For many years, marriage has been socially defined and recognized solely between man and woman. It is the very foundation which healthy familial relationships are built upon. Now, same sex couples are seeking the same right to marry as heterosexual couples, but I am opposed to their wishes here’s why:
By permitting homosexual couples the right to marry under federal law it is a threat to First Amendment. How so? The first amendment grants Americans the ability to practice their religious beliefs freely. If your religion speaks against same sex unions, one should be allowed to practice the principles of that faith without legal implications. In the case of Cervelli v. Aloha Bed & Breakfast, a lesbian couple filed suit against the private establishment stating the owner denied them tenancy because they were gay. The arbiter over the case ruled in favor of the couple citing discrimination, never taking into consideration the owners First Amendment rights.
In regards to free exercise of religion the First Amendment reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” If the First Amendment states one is able to practice their religion freely, then the owner of Aloha Bed & Breakfast rights were encroached on. I believe the judge in the above case handed down a ruling which conflicts with federal law. This case forces us to examine how far the hand of protection is extended where the First Amendment is concerned. Does it exclusively protect the principles and institution of religion, or does it also cover the action of putting those principles into practice?
Cases such as Cervelli v. Aloha Bed & Breakfast and others like it will be used as a position to sue private business, organizations, or religious institutions who reject same sex couples by enforcing their First Amendment rights.
In a letter penned to the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson expressed his concern for government interfering with and individuals right to practice their religious beliefs stating: (1) “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
The constitution grants certain indelible rights to the people protecting their individual preferences. It’s injudicious for a government or any group to force a lifestyle or system of beliefs upon another that conflicts with their own. If the U.S. Supreme Court ever decides to validate same sex unions on a federal level, it will be the death of the First Amendment as we know it. Legalizing same sex marriages threatens the blue print our country was built on. It compromises rights of people who disagree with gay marriage, thus taking away certain religious freedoms and freedom of expression.
References
S E V E N 
Your argument is awful. You’re suggesting that everyone bend to the religious needs of the individual. Should everyone obey Shariah in the US? Should we all handle snakes so the snake handlers don’t feel left out? Marriage isn’t a religious institution for the Supreme Court to understand, it’s an economic union- the creation of a household.
According to Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage) Marriage is not an economic union, it’s “an intimate or close union.” There’s nothing economic about love and I think your argument is awful.
My argument does not suggest everyone bend to the religious needs of the individual; rather, it takes a look at the great gay debate from a different perspective. Part of the First Amendment purpose is to recognize every citizens’ right to practice a religion and their beliefs freely without government interference. When a case such as Cervelli v. Aloha Bed & Breakfast is brought forth to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the federal government is forced to intervene, one must take into account that it is a violation of the First Amendment. The federal government shouldn’t forgo the rights of the greater whole to satisfy a small group of individuals, especially, when it involves people’s right to practice their religious beliefs. If I like apples and you like oranges, it’s not fair for me to try and make the federal government make you eat apples. My point.
By your logic, the 13th amendment violates the 1st amendment as well since Christianity condones slavery.