 |
| Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor (Wikipedia) |
That reflected a trend in this country that considered a lifestyle conducive to sinful sexual relations of homosexuals to be equal to that of the permitted sexual relations of heterosexuals. The idea being that same sex couples hurt no one and that by normalizing their lifestyle, homosexuals could be as proud of their lifestyles as heterosexuals' are. And that there was nothing for them to be ashamed of.
On the surface that sounds like the right idea. Over 100 Jewish groups that hope to make same sex marriage the law of the land feel the same way:
The Respect for Marriage Act would ensure that all federal benefits are available to married couples regardless of the state in which they live,” said the statement released Wednesday and spearheaded by the Reform movement’s Religious Action Center and Keshet, a Jewish LGBTQ rights group. “Congress has a responsibility to pursue economic equity for all, regardless of geographical location, and include historically marginalized groups in this pursuit.”
The problem with this is that these organizations do not recognize the validity of the bible as a guide to moral behavior. For these groups, morality is relative to the times. The bible has no moral authority in the face of the current view of morality.
In my view that removes any claim that these organizations represent Jewish values. You cannot make that claim you deny portions of Judaism’s defining document, the bible, that you don’t like.
As I have said many times, granting equal status to behavior that religious Americans who do see the bible as their moral guide - is a contradiction to their values. Legitimizing behavior the bible considers sinful makes it virtually impossible to transmit those values to children. Values this country was founded upon.
Imagine trying to teach young people in a parochial school that certain relationships are strictly forbidden when those relationships are celebrated by the entertainment industry, the media, and granted the imprimatur of the government. That, unfortunately, is the current state of affairs in this country.
If gay marriage is fine, what’s next? How far does that normalization go? How far does the government have the right to go in insisting that religious institutions treat that behavior the way the government does? That is what the controversy at YU (Yeshiva University) is all about. An LGBTQ club wants official recognition from YU – which would include university funding them to the same extent it funds other its other clubs. requiring a religious institution to violate its principles in this fashion is a violation of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. It is the height of absurdity to require an institution to violet its religious principles. And yet that is what Lynn Kotler, a New York trial judge ordered YU to do immediately when an LGBTQ club sued them in court. YU appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.
Imagine my surprise that it was a liberal icon, Justice Sonia Sotomayor , who granted YU a stay, They do not have to recognize that club now. The matter will be taken up by the full court at a later date.
Apparently Justice Sotomayor understands that YU’s claim has enough merit to not force them to do recognize that YU has a legitimate claim. What makes this a free exercise matter is best described by Nathan Lewin:
The club’s program indisputably conflicts with traditional Jewish attitudes on gender relations. Yeshiva argued in the state court that the New York law is inapplicable and that if the law were to apply, compelling Yeshiva to violate its religious principles breaches the constitutional protection for the free exercise of religion…
Yeshiva’s legal argument is straightforward: New York’s law against gender discrimination may not force an institution committed to religious values to issue a stamp of approval for conduct that violates the institution’s religious commands. Local law cannot override the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution…
But Yeshiva’s claim extends beyond protecting religious doctrine. May a court direct any private university, whether or not it is guided by religious precept, to confirm and grant official status to ideologies or practices that offend values fundamental to the university? Supreme Court decisions protecting free speech—entirely apart from religious principles—have recognized a private organization’s right to exclude speakers whose message offends the organization’s values.
Could not agree more. With the Supreme Court now consisting of a majority conservative justices, I believe that YU has a decent chance of their accepting YU’s arguments and ultimately deciding in its favor.