OpEd:
Separating Government Taxes From Marriage
July 30, 2009 by Kyle BradyTags: Church and State, Gay Marriage, Government, Politics, Religion, Taxes
As required by the FTC, a Full Disclosure is available - this piece adheres to the Code of Ethics
Marriage, specifically so-called “gay marriage”, is a hot-button issue in America at the moment, with some states passing legislation to prohibit the unification of same-sex couples in the eyes of the government, while others embrace the idea. No where more vehement and virulent has the argument been than in the supposedly liberal state of California: once legal, gay marriage is now prohibited by an Amendment to the state’s Constitution – which was recently upheld in the State Supreme Court. There are many arguments to both sides - some rational, some not – but they all miss the central and most crucial piece of this legislative puzzle: the Separation of Church and State.
The United States of America was founded on many principles, not the least of which was the Separation of Church and State – one of the key reasons for many American immigrants to leave England (or nearby countries of origin such as Scotland or Wales) was religious persecution by their government, and was therefore embedded into the creation of this new country. But over the last two centuries, this idealism has been lost, or confused at best, in most sectors of government: a non-Christian President has never been elected let alone had a legitimate chance, phrases and actions based on the Christian belief system have been worked into everything from Federal currency to legal oaths, and religious ideas are worming their way slowly into both education and national legislation that is, once again, Christian.
Marriage has two sides in America: unions based in government and religion. The purpose of marriage from a government perspective is to provide legal benefits such as power of attorney, recognition of family, and tax simplifications – very different from the religious idea of religion, which is typically formed around the union of two opposite-sex people being unified for long-term commitment and some sort of spiritual benefit. It is unclear as to when the lines between these two separate entities were blurred, but the fact remains that they have been. It is required for a couple married under a religion to file for the government recognition of their union, which should have helped clarify the differences between the two very different definitions of the word “marriage”. Obviously, this has failed.
A very essential question when considering the legality of gay marriage is: why is it prohibited in the first place? Is there any legal definition stating the secular union of two people has to be of opposite sex? If so, why is that recognized as legal, given the Separation of Church and State? However, these issues are being addressed elsewhere, and a more worthwhile approach is to look at the arguments of gay marriage’s detractors: the unfailingly central argument around which all opposition is based includes words like “immoral”, “unethical”, “perverted”, and other such religiously tainted words of emotion.
These claims of immorality and perversion seem to stem from the misunderstanding that a government recognized union of two same sex individuals does not affect, in any way, the principles and beliefs of their chosen religion. Vicious opposition campaigns are funded by groups like the Mormon Church, spending millions of dollars to disseminate propaganda claiming a recognition of gay marriage would result in absurd situations such as elementary school children learning the definition of “gay”. Besides being patently untrue, such attacks ensure that religious individuals perceive any pro-gay legislation as an encroachment of their beliefs.
No matter an individual’s opinion on gay or lesbian couples, any intelligent citizen should be able to perceive how embarrassingly appalling it is for our secular nation to allow itself to become even more entwined with religious ideals – gay marriage should be allowed, in terms of secular recognition, on the simple principle that the government should not be concerned with any issues of religion. Perhaps marriage as a government entity should be abolished entirely, with civil unions established as the only choice for all citizens – such an action would very clearly define the differences between the two types of marriage, while still allowing a certain level of tolerance and recognition for the religious institution of marriage.
For a country founded on rather idealistic principles, ethical decline has indeed achieved great reach within both the state and federal levels of government – and it has nothing to do with gay marriage. The allowance of religion to influence, dictate, or otherwise encourage legislation and court rulings that discriminates against citizens for indeterminate and abstract reasons should sicken every single citizen within America’s borders. And yet it is not so – the vast majority are either too reliant on propaganda for information or allow their religious beliefs, of whatever kind and strength, to influence their personal political agenda.
It’s worth noting, however, that all such “religious legislation” has a Christian foundation: where are the angry Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu citizens? Stand up and be heard, minority religions, for you are the last hope of returning America to a secular and religiously unbiased nation.
Kyle can be found on Twitter and MySpace, or reached via email.
