This is, I suspect, one of the reasons that many Orthodox Jews are reluctant to embrace Zionism and Israel. Judaism built up a nice wall between itself and the consequences of its laws in the form of the principle 'Dina demalchuta dina'- the law of the land is the law. That is, we can ignore what our law tells us in many cases if it is different from the law of the land we're living in. If there were a true Jewish theocracy in Israel, the answer to your question is that adulterers wouldn't be forced to divorce- they'd be stoned to death. If you fornicate with someone, you would be FORCED to marry that person. Etc...
But dina demalchuta dina means that as long as we're in America, we can support things like gay marriage as the price of living in a country we don't rule. It's a convenient way to have our cake and eat it, too. I can comfortably say that even though homosexuality is against my Bible and I don't think any religious Jew should commit homosexuality, civil gay marriage is not something I have interest in opposing.
But I want to retort to your refutation by at least pointing out that there is a difference between not stoning adulterers and codifying legally sanctioned adultery, with benefits accruing to adulterers, into the law. Trying to conflate the two is pretty cheap, don't you think?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
no subject
on 2008-11-11 10:29 pm (UTC)But dina demalchuta dina means that as long as we're in America, we can support things like gay marriage as the price of living in a country we don't rule. It's a convenient way to have our cake and eat it, too. I can comfortably say that even though homosexuality is against my Bible and I don't think any religious Jew should commit homosexuality, civil gay marriage is not something I have interest in opposing.
But I want to retort to your refutation by at least pointing out that there is a difference between not stoning adulterers and codifying legally sanctioned adultery, with benefits accruing to adulterers, into the law. Trying to conflate the two is pretty cheap, don't you think?