In his only public statement on the subject he warned that any attempt to exempt religious groups from performing homosexual weddings would be likely to be challenged at the European Court of Human Rights.
Lord Sacks, who is preparing to retire next year, has consistently declined to be drawn into the debate about the Government’s plans to allow same-sex couples to have civil weddings.
A clutch of traditional rabbis have spoken against the Government’s plans while liberal branches of Judaism in Britain have given their support.
But now a formal submission to the Government’s consultation process from the London Beth Din – the Chief Rabbi’s court, which adjudicates on legal matters – has reiterated traditional orthodox teaching that homosexuality is against Jewish law.
“Marriage by definition in Jewish (Biblical) Law, is the union of a male and female,” it asserts.
“While Judaism teaches respect for others and condemns all types of discrimination, we oppose a change in the definition of marriage that includes same-sex relationships.”
It continues: “Our understanding of marriage from time immemorial has been that of a union between a man and a woman.
“Any attempt to redefine this sacred institution would be to undermine the concept of marriage.”
The Beth Din accused the Government of confusion by creating a distinction between civil and religious marriage for the first time.
“In English law there is only one definition of marriage which can be entered into through either a civil or religious ceremony,” it adds.
14 Comments
The recent SCOTUS decision on the ACA (Affordable Care Act) should read as ominous for marriage corruption supporters, in that SCOTUS affords a weighted Rational Basis standard for duly constituted laws; and as we all know by now a Rational Basis for limiting marriage to one man one woman pairings has long been established; one that is firmly grounded in the laws of nature - laws that are substantied with established scientific fact as opposed to the junk science these miscreants cling to in defense of their depravity.
"I did not choose to do the things I do" simply will not hold up under SCOTUS scrutiny.
This is the proper course of action for any man of the cloth, though I question why he wished to earlier remain diplomatically neutral rather than take an emphatic stance on this issue of deviant marriage. (That's a deviant form of "marriage", not marriage between deviants. I believe homosexuals can be wonderful people, and heterosexuals can be horrible people.)
Its time for churches, synagogs and the like to simple stop doing “marriages” (i.e. sex-irrelevant unions). Simply stop doing them. “Sorry we don't perform marriages here. Why don't you try the church across the street.” No discrimination, hate or prejudice. No loss of tax exemptions, no financial penalties, no law suits, no breaking the law.
And its time for us to invent a new word that would exclusively name the man-woman union. Which will also allow us to be able to accurately translate words from other times and or other languages. And then religious institutions that would like, could perform sex-relevant unions (opposite sex being obligatory) under the new name given to that unique union. And churches and synagogs that do wish to offer marriage (sex-irrelevant, or same-sex) services will be free to do so, of course. Two different things; two different words to name them. The new ideology gets what it wants: the word marriage and the legal rights attached to that word (if that is really what its after). And the civilization is enriched with a new, useful and relevant word added to its dictionaries.
Don't be ashamed to be gay. Don't be ashamed to have your own word to name your union. And learn to be kind and respectful to others; accept their differences.
@Good News
People seem to forget that it is the government/state that governs marriage, not churches or temples. Pastors or Rabbis merely act as agent for the government in registering the nuptials. Marriage is a civil and legal matter between a couple. Religious ceremonies are an option.
@ Exactly John Mc. Let them govern marriage all they want. Have fun. As for us who understand the man-woman relationship, (whether religious or not) we will come up with another word to name this forever unchangeable, real and unique thing - the man-woman life long union. And we will manage our own affairs, free of perversion (perversion of vocabulary that is).
Since time immemorial? Has this guy read the Bible?
Does the name Solomon ring a bell?
"People seem to forget that it is the government/state that governs marriage, not churches or temples. Pastors or Rabbis merely act as agent for the government in registering the nuptials. Marriage is a civil and legal matter between a couple. Religious ceremonies are an option."
Marriage has been established and practiced long before governments have been founded, McLaren. When any state becomes big enough to claim ownership of an institution with as much religious and spiritual significance as marriage, it never bodes well for our civil and religious liberties.
Banks do not own the money it manages for people. Neitehr does the state in regards to marriage.
@soa
In most European societies the bride and groom first go to City Hall or Registrar office to get married. The next day they may choose to get a blessing at the church but it is not mandatory. When they arrive at the church they are already married. Think of Prince Charles and even Grace Kelly who had civil ceremonies to get married.
attention: MrRoivas
Thanks for directing me back to the traditional marriage "since time immemorial" as you stated. I have read the bible and maybe should you. Here's what marriage looked like for your Solomon.....I hope these facts about his divinely designed marriages rings your bell.
According to the Bible, Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. That's your Old Testament biblical marriage and thanks for reminding me
@Shane,
Solomon was acting in violation of his faith when he acquired said wives; with most of these so called wives being endowments from lower level chieftains given to cement treaties. Solomon's disobedience to God's law of one man one woman as it relates to marriage is credited as the reason why Solomon turned to false God's in his later years.
You really should back away from the use of falsehoods and bald-faced-lies in defense of your depravity; they only make you look worse.
The Bible can be read as supporting the divine right of kings. On the other hand, the Bible can be read as a sharp critique of kingship, as in the Geneva Bible. I favor the latter reading.
As for polygamy, it is a banned form of marriage under English Common Law as deviating from Christian norms (see Hyde v. Hyde) and likewise banned under the law of every state of the union. Having multiple sexual partners, however, is generally not banned, and such a ban would be legally challenged based on modern claims of privacy rights. It is only when a bigamist claims the right to marriage that the additional cohabitation (or even the ceremony) becomes a felony punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or both. However, the law does not apply to visiting foreigners if polygamy is legal in their country, which is the case in about fifty countries.
Once Christian norms, tradition, received definitions from settled law, and democratic decision-making are all thrown out as invalid, it is difficult to make the case for banning polygamy.
See also http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/12/4451
Dovie E.
Your words are well-written and entirely true.
I too applaud Rabbi Sacks for issuing this statement. There are simply too many self-described "Jewish" groups that ardently support redefining marriage (such as so-called "Conservative Judaism," which is actually a slightly less liberal, but still very liberal, version of Reform Judaism), that it's time for traditional Torah-faithful ("Orthodox") leaders to loudly proclaim the unambiguous Torah position on this matter. I hope the next British Chief Rabbi does not shy away from loudly proclaiming these truths to a very confused world.
All... blame henry VIII. He usurped religious authority and took for himself the right to define marriage any way he liked. The civil institution has pretty much been run that way ever since. It is states, courts and governments that define and regluate marriage, not religious institutions.
I believe that marriage is the union of a man and woman only. Same sex unions should not be called "marriage", and churches should not be used as venues for same sex "marriage" ceremonies. The Bible teaches that homosexual activity is 'detestable' ( Leviticus ch. 18, depending which translation you use ) and people who indulge in homosexual activity will not be in God's Kingdom ( 1 Corinthians ch 6 ) A priest/minister could not conduct a same sex "marriage" ceremony. How is a same sex union to be consummated ? With sodomy? !