Bearing witness to the heated hearings preceding the state senate's eventual passage of a proposed amendment banning gay marriage, it is more apparent than ever that religion reigns supreme in the Bible-thumping haven that has become Wisconsin's Legislature. Despite biblical justifications condemning gay marriage having little place in secular political discourse, fundamentalist interpretations of scripture continue to form the impetus behind porous arguments for outlawing homosexual matrimony. Conservatives claim that the "sanctity" of marriage must be preserved, even though the idea of something being "sacred" is purely a spiritual, not secular, assessment. Let's face it — every argument made supporting a gay marriage ban inevitably stems from religious indoctrination.

According to the First Amendment, using one set of religious scripture as a stimulus for a specific policy is an unconstitutional endorsement of that particular religion. However, demands that we adhere to biblical ethics in policymaking insist that we look at what, exactly, the Bible has to say about marriage.

Those using Holy Scripture to define marriage as a strict monogamous commitment between one male and one female based on eternal love and devotion are, in reality, hard pressed to find explicit biblical verses that completely support such a notion. The Bible mentions at least 15 polygamists, and in Genesis, we see that men possessing concubines in addition to their wives was a common and acceptable practice — Solomon himself had over 300. This is quite ironic, considering the alarmist claim that gay marriage could pave a slippery slope for the eventual legality of polygamist practices. Marriage was apparently considered so sacred in biblical times that it was used to punish rapists — who were "forced" to wed their victims. Unions were made at the behest of the father, not the daughter's love, and re-marriage, divorce, and inter-faith marriages are all deemed unacceptable. Adultery — not homosexuality — is presented as the most significant threat to matrimony, punishable upon death and even cited — unlike gays or gay marriage — in the Ten Commandments. Yet I don't see anyone pushing for fidelity laws.

Indeed, the idea of marriage in the Bible is drastically different from how we think of it today. Two thousand years of history has resulted in changing the definitions of marriage based on evolving societal and cultural norms. This is not a unique transformation. Many biblical teachings are now deemed immoral and illegal, including slavery and female subordination, which are persistently practiced in the Christian creed.

In the end, biblical quotes we hear in the gay marriage debate mainly condemn the "sinful" nature of homosexuality and say nothing about gay marriage. But the issue is not the legality of being gay. Ban proponents' homophobic rhetoric reveals that this is a dispute over a lifestyle, not an institution. The amendment is a façade whose underlying objectives rest in establishing an aura of inferiority among the homosexual population. If it were really about matrimony, then the amendment would attempt to preserve social and legal equality through the recognition of state sponsored civil unions. Instead, the ban effectively deprives homosexuals of the more tangible benefits of marriage — such as domestic partnership and shared health insurance benefits, hospital visitation and inheritance rights. This is a clear breach of civil rights that we all, regardless of personal stances on homosexuality, should take issue with.

There is a much more obvious, mutually satisfying solution to the gay marriage controversy: divide the spiritual and secular domains by establishing civil unions as the only state recognized institution, leaving marriages to be acknowledged by the church. Allow religious precepts to determine who is worthy of enjoying the "sacred" institution of marriage that is now characterized by sleazy quick-hitch nuptials in Las Vegas, rampant cases of adultery and a 50 percent divorce rate. Then all couples would enjoy the legal advantages of unions and marriage would be preserved as a religious institution. Just as spiritual indoctrination should not inspire legislative discrimination in a secular state, a secular state should not compel that religions forcibly conduct marriages against their principles.

Unfortunately, the rise of the fanatical right will continue to blend politics and religion, stimulating the influx of propaganda of neoconservative politicians who use their legislative privileges to impose their views of Judeo-Christian ethics on the masses. So before the biggest piece of conservative propaganda — the gay marriage ban — becomes a statewide referendum on the fall ballot, let's see it for what it is: a clear manipulation of the state's political and legal paradigms that establishes homosexuals as social outcasts. The main justifying force behind the ban may be inconsistent in its portrayal of monogamous matrimony, but then again, it is not the job of the government to adhere to Christian testament. After all, the Bible may be the Good Book, but in a secular society trumpeting diverse religions and belief systems, it's not the only book.

Adam Lichtenheld ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political science and African studies.