protecting marriage
Nov. 2nd, 2008 01:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioI'm late in adding my voice to this. California's Proposition 8, and similar efforts when they crop up in other states, destroys families. Its supporters like to argue in the abstract, but it has real effects on real people, and if you can't look the affected people in the eye and say "yes, I intend to attack you", maybe you ought to rethink your support.
I am married, religious, and heterosexual. I cannot see what recognizing other types of unions could possibly do to threaten my marriage. On the contrary, equal acknowledgement of all unions helps protect the institution; it makes it more likely that the folks in marriages actually want to be in them, rather than settling just to get legal protection (for, say, your kids).
What threatens marriage? Taking it lightly and not working with one's partner(s) to strengthen the family. The high rates of divorce and abuse demonstrate that we heterosexuals don't have a great track record on this. Why should I believe that my gay friends will do worse? I expect they'll do better, because when you're a minority, it takes a certain degree of commitment to your marriage to be willing to put yourself out there in the first place. I suspect there is a far, far lower proportion of casual marriages in the gay community than there is in mine.
You know what consittutional amendment I'd like to see? The abolition of marriage as a legal entity. The avenue of legal partnership -- for the sake of inheritance, custody, power of attorney, taxes, finances, etc -- should be available to any group of people who voluntarily and compently choose to enter into such an arrangement. The state should simply register them, as it does for business partnerships. Beyond that, it's not a state concern. This is not marriage; this is a civil union.
Marriage, on the other hand, is a religous matter. Different religions have different rules for what they will and won't accept. That's fine; all communities have rules that apply within that community. It is equally valid for Roman Catholics to say "no divorcees need apply", for Jews to say "no intermarriages here", and for Pastafarians to say "marriages must be trios of any two adults and a pasta product". Your community, your rules, and your own enforcement problem. Please leave the rest of us out of it.
If there is anyone out there who is at this late hour still able to turn dollars into efforts to defeat this proposition, please let me know. (The link I've seen expired before I saw it.)
I am married, religious, and heterosexual. I cannot see what recognizing other types of unions could possibly do to threaten my marriage. On the contrary, equal acknowledgement of all unions helps protect the institution; it makes it more likely that the folks in marriages actually want to be in them, rather than settling just to get legal protection (for, say, your kids).
What threatens marriage? Taking it lightly and not working with one's partner(s) to strengthen the family. The high rates of divorce and abuse demonstrate that we heterosexuals don't have a great track record on this. Why should I believe that my gay friends will do worse? I expect they'll do better, because when you're a minority, it takes a certain degree of commitment to your marriage to be willing to put yourself out there in the first place. I suspect there is a far, far lower proportion of casual marriages in the gay community than there is in mine.
You know what consittutional amendment I'd like to see? The abolition of marriage as a legal entity. The avenue of legal partnership -- for the sake of inheritance, custody, power of attorney, taxes, finances, etc -- should be available to any group of people who voluntarily and compently choose to enter into such an arrangement. The state should simply register them, as it does for business partnerships. Beyond that, it's not a state concern. This is not marriage; this is a civil union.
Marriage, on the other hand, is a religous matter. Different religions have different rules for what they will and won't accept. That's fine; all communities have rules that apply within that community. It is equally valid for Roman Catholics to say "no divorcees need apply", for Jews to say "no intermarriages here", and for Pastafarians to say "marriages must be trios of any two adults and a pasta product". Your community, your rules, and your own enforcement problem. Please leave the rest of us out of it.
If there is anyone out there who is at this late hour still able to turn dollars into efforts to defeat this proposition, please let me know. (The link I've seen expired before I saw it.)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-03 03:45 am (UTC)A major part of the Jewish marriage ceremony is the man giving the wedding ring to the woman and saying "Behold you are made separate to me with this ring according to the laws of Moshe and Israel"*. Since the Jewish laws of marriage only apply to Jews**, it doesn't make sense to declare that an intermarriage now exists as a marriage in accordance with the laws of Moshe and Israel. In addition, since the rights and obligations of a Jewish marriage only apply to Jews***, if one could have a Jewishly-legal intermarriage, the result would be a marriage where one person has rights and responsibilities and the other doesn't, which doesn't really make sense.
As for whether the local community would recognize a civil ceremony, that depends on the community and what you mean by recognition - calling a non-Jewish wife "Mrs. X"? inviting her with him to sabbath or holiday meals? inviting her with him to synagogue functions? letting her do something that one Jew usually does for a group of Jews so that the entire group fulfills their religious obligation? Personally I'd only have a problem with the last one on that list, but different people have different standards. In addition, as Cellio said, any children they had would not be considered Jewish and would likely be at least somewhat left out of the local children's community.
*Literal translation; you can probably find a more poetic/romantic one using google or any Jewish wedding website, but I'm too tired to go looking just now.
**As far as Judaism is concerned, non-Jews can get married in their own non-Jewish ways, but Judaism doesn't regulate that.
***Non-Jews could base their marriage rights and responsibilities on Jewish ones, but again, Judaism doesn't have laws regulating that.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-03 08:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-05 01:26 am (UTC)I'm sorry if it sounded like I was suggesting that. What I was trying to say is that there are things that can look to outsiders like "honors" but from an Orthodox Jewish point of view are actually legal obligations, so the status of the doer can matter from a legal point of view.
Example: lighting Shabbat candles. Suppose 20 friends get together on Friday night and decide that one person will light one set of Shabbat candles and make the blessing for all of them (since 20 sets of candles = potential indoor bonfire). Since only adult Jews have the obligation to light Shabbat candles, if a child or a non-Jew lit the candles and made the blessing they wouldn't be able to discharge the obligation for any adult Jews present, so it's not just a matter of who gets chosen to "do the honors". As for a non-Jew being present... there are probably Jews who would be uncomfortable with that, but I know plenty who haven't been and wouldn't be.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-05 02:20 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-05 11:14 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-06 01:11 am (UTC)