JCCV backs same sex marriage | AJN

The Jewish Community Council of Victoria has passed a motion in support of same-sex marriage.

JCCV backs same sex marriage

October 4, 2017

THE Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV) has voted to support same-sex marriage and called on the Federal Government to eliminate discrimination against same-sex couples.

The resolution passed on Monday night “notes that the question before Australia at the upcoming postal survey is one relating to civil, not religious, marriage”, “supports same sex marriage under civil law as part of its commitment to equal rights and respect for all people and the elimination of discrimination in all its forms” and “urges all participants in the public debate regarding same sex marriage to engage with respect and tolerance, and without personal rancour”.

It also resolved to “call on the Federal Government to support the elimination of discrimination against same sex couples under Australia’s civil law by extending legal recognition to marriages between same sex couples who choose to marry”,”to support equal treatment under Australian law to same sex couples who choose to marry” and “to call on its members and the wider community to take part in the postal survey and help ensure that the basic right to marriage is afforded to all Australians regardless of their gender or sexuality in order to create a modern, fair and just society”.

At the organisation’s monthly plenumt, 41 people representing 25 affiliates voted in favour of the motion, with four abstentions.

Fourteen people spoke in favour of the motion proposed by the National Council of Jewish Women of Australia (Victoria) and seconded by the Australasian Union of Jewish Students, while two people spoke against the JCCV passing a motion on same-sex marriage, but not against same-sex marriage itself.

“JCCV has been working very hard in the area of inclusion for Jewish members of the community who identify at LGBTI for a number of years,” the body’s president Jennifer Huppert said.

“This is one further step and relates to same sex civil marriage and the view of the JCCV, and the plenum, is that this is a human rights issue and consistent with our commitment to human right and equality.”

Huppert said she is personally in favour of same-sex marriage and the motion sent a clear message of equality.,

“There were some people who said they didn’t think that it was an appropriate matter to be dealt with by the plenum, but the debate was very respectful and positive.”

NCJWA Victoria president Miriam Bass hailed the overwhelming support for the motion as “really gratifying”.

“This is about doing what is right because we have a duty to all out discrimination when we see it,” Bass said.

“This is what we felt we had to do to join with the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, who recently passed a similar motion, and state what is right.

Bass said that NCJWA made its own statement last month and the response was overwhelming.

“We had something like 57 good comments and only one negative, and that was from someone that wasn’t a member of NCJWA.

“I think the way it was done at the JCCV was good because it came from the community, not the JCCV executive.”

LGBTI advocacy and support group Aleph Melbourne congratulated the JCCV on passing the resolution.

“That the motion was voted on without opposition, by a significantly larger than normal number of delegates, speaks volumes to the importance equality means to the Jewish community,” the organisation said in a statement.

“By supporting marriage equality the JCCV sends a message to all Victorian Jews, and the wider community, that no matter a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or intersex status, their relationships are valued equally and should be afforded equal dignity.”

For further coverage, see this week’s AJN.

JOSHUA LEVI

Executive Council of Australian Jewry responds to misleading claims around marriage equality and the London Jewish Girls school

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry responds to misleading claims involving the Vishnitz Jewish Girls School and marriage equality.

Factual inaccuracies surrounding London’s Vishnitz Girls School
04.10.2017

In the continuing debate concerning the legal recognition of same sex marriages, verbal abuse should be condemned and factual inaccuracies corrected.

One claim relating to the Jewish community is that the ultra-Orthodox Vishnitz Girls School in north London in the UK lost its accreditation as a school because it would not cease teaching its version of sexuality and marriage after same-sex marriages became legal in March 2014.

In point of fact the school found itself in difficulties with Ofsted (the UK school regulatory authority) well before March 2014 because it was said to have failed various other legal standards arising under earlier legislation. For example, the school was found to have failed to have policies in place that would require it to report incidents of abuse and neglect.

Provisions of the UK Equality Act 2010, under which sexual orientation became a protected characteristic, and which predates the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, explicitly provide that the school has the right to teach its own beliefs about sexuality and marriage in a way that does not disrespect LGBTQI people.

 

Aleph Melbourne has detailed this situation in our post Lyle Shelton exposed for falsely blaming marriage equality for the failings of a London Jewish school.

Aleph Melbourne congratulates the JCCV for supporting marriage equality

Aleph Melbourne congratulates the Jewish Community Council of Victoria for passing a resolution at its Monday evening plenum meeting in support of marriage equality.

That the motion was voted on without opposition, by a significantly larger than normal number of delegates, speaks volumes to the importance equality means to the Jewish community.

Particular mention goes to the National Council of Jewish Women of Australia for proposing the marriage equality motion and speaking to it with such dignity and respect.

By supporting marriage equality the JCCV sends a message to all Victorian Jews, and the wider community, that no matter a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or intersex status, their relationships are valued equally and should be afforded equal dignity.

The successful JCCV marriage equality motion follows closely a similar successful motion from the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies.

Aleph Melbourne calls on the Executive Council of Australian Jewry to declare support for marriage equality at a national level, in line with its stated values of social inclusion.

[See JCCV Media Release]

 

The Yes Alliance: Multicultural Australians for Marriage Equality

THE YES ALLIANCE

Multicultural Australians for Marriage Equality

Australia has an enviable record of fostering a diverse, open and welcoming society.

Together, we have built a place where people from every corner of the world can live and work side by side – a place where everyone can belong.

The YES Alliance is a group of Australians from faith and culturally diverse communities – that will be supporting a YES vote in the marriage equality postal survey.

Australians from migrant and faith backgrounds have often faced discrimination and
harassment based on race, skin colour, language, religious beliefs or cultural heritage.

LGBTI people are also in our communities, they are our friends and family members, and they can face discrimination on multiple fronts.

It’s never been more important for our communities to stand up for a more tolerant and
open society. A society that has equal rights for everyone. The postal survey will be an
opportunity to do that. That is why we must reaffirm our society’s shared values of –
freedom, fairness, equality before the law, respect for all and that discrimination is never acceptable – values that have shaped our success, and will underpin our future prosperity.

These are the values that unify us as a peaceful and prosperous society with a shared sense of belonging, respect, acceptance and contribution.

As the survey rolls out, we will engage with Australia’s multicultural and multifaith
communities and have difficult but important conversations about:

✓ why a YES vote is about equal rights
✓ why a YES vote is not a hindrance to religious freedoms or free speech
✓ why a YES vote will protect religious freedoms
✓ why a YES vote is about removing discrimination for all

We, the undersigned, pledge our support for marriage equality and to work with
multicultural and multifaith people to achieve a society where everyone is equal before the law.

For more information visit www.theyesalliance.com.au

Acceptance Melbourne LGBT Catholics
Aleph Melbourne
Arab Council Australia
Asian Australian Alliance
Australian GLBTIQ Multicultural Council Inc
Australasian Union of Jewish Students
Board of Directors of the Ethnic Communities’ Council of Victoria
Centre For Multicultural Youth
Chairperson of Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia
Chairperson of National Ethnic Disability Alliance
Christians for Marriage Equality
Colour Code
Democracy in Colour
Greek and Gay Support Network
Interfaith Centre of Melbourne
Jewish Lesbian Group of Victoria
LGBTI Latin and Hispanics in Australia
Multicultural Friends of Labor
Muslims for Marriage Equality
Muslims for Progressive Values – Australia
One World Family
Settlement Services International
Victorian Mental Illness Awareness Council
Weave Network
Welcome to Australia

[PDF: The YES Alliance Joint Statement 20092017]

Anti-SSM ad riddled with inaccuracies | AJN

Anti-SSM ad riddled with inaccuracies

LAST week in The AJN there was a full-page colour advertisement, authorised by Paul Monagle of the Australian Family Association. This advertisement is a scare tactic deliberately designed to stop people from voting yes to same-sex marriage by suggesting that doing so would somehow lead to children questioning their gender, as if that’s a bad thing.

There is no evidence that same-sex couples getting married leads to children questioning their gender identity. However that the Australian Family Association would promulgate such nonsense is unsurprising really.

It is alarming to see the advert in The AJN from a hate organisation like the AFA, one that seeks to destroy the lives of same-sex attracted, intersex, and gender-diverse people.

It’s also alarming that the advertisement makes the inaccurate claim that a London Jewish school was threatened with closure due to not teaching about “gender re-assignment and sexual orientation”. I had previously looked into these claims, made by Lyle Shelton of the Australian Christian Lobby, and found them to be not only devoid of facts but outright misleading.

The primary reason why the Vishnitz Girls School failed three Ofsted tests was because they failed to provide a safe environment for their students:

In fact, the school had also failed to put in place the correct procedures for the safety of children. That is, there was no system in place for reporting neglect or abuse of the students. This is something that should be of great concern to all, and certainly an urgent need to be addressed as religious schools struggle with child sexual abuse.

This information is online and readily available for all to see in the Ofsted reports.

The school was not threatened with closure as a direct or indirect result of marriage equality in the UK and it certainly had nothing to do with transgender people getting married. In fact, the legislation in the UK makes many provisions for equality and religious exemptions.

In Australia, transgender people can currently and do get married under civil law as long as the birth certificate of one spouse indicates male and the other’s indicates female.

The Marriage Act currently excludes people who are in a same-sex relationship, along with those who do not identify as exclusively female or exclusively male.

This latter group includes some intersex people, gender neutral people, and gender-fluid people.

So really, this advertisement in The AJN, attempting to whip up hysteria and fear around transgender people, is wrong on every level. It is misleading, inaccurate and one that should be condemned by the entire Jewish community.

The advert finishes with the words “Don’t let the same thing happen here.” Don’t fall for this slippery slope nonsense. Jewish schools will not be closed down if same-sex couples are allowed to get married. What schools teach is quite independent of the Marriage Act, an act of Parliament that just regulates marriages, not school curricula.

What will happen if same-sex couples are allowed to get married is their children will have happier parents and a more stable home environment. Same-sex couples will be afforded the same protections under the law heterosexual couples currently have, currently denied to us. There are actually quite a few protections marriage offers that those in a domestic partnership (gay or otherwise) do not have. Also, the few cases of married couples where one partner has gone through gender transition will not need to get divorced for the birth certificate of the transgender spouse to be corrected. This current requirement for divorce is cruel and unnecessary.

Jews have known discrimination for millennia. We are a people who have endured the worst crimes against humanity and we know what pain and suffering is. We also say “never again”. We should add to that “and not to others”.

If ever there has been a time for a community to come together as one and show solidarity for all Australians, it is now. We must recognise that it is fundamentally wrong to deny people equality before the law, interfere in other people’s relationships, spread lies and misinformation, and deny people their dignity.

Vote Yes for equality.

Vote Yes for respect.

Vote Yes for dignity.

Vote Yes because it’s the right thing to do.

Michael Barnett is convenor of Jewish LGBTIQ support and advocacy group Aleph Melbourne.

Explainer: what legal benefits do married couples have that de facto couples do not?

Explainer: what legal benefits do married couples have that de facto couples do not?

File 20170919 12874 xeo779
De facto couples still often have to go to great lengths to prove their relationship, unlike married couples, who need only furnish a marriage certificate.
shutterstock

Hannah Robert, La Trobe University and Fiona Kelly, La Trobe University

Opponents of marriage equality often say that married and de facto couples already have the same rights. To what extent is this true? And, in legal terms, how much do the differences matter?

In an opinion piece last week, former prime minister Tony Abbott claimed:

Already, indeed, same-sex couples in a settled domestic relationship have exactly the same rights as people who are married.

This isn’t true.

At the most fundamental level, same-sex couples do not have the right to marry and therefore do not have “marriage equality”. While de facto couples may be able to assert some of the same rights as married couples, they often have to expend significant time, money and unnecessary heartache to do so.

Marriage allows people to access a complete package of rights simply by showing their marriage certificate or ticking a box, and is based on their mutual promises to one another rather than proving their relationship meets particular interdependency criteria.

Unlike de facto relationships, marriage is recognised nationally and internationally.

Differences under law

The laws regarding de facto couples differ between states and the Commonwealth, and from one right to another.

For Centrelink purposes, you are a de facto couple from the moment you start living together; for migration law it is after 12 months of cohabiting (unless you have a child together or de facto relationships are illegal in your country of origin).

Under family law it is different again: a minimum of two years (unless you have a child together, have registered your relationship, or have made significant contributions to the relationship).

Where married couples use IVF, both spouses are automatically legal parents. But for de facto couples using reproductive technologies, their child’s parentage depends on whether a de facto relationship is proven to exist.

Couples who are or were married must file for property and/or spousal maintenance proceedings in the Family Court within one year of finalising a divorce, but have the option to agree to an extension of time in which to file. No such provision exists for de facto couples; they must file proceedings within two years.

In many states, a new marriage nullifies an existing will, unless that will was quite specifically worded. This is not the case when you enter a new de facto relationship. In the latter situation, if you die before making a new will, a court might need to decide how your assets are allocated (with costs borne by your estate).

In all contexts, de facto relationships require significant proof, which means partners may have to provide evidence about their living and child care arrangements, sexual relationship, finances, ownership of property, commitment to a shared life and how they present as a couple in public. These criteria can be absent from a heterosexual marriage, but it is still deemed a marriage.

Despite the wording in the marriage ceremony that marriage “is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”, it is up to married partners whether or not they share their finances, their housework, their childcare responsibilities, their homes or their beds, and how long they want to stay married.

‘Registered relationships’ – separate but equal?

Many states and territories have legislation permitting couples to register their domestic relationships – the exceptions are the Northern Territory and Western Australia.

To register, you first need to prove that you meet the criteria – for example, providing “personal or financial commitment and support of a domestic nature for the material benefit of the other”. Where marriage delivers rights based on a couple’s promises to one another, registered relationships still require proof that a relationship meeting the criteria already exists.

Such registered relationships are not reliably recognised overseas.

When does it matter?

While married and de facto relationships largely have equal standing before the law, only marriage is immediate and incontrovertible.

Difficulties for de facto couples arise from the complex inter-relationship between the “burden of proof”, institutionalised homophobia, and the sticky situations that can often arise in interpersonal or family conflict.

For example, a person in a de facto relationship might need to prove their relationship:

  • if their partner is very ill, in order to make decisions about their care and treatment (this can be prevented by having another piece of paper – a medical enduring power of attorney equivalent document depending on your state or territory);
  • if their partner who has died, in order to be listed as their spouse on a death certificate or to be involved in funeral planning (being listed on a death certificate is critically important when it comes to claiming superannuation payouts and myriad other issues); or
  • if their partner has died without leaving a will.

Sadly, the times when marital status matters most are likely to be times of grief, or high stress. To compound this, there are many examples of a couple’s “de facto” status being challenged by one partner’s family of origin. Marriage, on the other hand, is undeniable.

Unmarried de facto couples often experience difficulties attaining residency and/or working rights overseas. Married couples rarely experience these problems.

Same obligations, without the same right to wed

Same-sex couples have all the same obligations as married couples – to pay taxes, child support and so on. But they don’t have the ability to marry – to enjoy the symbolic and emotional effects of entering into a legal union with their partners before friends and family, or enjoy the legal security of having one document to confirm the legal status of their relationship.

Many heterosexual couples in Australia choose to live in de facto relationships. This is their right. Same-sex couples do not get to choose – they have no alternative.

The ConversationMarriage equality is about giving couples genuine choice about how they structure their relationships.

Hannah Robert, Lecturer in Law, La Trobe University and Fiona Kelly, Associate Professor, Law School, La Trobe University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

NSW Jewish Board of Deputies: Marriage Equality Motion – Sep 19 2017

Page 10

AGENDA ITEM 3

Marriage Equality Motion

This meeting of the Plenum of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies

STRONGLY ASSERTS that Rabbis must continue to be able to conduct marriage ceremonies in accordance with Jewish Law as they see fit

REJECTS any attempt to impose a belief or value system on the Rabbinate or observant Jews or prescribe to them requirements that are in conflict with Jewish Law

OBJECTS to any attempt to silence or stifle legitimate and fair minded debate on the issue of marriage equality regardless of the position taken.

REAFFIRMS its commitment to freedom of religious practice and religious education in Australia.

ACKNOWLEDGES that that as a matter of Orthodox Jewish law (halacha), same sex marriage is not permitted

NOTES THAT:

  • The question before Australia at the upcoming postal plebiscite is one relating to civil, not religious, marriage.
  • Australian law and society has long allowed for same sex relationships between consenting adults.
  • Many Jewish people are already in marriages that are recognised as such under Australian law yet are not recognised in Jewish Law.
  • Current laws prohibit persons, other than religious organisations, from discriminating on the basis of homosexuality or gender.
  • The NSW Jewish Board of Deputies represents the whole Jewish Community in NSW, including those who are LGBTI and their families, friends and loved ones.
  • Many couples in our community who are in committed, loving relationships are unable to have their relationship recognised by the state as a marriage in the same way that committed, loving relationships between heterosexual couples may legally be recognised.
  • The NSW Jewish Board of Deputies is committed to fighting all forms of discrimination on the basis of race, religion, homosexuality, gender and disability and to supporting all members of our community as they strive for equality under the law.

AND RESOLVES

  1. To call on the Federal Government to ensure protections for practice of religious freedom and religious education;
  2. To support the elimination of discrimination against same sex couples under Australia’s civil law by extending legal recognition to marriages between same sex couples who choose to marry; and
  3. To support equal treatment under Australian law to same sex couples who choose to marry.

[Original document here and here]

BoD-resolution-19.9.2017

NSW Jewish Board of Deputies support same-sex marriage | Jewish News

NSW Jewish Board of Deputies support same-sex marriage

September 19, 2017

Joshua Levi

THE NSW Jewish Board of Deputies (JBOD) has overwhelmingly passed a motion calling for “equal treatment under Australian law to same-sex couples who choose to marry” at its monthly plenum tonight (Tuesday).

The motion, which only one person voted against in a room filled with more than 100 people, stated that the roof body of NSW Jewry “strongly asserts that rabbis must continue to be able to conduct marriage ceremonies in accordance with Jewish law as they see fit”, “rejects any attempts to impose a belief or value system on the rabbinate”, “reaffirms its commitment to freedom of religious practice and religious education in Australia”, “acknowledges that as a matter of Orthodox Jewish law, same-sex marriage is not permitted” but then noted that “the question before Australia at the upcoming postal plebiscite is one relating to civil, not religious, marriage”.

The motion also noted that the JBOD is “committed to fighting all forms of discrimination on the basis of race, religion, homosexuality, gender and disability” and that it will support “all members of our community as they strive for equality under the law”.

And finally, it resolved, “To call on the Federal Government to ensure protections for practice of religious freedom and religious education; to support the elimination of discrimination against same-sex couples under Australia’s civil law by extending legal recognition to marriages between same-sex couples who choose to marry; and to support equal treatment under Australian law to same-sex couples who choose to marry.”

Former JBOD president Justice Stephen Rothman said that he was proud to speak to the motion at the plenum tonight.

“Some members of our community consider same-sex relationships and morally repugnant, and that is dealt with in the motion,” Rothman said.

“We don’t have to approve same-sex relations, in order to approve same-sex marriage.

“In my view, in the case of members of the same-sex community they should be free to enjoy their commitment to each other in the same way that other can.”

Rothman also noted that although same-sex marriage is not legal in Israel, the Jewish homeland does recognise same-sex marriages that take place in America or other countries were same-sex marriage is legal.

“If it’s good enough for the Jewish state, it’s good enough for Australia.”

Jack Pinczewski, who stepped down from the JBOD executive last month, spoke in support of the motion.

“We owe it to our friends and families to take a stance on this matter,” he said.

“It’s a matter of fairness, and a matter of separation between church and state.”

The motion was drafted by JBOD president Jeremy Spinak, however his wife is in hospital expecting twins so he was not in attendance.

In a written message, Spinak said the JBOD was obliged to act in what it considered the best interests of the community, which was to support marriage equality.

“This is about vital members of our community being recognised,” Spinak wrote.

“They have every night to be recognised as married.

“It’s about standing for gay families, so that even if they would not be accepted halachically, they would be accepted in the community in which they live.”

However, he reiterated that he respected rabbis and members of the community who took a different view and had a right to be heard, without being labelled as homophobic or derided for their opinions.

Only one person spoke against the motion at the meeting. He claimed that people who are gay are “not equal”.