Today’s POV blog

In May, gay marriage was passed in Maine but was not enacted due to a petition drive from the conservative opposition. Today Maine has put the question to its public and by the time you read this blog, the fate of same-sex marriages will have been decided.

According to Yahoo, early returns show a close contest with those in favor at 53% and those opposed at 47%. If the end result supports this initiative, it would be the first time voters in any state have passed such a measure.

It is believed that a yes vote would drive a grassroots movement to support more ballot propositions across the US, despite the loss suffered in California last year when voters reacted to a court ruling allowing gay marriage.

Court rulings have also approved gay marriages in Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Connecticut. On the flip side, there have been 30 states that have enacted constitutional amendments that banned gay marriage.

In Washington voters are deciding whether or not to uphold or overturn a recently expanded domestic-partnership law that entitles same-sex couples to the same state-granted rights as heterosexual married couples.

In an article reported by FOXnew.com, a Michigan man has filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming his constitutional rights were violated when he was ordered to remove a Nativity (creche) scene from the median of a public road.

At Justia.us they report that this issue has twice been heard by the US Supreme court — with varying results.

In 1984, the Court found no violation of the establishment clause when a Nativity scene was displayed in a city’s Christmas display. Conversely in 1989, the inclusion of a creche in a holiday display was found to constitute a violation.

These cases were decided by determining whether the court majority believed that the overall effect of the display was to emphasize the religious nature of the symbols, or whether instead the emphasis was primarily secular.

The underlying issue is the interpretation of the establishment clause of the first amendment by typical American citizens. According to About.com, this clause has generally been interpreted in two ways:

1. To prohibit the establishment of a national religion by Congress. This is called the separationist or no-aid interpretation.
2. To prohibit the preference of one religion over another (or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose). This is called the accommodationist interpretation.

With the accommodationist intrerpretation, a challenge arises in that it does not prohibit the government’s entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the accompanying free-exercise clause. This clause is still being scoped by the Supreme Court so its definition is not yet clearly defined.

As cases come before the court, those cases help the justices to further define this clause. In one such ruling, the Supreme Court said, “Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation.” Of federal territorial laws, the Court said, “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices.”

Despite the first amendment right that guarantees our freedom of religion, do you believe that displaying Christian icons at government offices during Christmas should be allowed?