Forward.com

This was such a beautiful post. Thank you for being an ally in this fight.

Loved this article...there can be no justification for descrimination and hate.

I think the right to peaceful assembly allows same-sex couples to marry. After all, marriage is a peaceful union. Some of the people who oppose same-sex marriage are worried about the state forcing its beliefs on their particular house of worship. The state should allow same-sex marriages and allow inidividual clergy to decline to officiate at same-sex weddings. There are plenty of Reform rabbis who would be happy to replace boycotting clergy.

I am discouraged by the outcry against the passage of Prop 8 for many reasons. The first is that we must recognize that there have been 2 or 3 propositions prior to this one banning gay marriage. In all cases we have voted against gay marriage, yet some judge in each prior case has seen the need to overturn this not on the basis that it is unconstitutional. So we must remember that this is no longer a proposition about any form of marriage but relating whether or not our vote is important. The next thing is that banning gay marriage has not prevented a legal union, only that it be called marriage. If someone wanted to marry his or her brother or sister or pet, we would all say that shouldn't be a marriage so why is this any different. This is a Jewish Press so we need to look at the religious aspect. G-D created Adam and Eve not Adam and Bruce. G-D says that we are to procreate. Every adult in this country has an equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex who is non related. Thirdly, I have heard the argument that if gay marriage was legal it would be taught as right in the classroom. I have heard also, that would not happen. It is clear to me that it would happen as the Teacher's union (not with the permission of its members I might add) contributed 1 million dollars towards defeating prop 8. That is 1 million dollars that didn't go towards educational goals. Now, that is not to say that children who are being loved can't be raised to be moral with gay parents. They certainly can be. In some cases more so.

Gay marriage is destructive to father's rights, as well as nurturing an adoption industry that often gives inducement to the very poor to exchange their children for money. Fathers are no longer necessary as primary income earners, and their physical presence is no longer required for anything other than pecuniary purposes.This phenomenon is a return to primordial matriarchal bonobo chimpanzee society, where males are nothing but sperm providers, and it is no wonder that religion has generally proscribed this kind of societal behavior, as it is a throwback and will continue to undermine civilized society.

There is nothing denied a gay couple that hetero marriage has in California, except the word "marriage". And even that is not denied, since any clergyman can marry a gay couple and the marriage can be celebrated in religious ceremonies. I personally know a very heterosexual man who had his marriage to an Israeli woman performed by an orthodox rabbi, but the documents were never sent to the state. Was it a kosher marriage? Where does the halacha require a Jewish marriage to be registered with civil authorities? The denial of the right to love is another red herring. No one's love is being denied. The problem is that gays want society to not merely tolerate, but to applaud their definition of love as male-male anal intercourse.

Thank you, Marjorie; excellent article.

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful words. I hope that one day my partner of 13 years and I will be able to marry and enjoy the legal rights of marriage in our home state of Maryland. In the meantime, we simply live our married life in the same way that gay people everywhere do with or without benefit of legal marriage. It seems to me that those who support Proposition 8 somehow believe that curtailing the legal rights of gay marriage will prevent gay marriage from existing; to the contrary, it just creates a group of second-class taxpaying citizens. If more people had the rachmones and seichel that you display, we would enjoy the equal legal and societal standing that we deserve.

Beautiful column; my daughter also doesn't understand why Prop. 8 passed or why anyone wants to prevent people who love each other from being married. @decline to state: If you want to look at the religious aspect, most rabbis wouldn't have married my husband and myself (although we finally found one who did). Does that mean we should have an initiative in California to ban interfaith marriages?

Thank you for this column. I still don't understand how same-sex marriage threatens a union between a man and a woman - if your marriage is that shaky then your problem is not with the gays. Go to couples therapy. At its core, Prop-8 and others of its ilk are anti-family. Whenever we pass laws that discriminate against one group of people it is a signal that we are doing something wrong. No one should stand by and watch hate and intolerance be legitimized. "They came first for Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist." Speak up people!

@freddie: Why is it that opinions such as yours inevitably end up revolving around male anal sex? Let's ignore the fact that straight couples' relationships are not immediately reduced to the sexual practices they engage, the fact that there are plenty of gay men who do not enjoy or engage in anal sex, and examine why the MALE aspect of the issue is so prominent when there are quite a few lesbians who wish to get married for whom anal sex is largely not a factor. According to you, gay marriage = men wanting applause for anal sex. The total absence of women from your arithmetic and the preoccupation with a certain variety of penetrative intercourse reveals the fundamental truth of the matter: homophobia is based upon and rooted in misogyny. The hatred and subordination of women spills over into the hatred and subordination of men who (in patriarchal eyes) BEHAVE like women. That a woman should be oriented toward other women doesn't seem to register as much of an issue -- many straight men confess to finding the idea hot and the adult entertainment industry has capitalized on that prurient interest obscenely. The patriarchal mind cannot conceive of maleness without penetrating something (whether the implement be a [word deleted], a knife, or a bullet) and thus cannot conceive of two men being intimate without anal intercourse (and the adult entertainment industry as capitalized on that as well). But the penetration of one man by another subverts that patriarchal archetype and thus becomes the ultimate sin and the ultimate obsession of homophobes (who are nothing but misdirected misogynists). Interesting. Very interesting.

@decline to state: "...yet some judge in each prior case has seen the need to overturn this not on the basis that it is unconstitutional. So we must remember that this is no longer a proposition about any form of marriage but relating whether or not our vote is important." One cannot vote to compromise the rights of others. Well, yes you can, apparently, but that doesn't make it right. The point of judicial review and of a Constitution is protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. "The next thing is that banning gay marriage has not prevented a legal union, only that it be called marriage. If someone wanted to marry his or her brother or sister or pet, we would all say that shouldn't be a marriage so why is this any different." You raise a very good point. The State should not be sanctioning marriages AT ALL for ANYONE. It is a wasteful and pointless intrusion of government into private life. But since the State currently does sanction straight marriages, there is no reason why it should not sanction gay marriages. "This is a Jewish Press so we need to look at the religious aspect." The religious aspect is irrelevant because the issue is CIVIL marriage, not religious marriage and the State is (in theory) not supposed to be endorsing religion. "G-D created Adam and Eve not Adam and Bruce. G-D says that we are to procreate." Irrelevant. 1.) I don't know who this "G-D" fellow is. Do you perhaps mean "God?" 2.) God does not exist. 3.) Even if God existed, it turns out that our own scriptures indicate that Adam and Eve was not God's original plan but the second best attempt after His first plan failed. He created Adam, a composite yet unitary being, alone. Then, when that being was lonely, God created the animals to keep him company. But that didn't work. Only after solitude and beastiality didn't work out did God divide the Adam into two halves -- and look what that got us. "Every adult in this country has an equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex who is non related." I see. You can have any color car you want, as long as its black. Very nice. "It is clear to me that it would happen as the Teacher's union (not with the permission of its members I might add) contributed 1 million dollars towards defeating prop 8. That is 1 million dollars that didn't go towards educational goals." You do know, I trust, that the Teachers' Union is a private entity and not an arm of the State and that's its money comes from its members? So, the union's donation against Prop 8 didn't detract any precious funds from education.

@Jack So, you believe that if gay marriage were legal then every woman would ditch their husbands, marry other women, and use men only as studs and sperm donors? Wow. That's the extreme opposite of freddie's extremism. The fact of the matter is that gay marriage or no, over 90% of the human population is going to remain exclusively or predominantly heterosexual and will still fall in love with persons of the opposite sex, marry, and raise children together. No one has ever yet explained just how the behavior of less than 10% of the population is supposed to undermine that. Care to enlighten us?

Proposition 8 is not about hate and is not about the right to love. Love and compassion have their place and are important in our personal relationships but society needs standards. Too often people on the right will abandon their compassion for standards and too many on the left abandon standards for compassion. Your always going to have crazies on both sides but many good and decent people who have no hate for homosexuals have very good reasons for opposing the redefinition of marriage. I know this analysis is long but I hope you will take the time to read it. It's impossible to put thoughtful analysis on a bumper sticker. It is crucial people think about the consequences of their advocacy. To legislate out of compassion almost always has harmful consequences for society. There are many examples of this. Welfare has created institutional poverty that is passed on from one generation to the next not to mention fueling the explosion of women having babies out of wedlock. Another is compassion by democrats for poor people resulting in lowering standards and pressuring banks into giving sub prime loans to people who didn't qualify, which as we see now, has created an incredible amount of harm to our economy. Their intentions were good but the results were disastrous. Compassion on a personal level is essential but compassion on a societal level almost always causes harm not only to those we think it will help but also for the majority of others. Gay people must be treated with respect, tolerance, and should not be discriminated against in the workplace. I have no desire to hurt gay people, but I don’t want to redefine one of the most central institutions of civilization. Gay friends and family should be loved and accepted in our personal lives without changing the societal definition of marriage. The redefining of marriage is extremely serious. The questions one must ask is, is it good for society and what will happen afterward? Even if you are for same sex marriage you should be opposed to this court decision. This is not the way to form social policy. Most legal scholars have said that the court acted in a totally inappropriate and arrogant manner. They made a decision they had no business making. This is not a constitutional issue. If something is not addressed in the constitution then the people and the legislature have the authority and the responsibility to decide the issue. The courts should not make law only interpret it. Marriage has always been defined by society. All through civilization marriage has always been man and woman. Might have been multiple or young but always man and woman. Today we have all sorts of restrictions society has placed on the institution of marriage besides it being one man and one woman. A 14 year old can not get married. You can not marry more than one person. You can not marry your sibling or your children. If adult consensual love is the sole criterion for marriage why can’t there be marriage to more than one person or a family member? No one wishes to deny a gay person the right to love or live with anyone they want or to make legal arrangements for inheritance, hospital visitation, etc. This is also not about civil rights as so many are saying. First, there is an enormous difference between men and women and no difference at all between blacks and whites. Second, all moral religious doctrines in history were anti-racist. Some of the members may have been racist but not the doctrines. When the judges overturned the ban on inter-racial marriage they had thousands of years of thinking and of values to base their decision on and help establish our societal value system regarding inter-racial marriage. Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Roman Pagans, not one banned racial intermarriage. Not one. (It is interesting to note that Moses married a black woman.) Yet every one of these value systems in history banned same sex marriage. Even the value system of the Enlightenment Period, which was secular, banned same sex marriage. With their decision on same sex marriage judges have created something new with no historical or moral basis. Homosexuality was not only accepted but venerated in the ancient societies of Egypt, Greece and Rome, but never for marriage. Marriage was for procreation and family life, and homosexuality was for fun outside of marriage. In Greece there was a lot of homosexual sex because it was widely accepted. If society didn't influence behavior then this redefinition of marriage would not be an issue. But the truth is that the tradition of a society does affect behavior. To say otherwise is either dishonest or incredibly naive. It may not affect whether more people will be true homosexuals but it will certainly increase homosexual behavior. This decision to redefine marriage for the first time in the history of mankind is one of the most important values issue we face and it will radically change our society. The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among children is not fully measurable. We do not know why people are homosexual. The cause may be genetic, or it may be neonatal, but we have nothing approaching proof for either explanation. It may also be psychologically induced, as in some cases this can be shown (e.g. gay men who were subjected to sexual contact with a male when they were boys). In none of these cases can a homosexual be said to have chosen to be gay. The left believes that sexual behavior is fixed, gay, bi or straight. But even if orientation is fixed, behavior is not. There are kids who have no attraction to the opposite sex (about 3%, a tiny percentage), and we don’t know why. However there is a large percentage of children that under given circumstances could be far more open to being attracted to the same sex. Human sexuality is not nearly as fixed as people on the left think. Human sexuality is what Freud called "polymorphous perverse". It runs the huge spectrum from strictly homosexual to strictly heterosexual. We see heterosexual men having flings with men. We also see gay women find the right man and get married (this happened to an aquaintance of mine who dumped her boyfriend for who she thought was a lesbian woman and that woman eventually dumped her and married a male doctor and had three kids). So contrary to the belief that sexual orientation is fixed from birth and permanent, the fact is that sexual orientation is more of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. Much of humanity, especially females, can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction and until now it has been accomplished through marriage. It is society’s job to encourage children to think in terms of engaging with the opposite sex in terms of marriage. Some people don’t think society has an interest in doing this. But many of us believe that all it will do is add to the confusion of children’s sexual identity to have them regard marriage as equally open to them with the same or the opposite sex. This will be a big change for society. A princess can meet another princess instead of a prince. Over time kid's sexuality will be influenced. Society plays a tremendous role in how people express their sexuality. It may not increase the amount of people who are "really" gay, but there will be much more homosexual behavior when kids are taught it doesn’t matter who you have sex with or who you marry. I understand that the 3% of kids that are gay from early on would probably benefit to hear the teacher say it doesn’t matter who you marry or have sex with, but I'm not willing to sacrifice the other 97%. The model of same sex marriage will become normative for children. I don’t believe gays choose to be gay and society does not create homosexuals, but society creates homosexual conduct. Girls in particular will be affected. Young girls want love sometimes more than they want boys. Boys want sex. Girls are far more malleable. They want love, affection, hugging, security, bonding. Young girls in particular are susceptible to this because female sexuality is far more fluid in this regard because female sexuality is affection oriented rather than body oriented as male sexuality is. So if you get little girls at the age of five or six to start thinking that maybe I don’t have to marry a boy and can marry a girl and this idea is implanted within them it will be a very powerful influence on their developing sexuality. You are influencing them into a lesbian lifestyle. You are influencing them as to which sex they will attach to whereas they would have otherwise (unless they were truly lesbians) thought I will marry a boy. Now they think I don’t have to marry a boy I can marry a girl. You have now created sexual confusion as a result. This is one of the prices that will have to be paid. I don't care how many gays get married but I do care about the future generations of kids and how they are raised to see the opposite sex. So for a tiny minority of adults who wish to feel better about themselves, the well-being of generations of children are being cavalierly sacrificed. This is completely unethical. The interests of children should trump that of the adults. What effect do we see in countries that have adopted same sex marriage such as the Norway? What associations can we see in them? 1. Only about 10% of the presumptive adult gay population engage in civil unions/gay marriage, with negligible impact on overall gay behaviors such as promiscuity. 2. Drastic increase in illegitimacy (up to 50% now). 3. Drastic decrease in heterosexual marriage, increased serial cohabitation, with the expected negative impact on the welfare of children. 4. Decreased birthrates to below replacement levels (with negative implications for the future survival of these countries in the long term, and collapse of social programs for the elderly in the short term). So what everyone promised wouldn't happen has in fact happened. Heterosexual marriage has dropped off sharply. It's speculated the reason is that gay marriage unhooked procreation and marriage in society's mind, so even heterosexuals who get pregnant are less likely to marry. Children also suffer economically because instability and poverty are greater with common-law and single parenting. Is gay marriage a causative factor, or merely an associated co-pathology? Can't really say. Association is easy, causation is hard. But these associations are so strong, and so consistent, that the burden of proof should reasonably fall upon the advocates of gay marriage to demonstrate the safety of their position rather than those that oppose changing the definition of marriage to demonstrate the danger. The purpose of marriage was not to sanctify love or strong feelings people have for each other. The purpose of marriage is to harness a male's predatory sexual nature so they dedicate themselves to one woman and one family. Marriage was created for the benefit of women and children. This is already breaking down in our society and this is the worst time to bring more challenges to marriage. An amendment that says marriage is between a man and a woman is not anti-gay. We want to encourage men and women to bond and have children. It is about the institution of marriage. It is not about civil union or civil rights. The reason society gives benefits and privileges to married people is not for the individuals involved. It’s for the good of society. It is a case of individual rights vs. the common good. Two men or two women entering into a marriage-like relationship does not offer society the same benefits as a man and a woman who enter into a relationship where they raise a family. Society has the right and obligation to prefer heterosexuality to homosexuality. It is better for children -- they need a mother and a father. And it is better for the individual -- a woman makes a man a better person; and a man does the same for a woman. Advocating heterosexuality as society's ideal no more implies bigotry or "homophobia" than advocating marriage implies bigotry against singles or "single-phobia." If there is no difference between same sex marriage and male-female marriage then you can't say that all things being equal it is better for a child to have a mother and a father. That statement which is obviously true will be deemed discriminatory. Does anyone really believe a mother has nothing special to give to a child as two fathers? In adoption we will no longer be able to say that it is preferable for a child to go to a married couple over a same sex couple. It is unfair to a child who can be adopted by a married couple to be adopted by a same-sex couple. It is a lie when opponents say this will not be taught in schools. This will have to be taught in schools. Every school will be bound to teach same sex marriage or they will be regarded as discriminatory. It is already happening in Massachusetts and here in California. A Bay Area first grade class here in California recently went on a field trip to their teacher's lesbian wedding. Our schools need to get back to education and not indoctrination. This is also an attack on religion. Traditional Jews and Christians -- i.e. those who believe in a divine scripture -- will be marginalized. Already Catholic groups in Massachusetts have had to abandon adoption work since they will only allow a child to be adopted by a married couple as the Bible defines it -- a man and a woman. Soon any opposition to same sex marriage will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law. Anyone who advocates marriage between a man and a woman will be regarded morally the same as a racist. Religions will have to defend themselves from attacks on them of being bigoted institutions. It will eventually lead to government revoking their tax exempt status and will cause many synagogues and churches to close down. Ultimately this will not be good for gays. Today any decent parent raises their kid to honor every human gay or straight. What will happen when kids bring home their indoctrination textbooks? Parents who are concerned that their kids will get sexually confused will feel compelled to speak out against homosexuality to their children. There is no need for parents to do that now. Once the schools start teaching this, parents will react. And in Massachusetts parents have no right to opt out which I'm sure will happen here in California as well. People ask me how this would affect my marriage. This will have no effect on my marriage. It is a stupid question. It's like asking how the playoffs will affect my marriage. It is a meaningless argument. It is about what will happen to the next generations of children. It is not an issue of rights. We can have rights without marriage. The issue is the institution of marriage. The issue is does our society want to say that men and women raising children is best for children and best for society? We must not allow our compassion for a tiny minority to cloud clear thinking about the implications of this proposition on the overwhelming majority and the future of our society. Liberals meaning well is no longer a valid excuse for doing harm to society.

Wonderful column, thank you. I am a Californian and voted No on Prop 8, and also had the sad experience of telling my young child that it passed anyway. Like Jamie, she knows it is unfair, and she is also worried about what it means for her friends who have same-sex parents. While it's true that gay marriage will probably be legal nationwide someday, something so atavistic as the passing of Prop 8, here and now, is an incredible blow to a child's sense of justice, and nearly impossible to explain. We teach our children that God loves us all, equally. Now it is time to teach each other.

Brava Marjorie! It is such a delight keeping up with the important stuff going on back in the "old country" while I'm living in Jerusalem. Thank goodness for the children who are growing up with clear examples of loving, wonderful 2-parent families of all gender configurations... I was lucky to grow up with a mom, a grandma, a dad who visited on Tuesdays, and a step-dad who taught me algebra, and the end result was that I felt constantly and amazingly loved. My wish is that all children grow up with that love. Thank you!

I live in Florida, and the reaction of my children after Amendment 2 passed was the same as Jamie's to Proposition 8. Thank you for being such an eloquent advocate for what is right and decent. May we all live to see the day that this injustice no longer exists.

Thank you for your (and Jamie's) wise words on this subject.

Thank you for a wonderful column. I fervently hope the courts will decide, as they should, that the majority cannot vote to eliminate the rights of a minority. And I take heart in the fact that that "majority" is shrinking with every passing year and will soon fade into irrelevance. The right to marry the person one loves *will* be a matter of fact and law in this country, and all families will be stronger because of it.

prop 8 is cool(:

andrew loves boys

Another straight Jewish woman who sides with the author. As for the bible thumpers, I have this to say: Numbers 31:17-18 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. So... taken at its word, the bible thinks pedophilia is perfectly fine. Gee. Last I knew, most of modern society doesn't. And that's the point. Hopefully we evolve. For those of you who haven't. Fine. No court is asking any small-minded folk to stop living as a Troglodyte --even if you can procure some erudite excuses for your intolerance. Gay marriages whether in Canada or the US are CIVIL. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Get over yourselves, and stop lying to others.