The Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment concerning Traditional and NonTraditional Marriages

Bismi Allahi Al Rahmani Al Raheemi

ASA WR WB to believing Muslim friends.

May the peace and blessings of Allah (swt) be upon Nabi Muhammad (epbuh)

I have one more reflection today. I mentioned this one before. It is worth another mention. Give me a minute to compose it here.

Our Government is largely comprised of 2 Parties. Democrats considered liberals and left, and Republicans considered conservative and right. Democrats are strongly for the common wealth and good to the people, and the will of the people. Republicans tend to be more for the working class, wealthy, conserving and focusing on the wealth of the nation...defense, etc. Democrats will sometimes be willing to court the votes of those with nontraditional values to obtain votes. While Republicans will stand with traditional values, and maintaining wealth. But, the people in need, sick, poor, elderly could end up throwaways.

So, our Constitution has a lot of laws. The 1st Amendment establishes freedom of religion. But there is a clause known as the Establishment Clause which basically says that Government will be neither for nor against religion. The Founders did not want one branch of religion to come into power and then persecute another branch, and back in them days it was largely denominational differences of the Church and possibly some Judaic. But, different branches of the Church would have been prone to persecuting another branch of the Church. In the case of Wallace v Jaffree was referenced another case called Lemon v Kurtzman and it is from this case that we get what is called, "The Lemon Test" regarding enacting legislation or laws about religion. I will quote:

"Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; Second, its principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; Finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion." page 43 of Wallace v Jaffree

So, the point here is that nontraditional sexual practices should be regarded as a religion. This is supported by an Ayah of Quranul Kareem when Allah (swt) says, "following after your own desires can be considered like your god and religion", "45:23. Then seest thou such a one as takes as his god his own vain desire? Allah has, knowing (him as such), left him astray, and sealed his hearing and his heart (and understanding), and put a cover on his sight. Who, then, will guide him after Allah (has withdrawn Guidance)? Will ye not then receive admonition?"

So, seeing nontraditional sexuality established as a religion, then our Government should make nontraditional sexualities subject to the Establishment Clause in which Government is neither for nor against religion. You don't want to create a climate of persecution but also do not want to put nontraditional sexualities on steroids. Basically send it back to "Don't ask. Don't tell."