Alright, I won’t get into the aspects of what’s right and wrong or whose religion is correct or incorrect. I’ve done that enough already in some posts in other places. This blog itself is here to stay relatively neutral. There seems to be some confusing regarding the separation of government rule and religious doctrine. The following is a discussion of contraception and marriage rights.
PPACA and contraception
The government has done a lot recently to put pressure on religious institutions and individuals from acting against their faith. Use of taxpayer money to fund programs that also provide abortions assuredly means that taxpayer money is helping indirectly to fund abortions. Now thanks to PPACA the government wants to mandate that health insurance policies provide contraceptive measures, which is in violation of traditional religious practices. This violates both a businesses’ right to provide services as they see fit as well as forces those who are religious to act against their beliefs.
However while the previous case is an example of government asserting force over religion, there is a similar instance of religious attempting to assert force over government. Certain religious institutions want to prevent the ability to obtain contraception. If contraception were made illegal to produce, distribute, or purchase, that would be a case of government policy being directly manipulated by religious doctrine.
Logical flaw: A common argument is that, without mandating that contraception be part of an insurance policy, people are being denied access to contraception. However the flaw is that women have the right to be able to purchase the product and use it if it exists but not the free access to it. If the government did not exist then it would be up to the individual to find a way to get access to the coverage with her own resources.
Same sex marriage
I am using same sex marriage in this discussion, but really the argument extends to other forms of marriage as well. Consenting adults cannot be restricted from entering into marriage for any reason.
Recently there has been a push from the “left” and from the “right” regarding same sex marriage. Many states have same sex marriage as being illegal, while some have started to legalize it. There has been a push by certain fundamentalists to alter the constitution to make it universally illegal. However this violates the basic principals of our nation which demands individual freedom and freedom from the government.
Marriage consists of two parts: the first part is the civil contract between consenting adults. All legal aspects of a marriage are within this civil contract. The government should have no authority to limit contracts between consenting adults as doing so would suppress a natural freedom. The second part of the marriage is the religious aspect of marriage. This aspect can be condoned or not condoned by a given religious institution. Forcing an institution to condone the marriage would be a violation of religious freedom.
Logical flaw: A common argument is that preventing the government from making same sex marriage illegal is the same thing as regulating marriage and that it violates religious freedom. However preventing the government from impeding on an individual’s right to decide on how to live his or her own life is a protection of freedom on all accounts and not a violation of freedom.