Whilst inability to procreate whilst young is a grounds for divorce, the loss of that ability through age is not. Even amongst Gerrer Hasidim (who have some strange sexual customs), one does not hear that Zeyde has thrown out Buppa because he wants more babies.

There still is a strong taboo against women having sex outside marriage whether they are fertile or not. If such women were denied marriage many would remain alone rather than cohabit than be considered as fornicators. It is for that reason that elderly widows and the infertile are given the right to marry. In former times when it was hard to women to live independently that taboo could lead to impoverishment if no man was prepared to support them.

There is no similar taboo regarding homosexuality. Whilst there may be same sex couples who would wish to have their commitment to one another blessed by Rebitzen Rebecca Kaplan blowing her shofar at City Hall, there are none for whom not doing so is taboo.

Blacks really rejected this argument. Oh, my, by a landslide. So you go do your work with the Blacks, convince them, and then you come back over to these white parts with your integration stick. Cause it don’t look too big right now.

Except that even a woman who had a hysterectomy can marry a man.

So can old people. So do you really need me to explain this to you?

Marriage, traditionally, was an institution for managing wealth and power, especially before the 18th century

In other words, marriage may be generally less compelling today. I agree. I’m single, and so are most of my friends. Sounds like a compelling reason not to expand the goverments role in this fading institution. So yes, exactly, David.

Neither was interracial marriage allowed. Or voting for women.

“If you go against the will of the people, if you overrule them through legal machinations, there will be a price to pay, and it may be very high. It was in 2004.”

Are you really trying to blame the 2004 elections on gay issues? That’s pretty pathetic and entirely unsupportable.

” The social advantages married couples obtain are for taking on the onerous commitment to procreate and raise children.”

Except that even a woman who had a hysterectomy can marry a man.

“I have never understood why the gay-marriage advocates act as if they have never heard of this whole, ‘marriage is connected to procreation” thing.’”

Oh, we hear it all the time, but it turns out that it’s mostly an invention of people against same-sex marriage. Procreation — or potential for it — has never been a condition for marriage in this country, nor has it been elsewhere. Marriage, traditionally, was an institution for managing wealth and power, especially before the 18th century:

http://www.psychologytoday.com.....00006.html

Very interesting thought. Not cool about SJP though; She’s a classy lady.

” The only “secular” justifications for prohibiting same-sex marriage tend to be from discredited studies founded by religious or conservative organizations.”

David, my objections to same-sex marriage has nothing to do with religous or conservative views or abhorrence of buggery.

I recently watched a documentary about the condition of an impoverished Tehran prostitute. This poor woman insisted that she was virtuous as she always took advantage of the concept of ‘temporary marriage’ available in Shia jurisprudence. To support her claim of virtue she produced a folder containing dozens of cheaply printed one page ‘marriage contracts’ signed by her clients and witnessed by her pimp bearing the stamp of the Ministry of Interior. These temporary marriages are clearly a sham designed to give some type of respectability to what is obviously prostitution. This marriage is intended to last as long as it takes a man to satisfy his lust. It is not intended to gives rise to a commitment to procreate or support the raising of children. This woman was just deluding herself that she was not a $10 whore.

Similar self delusion occur with those who undergo ‘sex change’ or ‘gender alignment’ procedures. The fact that a man may have his genitals mangled so that they has a passing resemblance to a vulva (or a Volvo if the surgeon was was confused by a Yiddish accent), has two silicon bags over his ribs and has his hair styled in a beehive does not make him a woman. He is just a man who bears a cosmetic likeness to Sarah Jessica Parker and those who think otherwise are deluding themselves. Such a man is just a ‘sham woman’.

Same sex marriage is similarly a sham in that it ignores the purpose of the commitments the parties to marriage take on and why society rewards the taking on of these commitments. The legal and social advantages married couples get are not a reward for engaging in heterosexual intercourse or giving each other spousal support. The social advantages married couples obtain are for taking on the onerous commitment to procreate and raise children. Heterosexual intercourse and as well as spousal support are just means to procreate and raise children. Same sex couples cannot procreate. It is not their fault and it is not even the Romans’ fault. The reason same sex couples should not be given the benefits of married heterosexual couples is that they do not deserve those rights as they cannot earn them by reason of biology. ‘Couplehood’ is not by itself worthy of reward.

Imagine three elderly couples, each couple sharing a house. A husband a wife, two homosexual men and two spinster sisters. On the death of the husband, the wife will be exempt for death duties. That exemption is not a reward for her satisfying her husband’s and her own sexual desires some decades earlier but for having or having been prepared to have children. You may argue that it would be unfair to impose death duties on the homosexual couple as it may force the sale of the house and eviction of the surviving partner but so does imposing death duties on the two spinster sisters (or an elderly parent who cared for his adult disabled child). Why should the fact that the two homosexual couples enjoy or enjoyed a sexual relationship with each other whilst the two sisters did not have any bearing on tax exemption. Why should the taxpayer have any interest in non procreational sex? DK is right to suggest that this caused the Democratic Party damage in 2004

Same sex marriage activists have an obvious agenda. To equate committed heterosexual and committed homosexual relationships in peoples minds. However, in reality these relationships are too different as the former has a major and important consequence the latter does not and can never have. It may upset them to be told so but that is reality.

Of course and notwithstanding that they are deluded, same sex activists have every right to argue that homosexual relationships are the equal of heterosexual relationships or that having sex (as opposed to procreating) deserves social recognition. I may regard their same sex wedding ceremonies as being as much of a sham as the Iranian whore’s ‘marriage contract’ or ‘gender reallignment’ but in a democracy, the state must not prevent these ceremonies. Recognizing these ceremonies as having legal effect is a different matter. These ‘weddings’ are as much a sham as the Kapparos ritual transfer of sins to chickens. I would not stop Kapparos but I would not want to see civil law recognizing the validity of this ritual and releasing all prisoners who have engaged in this ritual.

Now David, scroll back and enjoy the Monty Python scene I posted earlier whilst I will ask Rebitzen Rebecca Kaplan to blow her shofar so as to remind me of my need to do Kapparos for my sin of being rude to Sarah Jessica Parker.

David wrote,

There’s no way to know whether the next religious/civil battle will align so well with your views

Well, I don’t see a real status quo being changed here. Mostly, the U.S. has not allowed gay marriage for most of her history.

Additionally, from a strategic standpoint, my party is in power, and I kind of want to take the gay marriage thing away from the Republicans next election…I see this as a losing battle, in part because it is overly aggressive, and it is not something I see as critical to American, or frankly, Jewish interests.

We lost the 2004 election in part because of the gay issue. I like having the Dems in power. If you go against the will of the people, if you overrule them through legal machinations, there will be a price to pay, and it may be very high. It was in 2004.

I don’t personally think polygamy should be prohibited in civil law, though I think there are probably some decent non-religious reasons to have such a prohibition. In any case, it represents a much larger legal change to allow polygamy: all current law and regulation around marriage is premised on working with two people, and it doesn’t suddenly stop working if you have same-sex married couples. Much of marriage law answers the question, “What happens if something happens to one of the people?” It’s pretty easy to answer when there’s only one other person eligible to make the power-of-attorney decisions, take child custody, and (in the event of death or incapacitation) gain control of the partner’s benefits.

“Prop 8 in itself no more represents an enactment of religous prohibition in civil law then does the current non recognition of polygamous marriage in civil law. Neither does the fact that murder is prohibited by the sixth commandment evidence that its prohibition in civil law should be prohibited.”

I agree, but the difference is that there is no non-religious justification for Prop 8. It’s OK for civil law to conflict with religious practice, but there has to be a non-religious reason to do so. There are obvious, secular justifications for prohibiting murder. The only “secular” justifications for prohibiting same-sex marriage tend to be from discredited studies founded by religious or conservative organizations.

Individual congregations have a right to choose which marriages they wish to recognize but they do not have a right to impose a recognition by that state of that right. The Ottoman Empire millit system is not something which the USA should adopt.

David and d.s. you need to lighten up a bit. Making lighthearted fun of state officials is one of life’s few innocent pleasure. Think of the joy that Sarah Palin brought to the world.

Quite. I’ve been a reader for a while.

“I did not call anyone names. I simply made fun of an action by a public official. I don’t see that as ad hominem.”

Calling someone names is merely the most textbook case of ad hominem argumentation. In an attack on Jewish involvement in Prop 8, making fun of the behavior of a public official who happens to be against Prop 8 — even if such behavior somehow relates to Judaism — does not demonstrate a flaw in the idea of Jewish anti-Prop 8 involvement.

In other words, one poor choice for involving Judaisim in the Prop 8 controversy is not an argument against all forms of Jewish involvement in Prop 8.

But enough of arguing only your points. Let me give you some reasons why Prop 8 is something Jews specifically would not want:

(1) Prop 8 represents an enactment of religious prohibitions in civil law. Even if Prop 8 itself does not conflict with your personal Jewish values, the groups pushing for Prop 8 are primarily Christian and religiously conservative. There’s no way to know whether the next religious/civil battle will align so well with your views, but Prop 8 sets a precedent of allowing religious influence over the civil law — law that governs both out civil and religious lives.

(2) Many reconstructionist, conservative, and reform congregations do perform same-sex marriages. The state’s refusal to recognize these the same as male/female marriages infringes on the right of these invididual congregations to choose which marriages they wish to recognize.