Agudath Israel of America, a national Orthodox Jewish organization, takes strong exception to the Obama Administration’s decision to no longer defend the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the law of the land for the past 15 years.
Agudath Israel has been among the groups in the forefront of efforts to maintain the traditional definition of marriage in law and society. We played an active role in crafting and promoting DOMA, and were invited during its consideration to present oral testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. And we have remained engaged in the issue whenever the question of redefining marriage has come before state legislatures, the courts or the voters.
Attorney General Eric Holder, in a letter to House Speaker John A. Boehner explaining the change in policy, writes that circumstances have changed the “legal landscape” since enactment of the statute. But when he criticizes “moral disapproval” of “toeiva” behavior and labels the beliefs of millions of American as “animus,” he strays far from a defense of constitutional principles. Indeed, his rhetoric demonstrates the kind of anti-religious hostility disallowed by the First Amendment. Religious values, ethical imperatives, historical tradition are all swept away – no, disparaged – by this destructive characterization.
The Attorney General’s suggestion that laws relating to homosexuality be given “strict scrutiny” — the highest protection our law has to offer – is a leap that flies in the face of Supreme Court jurisprudence and has never been asserted by any Administration of either party. In fact, despite his protestations, the legal landscape Mr. Holder refers to itself negates the notion that a higher level of constitutional scrutiny is warranted. The striking down of anti-sodomy laws, the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the enactment of hate crimes legislation, the myriad state and local protections, belie the need for strict scrutiny. The legal analysis is both wanting and misguided. For, as Agudath Israel argued in Massachusetts v U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources, the traditional definition of marriage will constitute a “compelling state interest” and survive strict scrutiny just a surely as it will satisfy the “reasonable basis” test.
Finally, by connecting discrimination against “Toeivanicks” to the right of same-gender-couples to marry, the Administration fails to see the inherent social, moral and legal difference between the two realities. The issue of same-gender marriage has little to do with civil rights and everything to do with changing our society’s perception of Toeiva behavior and, as noted above, the depiction of those who view Toeiva with “moral disapproval” as persons filled with religiously-instilled hatred and lies.
The Administration’s decision represents a provocative step toward undermining our nation’s traditional values and moral fiber. It is a sad day.
(YWN Desk – NYC)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
22 Responses
Is this just an article written to the frum world, i.e. “preaching to the choir”, or was this a letter sent to some “macher” in Washington???
This country is very clearly slip-sliding away in the manner of Greece and Rome and will also, no doubt, have the same fate.
All the Agudah, or any organization, can do is to try to slow it down a bit.
It’s sad to see how far the Agudah has strayed from the philosophy of Reb Moshe Sherrer, who never would have wasted Agudah’s precious and dwindling political capital on an issue like this. Read Rosenblum’s book. Read it and weep.
If a Republican president would decide not to defend a law such as ABORTION because they didn’t think it was constitutional, the left and the press would have a hissy fit. Now that the almighty Obama is involved, we hear crickets. Oh how typical of the lowly socialist liberal leftists!!
Agudah should concentrate on trying to serve it’s constituency, rather than legislate its beliefs on others…
#3 – I disagree strongly. This is a very important issue, and the protest of the Torah world needs to be on record.
berelshain…
You don’t think this is an important issue for the frum community to speak out about?
I agree with the DOMA. The US has many laws that recognize moral codes, this is no exception. The law does not discriminate against people or deny them their rights it just fails to endorse what most people consider to be immorality. I don’t have a problem with civil unions as I don’t think they endorse immorality. That said I think this view is declining within the US , so the administration’s decision to stop fighting for the law in court makes sense from their perceptive. Congress should now take up defense of the law. The administration claims it will still enforce the law. Let’s see if they actually do. I at least respect the Administrations decision to enforce a law even if they disagree with it.
While I agree with the Agudah position I wonder if this is a good use of its resources and political capital as this issue does not affect the lives of most of its constituents directly.
Welcome to Sodom and Gemorrah. Aveirah Gorres Aveirah. Most americans don’t believe in Gay marriage, so how come they voted for Obama? The answer lies because they are libs -“Let the gays live any way they want” -“Let’s have an Afican-American become president just because of his race, not because of his policies”. When you lie down -people will walk all over you. It’s time to take back this country from all the people who spit on Hashem.
The biggest joke is that the libs in this country, whether they are in the executive or judicial or legislative branches of gov., anything they don’t like, they will claim it’s “Unconstitutional”!
The truth is the “forefathers” were good people. They would have laughed what people nowadays claim is in the Constituion, whether pro or against.
They are turning over in the graves seeing what the US has become. The “forefathers” were pro religion and morality. What should be unconstitional is -that you can’t discriminate against a Shabbos observer. Instead that’s okay as long as you have some minimal hardship.
So now the federal lib judges will knock down this law and all the taxpayers will have to give federal rights (which means gov. money) to the partners of Gay people!
7,
The Supreme Court ruled in 1996 (in Romer v. Evans) that laws based on nothing more than morality are unconstitutional.
#4 2pence…
Don’t you realize that what others do filters through to us.
Of course the Torah’s truth will never change, but the way people view it, (and act) CAN change.
We must realize that in 40 or 50 years from now, if, chalila, Mashiach has not yet come, and our grandchildren have grown up in an America where toaiyva “marriages” are common and accepted, THEIR attitudes toward it will NOT be the same as what ours are today.
I shudder to think what will become of the “frum” community living in such a shmutzik environment. This is why we MUST fight it now. NOT for them, for US.
The Torah teaches “oy l’rasha v’oy l’chavairo, – and Rash”i explains that if someone goes into a garbage dump, he can’t help but come out smelling like garbage!
#4,
When the Executive Branch condones, if not endorses, behavior that drives the Shechinah away, we all stand to suffer. If you’ve ever heard Rav Avigdor Miller, ZT”L, speak on subjects like this, you would probably think differently.
When ALL decent gentiles speak out against this digusting endorsement of immorality by this President and his low-life apparachiks, it is necessary for us to join with these righteous gentiles, lest we be accused of endorsing Obama’s immoral position by our silence.–A clear Chilul Hashem.
The increasing incidence of immoral behavior in our own comunity, R”L, shows that we are also directly affected by the moral pollution that is being spread all over by these Reshaim!
#8 Health,
Actually some of the Founding Fathers were very hostile to organized religion.
Also, the problem is that the law expands “federal rights” to an area that the federal government has never been responsible for. It is ironic that so-called Conservatives object to the federal government requiring health insurance, which it first did in the 1790s, but support expanding federal power to define marriage, which it has never done.
#6 – absolutely not
The Agudah deserves a mighty thank you from every Torah Jew for standing up for Torah values.
If marriage is no longer defined as a relationship between a man and a woman, can any government official deny me the opportunity to marry my pet rock?
Liberalism is the manifestation of political suicide. The liberal is human filth with a college education.
Actually Charliehall it is not the Federal government that is defining marriage it is the English Language.
If I wanted a Table to be called a chair I cannot change the “facts on the ground” that a table is a table and a chair a chair.
Similarly the definition of Marriage has always been the term used to define a union between a man and a woman.
Say what you want however the facts cannot be changed the “union” of two men or two women is not the same as that between that of opposite genders.
As such the term “Marriage” does not apply to them, just as the term Table does not apply to a chair.
It is the Liberal Democrats who wish to change the very definition of the word Marriage so that it extends to Unions of Men and Women.
This is why they have been called out for attempting to “redefine” marriage.
That is asking the Federal Government to assume powers that it was not granted in the Constitution, it was not granted the powers of determining the makeup of the Dictionary.
The better arguement has been discrimination however that one as well is intrinsically flawed.
Discrimination is true in the case of Black People not being allowed the same rights of white people in such cases by virtue of the color one’s skin they were not allowed into the same schools as white people who had different colored skin.
In this case everyone is allowed to enter into a marital relationship which is the marital bond between a man and woman.
We are simply saying that those who so chose to enter into a different sort of union cannot have the term amrriage redefine to extend to their Unions as well.
Ex. Will anyone say that the fact a buisness partnership is not called a marriage is a case of discrimination?
No.
A buisness partnership is intrinsically a different relationship then a marriage therefore it is called what it is a partnership not a marriage.
However if the individual members of the partnership wish to enter into a marriage no one is stopping them.
Similarly a Toava Union is not a marriage, however if those in a Toava relationship wish to enter a marriage with people of the opposite gender no one is stopping them as such it is simply not Discrimination.
Pres. Obama will try to redefine freedom to practice religion (ie to teach out children- homosexuality is bad) to freedom (only)to worship. Remember his supreme court nominee- Elena Kagan- who wouldn’t let the ROTC on campus at Harvard because of the gay issue- but passed on plagarism by African Amercian professors-
Wonder how much yiras shamayim she learned in Ramaz
oy vey!
#9, Mr. Mosheemes, who says “The Supreme Court ruled in 1996 (in Romer v. Evans) that laws based on nothing more than morality are unconstitutional.”
Thank you for the citation. I just read the case and I didnt see any mention of “laws based on nothing more than morality.” The case said that laws need to have a rational basis to be upheld. Unlike some other traditions, Torah is not incompatible with rationality.
I am shocked to see how many Liberals (which is typically anti-Torah values) post comments ON YWN, (which I always thought was Torah oriented. B”H we have people that have stood up to this. However if these Liberals go under the banner of Frumkeit, we better start doing alot of introspection.
#19,
You are incorrect regarding ROTC at Harvard. It left the university voluntarily in the early 1970s; Kagan was in high school at the time. Harvard students are able to enroll in ROTC at MIT, two subway stops away.
ROTC progams have consolidated; they no longer try to have facilities at every campus in a city but welcome students from different campuses. I personally know a frum Brooklyn College student who is in an ROTC program at Manhattan College in the Bronx, very close to where I live (and literally down the street from an Orthodox synagogue I attend). That program has students from 30 different colleges as it is the only Air Force ROTC program in the New York area. My father completed Air Force ROTC in college and served on active duty during the Korean War. The current Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz, is Jewish.