Defending Marriage

A couple of weeks ago, while I was in Israel, the news came that the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) had been defeated in the US and thus it has become legal for same-sex marriage to take place in NY state, among other places. It was deemed unconstitutional to describe marriage as possible only between a man and a woman. Many people rejoiced at this verdict, and I read of couples rushing to have their union legalised, and some who raced to have their marriage solemnised under the chuppah, including a Jewish lesbian couple who had been together for decades. They were, as one would imagine, elated.

It was the chuppah thing that brought me up short. And next, the lovely Rabbi David Wolpe, of Sinai Temple, Los Angeles, has stated that he would be open to officiating at same-sex weddings.
OK. Well, considering that many of his congregants are of Persian origin, and pretty reactionary in their politics and religious observance, I thought that was possibly a brave or even foolish stance to take. But that's not my problem.

In Australia, our recently deposed Prime Minister is unmarried, living in a de facto relationship with her male partner of many years. In the cabinet is a lesbian Finance minister who is married to her female partner with whom she has a child. So this sort of stuff has been fairly high profile over the past few years. In my own practice in Breastfeeding Medicine, I have assisted several lesbian couples to breastfeed successfully. I also, when taking a medical history, no longer use the word 'husband' when I ask about the health of the patient's spouse; rather, I ask about the partner. Because some women are married and some are not, and some are single mothers, and you know, I don't get shocked and I didn't come down with the last rain shower. I mean, if the patient is a Haredi woman with a hat on top of a sheytel on her head, I will say 'husband'- tradition. But generally in Australia,  everyone calls everyone 'mate' - G'day, mate! How ya doing, mate! Watch out, mate!- everyone is your mate, except for the person you mate with- that's your partner.
And de facto couples, or common law families, or whatever you like to call them, are fully entitled to the same legal rights as a married couple; property rights, inheritance, insurance, child custody, the whole deck of cards. Because it's about the Law, not about religion.

So I think that people in a same sex relationship of several years, or whatever the legal equivalent of a de facto relationship demands, should also be entitled to these same legal rights. I think that individuals, no matter what their sexual orientation, are entitled to the protection of the Law.

So, if same sex-marriage means that you go off to the registry office or you sit in front of a lawyer or a legal celebrant, and you sign marriage documents, and you exchange rings or gifts or what-have-you, and then you have a party with your friends afterwards- well, why not. Be happy.

Yet, this isn't enough, it seems. No. Many same-sex couple want their union not only recognised and supported by law and by secular society; they want religious recognition also. The minister, the priest, the rabbi, the chuppah, the whole nine yards. And here's where I say no.

Because, Rabbi Wolpe notwithstanding, the chuppah is a sacred place and it is not about a political statement or a personal desire. The chuppah, and I guess I am also talking about the holy sacrament of marriage, which takes in other religions, is indeed about the union in the eyes of G-d of a man and a woman. Because the Torah makes it quite clear about male homosexuality being unacceptable in G-d's eyes, and nobody has a right to try to turn these words and twist them into another meaning. Granted, lesbianism isn't as harshly dealt with as male homosexuality as there is no wastage of semen (which is why masturbation is also a sin) but it is referred to in the Talmud as 'Ta-avat Mitzrayim', the lust of Egypt, and is not condoned. (The chuppah is also, by the way, not a place for mixed marriages either; take note, Chelsea Clinton and numerous others, and whatever 'Rabbi' married you. But I wish you happiness.)

The dream of every Jewish parent who knows anything about being Jewish, is to take your child under the chuppah to be wed to a Jewish member of the opposite sex. Having stood under the chuppah with six of my children, I can attest to the power of the ceremony and how meaningful it is. To see that same-sex couples wish to appropriate it is deeply offensive to me. It is taking a thousand and more years of tradition and custom and Jewish continuity and struggle, and suborning it to a personal desire or a political statement, and I have every right to be offended at this, without some troll labelling me a homophobe. As for the ministers of religion who are happy to jump aboard, well, I'm sure you can guess what I think about that, gentle readers.

It's all early days yet, but where there is marriage, there is also divorce. The statistics at the moment show that same-sex marriages are less likely to break up than traditional marriages, but these statistics are not that meaningful as there hasn't even been a '7-year-itch' scenario yet. So the people who use these bogus figures to say how this shows that same-sex couples love each other more, are idiots. People are people and there will be good relationships and toxic ones, good spouses and abusive ones, and let's not play games here. I also wonder about legalities like consummation or non-consummation of marriage, and what constitutes adultery, or other grounds for divorce etc, but I'm sure the clever lawyers will work something out.

Now, you may have noticed that I have written a whole piece on same-sex marriage without using the word 'gay'. This is deliberate, as the word 'gay' nowadays seems to not include female couples, so I think it is discriminatory! But deep down, I am also upset at the appropriation of a wonderful word which was so useful in describing a certain kind of happiness and joy, so that kids now would snigger at the words to the old song about 'kookaburra sitting in the old gum tree, merry merry king of the bush is he, laugh, kookaburra, laugh, kookaburra, gay your life must be.'

The other word I don't like being swiped by the same-sex male relationship, is 'husband'. The word means 'manager' (eg to husband one's resources, or animal husbandry) and when a homosexual man refers to his 'husband', I think that he is just showing off. As I said earlier, here in Australia, we use 'partner' anyway, so what's wrong with that? Or 'spouse', a perfectly gender-neutral word describing a partner in marriage. Lesbians' use of 'wife' is less annoying, as the word 'wife' just means 'woman' (eg 'midwife', meaning one who is with a woman in childbirth, or fishwife or housewife.) But 'spouse' would still work here too, even if 'gay' doesn't anymore. (I know these are picayune details, but it's my blog and I can talk about what annoys me, no matter how small.)

So, please, same-sex couples, legalise your union if you wish, live in safety and freedom, be in love and happy, and may your lives together be wonderful. But don't expect religious people, myself included, to be happy at the travesty you wish to make of our religious customs and traditions.