Marriage and the Constitution

By Kayla Purvis

The recent gay marriage situation in California has gotten me thinking about the topic again. Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled the law against gay marriage unconstitutional, though the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a stay on the ruling.

First of all, marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Nowhere. Not one single mention. When it is argued that the Constitution says marriage is between a man and a woman, that is 100 percent false. The Bible states that marriage is only to be between a man and a woman. Which leads me to my next point.

The First Amendment states, right off the bat, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ….” Here is where we get our grounds for separation of church and state. This is why we no longer say the Pledge of Allegiance in school, because “under God” is part of the recital.

Marriage, however, is a religious thing. Our society has distorted the meaning and value of marriage, but some beliefs regarding it remain. For example, it is still a widespread belief that marriage should only occur between two people. Yet two major things have changed as far as our view of marriage: who can marry, and when to have sex.

America’s view of sex changed drastically during the 1960s, becoming more of a casual interaction. The Bible’s view of sex is that it should be reserved for a married couple; a married man and woman. Today’s society is widely accepting of gay relationships, and is now pushing for gay marriage. It is this action of trying to establish such a thing as “gay marriage” — not the prevention of gay marriage — that is unconstitutional.

The First Amendment clearly states a separation of church and state. Marriage, being a religious institution, should not be allowed to be touched by the state. The state has no right to say that marriage can be legal for homosexuals. Marriage is religious and has its own set of guidelines and “criteria,” if you will. What gives the state the right to interfere and change those things? Absolutely nothing. Marriage is a church thing. Leave it as one.

That is not to say, however, that there cannot be another type of matrimony. Unions are not a religious institution, and I have no problem with unions. While marriage should only be for one man and one woman, as is provided by its origin, I am not saying that unions should be just for homosexual couples. Anyone who doesn’t want to have a religious affiliation in their relationship could get a union. But do not take a lifestyle or relationship that goes against the beliefs of marriage and try to use it to rewrite the rulebook. That defies separation of church and state. It’s simple: marriage is religious, and the state has absolutely no right whatsoever to change the church’s institution.

The court’s claim that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional is false. As I said earlier, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. Rather, taking a religious thing and making a law for it infringes on the free exercise of religion and is unconstitutional. Do not take marriage and make it anything other than it is clearly written to be: a covenant between one man and one woman. That is not to say that gay relationships are to be judged or prevented from continuing. It just means that it’s not appropriate or fair to use the term marriage for a relationship that, by definition, cannot be marriage.

This also does not mean that the state cannot recognize both relationships as official and valid. The relationship between a man and a woman in a marriage should be equally as valid as a relationship between two men or two women in a union — or even a man and a woman in a union if they desire a non-religious, legal relationship.

Williston resident Kayla Purvis is a senior at Champlain Valley Union High School.