JBOD says yes, Beth Din says no

THE NSW Jewish Board of Deputies (JBOD) almost unanimously passed a motion supporting same-sex marriage on the eve of Rosh Hashanah.

JBOD president Jeremy Spinak said the vote was “the most overwhelmingly supported motion” that he can remember.

“Like all Jewish bodies, we don’t usually have such unanimity,” Spinak told The AJN after the vote.

“Yet deputies of all political persuasions and backgrounds supported the motion because they thought it was fair and important.”

Spinak noted that, importantly, the motion did not tell people how to vote in the plebiscite.

“What we thought it important to do however, is make clear where we stand on principle and one of those principles is that our gay friends should be allowed to marry,” Spinak said.

Former JBOD president, NSW Supreme Court’s Justice Stephen Rothman, spoke to the motion at the meeting and said the community should support same-sex marriage.

“Some members of our community consider same-sex relationships morally repugnant, and that is dealt with in the motion,” Rothman said.

“We don’t have to approve same-sex relations in order to approve same-sex marriage.

“In my view, in the case of members of the same-sex community they should be free to enjoy their commitment to each other in the same way that others can.”

In his final comments, he noted that Israel recognises same-sex marriages that are ordained overseas. “If it’s good enough for the Jewish State, it’s good enough for Australia.”

Jack Pinczewski, who stepped down from the JBOD executive last month, also spoke in support of the motion.

“We owe it to our friends and families to take a stance on this matter,” he said.

“It’s a matter of fairness, and a matter of separation between church and state.”

In a room with more than 100 people, all except for one voted for the motion which calls for “equal treatment under Australian law to same-sex couples who choose to marry” and for “the Federal Government to ensure protections for practice of religious freedom and religious education; to support the elimination of discrimination against same-sex couples under Australia’s civil law by extending legal recognition to marriages between same-sex couples who choose to marry; and to support equal treatment under Australian law to same-sex couples who choose to marry”.

The motion also “strongly asserts that rabbis must continue to be able to conduct marriage ceremonies in accordance with Jewish law as they see fit”, “rejects any attempts to impose a belief or value system on the rabbinate”, “reaffirms its commitment to freedom of religious practice and religious education in Australia”, “acknowledges that as a matter of Orthodox Jewish law, same-sex marriage is not permitted” and noted that “the question before Australia at the upcoming postal plebiscite is one relating to civil, not religious, marriage”.

Stating JBOD is “committed to fighting all forms of discrimination on the basis of race, religion, homosexuality, gender and disability”, the resolution noted that it will support “all members of our community as they strive for equality under the law”.

Reacting to the resolution, the Sydney Beth Din issued a statement saying JBOD “does not represent the entire community nor does it have a mandate to purport to do so” on this occasion.

“In our view, it is a vote that should never have been taken if the Board of Deputies was to retain its credibility as a representative roof body,” the statement said.

“It certainly does not and can not represent Orthodox Judaism.”

The Beth Din said it was disappointed that JBOD encouraged a Yes vote and that it felt it had no choice but to make the position of Orthodoxy clear.

“The rabbis of the Sydney Beth Din will be voting no. Anyone who wishes to follow halachic advice should do the same.”

Questioning JBOD’s comment that marriage is not a religious institution, it added, “Taking a view that marriage in and of itself is purely secular is already taking a side, and then as a result giving itself the right to tell the community to vote yes is, in our view, a self-serving argument and totally outside its mandate of equally representing the entire community.

“We say categorically that in this instance it does not represent us or those who are loyal to the teachings of the Torah, Talmud, Maimonides and The Codes of Law.”

JOSHUA LEVI