GAYS DEFEND MARRIAGE

Pam’s House Blend user “Locke” brought up an excellent analogy to same-sex marriage. He thought he was supporting same-sex marriage when he wrote: “saying 18 is the age of adulthood would apply equally to all citizens, even though some religions say it happens earlier. We don’t throw out the idea of a civil age of adulthood just because religions don’t agree about what the age is, we let them have their ceremony but just ignore it, legally.”

But really, that provided me a great opportunity to explain why my support of man-woman marriage isn’t unconstitutional:

Great point, Locke!

I think your reference to 18 as the age of adulthood is a great analogy. Let’s say 18 was the age of bar mitzvah instead of 13, and the government was proposiing to change the legal age of adulthood to 21.

Would it be invalid for Jews to speak out, lobby, and vote to get Congress to keep the age of adulthood at 18, because in the Jewish tradition, that is the age of adulthood?

Would it be “imposing their religion on others” for Jews to oppose a “redefinition of adulthood”?

I don’t think it would. I think it would be fair for people of every religious persuasion to use their one vote, and their ability to blog and write letters to the editor and to lobby Congress, to support the age of adulthood they believe in. And secular people could use whatever secular ideas they have to push whatever age of adulthood they believe in. And our democratic system, with its one-person-one-vote principle, and its checks and balances, would determine whose definition of adulthood becomes law.

To say “everybody gets to push for his or her definition of adulthood except Jews” would be what is discriminatory and unconstitutional, not “the Jewish definition of adulthood wins because it got the most votes.”

Thanks, Locke. I may use this in an upcoming opinion piece.