Marriage should remain a religious doctine

One would think the Supreme Court would strike down congressional legislation concerning marriage for one simple reason: Congress has no power to pass such legislation under Article I, Section VII of the Constitution. Most reasonable people would agree that marriage has nothing to do with regulating “commerce among the states,” which eliminates that loophole. But then, noting several of its more recent decisions and comments by its members, our Supreme Court is, at best, Constitutionally-challenged.

One other point regarding a so-called “Defense of Marriage Act:” While Christian marriage does consist of a union between one man and one woman, under Islam, a man may have as many as four wives (although Islamic leaders didn’t stop at four), and I recently read about one 60-something fellow who has 39 wives (and more than 70 children, with an immediate family — wives, children, in-laws and grandchildren — of more than 150, I suppose he’s a glutton for punishment.)

Note the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints encouraged polygamy — it’s a great way to rapidly increase a population — until its leader saw the light glinting from U.S. Army bayonets and decided it was wrong (the U.S. Army forcibly occupied Utah and ran the place in the late 1800s, most folks don’t know that — and the Mormons supported the north during the Civil War, some thanks they got).

While Judaism pretty much adheres to the one man/one woman concept today, in the Old Testament, many of those mentioned had more than one wife, and in addition, many had multiple girlfriends (concubines) on the side.

In case anyone missed it, my point is that the one man/one woman concept of marriage is a religious doctrine, and “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion.”

Insofar as the government is concerned, marriage is nothing more than a civil contract between two (or more) people and that’s all that the government should be concerned with. Religions can and do place many restrictions on their followers, but insofar as the government is concerned, that’s between religions and their followers, the government should not get involved (including requiring or forcing adherents of any religion to recognize or perform unions contrary to their beliefs).

Bob Ackley is a resident of Emerson.