Haviv Rettig Gur attacks me for picking up Shlomo Sand’s statement that intermarriage is banned in Israel legally. His attack begins with this rather unpersuasive statement: "The basic fact is true, but the social, historical and moral reality behind it is missing."
There is no law against intermarriage.
Here’s what Sand failed to explain: Israel inherited Ottoman personal status law which places personal status – marriage, divorce, burial, etc. – in the hands of religious establishments. This means Jews can only marry in a rabbinic court, Muslims must marry in a sharia court, Catholics only within the auspices of the Catholic Church, Druse in their system, etc.
Well I’m reading Shlomo Sand’s great book now and Gur is I believe misrepresenting the reality. Sand makes it clear that a bar on intermarriage was no leftover accident of history. "In 1953 the political promise to bar civil marriage in Israel was given a legal basis. The law defining the legal status of the rabbinical courts determined that they would have exclusive jurisdiction over marriage and divorce of Jews in Israel. By this means, the dominant socialist Zionism harnessed the principles of the traditional rabbinate as an alibi for its fearful imaginary [sic] that was terrified of assimilation and ‘mixed marriage.’"
I grew up with these attitudes in American Jewish life. They’ve faded a lot since I was a kid. But in Israel they were memorialized in law. Later Sand writes that even the liberal secular Supreme Court Justice Aharon Barak said, "A Jewish state is one in which Hebrew Law plays an important part, and in which the laws of marriage and divorce of Jews are based on the Torah."
So: This is what you get when you create a Jewish state. Gur says that a lot of Israelis end up having common-law marriages, and the society respects them. And maybe some of those folks are shacking up across religious lines? It hardly matters. The principle here is one that is obviously important to the state and that has a discriminatory impact.
Ralph Seliger, a progressive Zionist affiliated with Meretz, has allowed me to quote his own criticism of this legal situation.
Since there is no civil marriage in Israel, people of different religions cannot marry there. But if they go outside the country to marry, they can return as married couples.
Israel’s lack of provision for civil marriage is a "shanda" (shame) and must be changed. But it winds up victimizing many more Israeli Jews who don’t meet Orthodox standards for their "Jewishness" than it does the very few Israeli Palestinians who would marry Israeli Jews.
Meretz is not alone in attempting to change the law in this regard, by legislation. Avigdor Lieberman’s party also wants to remove the stranglehold of the Orthodox clergy on marriage (because many of his Russian immigrant constituents are not Jewish according to religious law). But Lieberman– in keeping with his racist agenda– wants to make it even more difficult for Jews and Arabs to marry.
Pingback: Trying to rationalize Israel’s bar on intermarriage. No can do | JewPI
The problem with Haviv Gur is that he is intellectually lazy. His knowledge of the subject at hand is similar to the knowledge one can acquire about biological cell division by reading the definition in the dictionary. It’s superficial at best.
He doesn’t even begin to discuss the various Israeli Supreme Court decisions regarding mixed marriages or civil marriages.
For example, on July 31, 2003, the Knesset reaffirmed the Nationality and Entry to Israel Law.
On May 15, 2005, some amendments were added. Some of the changes made granted men over 35 years of age and women over 25 years of age permission to file family reunification requests. The previous version imposed an absolute prohibition on any Palestinian in Israel from filing a family reunification, with their spouse from the Palestinian occupied territories.
Now, here’s the fine print, so to speak.
In accordance with the text of the new law, the authority to grant residence permits in Israel to Palestinians from the Occupied Territories falls in the hands of the Minister of Interior as well as the “Region Commander” of the Israeli army.
The commander must be convinced,”…that the applicant agrees with the essence of the State of Israel and its goals” or if the Minister or the commander is convinced that the Palestinian applicant is a relative of someone working in the service of Israel’s security.
In contrast, every Palestinian who is considered a threat by Israeli security services is deprived of access to residence permits. In addition, his or her relatives and their families are deprived of the possibility to obtain permits, a measure that constitutes collective punishment. Basically, these amendments came to circumvent the High Court of Justice’s request for the Israeli government to amend the law.
Later, formally adopting the executive branch’s (akin to US presidential executive decisions. In this case it was Ariel Sharon) view of the law, the government issued Decision 3805 on June 26, 2005 which provides, “Immigration to Israel and its impact on the Law of Citizenship and the Entry to the State – a supplementary discussion on the report of the President of the Israeli National Security Council”.
It stated that, “The Israeli government approves the summary submitted by the Prime Minister in which he stated that the government ought to crystallize immigration policy to Israel so as to agree – not only with security needs – with the goals of guaranteeing the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. Furthermore, the government adopts the recommendations of the Chairman of the Israeli National Security Council regarding this issue”.
Now, you may wonder, what, pray tell, were those “recommendations”?
According to the chairman of the Israeli National Security Council, Giora Island, the Law of Citizenship prevents these conditions as it has the mechanisms of dealing with the demographic danger posed by the Arabs in the State of Israel (See: Ha’aretz March 3, 2005).
In a sense, this law precludes Arab citizens inside Israel from basic essential rights, as it dictates to them who they can or cannot marry and with whom they may establish a family. The state can also separate members of one family in the event the reunification process was still pending. In most cases, these procedures last several years at the Ministry of Interior.
In 2006, Adalah filed a plea with the Supreme Court in Israel to abolish the law or remove the clauses that which impinge on the marriage rights of Palestinians in Israel.
On May 14, 2006 the Supreme Court rejected that plea.
In addition to the policies mentioned in my previous post, the following two articles discuss government sanctioned programs aimed at controlling the demographic ratios between Jews and non-Jews in Israel. These government programs are an extension of the laws governing civil marriage in Israel. Given all this information, a clear government policy regarding intermarriages emerges.
link to alternet.org
link to jkcook.net
Israeli law on intermarriage (Gur’s facile rationalisation notwithstanding) goes well beyond religious sensibilities or the old taboo against “marrying out”. Former Chief Justice Aharon Barak and most secular Israelis may abhor the Rabbinate and/or live as common law spouses or marry in Cyprus in order to avoid rabbinical meddling in their private lives, but they cannot and will not renounce the religious stranglehold on matters of “personal status” in Israel, because these are precisely that laws that enforce and ensure the “Jewish character” of the state. Actual civil marriage, as practised in free (and even not-so-free) countries is anathema, because it would be a major step on the road to making Israel a “state of all its citizens”. It is thus not about intermarriage per se (we’ll leave that losing battle to the “diaspora” Jews), but about safeguarding Israel’s future as an ethno-religious state. The ban against intermarriage is a safeguard, but also a consequence of this undemocratic and unconscionable political construct. Remember that next time a liberal western leader swears allegiance to “Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state”.
As always, Shmuel, your comment is excellent (ditto for your reply to Chaos’s insightful comment below). There are so many contradictions involved in the notion of a Jewish State, and this is just one of them. I would add only that in 1967 (Loving v. Virginia), the US Supreme Court outlawed the ban on intermarriage practiced by some states. I’m sure a poll of American Jews would find 99% support for this decision, yet somehow this medieval ban persists in Israel without much controversy. Also, this website did a series of articles a few weeks ago on the vigilante groups roaming the streets of Israel “protecting” Jewish girls from their Palestinian boyfriends. In the US, this type of thing (interfering in interracial dating to protect white girls from Black or Hispanic males) would no doubt incur almost universal condemnation, and perhaps even criminal prosecution. The very idea of a “Jewish State” which must necessarily resort to such measures to perpetuate itself is an anachronism from a bygone era. How many more years or decades before the world takes note that the “evil” Israel seeks to avoid is equality (gasp!) rather than genocide or expulsion as Israeli PR has so successfully claimed?
Another excellent observation from you as well, David: How many more years or decades before the world takes note that the “evil” Israel seeks to avoid is equality (gasp!) rather than genocide or expulsion as Israeli PR has so successfully claimed?
BS Line of the day
I’m sure a poll of American Jews would find 99% support for this decision, yet somehow this medieval ban persists in Israel without much controversy
While the majority of America Jews aren’t opposed to intermarriage, your quote of 99% is laughable:
link to beliefnet.com
And there is a much debate in Israel over intermarriage, even Avigdor Lieberman (putz) is trying to pass a bill in the Knesset to re-evaluate the archaic intermarriage laws.
If your looking for a article which is both factual and whose sole purpose isn’t to demonize Israel/Israelis here is a good article concerning intermarriage:
link to haaretz.com
yonira – You should be a little more careful. What I said was “I would add only that in 1967 (Loving v. Virginia), the US Supreme Court outlawed the ban on intermarriage practiced by some states. I’m sure a poll of American Jews would find 99% support for this decision.” That means that American Jews would overwhelmingly support the Sup. Ct. decision that insisted that states may not ban intermarriages. The Lovings (appropriately but coincidentally named) were a white man and black woman who were unable to marry in VA, and sued the state. You do not disprove my statement by showing that a healthy percentage of Jews personally oppose intermarriage with other faiths. The question raised by Loving was whether the state may make it illegal to do so, and I’m quite certain that only a tiny handful of Jews would take the position that such intermarriage should be legally prohibited, even if more would respond that they do not approve. I was quite explicitly talking about the legal issue. Hopefully, you will understand the difference; if not, I am not capable of explaining it any better.
David – your 99% figure may have been more accurate at the time, but this is a different time and Orthodox Jews in the US have been growing not only in numbers but intolerance, in part because of Israeli influence.
In fact, I think quite a few of the emmigrants decide to pick up and go to Israel because there are such laws there.
Thanks for the clarification David, sorry about misreading your statement.
OK, yonira
potsherd – interesting point. I guess every single Jewish person I know would be appalled at the notion that a state could prevent black-white marriages. Perhaps more are very comfortable with a prohibition against Jew-Gentile ones. Perhaps more still think it would be unthinkable in the US but perfectly fine in Israel.
In the Loving case the US Supreme Ct imagined in the “pneumbra” of the US constitutional and its Amendments the “right to privacy.” Bottom line is the majority of the Court just felt that interracial/- relationships should be OK and protected by the state. Personally, I agree with that. I’m not a Jew, but I am a US taxpayer who
is forced to fund Israeli policies. Israel’s take on intermarriage is exactly the contrary to the USA’s. I resent this deeply. I hate that we so lavishly support a state that
is totally contrary to our own state’s highest ideals.
Here’s a dialogue between a hard core versus soft core approach to intermarriage in the USA:
link to forward.com
Thanks for the link, Citizen. Interesting discussion. In the end, it’s all a “control thing”: Is who an individual Jew marries a personal matter, or a source of concern for the entire Jewish collective? Speaking for myself, I am deeply interested in Jewish history, culture, identity and even continuity (although I don’t think the guys at the Forward and I understand that term in the same way), but it would never occur to me to approach these issues in terms of how to meddle in other people’s lives – whether by scaremongering or enticement. You want to make Jewish life and community better? By all means! But please, don’t do it to “save people from themselves” or to defend the collective against metaphysical “annihilation”. That kind of tacky, anachronistic Judaism will perish anyway. Promoting it just speeds up the process.
Shmuel, just for the Jewishly challenged (like myself), could you explain your notion of “continuity” and what it entails? Is it preserving certain cultural traditions? Language?
Thank you FC, for getting me to articulate the ideas that have been bumping around in my head for a while. The founder of Jewish Reconstructionism, Mordecai Kaplan, defined Judaism as a civilisation (maybe a number of interlinked civilisations would be more to the point). Using that definition as a point of departure, I would say that civilisations naturally evolve, develop, and even decay and die. They do not require gatekeepers or nominal designations, and if they need artificial respiration, maybe it’s time to pull the plug. As a civilisation (or group of civilisations), Judaism is still vibrant – culturally, linguistically, philosophically, socially and religiously – although it is certainly in crisis. Helping Judaism to overcome this crisis and to develop in a positive fashion has little to do with parentage or the religion into which one happens to be born. All may contribute and partake, as much or as little as they please. I know couples in which both partners are Jewish by birth, yet they contribute far less to Jewish civilisation as I see it , than many mixed couples or even non-Jews with no “genetic” tie to Judaism. That is how I envision the future of Judaism. No fear-mongering, no missionising, no concern with assimilation or intermarriage, and no artificial attempts to tart it up to keep the boys/girls on the farm.
RE: ” I know couples in which both partners are Jewish by birth, yet they contribute far less to Jewish civilisation as I see it , than many mixed couples or even non-Jews with no “genetic” tie to Judaism. That is how I envision the future of Judaism. No fear-mongering, no missionising, no concern with assimilation or intermarriage, and no artificial attempts to tart it up to keep the boys/girls on the farm.”
I can’t get quote get my arms around what you say, Shmuel. I guess, and please clarify if I wrong, that what you are saying is that, e.g., a secular humanist should willingly acknowledges the contribution of Jews over the ages to a tolerant POV of human
endeavor to make the world a better place for us all?
I found that very interesting, Shmuel. Thanks.
Citizen:
Actually, I was looking at it from the other direction: acknowledging the contribution of secular humanists and others (Jews and non-Jews) over the ages, to developing a tolerant POV within Jewish thought and culture.
Israel inherited [!] Ottoman personal status law
Is it just me or do the Nazi analogies basically seem to write themselves once again?
So why didn’t Israel inherit Ottoman civic law that respects property rights? Or heck, even the basic laws whereby slaughtering defenseless elderly and children is a crime?
On the contrary, Chaos. Where convenient, Israel has used Ottoman property law to expropriate Palestinian land in the OT, citing Ottoman law regarding land that is owned by usage and payment of taxes (rather than by deed) – forfeited to the state if not worked for a certain number of years. This has sent Palestinians rushing to Istanbul to dig up old “kushans” (deeds) to land that has been in their families or generations. Where Ottoman law has not facilitated – or even obstructed – the expropriation of Palestinian land, it has been duly ignored. Ditto for British mandatory law (eg. Emergency Regulations). To paraphrase Groucho Marx: We have laws, and if you don’t like them, we have others.
That is my point. Applying the law in only one aspect — especially one that is, quite literally, apartheid — doesn’t qualify as adhering to the law.
What do you know about Ottoman Land laws? Do you know the difference between the six classes of land under the 1858 Ottoman land law? That is the difference between mulk, miri, waqf, mawat, mahlul, and matruka lands? Do know what the Mushaa farming system was?
For example, when miri lands were not cultivated for three years, the state could take the land back because it was unproductive and not producing taxes for the state.
Israeli land laws are so complicated, that most lawyers there admit that nobody can understand them. That is because they are a mismash of tribal ARab laws, Ottoman land laws, British laws, and of course Israel land laws, a small bit of which is based on ancient Biblical land laws.
So, if you want an introductory text on the subject, I recommend “The Land Question in Palestine, 1917-1939″ by Emory professor Kenneth W. Stein. After you’ve become well acquainted with the subject matter, your criticisms of Israel allegedly not respecting “property rights” might be a tad more credible.
who the f are you to determine who does and who does not have credibility around here?
Israeli land laws are so complicated, that most lawyers there admit that nobody can understand them. That is because they are a mismash of tribal ARab laws, Ottoman land laws, British laws, and of course Israel land laws, a small bit of which is based on ancient Biblical land laws.
no, the land laws are complicated because they are intended to obscure the theft of land taking place.
i suggest you read ‘The Legal Transformation of Ethnic Geography: Israeli Law and the Palestinian Landholder
to borrow from another conversation:
it is an apartheid state, no amount of mumbo jumbo land laws is going to change that. nor will infiltrating 2 year old posts filling them up with current talking pts designed to normalize institutionalized racism.
Thanks, Annie. I forgot to mention Kedar :-)
You don’t say?
Israeli (ab)use of Ottoman law (and every other trick in the book) to steal Palestinian land is well documented – by Kretzmer, Holzman-Gazit, Zertal and Eldar, Yiftachel, Benvenisti and others (not to mention B’tselem, ARIJ, etc.).
If you want an introductory text on the subject, I recommend Eldar and Zertal’s Lords of the Land (longish), or B’tselem’s By Hook or by Crook (if you’re pressed for time). On the methods employed within the green line, see Yiftachel’s Ethnocracy: Land and Identity Politics in Israel/Palestine. After you’ve become well acquainted with the subject matter, your defence of Israeli land theft might be a tad more credible (although I doubt it).
It should be tested legally against the primary law in Israel, which simultaneously describes Israel as haven for Jews (hence the “need” to define who is a Jew) and democracy with equal rights for all.
A constant tension.
“A constant tension?!” How about an outright hypocrisy.
Ttested legally against the primary law in Israel Richard? You mean like the Supreme Court rule that banning foreign journalists from entering Gaza was illegal? How did that work out Richard?
“…which simultaneously describes Israel as haven for Jews (hence the “need” to define who is a Jew) and democracy with equal rights for all.”
Does that imply non Jews are denied safe haven? It sure looks like it.
And Israel fails the test.
The interior minister, Eli Yishai, is planning to deport 1200 Israeli-born children of legal foreign workers, children who know no other home but Israel, in order to preserve the Jewish character of the state.
Because, God forbid, they may grow up and want to marry Jews!
It should be tested legally against the primary law in Israel, which simultaneously describes Israel as haven for Jews (hence the “need” to define who is a Jew) and democracy with equal rights for all.
You state that as if my post above has no bearing on the matter. Perhaps you’re conveniently ignoring the facts that contradict your image of Israel?
The perceived threat that a demographics ‘imbalance’ poses, play a major role in marriage laws in Israel.
Your “A constant tension” meme is ludicrous.
That’s our Richard. No one may disturb his fantasy with facts. For everyone else, here’s the full texts of Israel’s Basic Laws, so that all can understand that equal rights for all is not really the basis, nor is it in the text, of these laws, except in a very limited way, with large truck-size holes allowing violation of these limited rights “by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required.”
Note that Richard thinks he is offering some new proposal, as if the Israelis have been too stupid to challenge the ban on civil marriages without this bold idea of Richards to test it in court. (Its been tried numerous times before, Richard. And failed. ) Richard’s knowledge of Israel is quite limited. His chutzpah is not.
Witty, how about the USA regime define full citizenship as applicable only to a white Christian?
Richard, Israel simutaneously exists “as a haven for Jews” and a nation-state with interests independent of ‘the Jews’. Which is, in part, a cause of Israel’s national mental defect. The controversy over the ‘authenticity’ of Russian Jews is but one example of how flexible a concept Jewish identity can become when it suits the needs of the state. It appears that there are many cases of ‘inauthentic’ Russian Jews (failing the religious lithmus test on account of intermarriage), and other cases of bald fraud which are ignored in support of the demographic war being waged by the state.
Here is a brief discussion of identity worth a look:
link to books.google.com
Yeah, and not to put too fine a point but Israel’s indiscriminate policy in giving a free pass to Russians claiming to be Jewish to immigrate, purely to boost the perceived “Jewishness” of Israel, has given Israel a really intriguing notable feature in the last few decades: the Russian mob runs rampant in Israel.
Should say, for clarity’s sake, “Russian-Israeli Jews”
“Meanwhile, the struggle against draft-evasion continued when earlier Wednesday members of the campaign to release Gilad Shalit demonstrated in Jerusalem in favor of a bill meant to aggravate the terms for females seeking to be exempt from service on religious grounds.
The vote on what has been dubbed as “the draft-dodgers bill” has been postponed by a month in order to allow the parties to reach understandings for fear of a crisis with Shas. ”
link to ynetnews.com
Does anyone know what the underlying religious rationale would be for the female exemption to military service?
When Israel’s first draft law was enacted, leading rabbis opposed the conscription of religious women, on the grounds that it violated traditional “modesty laws” on a number of counts – mixed male/female religious/non-religious bases, placing women under the of authority of male officers, etc. In the early years of the state, such requests for exemption were strictly regulated – including home visits, questioning of family and friends, and an official hearing. Today, the army hardly knows what to do with all the women it drafts (or men for that matter), but still preserves the fiction of universal conscription. Exemptions on religious grounds are thus as easy as a signed declaration. As a result, many women who do not conduct a religious lifestyle, mix freely with members of the opposite sex, etc. are released from military duty, based on the false premise that the army would provide an environment incongruent with their religious convictions and way of life.
Sorry, can you make this more specific and clear to an average citizen of the USA?
Come on, Citizen. I’m sure you’re above average ,-)
Precise Jewish Orthodox religious laws or values that conscription of women would be likely to violate:
1) Mixing of the sexes – particularly in situations that might lead to promiscuity.
2) Placing women under the authority of a man who is not their father or husband.
3) A woman’s place is in the home! (seriously – the rabbis have twisted a biblical phrase to produce the gem: “all the honour of a princess is in [the home]“.)
The rabbis are also concerned about the morals of young men, but have used other methods (deferrals for religious study, separate religious units under rabbinical supervision, etc.) to protect their innocent souls. As in all patriarchal societies however, the virtue of women is a matter of far greater concern.
When you include “mental defect” in an argument, that is a cue that you don’t want it or you to be taken seriously.
Do you mean to do that?
Oh, well, see, there’s the problem, Witty. No one takes you seriously at all. Actually, honestly, with you having said that, I actually went back to marc b.’s post and read it again to take it even more seriously. I figured if something not to be taken seriously, explicit attempts to make something else seem as to be not taken seriously, the two negatives cancel out.
Your misreading my cues. Yes, when a nation bases its identity on racial/religious/ethnic categories, and then ignores or undermines its own definition of identity, that is a sign of a defect. You can remove the word ‘mental’ if it makes you feel better. It’s what’s called a metaphor as used in this case. (Although some would argue that societies do have collective ‘mentalities’.)
Jews are a tribe – an ancient nation – and it is true that marriage outside of the tribe is frowned upon and discouraged. However the State of Israel is a secular democratic state, but does not perform civil marriages. It registers civil unions – be they heterosexual or homosexual – and recognizes civil marriage certificates obtained abroad. But the State of Israel does not perform marriages. Nor, IMO, should any state.
Otherwise, the Jewish state is no different than the Irish state, the German state, or the Polish state. It is the homeland of a specific tribe of people, but also the country of all of its many citizens who are not of Jewish nationality as well. Over 1/4 of all Israelis are not Jews.
It is good that there is no civil marriage in Israel, and I don’t see why it should be the business of any state to “marry” people. However, in Israel a couple can register as a civil union, be they hetero or homosexuals. But “marriage” is an oath to God – a religious function – carried out by the Rabbinate, the Muslim or Christian authorities, and not by secular state bureaucrats.
So if a Jew and a Muslim, or a Muslim and a Christian, or any two individuals of age – be it a heterosexual or homosexual couple – want the legal protections and tax benefits, they can register as a civil union or alternatively they fly to nearby Cyprus and get a civil marriage there, and that civil marriage certificate will be recognized by the State of Israel.
i think everyone understands that jgarbuz. the rules discriminate against secular people who have no desire or need for religious intrusion in their lives. for them, marriage is not about god, it is about being married.
I don’t know what “being married” means to a total secular. What do you need a license from the state for? What, is the State your God and you have to take some kind of oath before a bureaucrat? I don’t get it.
If you and your mate have made a commitment to each other, all you need in Israel for tax benefits is to register as a civil union. Why do you need the word “marriage” for? Today, it’s a meaningless word anyway.
check the nationality laws jgarbuz, it makes a difference. i won’t be back to discuss this w/you further. thanks for articulating the marriage laws of the apartheid state.
I don’t see why you call Israel an apartheid state when Muslim Arab men and women and all non-Jewish citizens have been allowed to vote since 1948, and Israel has Arab supreme court justices and members of parliament. Just because Israel, like most other Middle Eastern states, has elected to leave domestic matters, like marriage, divorce, burial and such to the clerics. As I said, Jews and non-Jews can live together and have households, but under civil unions. It is simply the business of ANY state to proclaim people “married!” I don’t know why in western countries the state has decided to arrogate this power to itself. Of course, in olden days there was no such thing as “civil union” but many people lived together out of wedlock, or in “common law” marriages. But the takeover of marriage by the state is relatively recent phenomenon, and frankly I don’t see where it is the business of the state at all.
This calling ISrael “an apartheid state” is just another routine blood libels placed against the Jews. Saudi Arabia, the Muslim “holy land.” doesn’t even let Jews in, unless they are diplomats or some such. Jews and Christians are NOT allowed to be citizens of Saudi Arabia or even live there except under narrow circumstances. You can’t even bring a Bible into that country. And that is the birthplace of Muhammad, the father of Islam.
>> It is good that there is no civil marriage in Israel, and I don’t see why it should be the business of any state to “marry” people. … So if a Jew and a Muslim, or a Muslim and a Christian, or any two individuals of age – be it a heterosexual or homosexual couple – want the legal protections and tax benefits, they can register as a civil union …
I agree…as long as religious marriage in Israel does not confer upon the married couple any secular benefits that are not also conferred upon a couple with only a civil union. That is to say, regardless of whether a couple is “civilly-unionized” or “religiously married”, both couples should have exactly the same set of rights.
That is the case in the Israel. You don’t need to “marry” in the Rabbinate, or the Muslims or in Church to get all the state benefits, and the usual custody issues, with a civil union.
However, I am not sure about adoptions. That part I do not know.
Of course, a civil union between a Jew and a non-Jew will not be recognized as a “marriage” by the Rabbinate, nor will the marriage of a Muslim woman to a Christian or Jewish man be recognized by the Muslim religious authorities. But who cares? If you don’t care about all that religious stuff, then it shouldn’t matter.
>> If you don’t care about all that religious stuff, then it shouldn’t matter.
As long as religious marriage in Israel does not confer upon the married couple any secular rights or benefits that are not also conferred upon a couple with only a civil union, it shouldn’t matter one bit.
In Canada (to the best of my understanding), the basis for “couples’ rights” (pension benefits, visitation rights, etc.) is a civil marriage license, which represents the state’s recognition of the union. Having a religious ceremony in addition to getting a marriage license confers no special or extra benefits to the religiously-wedded couple.
Civil union is the same thing, only I don’t why the word “marriage” has to come into it. I believe that the kind of union called “marriage” represents a covenant or contract that is above and beyond the state. If you give the state the right to create marriage, then aren’t you also giving it the right to break up marriage? Like slaves in the antebellum South, where families could be broken apart by slave-master, and families broken apart as slaves were sold off.
The main interest of the state in contractual unions is so that future soldiers, workers and taxpayers be produced and reared in a manner beneficial to society. It did not want bastards to become wards of the state, and so it encourages such unions by giving certain subsidies or tax breaks to families. Otherwise, what is the interest of the state in who you sleep with and such?