Religion and Justice essays

Religion and Justice essays Stanley Kurtz and Jonathan Rauch are two well-respected journalists. In 2001, they engaged in a series of debates, published on National Review Online, in regards to the issue of same-sex marriages. In his article, Point of No Return, Kurtz was opposed to allowing gay couples to marry because marriage domesticates men based on what he described as the underlying dynamic of male-female sexuality. Rauch, a homosexual man, wrote Whos More Worthy in support of gay marriage because marriage is indispensably about the commitment to care for another person. These men both agree that the solution to ending the national debate is an amendment to the constitution defining what marriage means. If you asked 100 Americans to define marriage, receiving 100 answers, many of these answers would be based on religious principles. We should not make an amendment to our constitution based on religious doctrine. This country was founded on the principle of religious tolerance. We have even judged other nations for using religion as a means to control its citizens. For example, when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, based on their interpretation of the Koran, Americans declared they were a rogue regime, and we removed them from power. Therefore, we must define marriage without any religious influence, or we will be just as guilty of imposing religious beliefs on American society as the Taliban was in Afghanistan. So, what is marriage? Websters dictionary defines marriage as any close union. A pretty broad definition, it does not mention gender. We all probably agree marriage is a long-term, committed relationship between two people, vowing to love and care for each other. Marriage has been predominately male-female for centuries. Who decided marriage had to be male-female? An explanation often quotes God as that decision maker. If we take out God as the reason for this, another g...