[PLUG-TALK] Defense of marriage...

[Michael M. Moore]

Michael Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 11:36 -0800, Michael M. Moore wrote:
>> Michael Robinson wrote:
>>> Separation of church and state 
>>> means that that which is of a religious nature, marriage for 
>>> example, should not be defined by secular government.
>> That, at least, is something we can agree on.  Marriage ought to be a 
>> purely religious function, not licensed or endorsed by the state.  Those 
>> who care about such things are free to marry in whatever church or 
>> religious organization to which they feel attached, including but not 
>> limited to Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, Unitarian, etc. churches, Jewish, 
>> Muslim, Buddhist temples, and so on.  There are plenty of Christian, 
>> Jewish, and other religious groups that will cater to all comers, 
>> without the bigotry and exclusionary behavior exhibited by other 
>> religious groups.
>>
> Marriage can not be religiously defined by one faith in a way that is
> a direct contradiction to how it is defined in another and still be 1
> thing that is universally recognizeable.  It is absurd to say that
> religions are all equal even if they are diametrically opposed.  At
> some point, the state has to accept a definition of marriage that
> fits with what the majority in the religious community can agree with.
> I can not agree with same sex sexual unions under any circumstances.
> I can not agree with calling same couples married.  I can not agree
> with calling purposefully childless couples married and I am not
> alone.
> 

That's exactly the point.  *You* don't have to call anyone "married" you 
don't want to.  It's immaterial to the state whether you or anyone else 
considers any Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc., ceremony valid; it is 
also immaterial to anyone who doesn't consider himself Christian, 
Jewish, Muslim, etc.

Marriage most certainly can be defined in ways that are in direct 
contradiction to each other in various religious groups.  For instance, 
[1] Title 15, Chapter 15-1 of Rhode Island law:

§ 15-1-4  Marriages of kindred allowed by Jewish religion. – The 
provisions of §§ 15-1-1 – 15-1-3 shall not extend to, or in any way 
affect, any marriage which shall be solemnized among the Jewish people, 
within the degrees of affinity or consanguinity allowed by their religion.

Most Jews no longer condone Uncle-Niece incest, but it was once seen as 
essential to fulfill Leviticus commandments.  See here:

http://dsadevil.blogspot.com/2007/05/incest-and-sinai.html

Note that Minnesota and Colorado also permit Uncle-Niece marriages for 
aboriginal cultures.  Most states bar these marriages, though a famous 
(and binding) court case in NY state (which does not permit Uncle-Niece 
marriages) held that one such marriage performed legally in Rhode Island 
was valid in New York.  There are also, of course, widely varying ages 
of consent in different states and among different religious sects.  I'm 
not aware of any major religion that forbids someone over 18 from 
marrying someone under 18, yet many states do unless certain conditions 
are met.  In West Virginia, for example, there is no specified minimum 
age for marriage with parental and judicial consent.  In Pennsylvania, 
someone under the age of 16 needs parental consent, but an orphan under 
14 needs a judge's approval (meaning, I guess, that a 15yo orphan can 
marry without needing anyone's permission).  Would a Catholic priest 
marry a 26yo man to a 13yo girl with appropriate parental and judicial 
consent?  Would a Baptist minister?  Historically, both have; whether 
they would today really depends upon where you're asking the question.

Most religious groups would not honor Uncle-Niece unions either, but 
that too is immaterial to anyone not a member of one of these religious 
groups.  The state does not have to accept or reject any one of these 
groups definition of "marriage"; the state has only to decide what 
civil-unions it will not recognize and demonstrate that it has sound 
reasoning for why it will not, in accordance with the human rights 
guaranteed in the Constitution.

Michael M.

[1] http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE15/15-1/15-1-4.HTM