I think it’s great that you openly admit that some supporters of same-sex marriage have a long-term plan to tax the property of and disallow deductions for donations to churches and religious schools that do not agree with same-sex marriage. Thank you for confirming that GayThink considers preference for man-woman marriage to be just as wrong as racial discrimination. Now we know that anyone who wants to allow everyone to practice their religious and moral beliefs without government sanction must vote for the California Marriage Protection Act, even if they have no objection to same-sex marriage per se.

“That governmental interest [protecting a suspect class] substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on petitioners’ exercise of their religious beliefs.”

It was 35 years from a CA Supreme Court ruling for interracial marriage (Perez v. Sharp 1948) until the US Supreme court revoked tax exempt status for institutions that discriminated against interracial marriage and dating.

Judge George granted Suspect Class protections for Sexual Orientation. I suspect by 2043 Churches (and certainly religious schools) will lose Tax Exempt Status. Donations couldn’t be deducted, and property would be taxed.

The equation implied by George is really quite simple to fill out:
KKK=Racial Discrimination=Orientation Discrimination=Catholic Chruch, Baptist Chruch, LDS.

I’m glad you think my comment about the Talmud helps your argument; I believe in stating the truth even when it hurts my argument - to his credit kind of like Mark Barton of this very blog. To be clear: the Talmud gives no evidence of knowing gay people, but it does acknowledge that presumably bisexual people could desire to enter a same-sex “marriage” - which it condemns.

Your question about sodomy laws is entirely fair, and looking back I don’t understand why I didn’t notice the hole in my argumentation. Thank you for giving me a chance to clear things up. If you or anyone else wants to propose a constitutional amendment overturning Lawrence v. Texas that is entirely consistent with halacha (Jewish law) on gay sex, I would take the text of that law to my posek (halachic decision-maker) and ask if I may, may not, must, or must not support that law. Then my position would be whatever he says.

Quite so. However it seems to me that the account in Exodus 2:11ff would easily qualify as murder under any usual definition. It certainly wasn’t self-defence.

‘To be clear: you think it’s problematic and maybe an unconstitutional endorsement of non-Mormon religion for a public school teacher to say that Joseph Smith was immoral because he had more than one wife. Right?’

Well, as I said, there are two issues: criticizing a person as opposed to a person’s actions and using language with religious overtones. The first is tacky but not constitutionally problematic. And the more I think about it, the less I think I’d make an issue of the religious overtones. It’s a tradeoff - “morality” does have religious overtones but on the other hand I think it’s important not to give tacit approval to the idea that religion has some sort of natural monopoly on morality.

‘Now, is it problematic and maybe an unconstitutional endorsement of non-traditional religion for a public school teacher to say that someone who treats lesbian marriages differently than male-female prejudice is exercising a form of bigotry similar to racism? Is it problematic and maybe an unconstitutional endorsement of non-traditional religion for a public school teacher to say that when children grow up, it’s just as good and right and proper for them to marry a man as it is to marry a woman?’

It could be, but only if the teacher in question is pushing the views of a specific non-traditional religion, e.g. the Metropolitan Community Church, without trying to make any sort of secular argument and without making clear that it’s his/her personal view and not necessarily endorsed by the government..

I did not ask for your consent. You as a person living such a conflicting life is what I find interesting; Your attempts at finding silly compromises to gay marriage or somehow debate with gay people an acceptance that their value is lesser due to some superstitions is of no interest to me at all.

I know I hit a chord with you, but you can’t confront it. I’ll be happy to skip this blog, I do have better things to do.

Dan

So let me get this clear:

You oppose same-sex marriage because it is forbidden by Jewish law (specifically, it is banned in the Talmud, though the reference makes a great counter-claim to those who say that same-sex marriage never existed before: thanks).

You do not oppose sodomy laws, even though gay sex is forbidden by Jewish law (that famous passage in Leviticus as a start).

You want there to be a legal ban on same-sex marriage because it is forbidden by Jewish law.

You want there to be no legal ban on gay sex despite that it is forbidden by Jewish law.

How can you claim that Jewish law is the controlling authority on the first issue when you say it is not in the second?

Or, down the road will you be telling us after a same-sex marriage ban, sodomy should be recriminalized?

Murder is a legal conclusion. Killing a physical description. I do not know for sure, but I vaguely remember learning that Moses never murdered anyone. He just killed someone. If you shoot someone in self-defense, for example, nobody thinks you’re a murderer. You are by definition a killer though.

To be clear: you think it’s problematic and maybe an unconstitutional endorsement of non-Mormon religion for a public school teacher to say that Joseph Smith was immoral because he had more than one wife. Right?

Now, is it problematic and maybe an unconstitutional endorsement of non-traditional religion for a public school teacher to say that someone who treats lesbian marriages differently than male-female prejudice is exercising a form of bigotry similar to racism? Is it problematic and maybe an unconstitutional endorsement of non-traditional religion for a public school teacher to say that when children grow up, it’s just as good and right and proper for them to marry a man as it is to marry a woman?

If the last example is not unconstitutional and problematic, do you believe that in the other 48 states it is completely legitimate for a public school to tell her students that when they grow up it is only good and right and proper for them to marry a member of the opposite sex?

If you answer my questions as I think you will, you’ve got some ’splainin to do.

Dan-

I’m not sure when the conversation turned from my ideas to my life, but I don’t remember you having asked my consent to speculate about such personal things about me publicly. If you have questions along the line you’re going down, or if anyone else does, feel free to E-mail me at DavidBenkof@aol.com.

You’re in a trap. Truth for you in what the Torah says and what Rabbis are telling you (based on previous Halacha rulings and the Talmud). Now your problem is that your self-identification is still as a gay man.

That conflict can only be resolved one of three ways:

1) Thinking for yourself (i.e. not let religious scholars do that for you). By the way, do you believe everything the Talmud says including the Talmud’s writing about the gentiles?

2) Changing who/what you are or identify as. You seem a lot more obsessed with your sexuality than I am.

3) Do nothing and just be angry. This options will render your current physical life miserable and your life after death a gamble that you chose the right religion and its proper interpretation.

What a conundrum!

That’s a different claim from what you started with, in two respects. First, you started out with talk of “good” and “bad”. The government declared polygamy “bad” by banning it. I don’t see a problem with that, and I don’t see why it can’t back up that message with language of the form, “Polygamy is bad because [secular reason].” However for better or worse, “immoral” has religious overtones, so indeed I think the government would be on dangerous ground using such language.

Second, you’ve changed the subject from practices to people. People are complicated creatures, often noble in some respects while despicable in others. Moses’ first recorded act is murdering an Egyptian. Jefferson ended the slave trade but kept slaves. I’d hesitate to judge people like that, and I expect most people would, but any discomfort we might have with that is irrelevant to the question of whether Smith’s actions were good or bad.

I think we’re more in agreement than we think. It is wrong for a public school teacher to say that a polygamist was immoral, and it is wrong for a teacher to say that a gay man was immoral for having gay sex.

Would you agree that it is wrong for a public school teacher to say that favoring male-female marriage over same-sex marriage is a form of bigotry that is as wrong as racism?

If so, we should explore ways to structure same-sex marriage laws (in case you win this debate) in a way that allows people like me full religious freedom.