"Marriage Equality"--A Blog by Rabbi Marc D. Angel
- Login or register to post comments
-
- Printer-friendly version
President Obama framed his endorsement of same-sex “marriage” as an advancement of civil rights and “marriage equality.” After all, why shouldn’t two people who love each other be allowed to marry?
Fyodor Dostoevski once wrote: “If there is no God, then everything is permissible.” Stated another way, if morality is entirely determined by human beings, then human beings can decide what they think is moral or immoral. God is not part of the equation. Thus, if humans decide that same sex “marriage” is moral, then that is their right. God has no say in the matter.
For those of us who believe that God’s will is reflected in the Torah and our religious tradition, morality is not in the sole province of human beings. There is a God, and not everything is permissible. Same sex “marriage” is prohibited.
While same sex “marriage” is not allowed in the Torah tradition, this does not justify discrimination against homosexual individuals. This does not justify negative stereotyping. Homosexuals are created in the “image of God,” as are all human beings; as such, they are entitled to the respect and kindness that should be shown to fellow human beings. Just as the Torah disallows homosexual unions, so the Torah disallows callous mistreatment of others.
For religious people, the issue of same sex “marriage” is not in the category of a battle for civil rights or “marriage equality.” It has far different and far greater implications. This issue goes to the core of our religious framework of life. Is morality to be determined solely by human beings, or does the word of God play an essential role in defining morality? If we believe that our moral foundations are established by the will of God, then morality is not subject to popular vote.
For those who advocate “marriage equality” for same sex couples, various questions arise. Does “marriage equality” also extend to incestuous relationships? Should polygamy be a matter of individual choice? Should a woman be allowed to marry multiple husbands? Once God is removed from decisions on morality, then everything should be permissible in the name of equality and civil rights. Why stop at same sex “marriages?” Why have marriages at all? Why not give “equal rights” and tax breaks to any two people who live together? Why require divorces to terminate marriages?
The Torah tradition views the marriage of man and woman as the fundamental human relationship upon which society is built and maintained. The marriage bond is sacred. The Torah and halakha have clear rules defining who may and who may not marry each other. These rules are not subject to popular opinion polls or votes; they do not hinge on political maneuverings. These rules reflect our trust that the will of God, as reflected in Torah and halakha, is a vital factor in the moral framework of our lives.
The real issue here is not “marriage equality”—but how the moral foundations of society are established. If decisions are entirely in the domain of human beings, then a civil society can make whatever rules it wants, without reference to any Divine authority. The problem with this approach is that it essentially undermines a Divine foundation for morality, and leads to a subjective human-made morality that ultimately has no clear boundaries. Once God is removed from the equation, everything is—or can be, or should be—permissible.
Religious people need to articulate a moral position that keeps God in the equation, that doesn’t see everything as permissible, or as a matter of popular opinion. This moral position should be articulated in a clear calm voice, not with fundamentalistic rantings or threats of Divine condemnation.
There are good, sincere people on both sides of the discussion. It is vital for all of us to focus not simply on “marriage equality” but on the ultimate foundations of our moral lives. Hopefully, most people will choose to keep God and biblical tradition as vital factors in the moral equation.
(Please visit youtube.com/jewishideasorg for my program on the topic of halakha and same sex marriage.)
- Login or register to post comments
-
- Printer-friendly version
In theory I agree with the principle that morality should not be seen as absolutely relative because then what kind of morality would exist? However, we also must be aware that morality is not absolutely absolute either. There is not simply black or white when it comes to morality but various shades of grey. The morality of the US now is different than it was 236 years ago. The morality of halakha is different now than it was 100 years ago, 500 years ago, 1500 years ago, etc. Morality does change, what is important is that we frame the morality in the halakhic world so that we are guided and not aimlessly wandering.
Same sex marriage is a civil matter. And the US is a nation which supposedly follows the rule of separation of church and state. Therefore religious law should have no bearing on civil decisions. What we have to ask ourselves is if the religious law is the standard by which morality issues forth, or if the law is influenced and guided by a morality which is subjective to a people, culture, place, and time. It would be difficult, I imagine, to find a Modern Orthodox Jew who looks at the idea that teaching a woman Torah is tiflut, or the role of women in ritual life, and draw similar moral conclusions.
We must always remember to be influenced and guided by halakha and our 3000 years of tradition. However, we must also remember to see the beautiful, multifaceted narratives behind the law and not simply assign clear cut, absolute moral imperatives.
But this may result from separation of 'church' and state, and no one has talked about leaving God out of the question, though it may immediately look that way to people who have a law-based faith tradition.
In response to dabookbinder, a traditional person can always run for public office and become part of the lawmaking body of the state or country, but in this country he would still have constituents to listen to.
In your second paragraph you cast this as a moral question, but I would suppose Obama was considering what is 'just.' There is no way he was talking about 'kiddushin'; more likely he had things like federal tax laws in mind. We may appreciate the separation of 'church and state,' but when it moves too far from our traditions it can make us uncomfortable, and then it is too easy to say that people are being immoral and so forth.
removed
Morality has evolved concurrently with human development. You may take the position that God guides that morality, but that's not the relevant question.
Marriage is both a religious and a secular institution and it too has evolved dramatically throughout human history. Gay marriage is just another in a long series of changes.
So rather than debate where morality comes from and whether it's God-guided, can you give any reason why you advocate denying the civic right of marriage to homosexuals? As a religious institution, you will not be forced to change your religious definition of marriage so what harm will come to you and your community?
As a gay man, I must assure you that the real issue here is indeed "marriage equality", one you try to avoid with a philosophical discussion about morals. Do you have anything better than "God. Therefore, no gay marriage"?