by Gerhard Adam

Created on: December 13, 2008   Last Updated: January 19, 2009

It seems that the larger point is perpetually missed in this debate. That point being there are two forms of marriage that are in play when a couple gets wed.

There is no question that to many, a marriage is a religious event for which their respective beliefs hold sway. However, let's be clear that it is not the religious aspects of a marriage that convey the legal rights recognized by the state. That is the second form of marriage which even the church must honor; the marriage license and authority of the state to recognize it.

It is this latter point which allows people to get married that do not share the religious beliefs of others, because in our modern society, it is the recognition of the state which is the operative force. Similarly it is the state which can grant a divorce, so in the final analysis, the religious viewpoints of the participants are not particularly relevant.

Therefore for this debate to be meaningful, there is no problem in allowing people to exercise their religious beliefs and to engage in whatever ceremony they find meaningful, but the larger question is whether the state should be allowed to discriminate against its citizens by denying them the rights normally granted to others.

The significance of this has nothing to do with personal beliefs or religion, since, by definition, the state cannot engage in defining either one. In effect, the state is violating the first amendment's separation clause by engaging in such laws because regardless of individual beliefs, there is no legal or secular basis for refusing to recognize human partnerships as long as both parties are capable of legally entering into such an agreement. Note that the state has no problem exerting its authority into the realm of religious belief when such marriages are polygamous or involve underage participants. In those instances, the state clearly indicates that a religious belief cannot extend into or override the rule of law.

In most arguments made in this debate, people tend to express their particular beliefs and present many rationalizations from both sides to make their case. However, these viewpoints are irrelevant since they are discussing the wrong question. The only question that needs to be answered, is why a state has laws that allow some human partnerships to have legal recognition and others not.

Therefore, the question remains; what legal precedent is there for discriminating against one's own citizens?

Learn more about this author, Gerhard Adam.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.