|
|

Advertisement
November 12, 2008 | 10:42 am
Posted by Brad A. Greenberg
| Tweet |
Jewish Journal editor Jonathan Swift—er, Rob Eshman—tries his hand at satire with this week’s column and reports that, fresh on the heels of Californians passing a gay marriage ban, the ballot measures strongest supporters—blacks and Mormons—are looking toward prohibiting Jews from marrying each other.
The authors of the anti-Jewish marriage initiative say when leaders believe they have Scripture on their side, they can get their followers to fix any flaws in any constitution.
“People choose to remain gay, and people choose to remain Jewish,” said an organizer. “Why should the majority of us be forced to honor that choice?”
The Jewish prohibition against intermarriage is commonly attributed to a biblical passage, Deuteronomy 7:3: “Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.”
But one church leader said they have an entirely different interpretation of this passage.
“It only applies to Hitties and Amorites,” he said, “and I don’t see a lot of them around.”
By his calculation, the Torah only prohibits intermarriage if the children that result from such a union are turned away from their Jewish faith.
“Moses married Tziporra, who was the daughter of a Midianite priest,” said the preacher. “Ruth, the great-grandmother of King David, was a convert. Queen Esther, who saved the Jews from Haman in the Purim story, was married to the Persian, non-Jewish King Ahashverus.”
“Don’t tell me the Bible doesn’t understand intermarriage.”
Asked whether he wasn’t simply asking voters to impose their interpretation of the Bible on a minority group, one black church leader countered, “Well, what do you think we did with Proposition 8?”
Read the rest here. If you recall, L.A. Jews overwhelmingly voted against Prop. 8.
5.25.12 at 4:02 pm | Judge Wilken held that the Defense of Marriage. . .
5.24.12 at 9:49 pm | Though Maryland does not recognize same-sex. . .

5.24.12 at 2:43 pm | Maybe the most racist job posting you've ever. . .

5.23.12 at 7:19 pm | The former MLB star is pushing 40 but isn't done. . .
5.22.12 at 10:28 am | Christianity Today reports that .... . .
5.21.12 at 9:03 pm | Harold Camping had predicted that .... . .

11.26.11 at 12:14 pm | A new book of essays provides .... . . (1188)

5.24.12 at 2:43 pm | Maybe the most racist job posting you've ever. . . (216)

12.13.11 at 12:24 pm | What was really behind Matisyahu shaving his. . . (155)


We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.
Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.
JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.
judaism christianity israel politics media islam los angeles barack obama entertainment anti-semitism america sports american jews evangelicals crime the law satire president 08 president 08 god personal john mccain holocaust sexuality war catholicism holidays jesus books europe atheism sarah palin academia science bible death middle east california music iran
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
God's Blog
God for President
Book Bits
Caption Contest
Jewish genius
Strange science
Who is a Jew?
World of Worship
Blogs
Bloggish-mobile
Foodaism-mobile
Hollywood Jew-mobile
Jews and Mormons-mobile
Keeping it Real-mobile
Keeping the Faith-mobile
Morethodoxy-mobile
Nice Jewish Doctor-mobile
Rosners Domain-mobile
Tattletales-mobile
The God Blog-mobile
The Ticket-moblie
Leisure-mobile
Multimedia-iPad
Photos-iPad
Videos-iPad
Passover Reader
| |||||||||
It is funny and clever, but on the basis that it is making a serious point I will play it straight, you should excuse the expression.
Proposition 8 did not ban gay marriages. It only made the sense of existing marriage legislation explicit. It would be accurate to say that defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman bans bestiality but does not ban incest, but that would be a digression. In fact, gays may marry each other any day of the week; print invitations and certificates, hold ceremonies, throw bouquets and rice, buy anniversary cards etc. They merely cannot get 52.3% of the population whose opinion they don’t care about anyway to take it seriously, and would have to write their contractual obligations privately. Big deal. I’m sure that LegalZoom is up to the task.
If Jewish marriage or kosher slaughter and ritual circumcision were banned or externally regulated, Jews could work with it or against it to the point of civil disobediance if necessary. Happens all the time, historically speaking. If we had to hold our breath to get the laws the way we like them, we’d all be blue and dead long ago.
Furthermore, Proposition 8 serves to implement Article 16 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, practically the founding document of the United Nations and celebrating its 60th anniversary on December 10, 2008 (Human Rights Day)
I wouldn’t count on the Declaration being amended anytime soon. Wouldn’t want any riots in Indonesia or anything, would we?
Actually, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says “men and women of full age… shall have the right to marry without any limitation” it does not say “A man and A woman have the right to marry” or as prop 8 suggests, “A marriage is only valid between a man and a woman.” The intent of the language in not to limit marriage except to humans of legal age (men and women of full age). I believe this has already been interpreted thus by international courts. You forget that Europe and other countries are far more progressive than the US and many have legalized gay marriages for years.
I don’t doubt that Europe and other countries have implemented a more liberal interpretation of this than the language warrents. By the way, are you one of those who made fun of Sarah Palin for supposedly saying that Africa was a country instead of a continent?
Anyway, I considered your interpretation for a moment, but I dropped the idea by realizing that if the intent was to include all of the permutations of the right to marry it would have simply stated ‘People’ rather than ‘Men and Women’. Furthermore, if two men or two women were to marry, what would be the meaning of “They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution”? Are we afraid of, let’s say ‘Sonny’ insisting on more rights than, oh, call him ‘Fredo’?
One hears much whining about the passage of Prop 8, and how it is an attack on freedom.A reality today is that a program is afoot to rid Western Civilization of all Judeo-Christian morality, and in its place install a “new” morality. The “new” morality is the morality devised by our new masters. Thomas Sowell calls our masters, “The anointed.” Typically the anointed are lawyers, professors, judges, politicians, and powerful political appointees. The attempt to destroy Prop 8 is really an attack by the anointed on 1. the family and 2. religion, and 3.the 10 Commandments. Morality based on The Commandments is to be replaced by the morality of FDR, Russell, Mead, Freud, Rorty, Kinsey, and Weber.
The following is a section taken from ‘Bye-Bye Sweet Liberty,’ a new on-line book.
“Family, we were told back in the 50s, was no longer relevant. This was an archaic idea that had to be discarded. We (students in sociology classes) were not told how they arrived at this grand theory nor whether it had been tested and proven, but the grand-wizard-of- sociology had said it was true, so the sociologists all went out and spread the message. We were not told that other societies, going back to the start of recorded time, had tested this hypothesis and had reaped negative results each time. We were not told that Mssrs. A. Hitler and J. Stalin pushed this same concept with the full power of the state behind them. Both of these very powerful gentlemen had to give up too. Even various Israeli kibbutzes were set up in a way that the children were to be raised by the kibbutz (It takes a village to raise a child.) and not by their parents. The kibbutz has almost wholly been abandoned.
Currently we are being told that family is important, but that there is more than one way of defining a family. (Here we go again.)
When a theory of true science fails, it makes the front page of every newspaper in the world. Remember cold fusion?(Cold fusion was a hoax originated at the University of Utah in the late 1980s. It stated that energy as generated by the sun could be generated here on earth, at room temperature in simple, cheap equipment. The perpetrators, Fleishmann and Pons were physicists and professors at the university. In the way of true science, their claims were tested and found impossible to duplicate. They were quickly denounced (as they deserved to be), and for all I know, Mssrs F & P are now occupied as chefs in the French Foreign Legion. Such denouncements are totally unheard of in the social “sciences” When a theory of sociology fails, you never hear about it. No press conference was ever called by the-grand-wizard-of-sociology to announce that all his previous statements against the family
were untrue and that a new dogma, the all-depends-on-how-you-define-it family, was being brought into the game instead.