You ask me how broadening a “right” to marry would harm my right to marry and the answer is that my ability to marry would not change–the standing of marriage would change and the changed standards of marriage would change my marriage. If you demand specifics, the question fails to acknowledge the harm that follows altered and lowered standards. Our children are being told on a daily basis that it does not matter if they are raised by a mother and a father to cover for the fact that some are the products of single women and the hope that the number of homosexual couples with children will expand. What kind of message does this give to the children raised by a mother and a father? When they are told that same-sex love is just as good as the marital love they observe and model from their parents–how do they interpret such a message? These are difficult questions and we must use some common sense in this regard. Children can understand the reality of homosexuality and that is one matter. To preach to them that Heather has Two Mommies and that we need to value and respect Heather’s “parents” as equal to their own, we are creating a social experiment that is simply ill-suited and problematic. When a boy is told that he can be brought up to be a man without a father and with two mothers– or a daughter (or son) without a mother in the case of two men raising a child–our civil society is declaring that parental roles based on gender are not relevant. Is this true? It is fine to embrace a child from a broken home to try to make him feel as good as he can. Indeed, our last two Dem Presidents were raised without the benefit of a father in the house (which made them famously narcissistic and paranoid). To go to the extreme of making a normal home merely equivalent to a home with two men or two women diminishes the norm by killing the standard and gives the “abnormal” home a phony good housekeeping seal of approval. No one wants to hammer children with the fact that they come from “broken” homes and no one wants to stigmatize a child who is living with two women. It is warped morality and bad public policy to celebrate their circumstance because we don’t want to demean them.

We have terms of marriage for specific reasons. If a group of three is considered a marital unit, we cannot hold the norm responsible for the consequences. The state works with religious institutions in the interests of marriage and the majority fail to acknowledge same-sex coupling.

Even in the age of the most radical President ever, America is not going to say that two men can be married so that their marriage is equivalent to the marriage they seek to protect and promote. So the answer here must stand with the people. The courts cannot over rule the will of the people on a matter so fundamental to how we organize our society.

Concerning Larry Y’s objection to my observation that Jews came to America for religious and economic freedoms, the economic freedom they sought was founded in Biblical dictates. The fact that some Jews in the early 20th C brought with them a preference for socialism is a mark of shame and not an argument for America as a socialist entity. America with its freedom and capitalism has worked for Jews based upon the reality of Jewish life in America and not upon some fantasy about socialist ideals carried from life in Russia.

Right-leaning Jews have a huge and very valid list of arguments that opposed the Obama candidacy.

It seems the Jewish community in its zeal to promote all things homosexual has ignored the fact that a marriage license involves a LICENSE and that is to say it is a regulated enterprise and no right. The government has a justifiable interest in marriage and will deny individuals a license to marry for a variety of reasons and this is because the state has an interest in the institution at large. Such law infers planned discrimination and this is the very nature of all civil law. If you want a license to hunt, the state will require specific weaponry, specific times, specific animals and they will grant you the license and reject others the same license for a wide variety of reasons. One’s license to drive a car can be revoked by the state or denied simply by token of age or alleged physical handicap or for a variety of alleged offenses. Whether or not one acquires a license from the state is never a right and always at the discretion of the state.

Regarding the standard of tolerance and the goal of to live and let live, it is patently unfair that the conservative side of the country is so accused given the fact that the left often refuses to live and let live and they do so with gusto. As we now approach another X-mas season, the left is out again to ban any expression of religious speech or even a mild derivative in strict contradiction of America’s first amendment rights. If someone asks how someone else could be harmed by such speech–no one on the left can ever offer an answer since the problem is self-evident in their own warped world-view and the X-tians be damned. This is not live and let live. Live and let live for the homosexuals means that it is fine for homosexuals to lobby for marriage rights even though there is no such right and it is fine for homosexuals to stand at our highest positions of power without reference to the fact that they are gay–do I have to name names? Sarah Palin, by contrast, must stand for ridicule since she believes in God and feels that her actions would be helped with God’s blessing–this is an obvious example of a failure of live and let live. The fact that there are almost no examples of ridicule of homosexuals is ample evidence that homosexuals require no “Human Rights Campaign.” Homosexuals in need of housing are not banned in some communities, as the Jews were– they are not discriminated against in academia as the Jews were–they do not lack any right as Americans as every other American now enjoys. The left must face the fact that their “civil rights” campaign was defeated specifically in California by black Americans (a friend of mine who is black has told me never to call him a black American, he is merely an “American.” By contrast, we should never give another citizen a special title or special rights because of one’s behavior so the fad to call homosexuals “homosexual Americans” is an attempt to falsely link them to other groups who justifiably command protection under the Constitution).

Jews have wrongly joined a human rights campaign on behalf of gay marriage without reference to either civil or religious imperatives. Jews in our community–almost all leftists–wrongly believe that America will be enhanced by changing the definition of marriage and eradicating any defining attribute of a male/female marital bond. The belief that any two people can form a marital unit and serve as models to raise children contradicts the lives of all married Americans.

I truly believe that secularism is a set of beliefs and values, even rituals, just like any other religion, and that everyone votes based on their beliefs. If I believe that homosexual marriage is bad, why should I not vote for a candidate who is against it, and for ballot issues like Prop 8? The people who voted against Prop 8 certainly voted against it because of their beliefs and values.

2 Comments:

1. The MOs were as dead set against Mr. Obama as those in the Chareidi world. Thus the anguished letter from the principal of Moriah to the parents and today’s proclamation by the Agudas Yisroel MGH.

2. The paranoia and lack of civility to those who held opposing views was appalling. I voted for Mr. Obama. People rushed up to me in shul screaming that I was votomg for Adolf Hitler and I would drive all the Jews out of the country. People threatened to break my legs.

3. When I discussed the issue privately with several individuals the veneer (anti-israel, left wing politcies) melted away. The simply did not want a Africam Amarican in charge.

That’s exactly my point. The government has no business trying to encourage people to act “according to a basic moral code”. Different people have different views of moral issues, and the government should stay out. Of course, the government should act to prevent people from harming each other (or each other’s property), and thus we have laws against murder, stealing, etc.

Rabbi Sack’s d’var torah was quite good. I agree with his and your understanding of marriage. I am happily married (to a woman, even), have children, and view my marriage as holy. But those values flow from my role as a Jew, not my role as a citizen of California. I recognize that others in California have a different understanding of marriage, and a civil marriage should be as inclusive as possible.

The government licenses drivers, but in doing so does not in any way indicate that we approve of where they are going. It charters corporations, but in doing so does not indicate that it approves of the products being sold. I think civil marriage is the same. It should simply provide a bundle of legal rights and responsibilities, and (like driver’s licenses and corporate charters) should be as widely available as possible. Some of us will also have a religious marriage; others will not.

Steve also wrote With respect to your libertarian POV, unless you agree that the Orthodox community has the full right to a state funded education of its youth with no questions asked as to the curriculum , the right to build a halachically acceptable eruv, shuls and mikvaos and agree that the Orthodox world is the best qualified to deal with issues of kashrus, then you are in effect taking a very clear road towards suppression of a religious faith whose constitutional rights are guaranteed under the Free Exercise Clause and federal legislation. IMO, it is obvious that what you call a libertarian agenda depends greatly on whether one supports or opposes what you have billed as the same. One person’s civil liberties cannot and should not be used as a means of suppressing the civil liberties of others.

I’m not sure I understand why this is objection to my position.

My libertarian position is to maximize freedom to the greatest degree possible. (This is not to be confused with the formal positions of the Libertarian Party, which goes well beyond where I would go.)

I strongly believe in religious freedom, including all the things you mentioned, except public funding of Orthodox day schools with no questions asked. (Side note: I strongly support school vouchers and debated extensively in favor of both Prop 174 in 1993 and Prop 38 in 2000. However, I do favor a fixed amount, voucher not necessarily full funding, and some minimal strings attached. But this is a side point.) My point here is that abandoning this libertarian position — as Prop 8 supporters have done — and using the civil law to impose a religious viewpoint on others who do not agree with that viewpoint, is unjust, bad public policy, dangerous (because others may use it against Jews), and moves moral issues that should be the subject of persuasion into the area of a government restriction or mandate.

There’s nothing wrong with not making it illegal for people to do things that you disagree with. To take a trivial example (but one that illustrates the point nicely), I think that people should have cake on their birthday. But I would not favor a law that required this. Same-sex marriage (l’havdil) is obviously much more important in numerous respects, but the basic principal is the same.

Michael makes a distinction between public rabbinic support for Prop 8 and private voting for it. As a practical matter, I agree that the former runs a greater risk of some of my practical objections than then latter. But even as voters, I think we should oppose laws that impose our moral beliefs on others who disagree, where there is no physical harm involved.

Lacosta – The “h katzes of the world” have not the slightest intention of stifling dissent by shouting racism;indeed, I intend to be every bit as critical of President Obama as conservative and Orthodox critics – from the Left, not the Right. What I strongly object to is detailed in my brief response to Steve above.

Finally, a parting comment about American Orthodoxy. The celebration that took place the night of the election was truly a historic and uplifting event. Many of the most intransigent crtics of Obama were genuinely moved by the sight of an oppressed people celebrating what was truly a historic and amazing event. It is likely that these critics will – or already have – resumed their criticism, but they were able to genuinely celebrate a historic victory over the toxic legacy of American racism.

Unfortunately, this was not so with most American Orthodox Jews. The majority reaction – as gleaned from the Jewish Week article cited by Reb Yid above, an especially toxic article in The Yeshiva World and anecdotal evidence, American Orthodoxy was unable to particapte in this transformational moment, still seeing in Obama “the shvartze”. This points to what I believe to be contemporary Orthodoxy’s greatest problem – a sourness of spirit, a suspiciousness/hostility towards everything outside of its’ own boundaries, and more than a tinge of racism. I leave it to members of this community to figure out, if they care to, why this is the case.

Finally, in response to Rabbi Adlerstein, he is technically correct: there was no formal Orthodox “Committee to Defame Obama”. However, neither is it true that the ugly racist smears were limited to a handful (the old “a few rotten apples”). As the Jewish Week article makes clear, the racist attitudes towards Obama are widespread within Orthodoxy. Rabbi Adlerstein, to his immense credit, was able to appreciate the historic nature of this moment, despite his political misgivings about Obama. Better still would be if his attitude were shared by more than a few other isolated individuals within Orthodoxy.

Equal rights is a moral value, and one that Jews have benefited from greatly in this country. – Comment by Alice

The ultimate standard for morality is G-d’s character. To disobey His expressed will is to do evil. Society can champion causes and issues so as to create a man-made value system that strives for equality but that does not mean that those values are moral. In the 1950’s, a certain tribe in Ecuador deemed it their equal right to kill as a method of settling disputes between tribal members of differing family groups. Morally, they’re not be too different than some gangs today. Both are morally wrong. On the other hand, the Amish communities in Pennsylvania seem to give up individual rights for the good of the community and for a neighbor in need. I see many similarities between them and some Orthodox communities. Helping another in need and expecting the same in return is a type of equal right. You might call this doing a good deed or a moral good. In the United States, every woman had an equal right to obtain an abortion. Is that choice always a moral one ? Equal rights is only an attempt to achieve some measure of equality but it is never always moral.

That being the case, I do think that the Orthodox world should consider the following question. Although the Noachide Laws, which include basic laws of sexual immorality apply to Gentiles, do they include a commandment of marriage? Take a look at Rambam Ishus 1:1 and R Asher Weiss on Parshas Noach. One can argue that Chupah Al Yidei Edus vKiddushin, as a religious act which requires communal approval, is strictly limited to the Jewish People since Matan Torah. Thus, the question of whether the Orthodox world should have been so prominent in the Prop 8 debate IMO requires further inquiry.

Legalizing that which the Talmud views as the cause for the demise of Egypt strikes me as yet another example of how marriage has been devalued from a committment by a man and woman to raise a family according to a basic moral code into an entitlement to live any lifestyle, providing that the state provides the same needs to same sex partners as it does to a husband and wife. I would suggest that anyone interested in the dumbing down of marriage that has occurred as a result of the sexual revolution take a look at CR Jonathan Sacks’ excellent column on this week’s weekly Torah portion.

African-Americans are the most reliable Democratic voting bloc–it’s hardly racist that they’d be voting for Obama.

In recent times, the Democratic Party has been the party of civil rights, more expanded opportunities for minority groups. Did you know that Lyndon Johnson got 94% of the African-American vote in 1964? Or that John Kerry got 88% in 2004?

So no, it’s not shocking at all that they would vote overwhelmingly for someone who has spent extensive time grappling with these and other issues central to their community.

What is shocking, on the other hand, is your post’s amazing contention that the African American vote was “the most racist aspect of this election”.

I post it here again (and if for some reason the link does not appear in this post, go to the JEWISH WEEK from last week and read his excellent piece entitled “What Obama needs from Us”.

Better yet, for those still in total denial, read his column this week about some Modern Orthodox schools–we’re not even talking Centrist, Haredi or Hasidic, mind you– and the racist comments in Orthodox schools and synagogues post-election that have greatly disturbed principals and rabbis:

(If this link is not posted, go to the article entitled, “Racial Comments ‘Shock’ Principals”).