Many a word was written on the topic of the GLBT teen gathering shooting in Tel Aviv. Here, at IsraLeft, we’ve covered the issue extensively: Maital’s words, defined by Chris Geidner of Law Dork as “Crushing”, and then Or’s post explaining why this is, indeed, a hate crime, followed by Elad’s educating post about the origins of such hatred in contemporary Israeli Jewish spiritual leaders, and then Noa’s personal experience as the coordinator for the Proud Teen Organization in the Tel Aviv area. We also covered the shootout and the subsequent protests via our Twitter account. This is what we set out to do – to bring Israel and Israeli current events to the English speaking world, just the way we see them. Now, I take my turn. I’d like to talk a bit not about the consequences of this atrocity, but about the roots of it; the underground conflict that resulted, this time around, in 2 deaths.
In general, the same people who support a just and peaceful solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, achieved via compromise and negotiations, are those who support GLBT rights; whereas the same people who believe in a violent, forceful solution and are unwilling to compromise in the question of The Conflict also oppose not only granting such rights to GLBTs, but also their very right to request such rights. It’s not surprising: Only someone who believes violence can stop a group of people from chasing the freedom to live as they see fit would would object GLBT rights, and it takes such a belief to support further violence against the Palestinians as a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And it is also not surprising at all that the rhetoric, on both sides, is similar. It is so because the main issue here is self-determination; that term is usually connected with the right of people to gather in a political community that is acknowledged as such, but it is also pertinent to people’s right to choose their own way of life, no matter how objectionable it may be – within basic confinements, of course, since no right is absolute. And this has to do with a time old debate, the one about the source of moral values, or put differently, the debate between God given rights and human rights.
To start off, I think it is rather agreeable to claim that conservatives as a whole support leaving things the way they are, or going backwards to the way they were – the tendency to accept religious laws as moral imperatives is just one aspect of this perception – whereas bleeding hearts of the kind that populates this blog are usually in favour of questioning status quo, holding it up to the light of scrutiny and altering and modernizing it in accordance to progress. Or more bluntly, this is the debate between the question and the exclamation, between doubt and acceptance, between observation and faith.
A characteristic of conservative thought is, arguably, the presupposition of an external, transcendental (And often transcendent)1 source of moral values. It could be, and often is, a deity (or several deities), an ancient text, an idea, nature. Whatever it is, it is always something that is final, unchangeable and beyond any single individual or society. It’s a belief that there is a certain way to the world, that is known and should be taken into account when judging the morality of actions, views and values. It also encapsulate the presupposition that every human behaviour, any deed, any choice is to be evaluated in moral terms. Shortly, I claim that a conservative point of view often assumes the existence of an absolute, unchanging moral truth and the necessity of all man kind to act upon it.
Or put otherwise, I argue that even when it poses as completely secular, usually by distancing itself from the ideologies and the more mystical parts of of known organized religions, the conservative view point is inherently a religious one, because it accepts a higher force that is the source of moral evaluation.
[...]
Let’s examine the usual claims opposing the GLBT way of life in almost any society. There is, of course, the religious arguments – almost all religions, especially all monotheistic ones, reject homosexuality. But there is also the “Natural” argument – meaning, that single sex relations aren’t natural – which leads to treating homosexuals as dangerous deviants. Once, during a debate on the topic, my opponent, who viewed himself as a secular Jew, held that homosexuals might be dangerous to animals – no less – because they are sexually deviant and thus cannot be trusted not to have sex with animals. That is, of course, a good candidate for the “Most unbelievably stupid claim ever made” award, but it is a good – if rather extreme – example of the way a conservative mind works. To him, the basic view point was that there was a God/nature-given way, and anyone who happens to act not according to this arbitrary, unquestionable scheme is inherently a sinner, has twisted morals and is thus dangerous.
So, returning to the matters at hand, claiming that the GLBT way of life is wrong because it is unnatural means holding that there are unchangeable laws of nature that are beyond human reach that people must live by, and that it is morally wrong not to live by them. That, dear friends, is a theological point of view. It could be claimed that this “Nature’s way” argument is not only dead-wrong, as we see many cases of single-sex relations in nature, but also completely irrelevant, as people do a lot of things that aren’t natural – such as dressing up, taking pain killers and antibiotics and (Are you getting this, NRA?) shooting guns – but one needs not to bother. It is quite enough to show the theological pathology behind most conservative arguments on this matter, as well as many others, and to thus classify them as religious arguments that cannot and should not be answered logically.
[...]
Liberals, on the other hand, tend to ask questions. They reject the concept of a transcendental and/or transcendent moral compass. They hold, by and large, that since morality and moral values apply to humans only, there’s no reason to assume they originate from any source other than human beings. If ethics are derived from Man, it makes perfect sense for it to be focused on Man. There’s no need to be true to a certain world order if no world order is presupposed. Therefore, they see human rights as the best moral evaluation instrument. Liberals also acknowledge, at times, that different people will give different answers to the question whether a certain behaviour is moral, and will thus not attempt to evaluate every single deed in the light of moral values; they accept that some thing are not a moral question. Nothing is inherently wrong or right. Some things are contingent, others are simply not evaluated for their moral value.
If we turn to the GLBT rights topic again, we’ll see that liberals will tend to support the GLBT struggle. I cannot answer for all liberals, and there are quite a few liberals or pseudo-liberals who will disagree with me, but I can answer for myself. I support GLBT rights because I think one’s choice of a partner, one’s love stories and heartbreaks and the people one chooses to play different roles in one’s life are entirely one’s business. It’s not that I think that the GLBT way of life is moral. It’s that I think it’s like asking whether a watermelon is lustful. I cannot see the relevance of morals to this matter: Why should anyone be able to judge someone else’s romantic choices? What meaning is there to a moral evaluation of a romantic relationship between two consenting adults? And furthermore – and possibly more importantly – even if one views homosexuality to be immoral, what then? That proves nothing other than that single individual’s moral perception. So there’s one person who thinks it’s immoral. So what? What meaning does this bear?
One could argue, at that point, that this is just as unchangeable and transcendent as any conservative claim. My response to this is a twofold: First, I do not presume to know that I’m right. I am willing to listen to any other view, evaluate it with whatever cognitive capabilities I may posses, and either accept it or not, but there is no presupposition that my opinion is the right one. Second, and this is perhaps the most essential thing here, I don’t even presume to know the answer. I clearly state that I do not know whether single-sex relations are moral or not. To answer this question, I’ll need a clear and agreeable definition of what is moral in that sense, why is that definition valid, what is the meaning and implications of something being morally wrong or right and how this question is even relevant. When posed with the question, all I have is more questions.
Lest I’d be misunderstood, I’m not claiming that there is no way of evaluating the morality of certain actions. I hold that there is no external plan, no transcendental rulebook. Morals are Man-made. Thus, they apply only when human rights collide. So, the question of what two consenting adults are doing with each other isn’t a moral one, because they infringe on no right, they hurt nobody. No rights collide, no one is hurt. The only way to view this as a moral question is to assume a higher power that is the source of ethics, deduce values from this higher power and then treating these values as sacred moral evaluation instruments. Any other view must accept that this isn’t a question of what’s morally right or wrong, and shouldn’t be treated as such.
Is it a loose definition? Sure. Is my theory full of holes? Definitely. Can it be argued that my view creates more questions in place of the questions it was attempting at answering? Certainly. I’m all for leaving room for an argument. As a matter of fact, i think that’s the very basic principle of democracy.
[...]
Ah, the question. The source of all human progress. The basis of western philosophy, from Socrates to our days. Scrutinizing what we know in order to get to that which we do not yet know, doubting anything perceived as obvious lest we miss out on another question. There are always questions. Throughout history, the people who thought they had answers prosecuted the people who tried to question the validity of these answers. The tension between church and science, church and state, Hegelian philosophers and existentialism. We discovered great new things: We now know Earth is round, we know it is revolving around the sun and itself, we got men to tread on the moon. We have become civilized and developed because we dared doubt what was consensual. We no longer set children on fire to bring the rain. That has to be some kind of progress.
People who have answers never want to listen to anybody. That’s why people who have answers aren’t satisfied with their denunciation of the homosexual way of life, they see the very protest of those who feel otherwise as offensive and will do their best to stop it. Why would they want to listen to anyone, if they already have the answers?
[...]
It was a man who has answers that went down to a basement packed with teens and started firing an automatic weapon. A man who has answers, trying to use terror to force his answers on those who refuse to accept them, who dare doubt them. A man who has answers, with which there’s no point in arguing, as he is right while we can live with not knowing. It was other people who have answers who incited this violence. And these people, who have answers, also have a lot to answer for.
Now I am silent, hate
Up to my neck,
Thick, thick.
I do not speak2
People who have answers need not to speak. The presuppose all they need to know, and sometimes they come in, dressed in black, and fire away their answers silently. As if to remind us how important is the question, and how better off we are asking than answering.
Strong words.
I am uncomfortable with one of your statements. You write:
“One could argue , at that point, that this is just as unchangeable and transcendent as any conservative claim. My response to this is a twofold: First, I do not presume to know that I’m right. [...] I am willing to listen to any other view, evaluate it with whatever cognitive capabilities I may posses, and either accept it or not, but there is no presupposition that my opinion is the right one. Second, and this is perhaps the most essential thing here, I don’t even presume to know the answer. [...]”
So you claim that there’s something inherently open and inclusive in the Liberal viewpoint while the conservative viewpoint is closed and unquestioning. I’m not sure I agree. I think that the Liberal viewpoint does have some presuppositions, without which the conservative view could be as “correct” as the liberal view.
In particular, a conservative person could listen to your arguments, think about them, and claim that he/she found them to be wrong, and that they support killing gays anyway. They’ll listen to your arguments fully, just like you listen to theirs. When discussing, you’ll hit a dead end. He will say you have some presuppositions, and you’ll say that he does, and I’ll believe both of you will be right. That’s one of the difficulties (for me) of dealing with conservatives: In the end, when asked why does every person have a moral and basic right to act freely, for example to love and have sex with whomever they want (as long as it’s coscentual), a conservative will ask me “why?”, and I cannot answer. I mean, I can give arguments, but they will all be based on a presupposition in the end.
You could claim that the liberal view does not attempt to coerce anyone to do anything (inside reasonable boundaries), and that will be almost true, but not completely true. Do you allow a mother to starve her children? You don’t. Do you allow a man to kill and eat another man, if the other man is willing to be killed and eaten? You don’t. You could claim that the child is powerless to resist, and that the man willing to be eaten is insane. But in the same way, religious people will tell you that the existence of homosexuals is a threat to all Jews (because God will punish us). I believe the former claims are “true” while the latter is false, but how can I explain it if I do not make any presuppositions?
Sensible or not, you have to acknowledge the existence of many (hard-core) Right-wing secular Israelis who would claim to be pro-gay-rights and to object discrimination of GLBTs.
@elad-vav: The short answer is that it’s the lack of any a-priori assumptions that lead to a humancentric point of view, which in its turn leads to Liberalism as it’s presented here: That the only moral questions are those regarding the clashing of human rights, such as the ones you brought up.
Let’s look at another, more difficult example: Jane and John are brother and sister, both well into their 20’s. After having talked about it, they decide they wish to engage in a sexual relationship with each other. In simple words, they want to have sex. So they do.
Now, do I think it’s OK? I find it disgusting, personally. However, I also find it to be none of my business. I do not think there’s a world order that’s being compromised, that my own personal safety or morality is harmed simply because two consenting adults who happen to be related are humping each other freely. There’s a presupposition here: I presuppose siblings should not be having sex. I ignore this presupposition in the face a cold truth, that isn’t presupposing anything: That none of mine or any other person’s rights are infringed by this. That this act of beastial lust doesn’t affect my life, or the life of anyone else, the least bit.
I will, however, argue against letting Jane have John’s kid. I will do so not because I find it immoral for them to have sex to begin with, but rather because I know empirically there’s a good chance the fruit of this digusting match has extremely high chances of suffering greatly in his in all likelihood short life. I find that a person – or a potential person, in this case – has the right not to suffer unless they choose to, and that this potential person didn’t choose to. What is the presupposition here? The conservative and I will both argue against two siblings having a baby. The conservative will do so because he sees the very love act between siblings as immoral; I will object due to what I know about the world. If there was a way to ensure that the baby will come out normal, I’d go to the Brith and keep quiet. I do not presuppose a thing.
I look at the world, and I see the people in it. They go about their business and as long as they harm nobody, there’s no reason to condemn anything they do. When people harm other people this should be stopped, because anything else would mean that some people are allowed to harm others, and that kind of a differentiation between people can never be based on anything that isn’t transcendental and a-priori. So, when free from presuppositions, the basic fact is that people should not harm other people.
Dilemmas occur when every decision you make will harm people. For example, the question of assisted suicide is a moral dilemma. Here, in the intra-liberal discourse we can argue over it. But we never suppose that there is an answer external to out conscience and knowledge. We never evaluate the world in theological terms. We always ignore anything we don’t know, and judge solely based on the rest, and do so only when it is a matter that involves us. That’s the outcome of not presupposing a thing.
And that was the short answer.
@Brown Brownie: Oh really? Where are they?
@Rod Avissar: Are you serious? You really never met such ‘open-minded but realistic’ people in Israel? I met many. I even know out-of-the-closet gays who are strong on the political right. And I am not surprised by people being inconsistent with their declared values. (You want one embarrassing example? This is one blog I once came across.)
@Brown Brownie: Oh, I didn’t realize you were trying to fit non-ideological non-representative herd-like minorities into a purely theoretical intra-ideological argument. Now I know.
@Rod Avissar: I have no way to base this claim, but I would still guess that this is not such a small minority. Being pro-gay and having gay friends, in big social circles in Israel , is cool. So is hating Arabs/thinking that ‘there is no one there to talk to and we must defend Sderot!!!!!1!’. And what do you mean by non-representative?
@Brown Brownie: I’m not sure how this sort of herdish point of view – I hold to such and such opinions because they’re cool – is pertinent to what is clearly a criticism of ideology. Perhaps you care to enlighten me on this.
The other side of that coin is, of course, what I meant by non-representative. The people you speak of – and the example you gave proves that fantastically well – don’t really represent any ideology. They’re not “Conservatives”, they’re sheep.
And their sheepiness makes their “pro-GLBT-ness”… Problematic. Fact is, the majority of Israelis tend to object to a prode parade at the nation’s capital city. You know, we wouldn’t want to hurt anybody’s feelings.
At any rate, I’m not going to criticise this herdish sort of involvement, not here nor anywhere. I deal with ideologies, not social pathology.
@Rod Avissar: A. Quite a few of them, actually. Not all right-wingers (in the sense of people who oppose geographical concessions to the Palestinians) are anti-gay-rights. Miki Eitan is a good example. I believe Rubi Rivlin would also support gay rights. I have real doubts whether Netanyahu himself opposes gay rights, although for political reasons, I would wager he will not support them outright.
B. I wonder why you think there are only two options: that which is morally abhorrent, and that which is morally desirable (virtue). Anything that doesn’t fall into these two categories simple cannot be talked of in terms of morality. That strikes me as wrong. There’s a third option, of that which is morally acceptable. Homosexuality can certainly be talked of in terms of morality – the fact that people do by itself means that it must be engaged with on those terms. But you have accepted the fallacy that so many anti-gays try to propagate – that by making gays morally acceptable, we’re turning gayness into a morally desirable quality, that people will be driven to become homosexuals because society supports it. Therefore, in their view, we must protect people by making this morally reprehensible. This is utter nonsense. Homosexuality is not “moral” in the sense of something that we must look up to and aspire to, but it is moral in the sense of something we must not condemn. It is morally acceptable, for exactly the reasons that you state, that is doesn’t hurt anyone and isn’t any of anyone’s business.
I want to interject. Rod, as far as I understand, was taking about **conservatives**, not about the Israeli rightwing. Some rightwingers are conservative (ideological religious settlers, for examples) and some are not (like Miki Eitan, Rivlin, Netanyaho I think, etc). Brown Brownie was talking about such people.
So, they believe that Israelis have rights, and that gays have rights. But they either: (i) don’t believe that Arabs deserve rights, or (ii) believe that Arabs deserve less rights than Jews, or (iii) believe that Arabs have the same right as Israelis, but “they attacked us and hate us so we have no choice”. Option (iii) is due to disinformation, and I hope it’s the most common.
@elad-vav: This is pretty much how I see this (option #3), only that I would still connect this to being conservative. I think that it is arguable that Netanyahu or Rivlin are conservatives to some extent (Netanyahu is clearly fiscally so, no? By the way, they are probably not misinformed – how would we explain this?). The ’sheep herd’ that Rod is talking about is definitely conservative, although such people would never be able to articulate a coherent ideology to which they hold (being a conservative is a default ideology).
You say “being a conservative is a default ideology”. I don’t think that’s true. In Scandinavia, for example, I’m betting that being liberal is a default ideology. In a tribal violent society, conservativism is a *dominant* (not “default”( ideology
About Israel I’m not even sure about that. AFAIK, a majority in Israel is tolerant of homosexuality, due to a “live and let live” reason; I’m open to being proven wrong.
Let’s not mix up fiscal conservativism with conervativism. This will just cause a conceptual mess, since the two are not tightly related (I would like to claim). They have connections, thus the name, but this will get us into a completely tangential discussion (take as an example Rudi W. Giuliani as an extreme example; McCain is also an example; in Israel, Olmert, Eitan, Benni Begin, many others).
So, Netanyahoo, I believe is *not* conservative. Rivlin isn’t either. The herd is not conservative. Some are, some are not. It’s another axis of the old “leftism” scale — national scale (pro/con settlement) economic scale (capitalist/socialist) and liberalism (liberal/conservative).
Nimrod: an answer to our discussion is coming. I’ll claim that conservatives believe in right for a minority (religious Jews), much like ideologic vegans believe in rights for all living things. I’ll claim that conservative rightwingers should actually re-brand themselves as “believing in Jewish rights”.
A lot to answer for indeed.
@Dubi Kanengisser:
A. Although this is not an essential point of the post, but rather a nice anecdote, let me correct you: Miki Eitan is a horrible example, as he promoted a bill that means single sex couples who got married abroad wouldn’t be able to register as married (A formal procedure with no costs or tax benefits as far as the government is concerned). Rivlin stand on this isn’t known – IIRC, he, Shimon Peres and Kolet Avital pulled a no-show at the vote on the bill to prohibit pride parades in Jerusalem, so as to not harm their presidency candidacy. As for Netanyahu, I wouldn’t be so sure. At any rate, even if you find the one Likud member who support gay rights, that would be the one exception proving the general rule.
B. No, this isn’t the spectrum I have in mind. It’s not that things are either virtues or vices. It’s that things are divided into 4 groups: Firstly, their divided into things that are a matter for moral evaluation and things that aren’t. Things that are not are generally what you call “Morally acceptable”, except that I don’t think of them that way. They’re neither good nor bad, a vice nor a virtue. They are just things people do, and there’s no reason to put them on a scale at all. Out of the things that ARE a matter for moral evaluation – which are only things that have to do with the clashing of different freedoms and rights – there are mostly debatable things. There’s no right or wrong here, only complex dilemmas and different methods of trying to solve them.
@Brown Brownie: The herd isn’t conservative at all. It’s attentive. They would support a peace agreement tomorrow morning if it’s popular, just like they supported the disengagement programme. And, they are still a minority.
I think part of the problem here is a fuzzy definition of conservativism.
I don’t think the right wing in israel is really conservative, if we use this term in a burkian way (which is probably the most common definition in the political philosophy field). Such conservativism’s main ideology is – if you’ll touch anything, you’d break it. People trying to change society never accomplish things the way they meant to, so the best line of action is doing nothing.
It’s true that such ideology fits best the laissez faire ideology, but that isn’t a rule – a conservative in sweden will object privatization and tax cuts, because you can’t know what would the consequences be.
This isn’t the ideological position of the right wingers in israel – the right in israel is part religious, part proto-facist, part liberal (in the european sense). Homophobia would go great with the first two, less so with the last one, and thus you have quite a line of right wingers who are pro-lgbt rights. you’d find them in the two strains of the liberal party – parts of the Likud and Kadima (Miki Eitan, Gideon Sa’ar, Zipi Livni, etc.) and the remains of Shinui.
@Nadav Perez: @Nadav Perez: I think the main problem here is that people are commenting on one sentence out of a whole post, and one that begins with “In general”. I didn’t hear a single refutation yet of my claim that IN GENERAL, Israeli right wing and homophobia go well together, and Israeli left-wing and gay rights go well together. That if you argue with someone who expresses homophobic views, most chances are he is also a right winger, and vice versa. Come on. Anyone? Please? So can we move on? Or does anyone else want to throw in a name of one MK that happens to be in a centre party and not think gays should be shot on sight? And while we’re at it, Miki Eitan, as I said, is a horrible example; and I’m looking for the remains of Shinui, where are they?
I know what I mean by conservative, and it is pretty clearly written. I do not mean the definition in terms of economy. Why would anyone think that I am, in a post that doesn’t address any economical issue? I wrote it carefully enough: “…conservatives as a whole support leaving things the way they are, or going backwards to the way they were – the tendency to accept religious laws as moral imperatives is just one aspect of this perception – whereas bleeding hearts of the kind that populates this blog are usually in favour of questioning status quo, holding it up to the light of scrutiny and altering and modernizing it in accordance to progress”.
That conservative pathology is a foundation of Israeli right wing. The whole perception of returning to a Jewish rein and not solving the conflict and keeping occupied land – that’s preservation of the status quo verbatim. For years, the left in Israel has been asking the right “So, what are you suggesting? What is YOUR solution?” exactly because the right never wants to actually solve. They either want to go backwards – returning the wreath, of you will – to an imagined glorious Jewish history (Remember Ariel Sharon’s party name?); or they want to preserve things – such as, the land, the oppression, the settlements – as they are. A few weeks ago the PM was trying to decide whether to commit to a two state solution. We were never told what the alternative is.
No, it’s pretty obvious that Israeli right wing pathology is a conservative one, and it is thus not surprising that most Israeli religious Jews – a religious people are the most conservative of them all, trained to do so by an unchangeable Halacha – are also right winged.
There is an interesting philosophical or rather political philosophy debate here, and I am not going to enter this debate at depth, this week exhausted me and I apologize. I want to say that generally we can see that politicans from the left support gay rights much more than ones from the right, in most if not all countries. The connection to respect for equality and liberty of the person versus less respect for these values is rather obvious IMHO.
Clearly in Israel this has always been the case with the champions of gay rights being mostly from the Meretz and left part of the Labor party (and actually most of them women: Shulamit Aloni, Yael Dayan, Zehava Galon, Shelly Yechimovitz…). Yes, there are some right wingers who are relatively OK but they were traditionally exceptions, and Ruvi Rivlin indeed was one of them. But he was never a Yael Dayan or Zehava Galon. Yes, he was among the sponsors of the equal employment bill many years ago and came to speak sometime at gay events. If you ask me the outstanding Likud person on these matters is going to be Gideon Saar, who wrote a strong oped about the current murders and went to one of the funerals. But when Miki Eytan, we are coming to him now, proposed the bill to prohibit registration of same-sex marriage, Gideon Saar and the other Likud gay friendly person, Limor Livnat, did not go in to vote agains it. The most they could do is not vote for it, just stayed out.
Now if you ask me Saar and Livnat are genuinely pro gay rights, its a product of their general liberal Tel Aviv surrondings, friends and family. Tzipi Livni is now joining this wagon and I must say with impressive statments. Any of these three yet has to show something like the commitment and positive support that people from the left did. None of them stood up when their religious cabinet colleagues said homophobic things, the same way the left people did. Livni said in the rally on Sunday that they must do a chesbon nefesh on this. I agree.
Of course I see a process where esp. Livni who now has only the center-left to rely on, is positioning herself more liberal on issues that are considered liberal. I do wish she’ll care about the massacre of children in Gaza and not only in Nachmani St. (same true to Saar and Livnat).
OK this is long response so will post it and then give Eytal his own response.
Re Miki Eytan
I met him many times when I came as an “expert” to the committee he chaired which tried to do a constitution ….
I was impressed that he is a person that listens and makes the hearings open to only one (unlike the “IDI”), and thought he himself was on a learning curve and re for example issues of the Arabs in Israel started getting closer to Rivlin.
Until we came to discuss family rights. For some reason I cannot access the protocol now. Eytan was rather obssesive that same sex couple is not a “family”. Now he did not take a totally right denial approach, he said maybe they should have some equal rights, or whichever rights are needed, but was insisting it cannot fall into family or marriage. Now I am one who doesn’t care much about labels, but his insistence was very troubling.
Later when the court held same sex marriages held overseas should be resgisterd in Israel he proposed a law to ban it. I wrote him that I was very disappointed with it. True, part of his reasoning was that the court should not force it. I told him that I would have been more convinced if he had proposed a statue to make equal rights for same sex couples in the Knesset and had fought for it, than I can buy more his argument that he does not oppose equality. I can’t find the emails from then (or his blog from then) but I do think he also had an opposition to marriage while saying he was otherwise for equal rights, but he never worked to advance them. When the bill passed preliminary hearing on a margin of one, because some labor and kadima people did not make it to the vote, we were worried, but eventually it died. His proposal by the way did not make any sense, the HCJ did not overrule a statute but rather implemented the ratio of the Cyprus marriage decision.
Finally, when there was the debate on the pride march in jerusalem Eytan was interviewed. He said, as chair of the knesset’s constitution and legislation committee, it’s my duty to guarantee each group can march in Jerusalem, but as to my personal opinion, I’d rather not express yet.
In short, as on many other issues Eytan is a complex political figure, but there is no way you can call the person who promoted anti-gay legislation a friend of gay rights.
Here, in Hebrew, is the bill (below) and after that arguments we prepared against it for lobbying at that time:
The bill:
>>
>>
>> הצעת חוק של חבר הכנסת
>> מיכאל איתן
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> פ/1762/17
>>
>> הצעת חוק מרשם האוכלוסין (תיקון – רישום נישואין), התשס”ז-2006
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> הוספת סעיף 3ב
>> 1.
>> בחוק מרשם האוכלוסין, התשכ”ה-1965[1][1], אחרי סעיף 3א יבוא:
>>
>>
>>
>> “רישום נישואין
>> 3ב.
>> לעניין רישום מצב אישי, כאמור בסעיף 2(א)(7), לא יראו אדם כנשוי אם
>> נישא לבן מינו, אלא אם הותרו נישואים כאמור בחוק”.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> דברי הסבר
>>
>> לאחרונה נקבע בבג”ץ 3045/05 יוסי בן ארי נ’ מנהל מינהל האוכלוסין (טרם
>> פורסם), כי פקיד הרישום במרשם האוכלוסין חייב לרשום כנשואים גם בני אותו מין
>> שנישאו כדין במדינה אחרת.
>>
>>
>>
>> הדרך להכניס לישראל מוסד מהפכני ופוגעני, לפחות לגבי חלק מהציבור, כמו
>> נישואין של בני אותו מין צריך להיות תוצאה של תהליך חברתי-פוליטי שמסתיים
>> בחקיקה ולא בדרך בירוקראטית-טכנית נטולת גישה ערכית. מוצע לקבוע, כי בסוגיית
>> הנישואין של בני אותו מין, לא יכיר פקיד הרישום בנישואי זוגות חד-מיניים, עד
>> אשר נישואין שכאלה יוכרו במפורש על ידי המחוקק.
>>
>>
>>
>> עד לאותו מועד יישאר הסטאטוס קוו, לפיו נישואין כאלה אינם מוכרים בישראל
>> ושאלות של מערכות יחסים בין בני אותו מין לרבות ניהול משק בית משותף יקבעו
>> על פי החוק הכללי.
>>
>> ————-
>>
>> הוגשה ליו”ר הכנסת והסגנים
>>
>> והונחה על שולחן הכנסת ביום
>>
>> ו’ בכסלו התשס”ז – 27.11.06
>>
>>
The arguments we prepared against it:
* פסק הדין של בג”צ לא קבע כי יש להכיר בנישואים של בני זוג מאותו מין אלא הדגיש שיש לרשום אותם במרשם האוכלוסין.
* כל אחד ואחת יכולים להסתכל בתעודת זהות ולראות שכתוב שם באותיות קטנות שהאמור בסעיף המעמד האישי (רווק, נשוי וכו’) אינו אפילו “ראיה לכאורה” לנכונותו – כלומר, לפי סע’ 3 לחוק מרשם האוכלוסין זהו רישום טכני פורמלי בלבד. אין בעצם הרישום משום “הכרה של מדינת ישראל” בנישואין אלה. בית המשפט מדגיש זאת שוב ושוב בפסק הדין.
* הדבר זהה לחלוטין למה שנפסק לפני ארבעים שנה לגבי נישואין של אישה נוצריה ויהודי שהתחתנו בקפריסין (תקדים פונק-שלזינגר) – הפקיד במשרד הפנים רושם את הנישואין על סמך תעודה מארץ זרה, לפקיד הרישום אין סמכות לברר או להכריע על תוקף הנישואין
* האמירה בהצעת החוק לפיה הנישואין לא ירשמו עד שהכנסת תכיר בנישואין כאלה מטעה: הכנסת מעולם לא עסקה ולא עוסקת בהכרה בנישואין. ההסדר עימו אנו חיים הוא שהכנסת הפקידה את נושא הנישואין בידי הדת, ומצד שני רושמים נישואין שנערכים בחו”ל, מה שאולי פוטר לאנשים בעיות בחיי היומיום אך לא מכירים בהם.
* הפתרון הזה, של אי הכרעה בשאלת ההכרה בנישואין שאינם דתיים בישראל (אנו לא “מכירים” בישראל בנישואין אזרחיים, בנישואין של יהודיה עם מי שאינו יהודי וכו’), בלי אקט של “הכרה” של הכנסת בנישואין כלשהם פרט לדתיים, אך תוך רישום של מה שנעשה בחו”ל במרשם האוכלוסין, הוא הפתרון הפשרתי שמאפשר את קיום המצב/סטטוס-קוו שבו לא מכריעים ב”תפוח האדמה הלוהט” של נישואין אזרחיים או הכרה בהם אך רושמים את מה שנעשה בחו”ל.
* לכן להציג את החוק כעניין של “עד שהכנסת תכריע” מטעה: אף אחד מאיתנו לא מצפה שפתאום הכנסת מחר תחליט להסדיר את כל נושא הנישואים האזרחיים, להכיר בסוגים מסויימים של נישואים אזרחיים וכו. הנושא לא יוסדר או יוכר על ידי הכנסת עד שתגיע יום אחד לעסוק לעומק בנישואים אזרחיים – ואין לייחד אותו (בצורה מפלה) ולהחליט שרק אותו לא רושמים עכשיו “עד שיכירו”.
* מבחינה זו בחוק יש משום תקדים מסוכן של ערעור “סטטוס-קוו” זה בו רושמים את הנישואין שנערכים בחו”ל, וזה יכול לפגוע לא רק בבני זוג מאותו מין אלא בכל מי שנישא בקפריסין וכו’, בכל הלא יהודים (כהלכה) שנישאים עם יהודים וכו’. ערעור הרישום הזה, שהוא אזרחי לחלוטין, הוא תקדים מסוכן לעולים שלא מוכרים כיהודים, נישואין כהן-גרושה וכו’. [אמירה רלבנטית לכולם אבל חשובה מאוד לחכ"ים ממוצא רוסי וכו'. מצד שני לא טובה למי מרקע דתי/מסורתי יותר]
* הרישום עשוי לעזור ביום יום אף אם אין בו משום הכרה. לדוגמא: אדם נמצא בבית חולים וצריך לקבל הכרעה רפואית דחופה לגבי מצבו. רישום בתעודת הזהות יכול לעזור באותו רגע לבן הזוג להראות שהוא בן-זוגו. לא סביר לשלוח אותו באותו רגע של מצב חירום לעורך דין ליפוי כוח או לתצהיר ורוב האנשים לא נערכים למצבים כאלה מראש.
* מדובר בהצעת חוק שנועדה להפלות קבוצה מסוימת בכוונה, וזהו גם תקדים מסוכן. ביחוד שאין כאן כל סיבה מיוחדת (מסוג הטיעונים הבטחוניים וכו’) להצדיק אפליה זו. [אמירה חשובה ביחוד לשמאל ולמרכז, לגבי הערבים גם כן אם כי צריך להזהר כי הם יודעים היטב שיש חוקים שמפלים אותם, ביחוד חוק האזרחות, ולא להצדיק אותו או את טיעוניו ה"בטחוניים" כמובן. האמירה פחות רלבנטית לאנשי ימין שחוקים שמאפשרים להפלות קבוצות שונות, כלומר ערבים, הם דווקא תקדים חיובי עבורם]
* אין כל עילה או סיבה דתית: הרישום הוא דבר טכני במרשם האוכלוסין. הרי מבחינה דתית נישואי יהודיה עם מי שאינו יהודי פסולים ביותר ובכל זאת רושמים גם אותם, כך שאין כל מקום להתלות בכך שנישואין של בני זוג מאותו מין לא מוכרים בהלכה האורתודוסקית.
* יש כאן גם תקדים מסוכן של עקיפת פסק דין שניתן ברוב גדול בהרכב מורחב בבג”צ, דבר שהכנסת נמנעת מלעשות אותו. [אמירה רלבנטית ביחוד לחסידי שלטון החוק ובג"צ, ממש לא טובה למתנגדים לבג"צ והתערבותו, עבורם ראו המסרים הבאים].
* בפסק הדין לא היה כלל משום התערבות או “אקטיביזים”, אלא יישום חוק מרשם האוכלוסין בדיוק על סמך הפסיקה הקודמת.
* ההפך, לו בג”צ היה מונע את הרישום הוא היה נוקט עמדה ערכית “אקטיביסית” השונה מהפסיקה הנוכחית.
* מעבר של החוק יהיה תקדים מסוכן לא רק של חוק נגד קבוצת אוכלוסיה מסויימת אלא גם של חוק שמבטא את הצלחת הכפייה הדתית, למרות שח”כ איתן הציע את החוק עיקר התמיכה שהוא יקבל יהיה ממפלגות דתיות שלמרבה הצער נוקטות בעמדות של כפייה דתית. [אמירה טובה ביחוד לידועים בהתנגדות לכפיה דתית]
* החוק יעודד את הקבוצות האלה לנסות להעביר עוד חוקים של כפיה דתית, עוקפי בג”צ, ופוגעים בזכויות של קבוצות שונות. [כנ"ל]
מילים בדבר הצ”ח רישום נישואין של בני אותו המין
לפני למעלה מארבעים שנה ניתן פסק דין פונק-שלזינגר. פסק הדין קבע כי יש לרשום בישראל נישואין של נוצריה ויהודי שהתחתנו בקפריסין, מאחר ומשרד הפנים צריך לרשום נישואין כאלו בתעודת הזהות, בלי קשר לשאלת ההכרה בנישואין אזרחים או “נישואי תערובת” בחו”ל. פסק הדין החדש ממשיך בדיוק את אותו הגיון. הוא לא עוסק בהכרה בנישואין האלה, שזו שאלה משפטית אחרת. אני מבין שההבחנה הזו לא ברורה אולי ללא משפטנים, אבל היא משמעותית. אכן בג”צ הדגיש בפסק הדין שפסק הדין עוסק ברישום במרשם האוכלוסין, שנעשה לפי תעודה ציבורית מחו”ל ולא בהכרה או בשאלת קיום נישואין של בני זוג מאותו מין בארץ.
נכון שהרישום יכול לעזור לאנשים בענינים מעשיים לעתים אבל אין הוא מהווה הכרה של המדינה. אפילו כתוב בחוק מרשם האוכלוסין, סעיף 3, כל אחד יכול לראות, שיש פרטים במרשם האוכלוסין שהם ראיה לכאורה לנכונותם, בעוד שרישום סעיף המעמד האישי אינו אחד מהם – כמו שכתוב לנו בתעודת הזהות באותיות קטנות למטה. כלומר, שוב, אין ברישום משום הכרה של המדינה בנישואין, אלא רישום על סמך תעודה מחו”ל שהמדינה רשמה את המידע הזה. שוב, כאמור, נכון שהרישום יכול לעזור לעתים ביומיום, אבל המדינה לא מכריזה בזאת שהיא מכירה בכך, בדיוק כפי שלא הכריזה שהיא מכירה בנישואין אזרחיים, נישואי “תערובת” של נוצריה ויהודי.
אם הכנסת תחוקק חוק שיבחין את הנישואין שנערכו בחו”ל בין בני זוג מאותו מין ויקבע שדווקא הם לא יירשמו, יעורער המבנה הזה. וזה גם יהיה חוק, לראשונה בתולדות המדינה, שנחקק מראש במכוון נגד קבוצה של אזרחי המדינה כדי להפלות אותה (ובלי שיש טיעון בטחוני זה או אחר מהסוג שמועלה למשל בחוק האזרחות). מסיבה זו אני סובר שהחוק גם אינו חוקתי ובג”צ יפסול אותו מטעמי פגיעה בזכויות של כבוד האדם, וכן שוויון (וחיי משפחה) – שהוכרו בפסיקה כנובעות מהזכות לכבוד. הרי תארו לעצמך מצב שזוג מאותו מין חוזר מקנדה או דרום אפריקה או מדינה אחרת שיש בה נישואין כאלה, ולעומתו זוג של בני זוג ממין שונה אך גם מדתות שונות חוזר מקפריסין, הרי שני הזוגות לא מוכרים על פי ההלכה האורתודוקסית, כך שאין כל סיבה שניתן להצדיקה להבחין ביניהם לצורך הרישום. מכל מקום חוק כזה יהיה כתם שחור על ספר החוקים, ובעיקר כתם מיותר.
אשר לנאמר בהצעת החוק כאילו אין לרשום הנישואין עד שלא יוכר ובישראל: הרי שמדובר בטעות והטעיה, שכן הכנסת אינה מכירה בנישואין ומעולם לא הכירה בנישואין אזרחיים כן או לא, אלא “הפקידה” את הנושא בידי הגופיים הדתיים הרלבנטים. לכן האמירה שיש “להקפיא” רישום כזה עד שהכנסת תחליט אם להכיר או לא, חותרת תחת ההבחנה בין רישום והכרה, ואינה רלבנטית כל עוד הכנסת לא מחליטה להתחיל לקבוע באיזה נישואין היא מכירה ואיזה לא (נישואי קפריסין בין יהודי לשאינה יהודיה? אפרופו פסק דין פונק-שלזינגר, שהכנסת מעולם לא החליטה אם להכיר או לא להכיר בהם). לכן אם הכנסת תחוקק חוק שיבחין את הנישואין שנערכו בחו”ל בין בני זוג מאותו מין ויקבע שדווקא הם לא יירשמו, יעורער המבנה המשפטי הקיים שמאפשר את קיום המציאות בה אנו חיים במדינה מזה לפחות ארבעים שנה – נישואין דתיים בלבד בישראל כל עוד לא יאמר המחוקק אחרת, ורישום של נישואין בחו”ל במרשם האוכלוסין.
בברכה
אייל גרוס
ד”ר אייל גרוס
הפקולטה למשפטים
אוניברסיטת תל-אביב
Rod: I agree with yout general claim that most right-wingers are homophobic. Thoght that was clear from my comment. I only tried to point out the nuances lost by using the term ‘conservative’ the way you did.
And it’s not that I did not understand your use of the term – I understand, and think you don’t use it correctly, or at least – not in a way conssistent with the common use of the term in political philosophy. All the definitions of conservativism that I know of, do not include trying to establish a theocrathy (Shas) or taking away citizen-palestinians citizenship (Lieberman), so labeling the Israely right as ‘conservative’ is incorrect, and even worse – unproductive.
@Rod
The fact “IN GENERAL, Israeli right wing and homophobia go well together” (If it is a fact at all), doesn’t necessarily prove your point. A different explanation is that both are related to being religious or masorti. There are obvious reasons why religious Jews would IN GENERAL be right wing and homophobic. The secular ones would adopt the major beliefs of their group.
“bleeding hearts of the kind that populates this blog are usually in favour of questioning status quo” – not really. We want to keep the status quo on many things, e.g. the power of the supreme court. It is also not true that “Liberals, on the other hand, tend to ask questions”. Insulting the opposition is not getting us anywhere, especially saying that “the Most unbelievably stupid claim ever made” is actually “a good – if rather extreme – example of the way a conservative mind works”.
You claim that according to liberal views, what adults do in their time should be no concern of society. Do you think that opposing prostitution is a conservative view?
@Moddy: both conservative and liberals views oppose prostitution – but for different reasons.
a conservative will claim prostitution defies morals set by either religion or “family values” or something like that.
the liberal opposition to prostitution is based on the human rights of the prostitutes that are being trampled.
@Rod Avissar: One point I’ll have to disagree with is that homophobia implies a right-wing attitude. While I’ll agree that the opposite usually goes hand in hand with a left-wing outlook, you’ll find that many people who would be defined by most as left-winged – supporting self-determination for Palestinians and minorities and all the rest – will often finish a statement like “I believe homosexuals should live in peace just like everyone else” with the obligatory “but let me just state that I’m straight”. When parents tell their children “I don’t have a problem with you being gay… but there’s no need for the neighbors to know”. That’s homophobia, and it’s rampant in every quarter of society, both left and right.
[...] לפוסט על מערכת המשפט והדמוקרטיה. תגובתי בוא תבוא. שנית, טקסט נוסף שלי עלה לישרא-לפט, גם הוא בעקבות הרצח. דיון מעניין מתפתח [...]
[...] אציע עבורו את הדיון הצדדי הבא, שחלקים ממנו הובאו כבר בפוסט שכתבתי לישראלפט. בהמשך הטיעון שלי, הטענות לעיל עוד [...]