Category Archives: Machshava/Jewish Thought

Temperance

Posted on May 10, 2013 | 5 Comments

How can we understand the harsh, intemperate remarks directed at Knesset Member Dov Lipman (Yesh Atid) by the distinguished Rosh Yeshiva of the very yeshiva he attended and with which he identifies?
MK Lipman, a self-described Haredi, belongs to the Knesset party whose leader has been most outspoken about having Haredim “share the burden” of public service and economic output. From one perspective, his membership in the party is an anomaly and the criticism was bound to happen sooner rather than later. That perspective is one that perceives Talmud Torah as the ultimate value in society – which is laudable – but also demands that the rest of the society acknowledge that as well, which is a much harder sell.
From another perspective, Lipman represents a new wave of Israeli leadership, in which the traditional divisions in Israeli politics between religious and secular are no longer sustained. That approach has already been commented upon here, as approximately half-dozen political parties boast members of Knesset who are religious Jews. That is unprecedented, and it recognizes that, just as the “Jewish Home” includes Jews who are religious and secular, so too the Jewish “Future” has the same. The parochial, provincial parties that are interested only in their own needs and constituents are in recession.
Lipman has embraced a plan that would limit the number of full-time yeshiva students supported by the State to 1800 people chosen annually. The rest could learn Torah until age 21, and then do some form of army or national service and then join the work force. It recognizes the value of Torah study, as well as the necessity of reversing the dire poverty that is endemic in the Haredi world. He also supports a plan to mandate that Haredi elementary schools teach secular subjects like mathematics and English, or lose some government funding. For all that, Lipman was called by the Rosh Yeshiva a “wicked” person, who “has learned [Torah] and rejected it,” and akin to “Amalek,” the eternal arch-enemy of the Jewish people, i.e., one who wants to destroy the Torah and the Jewish people. Ironically, MK Lipman, in his past a veteran Torah educator, wrote a book about Jewish education that carries the endorsement of the very same Rosh Yeshiva who has now denounced him.
One would think that the Haredi leadership, especially in Israel, would themselves be searching for a solution to the financial and educational crises in the Haredi world. The rates of employment among Haredim are staggeringly low; according to statistics released this week, 61% of adult Haredi women work outside the home (typical of the secular world) but just an astonishing 48% of Haredi men are employed. One sin begets another. An inferior secular education leaves even interested Haredim woefully unprepared to hold meaningful jobs that pay salaries that can support their families. Additionally, ignorance of mathematics makes Talmud Torah infinitely more difficult. Anyone learning Daf Yomi should realize that more than a dozen folios in Masechet Eruvin are incomprehensible without some rudimentary knowledge of mathematics. And yet, a defiant ignorance of this subject is being glorified in the Haredi world, notwithstanding the fact that in the Rosh Yeshiva’s own yeshiva in the United States secular subjects are studied in the Yeshiva high school and students in the upper yeshiva routinely attend college. It is hard to see why secular education for Yeshiva students here is the norm, and secular education for yeshiva students in Israel demands martyrdom rather than compliance.
Ask many Haredim in Israel privately, and they will concede that they have been let down by their religious leadership who have proffered an ideal of existence that cannot be achieved, that renders them incapable of functioning in a normal society, and that bears little relation to the Torah world historically.
The “business model” of the Haredim has failed. Proof of its failure is the strident rhetoric flung at MK Lipman in place of a reasonable attempt to find solutions to the existing problems – as if Lipman is the problem and if he – and his ilk – would only disappear, then all problems in the Haredi world would disappear as well. That is patently false, but he is a convenient target for the major failure in the Haredi system, which follows.
Personally, I am drawn to the Haredi world, and especially in its regard for Torah. Too often, one finds in the Modern Orthodox world grievances of one sort or another against this or that aspect of Torah, as if Jews get to sit in judgment of God and His Torah. There are groups that define themselves by their rebellion against the part of Torah or the halacha they do not like. That is disgraceful arrogance, and that type of insurgence is thankfully unknown in the Haredi world. They like – love – the Torah, and they have no complaints against the Creator. Often, they are more humble servants of God than one finds elsewhere, and certainly defer to rabbinic authority (always welcome, but here, probably to a fault).
But those for whom the primacy of Talmud Torah is paramount have failed miserably in one regard: they have not successfully conveyed the value of Torah study to the rest of the society that they hope will support them. And that failure was quite predictable given current trends. That is to say, you cannot tell the rest of society that you cannot live with them in the same neighborhoods, ride with them on the same buses, fight alongside them in the same units (or any unit, for that matter), and socialize and interact with them in any meaningful way – and then stick out your hand and say “support me, because Torah study is the greatest value.” The mendicant cannot condescend to the benefactor, at least not forever; the benefactor might develop his own ideas and values and eventually say “no, sorry.”
In fact, that failure is even more troubling that it sounds on the surface, as the Haredi lifestyle and the walls that it has erected around itself has convinced too many Israelis (and other Jews) that it is impossible to observe the Torah’s mitzvot and still be a productive citizen. To be a pious and observant Jew, it would seem from their value system, demands that a person withdraw from the world at large, from gainful employment, and from meaningful contributions to anyone outside one’s narrow community. But a Yeshiva is not a monastery in the wilderness; it shares a root with yishuv, civilization. A true yeshiva enhances and even defines the civilization around it; it doesn’t detach itself from it.
The chickens of detachment and segregation have come home to roost.
Of course, I know of no precedent in Jewish history where a community of putative scholars expected the rest of the Jewish world to support them in perpetuity, and the Haredi world is being forced to reckon with that reality. The shrillness of the responses to date – catcalls of Amalek from some, threats by others to leave Israel and relocate to Poland and Russia (re-create the “good old days,” I suppose) – underscore the paralysis of leadership in the Haredi world, which is a shame for all Jews because the Torah commitment of Haredim is unparalleled. But that commitment also needs to be re-focused and especially must begin to infuse Jewish life outside the Bet Midrash.
The saddest aspect of this imbroglio is that it has thus far stimulated no major reassessment in the official Haredi world, no re-evaluation of what they might have done wrong and what they might do better, and no acknowledgment that there is even a problem in their circles. They seem to feel it is all politics, combined with Jew-hatred, and that the storm will pass whenever the next elections occur, they handle the post-election coalition building more deftly and the money will start to flow their way again.
They could be right about the latter. That is a tragedy, because such “victories” imperil the Torah world and ultimately harm all Jews. And there is no shortage of role models in Israel today of people who learn, fight, work, earn and build – who see themselves as part of something greater and not apart from everyone and everything else. They are the embodiment of the Torah ideal today, and they are the ones who will move Jewish destiny forward.

PS: In late-breaking news, the distinguished Rosh Yeshiva publicly apologized to MK Lipman for his intemperate remarks (sort of: he went from calling him a “rasha” to simply “misguided” and denied comparing him to Amalek). Now, on to solutions.

→ 5 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel, Jewish History, Machshava/Jewish Thought

Women on the Wall

Posted on April 26, 2013 | 9 Comments

Here in Israel, some would have you believe that the most recent contrived contretemps – women wearing talitot and seeking public prayer at the Kotel – has riveted the country and pitted groups, people and politicians against each other in waves of outrage and recriminations. The truth is that it is barely a story, discussed very little by Israelis, and reflective of the peculiar forms of Jewish self-expression that are rooted in the exile experience.
As such, two sensations wash over when reading the sporadic references to these matters in the media. The first is tedium. Whatever their motivations, and I assume at least some are sincere, this battle is same-old same-old. The movers and shakers among the provocateurs are predominantly non-Orthodox, and some of those leading the charge and being arrested for the blatant breaches of the law are secular women who would otherwise not be found within 2000 ells of a house of prayer. As is customary these days with all groups that are uncomfortable with established religious or cultural norms, they wrap themselves in the banner of “equality,” as if that justifies anything and everything.
Memo to provocateurs: Judaism does not believe in absolute equality, nor does nature or life itself. The Torah is quite explicit that men and women share the same essential spiritual worth – both males and females were created in the image of God. But that is not the same as saying that modes of worship, and treatment under the law, therefore have to be identical. In God’s orchestra, men and women, kohanim, leviim and yisraelim, all have different roles and play different instruments. That is why that orchestra produces beautiful music and has spawned millennia of faithful Jews who have clung to the Torah despite great suffering imposed from outsiders and enormous challenges from secular culture and values.
The orchestra of the provocateurs plays only one instrument – a loud trumpet that blares and blares, and attracts attention but not respect.
There is a second sensation that arises as well to which many have become accustomed as these arguments pop up every now and then: sadness. It is sad when women feel that they are spiritually significant beings only when they mimic what men do. Whatever obscure sources one wants to cherry-pick after the fact, it is obvious – for example – that women have never worn talitot during prayer. That these women should feel that their prayer is elevated and worthy only when wearing male garb in public is just sad. (One wonders why these women just don’t wear tzitzit¬ – a talit katan – everyday under their garments like observant men do, or is it just the public show that matters?)
Certainly men can light Shabbat candles every Friday night and go to the mikveh once a month, but those men are mimicking women and fashioning their own religion that has little connection to God or Torah. It is the ultimate in self-worship. Egalitarianism has become the dominant value – above all others – such that the Torah is merely a tool in achieving it, and any jot or tittle of the Torah that engenders any sort of inequality must be abandoned, according to this way of thinking. For example, there are non-Orthodox Jews known to me who refuse to daven anywhere there is a mechitza (partition between men and women), deeming such to be “immoral.” They are sincere, albeit misguided. Where does it end? Should we anticipate a day when women will be clamoring to grow beards during sefira and lamenting the unfairness of it all – the “male patriarchy” – if they can’t?
In truth, the groups comprising the Wall Women have different agendas. Some want to push for women’s prayer and the duplication of the male experience, while others want full egalitarian prayer – mixed minyanim and the like. They are not identical but have joined forces to fight the greater battle – much like Conservative Judaism does not accept Reform Jewish conversions but fight together against Orthodox control of the conversion process. Both, again, have found the convenient bogeyman – the Haredim who are the enemies de jure in Israel and blamed for much of society’s ills and the strife at the Kotel. But anyone with remote familiarity with the events on the ground knows that the most caustic opponents of the provocateurs are not Haredi men, but women, and not all Haredi women, just religious women who are happy in their lives, love the Torah and find no fault in it, and do not want their prayers disturbed by these foreign elements who have incessant complaints against God’s Torah instead of their own unwillingness to comply with it.
The Haredim, though, are depicted as the enemy because they are convenient targets, and a woman-woman brawl would be even more tedious. And not all the women involved are non-Orthodox, but, as we have seen in other areas, rebellion against Torah can come from those who wear suits, hats, tichels, wigs and tallitot – and from both men and women.
Much has been made of the arrests of women wearing tallitot and otherwise disturbing the peace at the Kotel. It sounds bizarre that anyone should be arrested for “praying” in an uncustomary matter, until one realizes that just a few yards away from the Kotel, Jews are routinely barred from praying near the Temple Mount, and even arrested if they are caught moving their lips. There is a concept among decent people of respecting the norms and customs of a place. Certainly, these women would not demand freedom of worship in Al-Aksa, nor even try to enter wearing shoes. They would not seek to impose their forms of worship on a church, and if similarly-minded Christians did, the church would be justified in having them evicted and, if necessary, arrested for disturbing the peace. In their egalitarian ardor, they show contempt for Judaism that they would never show to other religions. (It reminds me of when the late Leah Rabin visited Pope John Paul II and covered her head with a scarf, something she would never consider when visiting the Chief Rabbi. Interesting.)
Indeed, perhaps these women would garner more support if they took their prayer to the Temple Mount. A steel cage match between Muslims and liberal Jewish women would be worth ten times the price of admission. As one of my dear colleagues pointed out, it would be delightful if these liberal women fought for their rights to pray unfettered at Me’arat Hamachpela in Hevron, or at Yosef’s Tomb in Shchem. If nothing else, it would put them on the side of the angels in support of Jewish rights throughout the land of Israel.
Of course, Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount is prohibited by Israeli law so as not to offend Muslim sensibilities. Why, then, are Jewish sensibilities any less precious than Muslim ones? And – to be blunt – Jewish sensibilities are offended by blatant violations of Torah and mockeries of Torah that take place anywhere and in any form. True, we control our rage better than Muslims do, but the issue is not prevention of violence but sensibilities. And law and order.
Right now, the law bans some of the antics of these women. They may not like it, as I don’t like other laws, but those who break the law deserve to be arrested. Civil disobedience comes at a price, although the left in Israel – trumpeters of the “rule of law” – have long reserved the right to break laws they don’t like for causes they consider to be just. They conveniently forget the illegal negotiations with the PLO before Oslo – when even meeting PLO officials broke the existing law. Anarchy results when people pick and choose which laws are moral and which laws they will follow.
The gloomier prospect is that this matter will not end. Natan Sharansky’s compromise has been hailed by many, and give him credit for trying. (He wants to enshrine in practice the High Court’s license to have such prayers take place on the Western Wall’s southern extension, near Robinson’s Arch, on the unspoken but compelling theory that “out of sight is out of mind.”) There is logic to it, although religious Jews recoil at the permanence of any arrangement that breaches Jewish law. As is well known (Masechet Sukka 51b), the Bet HaMikdash of which the Western Wall is but a remnant had a balcony for women erected whenever large crowds were expected. Perish the thought – but the Holy Temple for whose rebuilding we pray every day was not an egalitarian institution! And the same mesorah that teaches us that today’s Kotel is part of the retaining wall of the Mikdash and the place from which the Divine Presence has never left and which God vowed would never be destroyed (Midrash Shir Hashirim Rabba 2:9) is the same mesorah that regulates how Jews pray.
And the compromise is sought on the specious grounds that failure to do something will cause a diminution of American-Jewish support for Israel. But that train left the station years ago; the primary supporters of Israel today in America are evangelical Christians, not Jews. Jews have become too unreliable, and too assimilated, to constitute a durable core of support, although few will admit this publicly, and the denial of this reality serves a purpose in keeping otherwise straying Jews somewhat tethered to Jewish life. And if the compromise is coupled with increased Jewish rights throughout the land of Israel – on the Temple Mount and elsewhere – it will have served a noble purpose.
But the controversy will not end – whether or not the “great compromise” goes into effect – because, as we have seen with race in America, “equality” leaves its seekers unsatisfied and they begin to demand special treatment and privileges. Robinson’s Arch will be construed as Plessy v. Ferguson re-visited, a “separate but equal” facility that will stoke the flames for years to come. In accord with Middle East custom, the provocateurs will pocket these concessions and plan their next move. It will not end, because the yetzer hara for Torah is also powerful and usually self-justifying. The latest reports are that the women in question have already rejected the compromise. They want more, and subtlety is not their strong suit.
What is missing – as is frequently the case in these intra-Jewish disputes – is surrender to a Higher Authority. Thus, this is a good debate to have, even if it has little traction in Israel, because it is a compelling reminder of the fundamental principles in Jewish life and the very foundation of Torah: Whom do we serve, how and why? What does it mean to be Jewish? How can all the deviations sought in Jewish law and morality not be deemed as self-worship? One recalls that among the initial founders of Conservative Judaism were Orthodox Jews and Rabbis. It is hard to imagine such a thing today, but, for example, Rabbi Henry Pereira Mendes at the very end of the 19th century served as the president of the OU (Orthodox Union) and the Jewish Theological Seminary, of which he was one of the founders. It took two decades to sort out who was who and who stood for what. I sense that these groups and their agendas will not require that much time to determine whether or not they want to be part of the halachic world.
The answers to those questions usually are a powerful indicator of a person’s Jewish commitment, but more importantly, the extent to which that commitment will be transmitted to his/her children and grandchildren. A sin engenders a sin, and a mitzvah engenders a mitzvah. On which side of the wall, then, will these women, their supporters and their children, wind up? That is the critical question.
Meanwhile, a District Court Judge – identified as Orthodox – ruled yesterday that women can pray at the Kotel as they wish because there is no “local custom” that has to be obeyed. One would have thought that the Rabbi of the Kotel would have been in a better position to determine what the local custom is, but, at least, whatever the merits of his argument, this judge has now proven his liberal bona fides and put himself on the fast-track to a Supreme Court appointment.
Before anarchy descends on the Kotel, it would be a good time to remind ourselves that the Kotel is a symbol of Churban (the Destruction of the Temple) and not yet a symbol of redemption, may it come soon.

→ 9 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel, Jewish History, Machshava/Jewish Thought, Tefillah

Remembrance Day

Posted on April 11, 2013 | 3 Comments

There are few days on which the bonds of shared identity are felt as strongly in Israel as on Yom Hashoah, officially – and quite properly called here – “Yom HaZikaron laShoah v’laGevurah,” the Day of Remembrance for the Holocaust and the Heroism. It is interesting that in America, the day’s name is shortened to “Yom HaShoah,” the almost-macabre sounding “Holocaust Day.” Here, it is a day of remembrance, framed a week later by “Yom Hazikaron l’challelei Tzahal,” Remembrance Day for the Fallen of the Israel Defense Forces.
The nation is captivated by the day. Places of entertainment closed this past Sunday night, television shows for 24 hours dealt only with the Holocaust. Movie channels, except those showing Holocaust films, were on hiatus. Each show, each interview, each documentary, was more fascinating than the next. There is no story of survival that is not fascinating; there are no other stories outside the Holocaust genre that are more fascinating. Each tale is filled with sadness, courage, inspiration, grit and some sort of faith.
The enormity of the Holocaust was such that its dimensions are limitless, and therefore a consistent mode of commemoration has yet to be formulated. The official ceremony at Yad Vashem involved, as always, torch lighting by survivors preceded by an account of their survival. But the Yad Vashem service always focuses more on the “heroism” than on the “Holocaust.” All of the torch-lighters were fighters – in the ghettos or with the partisans – or escapees. The narrative of modern Israel demands a de-emphasis on the Holocaust itself and the immensity of the slaughter, and an over-emphasis on the stories of resistance. It is not that those stories are untrue or uninteresting, indeed, the opposite. It is that the attempt to turn the Holocaust into a tale of resistance rather than extermination is misleading.
In keeping with the basic theme, the Prime Minister spoke about the looming Iranian threat and the lesson of the Holocaust: a refusal to rely on other nations for Israel’s national defense. Again, it is true, but is that really the main focus of the Holocaust? Resistance was part of the Holocaust but a relatively small part – and official Israel in its ceremonies emphasizes the physical resistance and completely downplays other forms of resistance, especially spiritual. Those stories, thankfully, abound in the media and other sources, and are testaments to the inner strength of the Jew.
In recent years, there has been a growing interest in such accounts of spiritual tenacity – of the seder in Auschwitz, of Torah study in the ghettos, of striving to keep kashrut, of Jews maintaining their inner dignity in their treatment of others and not succumbing to the attempts at dehumanization. I learned this week of a museum called “Shem Olam,” located in Kfar Haroeh for over a decade and awaiting the construction of their new facility, which painstakingly documents Jewish religious life before and during the Holocaust. (The name is taken from the continuation of the verse – Isaiah 56:5 – in which “Yad Vashem” is mentioned: “In My house and within My walls I will give them Yad vashem, a place of honor and renown, better than sons and daughters, shem olam, an eternal renown, I will give them which will never be terminated.”) There are numerous artifacts and manifold accounts of the spiritual heroism that was also part of the story of the Holocaust. One recent find came during a dig at Belzec – a shard from a seder plate brought there by Jews who assumed that, wherever they were being sent, Pesach was coming and they would be celebrating it somewhere. They never got to celebrate that Pesach, and all that remains from their plate was a small piece inscribed with the last three letters of “Maror,” the bitter herbs. It is an eerie sight.
It is as if there are two worlds – or more – commemorating the Holocaust. One discordant note was sounded by IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz who saw fit to say in Auschwitz on Monday that “in our generation, we have the IDF. There is no other magen (shield) for David, no other chomah (protective wall) for Zion,” essentially transposing two praises of God found in our literature (Pesachim 117b and evocative of Zecharia 2:9, respectively) for the IDF. It is no disrespect to the IDF and their competence and valor to suggest that a price is eventually paid for such hubris, and perhaps has been paid already.
The official ceremony is a reminder of the old Israel where religious involvement was limited to “functions” – Tehillim, Kaddish, etc. – that are tacked on to the end of the ceremony. No other religious participation or perspective was included. The secular-religious divide is unfortunately part of the Holocaust story as well, especially in light of the inability of the religious world to also find appropriate and enduring means of commemoration. This is likely temporary, and it stands to reason that as the years pass, the secular world will be increasingly detached from the Holocaust era even as the religious world embraces it more and more, and derives great inspiration from it. Our local Holocaust commemoration contained an excellent and emotive power point presentation of the spiritual struggle during the Holocaust.
Nothing illustrates the secular struggle with the Holocaust more than a new movie that features, in part, one of the more revolting Holocaust commemorations imaginable. The movie, “Numbered,” tells the moving tale of how various survivors dealt with the tattoos on their arms. (One woman, in a clip that I saw, says she was asked years ago: “Why don’t you remove it? Aren’t you ashamed to have that on your arm?” She responded: “Why should I be ashamed? The people who did this to me, they’re the ones who should be ashamed!” Bravo for her.)
The movie, at a certain point, introduces a recent development in Israel that was featured in the NY Times last fall, found at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/01/world/middleeast/with-tattoos-young-israelis-bear-holocaust-scars-of-relatives.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&. Young Israelis are tattooing their grandparent’s numbers on their arms in order to feel a greater connection to them. Certainly, they are oblivious to the Torah prohibition against tattooing, but is that any way of showing honor and identification? Such a hideous act meant to dehumanize is not made any better when done voluntarily; it just shows a complete lack of propriety. When I saw the Times article that discussed the movie, I couldn’t help thinking that in some concentration camps, the Nazis fiendishly offered the Jews more food on Yom Kippur – an extra ration of pork. Would these young Israelis then decide to identify more closely with their grandparent survivors by eating pork on Yom Kippur? I shudder to think that I have put such a thought in their heads.
I have not seen the movie, but I would like to think that this account of the young Israelis is a small part of it and not its focus.
Nonetheless, the great strength of this Yom Hazikaron is that it does bring together all Jews, with all the commonalities and all the differences we have. And perhaps the Holocaust remains so enormous, and so evil, that it can be no other way. Everyone sees it from a different angle. It remains personal and raw. Words still fail to convey the horror of both the Holocaust and the Second World War unleashed by the Germans that cost more than fifty million lives.
Apropos of that, it is worth quoting a line in the conclusion to “The Storm War,” by Andrew Roberts, a history of World War II. In an Italian cemetery where British soldiers were laid to rest, one tombstone, of a British private, 30 years old, reads: “Beautiful memories, a darling husband and daddy worthy of Everlasting Love, His wife and Baby Rita.”
Roberts, the dispassionate historian, continues: “Even two-thirds of a century later, it is still impossible not to feel fury against Hitler and the Nazis for forcing baby Rita to grow up without her father…”
Jews, certainly, tertiated by the Nazis, have a special reason to feel fury, to remain vigilant against our enemies, to grow in faith and connection to God, to find the way to strengthen Torah across the Jewish world, and do what we can to hasten the redemption.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel, Jewish History, Machshava/Jewish Thought

Last Gasp

Posted on April 3, 2013 | 8 Comments

The US Supreme Court is now wrestling with two cases that pose the same dilemma: should the Court acquiesce in the legalization of same-sex marriage, and if not, then why not? The two cases present separate issues and could result in decisions that skirt the issue at hand. The first, the Defense of Marriage Act, passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton all the way back in 1996 (when America’s moral code was apparently archaic and repugnant) might be ruled unconstitutional simply because the laws (and thus the definition) of marriage are almost always a state concern. The second case, although first argued, undermines that suggestion, as Proposition 8 in California that defined the only possible parties to marriage as one man and one woman was overturned by that leftist state’s Supreme Court; i.e., the better framework to define society’s values – the people of each state, rather than the federal government – was deemed unacceptable by that state’s court, after the people overwhelmingly voted to overturn a court decision that had permitted same-sex marriage. Do the people rule or do the judges rule?
Two points about the oral argument fascinate. As was widely reported, Justice Kagan read from the House report that accompanied the passage of DOMA in 1996, that stated that Congress acted in order to “express moral disapproval of homosexuality.” That provoked what was reported in almost every news account to be “gasps” from the assembled spectators in the courtroom (obviously, and understandably, overpopulated by same-sexers and their supporters). A “gasp,” as we understand it, is a “short convulsive intake of breath, as if from shock and horror.” It remains unclear whether the “gasps” resulted from the quaint expression of conventional morality less than two decades ago, or the astonishing bravery of Justice Kagan in reading aloud such subversive sentiments – and in public, and while being recorded, and despite her obvious disagreement. How is it that what was evident until just recently has become so unmentionable today?
That engenders the second point, which is the utter failure of the opponents of same-sex marriage (Charles Cooper in the California case, Paul Clement in the DOMA case) to make any cogent argument to support their case. Their contentions were tangential, as in Cooper’s argument that marriage laws exist in order to promote the state’s interest in “responsible procreation.” That argument is palpably weak, although its core (promotion of the ideal family) is a coherent thought. The fact is that the rate of Americans born out of wedlock today is approximately 40%, and in the black community well over 70%. Few of those births are the product of “responsible procreation.” Was that the best argument he could use?
Here is what he could have said, in an attempt to defer the last gasp of morality in American life:
The same-sex faction has been remarkably devious in setting the terms of the debate, and labeling (subtly or heavy-handedly, as needed) all opponents of their desires as dissolute bigots. That was accomplished by wrapping themselves in the mantle of the civil rights movement, and framing the issues as equality and the suppression of love. Neither is plausible.
The comparison to the anti-miscegenation laws, that banned marriage in the US between whites and blacks until finally ruled unconstitutional in the 1967 Loving case (how’s that name for pleasant coincidence?). But that analogy is easily refuted. The Equal Protection Clause applies to people defined by objective characteristics, for which even religion qualifies due to its all-encompassing nature. The protection of certain behaviors – especially private ones – represents a sharp departure from the purposes of the 14th Amendment.
Moreover, blacks are people, as are whites and Asians. Skin color is inherently no different than hair color or eye color. That society at one point made such distinctions is abhorrent and based on ignorance and prejudice. (Jewish society is certainly well aware of this, as on any day here in Israel, one can walk the street and see white, black, brown and Asian Jews.) Any law that would prohibit blondes from marrying brown-haired people would be understandably ridiculed by any thinking, decent person.
What does that have to do with men marrying men and women marrying women? The underlying assumption – to play out the analogy – is just like there is really no fundamental difference between blacks and whites, so too there is really no fundamental difference between men and women, and thus any combination in marriage should be acceptable. But would any thinking, unbiased person aver that there is no fundamental difference between men and women? (I said “thinking” person.) Marriage has always been an institution that unites “opposites” – the man and the woman – not the “sames.” And that union of opposites has always been the foundation of the family, and frankly, always will be.
Nor does the “suppression of love” assertion carry any weight. There is no logical reason why – if the basic definition of marriage is to be transformed – that marriage must be restricted to two people. Why not legalize polygamy? Polyandry? Polyamory? Poly-want-a-crackery? Love is a many splendored thing, and the only limits to the variety of romantic preferences of the Homo sapiens are imagination, energy, opportunity, and, of course, morality.
Furthermore, how can the law restrict the love opportunities of the bisexual? Should he/she be allowed one spouse of each variety, formally recognized by the state in which he/she lives? How can the law ban incestuous marriages between adults, like the Kentucky father and daughter who are currently in prison because their loving, consensual union has produced several offspring? The fact that the law limits marriage and prohibits certain relationships reinforces the unique nature of marriage that civil society has an interest in promoting.
Ted Olson’s contention that the law bans polygamous relationships because of fears of abuse, concern over inheritance rights, insurance issues, etc. is completely bogus. Abuse can take place in any relationship, and paternity testing is sophisticated enough today to determine appropriate parentage with absolute certainty. The insurance system is a mess anyway, and getting worse. It is shocking (and from this perspective, sheer ineptitude) that proponents of the California ban and DOMA did not see fit to raise these issues.
And, yes, there is the moral issue that the House report noted (although it was by no means the motivation behind the law) that provoked the audience “gasps” – but was not at all defended by the lawyers in this case, likely for fear of public ridicule or worse by the homosexual lobby. (Paul Clement, representing DOMA, had to resign from his law firm because of the threats that caused his firm to withdraw from the case.) But there is a compelling case to be made. There is a reason why the Bible – and millennia of history – endorsed marriage between men and women, and why the Talmud even states that despite the decadence (including same sex relationships) of the generation of the flood that necessitated their destruction, at least they did not have the gall to write marriage contracts and publicly celebrate such unions. (In Chullin 92a-b, the Talmud notes that the prohibition against “same sex marriage” is one of the three commandments that even the most depraved pagans observed, along with not selling human flesh in butcher stores and honoring the Bible.)
The man-woman dynamic in marriage is best for man, for woman, and for society. It allows for a proper division of roles, and for the full development of each aspect of the human personality. We all benefit from a loving relationship with the opposite sex, not to mention that we were designed to reproduce together, and that such a relationship, in a family ideally managed by man and woman, father and mother, is best for children (despite the politically correct rubbish being proffered today – and quite suddenly, at that– by the association of pediatricians and likeminded “scientists.”) That is obvious – political conclusions masquerading as “science.” The alternative – that the composition of the family unit does not matter – is so preposterous, that it calls to mind George Orwell’s famous quote: “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them;” an intellectual, or even a regular person cowed into fear and submission by a culture that is glorifying free expression at the expense of societal cohesion.
Justice Kennedy made a plaintive cry on behalf of the 40,000 Californian children who live with same-sex parents who cannot marry, and thus suffer some stigma. Oh, please. Hundreds of thousands of Californian children live in homes in which the two adults, male and female, are not married. This is California, for goodness’ sake. Has the esteemed Justice – a Californian himself! – never heard of the Hollywood marriages, where men and women flit from person to person, have children outside of wedlock, and think nothing of it? In parts of California, a child who is being raised by his two biological parents, married and living together, is probably stigmatized. And, again, none of the attorneys saw fit to point out, respectfully, the sheer preposterousness of the statement.
None of the proponents even dealt with another aspect of the claims raised against the traditional marriage – the hardship brought about through visitation denials, inheritance problems, etc. Besides the fact that each issue can be dealt with through civil contract – each and every one, without exception – the broader issue is that the same problem could affect brothers and sisters living together, or close friends who are roommates who also lack – naturally – the imprimatur of law on their relationship. Should the definition of marriage – and the institution itself – be undercut in order to allow visitation, bereavement rights, insurance benefits, etc. for people who just live together without any sexual relationship – what was once known as a “friendship”? Why is the private conduct of the parties the determinant? Why can’t just any two people who love each other – or profess love for each other, even in a Platonic way – “marry”? The answer is that such a definition will swiftly bring to an end to the concept of marriage as we know it, which might be the intention of the ancient Roman reincarnates who are promoting this cause.
The other issue that surprisingly was ignored was the effect of an adverse decision here on religious life in America. I do not believe for a moment that if same-sex marriage is legalized that religious groups – churches, synagogues, clergy – will be exempt from practicing it or allowed to ban it in religious facilities – no matter what proponents of same-sex marriage say today or the law enshrines today. I do not believe for a moment that a practice whose ban is analogized to anti-miscegenation laws will be permitted to groups adhering to Biblically-based objective morality. A church, synagogue, caterer, orchestra, rabbi, minister, photographer that refused to participate in a marriage of a white and a black would be sued, prosecuted, lambasted, tarred and feathered. (It has already happened in New Jersey – suits against a church and a photographer that originated with the state’s Human Rights Commission for rejection of a same-sex couple’s nuptial needs.) Those who state that religious organizations will be exempt from same-sex marriage laws are the exact same people who stated that religious organizations would be exempt from the dictates of Obamacare. We should not fall into that trap a second time. If opposition to same-sex marriage is routinely construed as nothing other than bigotry, no opposition will long be tolerated.
There is a libertarian argument to be made for same-sex marriage, but society benefits from strong families. No one suggests that a single parent household is ideal; sometimes, it is an unfortunate reality and many do a heroic job in raising children single-handedly. But a child reared without a maternal or paternal influence is disadvantaged regardless of the conclusions of the spurious “research,” but it is an impediment to a successful life that they might overcome. The law should be fostering intact families, rather than succumbing to the sham arguments about equality and civil rights.
The assault on the integrity of the American family – and the decline and even mockery of traditional two-parent families – has been devastating to American life, with the full ramifications not yet fully known. The phenomenon of men procreating and evaporating is one symptom of the collapse of the ethic of personal responsibility. The long term effects on children raised without clear sexual identities – taught to experiment, that they can marry either “a boy or a girl, or both, as they choose, because anything goes and everything is normal” – seem fairly obvious to all but those whose agenda is clear, and is another inevitable consequence of the legalization of same-sex marriage.
It is a shame that no one sought to respond to the “gasps” that erupted in the Supreme Court. Traditional morality has been the bedrock of every civilization since ancient times, and those societies that abandoned or rejected it did not long survive. Europe is already failing, and the rejection of traditional morality is just one cause of its deterioration that is proceeding apace. Why a United States – or a Western world – that heads down this same path should assume its long-term survival is a mystery. It is not that same-sex marriage will cause the world to end, but rather that legalization of same-sex marriage is one omen of a society that has lost the will to sustain itself.
Certainly, the Supreme Court might punt and decide on procedural grounds that they cannot rule substantively on these cases (“standing” issues, in legal parlance) but the Court has never been reluctant to insert itself into heated social issues. The better option for traditional moralists might be a ruling that this is a state matter, period, and allow the states to decide. Most states (31 to date) have banned same-sex marriage, while nine have permitted it – a source of some hope, but limited hope because those 31 states and the non-committed ones will be subjected to relentless pressure in the future. This, in a normal world, would validate Proposition 8 in California. The worst outcome would be a decision that same-sex marriage has somehow, magically, become a constitutional right, and thereby require each state to recognize it under the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Of course, the ideal outcome is not judicial, but repentance for all mankind and a return by all of us to the morality bestowed by God not to harm us but to benefit us, which – despite our occasional stumbles – is still the perfect blueprint for man’s happiness and success in this world.

→ 8 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Machshava/Jewish Thought