Posted 04 July 2012 - 07:52 PM
and to what degree does it have to make a difference in our life, do we have to make a machoe?(protest)
why is a goyshe idea accepted by goyim of any interest to jews?
Posted 06 July 2012 - 10:04 AM
The Dor Hamabul was destroyed not because people were immoral but because they wrote Kesuvos for Toevah couples; Sodom was destroyed not because they did immoral things but because they legislated their immorality into laws.
Therefore, aside from the fact that the behavior of society in general influences everyone (and everything - as Rashi says on השחית כל בשר), such behavior also puts us all in danger ר"ל. (See Magen Avraham 156:2 at the end, regarding how innocent people in the vicinity of a Rasha may be collaterally damaged if and when the Rasha get punished.)
Posted 06 July 2012 - 02:28 PM
If two phrases have the same definition then they are the same thing. Like "marriage" and" civil union."
And from the fact that those religious functionaries who are empowered to perform marriages because of their position within their religion, can also perform "civil unions" and also, without a special dispensation of law, performing marriages for normal couples but not gay ones would be considered discriminatory, shows that there is no material difference between marriages and civil unions.
And the issue is more than some financial benefits. Marriage, and "civil union" are seen as representative of morality and defining the family unit. Proof: Religious functionaries such as rabbis are vested with the power to perform marriages. Why would a rabbi, whose only qualification is his religious status, be able to legally create this "union"? Or a "marriage"?
The secular law that exempts me from marrying gay couples because my religion forbids me to, exempts me from performing "civil unions" between them as well. My status as a rabbi that allows me to perform marriages in the state of New York also allows me to perform "civil unions" if I so choose. Why would my status as a rabbi, which is purely a religious status, allow me to enable some financial contract (if that's all a "civil union" is)? And why would my religious freedom exempt me from being required to do so? Where in Judaism does it say I cannot enable a financial contract between two gay people?
Clearly, "civil union" is just another word for "marriage." There is no difference. The law gives married couples certain benefits (and liabilities) because they are part of that unit that I described before that was invented in order to represent morality and proper family unit norms. That is why religious functionaries can perform them, and why they needed a special law to exempt them from performing them for gay couples. Marriage is, legally and socially, much more than a secular contract. It is representative of morality and societal norms. Semantics does not change that.