The Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples can marry nationwide,, but should they? Our courts rendered a religious ruling on marriage, breaching the wall called Separation of Church and State. The definition for the word "marriage" was set over 4,000 years ago...
“Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, ' for she was taken out of man.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:22-24), This verse defined marriage as between a man a woman thousands of years before the constitution was written.
To declare otherwise is hypocrisy for those who believe in a wall of separation between Church and State. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States>, for marriage is a well defined religious term. Since the beginning the state has chosen to recognize and affirm marriage (Jewish, Christian, Islamic, etc.) as good for the nation. Our founders and lawmakers confirmed marriage as an act of faith by the sanctioning of ministers to perform marriages. The state recognized some would wish to affirm this religious principle outside the church, allowing magistrates, ship captains, and others to perform this rite.
Marriage promotes stability for the family and protection of children who are born to a man and a woman. Marriage is not about liberty or a selfish pursuit of happiness (14th amendment), it is about surrendering our rights for the benefit of others.
Egocentric self interest has allowed the ideal concept of marriage to be watered down. Divorce has been allowed for those who lose interest in their spouse; has allowed couples to split in order to avoid hardship; and is used to circumvent the need of each individual in the home to change for the betterment of others. In recent times we have become more interested in tax privileges, insurance benefits and property inheritance than in shaping of character.
The state should use the term “Civil Union” when the government desires to give (or take) rights to those who cohabit together. For the state to have its own term could be tremendously freeing. As rights and privileges are given to same-sex couples (or to those of other orientations), religious discussion becomes secondary. Those who have objection to religion (atheists, agnostics, etc) will find it easier to fit into state regulations.
The decision of the court on June 26 was written in total disregard to the first amendment, which states, “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.”
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. - "Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists - The Final Letter, as Sent on January 1, 1802". Library of Congress. Retrieved13 February 2014.
