Constitutionality, Faith, and LGBT Rights.

As we find in the beginning of Sarah Gordon's "Covenants of Love" in the Spirit of the Law: if the letter of the law dictates a result, technicality rather than spirit rules. This is itself Biblical in origin: “for the written law (letter) condemns to death (kills), but the Spirit gives life.” from  II Corinthians Chapter 3 Verse 6. The Spirit is the driving force for many and the law is just the result of its power, not the source of said power. To those committed to secular law, those motivated by spiritual rather than secular legal concerns are often pushed into the category of lay actors, drawing on non-legal experience and sovereign loyalties that lie outside of the state. With this argument, I could see it just becoming an attack on the personal beliefs of certain people. Oh wait! That already happens to groups pro- and anti-LGBT rights. Along these and similar lines, there has always been tension between spirit-filled and the law-bound in American History since the Revolution. The Constitution does, however, protect and honor those who live by the spirit. Although, it is hard to tell where religion ends and the secular begins. When it comes right down to it, Religion makes a difference not only in the personal lives of people, but also in the law and society where faith finds expression. Rabbi Devon Lerner, a Jewish liturgical member who litigated and lobbied for same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, was a member of a group of progressive religious denominations. She found that the separation of church and state was not a solid, real argument. Religion clauses in the Constitution are often used as a protection for some people/stands/groups, but they don't provide a defense for all arguments that highlight it as supporting their respective faction. It was impressive personally, after a little background research, to find that Rabbi Lerner came into the field of constitutional law through her religious commitments. That is, not on a secular/political route! I am curious; however, what the group she was involved with was called. As far as I could read, they were never mentioned by name; is there a reason for this? Also, whenever reading you must pay attention to laws to the same depth as you would religion. The old world is going, although things first changed when religion clauses and the Constitution were first put into effect. It's pretty simple that the new world is to be created by believers and religious practitioners. The letter of the law now protects spiritual concepts in a regime dedicated to religious liberty. Disestablishment was a big issue for a lot of early American History, post American Revolution, however battlefields change. The Salvation Army was quite a creative force for the agenda they were pushing: they are an example of the stubborn vitality of popular constitutionalism. Salvation Army Lieutenant Lizzie Franks was another big player, specifically in the Salvation Army’s pushes. Finally, the areas of life where believers were supposed to be in need of protection included sexuality, patriotism, parenthood, education, identity, etc. which may illustrate some points of conflict that we find today.