Category: Politics

Jewish submissions to the Select Committee on the Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill

Select Committee on the Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill

All submissions

6 Council of Progressive Rabbis and the Union for Progressive Judaism (PDF 2422 KB) [backup copy]
6.1 Supplementary to submission 6 (PDF 3073 KB)  [backup copy]
128 Rabbinic Council of Australia and New Zealand (PDF 68 KB) [backup copy]
131 Rabbinical Council of NSW (PDF 131 KB) [backup copy]
133 Rabbinical Council of Australia and New Zealand (RCANZ) & Rabbinical Council of Victoria (RCV) (PDF 33 KB) [backup copy]

Responses in the AJN to Bill Leak’s “Waffen-SSM” cartoon

A selection of responses to Bill Leak’s “Waffen-SSM“ cartoon that were published in the Australian Jewish News.  Click on each to enlarge.

Leak's SS and SSM comparison repulsive
“Leak’s SS and SSM comparison ‘repulsive'” by Yael Brender (Sep 30, 2016)
Geoff Bloch letter
Letter by Geoff Bloch (Oct 14, 2016)
Paul Winter letter
Letter by Paul Winter (Oct 21, 2016)
Gregory Storer letter (part 1)
Letter by Gregory Storer (part 1) (Oct 28, 2016)
Gregory Storer letter (part 2)
Letter by Gregory Storer (part 2) (Oct 28, 2016)

Protecting minorities

IT’S a bit rich for Paul Winter (AJN 21/10) to talk about society only protecting noisy, aggressive minorities subverting democracy.

Part of our democratic society is to protest about things we see as wrong. Signalling disapproval to a supplier, such as a hotel, is a legitimate way to make it known that you disapprove of their business practices.  Threatening people is never acceptable and every protest has those on the fringe.  It’s unfair to suggest that all protesters hold the same opinions or use the same actions.  Similarly, overlooking that a vast majority of Australians support marriage equality and that it’s a small minority of religious people who object is to ignore reality.

As a society we must look after our minorities and listen to their needs so that people aren’t simply ignored or regarded as insignificant.  The gay population is about two per cent, while the Jewish population is around 0.5 per cent.

Minorities always struggle to have their plight seen as important by the larger population and struggle to gain recognition and relevance in a world that mostly considers minorities unimportant.

In his letter, Geoff Bloch (AJN 14/10) downplays the obvious Nazi connections with the Leak cartoon.  He said that the cartoon did not depict marriage equality advocates as Nazis, seeming to avoid the only words written on the cartoon “Waffen-SSM”.

Speaking as a man who is gay, I found Leak’s cartoon to be in extremely bad taste and Bloch’s letter equally objectionable.

GREGORY STORER
Carnegie, Vic

AIJAC should apologise for unsubstantiated criticism of Greens policy

On June 27 2016 the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) published an article by Ahron Shapiro critical of the Australian Greens entitled “The Greens and Israel“.

The article opened with the following caution:

Pre-election polling and analysis suggests the Australian Greens party is likely to pick up one or more lower house seats this election – on top of retaining the seat of Melbourne. This gives it the potential to not only hold the balance of power in the Senate, but if a hung parliament results from this election, also determine who forms government – with very significant leverage over the minority government thus formed.

and concluded with the following section on domestic policy:

Religious Exemptions

A further issue in the Greens platform likely to concern many in Australia is its policy of removing clauses granting limited exemptions to religious organisations from anti-discrimination laws. This would likely impact significantly on Jewish schools and other communal institutions and concern has been expressed about this policy by Jewish community leaders.

Aleph Melbourne approached AIJAC for clarification of the “significant impact” and the “expressed concern” referred to in the article.

Colin Rubinstein, AIJAC Executive Director, provided the following explanation:

In response to your query I refer you to the story below in the Australian from May 24.
While it may be that there was not much Jewish reaction in the press on the Greens plan, the reaction that was published was top-level.
Peter Wertheim does not comment on every story he is approached for, and his decision to comment here, I would say, well  reflected his confidence and our feedback too that he was conveying the community’s sentiment expressed anecdotally behind the scenes.
At any rate, our mention of this plan took up a very small part of our overall report on the Greens, and should be put in proper perspective.

Colin also provided the two source paragraphs from the May 24 2016 article “Federal election 2016: Greens under pressure on religion reforms” in The Australian by David Crowe:

Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders are objecting to the Greens plan to remove the religious ­exemptions, saying it could force people to act against their faith.

and:

Executive Council of Australian Jewry director Peter Wertheim said: “It would be wrong and unworkable for the law to compel people to do things that are contrary to their religious beliefs or conscience.’’

Independently, Aleph Melbourne had contacted Peter Wertheim, Executive Director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, on May 24 2016 about the aforementioned article, querying if he had been quoted accurately.  Peter provided the following response:

Here is the whole quote I gave to The Australian.

It is appropriate for the law to ensure that people are  not discriminated against at work or in accessing education, housing and other services, because of their race, gender, sexual preference, age or disability.    However, it would be wrong and unworkable for the law to compel people to do things that are contrary to their religious beliefs or conscience. 

My comment would therefore not apply to a proposed change to the definition of marriage in section 5[1] of the Marriage Act.  But it would apply to a proposed repeal of section 47[2] of the Marriage Act. My understanding is that the proponents of marriage equality are only seeking the former, not the latter. I didn’t refer specifically to the Greens, but given the vagueness and generality of Senator McKimm’s statements I couldn’t work out what he was proposing, and therefore thought it was right to comment.

It is evident that AIJAC was not aware of Peter Wertheim’s full quote supplied to The Australian, and by inference was similarly unaware that Peter was referring to issues relating to the Marriage Act and not anti-discrimination legislation.

AIJAC was lobbying their interest groups to vote unfavourably for the Greens in the July 2 2016 Federal election.  Religious exemptions to anti-discrimination legislation directly impact LGBTIQ Australians, some of whom are Jewish, who are employed by Jewish organisations.  It is deeply disappointing that AIJAC targeted the Greens anti-discrimination policy based on an unsubstantiated claim, more so when it has the potential to hurt some of the most vulnerable members of society.

It is also deeply disappointing that AIJAC attempted to minimise the significance of mentioning the paragraph about the Greens policy on removal of religious exemptions to anti-discrimination legislation.  The damage to people’s lives due to this exemption is amply significant.

An apology from AIJAC to the Greens and to LGBTIQ people for their unfair criticism of the Greens policy would be appreciated.

[1] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/s5.html
[2] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/s47.html

Media Release: Aleph Melbourne Voters Guide for Marriage Equality

ALEPH MELBOURNE MEDIA RELEASE
2016 VOTERS GUIDE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN JEWISH MELBOURNE
June 21 2016

Aleph Melbourne proudly announces its 2016 Voters Guide for Marriage Equality in Jewish Melbourne.

Following on from the successful 2013 edition, this voters guide is an essential resource for the savvy voter who is keen on prioritising equality for same-sex attracted, intersex and gender diverse people.

The guide covers the electorates of Goldstein, Higgins, Hotham, Kooyong, Melbourne Ports and Menzies.  These electorates are selected as they span the suburbs where Melbourne’s Jewish community are predominantly located.

Individual candidates’ positions are provided where known along with links to party and social media profiles.

A list of supportive senate candidates will be added in coming days.

A range of resources are provided in the guide to allow further research into the key issues around achieving equality and organisations that are working to help achieve it.

View the guide here: http://aleph.org.au/2016/06/11/2016-voters-guide-to-marriage-equality-in-jewish-melbourne

CONTACT: Michael Barnett | michael@aleph.org.au | 0417-595-541

2016 Voters Guide to Marriage Equality in Jewish Melbourne

This guide is aimed to assist voters living in the main Jewish neighbourhoods in Melbourne best select candidates who have comprehensively demonstrated or pledged their full support for marriage equality.

Levels of support for “same-sex marriage” listed for each electorate in this guide are taken from the “News Ltd 2010 Same-Sex Marriage Poll”.  The raw data is available in the resources section below.

MPs re-contesting their seats have an * after their name.

Feedback, corrections and updates are invited via the form below.  Information is provided here in good faith and on the understanding that it is correct.

This page is optimised for viewing on a full-screen browser.

Candidates & Electorates

Goldstein

2010 levels of support for “same-sex marriage” in electorate:

  • For: 50% | Against: 28% | Don’t Care: 22%

Candidates who will support marriage equality based on their party or personal position:

Candidates who personally support marriage equality but are denied a free vote by their party:

  • Tim WILSON (Liberal) (web site | facebook[2]) 

Candidates who will oppose marriage equality based on their party or personal position:

Higgins

2010 levels of support for “same-sex marriage” in electorate:

  • For: 57% | Against: 27% | Don’t Care: 17%

Candidates who will support marriage equality based on their party or personal position:

Candidates who personally support marriage equality but are denied a free vote by their party:

Hotham

2010 levels of support for “same-sex marriage” in electorate:

  • For: 44% | Against: 32% | Don’t Care: 24%

Candidates who will support marriage equality based on their party or personal position:

Candidates who do not have a declared position on marriage equality but are denied a free vote by their party:

  • George HUA (Liberal) (web site | facebook)
    ** Note: this candidate has refused to advise if they would support marriage equality.

Candidates who will oppose marriage equality based on their party or personal position:

Kooyong

2010 levels of support for “same-sex marriage” in electorate:

  • For: 54% | Against: 29% | Don’t Care: 18%

Candidates who will support marriage equality based on their party or personal position:

Candidates who personally support marriage equality but are denied a free vote by their party:

  • Josh FRYDENBERG* (Liberal) (web site | facebook[12]) ✡

Melbourne Ports

2010 levels of support for “same-sex marriage” in electorate:

  • For: 61% | Against: 20% | Don’t Care: 19%

Candidates who will support marriage equality based on their party or personal position:

  • Michael DANBY* (ALP) (web site | facebook[9]) ✡
  • Steph HODGINS-MAY (The Greens) (web site | facebook[5])
  • Peter HOLLAND (Independent) (web site | facebook[6])
  • Levi MCKENZIE-KIRKBRIGHT (Drug Law Reform) (web site | email)
  • Robert Millen SMYTH (AJP) (web site)
  • Henry VON DOUSSA (Marriage Equality) (party web site | facebook)

Candidates who personally support marriage equality but are denied a free vote by their party:

Candidates who will oppose marriage equality based on their party or personal position:

  • John B MYERS (Independent) (facebook)

Menzies

2010 levels of support for “same-sex marriage” in electorate:

  • For: 39% | Against: 41% | Don’t Care: 19%

Candidates who will support marriage equality based on their party or personal position:

Candidates who do not have a declared their position on marriage equality but belong to a party that is broadly supportive of progressive and/or evidence-based reform:

Candidates who will oppose marriage equality based on their party or personal position:

✡ Candidate has declared a Jewish identity
Candidate has declared a Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender or Intersex identity

Parties

Parties that support marriage equality in their policy platform and require their candidates to vote accordingly:

Parties that support marriage equality in their policy platform but allow their candidates to vote on their conscience:

Parties that don’t currently have a position on marriage equality but are broadly supportive of equality and progressive and/or evidence-based reform:

Parties that are actively obstructing the prompt passage of marriage equality:

Independent candidates may vote for or against marriage equality as they choose.

Resources





    STALE Facebook links

    1. https://www.facebook.com/AJPNarenChellappah
    2. https://www.facebook.com/TimWilsonForGoldstein
    3. https://www.facebook.com/greens.jason
    4. https://www.facebook.com/AJPHiggins
    5. https://www.facebook.com/stephforports
    6. https://www.facebook.com/peterforthepalais
    7. https://www.facebook.com/AdamRundellALP
    8. https://www.facebook.com/TonyHulbertAJP
    9. https://www.facebook.com/michael.danby.39
    10. https://www.facebook.com/PeterVassiliou
    11. https://www.facebook.com/HalEnnnnn
    12. https://www.facebook.com/JoshFrydenbergMP

    ECAJ & Marriage Equality

    From: Michael Barnett
    Date: 16 February 2016 at 22:06
    Subject: ECAJ & Marriage Equality
    To: Peter Wertheim <PWertheim@ecaj.org.au>, Robert Goot <president@ecaj.org.au>

    Hi Peter, Robert,
     
    I see the ECAJ are keen to discuss “LGBT equality” for it’s ideological purposes:
     
    http://www.ecaj.org.au/2016/open-letter-to-the-anti-israel-left
     
    Ordinarily this use of LGBTI people would not bother me but given Australia doesn’t have LGBTI equality and given your organisation exists to promote the welfare (eg equality) of Australians, it seems you’re taking a liberty with the liberties LGBTI Australians don’t yet have.
     
    Allow me to remind you of your platform:
     

    This Council:
    1.1 NOTES that it is the vision of the ECAJ to create and support a community in which all Australians, including all Jewish Australians:
    (a) feel valued and their cultural differences are respected;
    (b) have a fair opportunity to meet their material and other needs; and
    (c) are equally empowered as citizens to participate in and contribute to all facets of life in the wider community;

    Right now I’m not feeling especially valued, not do I have fair opportunity to meet my needs, and am not empowered to participate in or contribute to all facets of life in the wider community.  I am sure I speak for others too.
     
    On this particular ground, I’d really like your organisation to sign its name to marriage equality so LGBTI people in Australia can have equal rights, similarly to those of the people you are so proud to show off in your open letter.
     
    To this end, Australian Marriage Equality have provided a simple mechanism to facilitate your addition to their list of over 800 supporters:
     
    http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/non-profit-support
     
    It would also be an ideal opportunity for the ECAJ to follow in the footsteps of Bialik College, a proud supporter of marriage equality.
     
    How soon can you arrange this support?
     
    Regards,
    Michael.
    0417-595-541.

    Statement On Marriage Equality to the Parliament of Australia by the Masorti Beit Din of Australasia

    [Original media release here]

    The following is a statement issued by the Masorti Beit Din to Members of the Australian Parliament on the question of marriage equality.

    For further information please contact Rabbi Adam Stein on 0422 674 455 or by email at rabbistein@kehilatnitzan.org.au

    Statement On Marriage Equality
    to the Parliament of Australia
    by the Masorti Beit Din of Australasia

    Marriage Equality is an issue which has been addressed in different ways in a number of English speaking countries (and beyond) over the last couple of years. Ireland approached it as a constitutional issue while both the New Zealand and United Kingdom parliaments legislated on it. In the United States of America, the Supreme Court recently declared same-sex legal in all 50 states.

    The Masorti Beit Din is guided in its deliberations by the Rabbinical Assembly1’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS). In December 2006, the CLJS adopted a responsum entitled “Homosexuality, Human Dignity and Halakhah”2 which states that rabbinic prohibitions banning gay and lesbian intimate acts “are superseded based upon the Talmudic principle of kvod habriot, our obligation to preserve the human dignity of all people (p19).”

    The responsum also “normalizes the status of gay and lesbian Jews in the Jewish community,” and declares “stable, committed, Jewish relationships to be as necessary and beneficial for homosexuals and their families as they are for heterosexuals (p19).”

    Subsequently, in Spring 2012, the CLJS adopted an addendum entitled “Rituals And Documents Of Marriage And Divorce For Same-Sex Couples.”3 This document states “we are convinced that the nomenclature of gay marriage and divorce should be equal and clearly stated as such, not obscured in ambiguous language (p3).”

    This Beit Din, cognizant of the above documents and precedents, calls on the Australian Parliament to legislate for Marriage Equality.

    We base our call not only on the above CLJS decisions but upon the following principles:

    1. The Hebrew Bible tells us that we are all created in the Image of G-d. G-d does not distinguish between heterosexuals and homosexuals.
    2. One of the gifts G-d has placed in the world is love. G-d did not discriminate between the love experienced by people who are heterosexual and those who are homosexual

    Much of the opposition to monogamous homosexual relationships is based on the assumption that it is a lifestyle choice. It was not that long ago that homosexuality carried a diagnostic category as a mental illness (the American Psychiatric Association removed it by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, issued in 1974).

    Judaism has never seen the role of sexual intercourse as only for procreation. Judaism has seen it also as a way in which a loving relationship can be expressed between two individuals.

    The Beit Din rejects the spurious argument advanced by some who oppose marriage equality that the best environment in which to raise children is one where there is one father and one mother. Rather the Beit Din sees the best environment being one in which the child is raised in a loving, caring environment which may be with either one or two parents, of either or both genders.

    The current debate in Australia regards the civil and government recognition of same sex marriages. We see no reason to oppose such legislation. Rather, we encourage all Jews who care about respect and dignity for everyone in Australian society to support marriage equality.

    The Jewish community, and the broader Australian community, should be aware that the rabbis and other communal leaders who oppose marriage equality DO NOT represent the whole Jewish community, nor probably even a majority of it .

    We are happy to use values and principles drawn from Jewish text, law, and tradition, and well as proven research, to support the basic rights and dignity of fellow Australians.

    Dated 03 July, 2015

    Masorti Beit Din of Australasia
    Rabbi Jeffrey Cohen, DD, DMin, FRSA, MPH, BCom, BCC- Chair
    Rabbi Jeffrey Kamins, JD, MHL- Masorti@Emanuel, Sydney
    Rabbi Adam Stein, MARS, MAEd- Kehilat Nitzan, Melbourne

    The Beit Din is the Rabbinic/Ecclesiastical Court for Masorti Judaism in Australia and New Zealand

    1 The Rabbinical Assembly is the international association of Conservative/Masorti rabbis.
    2 www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/halakhah/teshuvot/20052010/dorff_nevins_reisner_dignity.pdf, or http://tinyurl.com/pcrpw23, accessed 12 June 2015.
    3 www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/halakhah/teshuvot/2011-2020/same-sex-marriage-and-divorce-appendix.pdf, http://tinyurl.com/cmsgpk6, accessed 12 June 2015.

    Australian orthodox rabbis interfering in civil marriage (again)!

    A little over three years ago, in April 2012, orthodox rabbis in Sydney and Melbourne submitted letters to a Senate enquiry, opposing marriage equality.

    As reported in yesterday’s The Australian (June 9 2015), rabbis are among 38 signatories to a letter (PDF) addressed to the Prime Minister opposing marriage equality.  The three Orthodox rabbis, one from Melbourne and two from Sydney, are:

    Rabbi Mordechai Gutnick
    President Rabbinical Council of Victoria
    Senior Dayan – Melbourne Beth Din (Jewish Ecclesiastical Court)

    Rabbi Moshe D Gutnick
    Senior Dayan – Sydney Beth Din

    Rabbi Yehoram Ulman
    President Rabbinical Council of NSW
    Senior Dayan – Sydney Beth Din

    Aleph Melbourne notes that any proposed changes to the Marriage Act to broaden the definition of marriage from “one man and one woman” to wording similar to “two people” will safeguard ministers of religion and not require them to perform marriages between two people of the same-sex.

    As it stands, ministers of religion are authorised to refuse to marry any two people, a protection that would carry through with proposed marriage equality amendments.

    Exactly why these rabbis are opposing changes to the Marriage Act is incomprehensible in terms of their religious obligations, as any such changes will have no impact on their professional responsibilities.  Therefore is would seem that these rabbis are commenting on matters of civil law beyond their purview, which begs the question: why?

    Response to “Statement by Abrahamic Faith Leaders of Canberra”

    Aleph Melbourne – Media Release
    October 21 2013

    Response to Statement by Abrahamic Faith Leaders of Canberra

    Aleph Melbourne expresses extreme disappointment with those religious leaders in the Jewish community who continue to object to proposed changes to instruments of civil law that do not impact their ability to observe their religion or undertake their religious beliefs and obligations.

    Aleph Melbourne co-convenor Michael Barnett called on clerics who wish to restrict the civil liberties of wider society to reflect on their own civil liberties and their ability to observe their faith without interference from government.  Barnett said: “These meddlesome rabbis sing a very different tune when the focus turns to matters of ritual circumcision or kosher slaughtering of animals and do not tolerate any government interference.  Yet they wish to interfere in matters of civil marriage, an area that does not impact them, and demand respect in doing so.”

    Barnett added: “Similarly, these particular rabbis should respect the freedoms of other members of society to live their lives as they wish and recognise their personal relationships under civil law.  No rabbi will ever be forced to perform a marriage they object to and accordingly, they have no rational or valid grounds for concern or precedent to call on.”

    Aleph Melbourne calls on Rabbi Shmuel Feldman to distance himself from this and any other campaign that aims to impinge on the civil liberties of all citizens who wish to avail themselves of a marriage license under the proposed ACT legislation.

    Michael Barnett.
    Co-convenor, Aleph Melbourne.
    0417-595-541

    The following statement was published through the Australian Christian Lobby on October 21, 2013.

    Statement by Abrahamic Faith Leaders of Canberra

    Below is a copy of a statement of faith by Seven faith leaders here in Canberra that was released today ahead of the ACT Marriage Equality Bill that is expected to be debated tomorrow.

    Statement by Abrahamic Faith Leaders of Canberra
    21 October 2013

    Seventy percent of Australians identify with an Abrahamic religion – Christianity, Islam and Judaism. As leaders of several of these faith traditions, we have gathered to share our concerns about the ACT Government’s proposed same sex marriage legislation. We are concerned for the long-term risks of such a Bill for our society.
    While affirming the inherent dignity of all human beings, our faith traditions also affirm the traditional concept of marriage between a man and a woman as being for the good of the individual, the family and society.
    We invite the wider community to join with us in calling for the Bill to be subject to community consultation through the normal Legislative Assembly Committee process.

    Imam Adama Konda, Canberra Islamic Centre
    Arnold Cummins, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
    Pastor Sean Stanton, Australian Christian Churches, Canberra
    Bishop Trevor Edwards, Anglican Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn
    Pastor BJ Hayes, Canberra National Adventist Church
    Monsignor John Woods, Catholic Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn
    Rabbi Shmuel Feldman, Rabbi for Canberra and Region.