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

[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.