Respecting Freedom of -- and from -- Religion

"But it won't end the fight over this divisive issue. Why? Because that fight is dominated, on both sides, by those who want not only their rights protected, but want all people to accept that they are right."

Canard. At least if you're trying to use it to say the pro-and-anti-equality people have the same motives.

The marriage equality side simply says that no one should be denied civil marriage.

The 'exemption' for churches from performing gay marriages is not a new protection, ..it's an *assurance,* ...for that matter, a *re-assurance* that clergy will not, are not and have never been required by the state to perform any marriage ceremony of which they don't approve, don't like, or can't work into their *miniature golf schedule.*

Any reason at all.

This, despite much noise, advertising, money, and deception from the Right, was never at issue, and never at risk, anywhere, period.

It's an assurance.

Marriage equality never said any different in the first place.

"By making gay marriage legal, the new law assures that those gay couples who want to marry will now have that choice recognized by the state. But for many gay marriage activists, this fight has never been about that. Or at least it has not only been about that. It has been about their demand that society embrace their choices."

So people keep saying about us. Please direct me to these people, so we can have a chat.

Or is that another canard?

" And that is why for some, including a dear friend of mine, this law, which affords clergy the right to decline performing such marriages without risking a law suit or jail, is nothing less than the legalization of homophobia. But they could not be more wrong."

As I said previously, Rabbi, how would *you* like it if a law was passed that said, "Well, OK, Jews can get married, but they *can't* make clergy perform Jewish weddings."

Well, *duh....*

But what does it *say?*

Yeah, it's insulting. It's probably not great precedent. Why does it single out gays?

In this particular case, watch me care. It's *sad* that the assurance is even *needed,* cause it's *moot,* but there's also real reason for concern and even suspicion.

"This law simply puts gay couples seeking a religious wedding on the same ground as all couples who turn to a particular spiritual community to sanctify their marriage."

Yep. With or without the 'assurance.' That's all equal rights ever did. Anywhere.

"Until about a thousand years ago, plural marriages were more than common, even among the Jewish and Christian ancestors..."

Rabbi Hirschfield, I stopped reading your article at the point quoted above. My reason is that you are factually incorrect. Can you refer to any primary documentation, or peer-juried secondary documentation, to support your entirely outlandish claim? Of course there are outlying data, but your claim is that plural marriage was "more than common," that is, not outlying, but part of the mainstream data. Can you cite documentation to support your assertion?

As far as I know, the latest polygamy or polyandry were practiced among Jews or Christians was in pre-exilic Judah, and then only among potentates and certainly not among the mainstream populace. That, coincidentally, is more than 2500 years ago.

Can you cite primary documentation or even scholarly assertions to the contrary?

Great article Rabbi. I'm very impressed. Thanks for writing it.

I mean, let's put it this way Rabbi, for the other side of this, if someone included in some law, some redundant language that said, 'Well, Jews can live here, but they can't force you to attend synagogue.'

How would that make you feel?

As I said, it's a good political move, in the context that people claim it was ever at issue, but I can see a lot of us feeling it sets a bad precedent.

"But for many gay marriage activists, this fight has never been about that. Or at least it has not only been about that. It has been about their demand that society embrace their choices."

I think this argument is overstated, ..I haven't met any of these nefarious 'gay activists' ...only heard preachers and homophobes *describe* people in that manner.

Society needs to accept our choices *as* *our* *choices.* Not particularly looking for or expecting hugs from homophobes, either.

" And that is why for some, including a dear friend of mine, this law, which affords clergy the right to decline performing such marriages without risking a law suit or jail, is nothing less than the legalization of homophobia. But they could not be more wrong."

In the context that there is no *need,* legally, for these singling-gay-people-out 'assurances,' (they're legally moot) it *is,* in a way, a legal recognition of homophobia. But it neither breaks my arm nor picks my pocket, so let's stop holding my life, and those of people I love, hostage to disinformation.

If it’s against my religion, or I am against it, then I am free to choose to not marry someone of the same sex. However, I do not have the right to forbid or prevent another person from marrying whomever they love. My rights end where another’s begins.

Six states have legalized gay marriage. It’s only a matter of time until everyone will be able to marry whomever they choose in whichever state they wish. When I got married I never had to ask “Which state can I get married in?” We will get past this, just like we got past the ban on interracial marriages, slavery and women voting.

No one person has more rights than another. Re: the "Nature" issue - Homosexual behavior has been observed throughout the animal kingdom. My marriage is not affected at all when two other people marry, and neither is anyone else's.

These words say it all, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.“