cybrsage
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2011
- 13,021
- 0
- 0
So the rules aren't codification of the religious institution, but rather what we believe the religious institution should be doing? Either it follows the rules of the religion or it doesn't, and marriage in the legal sense does not have the same rules as marriage in the religious sense. It may be based on the religious rules, but we have long since accepted that the legal definition of marriage can deviate from the religious definition of marriage.
It IS the codificatoin of a religious institution, just not the Catholic one. It is based on the evangelical Christian view which the vast majority held when the government was created a few hundred years ago.
You used the fact that a law was based on a religious rule as a reason to throw out the law. I am just showing that that line of reasoning doesn't hold up.
It is called having a compelling state interest. If there is a compelling state interest, the state is allowed to legislate for or against religious institutions. There is no compelling state interest to change a religious institution when the government can simply shift to using civil unions for all instead. There is a compelling state interest in preventing people from sacrificing chickens and swinging them over their heads out in their front yeards (though they are allowed to do it indoors provided they maintain cleanliness standards).
The state has determined that children are harmed by seeing naked people (not sure how they determined this, but that is for another thread anyway), so their laws about not being naked in public, while based on religion, also have a compelling state interest and therefor are legal.
There is no compelling state interest to stop polygamy, though. Limit the size of the union, yes, but not prevent it at all. Yet it is illegal...so that is another one which should be removed.