Comments on: Agudath Israel Of America Reacts To Obama Administration Reversal On DOMA

By: charliehall

charliehall — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 14:09:34 +0000

#19,

You are incorrect regarding ROTC at Harvard. It left the university voluntarily in the early 1970s; Kagan was in high school at the time. Harvard students are able to enroll in ROTC at MIT, two subway stops away.

ROTC progams have consolidated; they no longer try to have facilities at every campus in a city but welcome students from different campuses. I personally know a frum Brooklyn College student who is in an ROTC program at Manhattan College in the Bronx, very close to where I live (and literally down the street from an Orthodox synagogue I attend). That program has students from 30 different colleges as it is the only Air Force ROTC program in the New York area. My father completed Air Force ROTC in college and served on active duty during the Korean War. The current Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz, is Jewish.

By: frumimaof3

frumimaof3 — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:55:16 +0000

I am shocked to see how many Liberals (which is typically anti-Torah values) post comments ON YWN, (which I always thought was Torah oriented. B”H we have people that have stood up to this. However if these Liberals go under the banner of Frumkeit, we better start doing alot of introspection.

By: DovidZSchwartz

DovidZSchwartz — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:17:49 +0000

#9, Mr. Mosheemes, who says “The Supreme Court ruled in 1996 (in Romer v. Evans) that laws based on nothing more than morality are unconstitutional.”

Thank you for the citation. I just read the case and I didnt see any mention of “laws based on nothing more than morality.” The case said that laws need to have a rational basis to be upheld. Unlike some other traditions, Torah is not incompatible with rationality.

By: sarak

sarak — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 02:49:14 +0000

Pres. Obama will try to redefine freedom to practice religion (ie to teach out children- homosexuality is bad) to freedom (only)to worship. Remember his supreme court nominee- Elena Kagan- who wouldn’t let the ROTC on campus at Harvard because of the gay issue- but passed on plagarism by African Amercian professors-
Wonder how much yiras shamayim she learned in Ramaz
oy vey!

By: Ben Levi

Ben Levi — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:54:56 +0000

The better arguement has been discrimination however that one as well is intrinsically flawed.
Discrimination is true in the case of Black People not being allowed the same rights of white people in such cases by virtue of the color one’s skin they were not allowed into the same schools as white people who had different colored skin.
In this case everyone is allowed to enter into a marital relationship which is the marital bond between a man and woman.
We are simply saying that those who so chose to enter into a different sort of union cannot have the term amrriage redefine to extend to their Unions as well.
Ex. Will anyone say that the fact a buisness partnership is not called a marriage is a case of discrimination?
No.
A buisness partnership is intrinsically a different relationship then a marriage therefore it is called what it is a partnership not a marriage.
However if the individual members of the partnership wish to enter into a marriage no one is stopping them.
Similarly a Toava Union is not a marriage, however if those in a Toava relationship wish to enter a marriage with people of the opposite gender no one is stopping them as such it is simply not Discrimination.

By: Ben Levi

Ben Levi — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:43:31 +0000

Actually Charliehall it is not the Federal government that is defining marriage it is the English Language.
If I wanted a Table to be called a chair I cannot change the “facts on the ground” that a table is a table and a chair a chair.
Similarly the definition of Marriage has always been the term used to define a union between a man and a woman.
Say what you want however the facts cannot be changed the “union” of two men or two women is not the same as that between that of opposite genders.
As such the term “Marriage” does not apply to them, just as the term Table does not apply to a chair.
It is the Liberal Democrats who wish to change the very definition of the word Marriage so that it extends to Unions of Men and Women.
This is why they have been called out for attempting to “redefine” marriage.
That is asking the Federal Government to assume powers that it was not granted in the Constitution, it was not granted the powers of determining the makeup of the Dictionary.

By: frum not crum

frum not crum — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:28:44 +0000

If marriage is no longer defined as a relationship between a man and a woman, can any government official deny me the opportunity to marry my pet rock?

Liberalism is the manifestation of political suicide. The liberal is human filth with a college education.

By: Tums

Tums — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:03:21 +0000

The Agudah deserves a mighty thank you from every Torah Jew for standing up for Torah values.

By: berelshain

berelshain — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:53:45 +0000

#6 – absolutely not

By: charliehall

charliehall — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 20:27:50 +0000

#8 Health,

Actually some of the Founding Fathers were very hostile to organized religion.

Also, the problem is that the law expands “federal rights” to an area that the federal government has never been responsible for. It is ironic that so-called Conservatives object to the federal government requiring health insurance, which it first did in the 1790s, but support expanding federal power to define marriage, which it has never done.