Off topic, but did Jews ever officially abandon polygyny? I know it’s not done anymore of course, but is that just an evolution or was it ever abandoned? I’ve found a Talmud passage that limits a king to, IIRC, 18 wives, but that’s about the only time that I’ve found (important qualifier) that it speaks to the issue.
(Some Sephardic Jews who came to Israel from Morocco and other Muslim countries in the 20th century had multiple wives and were allowed to bring them but with the understanding “no more- your unmarried sons and grandsons will have one wife each”.)
Not all of them, as a casual google on “polygamy in israel” reveals, though formal stats are lacking. Heck, no ethnic group ever abandons anything - you can always find isolated pockets somewhere.
“Heroes” like Hagee, placed on a pedestal, are presumed forgiven. 100% of rank-and-file gays are not. When Aiken came out of the closet your sister read this as “I’m volunteering to go to blazes.”
After reading the rest of your letter I can only offer sympahy.
It was officially abandoned by Ashkenazic Jews after the decree of Rabbi Gershom. I haven’t been able to find a date for the decree, but he lived from 960 to 1028. Polygyny was not practiced by Ashkenazic Jews for quite a while before that, as it would have upset their Christian neighbors. It was never officially abandoned by Sephardim.
At the risk of injecting some knowledge into a pretty content free debate, most Christian righters are against divorce. In fact I have been going to an evangelical church pretty much my entire life and have heard many, many sermons and teachings about how bad divorce is never heard anything about gay marriage until a couple of years ago. Even now gay marriage is usually only mentioned in passing and only a couple of times a year.
McCain has never been popular amongst the Christian right and until the choice of Sarah Palin the support of McCain was grudging at best. McCain publicly acknowledged his treatment of his first wife was his greatest moral failing and seems to feel bad about it. His second marriage seems to be doing well and he seems like a genuinely changed man. That said, we are electing a president not a pastor, and his policy choices are more salient than his personal life. It would be ideal for a candidate to have always displayed exemplary character as well as good policy, but we live in a fallen world and have to settle for what we can get.
There are initiatives by Christian groups to try and change laws to make divorce more difficult, but they are not as popular as banning gay marriage so they are harder to pass and receive less press. Meanwhile acquiesing to gay marriage just because of easy divorce laws would be saying “As long as this rope is around my neck, I may as well jump off the horse”.
So many people here are insisting that Christianity is completely against divorce, that Christians are hypocrites for condoning divorce, etc. etc. The amount of derision being hurled against Christians is unmistakeable.
The thing is, the Bible is NOT completely opposed to divorce. Rather,it does allow divorce in certain circumstances – for example, when one’s spouse has committed adultery. It does not recommend divorce in such circumstnaces, but it does allow it. Similarly, it does not hold one morally liable when one’s unbelieving spouse demands a divorce.
Are conservative, Bible-believing Christians against divorce? In broad terms, yes, but knowledgeable Christians do not insist that divorce is verboten under any and all circumstances.
So what about Christians who were previously divorced? Should we expect them to get back with their previous spouses? Ideally, they should indeed attempt reconciliation, but let’s face it: If the other spouse steadfastly refuses to reconcile, then there’s only so much that they can do. It’s grievously unfair to heap derision on these people and denounce them as hypocrites unless you know for sure that they were not the victims of adultery and that they made no attempt whatsoever at reconciliation.
The OP supposes that “Christian rightists” as he puts it are political bumpkins who will vote against their interests just because of the personal life of a candidate. I haven’t seen such behavior in any other group in this country, so I wonder why we’d see it in this community.
It has been already noted that many Christians oppose divorce, and I certainly favor changes in the divorce laws myself. So I think the premise is flawed from the get-go.
Allow me to assume this whole deal has to do with the “sanctity of marriage” a favored argument of those opposed to gay marriage. So in that respect, how does divorce respect the sanctity of marriage? If it doesn’t, which on the surface … how the hell could it? … why not the vitriol toward divorce that we see toward gay marriage.
I’m sure Sampiro will correct me if that’s not what he was getting at … but the point still stands.
Not that I think the OP was unclear, but to emphasize it’s point-
When has any candidate ever gotten cheers for proposing an end to divorce and remarriage? As recently as the RNC speakers were cheered for proposing an end to gay marriage (if not in those exact words the meaning was clear- the “definition” of marriage as one man-one woman and outcries against activist judges imposing values). As mentioned, by the words of Jesus - not mine- McCain is living in an adulterous relationship, as did Ronald Reagan and as are more than a few ministers and senators and congressmen on all levels who have divorced and remarried. Why are these people’s marriages ruled to be legitimate but the marriage of two men or two women is seen as appalling and something to be guarded against by legislation? No fault divorce has certainly ended thousands of times more marriages than any legitimized gay union ever has.
For the sake of consistency, the least I would expect them to do is to remain celibate for the rest of their lives, which is no more than what they expect gay people to do.
You’re making the mistake of thinking in terms of current events only - in fact a generation ago, divorce was so stigmatized that it really did harm your prospects in business and social life. Terms like “broken home” were thrown around to a degree not heard today, and Nelson Rockefeller saw his presidential bid go down the chutes because of it.
And this was among society at large, not the overly religious.
To a large degree this battle has moved to the back burner and the gay marriage issue to the front - but an awful lot of people look at the result of the social changes wrought in the last generation and don’t want to move quickly (or at all, frankly) on gay marriage in this same way. I don’t know too many people who are happy with the fact that so many marriages end in failure - even if they don’t want a return to 1950s era stigmatization.
As for you, Sampiro, let’s be frank - there are two sides in this battle - one that advocates a more libertine attitude toward family structure and one that favors a more traditional approach. Now, even conceding the fact that the traditionalists aren’t so traditional as their peers a generation ago (hell, they aren’t so traditional as those libertines) there isn’t any question where they’ll line up when the question is called.
There is a great Lenny Bruce bit, from the 1962 Carnegie Hall concert, on this very subject, all about how his gay friend’s mother is totally clueless. “He’s such a nice boy, always bringing home sailors.”
And happily that darling of the very religious, Ronald Reagan, did away with this as an issue in Presidential politics.
True, but I think the root of this was from religion. In any case, it didn’t affect show business.
First of all, and I can look up a cite if you want, the more religious areas of the country tend to have higher divorce rates. I’m not sure that even those with a more traditional approach are living up to it. I’ve seen articles on attempts to do more pre-marriage counseling in these states, which is a good thing no matter what your opinion is of religion. We’ll see how it works. BTW, I don’t think religion is the root cause of the higher divorce rate.
But in any case, divorce can certainly be seen as a threat to marriage, while I don’t see how SSM is. None of the arguments for California Prop. 8 come anywhere close to doing this, and the oped pieces for Prop 8 have been ludicrous.
So, we have two Biblical prohibitions (one against remarriage after divorce) and the one many Christians are against is the one with less harm to traditional marriage.
I think the real reason for this is that these guys know good people who have gotten divorced, but don’t know many gay people (that they know of.) I think the reason Prop 8 is behind is that there is a lot more visibility here, and that God hasn’t made us sink into the ocean even after six months or so of legal gay marriage.
After reading the rest of your letter I can only offer sympahy.