I am a writer and a Mommy. I am a devout Jew. These are the most important books I have read: The Tao te Ching by Lao Tzu, Stephen Mitchell translation. Spiritual Divorce by Debbie Ford. Living Inspired by Akiva Tatz. My kitchen would suggest I'm a closet carny, as would my love of Branson.

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

We Hold These Truths to be Self-Evident

If you look at the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America you will see, without a doubt that our government should not be able to say who can get married in terms of whether it's two men or two men plus one woman.

Interestingly, it is only if you have no particular religious beliefs that it might be all right for the government to interfere with who you are marrying because the first Amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. So, if your religion allows you and maybe even encourages you to marry - whatever that means in your religion - then Congress has no right to make laws about it. But if you don't have any religion, then whatever marriage means to you can certainly be controlled by Congress. Do you get it?

No one can argue this. It is in the U.S. Constitution. Yet, before we deal with marriage between two women, we need to do deal with the fact that men are supposed to be able to have multiple wives. That is in the bible and in many cultures and religions and Congress should not be able to have passed any laws against this.

We all agree that protecting our children supersedes religious doctrine, and in some states marrying your first cousin is also not allowed (although it is in Missouri) - but how can plural marriage be illegal?

What's more important than the separation of Church and State - which so many DAMN Republicans just do not f-ing understand - is the separation of sex and religion.

Because when we talk about plural marriage (which no one but me is talking about), and when we talk about same private-parts marriage, what we are really talking about is sex.

There is nothing in the constitution that says Congress can't pass laws that discriminate against sexual practices. And the laws exist in abundance.

Yet, we all love to turn to our religions to tell us what kind of sexual practices are ok and which ones are not. The laws have been repealed, one by one....

The bible, however is clear on this one too. The problem is that I'm not so clear. Clarity would be nice but I don't look to the bible for clarity on anything so where should I look?

The Tao doesn't talk about sex much. It does say:

All things have their backs to the female
and stand facing the male.
When male and female combine,
all things achieve harmony.

I think this sounds like some kind of threesome but I'm not sure.

1 comment:

anxiousdog said...

In the Bible plural marriages were designed to do many things including giving the husbands more children. The wives were often used as slaves and not real wives. They had no rights and and could be divorced leaving them with nothing. (They didn't get to take the kids, the house, and some of his pay check)

Of course times have changed giving women far more rights and we're not really having all those kids just to increase our Nation like Abram and Jacob did. :)

I don't know the Tao as well as the Bible (which I'm sure you know), but it's my understanding that the passage you quoted refers to the world often over looking women and how they are needed to complete the circle. It also can be interpreted as only a man and a woman can have sexual harmony.

I feel like you're about three weeks late to the Prop 8 party... What triggered this?