Gay Weddings in Israel will have all the Jewish trimmings

There is an old joke around these parts. Question: Other than Jerusalem, what do ultra-religious Jews, Muslims and Christians love? Answer: They love to hate homosexuals.

But travel the 60km (40 miles) from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv, and you enter a world apart. Major streets are decked with the multi-coloured Gay Pride banner.

In this centenary year of the city, this is now Gay Pride month. On Friday, in Meir Dizengoff park, tens of thousands of people are expected to attend the annual Gay Pride parade which will end, this year, with a twist.

Four couples will take part in what is being called Israel's first, public, gay wedding ceremony.

Tal Dekel and Itay Gourevitch, are sitting, wedged happily next to each other, on a park bench. Tal is a fashion designer, Itay a website editor. Both are 33. They have been together for eight years, since the night they met in a club.

Two weeks ago, they decided to get married. "It's a chance to have our own rights: to have a quiet corner with our family, just like everyone else," says Tal.

Itay says that things have improved for gay and lesbian Israelis. He can now, at least in Tel Aviv, walk down the street, arm in arm with his partner. "Fifteen years ago, I would have been beaten up."

But there is still discrimination, he says. "As a gay couple, we can't get a loan to buy a house together. We don't have the right to adopt a child: we'd have to go abroad to do that. But we have all the obligations: we have to pay all the taxes."

The idea of the "weddings" was Yaniv Weizmann's. He has a unique position in Israeli local government. He is the advisor to the mayor of Tel Aviv on gay affairs, as well as tourism.

Mr Weizmann says that he wanted to draw attention to the fact that Israel's gay community (which he estimates is one in 10 of the population) is growing older, and so cares now about getting married and starting a family.

Binyamin Babayoff The weddings will, he predicts, be "very beautiful and very, very emotional". They will have all the Jewish trimmings: a canopy, a glass to break, a certificate.

But he also is aware of the limitations. State-recognised non-religious marriages, along with all the tax breaks and legal rights which those afford, will only come, he says, when Russian immigrants (many of whom are not Jewish) and gay people, and other groups who do not meet the religious standards of the Orthodox establishment, campaign together. Until then, "the power will stay in the hands of the religious guys in Israel."

One of those "religious guys" has an office in City Hall just down the corridor from Mr Weizmann.

As he squeezes into his small room, Councilman Binyamin Babayoff, from the ultra-religious Shas Party, produces a Bible and a fluorescent green marker pen.

He highlights Leviticus Chapter 18, Verse 22, for my benefit: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination."

Mr Babayoff says that the weddings will turn Tel Aviv into a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah. He reaches for the rhetorical question: "If a man wants to marry his sister, would that be OK? Would it be alright if, tomorrow, he wanted to marry his mother?"

But despite his profound convictions, he accepts that the highly religious are in a minority in Tel Aviv, and that "we live in a democracy".

"Just because you don't agree, it doesn't mean that you then have to go and make a big noise about it in public." It is enough, he says, to point out that "it is such a grave offence according to the Torah."

Israel's democratic credentials, are, however, questioned by the lawyer, Irit Rosenblum. Her New Family group is run out of one of the most handsom streets in Tel Aviv.

"We are the only democracy in the world," she says, "that has no civil marriage."

She began her fight to change that, nine years ago. Back then, she says, they were "weirdos". Now, though, she sees more and more consensus.

New Family has produced a card, which, for about $60, will aim to prove, officially, a couple's commitment.

They sign an affadavit in front of a lawyer, and in return receive a small laminated card which, Irit Rosenblum says, affords the couple a range of municipal benefits, including easier parking, reduced health club membership, and lower local tax. "Now they are considered to be a family."

All this is still some distance from the situation in, for example, Britain - where the state now recognises civil partnerships between same-sex couples. But last week, there were signs of change stirring.

The speaker of the Knesset (Israeli Parliament) attended a conference, in the Knesset, on gay rights.

Reuven Rivlin, of the governing right-wing Likud Party, declared: "The gay sector has been persecuted for many years... I need to stand up straight and say that you can be respected for any way in which you choose to lead your lives. Bear the flag that you hoist with pride."

I think it applies to all the gay activists.... the ones who are trying to force their values and thinking on religious communities and forcing the redefinition of the family -which goes against Nature’s Law, and therefore the Constitution. Their paradigm is trying to make mothers and fathers irrelevant—to deny nature— which is a tremendous evil to all children and all societies.

Again - I respectfully disagree. I believe it is a mistake to judge an entire group by their worst members. For example... Many that are campaigning do not equate expanding marriage to include homosexuals as redefinition. And even if some of them did they wouldn't agree that that was a bad thing. *shrug* Hatred and mockery? Or sincere disagreement, confusion, etc.

Heck - I'm probably standing with you on this matter but I wouldn't agree that marriage is a reflection of natural law. If I say that marriage is a sacrament instituted by Christ that pretty much means that marriage was redefined in a drastic way from what it was before Christ in order to elevate it to the level of sacrament... Sincere disagreement that leads to the same end is no more sincere than sincere disagreement that leads to a different end.

You cannot compel the conscience.

I do not believe that there will be any measurable or true progress unless and until both sides can learn to take adequate measure of the other and learn that the threats we face are not exactly as we suppose.

You are trying to make a biological fact into something arbitrary. To exclude sexual behavior from Natural Law can not be done. That is stating that man is not part of Nature. Our government was founded on Natural Law. As Cicero stated and our Founders concurred, justice can NEVER be decided by man's opinion, but only upon Nature.

The Founders studied other cultures extensively and found great fault with hedonism in the Roman and Greek empires among other cultures that glorified homosexual behavior. The rampant homosexuality and other sexual perversions led to an unjust civilization and to the debasement of women and children, who were also used and abused sexually and treated as slaves.

Studies in primates, etc., have shown that when you interfere in the natural process of animals raising their young, the young become pathological in many areas and are sexually abnormal.

Homosexuality is not genetic....it is a behavior that is caused by environment--mostly emotional and physical abuse--so by that logic, the behavior should never be elevated or glorified in any way. If it is, you are advocating child abuse. Sexual morality in religion and marriage were instituted to protect the man/woman relationship and to promote the healthiest environment to raise emotionally healthy children for the most successful future of a civil society. Their idea worked to the greatest degree ever for the most diverse population in the history of the world.

Why would anyone want to go backwards and copy the Spartans or the Nazi Brownshirts or the imperialist Japanese, in elevating behaviors that destroy the family of man in every civilization that nihilistic behavior was embraced.

I'm not sure how to reply to some of this but I'll try.

You begin by saying "You are trying to make a biological fact into something arbitrary." when I believe I am attempting to do no such thing. I referred to other arguments that other people have made - but those are other people and not me. I referred to liberals in an attempt to refer to their motivations. Referring to those motivations doesn't mean I share those motivations. I thought I even said I explicitly agreed with you about gay marriage.

That aside - I believe the idea that THEY are treating biological facts as something arbitrary is disputable. Some are but many are not. Liberalism is no more monolithic than conservatism. Or do you believe that your ideas would enjoy 100% support in these forums? Motivations play a vital roll in what they believe and why.

Now when you say that " Sexual morality in religion and marriage were instituted to protect the man/woman relationship and to promote the healthiest environment to raise emotionally healthy children for the most successful future of a civil society." you haven't actually disagreed with anything I said. That fits with the definition I gave of marriage as a sacrament instituted by Christ. If Christ elevated it to that position that means that it was other things at other times to other people. Else what did he elevate it from? Marriage is no more monolithic than conservatism. Even today there are cultures that permit chattel marriages, plural marriages, and even post-humous marriage by proxy. Are all these people sincerely pursuing these ideals acting out of hatred for and desire to mock Christians? I think not. Do we want to sway them to our point of view about these things? Certainly. Do we do so by ascribing evil and mockery to them when they have been attempting to live the best life they know? Hardly.

Your last question touches on what I was trying to drive at. You ask: Why would anyone want to go backwards and copy the Spartans or the Nazi Brownshirts or the imperialist Japanese, in elevating behaviors that destroy the family of man in every civilization that nihilistic behavior was embraced? Well .... that's just it. Usually they don't think that is what they are trying to move our culture to. Most of the time these people sincerely believe they are trying to move our culture to something much better than any of that. They are sincerely wrong and joined by a nihilistic and destructive minority that might well be pursuing those ends in a knowingly and wantonly destructive fashion -- but this is usually a very very small if very very destructive minority. If we judge the whole group by the worst of it's individual members and ascribe that worst motivation to all of them ... well... usually end up alienating them in such a way that people are no longer interested in hearing what we have to say. It's abrasive and they reject it. Rightly so since those are not, in fact, their motivations but rather the motivations of a smaller part of their number that they themselves may not even like.

Given that conservatism is, more or less, always running against the majority grain in any given time or place I think it's best to avoid abrasivness and mis-ascribed motives if we hope to get anything done.

Even today there are cultures that permit chattel marriages, plural marriages, and even post-humous marriage by proxy. Are all these people sincerely pursuing these ideals acting out of hatred for and desire to mock Christians?

My point is that the Founding Fathers analyzed all these cultures and in their genius decided what would create the most perfect government for all on earth. All others cultures were abject failures. The US was a tremendous success story in a myriad of ways and all because of the Principles that the Founders adhered to-- The first one=="The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is Natural Law." [The 5000 Year Leap]. Actually, this was Cicero's dream. Cicero was murdered in 43 B.C. (Christianity has nothing to do with Natural Law although Cicero believed that reason which could grow and be perfected and become wisdom came from the Creator, the Supreme God.

All I am saying is that homosexuality goes against Nature's Law and God's Law which were the foundation of this country. Radical homosexuals want to enact legislation such as hate laws that take away the freedom of thought and the freedom of religion. To restructure a society and its fundamental laws to teach "truths" to children that Heather has Two Mommies? That Steve can marry Dave. The movement is trying to destroy logic and the institutions (such as marriage, religion, and family) that have existed for hundreds of years.

To destroy this country, you have to destroy those institutions that made this country strong (Marxist goal). Israel is throwing out their traditions and Laws (and reason) that have existed for thousands of years. For what? Selfish hedonistic, pagan reasons that will ultimately destroy the traditional family--that which is the fundamental unit of the most successful country on earth--in terms of equality for all (including women), freedom, wealth, happiness, etc.

Finally, yes, homosexuality mocks Judaism and Christianity, as well, as Nature's Law. It might not be intentional to all who practice the lifestyle, but it debases the body and I just don't have the time to explain it--the Pope does an excellent job in his Encyclical Letter, "Deus Caritas Est". Yes, that is a Christian view and it is theology based on thousands of years of philosophy. It is so much more profound than any shallow, bizarre, thinking of the Andrew Sullivans in the world.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.