Agudath Israel of America is urging the New York Senate to reject a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, saying it would be "dangerous" for society. Among its reasons are that it would weaken the link between marriage and children and would "convey the unmistakable moral message that homosexual union occupy the same moral plane as heterosexual ones."
The group also says that the legislation is a "direct threat" to religious liberty. From a memo the group sent to each member of the state Senate:
The bill under consideration in New York would pose a direct threat to religious liberty as well. Unlike similar measures passed in some other states, the bill does not contain any protections for religious individuals or organizations. Prominent legal scholars are therefore predicting that if the bill becomes law, religious organizations and institutions could be subject to legal attacks and severe penalties. As a group of distinguished law professors have written about similar legislation, “enacting [same-sex marriage] . . . without robust religious accommodations will lead to damaging, widespread, and unnecessary conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty.”
New York Senate leaders on Tuesday delayed a vote on the legislation, but said they planned to bring it to a vote before the end of the year. The full memo is after the jump:[[READMORE]]
November 9, 2009
M E M O R A N D U MTO: Honorable Members of the New York State Senate
FROM: David Zwiebel, Esq., Executive Vice President
Rabbi Shmuel Lefkowitz, Vice President for Community Affairs
SUBJECT: Same-sex Marriage BillOn behalf of Agudath Israel of America, an 87-year-old Orthodox Jewish advocacy organization, we urge you to oppose and vote against legalizing same-sex marriage.At the most basic level, our opposition to same-sex marriage is an expression of our religious tradition—as it is, no doubt, for millions of New Yorkers of all faiths. But there are compelling reasons that have nothing to do with religion to oppose legislation that seeks to fundamentally alter the time-honored definition of marriage. Proponents of same-sex marriage seek to change not only statutory law, but also the very nature of a social institution that throughout the millennia has proven its worth as an agent of social stability and historical continuity.
The movement to confer the status of “marriage” upon same-sex unions is, in Agudath Israel’s view, extremely dangerous for American society. It is, or ought to be, an urgent objective of public policy not only to strengthen the institution of marriage, but to do so in a manner that promotes a sense of responsibility to children. Legalizing same-sex marriages—which, by biological definition, can never have anything to do with procreation—would obscure further still the vital link between marriage and children.
It is also important to recognize that government is not a neutral actor in the field of moral values; the laws by which a society chooses to govern itself have (among other things) an educative function. Elevating same-sex unions to the status of “marriage” would convey an unmistakable message that homosexual unions occupy the same moral plane as heterosexual unions. Countless New Yorkers of all faiths reject the notion that same-sex relationships are merely reflections of an “alternative lifestyle,” no more objectionable and no less acceptable than the traditional heterosexual lifestyle. These citizens strive hard to raise their children to recognize that not all expressions of sexuality are morally equivalent. Extending the label of “marriage” to same-sex unions is government’s way of telling those children that their parents are wrong, that their priests, ministers and rabbis are wrong, that civilized societies throughout the millennia have been wrong. We respectfully submit that, in the absence of a broad social consensus on this issue, government has no business conveying that message.
The bill under consideration in New York would pose a direct threat to religious liberty as well. Unlike similar measures passed in some other states, the bill does not contain any protections for religious individuals or organizations. Prominent legal scholars are therefore predicting that if the bill becomes law, religious organizations and institutions could be subject to legal attacks and severe penalties. As a group of distinguished law professors have written about similar legislation, “enacting [same-sex marriage] . . . without robust religious accommodations will lead to damaging, widespread, and unnecessary conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty.”
Stated simply, legalizing same-sex marriage would endanger religious freedom, inhibit free speech and undermine the preferred status of marriage. Moreover, it would convey a social message that is deeply offensive to many New Yorkers and lead to yet further erosions in the traditional conception of family.
Respectfully, but urgently, Agudath Israel encourages you to vote “no” on same-sex marriage. Thank you for considering our views on this sensitive issue.
D.Z.
S.L.
