Can you provide an example of a law that is motivated purely by religion? And can you explain how that differs from legislation/policy crafted based on how someone feels, or even data?
The point of the 10th ammendment was to allow people to self govern from the bottom up, realizing that not all solutions are universal because people have different preferences.
With regards specifically to abortion, abortion bans are not necessarily motivated by religion. Many people believe life begins at conception, regardless of religion.
> Can you provide an example of a law that is motivated purely by religion?
Certainly.
The Pledge of Allegiance. [1]
There's no non-religious basis for finding gay marriage objectionable. But it was not legal everywhere in the US until only 7 years ago. And appears to be in jeopardy again.
These are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
> There's no non-religious basis for finding gay marriage objectionable. But it was not legal everywhere in the US until only 7 years ago. And appears to be in jeopardy again.
Yes there is. You can easily argue that marriage is a cultural or legal system based on making it easier for families with children in a society. Giving them tax benefits, beaurocratic benefits (so one person can represent an entire family for example). Because whatever the fashion in 2022, societies need children to survive and want to incentivise it.
Now there might be edge cases in terms of children + gay couples in 2022, historically you can easily make a non religious case for marriage being between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreating.
> You can easily argue that marriage is a cultural or legal system based on making it easier for families with children in a society
And families headed by a non-hetero or non-couple can't raise children? What about other non-traditional family types? (E.g. a grandparent and a parent, two or three adult siblings raising their younger siblings without parents, a couple raising their nieces/nephews/godchildren, the family in Full House etc.) You gonna make those illegal too?
> for the purpose of procreating
If that were really the case, what about couples who can't have children due to age or infertility? Should their marriages be illegal too? Should hetero couples divorce the minute the woman hits menopause, if they don't already have kids? Are widows over 50 not allowed to remarry? Seems like a heartless society to me, and also contrary to "tradition" (whatever that means).
Maybe we can admit that marriage in today's society is also about love, companionship, and deep emotional bonds. Not just raising children.
> And families headed by a non-hetero or non-couple can't raise children? What about other non-traditional family types? (E.g. a grandparent and a parent, two or three adult siblings raising their younger siblings without parents, a couple raising their nieces/nephews/godchildren, the family in Full House etc.) You gonna make those illegal too?
There is raising children and there is the creation of children. The argument was that the government incentivized marriage because it led to both the creation of children as well as their raising in a stable home.
Non-traditional guardians (homos, grandparents, etc.) can obviously raise children, but they cannot make them.
That is likely how marriage ended up governed by the state. You are correct that it was rooted in religion, so thanks for the example.
Imo, marriage should not be regulated by the government. It is a derived of and should remain in religious institutions.
Instead, the government can come up with a private partnership, which would easily do everything marriage does without the underlying religious debate and exclusions.
> the government incentivized marriage because it led to both the creation of children
Except this part is false. Because, as I mentioned previously, not every hetero marriage could lead to creating children. There have never been any strong religious restrictions on old people, or people with known infertility getting married in Western society.
> the government can come up with a private partnership, which would easily do everything marriage does without the underlying religious debate and exclusions.
So...marriage? In US law at least, there aren't any religious components to marriage. No religious body needs to be involved to have a marriage be legally valid. You go down to city hall, get a marriage license, and you're done. There's no legal requirement that a religious institution that objects to a marriage, for any reason, has to perform that marriage. Can divorced Catholics remarry in a Catholic church now, without getting a dispensation?
Now if your objection is to the use of the word "marriage" to refer to partnerships that certain religions don't agree with...I don't really know what to say. That's everyday language at work. You can't stop people from using words the way they want. And it's not a real problem that the government should be involved in.
> E.g. a grandparent and a parent, two or three adult siblings raising their younger siblings without parents, a couple raising their nieces/nephews/godchildren, the family in Full House etc.
These can raise children obviously, and do it well. But it’s not called a marriage. Thanks for making my point for me.
Your point was a "marriage" is a requirement for raising children well. And a "marriage" is solely for procreation. I proved that both are false by providing countercases. You didn't even attempt to engage with the second point. And in fact you seem to be agreeing with me on my first point.
I don't think you understand how a debate works. This ain't YouTube, there's no partisan audience that will clap when you say "So then you agree with me" for something completely illogical. I can't help you any further and I wish you luck.
The point of the 10th ammendment was to allow people to self govern from the bottom up, realizing that not all solutions are universal because people have different preferences.
With regards specifically to abortion, abortion bans are not necessarily motivated by religion. Many people believe life begins at conception, regardless of religion.