Politics considered

The Gay Rights Movement is steadily succeeding with its primary agenda: to introduce same–sex marriage in all the United States.

This of course has caused alarm from conservative faith–based groups, who desire legislative protection for their faithfully justified definition of marriage –– one man, one woman.

Proponents of gay marriage expound that such behavior is a mitigation of what they claim is a Constitutional divide between church and state.

The criminally liable: both parties.

A Constitutional lesson will resolve the insularity of both of these juridical laymen. The words “separation,” “church” and “state” are in no way properly agglutinated in our Constitution to convey “separation of church and state.”

What is contained is the first sentence of the Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”

There is little wonder why our constitutionally Republican founders wished to prevent state intervention in religion. To command the observance of one sect is to narrow allowable interpretation of holy doctrines.

A greater mass of people necessarily having varying conceptions of propriety, mandated practice of limited axioms –– determined at the discretion of the privilege –– permits the protected authoritarians to silence disputers.

To restrain state force on social matters permits each sect to practice their respective dogmas while obviating coercion among them. Authority is only over those subscribing to it, no others.

Marriage is sensitive in America because of its ecclesiastical status.

The staunchly conservative Catholic Church, the liberal Episcopal Church and all in between have different beliefs about who should receive the blessed rite –– not right––of marriage. To sequester the definition of marriage from interested faith groups is not only to alienate their beliefs, but to force all, under penalizing threats, to adhere to those dogmas.

This effectively is the blending of church and state.

The faith groups must be allowed to practice the rite of marriage without unitary state placation of any one party, religious or secular.

This will protect the opinions of each; views will change only upon friendly consent of those concernedly contesting the issue.

There is a mild concern among the faithless who feel that such a situation would prevent them from marrying.

The solution: simply be together.

That’s the whole purpose of marriage anyway.

Joel Kurtzhalts is a member of the class of 2013. He can be reached at [email protected]