Originally coined by Thomas Jefferson in 1802, the phrase, “separation of church and state” has come a long way, frequently popping in and out of discussions concerning how significant religion’s role in government should be. The answer to that question should be a straight, simple and sweet: “nonexistent.”
The U.S. Census Bureau reported in 2007 that about 76 percent of Americans consider themselves Christians, 51 percent of whom are Protestant and the remaining percentage Catholic. These statistics conclude that the majority of Americans belong to some Christian denomination. Let me make it clear that I do not have a problem with Christianity or those who choose to practice it; I do, however, have a problem when its beliefs are implemented in government solely due to its popularity in America.
One might argue that just because America is primarily a Christian nation that is almost always led by a Christian figurehead, the civil rights policies should also be in line with Christian dogma. If we were to translate this ideology over to race in America, however, the government would pass bills that only held white interests in mind, and I imagine that might cause some minor complications.
What I’m saying is loading religion and government together in a Magic Bullet and then pressing it down to blend does no American any good, at least not when a group of Americans are being deprived of their rights. This is the sole reason why gay marriage is still such a disputed issue in both American society and politics; it is nothing more than a debate over morals. Interpretations of the Bible lead many to believe that homosexuality is sinful, and as a result, that allowing same-sex marriage would be no different than, say, slaughtering your neighbor’s cattle and burning his farm.
I would love to sit down with Vermont’s Governor Jim Douglas and ask him to list his personal reasons for vetoing the bill allowing same-sex marriage in Vermont, and watch as he squirms in discomfort. The truth is that there is nothing wrong with being against same-sex marriage as a personal preference, but that animosity should not pass over onto your professional preference, especially when your decisions hold the power to greatly affect the lives of others.
It is funny that Douglas vetoed the bill, despite it being overruled by both the Senate and the House, thankfully, because a study done at UCLA actually showed that same-sex marriage would improve Vermont’s economy by $3.3 million in tax revenue, creating about 700 new jobs. Again, with this knowledge, there seems to have been no logical reason as to why anyone who cared about the state’s well-being would have vetoed the bill. In a time of economic turmoil, anything and everything should be done to better the lives of everyone devastated by the market, and giving way-overdue rights to an oppressed group while doing so isn’t too shabby either. Simply said, Douglas and those like him need to get their heads out of their asses and realize that when an opportunity for a better America presents itself, there is no acceptable excuse.
As cliche as it is, marriage should be a union between two people who love each other (and by the high divorce rates, I’d say the funny feeling eventually goes away anyway), whether it be male and female or female and female. And who knows, maybe the secret way out of this recession is bromance.