Religious Notions Of Government Are Getting Rejected

The big argument offered by the Christian Right, and many other ultra-conservatives, is that the government is now anti-religious in nature. They argue that secular humanism has become a religious doctrine unto itself. I have examined the argument and will agree that there are some aspects of government that are so religiously neutral that it sometimes interferes with the right to worship according to one's beliefs, but only when there is some basic right of others that is being infringed upon in some manner.

But a careful examination of the facts, events and history will reveal that there are a lot of religious--especially conservative and ultra-conservative Christian--aspects of government that clearly infringes upon the First Amendment, as well as other aspects of the Bill of Rights. We have seen how Christian values have shaped the laws and customs around marriage, prohibiting polygamy and same-sex marriage.

I am a Christian. I believe that homosexuality is a sin according to the teachings of my church and the Bible. But I am also a staunch constitutionalist, which means that I do not have an inherent right to dictate values to others unless there is a compelling interest... and usually that interest has to be linked to the infringement of someone else's rights before it can be deemed compelling. Polygamy would not infringe upon the rights of others. While it may tilt the economic advantage toward those that practice it, such would not be cause for a compelling interest. Neither would same-sex marriage infringe upon the rights of others. Heterosexual people would still be allowed to marry, raise children, work, conduct business, own property, pass that property on to spouses, determine their own values and practice their own religion. I have not found any of the arguments offered by those that argue it is a sin to genuinely address the issue of infringing upon the rights of others.

So, when our fickle leader in the White House pushes for a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a contract between a man and a woman, I get a little worried. The reason I worry is that the government is now pushing the "camel's nose under the tent" and deciding who we shall love, have sex with and how we shall live. Where will it end? It presents a slippery slope whereby the government can--and as we have seen with the Bush gang, will--make arguments for determining more and more aspects of our lives.

I am not pro-gay marriage. I just don't see the isssue of same-sex marriage being so important in the great scheme of things that our government should be involved in making those decisions. Neither do I see the issue of abortion being on top of the list my government should be involving itself in at the moment. Since these things involve intimate choices and issues that are better left between the people that have to confront these matters, I say it is better that our government worry about the Constitution and the breach of its authority, the corruption that seems to be rampant in our government, the role big business has in our society, and the failures in national security, emergency planning, foreign policy and taxation. I figure that since God gave mankind the right to make choices about whether or not to adhere to the Word of God in Genesis, and Christ said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." (Mark 4:9), meaning that there will be folks that hear the words of Christ and read the Word of God and not heed them... and that my firends is the truth of the matter... even God lets us chose our own way.

So, the articles cited here demonstrate the influence of the ultra-conservative Christian Right, and in some cases how these influences are being cast off as unconstitutional.

Two Important Rulings on AIDS

Federal judges in New York and the District of Columbia have declared unconstitutional a 2003 rule that limits the way U.S. health groups spend their privately raised money if they want to get federal money for international AIDS work.

Under this sweeping edict, nonprofits that want government support must sign a pledge saying they oppose prostitution and will not spend any money — public or private — on programs the government does not approve of. Many groups are wary of signing, not because they favor prostitution, but because it is an offense to free speech, and because they are worried about harming vital programs aimed at teaching prostitutes about condom use.

In the New York case, one of the plaintiffs challenging the prostitution pledge, Alliance for Open Society International, told the court it was constrained from fully participating in an AIDS conference that included a discussion of the proper legal regime for prostitution. Another group, Pathfinder International, said it feared it would lose public money for other projects if it used private money to collaborate with overseas groups that have a track record of engaging prostitutes in AIDS prevention.

Bush Re-Enters Gay Marriage Fight: Two Speeches Set Pressing Senate To Vote for a Ban

President Bush plans to wade back into the emotional debate over same-sex marriage for the first time in his second term beginning today with a pair of speeches pressing the Senate to approve a constitutional amendment next week defining marriage as the union of a man and woman.

Bush, whose opposition to marriage between gay partners helped power him to reelection in 2004, has remained largely silent on the issue since, much to the consternation of conservatives who complain he has not exerted leadership. Now, with midterm elections approaching, he is returning to a topic that galvanizes an important part of the Republican base.

The president intends to devote his weekly radio address today to the Federal Marriage Amendment and has invited supporters to the White House on Monday for another speech promoting it, according to aides and activists. The Senate is set to begin debating the amendment Monday and vote Wednesday, but both sides believe sponsors do not have the 67 votes it needs for approval despite Bush's endorsement.

"His position is that he thinks people ought to have the freedom to lead their private lives," White House spokesman Tony Snow said. "He also does not believe that that means that you have to redefine the institution of marriage. He believes the institution of marriage is between a man and a woman."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said he decided to call for a vote on the amendment because states that banned same-sex marriage in the last 18 months are under assault in the courts. "Unelected activist judges are tearing down state laws in nine states today," Frist said on "Fox News Sunday" last weekend. "That's why I will take it to the floor of the Senate."

But critics said the only reason Bush and Frist are reviving the issue is for election-year pandering to conservative voters, who, polls show, have grown disaffected with the president for various reasons.

"They understand that they are in deep trouble and they need to do anything they can to appease their people, which is the right-wing base," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization. "This is an age-old political tactic, which is when everything is falling down around you -- as it is for the administration -- you go for your base."

It would appear that even one of our moderate-conservative think tanks agrees that we have "bigger fish to fry" than the same-sex marriage issue:

CATO Institute Policy Analysis - The Federal Marriage Amendment: Unnecessary, Anti-Federalist, and Anti-Democratic

Members of Congress have proposed a constitutional amendment preventing states from recognizing same-sex marriages. Proponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment claim that an amendment is needed immediately to prevent same-sex marriages from being forced on the nation. That fear is even more unfounded today than it was in 2004, when Congress last considered the FMA. The better view is that the policy debate on same-sex marriage should proceed in the 50 states, without being cut off by a single national policy imposed from Washington and enshrined in the Constitution.

A person who opposes same-sex marriage on policy grounds can and should also oppose a constitutional amendment foreclosing it, on grounds of federalism, confidence that opponents will prevail without an amendment, or a belief that public policy issues should only rarely be determined at the constitutional level.

There are four main arguments against the FMA. First, a constitutional amendment is unnecessary because federal and state laws, combined with the present state of the relevant constitutional doctrines, already make court-ordered nationwide same-sex marriage unlikely for the foreseeable future. An amendment banning same-sex marriage is a solution in search of a problem.

Second, a constitutional amendment defining marriage would be a radical intrusion on the nation's founding commitment to federalism in an area traditionally reserved for state regulation, family law. There has been no showing that federalism has been unworkable in the area of family law.

Third, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage would be an unprecedented form of amendment, cutting short an ongoing national debate over what privileges and benefits, if any, ought to be conferred on same-sex couples and preventing democratic processes from recognizing more individual rights.

Fourth, the amendment as proposed is constitutional overkill that reaches well beyond the stated concerns of its proponents, foreclosing not just courts but also state legislatures from recognizing same-sex marriages and perhaps other forms of legal support for same-sex relationships. Whatever one thinks of same-sex marriage as a matter of policy, no person who cares about our Constitution and public policy should support this unnecessary, radical, unprecedented, and overly broad departure from the nation's traditions and history.

Full Text PDF of the CATO Policy Analysis

The courts are also rejecting the idea of federal funding for religious-driven prison programs as "pervasively sectarian," which is one of the established criteria for determining if the First Amendment is being violated, aas set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman [403 US 602 (1971)], which established the three-part "Lemon Test."

Court Rejects Evangelical Prison Plan Over State Aid

A federal judge in Iowa ruled Friday that a state-financed evangelical Christian program to help inmates re-enter society was "pervasively sectarian" and violated the separation of church and state.

The decision has set the stage for an appeals process that is expected to explore more broadly the constitutionality of the Bush administration's religion-based initiative programs, according to plaintiffs, defendants and legal experts.

Prison programs run by religious groups have increased over the last decade or so, as policy makers, prison and law enforcement officials and prisoner advocates have focused on the high rates of recidivism when inmates return to society, said Robert Tuttle, a law professor at George Washington University who is an expert on religion-based initiatives. Proponents of such programs in prisons have said that the transformative experience of religion can counter recidivism.

In April, the Justice Department announced plans to begin a religious-based program, offered in a single faith, in at least a half-dozen federal prisons, according to legal analysts and critics of the program.

The case was filed more than three years ago by Americans United for Separation of Church and State against the Iowa Department of Corrections and InnerChange Freedom Initiative, an organization affiliated with Prison Fellowship Ministries. Prison Fellowship was founded by Charles W. Colson, a close ally of President Bush and an influential evangelical who went to prison for his role in the Watergate cover-up.

In his ruling on Friday, Judge Robert W. Pratt, chief judge of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, said he was not ruling on the efficacy of religious programs in rehabilitating inmates or "the ultimate truthfulness about religion."

Instead, Judge Pratt ruled that the InnerChange program had violated the separation of church and state by using money from taxpayers to pay for a religious program, one that gave special privileges to inmates who accepted its evangelical Christian teachings and terms.

The evidence that the argument that ultra-conservative Christian Right offers regarding the lack of Christian influence in our society is bogus is in the fact that there have been so many cases where Christianity has been at the center of the litigation.