The recent US holiday always makes me think about this. The First Amendment, generally held to protect freedom of speech and expression, does something else, much more profound. For those of you who don’t have a reference handy:

Amendment I.

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.

It pains me how much people miss the first 5 words of the opening of the Amendment. Congress shall make no law. It does not say that Congress shall make no law about faith based healing initiatives or Congress shall make no law banning prayer in schools, it says no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. None. This is for laws promoting religious beliefs and laws preventing them. It goes both ways. This is the basis of a fundamental premise that sets the US apart from many other countries: the government is not involved in religion, in any way. In effect, we say to every person “come to our country and be free of the chains of state-sponsored religion.” The government is not to be involved in the religious lives of it’s citizens. They are free to practice and believe (or not) as they see fit. That does not mean the government should turn a blind eye to spousal or child abuse – the rights of all citizens means the rights of all citizens. As Oliver Wendell Holmes once said: “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.”

There are people in the US who think the protections provided by the First Amendment should apply to the Federal government only, and that the States themselves (or the counties, or the cities, …) should be able to regulate these matters. Mostly, they are referring to things like prayer in school, or the banning of abortion clinics on moral grounds. The sarcastic side of me is certain that they also believe the other amendments are similarly voidable or selectively enforceable by the State – including due process, the right to bear arms, and the right to a freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

I am also of the opinion that the government should not be involved in marriage, in any way. A marriage is a religious ceremony held between people who love each other. No one should have to register marital status in the public record, nor should we want the requirement to be there. It is not the purview of the government who is married, or how – as long as the civil liberties of all parties aren’t trampled on. What the government should be involved with, however, are civil unions – where any two (or more) people legally join to create a larger legal entity. The purpose and nature of the civil union is where the health benefits, the tax breaks, etc should be targeted. Massachusetts gets this – although they are arguing that it’s their right to decide.

And remember – the First Amendment is only the first express grant of rights and freedoms that the Framers made, after limiting the power of the government. There are other grants made, and the most telling was the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

When it comes to the Constitution I default to a literal interpretation – as much as I believe the freedom of religion is a cornerstone of our nation, I also believe that the right to bear arms and refuse soldiers quarter are rights that cannot be abridged, amended or rescinded, other than by following the process of amendment.