Proposition 8 in California.  Amendment 2 in Florida.  Amendment ? in a state near you.   All are efforts to define marriage so narrowly that it excludes certain people from full rights of citizenship.

Sadly, religious communities are often at the forefront of advocating for these narrow-minded amendments.  I heard a story recently, about the neighbor of a Christian pastor.  The pastor had just put up a yard sign against the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in her state.  This neighbor, bless her heart, knocked on the door in no time flat sure she was saving the pastor from embarrassment.  “I know it’s confusing these ballot measures with ‘yes’ and ‘no’,” she said, “I just wanted you to know you put up the wrong sign.  It is simple to get the sides mixed up.  As a pastor I couldn’t imagine you mean to have that sign in your yard.”  ….a respectfuneighborly conversation ensued.

In this week’s Tallahassee Democrat rabbi Jack Romberg attacks the issue with a bit different slant.  The title says it all: “Amendment 2 takes us toward theocracy.”

“I will put this very simply: Amendment 2 is insidious. Proponents will tell you that its purpose is to protect children and families. Amendment 2 will do nothing to protect children and families. Some opponents say Amendment 2 is unnecessary because we already have legislation defining marriage. That misses the point. Any legislation defining marriage is insidious because it moves us toward theocracy.

Marriage is a sacred ritual that takes place within all mainstream religious traditions. However, not all religions agree on what marriages should be sanctified. Even within the Jewish or the Christian world are disagreements. For example, many rabbis will sanctify interfaith weddings, others will not. How would my fellow clergy feel if an amendment were proposed allowing only same-faith weddings to be legally sanctified?

These are decisions that should be left to individual religious communities to decide, guided by their clergy. Religious decisions should not be at the whim of a voting public or by government fiat.”

Rabbi Romberg goes on to exegete Genesis 18 with an eye towards Biblical literalism–as many advocates of the measure profess.  After a careful reading he concludes the prohibition of Genesis 20 must not apply to lesbian relationships–as it does not mention them–and, furthermore, the Hebrew “lies with” is a signal of prohibitions within the boundaries of family.  So, literally he figures, “Homosexual relationships outside of the family structure outlined in Chapter 20 are permitted.”

You may not agree with his exegesis, but that’s the point.  We should not legislate on the basis of a religious claim.  That’s moving towards theocracy–forcing a religious conviction on upon many who do not agree with it.  That, according to Romberg, “is simply unjust and immoral.”

Funny adverts against California’s Prop 8 after the break:

image by Asif Akbar