Sunday, November 16, 2008

«Gay Marriage and Non-Kosher Foods»

Gay marriage backers rally in Manhattan, other cities

If I were in one of these cities with the protests for gay marriage, I think I would go out and support them. It's not just gays that support gay rights. It's not just gays out there marching alongside them.

I don't fully understand those who oppose gay marriage. If you don't like the idea of marrying someone of the same sex then don't; but please, don't stop others. I've seen the argument (from Looney, in fact) that a government recognized gay union would be saying that God supports it. In Looney's exact words:

As Thomas Jefferson noted, our rights come from our Creator, which was understood. Thus, the California Supreme Court, by declaring this right to gay marriage, has effectively stated that God endorses gay marriage. The justices of the supreme court have made a purely religious statement and declared themselves to be God's spokesmen.

- Looney

The US government is not a theocracy. There's a phrase called "separation of church and state". It is traced to the letter written by Thomas Jefferson himself in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment in the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. That seems like enough for me to say that the government does not represent God or God's wishes. It also means these justices of the supreme court clearly do not have the jurisdiction to claim to be "God's spokesmen". They simply speak for the government, not for a religion.

Let me use a parallel religion-based example, in this case the right to eat non-kosher food. Kosher food is food that meets Jewish dietary laws. The consumption of any other food (called treif) is forbidden. So why does the FDA allow foods that are not kosher? After-all, if the Jewish God says not to eat it then why should anyone? It's against God! Yet the FDA (an agency of the US government) approves such foods! Oh, such an injustice! The US government has taken it upon themselves to be "God's spokesmen" in this issue already, by Looney's logic. What's that? Not everyone is Jewish, so not everyone has to follow their laws? The government is not God? Exactly.

Not everyone is Catholic or Christian. Not everyone has to follow their laws. The government shouldn't be forced to, either. There shouldn't be government laws against gay marriage any more than there should be against eating non-kosher foods. That's fine if you believe you shouldn't, it's your choice what you eat or who you marry. But don't force your beliefs on others.


  1. Thanks for posting that. My own thought is that the US constitution does not grant the right to justices to invent new constitutional rights. For "liberals", this process is a basic part of keeping the constitution relevant to today and is part of the living constitution concept. For "conservatives", it renders the language of the constitution utterly meaningless and puts the judges in the position of being God's spokesmen - as was done on Roe v. Wade. Eventually this will destroy America, but hopefully after I am gone.

  2. Regarding the Kosher analogy, you need a variation to make this similar: What if the government granted the supermarkets the right to market pork sausage as Kosher? Pork is much cheaper than beef. We could also require school teachers to teach that eating pork did not violate Halal rules - and compel Muslim children to eat pork in the school cafeterias. Certainly there would be riots!

  3. @ Looney: Not every right we have is specifically outlined in the constitution. I don't remember reading anything about the right to raise our own children or the right to breathe. It is only outlined in the constitution or laws if it becomes an issue. I wouldn't call that "inventing new rights".

    The legal definition of marriage mentions "A contract made in due form of law". It says noting about God or any other religious term. So no, it would not be like the government allowing pork to be called Kosher or teaching children that eating pork does not violate the rules of some religions.

    It's simply saying that it's OK by us that you eat pork, and it's your decision or your problem if it's against your religion and morals.


Thanks for taking the time to comment.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

»» «« »Home«