Progressive religion gives hope, yo.

For years, the No. 1 debate against same-sex marriage has been religiously based, but a group of local religious leaders from North Carolina turned this debate on its head. They filed a suit claiming the state’s same-sex marriage ban violates their First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

The clergy members of the United Church of Christ, who are leading the suit along with same-sex couples of the surrounding area, said they aren’t looking to change people’s minds in order to conform to their beliefs. They just want the same religious protection under the law that the opposition receives.

The clergy and couples said they want only to “assert their right to freely preform religious services and ceremonies consistent with their beliefs and practices.” They intend to argue in the same vein as Supreme Court Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion, which struck down the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.

They said that same-sex marriage bans stigmatize not only couples, and families, but also religious affiliations. This suit is only one of 66 legal challenges to state legislation prohibiting same-sex marriage (three of which are in North Carolina).

It is, however, the first and only to cite the First Amendment’s declaration of freedom of religion.

This new angle of looking at equal rights addresses an inconsistency I feel has been present in this conflict from the beginning. Many of those opposing same-sex marriage do so because they believe it is a violation of their religion to recognize marriage between anyone other than strictly a man and a woman.

The inconsistency lies in this: their religion is not representative of the entire population. Those of differing religious beliefs (i.e. Secularists, the United Church of Christ, and individuals of any denomination having a personal belief in equality) are forced to adhere to the bigoted religious preferences of an uninformed majority.

The United Church of Christ has reminded us of what we have been overlooking — the constitution and the structure of our government are meant to support the minority from marginalization. The First Amendment in particular serves this purpose. I do not believe the First Amendment was meant to use state laws, constitutions and supreme courts to force the religious practices of rural protestant America on to those who do not wish to adhere to it.

Instead, I believe it was intended to do exactly as it says — prevent the government from interfering in religious practices that do not concern said government. How the marriage of two consenting adults concerns the government is an argument no one has been able to convincingly make.

Even if this new angle proves unsuccessful in the fight for equality in the less progressive states, it predicts a certain turn of tide that should not be underestimated. If anything, it shows the direction this country is ultimately heading. If religious leaders are going to start promoting marriage equality and progressive acceptance of people who have been shunned in the past, then I for one think we are finally headed in the right direction.

­jordrile@indiana.edu
@riledupIDS