Monday, June 3, 2013



“And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage, but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage”- Luke 20:34/35

In a country defined by its U.S. Constitutional laws, coming face-to-face with the debate regarding heterosexual traditions and LGBT (Lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgendered) legalities, trying to hold people accountable to traditions, especially religious traditions, has legally been defined as a violation of one’s Constitutional rights. But when analyzing this concept of thinking in-depth, it’s quite challenging to evade the realism that our current laws were established by those who are no longer living. And even though this is so, today’s American Executive branch diligently seeks to impose laws that are neutral, with hopes of eliminating argumentative controversy amongst American people. But when examining the history of America, one cannot evade the fact that religion has played a significant role in the structure of this country’s foundation. Unfortunately, over the years, there have been countless religions woven into the fabric of American life; and in many instances, each religion possesses its own way of thinking, living, interacting and/or practices. Therefore, how can there ever be a firm resolution to appease all American people. After all, in many instances, many Americans do not have a religious viewpoint at all, because they do not practice religion. And even though, many more Americans do practice one religion or another, the growing debates surrounding U.S. citizens Constitutional rights remains unresolved, especially regarding same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, in order to define what is for the greater good of the American people under the ethical theory utilitarianism, we cannot ignore past laws that reflect idealisms of those with staunch religious viewpoints; assuming that such viewpoints were for the greater good of all.

 Therefore, in an attempt to combat the growing debates that seem to aggravate one side of society or another, scholarly mediators, lawyers, and theologians are continually asked to evaluate what should and should not be done to please the majority of American citizens regarding the matter of same-sex marriage. Yet in order to please the majority, again, there must be a firm resolution. But when such resolution revolves around personal ethical perspectives deeply rooted in religiosity; finding resolution seems impossible. As a result, I’ve compiled a significant amount of research supporting my ethical theories: utilitarianism and relativism- and how the issue of same-sex marriage is classified under each ethical theory. In doing so, I hope to shed greater light on this continued debate and possibly introduce a new perspective towards understanding the U.S. Constitutional rights of individuals’ including their First Amendment religious right. After all, today, heterosexual traditions come face-to-face with LGBT Legality. In addition, I convey research from various religious documents supporting my argument pertaining to my elected choice of ethical theories and how these theories play an intricate role in the lives of Americans’.

Interestingly, one of the most baffling experiences for any person who has been raised in a religion, is not knowing the history of that religion. Most commonly, many religious followers’ tend to cling to idealisms rooted in their minds, by family, friends, educators, and religious leaders, while growing up, because they believe doing so is for their greater good. Yet when such individuals get older and step outside of their traditional training and grasp ahold of new age literature that introduces new concepts of thinking, especially regarding one religion or another; in most instances, such persons’ grow weary with discombobulation. After all, most religious doctrine possesses one individual ethical perspective or another, and has held the minds of those who study such doctrine in bondage for countless years. So when examining ethical theories surrounding same-sex marriage, it’s quite understandable why so many people are up in arms.


On one hand, you have those who are encapsulated with religious belief. On the other, you have those who do not believe in any religion and/or a higher deity. To those who believe in such, those who do not believe are condemned to a life of hardship, because some religions teach their followers’ this concept of thinking. But the troubling aspect of this form of thinking, is the reality of the First Amendment and its power over an individual’s religious right. After all, the First Amendment instructs: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (U.S. Const. amend. I)” (Mosser, K. 2013, p. 16). Yet when arguing if same-sex marriage is ethical, especially when examining the First Amendment, which includes the clause: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, its impossible to escape the reality of the impact our Executive branch holds over the decisions imposed by each state refusing to respect the Constitutional rights of those residents’ who seeks to marry as a same-sex couple. Ethically, denying someone a Constitutional right implies blatant disregard for the U.S. Constitution itself; after all, legally, federal laws supersedes state law. Then when you examine why some states are denying same-sex couples their U.S. Constitutional rights, under state constitutional laws, one cannot forget how long such laws have been honored. After all, many laws that refute marriage beyond one man and one woman are more than fifty years old. Moreover, one cannot forget the value of religion and its power over the minds of those who proclaim one religion over another. As a result, America faces the most riveting and grippingly issue of all history: Should same-sex couples be respected and allowed the right to marry.

Of course, today, most religions deny same-sex couples the right to marry and refuse to conduct ceremonies honoring the union of love shared between two people of the same sex.  Even though, doing so often violates some religions sole purpose of existing. Take for instance, Christians’ strongly believe Jesus Christ was the only begotten son of God, who was sent to earth to shed his blood for the sins of all humankind. To Christians’, Jesus is a symbol of love sent to rectify the lives of those who believed, from the bondage imposed upon them, by unbelieving humans who took control of the people and oppressed them, with vain philosophies. Unfortunately, not all religious people believe this idea. In fact, Hindus believe in Brahmanic tradition, which can be traced back to the Vedic age, thousands of years ago. Moreover, Hindus honor a “multiplicity of deities” (Fisher, M. 2008, p.72). This metaphysical belief in the Vedas was elaborated into various schools of thought by philosophers and sages; completely different than the teaching of Christianity. Meanwhile, Muslims’ on the other hand, believe in Allah and strongly believe that Muhammad was the last prophet to come, with a message of faith from God. Furthermore, Judaism, “which has no single founder and no central leader or group making theological decisions, is the diverse tradition associated with the Jewish people” (Fisher, M., 2008, p. 235). And although each religion has its own founder (s), each religion shares the tradition that marriage should be defined as one man and one woman. Yet to those who do not practice religion at all, such beliefs and idealism impose upon their Constitutional right to equal protection under the law; and thus, shouldn’t be considered relevant when determining, if same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. However, when looking at history and how the American Executive, Legislation, and Judicial branches were formed, one must realize the monarchy controlling our rights, regardless of religion and/or our personal ethical idealisms. Despite this fact, same-sex couples all over America feverishly seek to find resolution in a country that often sides with the religious infrastructure of the denominate world religion: Christianity. And because this is so, in most states, same-sex couples are denied the right to marry. Looking at this from a Christian perspective, one should first analyze how this religion gained control over the world in the first place. Secondly, one must also consider the realm of power this world religion has and who helps it maintain its power. If our laws were established by man, then so were our religions. And because man established the law and/or religion, those who oppose same-sex marriage often hold the economic influence of the purse and possesses the power to influence the voting outcome of most political debates on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Unfortunately, these debates continue to divide the American people and defy what this country is supposed to represent: Liberty and Freedom for all. Regardless of religious beliefs, the United States of America was formed without religion as its top priority. The United States of America was formed by non-religious founders, who imposed the Bill of Rights as a way of allotting the American people a life without restriction, especially a life without religious restrictions. However, today, America is slowly beginning to question how to move into the future, without infringing upon the religious rights of its citizens. Sadly, not all citizens agree with this idealism. Apparently, most of those who do oppose this idealism, are voluntarily joined with one religious group or another, that opposes same-sex marriage. But how can any religious follower use their religious beliefs to deny those who do not believe in any religion, their rights under the U.S. Constitution. After all, most religious doctrine was written and/or published by a group of men and/or women.


In fact, when examining some religious documents, such as the proposed replica of the Holy Bible King James Version (I say ‘proposed replica’ because the actual Holy Bible is under lock and key in a museum of sort), I learned a few Scriptures support liberty and freedom for all. Take for instance, Galatians 5 verse one teaches: “Stand fast therefore in liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage” (American Bible Society, 1982, p.953). However, in order to apply this to all Americans, every American would need to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Furthermore, when looking at various Sura’s within the proposed replica Holy Quran, and all other religious documents published today, by limited liability corporations, it’s difficult not to comprehend how often such documents have been altered to reflect the viewpoints of those who possess the most influence over the body of their religion and/or denominations, i.e. Christians, Hindus, Jews, and Muslims. Ideally, such persons’ holds the titles: Bible Committee members or religious committee members. These scholars have established a specific term to explain their concept of interpreting the Scripture. The term ‘hermeneutics’, is defined: the field of theological study that attempted to interpret Scripture.

 Ideally, this form of interpretation has been applied to the proposed replica Holy Bible King James Version, more than 2400 times, in more than 600 languages. And according to one ethical theory: Relativism, which holds the meaning “there are no objective moral truths, but that any moral evaluation is relative to someone, whether a single person or a larger group, such as one based on language, culture, gender, ethnicity, ideology, or another type of community” (Mosser, K. 2013, p.3); clearly, this ethical theory has been violated; mainly because, most religions teach ideology based upon one or a group of people’s morals and/or beliefs.  Of course, to some this seems unethical, but such changes to any religious document are legal under U.S. copyright publishing laws, which enables lay persons to duplicate and/or revise published works, whose copyright dates have expired. And since the proposed replica Holy Bible King James Version has been copy written longer than the publishing law allots a copyright holder to claim rights to a filed copyright document, legally, anyone or business has the legal right to republish a revised replica of the proposed Holy Bible King James Version, as he or she sees fit; and any other religious document that holds a legal copyright on file with the U.S. copyright office.

 Sadly, most religious followers who trust in religious documents and build their traditional thinking concepts around the philosophies enveloped within the page content of such doctrine, refuse to invest sincere time and/or effort evaluating the history of their religion and/or the doctrine itself. Take for instance, if Christians really investigated their doctrine, they would learn that one Scripture teaches: “But the natural man does not understand the things of God for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (American Bible Society, 1982, p.932). In another Scripture of the proposed replica Holy Bible King James Version, it instructs Christians: Owe no man anything, but to love one another: for he that loveth another has fulfilled the law (American Bible Society, 1982, p. 928). And lastly, II Peter 1 verses 20 and 21 of the same Christian doctrine conveys: “knowing this first that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost”( American Bible Society, 1982, p.994).

 Therefore, to further the discussion whether same-sex marriage is ethical in today’s society, and if heterosexuals have a right to deny LGBT people their U.S. Constitutional rights based on religious beliefs, I strongly believe additional research should be applied to both sides of the debate; simply because, the law enables people to have their religious right under the First Amendment. And since the law controls people’s religious rights under the First Amendment, the rights of all U.S. citizens seeking to marry as a same-sex couple should not be denied based on one religious groups beliefs or another. So in determining the outcome of this argument, I will utilize the following scholarly peer reviewed doctrine: The replica King James Version Holy Bible, published by the American Bible Society; the Handy Supreme Court Answer Book (a reference guide to Supreme Court historical laws); Ten Theories of Human Nature ( Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Plato, Aristotle, The Bible, Kant, Marx, Sartre, Darwinian Theories); Living Religions; The Spirit of the Law; Ethics and Social Responsibility, Cultural Anthropology, and Introduction to Psychology,  with hopes of conveying enough evidence to support and/or defined one ethical theory over another, regarding heterosexual traditions coming face-to-face with LGBT legality.

After all, within the paradigm of religious practice and/or political power, is a strict code of ethics that applies to the ethical theories: utilitarianism and relativism.   On one hand, when looking at utilitarianism, one can ascertain the comprehension of those who seek to instill laws, regulations, traditions, and policies that reflect a traditional concept of thinking. Believing that doing so is for the greater good of all. Then when looking at the ethical theory relativism, one also cannot evade the reality that imposing laws that restrict people from enjoying the same benefits as another, under the U.S. Constitution, is a blatant disregard for those individuals rights as American citizens. Surely, the ethical theory relativism argues that there is no objective moral truth; after all, mankind has lived on earth for thousands of years. To assume that those who lived a thousand years ago would embrace our present climate of social standards, would be a sign of ignorance. After all, not one human living today can forecast the world 100 years from now. Besides, the issues we face today solely derive from the lack of knowledge our ancestors’ possessed; even though, much of our history conveys our ancestors’ as brilliant beings. Conceptually, there is no direct correlation between then and now; the only correlation is the one our political leaders hold us accountable to. And because this is so, when heterosexuals come face-to-face with LGBT legalities, the outcome can seem unjust.



American Bible Society, (1982). King James Holy Bible, New Testament, American Bible Society, New York, NY. p. 857

Mosser, K., (2013). Ethical and Social Responsibility. Bridgepoint Education Inc. San Diego, CA. p. 16

Fisher, M. (2008). Living Religions. Pearson Education Ltd., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, p. 72

Fisher, M. (2008). Living Religions. Pearson Education Ltd., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, p. 235

American Bible Society, (1982). King James Holy Bible, New Testament, American Bible Society, New York, NY. p. 953

Mosser, K. (2013). Ethical and Social Responsibility. Bridgepoint Education Inc. San Diego, CA p. 3

American Bible Society, (1982). King James Holy Bible, New Testament, American Bible Society, New York, NY. p. 928

American Bible Society, (1982). King James Holy Bible, New Testament, American Bible Society, New York, NY. p.994