It's an excuse to make a claim for a moral definition of marriage as between man and woman. Marriage is covered in the constitution in this way: any person is free to pursue liberty and happiness.
For religious people this is a hurdle. Just as they claim life begins at conception, they have to recognize a simple fact: a fetus can't be issued a social security card, be charged with crime or be required to pay taxes. In all effects, a fetus is considered as part of a woman's body until it is not only able to sustain itself independently of its host via departure from that host.
So, to say that the government can regulate happiness or limit anyone's pursuit of liberty based on religious moral grounds opens the door to a simple question.
To anyone seeking to bring their own religions morals into the law, would you grant all religions the right to do so? Would you support Islamic law where any man is free to divorce his wife just by saying I divorce you three times? Or Hindu law where when a man dies, his wife is thrown on a fire with his body? While America has a vastly Christian majority moral base, those very Christians come in all forms. Would a Jehovah Witness like to live by Mormon laws or would a 7th day Adventist like to live under Catholic laws?
If you can't see regulating marriage as defined by religious morals is conditional to the rest of the religious values, then you should ask your self to look at history. Many great wrongs have been done by religious people including slavery, forced marriage and forced conversion to the popular religion.
This is the forge under which the U.S. Constitution was forged. Its use of words like god is generic, seeking to include the individual's concept of god and not define a certain god as being sanctioned.
Frederiksted, St. Croix
Editor's note: We welcome and encourage readers to keep the dialogue going by responding to Source commentary. Letters should be e-mailed with name and place of residence to firstname.lastname@example.org.