The following is a guest post by the United Jewish Fund and Council.
On Feb. 22, the United Jewish Fund and Council of St. Paul (UJFC) board of directors voted to oppose the proposed amendment to the Minnesota Constitution, which would recognize marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman (the “Marriage Amendment”). With the vote, the board approved the following statement:
“The United Jewish Fund and Council of St. Paul opposes the passage of the Minnesota Marriage Amendment, scheduled for a vote on the State of Minnesota General Election ballot in November 2012, on the grounds that marriage is a fundamental human right and that the Minnesota Constitution should not be used as a vehicle for restricting rights and civil liberties.”
‘The Minnesota constitution exists to protect the rights of our citizens, not to take rights away,” said Jon Parritz, UJFC president. “Our tradition teaches us to pursue justice and to treat all human beings with dignity. We believe it is right to stand against this attempt to use our constitution to deny Minnesotans their civil rights. As a religious minority that has suffered discrimination, we cannot be silent in the face of this attempt to misuse the constitution to deny the equal protection of laws to all citizens.
The UJFC will join with Minnesotans United for All Families, the official coalition standing in opposition to the marriage amendment. Other Jewish community organizations that have taken a position opposing the amendment include the Minnesota Rabbinical Association, the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas, Jewish Community Action, and several synagogues and other Jewish organizations.
The United Jewish Fund and Council of St. Paul unites, sustains and enhances the St. Paul area Jewish community and strengthens bonds with Jewish communities in Israel and around the world. We fulfill our mission through financial resource development and planning, and by working in partnership with social service agencies, educational institutions and synagogues.
(Photo: mytudut)
I can see TC Jew Folk is Outfront’s Jewish Auxiliary, with all the press releases by what was, in theory, nominally Jewish communal groups.
Looks like the UJFC when off the cliff with the rest of the Green-Dem Jews, justifying their decision with their assertion that “marriage is a fundamental human right and that the Minnesota Constitution should not be used as a vehicle for restricting rights and civil liberties.”
This is their expression of ignorance. Marriage was never a fundamental human right between homosexuals because that such marriages never existed in either Judaism, in Anglo-American jurisprudence, in Western civilization, in American culture, ever.
The UJFC should be very, very careful about how they throw around their rhetoric. If marriage is a fundamental right, I would have asked the voting members, does it abrogate Minnesota Statutes 517.03? Should that be struck? Did the UJFC even consider this?
The amendment is a check and a balance against judiciaries that will issue an edict by lawyers who believe they have a duty and unrestrained power to impose social policies upon the people without their consent.
A nice Jewish boy from Minnesota once wrote, “…you better start swimmin’ or you’ll sink like a stone. For the times they are a changin’.”
Sorry Nachman. The times are indeed a changin’.
As Jews, we know what it is like when the State passes laws that discriminate. There are countless examples of legislation that prohibited Jews from studying Torah, performing Brit Milah, observing Shabbat. Sweden, Switzerland, Iceland and Norway have banned ritual slaughter under the guise of animal cruelty. There is a movement in the US and in other countries to ban circumcision, including Brit Milah under the guise of child abusee. The ban against same-sex marriage is nothing more than an attempt to pass laws targeting a particular group of adults under the guise of protecting the family and family values. If that was true, the State would make divorce illegal and criminalize adultury. But it doesn’t. The movement for the State to prohibit same sex marriage is simply a biggotted attempt to target and discriminate against a particular group and as Jews we should recognize that and oppose it, even if it is targeted at homosexuals.
Theo wrote:
“If that was true, the State would make divorce illegal and criminalize [adultery]. But it doesn’t.”
“When a married woman has sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband, whether married or not, both are guilty of adultery and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.”
Source: Minnesota Statutes, 609.36 sub. 1, Adultery, acts constituting.
Nachman, oh Nachman.
From obscure Torah passages to obscure and obsolete Minnesota laws.
Firstly, when was the last time someone was sent to prison in the state of Minnesota for cheating on a spouse?
Secondly, you left out the limitations – which wouldn’t help your argument so I understand why you would leave those out.
Just to be clear to those who won’t waste their time looking this up, only a jilted spouse can make a claim. They only have a year to do so.
But most importantly what makes this so ridiculous is that only women can be charged with adultery – thus making this completely irrelevant and frankly, BS.
Mr. Mandel wrote:
“Sorry Nachman. The times are indeed a changin’.”
Platitudes do not make for a valid argument. I will, then, ask you to answer the following question: If marriage is a fundamental right, do you advocate the repeal of Minnesota Statutes 517.03?
Read the statute, then present your argument.
Another question, the most important of all, since this is a Jewish site: Where in Torah does a justification exist for same sex marriage.
Read Torah, then present your argument. To make it easier, don’t rely on any seforim or discourses.
I await your argument.
It’s so hard to take you seriously when you’ve replied to me so many times and you still can’t spell my name.
Anyway, calling Bob Dylan’s poetry a mere platitude is just plain ludicrous. I know, I know – he’s not mentioned in the torah, so what does he know, right?
Of course that part of the statute needs to be amended – whether you like it or not, society has progressed to that point. Remember, it wasn’t so long ago that women weren’t allowed to vote in this country. But society progressed and realized how ridiculous it was to deny that right.
And again Nachman – for the umpteenth time, your version of what’s Jewish is not definitive. I don’t need to read torah to be Jewish. I’m just as Jewish as you are. Not all Jews have to abide by what Nachman says. There are different kinds of Jews in this world – but we’re all Jews.
If TCJewfolk isn’t Jewish enough for you, then stop reading it. And stop commenting. And stop saying hurtful things that offend the MAJORITY of us.
It is clear, Mr. Mandell, you cannot – or because of your position on the subject – are incapable of providing a clear halakhic argument justifying “same sex marriage”. I have specifically defined my argument and will back it up using citations of fact. I asked you to examine MN Stat. 517.03 for purposes of argument. You have declined to counter argue.
Instead, Mr. Mandell. you advise me that “If TCJewfolk isn’t Jewish enough for you, then stop reading it. And stop commenting. And stop saying hurtful things that offend the MAJORITY of us.”
According to it’s reason for existence, Jewfolk Media states that it is “committed to…using interactive technology and social media to connect individuals to Jewish ideas, organizations and communities, and… increasing the number and quality of Jewish moments experienced by people of all ages and backgrounds – whether those moments be religious, cultural, educational or social.”
It says nothing about restricting commentary or ideas that do not agree with yours, or the majority of users of this site.
You can address my arguments concerning the subject under discussion, provide a valid counter argument, or you may choose to ignore them. The choice, Mr. Mandell, is yours.
Nachman, your delusion that gay unions have no historical precedent is laughably false. Even if it were true, it would be an irrelevant point.
It is a sin to be zealots for bad causes. In general I try very hard to reserve judgement but you have provided this forum with enough evidence to make solid a judgement call.
It doesn’t take a public expression of hate speech to read between the lines and perceive your determination to keep gay people as second class citizens as motivated by baseless hatred. Dressing hatred in halakhic justification does not eliminate the underlying motive. We can all see through your repetitive, ridiculous intransigence.
Mr. Stern wrote:
“Nachman, your delusion that gay unions have no historical precedent is laughably false.”
I have never asserted “gay unions” have no historical fact. I clearly have asserted that marriage between homosexuals have no halakhic, cultural, or legal precedent.
“Even if it were true, it would be an irrelevant point.”
Far from being irrelevant, you cannot create new right as you see fit.
Mr Stern further states:
“It is a sin to be zealots for bad causes. In general I try very hard to reserve judgement but you have provided this forum with enough evidence to make solid a judgement call.”
Neither you nor the other supporters of “same sex marriage” have provided an actual jurisprudential or halakhic argument for your position.
Just as I have asked Mr. Mandell, I will ask you: If marriage is a fundamental right as the argument goes, do you advocate the repeal of Minnesota Statutes 517.03?
Read the statute, then present your argument.
Another question, the most important of all, since this is a Jewish site: Where in Torah does a justification exist for same sex marriage?
Present your argument based upon Torah and halakhic sources.
I await your argument.
This is great news and I applaud UJFC. If you are interested in learning more about the marriage amendment and help rally others to defeat it, I encourage you to attend Make History: Vote No! at Adath Jeshuruth this Sunday afternoon.
I have no interest in providing a halakhic argument because I do not agree with defining ourselves and our actions (or inactions) by a purely literal interpretation of what was written so many years ago. And I don’t need a halakhic argument to know that denying someone equal rights is clearly wrong.
I have, though, provided you ample opportunity to read what the rabbis of the great state of Minnesota have said about this issue. I have even provided you a video if reading what I wrote was too much for you to handle. I also offered to provide you any number of similar statements by rabbis across the country – including the one from Maryland. You chose to ignore all of them.
I did examine your favorite statute – and I did mention it in a previous comment, but I can see clearly now that you only read the fragments that you can rebut. Our American society has progressed to the point that this will happen. There is a reason why the Constitutions have amendments. Times do change and sometimes, the laws have to change with the times. 8 states down, 42 to go.
I do not represent TCJewfolk. So if you have a problem with this wonderful website that represents what’s good about Jews in Minnesota, then you have to take it up with someone else. Your comments are not being restricted at all and I’m the only idiot who responds to you. Everyone else is just ignoring your hateful rhetoric.
Nachman – what will you do when Minnesota votes no? What archaic nonsense will you spew about next? And do I have to wait until November?
Mr. Mandell wrote:
“I have no interest in providing a halakhic argument…”
Mr. Mandell then writes:
“I have, though, provided you ample opportunity to read what the rabbis of the great state of Minnesota have said about this issue.”
Your two statements contradict themselves. First, you state that you are not required to provide a halakhic justification for “same sex marriage”, then you place blame upon me for not reading your non-existent halakhic justifications from Rabbis in Minnesota.
Which is it? Do you believe that you have an obligation, as a representative of your side of the argument, to provide a justification? If not, why refer me to Rabbis?
If you, in fact, want to defend your argument, then provide me citations of Torah or responsa or discourses from the Rabbis you refer so I may examine their justifications for this abrogation of Torah.
Which is it? Is it one or the other?
Mr Mandell wrote:
“I did examine your favorite statute…”
A comment was posted that contained wrong information concerning the legal status of adultery in Minnesota. I corrected the record.
Mr. Mandell wrote:
“I do not represent TCJewfolk.”
You are listed as a member of the Board of Jewfolk Media and their Marketing and Outreach Commitee. You, therefore, represent TC Jewfolk as a member of its parent organization.
Mr. Mandell wrote:
“Everyone else is just ignoring your hateful rhetoric…”
Engaging in argument about the halakhic justification is not “hateful rhetoric”. It is an attempt to ask representatives of the opposing viewpoint their justification for their belief that “same sex marriage” conforms to Jewish law, culture, and tradition. You, nor any one else here, has provided me or anyone reading this site any cogent, halakhic, fact based, argument.
Mr. Mandell finally wrote:
“What archaic nonsense will you spew about next?”
Is that your view of Torah, the foundation of Judaism? Are you wiser than G-d, our Prophets, our Sages, the experience of K’lal Yisroel over thousands of years?
A yes or no will suffice to both questions.
You see Nachman, here is your problem (among several of course) – you can’t accept that there are Jews (just as Jewish as you) who can discuss an issue without referring to specific lines of torah. You can dismiss me, this website, hundreds of rabbis, and hundreds of thousands of American Jews. You can dismiss us all – but it won’t matter come November. It didn’t matter in Maryland or New York or Washington or the other 5 states who have seen the light. And it won’t matter to the other 42.
Why have I mentioned the rabbis, synagogues, and Jewish organizations who support voting NO on this silly amendment? Because I’m a busy man – and they are far more eloquent than I am. Plus they’re rabbis. I’m just a Jew who happens to be obsessed with bacon. Call it whatever you want – but you still haven’t commented on what they’ve all said. That just proves that you’re not interested in hearing anything other than your own voice.
You are right about one thing – now that I think about it. I do represent TCJewfolk – because as an organization, TCJewfolk cares about other human beings. As an organization, we stand for what’s right and good about being Jewish in the Twin Cities. And as an organization, we’re aware that it’s 2012 – and it’s possible to evolve as humans AND still be as Jewish as Nachman.
I’ll stand by my statements about your rhetoric – anytime you call people abominations, it’s pretty hateful. You can put words in quotes all you want – it’s still hateful. You can hide behind text – it’s still hateful. You can mask your own feelings by repeating the same text – it’s still hateful.
Typically, people who spew hate crave attention – and when they get none, they disappear. As the only idiot who responds to you, I acknowledge I’m feeding whatever void is missing in your life.
So Nachman, I think I’m done. I realize how sad you’ll be having no one else to engage on here. I also realize that it will only add to the sadness you will feel in November when all of those gay Minnesotans start planning their fabulous weddings.
In the spirit of Purim, if you choose to keep posting on this site (which you can of course because we don’t discriminate) – we will just collectively scream, shake our groggers, and eat 1-sided cookies called Nachmantashan.
Mr. Mandell: My request was simple. I have asked you to provide a halakhic argument in favor of your position approving same sex marriage. You have presented nothing, save for argumentum ad hominem.