Two Reasons why the ECAJ must vocalise its support for marriage equality

December 19, 2011 by Michael Barnett
Read on for article

On December 3 2011 the Australian Labor Party voted in favour of supporting marriage equality…writes Michael Barnett.

Michael Barnett

This was promptly followed by a statement of support from the Union for Progressive Judaism and simultaneously a statement of opposition from the Orthodox-based Organisation of Rabbis of Australasia.  J-Wire then reported a message from Jewish Community supporting Marriage Equality (J4ME) along with a statement from the ECAJ:

Peter Wertheim, the executive Director of The Executive Council of Australian Jewry, told J-Wire that his organisation had no policy in place relating to same sex marriage.

The ECAJ recently passed a motion that calls for “mutual respect for the human dignity of all members of the [Jewish] community” and also acknowledges “that there is still much work to be done to remove intolerance of and unlawful discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons in the Jewish community and the wider Australian community”.  This motion appears on the ECAJ Platform.

Peter Wertheim has recently been promoting via email the fact that Israel is the most GLBT-friendly place in the Middle East and that it is the only safe place for GLBT people to live openly and out in the Middle East.  Indeed, the Israeli situation for GLBT people is mostly good.  In some cases Israel is actually more advanced than Australia in affording GLBT people human rights.  One such case is that Israel recognises foreign marriages of same-sex couples whereas Australia has chosen to legislate against such recognition.

I wish to make two points regarding the recent support from the ECAJ for GLBT people and the promotion of Israel as a relatively safe GLBT space.

Firstly, the human rights and equality that GLBT people in Israel have been afforded have come about through changes to civil law and have for the most part been independent of (Orthodox) Jewish law or “halacha”.  If halacha was the law of the land in Israel, GLBT people would have no equality or recognition in any form.  This is evidenced by the aforementioned ORA statement and the general attitude of Jewish Orthodoxy to homosexuality.  This religious intolerance of homosexuality is not dissimilar to that which exists in the Islamic states that surround Israel.

It is the secular and progressive attitudes toward equality and human rights that has made Israel the beacon of tolerance and acceptance of GLBT people in the Middle East that it is.  With ongoing work in this area, such as that around surrogacy and parenting (here and here), Israel will become an increasingly proud oasis of acceptance for GLBT people and will no doubt be further promoted as such by Zionist advocates.

Secondly, with the ECAJ calling for respect of GLBT people in the community and the acknowledgement that there is “unlawful discrimination” against GLBT people, such as in the case of the Australian Federal Marriage Act, I find it hard to understand that the ECAJ chooses to remain silent on marriage equality.

In fact, this silence betrays the ECAJ’s platform on Social Inclusion, where it states:

1. Social Inclusion
This Council:

1.1

NOTES that it is the vision of the ECAJ to create and support a community in which all Australians, including all Jewish Australians:(a) feel valued and their cultural differences are respected;(b) have a fair opportunity to meet their material and other needs; and(c) are equally empowered as citizens to participate in and contribute to all facets of life in the wider community;

1.2

NOTES that as Australians we take great pride in what we see as the uniquely Australian values of social egalitarianism, “mateship” and a “fair go”;

1.3

REAFFIRMS our profound commitment on behalf of the Australian Jewish community to the dignity of difference, gender equality, and a belief in the equality of humankind;

Here the ECAJ is calling for “equal empowerment”, “social egalitarianism” and “a belief in the equality of humankind”.  To my understanding, marriage equality fits all of these three concepts.  To clarify, egalitarianism is defined as “affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people.”

I believe the ECAJ does want marriage equality to be legislated, but has not yet taken the time to think about the implications of not vocalising its support for it.  The ECAJ is an organisation that has a genuine concern for the human rights of all people in every nation on this planet.  Further, it is inherent in the Jewish psyche to understand what deprivation of human rights can lead to.

I sincerely urge the ECAJ to consider its stance on marriage equality in general and speak out in favour of removing the legislated discrimination that all GLBT Australians face when it comes to recognition of our relationships.  It is without a doubt in the ECAJ’s best interests to advocate marriage equality, as doing so will have the double reward of making Australia a better place for all its citizens, and simultaneously making the beacon of light in Israel, the country that it is so proud of, shine even brighter.

Michael Barnett is  a human rights advocate and supporter of equality for all Australians, with a particular interest in the removal of discrimination against GLBT people in the Jewish community.

Comments

6 Responses to “Two Reasons why the ECAJ must vocalise its support for marriage equality”
  1. otto waldmann says:

    I hate the expression ” at the risk of…”, but at the “risk” of sounding monotonous ( and what a RISK !!!) I would send Gregory storer to the very same, now monotonous, argument as to the WHY.
    The logic had been explained, expressed, repeated. All we see now are regurgitations of the initial objections all completely impervious of the reasons already given.
    And this is how the gay marriage campaign is carried out. By repeating the same claims and , implicitly, ignoring the references to prevailing reason. Mind you Gregory, we are talking HERE with greater emphasis on halachic principles, not general civil law !!!!!!

  2. Otto Waldmann says:

    Emes is right – how can emes be wrong !!- but also wrong. ECAJ is ,in obvious fact, involved in the debate and Peter Wertheim is making statements on its behalf. What Peter must be mindful is that he does not get carried away with generalities of the “humanity” kind and abandons not the fence sitting formal position of ECAJ but the essential Judaic principles. That is because ECAJ MUST be guided by the so called “strictly” religious tenets of Jewish conduct. Otherwise Michael Barnett must not feel ostracised by the “mere” positing of essential Judaic principles, but try a bit harder to marvel at their value in…emes.

  3. Emes says:

    Michael – so the ECAJ should risk alienating its orthodox constituency to adopt a position that, frankly, means nothing in the broader scheme of debate on the issue? After all, it’s not like this is a Jewish-specific issue about which the government will go out of its way to seek the views of the ECAJ…

    Anyway, the ECAJ usually passes on religious matters to the appropriate body – be it ORA or the Progressive rabbinate. Gay marriage is a religious question and the ECAJ, as a secular body, should remain neutral on the issue.

  4. Otto Waldmann says:

    Such poor argumentation !

    – Culture or koltcha is not having sex with the same gender.
    – All those principles as seen in ECAJ statement may NOT be misconstrued as inclusion of “right” where rights do NOT exist. As said before,one may claim rights if those are explicit or implicit in current principles. Current principles define marriage as something NOT applicable to the same sex.
    This does NOT mean that GLBT should NOT be allowed to do whatever they want emotionally, “culturally”, gastronomically and in general entertainment institutions. I do not recall any gay brothels being shut down or backroom toilets in certain wine bars Taylor Sq. way being raided by REAL cops.
    So who is stopping who in doing their stuff !!??
    Social pantomimes, such as gay marriage and one bloke calling another bloke ” my wife” simply pervert established meanings. Legalisation of ANY relationship based on CONTRACTUAL arrangements, including the completely free manner of deciding one’s material inheritance are already there to be enjoyed.
    The whole farce about ” I want to be married just like any heterosexual !” contains the absurdity of actually, in substance, the same person saying that ” I do NOT want to be considered a heterosexual !”.

    ECAJ MUST represent loyally the TRUE Jewish principles. You find them in any real Orthodox shul.

    • Ilana Leeds says:

      B’H
      Exactly Otto. Thank goodness there is some sense being paraded out there in the midst of the goon show. Well we may ask if a person does not want to be considered heterosexual, then why would they want to be married. It is sort of like me saying ‘I am a Jew. But whining I do want to observe Ramadan or Xmas.’ I am neither a Muslim nor a Christian, therefore it would be very strange for me to want to observe those festivals and it would mean nothing to me.
      If they want to follow a homosexual lifestyle, WHY on earth do they want to get married? That is the real question which MB has not answered satisfactorily.

      • I don’t see any problem with allowing people of the same sex to get married. Leeds and Waldmann are not required to participate, and may marry whoever they want.

        For some people marriage is about love, some about children, some about convenience. It’s really not hard to understand, and there is no impact on anyone else other than the perceptions you have in your head.

        Such vehemence over allowing people in a relationship to call it marriage is very puzzling.

Speak Your Mind

Comments received without a full name will not be considered
Email addresses are NEVER published! All comments are moderated. J-Wire will publish considered comments by people who provide a real name and email address. Comments that are abusive, rude, defamatory or which contain offensive language will not be published

    Rules on posting comments