Agudath Israel of America issued the following statement in reaction to today’s 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that states are constitutionally required to permit and recognize marriages between members of the same gender:
“As we have repeatedly stated, including in the amicus curiae brief we submitted in today’s case, we oppose the redefinition of the bedrock relationship of the human family. The Torah, which forbids homosexual activity, sanctions only the union of a man and a woman in matrimony. While we do not seek to impose our religious principles on others, it is our sincere conviction that discarding the historical definition of marriage is not a positive step for civilized society.
“Moreover, we are deeply concerned that, as a result of today’s ruling, and as the dissenting Justices have pointed out, members and institutions of traditional communities like the Orthodox Jewish community we represent may incur moral opprobrium and risk tangible negative consequence if they refuse to transgress their beliefs, and even if they simply teach and express their religious views publicly. That prospect is chilling, and should be unacceptable to all people of good will on both sides of this debate.
“We reiterate that we remain firm and steadfast in our own religious beliefs, and reject the voices of those in the heterodox Jewish community who claim that same-sex marriage is compatible with Jewish law and tradition. The issue here is not whether all human beings are created in the Divine Image, or whether they have inherent human dignity. Of course they are, of course they do. The issue is whether the Torah sanctions homosexual conduct or recognizes same gender unions. It does not.
“The truths of Torah are eternal, and stand as our beacon even in the face of shifting social mores.”
(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)
Words are cheap.
Hasn’t this country been built on a Judeo-Ch… belief as its basic platform? Isn’t that what the Constitution states?
How could they dismiss the basic premise of mankind!??
Our country has become a zoo and based on this ruling today beastiality ought become legal too – or as some would argue, thats5been legalized just the same!!!
In the present scenario, we ought to push to completely abolish the concept of marriage altogether
Excellently brought out
Where were all the Organizations 5 or 10 years ago when these Justices were being nominated ?
When these trends could have been halted ?
@not getting involved – what does that mean?
It’s their loss.
the statement should have been ashamnu bagadnu gazalnu etc.
Aguda helped pass the bill in NY!
aguda supported the candidates who helped pass the bill, and met with Cuomo to help put in the religious exemptions to help the bill pass. If the bill fails in NY, this decision never happens
Not getting involved what do you expect them to do?
Each and every one of you out there in YWN Land who EVER pulled the lever or pushed the button for the candidate with a D at the end of their name, ZULST DICH GIT SHAYMIN!!!!
The root of all toayva and anti what should be normal is the democrat party.
Granted there is a “conservative” judge or two that i’d like to have a word with, but without the pressing from the relatively minuscule amount of people who were REALLY pro this disaster, this would NEVER have been an issue.
Even the Chief Shucher was publicly on record as opposing toayva “marriage” till 3 years ago.
The Kehilos and yeshivis have to start thinking twice when they pick and approve a candidate,
Besides how many millions they will receive they should verify how dirty will our medeena become,
The Gedolim from the previous generations have warned us not to vote for a candidate who supports chookai toiaiva!
The verdict was handed down June 26, 2015.
The last verdict was handed down June 26, 2013.
The first “Kennedy” verdict was handed down June 26, 2003.
This date will be מוכן לפורעניות ר”ל.
[While Divri Hayamim’s comment was extreme, the date was also around this time:June 22, 2011]
you are not stuck in America. Instead of crying about it you can move out. And excuse me if this makes me a horrible zionist but you can come to Israel. Your right America is not eternal and will eventually have a downfall(kosev krsubah lizachor) although we don’t know when. Instead of worrying about Americas problems come and worry about our problems shmiras shabbos, talmud torah, giyur. You can vote here, speak, complain and best of all set an example to other yidden. Vikashlu ish bachiv, ish bavon achiv, not bavonos America. Come to Israel, say your not one of them. Let them fall. And stop the western culture from coming to Israel
Why is there no honest voice out there? Where is the voice of Torah that tells us when this happens to a society, specifically this, then the next step is to permit the sale of human flesh in the markets.
The ingrate full daughter, what we call the Judeochristian world is about to expel the foreign body which is Torah morality from its midst as a body throws off a virus.
Where are the honest voices to call out IT’S OVER FOR US IN THE USA. Please come home. Let’s HOREESH the land and be zocheh to NACHALAH and MORASHA together.
The right to marry
The right to meri (מרי)
In Hebrew meri means “to rebel”.
Free choice has been given, even to rebel against all that is Good, True and Holy.
There are so many who hold by Derech Hashem (the ways of G-d) in His Holy Torah. May we not be intimidated into hiding our beliefs on this issue.
Whoever wants to rebel
That’s his business.
They have the right, according to the law of America to do what they want.
SO DO I!
Our “right” to be faithful to Hashem and his Holy Torah is certainly just as legitimate as their “right” to marry/meri (rebel).
Enough with the accusations of “racism or sexism” or lack of tolerance, and trying to force us to participate in or legitimize their rebellion. (For example, with laws which force a caterer to cater one of their events.)
This has always been and remains to be forbidden in the Holy Torah.
We believe this and it is OUR legitimate right to say so.
They ask from us to let them be who they are and do what they want. We ask for the same thing from them.
Yaapchik, since when does a Jew refer to the galus as “our country”? Some of Am Yisrael may live in America, and grateful that they have allowed them to do so peacefully, but lest we forget where Our Country is….
“The Torah, which forbids homosexual activity, sanctions only the union of a man and a woman in matrimony”
Al pi hamesorah, this would have been more accurate if they wrote “sanctions only the union of a man and a woman (or women) in matrimony”.
Judaism believes that G-d gave laws for all of humanity, the Seven Noahide laws. One of the Noahide laws, stately approximately, is: “Do not engage in incest, adultery, pederasty or bestiality, as well as homosexual relations.”
I agree with the AY that as a result of the ruling members and institutions of traditional communities may (read: will) incur moral opprobrium & risk tangible negative consequence if they refuse to transgress their beliefs.
The moral repugnance of this decision notwithstanding, I decry the use of racist rhetoric in any and all cases. Mods, please amend the offensive comment above so that it is better aligned with YWN values.
As has been established repeatedly by many Gedolim over generations, Torah Judaism absolutely rejects bigotry in all of its forms.
#19 – Torah requires bigotry against evil. In our tradition, one is deliberately refuses to have children is considered as if he murdered his descendants – an act of mass murder since all the future generations are considered.
We have always held the Bnei Noach are prohibited from homosexual relations, along with a great many other things the mere mention of which is normally not allowed on YWN.
The real concern is that the left wing (which is dominated by secular Jews and goyim of partial Jewish ancestry – and sees Torah Jews as mortal enemies) will attempt to treat opposition to homosesxuality as racism, since they hold that sexual behavior is not a matter of free will but is a biological characteristic similar to skin color (forget saying that they are fools, because we have always know that – Hitler was also a fool, but he did great damage to us).
Perhaps if the Agudah would have taken stronger stands for scandals in their own community, their words would have had more weight
Readers, Please keep in mind that these are the same people that have been voting democrat and instructing their talmidim to vote democrat for generations (in order to optain as many benefits for their yeshivos, etc). They supported politicians like Shelly Silver and Cuomo all throughout the gay marriage debate. New York was one of the first states to allow gay marriage. The people who put this statement out have been supporting gay marriage through their actions for as long as it has been an issue. Thus, their words are meaningless.
This statement may help lesson the enormous chillel Hashem they have been causing among people who read this website, but the nation sadly knows that they have been supporting the same corrupt, dirty candidates that pushed for gay marriage their entire political career.
Now, I hope they will make a statement that all frum Jews must vote republican and not for the morally bankrupt Democrats, even in local elections!
“About Time says:
June 27, 2015 at 11:58 pm
The verdict was handed down June 26, 2015.
The last verdict was handed down June 26, 2013.
The first “Kennedy” verdict was handed down June 26, 2003.
This date will be מוכן לפורעניות ר”ל.”
Unfotuntly it is a yom muchun liprunios.
It was Erev Shabbos Kodesh Pashas Chukas, when wagons of Seforim were burnt in paris – see Shulchon aruch, and Misnah Brura.
9 Tammuz was also to be made a fasting day due to the churban, but was not due to itts proximity to 17 Tammuz.
This is the sole & only true Shidduch crisis.
Jewish boys & girls settling & marrying conventionally will help lower the % of this sickening To’eivo crisis.
The Federal Courts are one major part of the problem that no one has thought to address. Remember, in this country we are mandated to follow the law as written and intended (within Halacha). In view of the Supreme Court’s recent major rulings which defy logic and the Court’s Constitutional mandate, I propose the following that directly describes the issue and a solution that is within the intent of the framers of the Constitution, and I adjure our leadership to take a lead in remaking the Court as it was intended to function:
We have seen that…
The Supreme Court currently (and for some 50 years) increasingly has violated the intent of the framers of our Constitution (and Declaration of Independence). We have continually observed that a packed activist court has no legal restraints on its “legislating” from the bench. There needs to be a better way to ensure that checks-and-balances as far as the Supreme Court is concerned actually works.
The Constitution provides that…
Each member of Congress is restrained (at least in theory) by the electorate. The President, as well, is restrained by the electorate. The powers of the states (at least in theory) are legally free from Federal usurpation. The Supreme Court is not restrained by the states, nor by the people, nor by the other co-equal branches of the Federal government.
It has been seriously proposed that…
Supreme Court terms should be limited but this is only a partial solution since it can’t prevent the defacto collusion of a like-minded President, Senate, and appointees to the Supreme Court, whose extra-legal effects can still wreak havoc. A proposal for establishing the right of Congress to overrule the Supreme Court decisions is right thinking but violates the framers’ philosophy;
Therefore, I propose the following:
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES PERTAINING TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
1. It was the intention of the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America to prevent arbitrary rule by the head of government, or collusion between parts of the federal government which would have the similar effect of arbitrary rule;
2. The members of the United States Supreme Court are human, collectively with all the faults and prejudices and partisanship that humans are prone to;
3. The current system for selecting and ratifying an appointment to the United States Supreme Court is deficient insofar as it permits partisan collusion between the President of the United States and the United States Senate to fill all vacancies in the Court with like-minded appointees during the term(s) of office of the President of the United States;
4. Under the current system any collection of such partisan appointments can become the majority and remain on the Court for several decades, spanning many administrations and Congressional sessions, with the potential of ruling in a partisan manner which may be at odds with the will of the national consensus as expressed over these decades;
5. The current system has no method of influencing or changing the makeup of the Court in any reasonable time frame should such aforementioned collusion have occurred,
1. It was the intention of the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America that members of the Supreme Court not be chosen by election and therefore would not be prone to the influences made necessary in the modern process of campaigning for election;
2. It was the intention of the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America to reduce the likelihood of Court rulings being influenced by politics, by public capriciousness and clamor, and by social influences, that they established no limits on the term of service of a Justice of the Supreme Court;
3. The framers of the Constitution of the United States of America intended that federal powers be limited and that the vast majority of legislative powers be vested in the people through their state governments,
Therefore, the following Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is proposed:
Section 1. Members of the United States Supreme Court
Article 1. The Supreme Court of the United States of America shall consist of one member from each of the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the collective United States dependencies of Guam, American Samoa, American Virgin Islands and other such territories as the United States may presently have or acquire in the future. As of the date of this document these total 53.
Article 2. Each of the authorities addressed in Section 1, Article 1 shall select their candidate for the Supreme Court by a method of their own choosing.
Subsection 1. Should no selection be made within 6 months of a vacancy caused by the death, resignation, incapacity, completion of term of service, or impeachment and removal from office, the Governor or other legally constituted head of government of that authority shall appoint the candidate.
Subsection 2. The collective dependencies addressed in Article 1 shall, upon adoption of this Amendment, establish from among their constituent territorial government heads a titular head for purposes of this Section.
Section 2. Terms of Service of Members of the United States Supreme Court
Article 1. A Justice of the Supreme Court shall serve for a single term of eight (8) years.
Article 2. The term of office of a Supreme Court Justice begins on the day of appointment and is not fixed by the calendar or any other cycle.
Section 3. Selection of the Chief Justice of the United States
Article 1. The Chief Justice of the United States shall be selected by the President of the United States from among the active Justices and immediately shall begin to serve in that office.
Section 4. Compensation of Members of the United States Supreme Court
Article 1. Compensation of Members of the United States Supreme Court shall be proposed by the United States House of Representatives and Ratified by the United States Senate.
Article 2. Compensation of Justices of the United States Supreme Court may not be considered any sooner than three (3) years after the previous ratification.
Article 3. Compensation of all Justices of the United States Supreme Court shall be equal with the exception of the Chief Justice, who shall receive fifty (50) percent additional in base compensation, exclusive of benefits.
Section 5. Acceptance of Cases
Article 1. The Chief Justice of the United States shall be the sole arbiter as to which cases involving a Constitutional issue may be argued before the Supreme Court.
Section 6. Apportionment of Cases
Article 1. All cases involving a Constitutional issue shall be argued before a panel of nine (9) Justices.
Subsection 1. Nine (9) Justices shall be chosen by lot from among all active Justices.
Subsection 2. The Chief Justice may declare his/her intention to hear a given case prior to the start of the lottery, thereby requiring only eight (8) additional Justices for that case.
Subsection 3. If the Chief Justice does not declare for a particular case, then he/she enters the lottery equally with all other Justices.
Article 2. No Justice may hear more than three cases at the same time.
Article 3. After a panel has been selected, should a Justice be unable to hear and deliberate upon a case, the case can continue forward as long as there remain at least seven (7) Justices on the panel.
Subsection 1. Should there be less than seven (7) Justices remaining on the panel and there is no unanimous agreement of the panel to temporarily suspend a hearing or deliberations, the case shall be returned for resubmission to the lottery.
Section 7. Implementing this Constitutional Amendment
Article 1. This Constitutional Amendment shall take effect one year from the time of Ratification.
Article 2. Sitting Justices at the time of Ratification of this Amendment shall deliberate among themselves and individually declare which State or Territory they shall choose to represent. All other Justices shall be chosen per Section 1.
Article 3. By lottery, the first generation of Justices shall be divided into three (3) groups as equally as possible. Members of each group shall serve for six (6), eight (8) and ten (10) years respectively, after which the conditions of Section 2 shall prevail.
Article 4. The sitting Chief Justice at the time of Ratification of this amendment shall assume the same role, after which the conditions of Section 2 and Section 3 shall prevail.
Nice statement, much better than the one by the OU which was more interested in the process than the outcome.