Orthodoxy and the Federal Marriage Amendment.

[richardf8]

I am going to disclose here some thoughts I have had on why all Jews, regardless of affiliation or belief about the acceptability of homosexuality should oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment.

We must understand that what is driving the Federal Marriage Amendment is not a desire by the majority of its supporters to bring the US law into accord with halakha. It is, rather, a test case to see if it is possible to modify the Constitution to protect the sensibilities of a particular group of people. It is extremely important to understand that although, in this matter, those sensibilities coincide with the sensibilities of many of our communities, it will not always. What happens when the people driving the current amendment find their sensibilities offended by B'rit Mila or Sh'chita?

This is why Jews in America have always been strong advocates of separation of church and state – because while it should be the right of each religious community to establish the terms of relationship to G-d for its members, any imposition of such terms by the state constitutes a violation of the freedom of religious communities to do so. And if the sensibilities of a religious community other than our own is allowed to determine the laws of the state, we should not be surprised to find our own practices under fire where they offend those sensibilities.

It has happened many times before, and it would behoove us to defend a constitution that has long protected our own freedom to practice from rewriting by those who would turn their sensibilities into law.

Comments

[gordon92151.livejournal.com]

You are absolutely right on this; this amendment should be opposed by any person who wishes to worship as they please. I generally find members of evangelical religions of any stripe to be monumentally shortsighted about this sort of thing, though, and have no expectation that they will be able to see that this amendment, forbidding behavior they don't approve of, could ever be used to forbid something they do approve. After all, god wouldn't let that happen.

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

Well said.

[grassyneal.livejournal.com]

Most religions and most governments take the same view about stealing; do you think there could be some better-drawn line, where we look at the commonalities and say "well, yeah, a society can't run with this happening all the time - it doesn't take a religious text to come up with that", and the differences and say "while a religion may not feel they can allow this to happen within their community and still stay together, a nation can certainly allow this to go on, and celebrate its robustness"?

[richardf8]

The measure is direct harm to others. A gay relationship/marriage/whatever deprives no one of anything. Theft deprives the property owner of property. This is a false analogy.

But the truth is that neither of us can make a rational case for his opinion that the other will accept. We've tried persuading each other before, and it passed some time in the days when there was time to pass, but neither of us could effect a change in the other's beliefs around this.

[copperpoint.livejournal.com]

Rock on. I surfed over from your post in weirdjews.
I added you, by the way.

[zubbyhustle.livejournal.com]

Agreed 110%.

[(Anonymous)]

good news

I just found out it was defeated

even Arlen Spector voted against it
:)

[http://users.livejournal.com/_wastrel/]

Well said. I have no problem with other people merely having a version of morality which happens to be different from mine, I only become jittery when they begin to threaten to turn it into legislation. You haven't forgotten the lessons which have been taught to us by history, it seems.