Supporting Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex & Queer people in Melbourne's Jewish community. Founded 1995.
On November 22, 2012 Caulfield Hebrew Congregation will be hosting a talk entitled Orthodox Jewish Approaches to Same-sex Relationships as part of it’s iLearn series. Ittay Flescher will be facilitating the discussion.
Admission is $10 and the talk starts at 8pm. Download the booking form here. Please RSVP to the CHC office on (03) 9525-9492 for further information. It may be ok to turn up on the evening and pay at the door but best to book in advance to avoid disappointment.
19 October 2012
The Australian Jewish News Melbourne edition
Letters to the editor should be no more than 250 words and may be edited for length and content. Only letters sent to letters@jewishnews.net.au will be considered for publication. Please supply an address and daytime phone number for verification.
Justice Stephen Rothman’s article “Marriage rites are rights for all” (AJN 12/10) is intellectually flawed several reasons:
While he, like everyone, is entitled to express his view, to state that “current opposition to same-sex marriage is irrational” is patently risible.
Opposition to homosexual marriage is eminently rational. It is based on the universal age-old, time-hallowed, sacred definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Will Justice Rothman perhaps advocate a similar change to the definition of death and redefine it as, say, “the loss of a will to live”, thus paving the way for voluntary euthanasia? After all, it is less conscience-pricking to kill an already dead man.
Will he, moreover, accuse those opposed to such a radical redefinition (and redefining marriage is no less radical) of being “irrational”?
Such intolerant pejorative labelling is redolent of the anti-intellectual tactics of the far left.
That can be no meaningful comparison between opposition to circumcision, a practice sanctified nearly four millennia ago by Abraham, progenitor of the three monotheistic faiths accounting for 60 per cent of the world’s population, and opposition to same-sex marriage which, prior to the 21st century, was instituted in only the most decadent ancient cultures.
Justice Rothman rightly cites evidence that female circumcision “injures the ‘victim’ both physically and psychologically”.
However, there was other medical evidence he didn’t mention.
Earlier this year, 150 prominent doctors – including Victoria’s deputy chief psychiatrist – publicly declared in the face of political correctness that in their considered medical view marriage between a man and a woman exclusively is the basis for a healthy society.
Even supposing the evidence is not conclusive, should Justice Rothman not take it into account? Worse, on what intellectually sound basis does he excoriate those who do and tell them they are irrational?
Justice Rothman declares that homosexual marriage is “not antithetical to the values of society in which that minority resides”.
I beg to disagree.
The values of Australian society are founded on what is often termed Judaeo-Christian ethic and which Jews term the Noahide Code, according to which homosexuality is one of a handful of offences (and prawn-eating is not one of them), which one is bidden to resist even on pain of death.
RABBI CHAIM INGRAM
Bondi Junction, NSW
October 12, 2012 – page 24
The Australian Jewish News Melbourne edition
To deny same-sex couples a chance to marry is discriminatory and undemocratic, just as the recent ruling criminalizing circumcision is in Germany.
Some sections of the community have opposed amendments to the Marriage Act to include same-sex marriage.
At the same time, those persons vehemently criticise the decision in Germany to render circumcision illegal.
The two issues have one fundamental common thread: the nature of minority rights.
Current opposition to same-sex marriage is irrational and fundamentally undemocratic; even more undemocratic than rendering male circumcision illegal.
Yet each is a different side of the one coin. These statements need explanation.
When occupying a communal position, I once suggested, somewhat arrogantly, that multiculturalism is a Jewish concept.
But multiculturalism, when properly implemented, is a species of equal justice.
Its origins are pre-enlightenment.
Aristotle wrote about it.
Equal justice requires that like should be treated alike and that the difference in treatment of different persons should be rational.
Equal justice is a principle that is fundamental to the exercise of judicial power and ought to be fundamental to, and a limitation on, the exercise of legislative power in a constitutional democracy in which the implementation of the rule of law is required.
Equal justice prohibits discrimination, except to the extent required to meet and ameliorate disadvantage. It is protected by the US Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights.
The concept of equal justice, and adherence to it, defines the strength of the democracy that implements it.
Democracy is not simply the rule of the majority.
Democracy requires, among other things, that the majority not interfere with the capacity of a minority to engage in conduct that is not antithetical to the values of the society in which theat minority resides, and that causes no reduction in the rights of other members of society.
While the majority has rights, so to do members of the minority group.
Discrimination against minorities is undemocratic and contrary to the rule of law, regardless of whether the minority discriminated against is based on gender, race, colour, religion or sexuality.
Yet each of the major religions, including the Orthodox rabbinate, has opposed the amendments to the Marriage Act to include same sex relationships.
Why?
Is it because the Mosaic laws describing lying with man as with woman as an abomination?
If so, it joins adultery, idolatry, breaking the Sabbath and eating non-kosher food; hardly a compelling group for a basis to discriminate against a minority in secular society.
Do we discriminate against prawn eaters?
As a society, Australia does not prohibit same-sex relationships.
Some suggest there should be an act to recognise civil unions, which would include same-sex relationships.
Why?
That is precisely what the Marriage Act does; it recognises civil unions
It recognises such unions, albeit currently restricted to heterosexual relationships, and thereby avoids the couple meeting the more ambiguous tests necessary to establish a de facto relationship and also truncates the time period that may be necessary to achieve recognition.
The Marriage Act, as it currently operates, does not affect religious observance and does not implement religious practice.
Each of Christianity, Islam and Judaism do not accept all marriages recognised by the Marriage Act; even though they confined to persons of different gender.
Likewise, the Marriage Act does not recognise all religious marriages.
One only has to instance the Roman Catholic prohibition on divorce and the need for religious divorce and/or annulment in Judaism and Islam to understand that there are many marriages that religion considers are continuing and valid, that the civil law does not recognise.
Likewise, using the same example, there are many marriages that the civil law recognises that these religions will not, e.g. a second marriage of a person who has not received a religious annulment or divorce, or any non-religious marriage conducted by a celebrant.
So the recognition of a relationship under the Marriage Act does not impact upon the religious observance of any person in Australia or the recognition of the relationship by any religion.
An amendment to the Marriage Act to allow for the recognition of same-sex couples would not prevent any and every rabbi berating congregants on the alleged evils of homosexuality.
It would not stop the Cardinal Archbishop doing likewise; nor the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney.
Humankind is, in the religious view, created in the image of God. Our traits and characteristics are God-given. Our capacity to choose what is right or wrong is God-given. We were given the ability to make moral choices. It is for the individual to choose what she or he considers right or wrong.
Unless that choice results in conduct that interferes with the relationships between members of society or the ability of others to enjoy their own lives, government has no role in prescribing the conduct.
Nor does it have a role in prescribing advantages for some people over others, based on other than conduct.
There is no prohibition on same-sex relationships.
Therefore, excluding same-sex relationships from the Marriage Act does not implement any societal purpose.
It simply discriminates, not on the basis of conduct, to deny rights to some that are available to all others.
For my own part, whether, as an adherent to Orthodox Judaism, I support or oppose same-sex relationships is irrelevant.
Assuming I oppose them, it is not my decision to make.
I am not affected in the enjoyment of my rights in society by the existence of same-sex relationships, nor by the recognition by the law of those same-sex relationships.
If otherwise observant Jews engage in same-sex relationships, openly or otherwise, that is a matter for their conscience and between them and God, and possibly their rabbi.
But for our community to oppose the recognition of same-sex relationships for all, even atheists, is wholly hypocritical.
This is not post-modernism. The foregoing principles of equal justice enshrine the view that some viewpoints ought not be allowed to be put; those viewpoints that encourage illegality or those that intimidate or insult minorities to the point where those minorities are constrained in enjoying all of the privileges that flow with the democratic society in which they live.
But we, as a group, would oppose, quite properly, any prohibition on male circumcision, because male circumcision is fundamental to our religious beliefs and our existence as a minority.
The recognition of a relationship under the Marriage Act does
not impact upon the religious observance of any person in
Australia or the recognition of the relationship by any religion.
There is no suggestion, or evidence, that male circumcision adversely affects the child.
In that position, we would be joined by members of the Islamic faith.
Yet, it is quite conceivable that majoritarian view would see the mutilation of a child at a time when s/he is incapable of giving informed consent as a moral question.
That is the position adopted in Germany.
I interpose, at this point, to make clear that the arguments against female circumcision are fundamentally different, because of the purpose of female circumcision and the evidence that injures the “victim” , both physically and psychologically.
In the end, the issue is a simple one.
Should the law recognise some civil unions and not others in circumstances where those that are not recognised are unions that are not illegal and do not affect the rights, life or liberty of others?
We have the right to observe our religion; we do not have the right to force its teachings and observance on others.
Justice Stephen Rothman is a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and a former president of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies. He says the article does not relate to the constitutional validity of any amendments to the Marriage Act.
9 November 2012
The Australian Jewish News Melbourne edition
Letters to the editor should be no more than 250 words and may be edited for length and content. Only letters sent to letters@jewishnews.net.au will be considered for publication. Please supply an address and daytime phone number for verification.
I WAS displayed by Rabbi Moshe Gutnick’s column about same-sex marriage (AJN 26/11). He raises and then dismisses the key point that civil, non-religiously affiliated celebrants can perform legally recognised marriages in Australia.
Contrary to his claim, this is indeed an indication that the civil status of marriage is not based on a “Judeo-Christian, and indeed biblical, foundation”.
Speaking of a biblical foundation, I find it especially interesting that Rabbi Gutnick then raises a “slippery slope” argument that approving same-sex marriage would lead to the permitting of a marriage between a man and two women because in the recent parshah, Vayetze, Yaakov enters into that exact relationship with Rachel and Leah!
Australia prides itself on multiculturalism, and one of its most attractive features is the lack of religious influence in its civic life. I’m sure it would not occur to Rabbi Gutnick to insist that other marriages forbidden to Orthodox Jews, such as marriage between a Cohen and a divorcee, should be forbidden by civil law in Australia. Similarly, Jewish law regarding marriages and homosexuality should not be imposed on the larger Australian community.
JANICE GELB
South Yarra, VIC
Rabbis Moshe Gutnick (AJN 26/10) And Chaim Ingram (AJN 19/10) have very different approaches, but each does not deal with the fundamental issue. Rabbi Gutnick’s comment on the place of Judeo-Christian ethic in Australia is misplaced. The only mention of God in relation to the Australian Constitution is in the preamble to the Imperial (UK) Act, not in any operative provision of that Constitution, and the mention is that the people were “humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God”. So am I.
Australian democracy is quite different to most. Firstly, voting is compulsory. The majority in Australia is not silent; it votes. Secondly, voting is preferential. The person elected represents a consensus of the majority in the electorate.
The combination of the two factors forces political parties to the centre; to appeal to the majority are not sectarian interests, who will then turn out to vote on one or more issues of concern.
Thirdly, Australia, despite its history of bigotry, particularly to blacks, gays and new immigrant groups, is extremely tolerant; laissez-faire, not moralistic. It allows people to do what they like as long as it doesn’t interfere with them.
The best example is the Australian reaction to the AIDS epidemic. We did not suffer at the hands of religious bigotry. We educated and provided needle exchange; and Australia was the only major western country in which the incidents of AIDS fell in the gay community and was never an epidemic in the heterosexual community.
Australia owes much to the Judeo-Christian ethic, but only indirectly, and we have significantly departed from it: e.g. stem cell research (inconsistent with Christian, but not Jewish, ethos); abortion; and same gender relationships. Democracy is not a product of the Judeo-Christian ethic.
Rabbi Gutnick threatens polygamy and incest as the possible result if marriage is broadened. He must have read the parshah: Abraham had three wives and married his niece! Each act would be illegal in Australia.
The Judeo-Christian ethic (what Rabbi Ingram calls the conduct of Abraham, being over 6000 years old) allowed and encouraged polygamy (at least one male with more than one wife); it allowed slavery (up to six years); and it permitted Abraham to marry his niece, Issac his cousin, Esau his first cousin, Jacob his first two cousins (through both his mother and father).
Australia has determined that same gender relationships should be legal – they can be recognised as de facto couples. If the Judeo-Christian ethos prevailed, as Rabbi Gutnick suggests, this would not have occurred.
Perhaps same-gender marriages are not, in the Jewish view, made in heaven. But the Jewish view does not prevail in Australia. We do not live, thank God, in a theocracy; we live in a democracy.
The only issue is whether a couple legally living together (or who want to) should have the choice of marriage. This change does not affect Orthodox Judaism, but it does effect true tolerance to those who are currently suffering discriminatory treatment.
And in the end, it’s about treating others as we would want to be treated (or not doing to them that which we would find hateful); everything else is just commentary.
JUSTICE STEPHEN ROTHMAN
Bondi Junction, NSW
DICTIONARY definitions of marriage recognise “mutual relation of husband and wife” being “a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family”.
Justice Stephen Rothman (AJN 12/10) regards marriage as a universal rite with rights for all; however, Rabbi Gutnick (AJN 26/10) surely has debunked that assertion by reminding us that incestuous or polygamist marriages are not acceptable so rites and rights have some exceptions. Why? Because that is our Judaic tradition.
Respect, love the one’s fellow man, tolerance, diversity, compassion for weaknesses within us all and equal standing before our creator is a sine qua non also contained within our Judaic traditions. For millennia, during times of upheaval, confusion and bedlam, we have been a light unto the nations and therefore let us not change widely understood definitions of marriage or the teachings of Torah that form the basis of civilised society and family in order to satisfy a vocal interest group.
ADAM RAPAPORT
Bondi Junction, NSW