Comments on: Agudath Israel Defends Traditional Definition of Marriage in High Court Filing

By: 147

147 — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 21:51:48 +0000

Let the Pope & church who are far powerfuller do the dirty work of fighting this filthy abomination, as mentioned in both of this week’s Parhsios.

By: About Time

About Time — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 20:13:44 +0000

#2 et al,

How come polygamy is still illegal

By: About Time

About Time — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 20:12:21 +0000

What right/reason – according to them even- should Government be involved in choosing who falls under the umbrella of ‘Marriage”?!

Our only recourse must be to promptly press for the complete and total abolition of legal and government status of the word Marriage for everyone.

If they decide to give financial rights etc., perhaps there is little at present we can do.

But the word Marriage?!

Rather than allow it to be turned into a dagger piercing through the decent amongst us, we ought to push to have it removed to an exclusive personal, private, or local religious status {without remaining a part of government vocabulary

Who really cares for it ?!

Their only horrid purpose of using the critical word Marriage is to undermine us

Will we allow them to further constrict us and remove our freedoms ?!

By: real yid

real yid — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 20:10:14 +0000

Why don’t agudah ask for brothers to marry sisters, or pet dogs etc. this way maybe normal majority would wake up.

By: akuperma

akuperma — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 20:03:24 +0000

A problem with religious gropus weighing in on the matter is that if the law is based on religion, that means it probably is unconstitutional. When they adopted the Church of England definitions (when marriage law switched from personal jurisdiction to a uniform law for everyone), they concluded that the law they were used to was the optimal law based on secular considerations independent of its religious origins — and in all fairness that definition has long since fallen apart (one man-one woman, no adultery, no divorce).

One might suggest a better alternative would be to limit government regulation of marriage to cases involving minor children, and let private contract law do the rest (which would solve the “get” issue, since it would remove the chief obstacle to a kesubah being treated as a private contract).

By: About Time

About Time — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 20:02:11 +0000

If Agudas Yisroel and Orthodox Jews in general would really have guts, they would step forward and draw a line in the sand and declare it to be what it is: a Sha’as Ha’Shmad

They would look Kennedy and the Liberal Justices straight in the eye and challenge them to attempt to enforce it.

[Recognize how step by step the courts backpedaled, when the Chassidim made MBP into a Sha'as Ha'Shmad]