An issue that I have struggled with, politically and morally over the last few years has been that og Gay Marriage. It seems to be a hot topic, especially in the US, that will not go away. In my mind we can come from this from two approaches and this all depends, in my opinion, on the interpretation of the First Amendment of the Constitution i.e. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..............

The current interpretation of this amendment from The Supreme Court down is that religion, or religious argument has no place at all in Government, therefore a complete separation of Church and State to use the correct jargon. Using this argument the Gay Marriage issue immediately becomes a non-issue. Why? Marriage is a church, or religious sacrament coming through the Judeo-Christian (including Islam) tradition. Therefore, as such the government should have no right to legislate on marriage.Period. Of any description. That includes issuing marriage certificates, filling taxes as married anything to do with the definition of marriage. If the government wishes to legislate on what legally in the eyes of a law constitutes a legal partnership for rights as a couple or individual that is their prerogative as the democratically elected body of the people. This also means that the government has no right to interfere in a religious bodies interpretation of what is right or wrong within a church, synagogue or mosque. Therefore, if a church says homosexuality is wrong so be it. If a church says smoking crack is a religious freedom so be it. This obviously opens a can of worms to where the line is drawn. Back to my original point. Under this argument I do not have an issue with a Gay Civil Union because, whatever my beliefs based on the Bible, I also do not believe in discrimination of any description, however difficult that may seem and no-one has a right to judge anyone only to try and love. Any argument to the contrary is un-scriptural. However, I am against the idea of Gay Marriage, because, marriage is a Sacrament defined by the Bible and that clearly teaches against such a marriage.

Another interpretation of the first amendment with it also taken in to historical context is different. The historical context is simply the first pilgrims left England where they were persecuted for having a differences with the State Church or England and Protestantism itself came from a break from the State Religion the Roman Catholic Church had come in most countries in Europe. As result of this persecution the principle of not having a State Church came. There is nothing stated that the Government should not run on a guiding principle of a religious or moral foundation, in this countries case the Judeo-Christian tradition. The whole of the law is based on this tradition handed down from the English common law. So, in this argument it means that the Government can be based on a religious backbone, but, in no circumstance can set up a State religion or discriminate in any way, shape or form against any religious group. Using this argument the "Christian" definition of marriage could be up-held by the Government in a legal constitutional way so therefore any laws pertaining it to it should go back to the roots i.e. the Bible and what it teaches.

It's impossible to really get into the teeth of these arguments in a little summarizing blog post, but, I tried to at least get to the salient points. My personnel opinion, I think is more leading to the former view for the simple reason leaving the option open to a government to interfere in a religious or church is open to abuse and could lead to discrimination. It is not our right as human beings to judge. That is for God, so let people make their own decision as to how they want to live their life (as long as it does not cause a threat to other living creatures). That's why I am one hundred percent against any form of discrimination. Having said that, as a Christian, I still believe what is right and wrong as taught by the Bible so I may think that something is wrong, but, will try with all my might to love the people and not discriminate. This also means that a Church should not be persecuted for following their doctrines.

As a slightly side issue, the a great many of Liberals in this country who preach tolerance, equality and non-discrimination are totally biased against the Church, especially Christianity when it comes up. They expect the Church to be open to their point of view, yet on the other hand refusing to accept a Christian for their beliefs.

-Richard