Obama and marriage
Since its founding, one of our country’s most cherished ideals has been the separation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson, the author of our Declaration of Independence, wrote, “All men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”

This separation is important in many ways. It makes churches and other religious institutions stronger by their independence, it allows individuals to choose whether and how to practice religious faith and it provides that government officials do not have to pass religious tests in the course of their duties.

The separation of church and state is a hallmark of good, clean government policy, which improves the integrity of both institutions.

It may surprise many in our community then that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama disregards this crucial separation in the matter of marriage. As a United States senator from Illinois, Sen. Obama voted “no” on a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but, perhaps more importantly, he did nothing to advocate on behalf of the independence of American churches, synagogues and mosques and their congregations’ right to choose whether to validate unions between two consenting adult individuals.

Although Sen. Obama’s “no” vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment was right, he provided no solutions for the ongoing marriage debate. Like most politicians—Democrat and Republican alike—he sees the issues of marriage and rights as one and the same, even though one is clearly religious and the other civil.

Religious rites are fundamentally different than civil rights, and each should be independent of the other.

Churches are strong enough to make tough decisions for themselves and do not need guidance from the government in regard to their religious institutions and traditions. If marriage is fair game for government intervention, then perhaps the content of pastors’ sermons or potluck dinner menus can later be dictated by government officials in Washington, D.C.

The blessing of government is not necessary to preserve faith, community and family. In fact, as history has shown, it is harmful and destructive when the secular and sacred intermix. Jefferson and our Founding Fathers knew this well, which is why they made our federal government exclusively non-religious. In fact, it was not until the passage of the historically recent anti-interracial marriage laws that the state had any real say in who could marry whom.

Once marriage and civil rights are unpaired, questions of same-sex partners filing joint tax returns and having inheritance rights become simple matters of equality under the law, a much easier case to prove than arguing that gay marriage will not cause the downfall of civil society.

Our government should not be afraid of the choices of individual religious congregations. Politicians cannot legislate virtue nor should they be able to. Unfortunately, it appears that Sen. Obama sees a role for government in telling churches what they can and cannot do in the course of their members’ peaceful religious practices.

If Sen. Obama truly seeks to restore proper governance in our country, he should call for a serious examination of why government—at all levels—is involved in religious institutions such as marriage, and help to renew a clear separation of church and state.

Now that would be change I could believe in.

Richard Lorenc
Chicago

Respect Congress
If you’ve caught sight of any U.S. House or Senate campaigns in amongst the presidential coverage, I’ll wager that the candidates and press in those contests are barely talking about one of the most important issues we face this year: The role of Congress itself.
 
Certainly, the economy, Iraq and a long list of other issues deserve attention. Yet unless Congress reasserts its constitutional responsibility to be the president’s equal in policy-making, the progress voters yearn to see on all those issues will be much harder to come by.

Voters should look for candidates who respect the Congress. That’s because a robust, functional and assertive Congress is crucial to making our system work. It needs to be able to keep an eye on the executive branch and play the muscular role our founders envisioned for it in policy-making.



If you find a congressional candidate who understands that our constitutional system of separate and equal branches of government needs reviving, I hope you’ll give him or her serious consideration.



Former U.S. Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.)
Director, Center on Congress at Indiana University
Bloomington, Ind.