On Nov. 7, we citizens of Wisconsin will be asked to vote on the “Marriage Amendment” to the state constitution. This amendment defines marriage in the state of Wisconsin as between one man and one woman, thereby preventing gay marriage or any essentially similar state.
Is there anything in our Jewish religion that can guide us in deciding how to vote? The Milwaukee Jewish Council for Community Relations and the Madison Jewish Community Council have taken public positions against the amendment. Should we agree with them?
This question can be divided into two parts: 1) Does Jewish law (halachah) traditionally condemn or approve of homosexuality? 2) Even if we agree that it does condemn it, should we vote for this particular amendment?
From the beginning of its history, and against the mores of the peoples around it, Judaism has completely forbidden first the male homosexual act, and then female homosexual behavior.
Having written a paper on this subject two years ago when I was obtaining my Bachelor of Arts degree in Hebrew studies at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, I know this is not disputed.
In the past 30 or so years, Reform Judaism began to change its position on this question, finally allowing their rabbis to perform same-sex marriages in 2000. The Conservative movement is considering whether to follow Reform.
So there is a split among Jews on this subject. Of course, you’ll vote “no” to the amendment if you believe Jewish law was wrong for most of its 3,000-plus year history.
However, let’s assume you believe that the Torah is correct and that homosexual activity is still forbidden. Does it follow that you should vote for the marriage amendment?
Extremes not good
The amendment is on the ballot because a Massachusetts judge, in one decision, allowed gay marriage to become legal in that state.
Our present state statute (765.01) states, “Marriage, so far as its validity at law is concerned, is a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable in law of contracting is essential and which creates the legal status of husband and wife.”
“Husband” and “wife” are not defined as “man” and “woman,” respectively. Therefore, to close this loophole, it is said the amendment is needed.
According to the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin, if the amendment passes, couples of the same sex would still be able to co-own property, make each other the beneficiary of an estate, make health decisions for each other, obtain permission for hospital visitation, etc. Just as singles can do these things now, homosexual couples, too, could do them, though they might have to pay an attorney.
Would the amendment be discriminatory? In fact the amendment would not discriminate against any individual.
All Americans have the right to marry, subject to certain conditions that apply equally to everyone. For example, we can’t marry our siblings either.
Does that mean people who advocate incest are discriminated against? No, they are free to marry as we all are, but within certain limitations.
Those limitations are based on religious values. If we decide to scrap those limitations I believe we’re in serious trouble, since marriage and stable families are truly the bedrock upon which our society rests.
The wall of separation between church and state meant that no state religion could be established and forced upon minorities. It never was and never should mean that our government should be completely divorced from positive religious values. If that happens, upon what will our laws be based?
George Washington, in his Farewell Address of 1796 said, “Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle.” Wise words from our first president, and probably surprising to many.
Whose religious values do we base our laws upon? The answer must be the ones this country was founded upon.
Those are the essential values of Torah which had been adopted by Judaism’s daughter religion, Christianity, and then later by Islam. True, there are important differences between these religions. But in the area of values there’s much that’s similar.
And again, that doesn’t mean there’s a state religion. All religious groups can be free to worship as they wish, as long as they obey the laws of the land.
Yes, it is a tricky balancing act. But to move too far to one side — state religion — or to the other — government without religious values to guide it — is to fall into dangerous territory. Both extremes will not be good for Jews or anyone.
For all of these reasons, I urge you to vote for the marriage amendment on Nov 7.
If you would like to study the question further I would direct you to www.jonahweb.org, Jews offering new alternatives to homosexuality; www.fri-wi.org, The Family Research Institute of Wisconsin; and www.dawnstefanowicz.com, a site by a woman who was raised by a gay father.
Therese Dorfman is educational director of Chavurah Or Tikvah in Oconomowoc.
Loading ...