Student Voice


June 12, 2024


Columnist believes politics, religion inseparable

April 16, 2009

Last week, a column by Nathan Sparks proclaimed that religion and morality had no place in the issue of same sex marriage.

To that, I say he is so wrong. Such thinking, that you can and should separate morality and religion from politics has promoted the moral decay of this country and corrupted and confused the foundations on which it was built; you know, the good old U.S. Constitution. 

It must be first understood that beliefs; religious and moral; are the precursor to laws, principles and government structure. Our beliefs give birth to them and without beliefs those things wouldn’t exist nor would they serve any purpose.

These things tell us what is right to do and wrong to do, how we can and should live and within what limits. This country was founded on Christian beliefs and it should not be deceivingly denied (read the Bible and the constitution and their relationship is clear).

The constitution states: “they are endowed by their Creator [God] with certain unalienable Rights’”  When the Founding Fathers suggested a separation of the church and state it was not to say that religion should be removed from laws but that the government did not have the right to impose a religion on any person.

The intent was to keep the government out of God not to keep God (religion) out of the government. 

However let’s stick to the issue at hand: marriage. It is not about discrimination, gay or civil rights, the constitution, insurance policies or even someone’s happiness. It’s about marriage, its purpose, definition and significance. 

To Christians, marriage is much more than a “legal arrangement.” Marriage has existed since the beginning of time, long before any political institution did. Marriage was a gift given by God to be shared between a man and a woman. It was and is meant to be a spiritual union, something that is greater than love or happiness. Therefore, it is first and foremost religious. All matrimonial legalities that followed were indeed based off this truth. 

Denying marriage to gays or lesbians is not about denying them freedom or equality. Mr. Sparks compared the denial of same sex marriage to women’s right to vote and slaves’ freedom, but did this fallibly. Women cannot choose their sex nor can a person choose the color of their skin, but people can choose their sexual preference (there is no proof it is genetic).

Gays, lesbians and the like are free to live as they choose but they don’t have a right to redefine marriage. 

The issue is about not condoning something believed to be wrong or aiding in its manifestation. It is about preserving the sanctity of marriage. In order to do that, laws such as those which ban same sex marriage are imperative.

That’s why I’m standing up and I’m asking if we allow same sex marriage, where are we going to draw the line? Will we OK polygamy? How about bestiality, will that be OK? Marriage will mean nothing if we allow it to be corrupted by definitions and unions outside of its sacred purpose. 

I agree with Mr. Sparks on one point: we need to contribute to the solution, not the problem of this country. Unlike him, I believe the problem is too many of us are bystanders, we follow and we don’t lead.

We watch as God is being taken out of this country. As for me, it is my prayer that we will stand up for God, keep this nation under Him and save marriage for us, our families and the generations to come. 

Shawna Carpentier is a student at UW-River Falls.