Marriage

[mamadeb]

Marriage in the USA is a civil matter, not a religious one. For reasons of tradition, we empower religious officicants to enact marriages, but those marriages do not exist legally unless a marriage license is also issued. (Any one with multiple spouses knows this. For that matter, I know of Orthodox Jewish couples who chose not to have marriage licences. They are married halachically, but the state doesn't recognize it.) We also empower secular officials (judges, justices, county clerks) to do the same. There is no set ceremony (the Jewish ceremony does not resemble any Christian ceremony, for example - no vows are made, no kisses are exchanged.)

Because of this, and because no state can possibly require a religion to perform a marriage against its own tenets, I really don't see how any church or set of beliefs should have any bearing on who should or should not get married other than under their own auspices. I've said this before - Judaism, for example, forbids a marriage between a man and his ex-wife's sister (or his wife's sister, for that matter) in his ex-wife's lifetime. (Jacob married his wives before the Torah was given.) No Orthodox rabbi would perform this marriage. However, such a couple is and should be perfectly permitted to marry civilly. No synagogue has lost any tax-exempt status or been fined because of this.

If LDS or Orthodox Judaism or Catholicism or whoever do not want to perform gay marriages, this is their right and their privilege, and it would be wrong to require them to do so. But that has nothing to do with equality before the law. The right and penalities of marriage should be available to all consenting parties - anything else denies the equality of all adult Americans.

Comments

[llennhoff.livejournal.com]

Tough questions.

Aren't Jews supposed to encourage gentiles to follow the 7 laws of Noah? And doesn't one of the 7 laws forbid homosexual relationships? Does this mean that Jews should oppose civil same sex marriages? Why or why not?

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

Very tough questions.

I'm not sure of the answers.

I can say this - the civil laws of the US are not Noachide laws and we can't make them be.

[llennhoff.livejournal.com]

Pragmatically, we can't hope to revise the first amendment to prohibit blasphemy, theft is already illegal, eating the limb torn off a live animal (if you hold by the rule that it only applies to mammals) is simply not practiced, and so on for most of the laws. Same sex marriage is different from these in that it is currently still an open question. The tide appears to be running strongly in favor of it, but for now expressing political opposition has a chance of working.

I support AFDC and universal health care because I believe the Torah mandates supports for the poor, the widow, and the orphan. Should I cease to be politically active on these issues because my motivation is religious?

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

Torah only mandates that for Jews, so that you expand that to non-Jews means that you're starting with religion and going beyond that.

[llennhoff.livejournal.com]

Maybe I'm only supporting it because Jews will be supported by it, and don't really care that gentiles will be as well.

More likely, you have a valid point. :>)

[llennhoff.livejournal.com]

Personal comments.

Before I was observant, I sent money to Hawaii to support the same sex marriage fight there. My heart completely supports the notion of same sex marriages. But my head says that halacha mandates that I oppose it. You don't seem to have this conflict, and I'm hoping to learn why.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

I would, in fact, be terribly unhappy if an Orthodox rabbi performed a same-sex marriage.

I just don't believe we can mandate Torah observance. That being the case, we need to do the greatest good for the greatest number - and we also need to curb the rightward drift of this nation (I hope that, in fact, has happened.)

And I also do believe that homosexuality is not a choice. (And that only one sex act is actually forbidden.)

[llennhoff.livejournal.com]

The fact that it is not a choice to my mind weakens the case for permitting it. If it was a choice, then perhaps conditions have changed since Matan Torah and it now makes sense to permit it. But if it isn't a choice and human nature hasn't changed then I don't see on what grounds we can alter the law.

[ataniell93.livejournal.com]

If only one sex act is actually forbidden why should marriage be forbidden? That's not all they do or can do.

[llennhoff.livejournal.com]

As far as male-male sexuality goes, the majority of people do the forbidden act, although a very significant minority don't. This provides some interesting halachic opportunites, but in the secular sphere you can't push for allowing gay marriage while forbidding the prohibitted act.

[ataniell93.livejournal.com]

Given that there are things men and women can do that they're not supposed to do, and yet we still let them get married, this seems to be rather spurious logic.

[llennhoff.livejournal.com]

I'm becoming somewhat more convinced that I can support same sex marriage, which was one of the points of this exercise.

Part of the problem I have is that both the C and O movements have adopted the secular approach of considering GLBT as one thing(*). In fact, based on the poskim G and T are much more forbidden than L and 1/2 of B. This is one litmus test I apply to see if people are approaching the issues from a halachic or emotional standpoint - if it is all one thing then I consider that emotions are influencing their pasaks.

Continuing the pragmatic approach, the whole world would think I was insane (not uncommon anyway) if I said "I favor lesbian marriage and oppose gay marriage." So that sort of thing is out.

To respond to your point above, the majority of gentiles who marry do not commit behaviors which violate the arayot. According to at least some statistics, the majority of males who marry other males do.


(*) Rabbi Dorf's C teshuva does draw some distinctions, and is heteronormative. I don't expect this to be applied in practice, and I expect it to be formally overturned within a decade.

[jonbaker.livejournal.com]

Actually, I'm more bothered not by the indirect argument of "this will encourage more people to do 'needle in a reed'", but the more direct argument of "you shall not do like they did in Egypt", which Rambam defines, following the Sifri (or some other midrash) as "men would marry men, women would marry women."

So while I feel they should be legal, I don't know if I should sign petitions for it or not.

[aethereal-girl.livejournal.com]

One of the seven laws forbids "giluy arayot," which is generally interpreted to include male homosexual sex as well as adultery and incest.

The seven laws don't have anything to say about homosexual marriage, as far as I know, simply because it's not seen as a halachic possibility.

So logically, Orthodox Jews should encourage homosexuals to marry. It'll mean a lot less homosexual sex. :)

[llennhoff.livejournal.com]

Your joke actually hits on the real issue, to my mind. Will allowing same sex marriages cause the number of violations of "giluy arayot" to increase or not?

My gut says it (secondarily after the rise in the acceptance of the idea of people committing homosexual acts) would. I think there are plenty of potentially bisexual people that never seriously considered getting involved with someone of their own gender. As homosexuality becomes a more and more legitimate lifestyle choice, more of these people will happen to fall in love with someone of their gender, and so the number of arayot will increase.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

I think that's possible, but there are advantages to mixed-sex marriages beyond social acceptance - the world is still geared more that and it's a lot easier to have children (well, supposedly.)

I think we're going to see marriage go through a lot of changes in the next few years, but I also think that opposite-sex monogamy will still stay in the vast majority.

[aethereal-girl.livejournal.com]

Actually, I tend to agree with you (although when we're talking about limiting people's freedoms, it would be nice to have hard data rather than just gut feelings.) Bisexuals and the murky origins of sexual preference aside, it seems to me that to the extent that the availability of marriage encourages homosexuals to think in terms of long-term, stable relationships, it would translate into more sex for them, not less. All joking aside, one tends to have more sex when one doesn't have to worry about where one's next partner is coming from; this much I believe is supported by scientific studies, although I can't put my hand on one at the moment.

On the other hand, a climate of intolerance of homosexuals, towards which a lack of available homosexual marriage may contribute, often leads to violence and even murder. Which are also forbidden by the seven laws. So that has to factor into your calculations as well.

[dreamalynn.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how marriage can increase the amount of sex that people are having overall. I think, from the attitudes that I've heard over the years from my gay friends and gay-leaning bi friends, that the fact that they weren't "settle down and get married' people (because they couldn't be) is what encouraged them to therefore embrace just the opposite tack and go for a very hedonistic and promiscuous lifestyle, well beyond the ages/phases of life when most heterosexuals have had enough of that and start thinking about family and kids and all of that.

It's hypothesis on my part, but it seems that if more gay/gay-leaning people have the idea that nuclear family life is an option, activities that run counter to those goals, like promiscuity, would decrease. That's based, admittedly, on the idea that most of us are wired to want to have a primary relationship, if not outright monogamy, and the "guarantee" of the support/acceptance/affection that goes along.

So an increase of sex within a sole relationship, perhaps. A decrease in number of sex partners overall? That would go hand in hand. Is that an arguable good? I don't know.

[ataniell93.livejournal.com]

Doesn't that depend upon whether you define "giluy arayot" as male homosexual sex or not? I mean, okay here goes:

I know a rabbi that is of the opinion it's male-male anal sex that's the forbidden act, not any of the other things two men might do if they were married.

I also know of rabbis (Greenberg, Trembling before G-d I think it is) who define the forbidden act as male-male rape, specifically because this was a pagan practise.

In either case, this doesn't necessarily mean, pardon my french, that oral sex would be a problem, or that lesbian sex of any kind is a problem. Now, there are certainly rabbis and authorities who believe that these things are violations of the Noachide laws, but I have always regarded this one of the seven laws as forbidding sex that is a violation of someone else's rights (adultery, incest, etc).

[kmelion.livejournal.com]

And what about the man's prohibition of 'wasting seed'?

[sethg]

One of the seven laws forbids "giluy arayot," which is generally interpreted to include male homosexual sex as well as adultery and incest.

Right, so perhaps Orthodox Jews who want to promote civil enforcement of the Noachide laws should start by campaigning to reintroduce criminal penalties for adultery. (According to Maimonides, adultery is a capital offense in Noachide law, right?)

As a liberal frummie, my emotions around this issue are complicated, and one of the complicating factors is disgust at Christian conservatives who seem eager to blame all the ills of the world on TEH GAY.

[llennhoff.livejournal.com]

As I stated above, criminalizing adultery and blasphemy are political non-starters. But for another decade or so we can, if we choose, assist in stopping gay marriage. The question is are we obligated to do so if we have the ability?

[sethg]

There's a book in the Orthodox Forum series called Tikkun Olam with various perspectives on how frum Jews should approach the political sphere. I highly recommend it.

[batyatoon]

I feel obligated to point out that outlawing same-sex marriage will have no effect whatsoever on couples having same-sex sex, which is what's actually prohibited by Noahide law.