Mary Leigh Cheng
Dr. Bruce M. Wilson
POS2041 American National Government
26 September 2016
706 words
Same-Sex Marriage v. Religious Freedom
The ongoing controversy between religious rights and the legalization of same-sex marriage exemplifies the complexities between civil rights and civil liberties. Those who support marriage equality back most of their claims with the Fourteenth Amendment, which emphasizes the equal treatment of all people under the law (Legal Information Institute). Those advocating religious freedom back their claims with the First Amendment, which ensures that the government does not interfere with the free exercise of religion, or create an official religion (Sidlow and Henschen 77). Compromise is necessary to uphold …show more content…
Compromise can ensure the protection of their First Amendment rights. Otherwise, the government may force religious institutions to provide services such as housing or insurance to same-sex couples. They may lose their freedom to choose which marriages to solemnize. If the religious organizations do not comply, they may lose government funding or get into legal trouble. In fear of this, they may stop preaching all together. Nevertheless, some argue that religious groups do not have the right to apply religious proponents to activities outside their faith tradition (Lupu, Elwood and …show more content…
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment serves as a division between church and state. The government aims not to support religious activities or affiliate with specific religions (Sidlow and Henschen 78). However, since Kim Davis is an elected official, the government cannot fire her. People have to vote to impeach her (Green, Kim Davis Is Winning). Compromise is necessary to ensure the protection of all constitutional rights. While the legalization of same-sex marriage may be valid, it is also valid that religious institutions are exempt from recognizing same-sex marriages. Situations involving non-religious institutions and individuals are more variable. For instance, the Supreme Court ruled that Hobby Lobby (a non-religious, for-profit organization) could refrain from providing its employees with health coverage of contraception for religious reasons (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores,
Dr. Bruce M. Wilson
POS2041 American National Government
26 September 2016
706 words
Same-Sex Marriage v. Religious Freedom
The ongoing controversy between religious rights and the legalization of same-sex marriage exemplifies the complexities between civil rights and civil liberties. Those who support marriage equality back most of their claims with the Fourteenth Amendment, which emphasizes the equal treatment of all people under the law (Legal Information Institute). Those advocating religious freedom back their claims with the First Amendment, which ensures that the government does not interfere with the free exercise of religion, or create an official religion (Sidlow and Henschen 77). Compromise is necessary to uphold …show more content…
Compromise can ensure the protection of their First Amendment rights. Otherwise, the government may force religious institutions to provide services such as housing or insurance to same-sex couples. They may lose their freedom to choose which marriages to solemnize. If the religious organizations do not comply, they may lose government funding or get into legal trouble. In fear of this, they may stop preaching all together. Nevertheless, some argue that religious groups do not have the right to apply religious proponents to activities outside their faith tradition (Lupu, Elwood and …show more content…
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment serves as a division between church and state. The government aims not to support religious activities or affiliate with specific religions (Sidlow and Henschen 78). However, since Kim Davis is an elected official, the government cannot fire her. People have to vote to impeach her (Green, Kim Davis Is Winning). Compromise is necessary to ensure the protection of all constitutional rights. While the legalization of same-sex marriage may be valid, it is also valid that religious institutions are exempt from recognizing same-sex marriages. Situations involving non-religious institutions and individuals are more variable. For instance, the Supreme Court ruled that Hobby Lobby (a non-religious, for-profit organization) could refrain from providing its employees with health coverage of contraception for religious reasons (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores,