June 26, 2015 5:40 pm at 5:40 pm #615908
does this mean that blood relatives can get married, a man with his his pet, or even polygamy (i want to honor my spouses’ memory)June 26, 2015 5:55 pm at 5:55 pm #1089538YW Moderator-127Moderator
This thread will be moderated very carefully.
Please remind yourself of the rules before you post: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/rules-of-the-ywn-coffee-room-please-readJune 26, 2015 6:07 pm at 6:07 pm #1089539June 26, 2015 6:07 pm at 6:07 pm #1089540
“does this mean that blood relatives can get married, a man with his his pet, or even polygamy (i want to honor my spouses’ memory)”
Lets say it does. (Though pet isnt comparable, and I dont think polygamy should be banned, so the only realistic one in you list that bothers me is blood relatives)June 26, 2015 6:07 pm at 6:07 pm #1089541
Jews don’t hold by American law in such matters – so it doesn’t affect us. By halacha, our law, one is no more allowed to marry a person of the same gender than is one allowed to marry a non-Jews (BTW, Anglo-American law has allowed Jews to marry goyim since the late 1700s).
By decriminalizing various of forms of non-marital intimacy, the goyim did a lot more violence to the concept of marriage than in allowing people who by definition are incapable of bearing children to marry. And those changes occured in the early 20th century, or earlier.
The only danger is that as marriage is increasingly defined a a couple, rather than a couple with children including a usually dependent spouse, the many laws that benefits families will no longer be justifiable (e.g. the tax break for families with one spouse earning much less than the other, which also works as a penalty for spouses with equal incomes).June 26, 2015 6:08 pm at 6:08 pm #1089542
does this mean that blood relatives can get married, a man with his his pet, or even polygamy (i want to honor my spouses’ memory)
The Torah allows polygamy and cousin marriage (which is frowned upon in western socities).
Pets cannot give concentJune 26, 2015 6:09 pm at 6:09 pm #1089543flatbusherParticipant
The important take-away from this decision is that even the majority preserved the rights of people who oppose same-sex marriage, so for those who fear this will silence objectors to this type of union will be forced to abandon their beliefs may be unfounded. Of course, that won’t stop people determined to make a federal case out of their perceived discrimination.June 26, 2015 6:12 pm at 6:12 pm #1089544charliehallParticipant
“does this mean that blood relatives can get married, a man with his his pet, or even polygamy”
States seem to be be able to prohibit or to allow first cousin marriages. Pets aren’t people so there is no issue. Laws against polygamy may be constitutionally problematic.June 26, 2015 6:27 pm at 6:27 pm #1089545
was it something i said? i looked through the rules and don’t see a violation
if it was why did it get approved?
im confused hereJune 26, 2015 7:02 pm at 7:02 pm #1089546
ubequitin, charlie, & zdad,
where does it say it is a union with another person?
people means a group of people not 2 spousesJune 26, 2015 7:15 pm at 7:15 pm #1089547
The law only allows adults 18 and over to concent, with some legal rights for a 16 or 17 year old (Thats how some chassunas can occur at 17)
An animal can never give concentJune 26, 2015 7:20 pm at 7:20 pm #1089548
FYI First cousins can only legally marry in I think 12 states and most of the others recoginze those marriages performed in other states.
In some frum communities marrying your first cousin is seem as very proper however the general society doesnt not feel the same way and has not legalized itJune 26, 2015 7:29 pm at 7:29 pm #1089549gavra_at_workParticipant
States seem to be be able to prohibit or to allow first cousin marriages.
States also WERE allowed to prohibit SSM. If there is a constitutional right to marry, then that right MUST be provided to any two consenting adults.June 26, 2015 8:05 pm at 8:05 pm #1089550
You answered your own question. “People means a group of people” ie not pets.
The comparison to pets (or children) is silly. There is no ” union” if both parties arent in agreememt, and there is no “parties” if one cannot consentJune 26, 2015 8:20 pm at 8:20 pm #1089551
Not all polygamy is allowed according to halacha.June 26, 2015 8:25 pm at 8:25 pm #1089552
1. The laws against marrying a first cousin, as well as polygamy, probably are unconstituitonal as they are both based on canon law. How legalization of polygamy will affect us is open to debate , but many hold that the halachic ban doesn’t apply in countries in which polygamy is legal.
2. While we have never followed the goyim’s laws in such matters, many of the Christians who lack a canon law tradition (e.g. Baptists, Mormons, and most fundamentalist Christians) always held by the government law in marriage matters, and will be forced to create their own legal rules, and will seek to have American return to a system a personal law (common in much of Africa and the MIddle East, but abolished in America and England roughly 200 years ago).
3. The dubious practices of the goyim aren’t really our problem. Its not like they were especially know for their chaste behaviors previously. The real change to marriage law came a century ago when they decriminalized non-marital intimate relations, which had previously been illegal.June 26, 2015 8:28 pm at 8:28 pm #1089553CTLAWYERParticipant
Much of this reaction is meaningless. Same sex civil marriage has been legal in most states for a number of years. It does not affect the average reader of this website.
No one is forced to marry another person of the same sex, nor are you being forced by the government to perform a civil marriage ceremony between same sex partners.
What the Court decoded is that there are 14th Amendment rights that must apply to all in the USA and they cannot be denied by individual rights.
American society evolves over time. States used to give charters to synagogues permitting them to open and operate. Jews, Women, Blacks and non-property owners were not allowed the vote in the past. Goyische prayer was forced upon Jewish children in public schools. The Court has interpreted the Constitution to right these injustices.
Nothing in today’s decision forces an individual to do something that is morally reprehensible to one’s religious beliefs.
One of the most important portions of the ruling is that states MUST recognize legal marriages performed in other states. Some states permit marriage between first cousins, others don’t. But those who don’t recognize those permitted marriages should the couple later move to the state who does not permit those marriages. Now a same sex married couple from CT or NY who moves to Virginia doesn’t lose marital rights.June 26, 2015 9:05 pm at 9:05 pm #1089554
i see what you mean, ubequitin
the word that was alluding me is “consenting” parties
you can’t have consent if they can’t give consent
however what is legally wrong with marrying one’s sister (what i meant originally when i said blood relatives)June 26, 2015 9:34 pm at 9:34 pm #1089555
“however what is legally wrong with marrying one’s sister (what i meant originally when i said blood relatives) “
In my opinion nothing.
Though I could hear an argument regarding public safety, to wvoid genetic anomalies that would result from inbreeding. However, I dont find this convincingJune 26, 2015 9:43 pm at 9:43 pm #1089556
Having children is no longer considered a reason for marriage in today’s society, so inbreeding wouldn’t be an issue.June 26, 2015 9:54 pm at 9:54 pm #1089557
CT Lawyer who wrote ‘Jews, Women, Blacks and non-property owners were not allowed the vote in the past. Goyische prayer was forced upon Jewish children in public schools. The Court has interpreted the Constitution to right these injustices.”
Not true. Pertaining to voting rights. The Supreme Court never objected to limiting the right to vote. Jews were given the right to vote by statute. The same for non-property owners. Blacks were given the vote by constitutional amendment (though some states had allowed at least some Blacks to vote previously – by statute).
P.S. Given the unspoken fact in allowing same sex marriage was the rejection of the common law definiton derived from canon law, that probably will lead to banning the prohibtion on marrying cousins (which is largely ignored and easy to evade since many states don’t have such a rule) and the legalization of polygamy (also to those asking about cousin marriages – what does “inbreeding” have to do with anyting since two males can’t produce a child, if equal protection would require treating hetereosexual couples the same – the “have mina” of the decision is that marriage no longer has anything to do with having children).June 26, 2015 10:28 pm at 10:28 pm #1089558
if i was single, yet i wanted to pay less taxes (more food stamps etc, receive medicare) all i would have to do is “marry” my sister?June 26, 2015 10:50 pm at 10:50 pm #1089559
The OU released a very nice letter on this, I think. I think it represents the Frum position well.June 26, 2015 11:26 pm at 11:26 pm #1089560
to coffee addict:
If they have to drop the other religious based prohibitions, then marriage is transformed into a domestic partnership that is more permanent than being a roommate, but fundamentally different than traditional marriage (which is America was based on the canon law of the Church of England)
More likely they would sharply reduce or eliminate benefits based on being married – but what about those benefits that serve to protect a woman is bears and raises children in reliance on the husband? Will the new environment encourage private marriage contracts to provide what was previously imposed by statute?June 26, 2015 11:28 pm at 11:28 pm #1089561
The OU issued a convoluted and embarrassing statement about today’s outrageous and insane court ruling that reads in part:
We also recognize that no religion has the right to dictate its beliefs to the entire body politic and we do not expect that secular law will always align with our viewpoint. Ultimately, decisions on social policy remain with the democratic process, and today the process has spoken and we accord the process and its result the utmost respect.
“we accord the process and its result the utmost respect”? Wow. Words elude me. The OU statement then goes on about “LGBT Americans” as if that is some normal thing. When the court next rules about about the law needing to recognize, honor and respect the love of “Adulterous Americans”, doubtless with the further decadence of society the OU will, too, accord the utmost respect to its result.June 28, 2015 4:12 am at 4:12 am #1089562
The concern of OU, and many others, is that the Gay Rights groups will move to ban religious groups that don’t accept the doctrine of gay marriage, i.e. no tax exemption for shuls and yeshivos, not recognizing frum marriages, and perhaps banning members of those religions from public life and professional licenses. It is there position that opposition to homosexuality is similar to racism, and needs to be surpressed. You will note how in the Episcopal Church, the left wing groups are seizing churches from the congregations that built them. They are actively supporting persecution of anyone who doesn’t agree with them.
The OU is trying to make a point without being too provocative. In part since we are used to being a persecuted minority, there is no “hiddush”, but for Christians with no experience in being persecuted for their faith, this is a radically new environment they are facing.June 28, 2015 5:13 am at 5:13 am #1089563HealthParticipant
Akuperma – the next step is to force Shuls & churches YB, to accept members that are openly this way! The conservatives from the GOP got it right. The Frum org. silence is Deafening!June 28, 2015 8:05 am at 8:05 am #1089564american_yerushalmiParticipant
????? ?? ?’, ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ??????, ???’, ???”?. ?????”? ???? ?????? ????? ??????, ???”? ??????? ????? ???? ???????? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ?????. ????”? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ??. ??? ???: ??? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???: ??? ???? ?????? ????? ??????,June 28, 2015 11:22 am at 11:22 am #1089565
health (and others)
why doesnt this go against seperation of church and stateJune 28, 2015 12:49 pm at 12:49 pm #1089566
Rabbis are not requierd to perform marriages they feel is against their belifes. They are not required to perform mixed marriages or other marriages against Halacha like a Divorcee marrying a cohen.
Wedding halls in Shuls are not required to hold such affairs either.
However kosher caterers in non-jewish places like a hotel, would be required to cater such eventsJune 28, 2015 1:26 pm at 1:26 pm #1089567
ca: Religious groups don’t have a right to violate the law. e.g. you can’t claim religious exemptions in order to practice polygamy, etc.
editedJune 28, 2015 1:57 pm at 1:57 pm #1089569
The OU released a very nice letter on this, I think. I think it represents the Frum position well.
It doesn’t represent my position (except for the first paragraph). The Agudah represented my position more accurately.June 28, 2015 3:09 pm at 3:09 pm #1089570
as zdad put it
(in my own words how i understand zdad)
the government cant force you to marry someone off, however it can tell you what not to doJune 28, 2015 3:58 pm at 3:58 pm #1089571
ca: It can say that discrimination is illegal and that refusing to marry someone for only these reasons is unlawful discrimination. See, for example, the case in Oregon where a bakery (flower shop?) lost a $100K+ lawsuit for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.
Could someone link (or cut-and-paste) the Agudah statement?June 28, 2015 4:28 pm at 4:28 pm #1089572June 28, 2015 5:00 pm at 5:00 pm #1089574
DaasYochid- Yeah, the Agudah who have people vote for candidates who shove these things down our throats and eventually lead to the Supreme Court justices agreeing with this Tumah. (Not that the OU is good on these things either)June 28, 2015 5:07 pm at 5:07 pm #1089575
I do not see any real or meaningful difference between the Agudah and OU statements. Both seemed to say the same thing. We don’t believe this is right, we can’t impose on others, and we want to make sure this won’t directly stop our religious beliefs.June 28, 2015 5:48 pm at 5:48 pm #1089576
The OU “accords the process [of the court establishing toeiva marriage] and its result the utmost respect”. The Agudah does not; nor should it. And the OU refers to “LGBT Americans” as if that is some kind of normal thing.June 28, 2015 6:03 pm at 6:03 pm #1089577
Sam, the OU statement gives the impression of “eilu v’eilu”, l’havdil.
This is not about what “we believe”, and our “beliefs” don’t/can’t merely “stake a claim in the national discourse”.
This is blatantly against rotzon Hashem, no two ways about it.
Even the Agudah’s “we do not seek to impose our religious principles on others” is weak. In fact, we wish we could, but alas, it’s technically true that we don’t, because we can’t.June 28, 2015 6:18 pm at 6:18 pm #1089578
Yosi7, the Agudah or OU supporting candidates who stand for bad things should not imply that they agree with those bad things.
This is an old machlokes. Yes, Rav Avigdor Miller held like you, but gedolim bigger than he, such as R’ Aharon Kotler, R’ Yaakov Kamenetzky and R’ Moshe Feinstein held to vote for whoever would help us the most, or whoever hakaras hatov for past help dicates we should vote for.
This was the approach of the gedolim in Europe.June 28, 2015 6:21 pm at 6:21 pm #1089579
Joseph, is normal to have some deviance/illness. It is not normal or right to act on an urge to do something wrong.June 28, 2015 6:52 pm at 6:52 pm #1089580mik5Participant
Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi shlit”a has publicly stated that certain people of the toeiva orientation are an ones in the sense that they do not choose to have this desire (obviously, they do choose whether or not to act on it); however, in their previous gilgul, they DID choose to be like this and that is why Hashem punished them by making them this way in their current gilgul (i.e., making them having a desire to do this abominable act), and their task now is to fight this desire and not to act on it, no matter how strong it may be.June 28, 2015 7:37 pm at 7:37 pm #1089581HealthParticipant
coffee addict – “health (and others)
why doesnt this go against seperation of church and state”
It opens a can of worms. You can have openly gay couples in Shuls as long as they claim they’re Orthodox Jews!June 28, 2015 8:05 pm at 8:05 pm #1089582
Let’s give credit where credit is due. The RCA has published a far better statement than the OU’s sorry response:
RCA Protests Court Ruling on Same Sex Marriage
Jun 26, 2015 — The Rabbinical Council of America expresses deep concern over today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding same-sex marriage.
While recognizing the civil rights of all who live in a democratic country as well as the diversity of religious and political opinions in a multireligious society, the RCA rejects the Court’s redefinition of marriage…
They sure haven’t “accorded the process and its result the utmost respect”. Instead they protested and rejected it.
Reject not respect.June 28, 2015 8:19 pm at 8:19 pm #1089583
Daasyochid- Not true. It is not just Rav Avigdor Miller’s shitta who I am following. Rav Aharon Kotler was also of the same view as Rav Miller on these Inyanim. Along with them there is Rav Isser Zalman Metzler, Rav Yichezkel Sarna,Rav yechiel michel tukachinsky, and Rav Yuda Finkel. I have a Kol Korah which is widely available where all the Gedolim previously mentioned (including Rav Aharon Kotler zatzal) all say that it is an Issur Gamur to vote for any candidate who supports things which the Torah is opposed to (like Toevah).
Leaving aside voting, Agudah honors people like Cory Booker to speak at the dinner who is one of the biggest Toevah supporter and they honor (or used to honor) people like Shelly Silver who is responsible for the abortion and Toevah in NYC.June 28, 2015 8:35 pm at 8:35 pm #1089584
Google “ami magazine the values vote” for an interesting article on the different opinions and scenarios related to this issue, and specifically about how the Agudah deals with it.June 28, 2015 8:59 pm at 8:59 pm #1089585mik5Participant
DaasYochid – thanks. interesting article, especially Rav Miller’s position (which is typical Rav Miller).June 28, 2015 9:56 pm at 9:56 pm #1089586
Very interesting article. I do not think, though, that it changes anything I said about Agudah. The Machlokes (which BTW it appears there are more Gedolim on the Rav Miller side) is only about voting. Not doing Chanifa and honoring them at dinners.June 28, 2015 10:02 pm at 10:02 pm #1089587
[unacceptable] lifestyle him or herself? These are difficult questions.
Also, it seems most gedolim disagree with Rav Miller that there is no other factor which can outweigh values.
There’s a lot of room for distinctions between candidates, issues, and benefits, and the Agudah weighs all of it.
You (and others) make it seem like a clear cut issue, and it’s far from that, with much nuance.June 28, 2015 10:12 pm at 10:12 pm #1089588DaMosheParticipant
I have a few friends who were celebrating the decision. These are Frum people, who are shomer Shabbos! They said we have no right to impose our beliefs on others. Here is what I told them:
Judaism is unlike other religions because we don’t believe that everyone must follow the same laws as us. The mitzvos are for Jews. Non Jews have 7 commandments. This issue, of marriage for gays, happens to be one of the 7. We, as Jews, have to be an Or laGoyim. Now, we need to figure out how to do that. Standing outside a rally holding signs protesting will never bring them around to the proper path. I don’t know the proper way. But there is one thing I do know. Western values are very nice – as long as they don’t go against halachah. When they do, we must put halachah first. In this issue, I don’t know how to encourage others to follow the right path. But we definitely shouldn’t be celebrating the wrong path! And as far as what right do we have to try and stop others? Never mind a right, we have an obligation! To be an Or laGoyim is to try and get them on the path the Torah sets, not the path of Western values!
- The topic ‘supreme decision’ is closed to new replies.