Is AZ Proposition 102 Protecting Religion or Violating Civil Rights
I believed it was important to share a perspective that, as of yet, had not been articulated. I asked a dear friend -future attorney (we hope) to write out our thoughts from our conversations - at her requeset her name will remain anonymous. However, we honor her work.
In the past, paying single employees less than married employees was justified because single people did not have a family to support. In the past, it was legal for a landlord to deny rental to opposite gender couples because they were not married. These practices happened not so long ago. Today these practices are defined as discrimination.
Two people of different genders can go to almost any religious institution in Arizona to get married, but no requirement exists that marriages be recorded with the state. Then why do we register marriages with the state?
For benefits: spousal insurance coverage, medical decision rights, tax breaks, and others.
Those who choose not to visit a religious institution to be married can go to a Justice of the Peace. These civil unions are also eligible for corporate, medical, state, and federal benefits. However, single people and those who choose to engage in long-term relationships without marriage are excluded from those benefits.
If marriage is religious mandate, why do we allow civil unions that have no connection to religion? If marriage is a religious mandate, why does the state tie benefits to it? Where is the separation of church and state? According to the citizenship test, America was founded on religious freedom. Tying public benefits to religious interpretations is blatantly against religious freedom.
Instead of arguing about the religious definition and ownership of marriage, why are we not discussing the denial of private and public benefits to individuals based on religious interpretation?
Would denial of benefits to those who choose not to get married be less of a civil rights issue? Further, how can we deny marriage, and therefore access to public benefits, to an entire segment of the population solely based on religious interpretation?
If we allow religion to interpret government regulations, eventually we will have to determine which religious interpretation to follow. As there are 38,000 Christian religions alone, and therefore thousands of religious interpretations of different issues, religious influence on government regulation could become very restrictive to those not part of the chosen religion.
If public benefits were available to everyone, it would be perfectly acceptable for religious institutions to define marriage. However, tying public benefits to religious interpretation crosses the line between separation of church and state – and becomes a civil rights issue.
