy perspective, a much better argument is that people are free to make whatever relationships they have, but marriage is a specific kind of reality that recognizes that every child has a mother and father" (Parnass 9) He holds that father’s play more physically, while mothers are gentler, and more loving. As a result, it is key that the current definition of marriage holds for non-religious reasons (Parnass 9).
Finally, those in favor of DOMA argue that marriage is an inherently religious principle, defined and created by God, and so the government has no right, per the establishment clause of the first amendment, to alter that definition. Religious proponents specifically believe that “it is not our right as people to change what God defined.” (Parnass 10). As such, DOMA is protected by the separation of church and state, because it protects the religious definition, and the government has no right to alter that definition.
Against DOMA
In contrast, those in favor of allowing gay marriage argue that DOMA is inherently religious and should be struck down, because it allows religion to define the governmental institution of marriage. By this argument, church marriages, and state marriages, are two separate institutions, and failing to provide equal rights to gay couples, under the law, is allowing religious beliefs to determine state action, a clear violation of the “wall” that is to be drawn between church and state (Cones 1).
Further, those that are proponents of marriage argue that for a law not to be in violation of the establishment clause, it must serve a secular purpose. DOMA does not serve a secular purpose, according to proponents, and so violates the first amendment (Bedi 1). The argument about children, and parenting cannot be used in support of secular reason, because by that logic, according to Bedi, infertile couples would also be excluded from marriage (1).
Finally, proponents of gay marriage argue that allowing gay marriage does not limit the rights of religious individuals to practice their beliefs, because it would not require religious officials to perform gay marriage ceremonies. These marriages can be purely civil, and carried out by judges, rather than religious officials, thereby protecting the right to practice religion (Bourdet 1).
Conclusion: Both those in favor of and those against gay marriage try to use the separation of church and state as a defense of their political position as it relate to marriage. However, in my opinion, it is clear that the marriage allowed by the civil law, can be civil in nature, and fully separated from the church rite of marriage, and so trying to limit the access of gay individuals to marriage unions is a violation of the first amendment. All people should be allowed to marry the partners of their choice, regardless of gender, as protected by the law.
Works Cited:
Bedi, Sonu. “Not About Gay Rights: Same Sex Marriage and the Separation of Church and State” The Huffington Post. 26 March 2013. Web. 01 Aug 2016.
Bourdet, Deirdre “Separation of Church and State/ Same-sex Marriage is a Civil Matter” SFGate 206 Aug 2003. Web. 01 Aug 2016
Cones, Bryan. "Is It Time to Separate Church and State Marriages?" US Catholic, n.d. Web. 01 Aug. 2016.
Hamburger, Philip. Separation of Church and State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2002. Print.
Parnass, Sarah. “Supreme Court Gay Marriage Cases: Meet the People With the Most at Stake” ABC News. 26 March 2013. Web. 01 Aug 2016.
Stanley, Eric. “How Can Churches Protect Themselves in the Wake of the Court’s Gay Marriage Ruling?” CNS News, 6 July 2016. Web. 01 Aug 2016.
