(Background information. JP distributed a booklet that covers such subjects as Common-law Relationships and all the legal ramifications, the children of these "relationships", including artificial means needed if for some reason "natural" doesn't seem to be working -{ wonder why?}, Same-sex relationships beautifully illustrated with a picture of a Catholic actress, and such other happy Jewish subjects)
It is a sad day when your newspaper can see it as proper to distribute a booklet such as the New Family "guide book for cohabitation" that came with the paper last week, especially in the days immediately preceding Yom Kippur. Maybe your reasoning is that it's an advert and covered by your usual disclaimer that content of paid material is not your responsibility, but that's a weak excuse in this case.
It's especially sad that a publication that could have made such a strong case to right a specific wrong in Israeli society - the domination in marriage law of the Orthodox courts - has allowed itself to be hijacked into a polemic justifying, indeed, praising, the destruction of the family as a basic fundamental component of society.
A clue to where this travesty get's its morals from comes in columnist Irit Rosenblum's opening statement. "The definition of 'family' underwent a global earthquake some 200 years ago when the Western world began to worship the individual and individual rights on the altar of social progress". Her word-picture is exactly right - worship at an altar, which calls to mind sacrifice, blood-letting and pain. "Individual rights" has turned into an iconic catch-phrase which seems to trump all other moral and social concerns. And what has been sacrificed at her altar is the idea of a target, a "golden fleece", to which people should aspire. She tells us that rights to marriage in Israel are improperly restricted. She's absolutely correct, but the solution is not to do away with marriage, as she is advocating, but to correct the law to remove the restrictions.
To extend her argument. Anyone should be able to "cohabit" with whomever they want. It's purely a matter of "individual choice". If that's OK, then anyone should be able to imbibe whatever chemical substances they want - dope, smack, coke - it's their choice. Next, anyone should be able to have sex with whomever (or whatever) they want - it's their right. The slippery slope leads to the total breakdown of society, till we end up with a collection of individuals who have no absolute standards by which they can interact, other than "it's right for me!".
Marriage between consenting men and women must remain the target to which we want people to aspire. It carries within it the future of an ordered, functional society. The law should allow for other choices, but they are not the norm and there should be a clear, positive message coming out of our publications, courts and schools that point to the desired outcome instead of elevating the alternatives.
