"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The separation of church and state. What do these words mean, and what weight do they carry in a modern day world where religion is no longer a morally required part of American life, and how has it affected the way we make decisions in this country, as well as the way we can make them in the future.
Lets start by looking at some of the "religious" laws in our country that are indeed state run, and separate them from the federal government. The two I intend to call out were key factors in last year's Presidential election, even though, as I tried to explain to so many people, neither had anything to do with the federal government. The first one is abortion.
Abortion has been a hot button issue in every Presidential election campaign for as long as I've been alive, and to be completely honest, it's a bunch of crap. The President of the United States's stand on abortion, a state-licensed, state-funded organization, should mean less than nothing to the laws of abortion across the country. If it ever does become an issue of Presidential, or United State's Congress, then the President and the entire congress should stop and be immediately restaffed, because it would be apparent that none of them had ever seen the Constitution they swore to uphold. Because each state licenses the clinics and funds many (not all) of them, it is up to the individual legislatures and governors of each state to discuss, argue, lobby, and filibuster to find the laws that best suit the majority of people within the governing body. And by population and region, each state's laws favoring, opposing, and regulating the procedure will vastly different.
To take this one step further is the decision making that is behind the regulation and opposition. The fire that our previous presidential candidate fell under was because his religion forbade the practice of abortion, therefore the fear factor came in that he would use executive action to make a federal ban on the practice. The same fear lingers everytime a bill governing abortion is across a state legislature. Votes against the practice are very often religiously charged. My feelings on abortion notwithstanding, the banishment of the practice for religious reasons is by definition unconstitutional solely based on the statement that I opened this article with.
This leads almost straight into the other big hot button issue, marriage. Specifically, gay marriage. While this has not been an issue for as long, it does prove to be an ongoing issue in presidential elections and it has no place in them. Marriage is a state license, and it should be up to state legislatures to define what constitutes a valid marriage.....or should it??
To understand the grey areas of marriage, one must first understand what marriage is to all the people who argue it. There are two arguments to the definition, and to keep them separate while making my point, I will label them Marriage A and Marriage B. Marriage A is a religious rite defined my the God of Abraham and is descended into all 3 major forms of Abrahamic religion, even if it is a little different between the three. It also has places in every other ancient religion of the world. God commanded that marriage be between a man and a woman, as he defined between Adam and Eve. Marriage B is a legally binding contract recognized and licensed by a governing authority; in the case of our country, the state of residence; legally binding the possessions and income of two people as one in the eyes of the government. In this instance, homosexual marriage is perfectly acceptable, since it is merely a contract. Both types of marriage can't exist together, so you really have to choose one, but which one it is. That's what people are arguing. If you have Marriage A, The US and State Governments can never make any laws involving them. You also take away the social status of marriage on your taxes and for your health benefits and common law. As far as the law is concerned, you and your spouse only have the same address. You ladies would also not be able to change your last name, because the marriage wouldn't change your social security status. Divorces would be unable to happen, because the courts wouldn't be able to get involved, and property ownership fights would be very messy because there would be no Common Law. Marriage B, on the other hand, can have no religious rulings. Annulment would have no bearing because no religious laws would be applicable in a remarriage. As long as both parties consent to Marriage B, anyone can go get married. If a person still chose to marry according to his religion in a church, the ceremony would be meaningless to the government. Only the license and the contract would have legal bearing. Both types can't co-exist, so the thing that the people who argue marriage, as well as the people who make the laws need to decide is whether or not the people want to live with the laws that surround Marriage B. Differentiating the two separates the state from the church, and upholds the constitution.
In conclusion, I am reminded of a conversation I had a couple nights ago in a bar when these issues came up in conversation. The man I was talking to brought up the fact that we do have the 10 Commandments posted in the Supreme Court. Now, I don't know if this is true, as I've never been to the Supreme Court to witness this, but if it is true, in spite of my arguments about the separation of church and state, I'm not completely opposed to this list being in a government building revolving around the law of the land. With the exception of the first three commandments, "I am the LORD, thy GOD, thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy GOD in vain. Remember the Sabbath Day by keeping it Holy", who's inclusion violate the First Amendments separation of Church and State, the list of commandments do provide a good, solid moral foundation to the country that even the atheists can agree to live by. It's simple right and wrong.
