"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."
The first part of the first sentence: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof should solidify my entire following argument into a basic right of the American population.
Are same-sex marriages Constitutionally protected? My answer is, in certain situations, yes.
Let's assume that marriage is only a religious institution that carried over into legal boundaries, only by the sanctity of the church (like Christian marriages do).
Let's put into the game progressive churches, such as the Universal Life Church, who will ordain anyone (I'm an ordained minister with the ULC, and I'm an atheist). The basic doctrine of the ULC is:
The Universal Life Church | ULC is the only denomination in the world that opens its doors to all, and welcomes all who ask to Become an Ordained Minister. We are non-denominational.
The ULC, a recognized religion in all 50 US states, often has to play by state guidelines, which are provided on the church website. That said, assuming all state regulations are met, wouldn't a union of to people, any two people, regardless of gender, be legal and binding under the First Amendment? After all, religious freedom is a paramount right to the citizens of the US, and the ULC is a recognized religion in all 50 states.
I would be willing, as an ordained minister of the ULC (as I previously stated, I am an atheist, and that is a doctrine accepted within the ULC) to testify as far as I have to - even on a Federal/Supreme Court level - to ensure the legality and sanctity of any marriage I perform, regardless of the gender of the married couple.
All of the above being taken into account - isn't same-sex marriage protected under the Constitution? I'm a religious official that accepts same sex marriage. I have the First Amendment on my side... and I'm willing to fight for it.
Posts
2 comments:
Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but since your argument relies on the claim that you would be willing to ensure the legality of the marriage, and at this time it is not in fact legal, you have unintentionally used circular logic. And that is a shame, because I would love to find a way to speed things along and not have to wait for the majority to be enlightened.
I can't see circular logic in this one. This is the way i see it
The constitution grants religious freedom
A legal religion under the protection of the first amendment ordains a priest
The ordained priest has legal authority to to join people in the union of marriage.
As a member of the ULC he may marry two people regardless of status (gender, or otherwise), it seems to me it is a legal union protected as the religious agreement between the couple and the priest ordained with a church.
Scary thing is, when they announced that prop 8 passed on california, i had very similar ideas to declare it as a protected religious right.
Discuss
Post a Comment