A more perfect disillusion of unions

With all my talk about how marriage and civil unions are (and ought to be) two separate things (for both gay and straight couples), I didn't really think about divorce until I read this article in the New York Times the other day. Divorce obtained through the courts of the land is a disillusion of a civil union but the spiritual union may be much more difficult to dissolve. The Catholic church, for example, doesn't acknowledge divorce at all. If you are Catholic and you want to dissolve your marriage you have to petition the church for annulment which is a lengthy process, often not coming to fruition until years after the civil union has ended. In the Times article they talk about how difficult it is it for a woman who wants to divorce her husband versus the relative ease with which a man can divorce his wife under Islamic (Shariah) law. It says that most of the rulings of these Shariah courts (made up of panels of Islamic scholars) are not binding under British civil law (i.e. just because the Shariah court grants you a divorce doesn't mean you are divorced under British law), but the Shariah courts are still relevant because civil divorce isn't good enough for the religious community, religious leaders have to approve of the reasons for divorce. Civil unions are a different thing than spiritual unions and civil divorces are a different thing than spiritual ones as well.

I was home sick a couple of weeks ago and I discovered that Bravo airs three re-runs per day of the West Wing. I find the frenetic pace of Aaron Sorkin's characters quite soothing so I watched a couple episodes that day and have been watching it every day since. There was an episode in season one where Sam was disturbed that some town in Alabama was trying to pass a law requiring adherence to the ten commandments. Sam and everyone he mentioned it to wondered how they planned on enforcing them since they have no way of knowing about (or proving) violations of some of the commandments. They were particularly obsessed with how someone might know if you coveted your neighbors wife, or if you didn't honor your father, for example. Of course, regardless of the enforceability of the ten commandments they were, and we should be, opposed to such a law because we live in a country that requires the separation of church and state.

My previous argument was based primarily on the separation of church and state (and equal protection), but there has been an argument made, which many people believe and endorse, that because the words "separation of church and state" don't appear anywhere in the founding documents that no such concept exists in our laws. I would argue, and did in my last post, that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" is pretty clear on the subject and it's intent, it seems to me, is to protect both the people (from having specific religions tenants imposed on them) but also the government (from being unduly influenced by any particular church).

I can't help but return to discussion of same sex marriage over and over because I think it's important. The only argument people have opposing same sex marriage is that the bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman (which isn't exactly true, but I can see the clear implication there since all married couples in the bible are male-female...although not always one man and one woman, sometimes one man and several women...but you don't see the people making this argument also advocating legalizing polygamy, but that's another argument). Since the constitution clearly prohibits the passing of any laws respecting the establishment of religion, this argument against gay marriage doesn't really hold water. Especially since the bible also says (explicitly), "Submit yourself to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake" (Peter 2:13, King James Version), and our constitution prohibits enacting religious rules into law. Is it possible to adhere to both civil and religious laws if civil law allows something religious law prohibits? Absolutely. If you're Jewish your religious law prohibits eating pork, that doesn't mean you would advocate making it illegal to eat pork would you? Just because something is legal doesn't mean you have to do it. You can refrain from eating pork even though it isn't illegal.