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

[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. :>)