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

[sen-ichi-rei.livejournal.com]

Well said!

[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?

[jacquez.livejournal.com]

You ought to see the look on people's faces when they start declaring to me about the sacredness of marriage and I ask them well then, what about my marriage?

The idea that atheists get married apparently has never occurred to some people. Or the idea that atheists have different ideas about sacredness. Or that if they're essentially blithering on about civil marriages infringing on the rights of their particular church, they are actually talking about all civil marriages, including heterosexual ones.

A lot of people are genuinely unable, I think, to separate out religious and civil marriage -- and so the idea of civil marriage being different from religious marriage and thus subject to different rules completely flummoxes them.

[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.

[amireal.livejournal.com]

Sometimes I wonder if people think "they were married in a civil ceremony" means no one started a food fight.

[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.

Ask them this:

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

If marriage is a "sacred institution" in the US, why are civil licenses required?

[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?

[kattahj.livejournal.com]

LOL! Drat, now I want to get married in an uncivil ceremony.

[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. :>)

[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.)

[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]

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.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

That'll probably be why so many of those who oppose same-sex marriages are (at least as far as I'm aware) basing their opposition on the pretext that it threatens "the institution of marriage" (whatever that may be) and not on overtly religious grounds.

[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.

[author376.livejournal.com]

THANK YOU!!! I just got out of a half hour argument with the Class Nazi (forbids abortion but she ADVOCATES mass sterilization) about several thing, and seeing someone who can seperate logical thought and beliefs really makes my day! Thank you again :)

[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.

[soldiergrrrl.livejournal.com]

The "threatening" part is what I don't get. My marriage isn't threatened by anyone *else's* marriage, no matter who it is.

An atheist couple? Okay. Whatever. A Hindu couple? Go for it, y'all. A Jewish couple? Many years to you both! A gay couple! Great! Good luck and where are you registered again?

I'm probably more threatened by the nasty cranky bitchy straight marriages I'm surrounded by. Listening to people complain about their spouses constantly is probably worse for the marriage rate in this country than every gay couple in existence getting hitched.

Gah. Civil ceremonies for all, and get your priest to bless it if you need to. That's what we did and we haven't gone down in flames.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

They also bring up religious reasons.

At least, they do here.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

Your classmate sounds lovely.

I have my religious beliefs. I just don't think they need to be everyone's.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

Gah. Civil ceremonies for all, and get your priest to bless it if you need to. That's what we did and we haven't gone down in flames.

Technically speaking, that's what everyone does. The religious ceremony is civilly meaningless except insofar as it creates the legal bond.

[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.

[author376.livejournal.com]

Exactly :) I'm pagan, I don't believe in monotheistic religions. I don't, however, tell people not to go to temple, church, or wherever they choose to go. There is a reason why this is called a Free country, and it isn't because any single group is free to decide what everyone else can and can't do. If we're going to coexist we have to remain reasonable and keep out of everyone else's business to a certain point.

[soldiergrrrl.livejournal.com]

Okay, most of the weddings I've been to have had the license at the site, be it a church or a rented house or whatever, and the officiant signs the license and you drop that off with the county clerk to have it recorded. So, if it's in a church, the minister is the one who is legally signing the document to show that he married the couple.

Basically what I'm saying is that everyone should have to hie themselves to the local JOP and get married there, then hie themselves to the religious institution of their choice to have the marriage blessed, should they so desire. And that's the only way it should be allowed. No one other than a JOP can sign that license. No priests, no ministers, no one who got a piece of paper from the Universal Life Church, no one.

If no religious ceremony is desired, then they're still just as married as the folx who had the priest/minister/rabbi/whoever perform a ceremony.

Granted, I could be totally backwards, but my first marriage in California, Shadowren signed the marriage license and we dropped it off at the county clerk's office. My second marriage, we went to the courthouse, the JP did his thing and we got the marriage blessed in the church a bit over a year later. Like I said, I could be totally backwards. If so, my apolgoies.