I believe that everyone, regardless of political affiliation or even sexual orientation, should want to ban gay marriage. Marriage is a religious institution, and the ongoing battle against it is not fought from a political standpoint, but from a religious one. When the matter is discussed in the media, it is almost always within the context of the homosexual community versus the radical right wing. I believe that when people are discussing whether or not gay marriage should be allowed, they are asking the wrong questions. The questions more relevant are:

Is homosexuality compatible with religion?

Is religion compatible with government?

I am a hard-core constitutionalist, and I fully believe that the will of the people, no matter how much I agree or disagree, should be enacted. We the people, through our ability to vote, are in total control. However, one of the many things that makes our country great is how the Constitution was created not only to allow the majority to vote for changes, but to simultaneously assure that the rights of the minority are not trampled. Many people, including some high-profile professors on our campus, believe that all religion, for instance, is damaging to the country, society, culture and the world. I would, nevertheless, venture to guess that most of them, if not all, would be against an out-right ban on religion.

Is homosexuality even compatible with religion?

Every major religion, including Christianity, Judaism and Islam, outright condemns homosexuality. In Leviticus, which is a part of the Torah and the Christian Old Testament, it says that not only is committing a homosexual act an abomination (Lev. 18:22), but that people caught in the act of homosexual relations should be put to death (Lev. 20:13). In the New Testament, which is part of the Bible used by Christians, it says that homosexual acts, along with a multitude of other actions/sins, are shameful. (Rom 1:18-32) In Islam, homosexuality is condemned throughout the Quran, and even to this day is banned throughout the Muslim world. In many Muslim countries, being found guilty of committing homosexual acts will bring about a sentence of death.

Why then would any openly gay person, who has no desire to be anything but gay, want to be a part of an institution, religious or otherwise, in which their ongoing actions are condemned? I understand that many homosexuals believe in a god. I also understand that many would say that they do not believe that their god would create them wrongly. Some also may believe that their god is love, and would not condemn them for acting on their homosexual feelings.

They are obviously free to think whatever they desire, but are they really still a part of their particular religion? If you don’t agree with a clear tenet of a religion, or can just dismiss multiple sections of a religious text based on your feelings, haven’t you actually just created a new religion? It seems to me that if you wanted to be a Christian, for instance, then you would desire to follow the words of the Bible exactly, since the New Testament itself claims to be the direct word of God. (2 Tim 3:16, John 1:1) Otherwise, what good is it? The same goes for any other religion.

Secondly — we have to ask — is religion compatible with government?

The whole discussion of the homosexual communities’ motivation to take part in a religious tradition is secondary to the real issue. Marriage, gay or not, is fundamentally a religious practice. Why are our state and national governments involved in a religious discussion at all? Any legal issues concerning property, debts or children could easily be solved with a civil union or co-habitation agreement, while marriages would be non-legally binding and take place in houses of worship, separate from the state.

One of the cornerstones of our Constitution calls for a separation of church and state. In fact, the First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Currently in our country, a marriage contract is a legally binding agreement between two consenting adults. When our government recognizes a marriage contract as legally binding, how in the world is that not recognizing a law respecting an establishment of religion?

Some people may say that traditional marriage is good for the country, but I honestly don’t care if there were mountains of solid data saying that a one man/one woman family was an overall advantage for a society and should be promoted. The fact is that the government should have absolutely nothing to do with it and should not be the entity promoting it (through tax breaks, etc.). It makes no sense that the government is saying anything about a religious act at all, let alone actively discriminating against one group of people wanting to be involved.

Nonetheless, if churches or non-profit groups want to promote one man/one woman families, I’m all for it, because that is within their right. People have the constitutional right to voice their opinion, especially an unpopular dissenting opinion. However, that voice should always be originating from the people, not the state.

The reality of the situation is that gay marriage should be banned, because all marriage, in the eyes of the government, should be unrecognized.

Let’s continue the discussion online at iowastatedaily.net.