RE: Religious Institutions Engrained into Society
October 9, 2008 at 9:45 am
(This post was last modified: October 9, 2008 at 9:48 am by infidel666.)
As an evil American pig, I've gone through a lot of views about these types of laws. For example, consider blue laws that restrict sale of alcohol on religious holidays, and marriage that is only available for het couples. But in a society of popular rule that has separation of church and state, there arises in inherent problem of how to refrain from either promoting or destroying religion while letting people promulgate and enact laws. It seems the line is mostly drawn such that a law can't be struck down merely on the basis that it is in accordance with a particular religious or secular view, but only if it actually has the affect of promoting or destroying religion. In other words, if you can strike down a law restricting sale of alcohol on religious holidays, then it follows you can strike down a law against murder on the basis that it accords with one of the ten commandments.
In the case of marriage, though, I think it discriminates against people on the basis of sex, which is prohibited except for "real differences." So, with marriage, the government can say there is a real difference in an opposite sex union in that one can presume that the couple has the potential to bear children, while a same sex couple cannot bear children. Of course, lesbian couples can certainly bear children by using a sperm bank, and gay couples can adopt and/or use a surrogate. So I don't think it is a legitimate distinction, especially today.
And even in the case of the blue laws restricting sale of alcohol on religious holidays, I think the murder law analogy is overly simplistic. In other words, I think it would be a more appropriate analogy to compare the blue laws to a law against murder only on religious holidays. In those cases, the laws discriminate in effect by forcing people who do not observe a religion to change their behavior to observe religious principles of a religion on holidays of that religion. So I do think those laws have the effect not only of promoting religion in general, but also of promoting a particular religion over another.
IANYL. TINLA.
In the case of marriage, though, I think it discriminates against people on the basis of sex, which is prohibited except for "real differences." So, with marriage, the government can say there is a real difference in an opposite sex union in that one can presume that the couple has the potential to bear children, while a same sex couple cannot bear children. Of course, lesbian couples can certainly bear children by using a sperm bank, and gay couples can adopt and/or use a surrogate. So I don't think it is a legitimate distinction, especially today.
And even in the case of the blue laws restricting sale of alcohol on religious holidays, I think the murder law analogy is overly simplistic. In other words, I think it would be a more appropriate analogy to compare the blue laws to a law against murder only on religious holidays. In those cases, the laws discriminate in effect by forcing people who do not observe a religion to change their behavior to observe religious principles of a religion on holidays of that religion. So I do think those laws have the effect not only of promoting religion in general, but also of promoting a particular religion over another.
IANYL. TINLA.
