- This topic has 197 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
The Media constantly defines the Supreme Court by who appointed them. So e/o says the Supreme Court is conservative by 5-4. But the reality is this Court and the last few Courts have hardly passed a ruling that you could say was truly conservative. Almost all the rulings are Pro-liberal with just some excuse of “But if”.
Honestly, I think you couldn’t have responded to today’s decisions any better than the OU did. It was a perfect statement.
This is the response which I sent to an e-mail I received from a politician in Albany, lauding this court decision:-
G-D declared that marriage can only be between a man & a woman, so anyone who conducts themselves otherwise, or abets someone to conduct themselves otherwise, is a Filthy Abomination to the Almighty, who created Man & Woman and knows & understands what is best for Man & Woman.
sam2 i agree it was exceptionally well written.
147: And what do you say back when the politician says, “That’s nice for you, but I don’t beliebe in God”?
Well 3 jews did help the majority…
Also If one reads Justices Scalia’s opinion He states that this case should never have gone to the Supreme Court. no links
The OU response was awful, referring to nonexistent “Judeo-Christian ethics”.
Sam2- you tell them that the point of marriage is to have kids. Bc without kids the World would be extinc
Sam2,
Here is a small part of the OU’s statement:
“Ultimately, decisions on social policy remain with the democratic process, and today the process has spoken and we accord the process and its result the utmost respect.”
You posted that the OU’s statement was, in your view, perfect.
Would you say the same thing about that statement if the issue were, say, banning Shabbos observance, Bris Mila, private schools, or even all Torah learning?
For example, what if the “democratic process” decided that “social policy” requires all men, women and children to be michalel Shabbos and to disallow Bris Mila until the child becomes an adult and chooses then whether or not he wants a bris?
The last part of that quote from the OU is, in my opinion, at once the most troubling and also most revealing of OU Hashkafa.
I suspect that, as an MO organization, the OU must have a strong innate respect/desire for modernity.
Otherwise, who asked the OU to accord the “utmost respect” to this disastrous, anti-Torah result?
If you really wished to uphold the Torah’s honor, and, seemingly, if you actually believed the Torah’s morals are, lihavdil, above all others’, then you would write something else, like the following:
“…While we accord the process with the utmost respect, today’s result of that process, in the form of this ruling, is a tragic one for our morality and our nation.”
What a shame.
After yesterday’s ruling, my facebooks newsfeed ( for those of you that know what that is) was flooded with praise for the Supreme Court. One such status read, ” DOMA is dead. Thank Gd the world is finally opening their eyes and we are truly paving the way for equality”. There were many more similar statuses, all written by Jews and the majority MO if not leaning on the side of orthodox. Something shifted in our world and many frum people are on the pro toieva side. I don’t even argue I keep my mouth shut because nowadays you are an animal if you have a conservative, moralistic thought. I am frightened for what is to come.
As Daniel Tosh once said
“Who cares if gay marriage is legal…it’s not like G-d is going to let them into heaven”
I’m still waiting on R’ Yehuda Levins “well articulated and reasoned response”
147: And what do you say back when the politician says, “That’s nice for you, but I don’t beliebe in God”?
And what do you say to the gay person who says, “Yeah? Well, G-d Created me this way.” Personally I have no answer for that, other than the fact that we all have an achrayus to live a morally correct life as defined by the Torah (and that includes non-Jews). And IF it is so that Hashem created people to be attracted to their own gender, that is no different from Hashem creating the rest of us with a moral imperative to live a chaste life.
Many straight people sadly never get married. Are they not expected to live according to the Torah? Do we throw out everything, because of our taavos, whether or not we are straight, gay, married, or not? Hashem told us what he expects of us. For some of us the challenges and yetzer hara are especially difficult. I feel tremendous compassion for people who are in this awful nisayon, but marriage is already defined by Hashem, and we have gone down a slippery slope in too many states already. Call this legal relationship between the same gender couples whatever you wish (except “married”)and treat them LEGALLY as married couples. But I cannot think of them as married. What’s next – a man can marry his beloved Fido? To quote the Wicked Witch of the West, “What a world, what a world…!”
kfb: That is a good response, at which point the argument ends because his response is, “We clearly have different views of the purpose of marriage.”
And guys, chill. I’m not pro this decision at all. I was just showing 147 why a religious argument doesn’t work in an irreligious context.
And, HaKatan, you are reading too much into it. We are not obligated to protest whenever the Goyim do something Assur. They aren’t forcing anyone to be gay. All they are doing is allowing them marriage benefits. Yes, the Gemara doesn’t like that. But it’s not our obligation to inform them of that. We don’t like the decision but if that’s what democracy wants then it’s what it wants.
Health: I thought the most recent polls said the majority of Americans are against DOMA.
It actually was a conservative answer
Marriage was always controled by the states not the federal government, Take it up with Albany not the Supreme Court if you want the law changed.
The California Prop 8 wasnt decided at all, they just decided they litigants didnt have legal standing as was ruled by a lower court. Again dont like the law take it up with Sacramento or make another citizen prop
“For example, what if the ‘democratic process’ decided that ‘social policy’ requires all men, women and children to be michalel Shabbos and to disallow Bris Mila until the child becomes an adult and chooses then whether or not he wants a bris?”
Big difference, HaKatan. Those decisions would prohibit us from practicing our religion. This decision, on the other hand, doesn’t really affect anyone who doesn’t want to take advantage of it. If you’re not gay and don’t want a gay marriage, this decision has ZERO effect on you. And guess what– it doesn’t really encourage toeivah (although it does validate it). Do you think that any gay people out there who were previously refraining from toeivah are now going to engage in it just because the government says they can get married?
kfb-If someone c’v is unable to have children, should they not be allowed to marry?
Kfb, interesting and a good point. Many people either don’t see marriage and procreation as equal parts in the cycle of life. Or they will say that there are thousand ds of children who need homes in this world so by adopting, they are raising a family in the truest sense. Honestly, I feel very bad for people who can’t find their yh and sometimes don’t understand why Hashem created homosexuals if they’re lives were too be so difficult. But it’s not my job to understand. They should be able to live and do what they want I’m no judge. What I do t appreciate, is having the gay life style shoved down my throat. By frum friends Or liberal politicians, it is forcibly shoved down my throat. I’m a biggot for bit embracing their lifestyle, I’m a bad person because I believe in the Torah. The worst is when someone I know says ” well toieva is just one sun, I don’t see you condemning adulterors and thrives and cheaters”. Umm-I don’t do any of those things and yes I do condem it!
kfb,
While children is one purpose of marriage it is not the sole purpose of marriage. We allow, and encourage, marriage for people incapable of having children.
Zahavasdad, taking it to Sacramento or doing another prop won’t help, because the federal district court opinion in Perry striking down Prop 8 still stands, and can’t be appealed. Perry can’t be overturned by state legislation or a new proposition. So it’s very unlikely to be reversed in California. If anti-toieva Republicans take control in California, then it’s possible, because they would defend Prop 8 in court and have standing.
Morah, I know how you feel, and I’m keeping my mouth shut too. There are a lot of Orthodox Jews, even pretty right-wing MO or right of MO, support “marriage equality” now, and given the political climate and the line of work I’m in, I know I need to keep my mouth shut or risk ostracism. Somebody’s got to speak out, but not everybody has to.
The pro-toieva ideology is rising fast in the US and across the West at the moment, but time is on our side. Groups with strong traditional beliefs against toieva, including not only Orthodox Jews but also evangelicals, Mormons and traditionalist Catholics, have many more children than pro-toieva Americans, and immigrants tend to be socially-conservative. Also, 38 state legislatures have already banned toieva marriage. So things aren’t as bad as they may seem, at least in a long-term view.
Y’all are too emotional about this issue. Toeivas will be toeivas no matter what the supreme court says. The real question is whether the state should recognize a “marriage” and give them all the rights of a married couple. I of course am against this because I believe homosexuals can’t have marriage. But this has NOTHING to do with permitting the toeivah act.
Health, your posts are devoid of any knowledge of legal or constitutional principles.
To address just to of your points-
Why did the toevaniks that brought the case have standing? In the California case, the case was not brought by Toevaniks. It was brought by people who just didn’t like that the law was overturned by the district court.
As for what would happen if the democratic process determined that social policy should require everyone to be mechalel Shabbos, that is precisely what is protected by the First Amendment, so it would be invalidated by the Supreme Court if it were to even pass in the first place.
Sam2, I disagree. I didn’t say the OU should go out and protest. But if you make a public statement as an Orthodox organization then you have to uphold the Torah’s honor as much as possible.
I maintain my position in my last post.
I find MorahRach’s post to be very interesting and very sad. It is a shame that so many MO choose “Modernity” over, lihavdil, the Torah.
JewishFeminist02 (there’s an interesting screen name): this abomination absolutely does affect our right to practice our faith and does encourage people to “come out of the closet” and be proud of their perverse behavior and intentionally promote that behavior, which clearly affects men, women and children, as I wrote above.
Health,
You appear to be mixing up two of the Supreme Court cases decided yesterday (not that this is the only problem with what you have written).
The DOMA case was about a federal law that defines marriage for all federal purposes as being between one man and one woman. The Court held this unconstitutional as a deprivation of the rights of those who want to marry someone of the same gender. This was a substantive ruling.
The Prop 8 cases was about the California referendum that outlawed same-gender marriage that was deemed unconsitutional by the District Court. The Supreme Court held that the party appealing the decision (people who organized to get Prop 8 passed) did not have standing to appeal because they were not personally injured by the District Court’s ruling. This was a procedural ruling.
IMHO, jewishfeminist02 and HaKatan are both right. While the number of gay people will not increase (obviously), the number of people who publicly identify as gay and are proud of it will increase.
I don’t think that the OU, or anyone else, has any reason or necessity to go out and protest at all. They can’t change anything and once the law is made, considering that it’s a nationwide law and not Jewish-specific, why is it really our business? If Jewish men or women want to marry each other in a Jewish ceremony and have it be a Jewish wedding, this Supreme Court ruling is not going to make it any more mutar.
Health- the Supreme Court decision said that the proponents of the law did not have standing to appeal. The people who originally brought the case, the toevaniks, had standing because they were injured by the law, whether or not the law is a good idea or not. It impacted them. It doesn’t impact the proponents of the law. You clearly do not understand the concept of standing, so don’t bother ranting and raving about it. That’s ok. Not everybody has to understand the legal concept of standing.
Listen, I am against gay marriage too. But anyone who argues it from the perspective of the “slippery slope” and bestiality is only hurting the cause. It is NOT the same thing to marry someone of the same gender and to marry an animal, and the constant parroting of that line is what allows gay marriage advocates to slur the opposition and get away with it. Here’s why:
The pro gay marriage perspective is that people should be able to marry– and be married to– whomever they choose. No, that is not redundant. When you have two men who want to get married, each of those men is a human being with consciousness. One has the right to marry and the other also has the right to marry. The question is whether or not they can marry each other.
The case of a man and a dog is different. The man has the right to marry. The dog does not. The man unquestionably must find an equal partner for his marriage who has the right to marry him just as he has the right to marry her (or, according to some, him).
the number of con law scholars on this board is astonishing.
the number of con law scholars on this board is astonishing.
Con law? What is that–slang for constitution law?
My aren’t we cooooooooooooooooooooooool
Who says that the state defines who is married? If it would be a purely private matter there would be no issue (beyond what they are doing but that is not enforceable other than in a Big Brother regime). Of course, that would also mean no government programs that differentiate between a spouse and a friend whom the person wants to be a beneficiary but that could be solved by allowing people to contractually designate anyone they please with their benefit reduced according to actuarial criteria. Similarly, a flat income tax could be enacted so that there would be no reason for a joint return. Alternately, any two people who can prove that they share a home, even if they are traditional flatmates, could designate themselves a household.
JF: I disagree. A slippery slope is “only” a slope as opposed to a free-fall drop because there indeed are differences between different points on that slope, like one you’ve pointed out here between “gay marriage” and bestiality. But the slippery slope is very much valid, just not a straight (no pun intended) drop down.
But, even by your logic, if your sole criterion is “people should be able to marry– and be married to– whomever they choose” then incest (and polygamy – why limit to one?) should also be valid marriage material.
Regardless, the “slippery slope” is indeed a very big concern.
The case of a man and a dog is different. The man has the right to marry. The dog does not. The man unquestionably must find an equal partner for his marriage who has the right to marry him just as he has the right to marry her (or, according to some, him).
I see a technical difference, but I don’t see why that should make a difference. The man has a right to marry, and wishes to marry his dog.
If you are opposed because you don’t want to force the dog into marriage, we can dicker about that. But really? Is the objection really that you don’t want to force the dog into marriage against its dog will? I don’t believe you if you say that it your only or even principal objection.
I am not saying that it is unconscionable to FORCE the dog into marriage. Quite the opposite. I am saying that while a man is entitled to marriage as a civil right, a dog is not. There is no reason why the government should grant the dog the privilege of getting married.
The man is out of luck, and needs to find a marriage partner who also is entitled to marriage by right.
Avi K, I have heard your solution proposed before, and I like it. Why does the government need to be involved in marriage in the first place? Let people get married on their own, and the benefit system can be dealt with completely separately.
Incest and polygamy are significantly stronger arguments for the “slippery slope” than bestiality. Critics, though, would probably say that they are illegal because there is a “legitimate state interest” in preventing both those things– incest, because it will create children with birth defects or abnormalities, and polygamy, because the government will have to provide health insurance benefits for multiple spouses.
Come now. That is cute, but cannot be your real reason. If the man is entitled to marriage, why must the other party also be entitled? Why would it not be enough for one party to be entitled?
You know why you object to it. There’s no reason to make silly reasons.
Because marriage is an equal partnership.
Imagine, for instance, if a man wanted to marry a six-year-old, or someone who is mentally retarded. Like the dog, they have no right to marry and wouldn’t even understand the concept. Remember that marriage done in secular court requires an oath. Ever heard of a dog raising his right paw?
Again, a cut reason, but I do not believe that you think that is the reason why. Because it is just being silly; you are making up arbitrary things that you think have to do with marriage and then drawing arbitrary lines wherever you want.
You know why you object to it. Just own up. Be a man.
Very funny.
Please stop telling me that you know what I *really* believe and think. It is rude, condescending, and entirely inaccurate.
It’s a bit condescending, and I do so very infrequently.
I only do so here because I am confident of it, and because I fully expected you to agree. And I still fully expect you to agree.
Also, I ought to point out that you have already conceded I was correct, because your first argument was based on rights (as if you can only marry if you have a right, which is ridiculous in itself), and then after my challenge, you now switched and say it is because it is impossible to be married without a dual oath (which somehow you insist is the integral part of marriage–you ask if a dog can raise its paw–I ask if a man with no hands can raise his hand and swear). (I’d also note that your arguments would not carry to incest or to plural marriages.)
The reason you object to men marrying dogs is that it is perverse and is not a relationship that society should value or give recognition to. And that is the reason I object to same-sex marriage, and the reason Hashem does also.
If you won’t agree that that is the reason, then I have no interest in debating it, since I think your position is just silliness.
I never said that this was my position, or that this was my only position. My premise is based on arguing with pro gay marriage activists. You cannot go up to someone who believes that gay people have civil rights and should be able to get married just like anybody else and say “you can’t get married because God said so”. It isn’t going to fly and it’s only going to give us a bad name.
Now, yes, man/dog and man/man relationships are both perverse. But they are perverse in different ways, and there is a way to make a distinction between them using the American justice system. If you ignore that distinction, you show your ignorance and immediately lose all credibility with a gay rights activist.
It’s not about being right. It’s about winning.
Thank you for agreeing that that was not your position. It would have pained me to have been condescending to your actual position.
I doubt you will ever convince anyone about this, because you are simply arguing over whether it is perverse and wrong. You will not be able to convince them that it is.
And yes, from my perspective it is the same as marrying a dog. And the only distinction between them worth making is if you think that same-sex marriage is not perverse. I don’t think making silly distinctions helps anyone or gains you credibility with anyone.
Nor would you do anything with that credibility.
It’s not about winning–you won’t win. For me, it’s about knowing what I know and believe.
But hey, if you think you’ll convince someone and this is how, go for it. But I think you’ll have an easier time convincing them that it is perverse than that marriage requires a raised right paw on both sides.
“Because marriage is an equal partnership.”
So the issue with man-dog is that it doesn’t meet the traditional definition of marriage?
Why are you so limiting the definition? I would define marriage as a person committing to a loving relationship with a being he loves.
Frankly, from what I have seen when bestiality, incest and polygamy are brought up, the pro-gay-marriage position has been to get huffy and offended that you would compare them to these obviously perverse and problematic relationships.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.