Separation of Church and the State is Crumbling Down Around Us

On most nights, after watching the Who's Line is it Anyway? reruns on the ABC Family channel, I quickly change the channel before I am accosted by Pat Robertson and the 700 Club. On this particular night, however, I was cleaning up from dinner and didn't catch it in time. The topic of conversation on this particular night was the June 6th vote to amend the United States Constitution, that 230-year-old document that insists upon a separation between church and state, a separation that is meant to keep religious beliefs and doctrine out of the democratic process, a separation that nearly kept John F. Kennedy from becoming President because certain people believed the Irish Catholic would allow his faith to dictate his political decisions. The proposed amendment is to put into place an absolute, concrete definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman and only between a man and a union.

This ridiculousness has been going on for several years, now, and, despite the efforts of Christian fundamentalists like Mr. Robertson, six states now offer some form of legally binding union for homosexuals. Therefore, the topic itself didn't bother me that much. What ruffled my feathers was the fact that United States Senators (unfortunately, I was out of the room and did not make it back in time to see which Senators) were being interviewed for the program and actually had the audacity to use the Bible as a basis for their political arguments.

This separation of church and state thing has been running around in the back of my mind for a few weeks now. It started with Burma Shave style signs along the highway, advertising a church service that is held one night a week, every week, at one of the area public high schools. Something about that doesn't seem quite appropriate. I wouldn't care if said services were being held at a private, tuition-funded school that doesn't rely on governmentally-distributed tax money to stay afloat. But this was a public school that presents bond issues to voters and releases students from their studies on national holidays.

From there, I stumbled across an interview between Fox News' Hannity and Colmes and a Christian fundamentalist from Kansas by the name of Shirley Roper. Mrs. Roper and her band of Merry Christians felt it necessary to picket the funerals of local fallen soldiers. They weren't protesting the war as many might think, they were protesting America. Their signs boasted such messages as "Thank God for 9/11" and "God Bless Dead Soldiers." Needless to say, these messages upset some of the mourners and Mrs. Roper and her whole motley crew were ordered to stay 100 feet away from all funeral proceedings. And she couldn't understand why.

There is a lot more that I could say regarding this woman alone, but I was making a different point so I shall return to that. This woman got my brain stirring on a story idea revolving around what might happen if people like Mrs. Shirley Roper of Topeka, Kansas and Mr. Pat Robertson continue to be allowed to influence the decisions of the American voting public. Democracy is a government for the people, by the people, not for the Republicans, by the church. And, while this country was founded on many important principles of personal freedom, one of the most important was the escape and freedom from religious persecution.

One lady who was wrangled on the street by the 700 Club and asked what she thought of changing the Constitution to define marriage as a union strictly between one man and one woman, stated she saw it as writing discrimination into the fabric of our nation. While it may be a tad melodramatic for homosexuals to compare their struggle to that of the African-American in the 1960's, they are still discriminated against daily. A gay man (or a lesbian) is denied the right to see his partner in an Intensive Care Unit in a hospital because he is "not family." Only the next of kin is allowed into the ICU. This man has committed himself to the man lying comatose in that room, swearing to love only him for the rest of their natural lives, they live together, they share a bank account, a life and a marriage bed but are not permitted the same civility of being together as one may be preparing to take his last breath that a man and woman are permitted.

It is true that in the 1960's, an African-American man walked down the street and everyone knew where he'd be sitting on the bus and a homosexual man's "minority" status is only revealed if he wants it to be. But amending the Constitution to deny that man the right to legally bind himself to his chosen life partner would be, as the young woman said, like writing discrimination into law. And all because the Bible says it's wrong. I beg your pardon, sir, but the Bible has no bearing on how you will vote on this bill. You are a representative of United States voters and your vote should reflect what they want, not what your God wants or what your Bible tells you to be so. This is a matter that will directly affect your constituents and if it is not put to them to vote on, then you need to make it your mission to find out how they would vote if given the opportunity and cast your ballot accordingly.