|
 |
Re: The Recent California Supreme Court Decision
Thursday, May 22, 2008
|
For all you loyal followers of my blog, boy do I have a scoop for you! In case you have a son who is approaching bar mitzvah age, hold off on all the plans, cancel the caterer. As it turns out, if all goes right, the age of bar mitzvah will be changing in the near future. The new age will be either nine or eighteen—that's a detail that has not yet been worked out.
You see, in today's day and age, thirteen is not a very sensible age to schedule a rite of passage into adulthood. It's a tough time, the boys have just entered adolescence and are for the most part rebellious little kids who think they are adults. This makes bar mitzvah lessons a daunting task. I figure that training nine-year-olds will make for a much smoother ride.
Alternatively, eighteen year olds make for attractive and idealistic bar mitzvah candidates too.
So, I've filed papers with the New York State Supreme Court, requesting that they consider changing the outdated bar mitzvah age. (Thirteen was fine back in the times when children were apprenticed to blacksmiths at the age of eight...)
I'm still in consultations with my attorneys as to which age to shoot for. They are reviewing the Court's past decisions, based on which they will determine which argument stands a better chance in front of the Court's current composition.
Sounds ludicrous to you? Do you think I am naïve for believing that secular jurists will issue a legal decision on a purely religious matter?
Think again.
This past Thursday, the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on intra-gender marriage, saying that the gender identity of the two partners "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights... the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians..."
If the Court wishes to grant legal and/or economic privileges to two individuals who choose to establish a joint household—then I can see the grounds for a legitimate debate: Is homosexuality immoral? And if yes, to what extent do the courts have the right to legislate morality?
But that is not the issue at hand. The issue is marriage. Marriage is, and always was, a religious idea: the idea that a relationship between a man and woman can be sanctioned as a holy union, as a partnership in which G‑d takes part. Does the California Supreme Court believe that their ruling will obligate G‑d to enter a relationship He does not condone?
Marriage is not a civil institution; it is a religious one. The Court's intervention in this matter is, in my opinion, a dangerous precedent. This is a decision that should be left to
the clergy.
|
Latest Comments:
"Marriage is not a civil institution; it is a religious one."
Yes, that's exactly why atheists, agnostics, and other non-religious people never get married.
The difference between a Bar Mitzvah and a marriage is that the former is solely a religious ceremony and can never be secular. The latter ceremony can be religious, secular, or a mix of both. For instance, my parents were married by a secular judge in a secular ceremony, but their marriage is still recognized by law.
Furthermore, when same-sex couples get married, nobody is forcing you to participate. No one is forcing you to divorce your wife and marry a man instead. Because of the separation of church and state, the government cannot force any religious organization to perform a marriage that they do not agree with, even for trivial reasons (they're gay, the bride was mean to me in kindergarten, etc.). However, prohibiting more tolerant groups from performing same-sex marriages is a violation of their civil liberties.
|
Did you see the comment I posted above, dated May 25, 2008?
|
Marriage is certainly more than a religious matter. It is both religious and civil. If the government decides they want to only issue civil unions that would be fine. However, they don't - they enter people into legal matrimony. If marriage was only a religious institution then atheists and agnostics would not be able to wed. Are you wanting to ban their marriages also? The fact is that in the US religion and state must be separate. If you legislate morality here... what's next? Is it okay then to force us Jews to go to church on Sunday because that's the moral thing to do? We are a minority and we are obligated to help protect other minorities so they will protect us when we need it. Don't be a fool.
|
If discrimination and persecution based on sexual orientation weren't such a sad and serious matter, I really would be amused by homophobic people carrying on so much about how threatened they feel by the idea of homosexual couples being legally recognized married.
No one here who speaks so fervently about their religious convictions is hysterical or threatened because restaurants in this country serve non-Kosher food, for instance, let alone that millions of people all around us are eating bacon and shell fish etc., and are happy to do so, despite what the Torah says.
Just sayin' ...
|
AND marriage is civil because of of all the civil rights it grants people who have federally-recognized marriages: social security, hospita visitation rights, inheritance rights, and over ONE THOUSAND other rights.
If you want marriage to just be religious, you should fight to have different-sex marriages not be recognized by the state or federal governments, either. These are a threat to marriage, as well, because it gives the government control over our marriages.
|
Of course marriage is not purely a religious matter. Marriage is a union, a commitment, a special partnership in life. It is natural that religions would choose to be involved in such an important aspect of life, but that does not make the institution of marriage solely a religious matter.
We in the US live in a country where one can practice their religious beliefs freely without interference from the government. When the court or the legislature upholds the right to marry for everyone regardless of sexual orientation it does so as a civil authority, not a religious authority.
Who you choose to marry should be the result of personal free choice, not made according to the dictates of a government. Which religion one chooses, or not, one's relationship with G-d is also a personal choice and responsibility, which has to be made freely to have any real meaning.
|
Max, very interesting, your perspective on this. That is very honest of you. Also, besides praying in Hebrew, reading the Torah in Hebrew gives one a completely different feeling and understanding. It is more cosmic and authoritative in Hebrew. It has a resonance that is lacking in translation. I love the English, especially Alexandar Harkavy's revision of the Authorized Version. But nothing compares to the Hebrew. How do I say it? It burns into your soul. You are showing a true reverance for it by simply acknowledging what is said, whether one wants to agree with it or not. Thanks & may the Holy One bless and keep you.
|
Max,
It is not that it is not part of the program, it is not part of the covenant God made with the Jews!
God will only provide for the Jews if they keep covenant with Him, period!
He never said you had to keep covenant with Him. You can walk away. Just expect that God will do what He says He will do if you walk away!
He didn't deliver you folks for nothing! He delivered you folks for a reason!
Besides, I think it says somewhere that true Jews are those who love God, live within a relationship with Him, and who live according to the covenant requirements.
|
Shlomo,
For the most part, I agree with you. I can't fault the Israeli government, as they are a secular institution and Israel is not (yet) a Torah state. However, the reform, reconstructionist, and many conservative rabbis have done a great job of sucking the spirituality and purpose out of Judiasm.
Believe me, I know. Growing up in that environment, I couldn't truly take Judiasm seriously. It wasn't until I was 28 that I decided it was worth another look. Two key elements brought me closer to G-d: reciting the blessings and praying completely in HEBREW, and respecting Torah and the Jewish tradition for what it is, even if I did not agree with it. In fact, the disagreements can bond one with Torah, as they cause one to look deeper and learn more if they want to know why.
If one is incapable of fully observing, it's ameliorated when there is an admission of what true observance is. People experience less confusion and have more love and respect when they recognize the ideal.
|
Max, unfortunately, Torah Judaism is not what most of our fellow Jews are now following. They are intimidated by the likes of Mike in LA, and afraid to stand up for the Torah. So in December 2006 the leadership of Conservative Judaism joined with most of Reform Judaism in accepting homosexual marriages and ordinations to the rabbinate. We Orthodox are now the "villians" for saying the liberal rabbis are out of line with the Torah, the Talmud and everythng holy in our religion. Also, in the summer of 2007, the Israeli government allowed a gay pride parade down the streets of Jerusalem, the Holy City. The acceptance of this sin is one of the sins for which the land vomits out its inhabitants according to the Torah (Leviticus 18:22--25). We must be compassionate to those in the bondage of sin, but we cannot condone the sin.
|
|
|
|
|
LOGIN
ASK THE RABBI
61 Comments
