June 5, 2006

by Reb Yudel
Orthodox Union supports gay promiscuity

Seems the OU has decided to give cover to a failed presidency and political party that has decided that playing to a homophobic base with a DOA constititutional amendment is the only way to distract voters from death squads in Iraq, failing health care, a stagnant job market, and Osama bin Laden still at large:
Nathan Diament, director of public policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America will be among a small group of religious and community leaders meeting with President Bush Monday (June 5) prior to the President's delivery of remarks in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

For background on the position of traditional Judaism on this issue, please see: www.ou.org/public/Publib/samemarr.htm

U.O.J.C.A.
202-513-6484

I would find their craven stupidity less annoying if I didn't at times rely on their kashrut supervision. TrackBack
Comments
#1

Another outrageous assertion made on this blog. No, the OU does not support gay promiscuity.

There is nothing in what Rabbi Diament has said that indicates that he supports homosexual promiscuity. There is nothing in what the OU has said that serves as a desire to distract the public from other issues. This is more contempt for truth and bad-faith debate on the part of Larry Yudel.

It is fine to say that one wishes to downgrade marriage in this nation and to pacify the activism of some in the gay-rights lobby.

It is outrageous, as Nathan Diament has argued so persuasively, to indicate that Judaism can have support for gay marriage in any way. As Jews, we oppose it.

This is not controversial and it is not even close. If Jews cannot stand up for marriage, we cannot stand united in favor or anything. Sadly, we stand united in favor of almost nothing, it seems. We chase after false ideologies and will not stand up for our core beliefs.

No group up of Jews,80 years ago,could possibly, en masse, favor homosexual "rights" and gay marriage. Why are we correct now and ignorant in the past?

It seems apparent that we are ignorant now and correct in the past. Family and marriage are fundamental and cannot be equated with homosexual partnerships.

A man in a "marriage" with another man cannot be in a marriage since he is not completed with another male.

Posted by: David N. Friedman at June 5, 2006 6:58 PM
#2

Since public chilul Shabbes and homosexual sex are both on the same level of penalty -- death by stoning -- I wonder if some of the zeal against homosexuals wishing to marry might not be turned unto heterosexuals wishing to drive to their Orthodox shul on Shabbes. Personally, I'm looking forward to a stern attack on all the millions of Jews why defile God 52 days a year, every year, with at least as much vigor as our same-sex brethren.

Rabbi Winreb's piece might then read:

"It is high time for a statement asserting and explaining the traditional Jewish position on violation of the Sabbath. Various Jewish groups have left the impression with the public at large that Judaism is supportive of Sabbath violating behavior to the extent of endorsing organizations which publicly violate the Sabbath. Thus it is imperative for the Orthodox world to make our position clear once more.

"The position of traditional Judaism on Sabbath violating behavior is clear and unambiguous, terse and absolute. Sabbath violating behavior by males or by females is absolutely forbidden by Jewish law, beginning with the biblical imperative, alluded to numerous times in the Talmud and codified in the Shulchan Aruch."

Posted by: Yori yanover at June 5, 2006 8:52 PM
#3

I enclose the contents of my letter to the OU PA office on this subject:
I am saddened by the insistence of the OU to make a statement supporting the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment now making its way through the legislative process.

While I fully agree that the position of the Torah is clear regarding what is ossur and what is mutar on an individual level, I do not believe that it is in the interest of the Jewish Community, especially a minority segment like the Orthodox Community, to make a religious case for what is a non Jewish issue.

While some issues in the general, secular sphere coincide with Orthodox interests, most of the time we are better served with a total separation between our parochial interests and the society at large. In this way, we can lobby more freely to protect our interests when they are threatened by the majority views of others who do not share our values or practices. Introduction of religious arguments into secular law cuts both ways, and validating the concerns of a Fundamentalist Christian community will only embolden them to press for their agenda, much of which on a wide variety of issues marginalizes our own.

"HaPeh ShAsar, Hu HaPeh SheHitir" is not just a talmudic legal dictum, but a fact of human nature. The use of religious ideology in determining American law is a dangerous practice for the Orthodox Community, and has great potential for harm to our most deeply held beliefs.

Kol Tuv,

Jordan Hirsch

Posted by: Jordan Hirsch at June 6, 2006 12:04 PM
#4

I am so glad the OU has time for photo-ops that have no affect on its constituents while they ignore the real issues that matter.

Posted by: The Town Crier at June 6, 2006 4:07 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?


type the word "captcha" (you would rather decode a crazy picture?)