Tweet
This has got to be one of the poorest attempts ever at using religion to cover bias. This week a group of Orthodox Jewish organizations released a statement in opposition to marriage equality.
May 23, 2011On the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage, the Orthodox Jewish world speaks with one voice, loud and clear:
We oppose the redefinition of the bedrock relationship of the human family.
The Torah, which forbids homosexual activity, sanctions only the union of a man and a woman in matrimony. While we do not seek to impose our religious principles on others, we believe the institution of marriage is central to the formation of a healthy society and the raising of children. It is our sincere conviction that discarding the historical definition of marriage would be detrimental to society.
Moreover, we are deeply concerned that, should any such redefinition occur, members of traditional communities like ours will incur moral opprobrium and may risk legal sanction if they refuse to transgress their beliefs. That prospect is chilling, and should be unacceptable to all people of good will on both sides of this debate.
The integrity of marriage in its traditional form must be preserved.
AGUDATH ISRAEL OF AMERICA
CENTRAL RABBINICAL CONGRESS OF THE U.S.A. AND CANADA
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF YOUNG ISRAEL
RABBINICAL ALLIANCE OF AMERICA
RABBINICAL COUNCIL OF AMERICA
UNION OF ORTHODOX JEWISH CONGREGATIONS OF AMERICA
Despite the position of these Orthodox groups, the vast majority — over 75% — of American Jews support marriage equality and are working to include LGBT people into mainstream Jewish and American society. Even the Conservative movement’s Jewish Theological Seminary recently ordained its first openly gay rabbi.
A review of the red herrings in these Orthodox groups’ statement is below the fold. Anyone following the weak rhetoric of their radical-right Christian counterparts will see many similarities.
The Torah also sanctions the marriage of one man to many wives. The man may have concubines in addition.
If they didn’t wish to impose their religious principles on others, they wouldn’t be trying to influence the civil laws to reflect their particular religious beliefs at the expense of the beliefs of others. Most American Jews support marriage equality. In most states, pro-equality rabbis and clerics of other faiths are being denied the right to officiate at the civil marriage ceremonies of same-sex couples because anti-equality laws based on radical-right religious views are interfering with their freedom of religion.
Considering how many lesbian, bisexual and gay couples have children, if this statement were true then these groups would be supporting marriage equality. Instead, by opposing marriage equality, they’re putting children at risk by forcing families to live in legally precarious situations.
It all seems to be about “who can dish it out and who has to take it” with this group, as Rabbi Naphtali Hoff made clear in his article “Preserving the Original Moral Opprobrium“.
The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution protects the right of clerics and religious institutions to agree or refuse to marry whoever they choose. No religious person or institution has ever been forced to conduct or sanction same-sex marriages, and they never will be. It’s been 7 years since gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts, and not one radical-right religious person has been forced to marry a same-sex couple against their will, nor have they been forced to sanction such marriages.
43 Comments
The Torah doesn’t forbid “homosexual activity.”The Torah forbids a man acting with another man as if he were a woman. Whatever that means. And the Torah says nothing at all about women’s same sex relationships.
Of the 613 commandments, only two deal with male homosexual behavior. And one is a repeat of the other, so we’re dealing with one. That’s 0.163%, a much smaller percentage than all the other laws of sexual morality, to say nothing of the commandments dealing with general ethical behavior and social justice issues.
You’d think that if it were so important, such a critical issue, there would have been a little more content. Maybe even a story to highlight the dangers, rather than a single sentence in the Priestly Code.
And that Jewish fellow, Jesus, never mentions it at all.
And it’s not all bleak in the orthodox community:http://www.thejewishweek.com/n…
Thank you for that articleIt’s also worth linking to the post I wrote last year about the Orthodox rabbi Steven Burg who heads up the youth program of the Orthodox Union. In response to all the deaths by suicide happening as a result of bullying, he wrote a meaningful op-ed called “There’s no place for bullying in God’s world“. I guess the signatories of the statement above don’t understand — or care — that by opposing civil equality for LGB people, they are demeaning LGB people and committing a form of bullying. Thank heavens there are people like Rabbi Burg in the Orthodox Jewish world who aren’t so quick to condemn.
Don’t forget the story of David and Jonathan“oh Jonathan, I’ve loved you more than any woman”
I prefer Ruth and Naomi, but won’t argue the point.
Like the Christian Rightthey demand their way or no way
NOTHING promotes same–sex relations like Orthodox JudaismIt’s all about men hanging together and rigorously excluding women.
WHO DO THEY THINK THEY’RE FOOLING?
Umm…I married a Lesbian. That is to say, I performed the Jewishceremony to marry a lesbian o her fiancée, who was also…well…kind of a Lesbian. Actually, my friend who couldn’t find a Rabbi in 1990 to marry her to her girl-friend the time had been Ms. International Leather, which may have made it a problem for her amongst the local rabbinate.
But I wrote a ketttubah, (marriage contract) and changed the genders appropriately. This was in the pre-Internet days, it looked like it was written by an Israeli Kinder-gardener. But, I guess it “worked” my friend was married until she passed on.
I miss her, sometimes, late at night, I’ll wake up and think of the people I’ve lost from AIDS, from accidents, just because I’ve been lucky enough to live for a long time…
You preformed a sacred marriageThe only restrictions on performing sacred marriages come from the religious beliefs of those involved in the ceremony. Nobody can force you to or prevent you from doing just what you did.
But a rabbi or other clergy with the authority of the state to solumnize civil marriages should have the legal right to perform civil marriages for both same-sex and different-sex couples. Whether or not they exercise that right is 100% up to them.
The Orthodox groups that signed the statement above are pretending that they’ll be forced to conduct civil and/or sacred (they don’t specify) same-sex marriages if marriage equality becomes law in their states. That’s pure bunk and they, as scholars, must know it. Shame on them for playing ignorant. How unbecoming for a scholar, and how sad it is to see such dishonesty in clergy. But that’s what bias does to you.
Actually, they may have a pointI mean, look at all the Catholic priests being fined for not holding ceremonies for non-Catholics, and the Baptist preachers being arrested for not marrying divorced people, and….
Oh, wait.
So why aren’t they demanding that the whole world keep kosher?Where is the hard sell to ban pork and everything made with pig, including football? Where is the letter that hysterically predicts moral sanctions if all work everywhere isn’t stopped from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday?
This is not a matter of “their way or no way.” This is a matter of outright bigotry wrapped up in allegations of “God says”.
“authority of the state to solumnize civil marriages”Sorry, but that should not be allowed, regardless of the denomination. Clergy should be and must be allowed to solemnize sectarian marriages, but civil authorities, and only civil authorities, should be the ones who should be allowed to execute the civil contracts – i.e. legal marriages. The mixing up of the two, totally separate entities, is how we got into this mess to begin with.
If you want to be legally married, go to city hall, the county, etc. If you want to be married according to the dogmas, etc. of whatever religion you choose to follow fine, but don’t place that burden on the rest of us. As a compromise, I’d be willing to have clergy be designated as notaries, provided they can meet the legal requirements of states in which they practice, along with any other applicants.
Sorry to sound shrill, but I am EXTREMELY uncomfortable with the idea of a clergyperson of a sect that may or may not have total hatred of LGBT people at the core of its tenets of beliefs being able to execute civil contracts.
By this standard, Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church is legally able to execute the civil contract of marriage, which is creepy to say the least.
“We are deeply concerned if the law does not agree with our definition of marriage, people will look down on us.”
Oh boo hoo!
I was thinking along that line tooAfter all, suppose a Christian couple went to a rabbi and said they wanted him to marry them in a Jewish ceremony. (Maybe they just like the canopy and breaking the wine glass and such.) But, they want the talk to be Christian, with a prayer to Jesus, and communion, and such.
Would the rabbi be within his rights to refuse to do that? Or, would he have to do it because he might be sued? Yeah, right.
There is one important difference……the Christian Right is a strongly dominant force within American Christianity, whereas strict Orthodoxy is a tiny minority within the American Jewish community.
Where they have the POWER to do sosuch as in Israel, where thy claim the right to define Jewishness and have defined out all but themselves, they do make the demands that you listed, Tech
More of the same,and my reaction is “Your religion forbids same-sex marriage. So what? Has nothing to do with me. Let’s keep it that way.”
That’s how it is in much of Europe and the countries it colonizedYou have to go to city hall first and if you want a religious ceremony you either have one a few days or weeks later, or you walk directly to the church after the civil one.
The idiotic idea that clergy can act as agents of the cite is on large parts responsible for the idea that a religious ceremony has any legal consequences
Typocite = state. WTF
I was also going to mention that too.
In an after hours sex club in New YorkOne night I observed six of these fellows, taking turns going into a private booth where they were serviced by a cross-dressed person in a platinum blond wig, pearl necklace and classic little black dress. They all seemed very happy. I’m sure their wives at home had no idea where they were at the time.
Fellas, your synagogue doesn’t issue marriages licenses; the state government does. No one is asking you for anything. Just go on about your lives and allow us to do the same.
Is that so difficult?
He said…“While we do not seek to impose our religious principles on others…”
Good, then don’t.
I also wish the USA would adoptthe European system of city hall first for the civil marriage, then on to church for a sacred ceremony if you want one. However, I don’t see that happening here any time soon. With church attendance falling in mainline denominations, clergy aren’t likely to want to give up this mode of getting people into the church. They must wonder with some trepidation how many couples would come in for a religious marriage if they weren’t also able to get the civil contract at the same time.
Also, it’s not just the clergyI didn’t mean to make it sound like this was all the selfish doings of clergy to keep the system as-is. The fact is that there is about zero outcry from the public to change the current system. I suppose that’s the case because a) people are just used to it so don’t think about it much if at all, and b) nobody is required to get married in a church, so the justice of the peace option diffuses much of whatever tension there otherwise might have been over the system.
Periodically, small groups of clergy or even individuals have made statements that they also think clergy should be removed from the civil system. But their statements never raise enough interest with enough of the public to cause state legislatures to seriously consider amending the laws.
Why don’t you have anything to say about this?http://pamshouseblend.com/diar…
Six Principles of Global ManipulationI offer to your attention a film about six priorities of the generalized instruments of management by countries and people of Earth.
Six Principles of Global Manipulation
Anti-Qur’an Strategy of the Bible Project Wheeler-Dealers
So, we have Islamists, Christianists, and now, for sure . . .. . . we have, what? What “-ist” form can we use to distinguish these people from real Jews? Because they fail the litmus test and really are not Jews at all, not if they don’t understand David and Jonathan getting married – why else does David get anointed in the first place if the kingship does not pass to him through his relationship with Jonathan?
Zionist is already taken, and though I’d consider repurposing it, I think it should be left to describe those who believe there should be a Jewish homeland in Israel.
Jewist? Orthodox Jewist?
Hebrist?
I think for now, “Jewist” works – they’re not real Jews, they’re Jewists, just like Christianists are not real Christians and ISlamists are not real Muslims – all because they fail the litmus test.
And let’s face it – these are people whose culture sometimes requires them to have religious exceptions to a lot of things.
For example – this proposed legislation in San Francisco to ban circumcision of infant boys without an exception for religious purposes is likely to be held to violate the constitution of botht he state of California and the federal constitution.
Still – the thing is, if they can be so against other people having freedom of religion, then they should realize that after “they” come for the LGBT people, they will most likely “come” for the Jews, too – it has happened before,any times, and it will happen again.
Enlightened Jewish people are in the forefront of the various civil rights movements – and the most enlightened are even finding ways to speak out for Palestinians, though there are so many Palestinians out there whose own Islamist attitudes make it very difficult for Jewish psople to want to treat them respectfully.
Still – these Jewists are no better than Christianists and Islamists – and much less numerous . . .
Well, “theocrats” is a good general term I think.As for saying they’re not real Jews because they’re also theocratic, I don’t want to go down that road. Telling someone else that their religious beliefs aren’t “real” because of their political leanings seems like a very dangerous thing to do, especially if you’re not part of the same religion. I’m sure that the signatories of that letter are real Jews, but they’ve clearly been blinded by bias.
Wait a MinuteThey only recognize kiddushin, right? So nobody in the Gentile world is really married anyway, unless we have some sort of ecumenical right to some form of “full faith and credit” to marriages performed outside of halakha. These fellows don’t seem to have thought out their missive very deeply, it must be more based on feelings than actual Talmudic thought.
It’s like with the Christofascists…they cherry-pick their own religious texts to suit their personal prejudices.
whatever. i’m still going to find a nice jewish boi to bring home to mommy.I was raised in the Conservative movement, so I really don’t understand the Orthodox. They spend so much time being literalists, resisting technological and societal advances, and segregating women, they miss out on the best part of Judaism, which is its ethic of learning and interpretation and discussion – the Talmud is the best example of this. Maybe it’s time for Talmud 2.0. Most of the Jews I know (myself included) would consider themselves secular or “cultural” Jews anyway…
traditionSorry, but whenever the word “tradition” is held up as some kind of moral justification for something or other, I can’t help but think “bankrupt”.
civil/religiousI agree with you Phil, and always have pointed out that the Founders did not originally grant clergy the prerogative of performing marriages, and, if my history is correct, it was not granted them to do so for nearly 100 years.
Oh, I thought the press release said that the Orthodox community spoke with ONE voice; HIS.
I sincerely doubt there is anything that the Orthodox community speaks with one voice about.
good pointNow that you mention it, I recall that Judge Tauro said in his ruling on the GLAD’s Gill case that DOMA Section 3 is unconstitutional:
In other words, the length of time you’ve managed to discriminate against a group doesn’t legitimize the discrimination. Miscegenation was found to be unconstitutional despite it also being a long-standing tradition in the United States. Tradition may be an ok reason for a policy of discrimination within a faith community, but when it comes to the law, tradition doesn’t rise to the level of “compelling state interest”.
Or even any of the sub-groups?What’s the saying again? ”Three rabbis, four opinions”?
the difference isthat Talmud, which is a part of Orthodox religious writings, actually talks about the prohibition on same-sex marriages among the non-Jews. There’s no similar thing about non-Jews having to follow the laws of kashrut.
I recognized the name of one of those organizations . . . . . . over at Joe.My.God, – On Joe’s May 29th edition of This Week in Holy Crimes at:
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2…
we get this tidbit about the lead signer:
There are ultra-orthodox communities in Rockland County, New York, that have a pedophilia problem. The rabbinic leadership in these communities, like the bishops of the Catholic Church, have a history of trying to sweep this kind of “scandal” under the rug – which only makes the perpetrators feel invulnerable as the victims are silenced. And when the problem does come out, as it has on a couple of occasions in the past couple of years, it is always the victim who is condemned by the religious leadership. (I won’t even go into the recent firebombing that took place because a member of one ultra-orthodox congregation dared to go to another synagogue.)
I have been distinguishing between Christians and Christianists for a good long time. I’ve done the same thing with Muslims and Islamists. Referring to those Jewish people whose beliefs make them immoral bigots who want to treat me as less than human as “Jewists” seems to me to be defending those people of Jewish faith who do not use their religion as a tool of oppression.
The Christianists, Islamists and Jewists all have a single thread in common – the use of “fundamentalist” type religion as a maul to harrass, oppress and denigrate people who are different.
I respect their right to their beliefs, but I don’t recognize the aspects of their beliefs that require them to be oppressing bigots as a legitimate form of their religion.
I am likely to have an issue with an “ist” form for Buddhists who don’t pass the litmus test, though.
Sheva mitzvot B’nei NoachAka the Seven Laws of Noah, which (according to the Talmud) are mandatory upon all people everywhere:
* Prohibition of idolatry
* Prohibition of murder
* Prohibition of theft
* Prohibition of sexual immorality
* Prohibition of blasphemy
* Prohibition of eating flesh still containing blood
* Establishment of law courts
Blasphemy and idolatry have the same weight under the Noachide Laws as “sexual immorality”, which includes (according to Orthodox interpretation) not only homosexuality but also pornography, immodest dress, cross dressing and masturbation. So where is the movement to suppress pornography, criminalize masturbation or make it an offense to wear gender “inappropriate” clothing? And for that matter, what about idolatry and blasphemy?
Regarding the “eating flesh still containing blood”, that is officially a part of the Christian religion; see Acts 15:19-21. That is just as much a part of the Noachide Laws as the prohibition against “sexual immorality” and yet I have never seen any kind of organized Jewish opposition to the eating of bloody steaks. Why? Because the move against homosexuality has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, only bigotry and hate.
My stepfather had this down to a single aphorismFive rabbis, at least seven interpretations.
(He’s a Brooklyn Jew, raised in a conservadox family, so I assume he knows what he’s talking about.)
Three Jews, four opinions!
I have been thinking about thisMaine, Florida and North Carolina allow notaries public to officiate at weddings; the process is, after all, nothing more than a special jurat.
I have a piece of draft legislation that I’ve been wanting to submit through my representatives and senator which would add Washington State to that list. It would not remove clergy from having this special power, but it does pave the way for that in the future. You live in Washington, right? Interested in helping with this?
Massachusetts does something really niceYou can file a request to have whoever you want to officiate at your wedding get state authority to do so. I’ve been to such weddings and this adds something very special to them, knowing that everyone involved from A to Z are truly connected with the couple and not some unknown functionary or minister.