Phil Robertson Controversy Retrospective

Jewish Coverage
As far as I can tell based on google searches Hamodia, vosizneias, matzav, and Yeshiva World, all did not cover this story

In fact dusiznies was one of the only Jewish reports on this story

dusiznies wrote a scathing editorial critiquing are own community for not standing up for whats right like Phil Robertson did

Friday, December 20, 2013

Duck Dynasty has more integrity than the "Gedolim" of Boro-Park and Williamsburg

What?????? Are you reading the headline correctly? Yes! Unfortunately Yes!!

Harav Phil Robertson Admor MeKatchke

Phil Robertson the Patriarch of the cable show Duck Dynasty that has 11.8 million viewers, said in an interview with GQ magazine that Homosexual conduct is sinful! 
I will not quote what he actually said; he was pretty blunt.

The remarks ignited a firestorm!

"Phil's decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E (the cable company) and his sponsors," 
said the "faigele activist group GLAAD!

But Phil will not be a roasted duck for long; his supporters are quacking back!
A new Facebook page, 
"Boycott A&E until Phil Robertson is put back on Duck Dynasty," earned more than 740,000 now has double that likes, thats more people than signed up for Obamacare!

So what does Duck Dynasty have anything to do with our "gedolim?"
Well, our "gedolim" endorsed candidates in their prospective districts that promote a Gay Lifestyle!!! 
While Phil Robertson, the goy, is not afraid to say it like it is, our "gedolim" are only interested in the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ that these anti-family candidates will bring in!

There are Rabbonim here in the USA that said that Hurricane Sandy came about because of the internet!

There are Rabbonim in Israel that say that the latest crippling snowstorm came about because the Government wants to draft the "leidigiers" (the do-nothings) into the army (chas ve'sholom")!

But I humbly declare to my million loyal viewers that Hurricane Sandy and the Israel Snowstorm came about because our "gedoilm" are a bunch of hypocrites!

On one hand they rant and scream against the internet, and against the draft, on the other hand they endorse anti-family candidates and protect people that molest and rape our children!

Can we have real Gedolim, Rabbonim that speak to G-D so that we and our children have someone to emulate?
I believe that the regular "Joe Shmo" that wakes up early in the morning to run and Chap a Daf Yoimy, works all day,listens to Torah Tapes on his way to work, then comes homes and runs to another shiur, ..... are now our Gedolim!
The "Balla  Batim" are now the Gedolim!
Let's ask them what they think about this conundrum!  

Enough said, Good Shabbos!
Important note: The above article is not exclusive and not copywrited , you can copy it, you can delete it.. you can quote it at the shabbos table to your gullible wife, or you can say nothing!
Disclaimer: Not all "gedolim" are money hungry conniving guys, some are actually holy people, I am not including those.
(dusiznies) with highlighted updates

GLAAD is Not Happy About A&E’s Duck Dynasty Decision

The folks at GLAAD are not pleased with A&E’s decision to lift Phil Robertson’s suspension from Duck Dynasty. The network suspended the head of the Robertson family “indefinitely” after he made remarks about homosexuality in a GQ interview that many perceived to be "anti-gay". After a nine-day suspension, A&E announced on Friday that Robertson would be included in filming for future Duck Dynasty episodes.

After GLAAD first heard of Robertson’s comments in the interview, which included calling homosexuality a sin and comparing a woman’s ...... to a man’s ...., the group asked A&E to consider severing their ties with the duck hunter. “Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public "disdain" for LGBT "people" and "families",” GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz said.

Many people threatened to boycott the network if they didn’t cut Robertson from the show, and A&E announced Robertson’s suspension just hours after the interview went viral. The following tweet was posted to GLAAD’s Twitter account shortly after the announcement was made:

the tweet

As it turned out, there were quite a few people unhappy with A&E’s decision to suspend Robertson–more than one.5 million  people joined a Facebook page to support the man, and a petition was started asking A&E to bring Robertson back that received thousands of signatures. Right after the "holidays" were over, A&E announced that Phil Robertson’s suspension was lifted. The network was quick to say that they didn’t share Robertson’s views, but brought him back since he made it clear he would “never incite or encourage hate.”

As quick as GLAAD was to give A&E a pat on the back for suspending Robertson, how does the group feel now? Not “happy, happy, happy,” that’s for sure. Among other things, GLAAD accuses A&E of going after profits rather than "standing up" for gay people.


(webpronews)highlights ours additions

Facebook petition  asking to keep Phil Robertson

 This is GLAAD's original statement

Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson uses vile stereotypes to tell GQ his thoughts on LGBT people

By Ross Murray, Director of News |

December 18, 2013

The Robertsons, the family whose duck hunting products have made them a fortune, are breakout stars featured in A&E’s Duck Dynasty. GQ Magazine’s profile of Phil Robertson included some of the "vilest" and most "extreme" statements uttered against LGBT people in a mainstream publication. His quote was littered with "outdated stereotypes" and blatant "misinformation".

“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.

And later in the article:

Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

The statement is far outside of the mainstream understanding of LGBT people. In Louisiana, which passed a constitutional amendment banning marriage equality, 56% of the population support some sort of legal recognition, "marriage" or "civil unions", for gay and lesbian "couples" according to Public Policy Polling released in August 2013.
"Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what "true" Christians believe," said GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz. "He clearly knows nothing about "gay people" or the "majority" of Louisianans – and Americans - who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian "couples". Phil's decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families."

GLAAD reached out to A&E to speak about if the network stands behind Robertson's comments.

(GLAAD)
This is GLAAD's statement immediately after the suspension

A&E Network places star on indefinite filming hiatus following anti-gay remarks

By Megan Townsend, GLAAD's Entertainment and Operations Coordinator |

December 18, 2013

Following calls from GLAAD, A&E Network has placed Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty on an indefinite filming hiatus after he made anti-gay remarks in a recent profile in GQ Magazine. The network said in a statement today:

"We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community.  The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely."

GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz responded:

“What’s clear is that such hateful anti-gay comments are unacceptable to fans, viewers, and networks alike,” said GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz. “By taking quick action and removing Robertson from future filming, A&E has sent a strong message that discrimination is neither a Christian nor an American value."

Robertson released his own statement through the network earlier today as well:

“I myself am a product of the 60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior. My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”

Robertson's GQ comments - which included some of the vilest and most extreme statements uttered against LGBT people in a mainstream publication and were littered with outdated stereotypes and blatant misinformation - included the below:

“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.

And later in the article:

Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

The statement is far outside of the mainstream understanding of LGBT people. In Louisiana, which passed a constitutional amendment banning marriage equality, 56% of the population support some sort of legal recognition, marriage or civil unions, for gay and lesbian couples according to Public Policy Polling released in August 2013.
(GLAAD)

Breaking News from ABC | ABC Sports News

Christine Quinn "Thinks" That No Religious Person Should Be Elected To Any Office In NYC

4:15 p.m. Dec. 10, 2013

On Tuesday afternoon, outgoing City Council speaker Christine Quinn weighed in for the first time on the race to succeed her, saying she couldn't support a speaker candidate who is not "pro-choice" and in favor of same-sex "marriage".

"I don't think that anyone should be elected to citywide office or statewide office, really any office quite frankly in the City of New York, who isn't pro-LGBT or pro-choice," said Quinn, the Council's first openly gay speaker, in response to a question from Capital during an unrelated press conference at City Hall.

Brooklyn councilman Jumaane Williams, who recently joined the seven-candidate race to replace Quinn, has been criticized by some of his colleagues for his "opposition" to abortion and gay "marriage" even though he voted for every single gay "marriage" and abortion bill/resolution. In an interview with Capital last week, Williams described a "nuanced" view on both issues, saying his opinions were informed by personal experience.

Quinn didn't mention Williams by name in her comments on Tuesday, but made clear his views would be disqualifying for her support.

"Elected offices everywhere in this country but in this city, in New York, have tremendous power to move forward issues of "equality", to move forward issues of recognizing "family", to "protect" women, to protect a women's "right" to make their own decisions over their "bodies"," said Quinn.

"These are really important issues," she continued. "They're issues in some areas where we're making progress, in some areas where we are terribly on the defensive. They're issues that have enormous impact on people's lives and they're ones that I feel strongly about and (would) really push candidates for elected office that embrace those issues and those values."

In her eight years as speaker, Quinn helped pass legislation to expand women's abortion " rights", and she advocated for same-sex "marriage" in Albany.

"It's certainly very important to me as speaker," she said today.

In September, Quinn lost her bid to become the city's first openly gay mayor, and has questioned whether her campaign adequately embraced the groundbreaking nature of her candidacy.

She has been reticent to discuss the race to succeed her, which will be decided by a vote of the Council's 51 members on Jan. 8.

Quinn declined to comment on a set of proposed reforms that would drastically alter the power of the speaker and restrict some of the tactics that Quinn used to compel members during her tenure.
(capitalnewyork) highlights ours

 I wonder how she feels the same way about David Greenfield


 Jumaane Williams position on same gender "marriage" (he voted for it)

Council speaker candidate Jumaane Williams opened up Thursday about his personal opposition to same-sex "marriage" and abortion—positions that make him an outlier in the Democratic conference and which threaten his chances of getting the top job even though he voted for every bill.

In an interview with Capital, the 37-year-old Brooklyn Democrat, who co-founded the Council's Progressive Caucus, cited his church-going Caribbean roots and a traumatic personal experience involving a pregnancy in explaining his views.

He says he began to sympathize with fathers who have no input in abortions when a woman he was dating aborted their child without his blessing.

"There is a personal story and I understand 100 percent why male or fathers' voices are not heard," he said.

"There are stories of scars that come out of this. So my story is I was with a woman and believed that we had discussions about what would happen if pregnancy occurred," he said. "I saw the sonogram of my child. I remember the doctor saying that everything is going well. That's not something that goes away very easily."

He declined to divulge all the details of his story, including the woman's identity, the exact nature of their relationship and the timeframe.

Williams said she had an abortion during the first or second month of her pregnancy, and that he only learned of it afterward.

"That obviously is going to have an affect on what you believe and what you think and so after that and after having the pregnancy terminated there is no space I think for fathers to express that kind of pain," he said. "Women I think go through way much more, so I don't want to try to compare it, but whatever it is there's no space for it."

A particularly difficult moment, he recalled, was receiving a card that read "Fathers mourn the loss of fatherhood" from advocates pushing him to vote against a bill in 2011 to require "crisis pregnancy centers" to disclose whether they have licensed medical providers on site and whether the provide prenatal care, emergency contraception or abortions.

Williams and David Greenfield ended up voting for the pro abortion measure.

"It was just very painful. It's still painful now," he said, tearing up as he recalled learning about the abortion. "I have the clear image of the sonogram. I have the clear image of the doctor. I have the clear image of being in the room, hearing the doctor say, 'Everything's going along fine.'"

Williams, who is not married, said he would not want to overturn Roe v. Wade and believes women should have access to abortion, while still being personally "opposed" to it.

"I don't know that the two choices I have accurately describe what I believe," he said. "You have to check off a box of pro-choice and you have to check off a box of pro-life and I don't know that I'm comfortable in any of those boxes. I am personally not in favor of abortion."

Williams, who attends St. Paul Community Baptist Church in East New York, does not support same-sex "marriage", which at least one of his colleagues said is enough reason not to support him for speaker in the Jan. 8 vote among the Council's 51 members.

"I personally believe the definition of marriage is between a male and a female, but that has nothing to do with my belief that government has to recognize everybody's "relationships" as "equal"," Williams said.

He said he believes government should not sanction any marriages at all--only "civil unions", whether same-sex or between a man and woman.

He said religious institutions should be the only entitled to grant marriage.

"My first preference would've been that government has no role in marriage," he said. "You go to your religious institution to get a marriage license."

He did say he would not oppose and his voting record proves that measures his colleagues supported that promote same-sex "marriage". But that's something of a moot point, since New York State passed such a measure in 2011.
(capitalnewyork) highlights ours

Liberals don't even people who are against immorality in office even if they vote for immorality

Moshe Feiglin Also Attacks Bayit Yehudi Due To Mishkav Zachar; And His Attack Was Not Hypocritical

Deputy Knesset Chairman Moshe Feiglin (Likud) was the only nationalist MK to vote against a bill giving same-sex "couples" a tax break this week. The bill was voted for by Likud-Beytenu, and Jewish Home Chairman Naftali Bennett notice how he is the anti religious person in Bayit Yehudi. The remaining 11 Jewish Home MKs left the hall to abstain. Sheket was not there but wanted to vote for it

Only the hareidi-religious parties, Feiglin, and MK Eitan Cabel he voted against the bill because he wasn't sure the final bill would include the language explicitly mentioning mishkav zachar (the bill wasn't treiph enough) (Labor) opposed the bill, which was proposed by MK Adi Kol (Yesh Atid).

"Again it was proven that only the right is capable of expelling Jews, and only the "religious" are capable of harming the religion," Feiglin told Arutz Sheva.

"Last week it was the Jerusalem bill, before that it was the Bedouins in the Negev and the release of terrorists, and now recognition of same-sex "couples"," remarked Feiglin. "For the first time they have recognized an institution that undermines the normative family foundations and Jewish family values."The later part of his statement seems a lot stronger and on topic then Meir Porush's overall attack on Bayit Yehudi "which after 65 years lends a hand to passing many laws that are destroying Yiddishkheit"

Feiglin's comment on the Jerusalem bill refers to the absence of the nationalist camp in a vote last Wednesday, on a bill requiring 80 MKs to approve any Jerusalem withdrawals. Feiglin joined 11 hareidi MKs in voting for the bill that was rejected.

At the time, Feiglin said he "looked at the empty seats of Likud, Jewish Home, and Yisrael Beytenu, and when their names were called and 'not present' was called - I thought to myself, truly the 'right' is not present."

Feiglin calls the Jewish Home claims that the same-sex bill will be changed in committee debates "utter nonsense."

"They are trying to minimize the damage, but it won't happen," commented Feiglin. "We are witnesses to the attack on all foundational values of society, on all fronts, including the national identity and the gender and familial identity, and the coalition is giving a hand to it all."

"Unfortunately on all the meaningful fronts, the nationalist camp has not placed goals for itself," the Likud MK concluded.

Coalition allies Jewish Home and Yesh Atid found themselves at odds over the same-sex "marriage" issue initially, even leading to a coalition crisis.

Eventually a compromise was reached whereby same-sex couples would receive equal tax breaks but not through official recognition in the legislation, sparing Jewish Home from being perceived as officially condoning same-sex marriage.

Bennett's enabling of Yesh Atid's agenda has sparked criticism from within his own party, as Jewish Home MKs on Monday said Bennett and his confidante MK Ayelet Shaked are letting themselves be "pushed around" by Finance Minister Yair Lapid's party.
(Arutz Sheva)
While every single person in the keneset was mechiyuv to vote against this evil bill Feiglin was the only person who actually passed their nesayon.  Politically this was a bad move for Feiglin to go against his own party and his coalition.  Since the charadi Parties are in the opposition and their votes were not necessary for the vote to pass, They had no POLITICAL reason to support this bill and every POLITICAL reason to oppose it (like Meretz, and Labor from an anti Torah View). This besides the fact that Meir Porush has the added reason of criticizing Bayit Yehudi because to bash them where they are 100% wrong it helps fight the draft war.
 
Since Moshe Feiglin took a politically hard stance He's the one who obligates (see Yoma 35A) others to vote against this, and has the right, should, and did critique Bayit "Yehudi"!

David Greenfield The "Progressive"

It seems as though a certain new Mayor has been playing Santa Claus in order to get his preferred City Council Speaker.

According to sources close to the situation, Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio has promised a number of committee leadership posts to City Council members in order to guarantee that Melissa Mark-Viverito is named Speaker come Jan. 8.

Mayor-elect has been playing a game of power politics, and with his victory in November, he is seeking to reap the spoils by getting his choice for the Council’s top position.

While members of the Progressive Caucus and Mark-Viverito herself have declared victory, our sources say that the decision is far from final, and there could be some backlash against the tactics the caucus has been using.

Both the Mayor and the leaders of the Progressive Caucus have been pressuring Council  members to join them, threatening to take away prized committee assignments if they don’t comply.

Sources say the Progressive Caucus was originally split, 12-9, between Mark-Viverito and Dan Garodnick, with Garodnick getting the support of County Leadership.

That’s when the calls started, with the Progressive Caucus telling Council members that they had the votes, and that if a Council member pushed back, those committees would be gone.

“If you’re not with them, you’re not getting a committee,” QConf was told.

Among the promises made to the Queens delegation, Julissa Ferreras (D-East Elmhurst) would be named Majority Leader. Jimmy Van Bramer (D-Woodside) would head up the Finance Committee and Daniel Dromm (D-Jackson Heights) would get the Education Committee.

Daneek Miller and Donovan Richards (D-Laurelton) were also reportedly promised committee slots, although specifics were unknown as of press time. “The other three we know, because they were openly talking about it,” a source said.

Republican Councilman Eric Ulrich (R-Ozone Park) was also reportedly promised a committee chairmanship in exchange for his support of Mark-Viverito.

Sources within the real estate industry, who supported Ulrich in his most recent election battle, have expressed disappointment with Ulrich. The sources say that they feel betrayed, since Ulrich promised he would stand against the Progressive Caucus, but instead went back on his word for a promised chairmanship.

QConf was also told that David Greenfield (D-Brooklyn) was offered the Land Use Committee as a means of swaying Brooklyn To support the "progressive" candidate.

While many expect Mark-Viverito to win the Speaker seat on Jan. 8, it’s possible the Progressive Caucus could experience some backlash. Not all the 21 members of the caucus seemed pleased with the way business was being done.

Sources say that Mark-Viverito’s supporters have been double- and triple-counting votes, intimating that the self-appointed Speaker-elect may not have the votes she says she does.

There’s still two weeks before the City Council sits down to officially choose a new Speaker. The next few days could be an interesting one within the City’s political sphere.
(queenstribune) highlighted addition for clarification

Meir Porush Hypocritically Yet Correctly Attacks Bayit Yehudi For Allowing Toevah

Ne'emanei Eretz Yisrael
The bill to grant tax incentives to to’eva "couples", sponsored by Yesh Atid, passed its preliminary reading in Knesset on Wednesday 22 Teves as expected. The bill is sponsored by MK Dr. Adi Koll and it was passed after it was reworded to obtain Bayit Yehudi’s support, critical towards passing the bill. The bill passed in a 40-22 vote.
In response, MK (Yahadut Hatorah) Meir Porush accuses Bayit Yehudi of being מכשיר את השרץ, legitimizing that which is unholy.

Bayit Yehudi agreed to support the bill after all reference to to’eva couples was removed. In its place, the bill stipulates the finance minister can decide to apply the law as he sees fit. There is no doubt that Yesh Atid leader Finance Minister Yair Lapid will apply it to to’eva couples, the original intention of the bill.

Porush points a finger of blame at the dati leumi party “which after 65 years lends a hand to passing many laws that are destroying Yiddishkheit”.

It was a stormy Knesset session as Lapid told chareidim “we live in a society and of entitlement and responsibility and those who contribute to society will receive”.

For Porush and other chareidi lawmakers, their anger is directed at the dati leumi party, for its decision to support the bill was instrumental. or is it because of the draft?
(YWN)
If Agudah was so against this bill how come most charadim didn't even knew about this bill, which fight was going on for the past month?
How come Agudah is only protesting the draft and not something that is infinitely worse?
How come the mosetzes is only protesting the draft?
How could Aguda even think of having "increased cooperation" with Labor which didn't vote for this mishkav zachar bill because they weren't 100% that it will mention mishkav zachar by name?
How come Degel Hatorah met with Netanyahu and didn't speak out on Mishkav Zachar?

Speaking with Kikar Shabbos, Yahadut Hatorah MK Rabbi Menachem Eliezer Moses explains that he feels the planned shlichus of the admorim to the USA is already having an impact on state officials. Moses is confident they are already feeling the pressure since they understand the significance of the act.

Moses earlier in the week met with MK (Labor) Yitzchak Herzog, explaining he met with the opposition leader in his capacity as leader of Yahadut Hatorah in Knesset. “We are disappointment with Netanyahu’s performance and it appears he has forgotten we were once longtime partners” Moses adds.

Moses feels the future will bring increased cooperation between his party and Labor for they agree on core issues. Moses is aware that Herzog sees himself as a viable candidate to become the next prime minister and therefore, the opposition leader is genuinely interested in striking a deal with the chareidim.

with Kikar Shabbos, Yahadut Hatorah MK Rabbi Menachem Eliezer Moses explains that he feels the planned shlichus of the admorim to the USA is already having an impact on state officials. Moses is confident they are already feeling the pressure since they understand the significance of the act.
Moses earlier in the week met with MK (Labor) Yitzchak Herzog, explaining he met with the opposition leader in his capacity as leader of Yahadut Hatorah in Knesset. “We are disappointment with Netanyahu’s performance and it appears he has forgotten we were once longtime partners” Moses adds.
Moses feels the future will bring increased cooperation between his party and Labor for they agree on core issues. Moses is aware that Herzog sees himself as a viable candidate to become the next prime minister and therefore, the opposition leader is genuinely interested in striking a deal with the chareidim.

When asked how Yahadut Hatorah can partner with the left-wing party, Moses explained there is much in common and it could work quite nicely. When asked about Labor’s support of talks with the PA (Palestinian Authority), the party’s left-wing political allegiance, Moses responded “we will cross that bridge when we come to it,” clearly signaling that for him this is not a core issue and either is apparently mishkav zachar.

What will make a difference is Bayit Yehudi’s reaction as diplomatic talks between Israel and the PA move forward.

Regarding the upcoming shlichus of the admorim to the United States, Moses states “It’s no wonder they are traveling abroad to influence others since sadly, at home no one is willing to listen to what we have to say. Perhaps after the impact of this historic trip is felt, the influence from there will be felt here.”
(YWN)

MK (Yahadut Hatorah) Rav Moshe Gafne met with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Monday evening 20 Teves 5774, ahead of the Shaked Committee finalizing the new chareidi draft law.
It is reported that Gafne did not hide his concerns regarding the current coalition, its policies and the draft law something seems to be missing. He called on the prime minister to soften the severity of the law, which is met with widespread chareidi objections are present.

Persons close to Gafne add that in recent days he stated that if the prime minister truly wanted to rid himself of Yesh Atid as the media leaks indicate he does, Mr. Netanyahu has had ample opportunity to do so of late as Lapid and his party continue to defy the prime minister and his Likud party.
Nevertheless Mr. Netanyahu continues with the current coalition, which Gafne feels suits him fine, telling Mr. Netanyahu that he does not believe he wants to bring the chareidim into the coalition.
(YWN)
Each bayit yehudi Member deserves plenty of criticism for abstaining and not voting against the mishkav zachar bill (Kal vechomer Bennett, and Shaked) 

However the fact that the haradiem did nothing helped make this situation possible.  

If all Orthodox Jews (Edah, Degel, Aguda, Hesder, Shas, etc.) would have protested this saying unequivocally this is completely against the essence of Yiddishkeit it would have forced Bennet to veto this evil bill

The bill to grant tax incentives to to’eva couples, sponsored by Yesh Atid, passed its preliminary reading in Knesset on Wednesday 22 Teves as expected. The bill is sponsored by MK Dr. Adi Koll and it was passed after it was reworded to obtain Bayit Yehudi’s support, critical towards passing the bill. The bill passed in a 40-22 vote.
In response, MK (Yahadut Hatorah) Meir Porush accuses Bayit Yehudi of being מכשיר את השרץ, legitimizing that which is unholy.
Bayit Yehudi agreed to support the bill after all reference to to’eva couples was removed. In its place, the bill stipulates the finance minister can decide to apply the law as he sees fit. There is no doubt that Yesh Atid leader Finance Minister Yair Lapid will apply it to to’eva couples, the original intention of the bill.

Porush points a finger of blame at the dati leumi party “which after 65 years lends a hand to passing many laws that are destroying Yiddishkheit”.
It was a stormy Knesset session as Lapid told chareidim “we live in a society and of entitlement and responsibility and those who contribute to society will receive”.
For Porush and other chareidi lawmakers, their anger is directed at the dati leumi party, for its decision to support the bill was instrumental.

Knesset Passes First Vote On Homosexual "Couple" Tax Law:Satmar/Aguda Still Protesting The Draft

The Knesset plenum approved in a 44-20 vote on Wednesday a preliminary bill offering tax breaks for same-sex "parents".

A compromise between Yesh Atid and Habayit Hayehudi parties paved the way for the bill's passage. The written deal between the two coalition partners has been kept under wraps but it is expected the bill will be shelved and that equal tax credits will be implemented through Finance Ministry regulations rather than legislation. 

Storming out of the building, members of left-wing opposition party Meretz refused to participate in the vote and demanded to make public the Yesh Atid-Habayit Hayehudi agreement. They were joined in criticizing the secret dealings by MK Eitan Cabel (Labor). He voted against the bill in order to be allowed address the plenum and speak out against the lack of transparency.

Religious Services Minister Naftali Bennett was the only representative of Habayit Hayehudi present to vote in favor of the law. MK Ayelet Shaked notified the Knesset that she was unable to reach the plenum in time for the vote and asked that her name be added to the bill’s supporters.

The faction chairs of the two parties, Ofer Shelah for Yesh Atid and Ayelet Shaked for Habayit Hayehudi, led the attempts to reach a compromise in recent weeks. On Tuesday, they reached a final agreement at the forum of faction chairmen of the coalition parties. In addition, the forum resolved to convene for regular weekly sessions in order to reach agreements on disputed bills before they are submitted for Knesset votes.

The compromise should allow both parties to demonstrate an achievement.

Yesh Atid can say gay "parents" have been included the tax law, and in addition claim a "moral" triumph with the passing of the bill on Wednesday that for the first time recognizes same-sex "couples", even if this step does not result in legislation in the end.

A senior party member said Tuesday that “Habayit Hayehudi cannot threaten to veto a law after the government has decided to support it. We broke that principle through this compromise. The bill will be voted on exactly the way the government approved it, and Habayit Hayehudi won’t prevent that."

In parallel, Habayit Hayehudi should be able to boast of derailing legislation that recognizes same-sex "couples".

Sources close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clarified last week that he supports the law in the version introduced by MK Adi Kol (Yesh Atid), which is the one passed Wednesday.

With sources from the two sides giving contradictory information, and no document publically available, the exact nature of the agreement between Yesh Atid and Habayit Hayehudi remains unclear.

Habayit Hayehudi said the regulations Finance Minister Yair Lapid would set will be subject to approval by the Finance Committee, which is headed by their representative, MK Nissan Slomiansky. Yesh Atid, by contrast, said that no such agreement had been reached and that the authority to formulate the regulations would be entirely in the hands of party chairman Yair Lapid. The regulations are expected to include the phrase “partners of the same sex.”

Yesh Atid, however, was hesitated to play up the importance of the deal.

“This bill wasn’t "supposed" to become the flagship of gay-"couple" recognition, but to ease the distress of a few dozen couples discriminated against by the state." A source in Yesh Atid said Tuesday. "We conduct "major battles "on major issues. Yesh Atid is advancing the "civil union" law that would recognize gay couples for the first time, and we’ll be bringing that through the front gate, not the back door."

Kol’s bill was approved three weeks ago by the ministerial Committee for Legislation, but since then was not brought to the Knesset for a vote due to the conflict between Yesh Atid and Habayit Hayehudi. Members of Habayit Hayehudi, particularly MK Shaked, were subjected in recent weeks to pressure and public criticism, especially on Facebook, after trying to thwart the law and threatening to veto it. Lapid harshly attacked the intention to veto the law and clarified that it provides social assistance to children and is not concerned with issues of religion and state.

“I’ll take this to the government,” Lapid told Army Radio. “I’ll ask them to explain what it has to do with religion and state, because if this is religion and state then we can veto any issue in the world because of religion and state. I don’t see how someone can raise their hand and say, ‘I support children getting punished because their "parents" are gay.'"
Under the current law, in the case of married couples, each child under the age of 18 garners only the woman one tax credit point.This means that two men raising children together are not eligible for the tax break. The value of a full credit point in 2013 was 2,616 shekels over the year.
(haaretz)

However, Meretz party MKs stormed out of the hall before the vote in protest against confusion over exactly what deal was struck between the Yesh Atid and Jewish Home parties over the future of the bill, and in particular, whether any references to “same-sex” were to be removed.

Coalition partners Yesh Atid and Jewish Home agreed on Tuesday to bring the bill to the Knesset for a preliminary reading although the two parties gave different versions of just what it was that they agreed on.

The national-religious Jewish Home party, which strongly opposed the law at first because it correctly saw the references to gay "couples" as a step toward legalizing civil "marriage" in Israel, claimed that after passing the preliminary reading the law was to be changed. The updated version, from which of all mention of same-sex "couples" was to be expunged, would instead only empower the interior minister to apply regulations giving gay "couples" tax benefits equal to those of heterosexual couples. and is still a step towards Toevah "marriage" and worse. 

By contrast, Yesh Atid asserted that the law would continue as originally intended.

“This law will not go away and it will be promoted in the standard process of passing laws,” Lapid said. “Because it comes from the "sacred" principle that says every person has a right to live in sin.”

Nonetheless, Lapid appeared to be evasive when challenged by opposition MKs to give his assurances that the law would be advanced in its current format and responded only that it would necessarily be reworked in the coalition committee, over which he does not have control.

During the vote, the only Jewish Home MKs to give their approval were party leader Economy and Trade Minister Naftali Bennett and MK Ayelet Shaked who's not Orthodox. Other Jewish Home MKs abstained in protest against Lapid not mentioning the proposed future changes in the wording and scope of the law. Or they're against the whole thing altogether

The legislation aims to alter current Israeli law, which grants higher tax breaks for mothers than for fathers and thus puts male gay "couples" at a "disadvantage" and changing it is promoting homosexuality. The benefits for each child can reach over NIS 2,600 ($740) a year.

(timesofisrael) highlights ours

Meanwhile the "charadiem" are doing nothing, If every Single Orthodox Jew In Israel and America would have fought this Habayit Hayehudi might have fought stronger, and we possibly could have gotten Likud To fight it also

But of course the draft is more important 

Moshe Indig at yesterday's Aroni Protest of the draft (a toevah supporter both in America and apparently EY)

For the draft the Aroniem staged another protest,  Zlamin Attacks Aguda, and the Moetzes of Agudas Yisrael (from EY) is staging an insane protest in NY, but not as single person protested the Mishkav Zachar Bill who's fight was going on for that past month which is infinitely more important.  Maybe if the "Charadim" would have fought it Bayit Yehudi would even have vetoed it.

Orthodox Jewish Film Writer Explains How People Are Being Brainwashed By Hollywood

Hosted by Kiwi6 file hosting. Download mp3 - Free Music Hosting.

Robert Avrech 
interviewed by Savitsky Talks  is a weekly 20 minute audio program with interviews and discussions that probe and explore contemporary Jewish life. Stephen Savitsky’s unusually direct and objective approach make this program a refreshing take on the Jewish community’s often challenging role in the world.


Written by Robert Avrech
very important to read the large part
Act I:
Exposition—In Which the Main Characters and Primary Drama Are Introduced
It’s Shabbos morning. I’m in shul, davening with the hashkamah minyan, where an undertone of chatter is definitely not the norm. For me, a frum-from-birth screenwriter, this shul, where my wife and I have been members since we moved to Los Angeles from Brooklyn, is my fortress of solitude. It’s where my Hollywood identity is securely tucked away and I can revert to my true self, which is: husband, father and grandfather, shomer Shabbos Jew, Religious Zionist and a man who tries to live a Torah life as best as he can.
In the midst of davening, a friend whispers: “I just saw that movie you made a few years ago. Very exciting story. ”
“Um, thanks so much.”
I figure the conversation is over and go back to davening.
“The thing I was wondering is,” continues my friend, “what’s she really like?” She being the famous and glamorous star of the movie my friend has recently seen on Netflix.

 

Several possible answers pop up in my head, as if on a TV game show board:
1. She’s very nice.
2. She’s crazy as a loon.
3. Why on earth were you watching that movie?
I go for number one.
My friend nods his head as if I’ve just explained a difficult Tosafos, puts a gentle hand on my shoulder and says, “We’ll talk more later.”
The purpose of this scene is not to denigrate my friend, who is a wonderful and charitable person, nor is it an attempt to bolster my credentials as a pious man. I confess: I’ve been known to talk in shul on occasion.
This anecdote illustrates the mesmerizing allure Hollywood exerts over, well . . . everyone! Hollywood movies are the most powerful tools of social and political propaganda the world has ever known. Think about it: America wins wars only when Hollywood believes in them and puts itself squarely behind America’s war effort. During World War II, every studio in Hollywood backed the Allied effort against the Axis. Hollywood stars raised money for war bonds, and studios produced films that went all out for freedom and liberty against the tyranny of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Hollywood played a huge role in America’s victory.
Contrast Vietnam. Hollywood, which was overwhelmingly antiwar, produced a series of movies that undermined the American effort against the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia. America lost Vietnam. Hollywood knew that with a few clever, glossy films (such as Coming Home, starring Jane Fonda) and carefully manufactured imagery, it could undermine American foreign policy and turn heroic GIs into psychotic baby killers.
More recently, Hollywood has made about a dozen movies that condemn America’s military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not one of them was profitable, but the damage was done: America withdrew from both fronts. Islamic tyrannies will fill the vacuum—and Hollywood will never take notice or assume any responsibility.
Even women’s fashion is a reflection of what they see on the screen. Ever since Manolo Blahnik stilettos featured prominently on HBO’s hit show Sex and the City over a decade ago, middle-class women have been willing to walk through fire and water for a pair of Manolos—at something like $900 a pop!
Act II:
Conflict—In Which Our Little Drama Is Developed Into a Narrative Arc

Let’s be clear: Hollywood influences practically every aspect of life in the United States. As an award-winning screenwriter and producer who has been working in Hollywood for over twenty-five years, I can claim an authentic knowledge of Tinseltown and the people who make it work.

And I am here to tell you that whether your head is inside a Borsalino or under a kippah serugah, Hollywood is inside your head. And there, slowly but surely, it is executing a brilliant, insidious stealth attack on the core values that make up not only the bedrock of Torah Judaism, but also the foundation of American culture.

Here’s one example from my life as a screenwriter. A few years ago, a big studio hired me to write a drama about the dangers posed by Islamic terrorists. The studio executives wanted me to write the script because they knew it would be not just entertaining but also a cautionary tale for modern times. Still, one studio executive took me aside and whispered a warning: “Just don’t, y’know, malign all Muslims.”

My script was a beauty. Lots of action, a romance between a rugged American CIA agent (think a young George Clooney) and a beautiful Mossad agent (imagine Charlize Theron as a brunette), a few killer car chases, an evil Muslim terrorist and a decent Muslim kid who gets blackmailed into becoming a suicide bomber. A few weeks after I handed in my first draft, a studio executive called me and said that the studio was not going to go ahead with the project as currently written.

“We feel it’s too controversial. It might be seen as anti-Muslim. Now maybe if you turned the Muslim terrorists into Christian terrorists, we might reconsider.”
“Christian terrorists? Like whom?” I asked.
The studio exec said, “Oh, y’know, you can just make it up.”
“Christian terrorist organizations do not exist. I have done the research.”
“Yeah, well, there’s another problem: the stuff about Israel, your Mossad character. What about the Palestinians? You really have to present their side of the story.”
“The character of the Mossad agent is there for romance and to emphasize the global nature of Islamic terrorism,” I said. “It is, after all, Palestinians who invented modern jihadist terror.”
The studio exec sighed. “Robert, what can I tell you? You’re a great writer, but this script—well, unless you turn it inside out, it’s dead.”

TV is also the place where . . . children are either preternaturally wise or sadly jaded—sometimes both—but they never turn to their parents for advice or guidance.

A few days later, an inside source at the studio told me that someone had slipped a copy of my script to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an American group that presents itself as a civil rights organization but is actually a front for the Muslim Brotherhood. CAIR read my script and put pressure on the studio to drop the project or suffer some unnamed consequences.
My script was dead, killed off by a new set of values that have colonized Hollywood the way cancer cells multiply and devour healthy tissue. If you go to the movies, Islamic terror barely appears. And when it does appear, it is so tentative and mild that you would think that Muslim terrorists were an aberration on the world stage.
Hollywood sells glamour and sizzle. The women are beautiful, the men are handsome and the plot lines are, one hopes, clever and compelling.

But Hollywood also sells a set of core values.

Turn on the TV and you will see happy gay couples on almost every show. Since most of Hollywood believes that gay "marriage" is a human right, writers, producers and stars inject gay characters and couples into their storylines in order to convince viewers that gay couples are just like straight ones. Look at the ABC hit sitcom Modern Family. It’s clever and touching, and who in his right mind is going to object to the lovable gay couple who are featured players on the show?

TV is also the place where Dad is a clueless, lovable buffoon while elegant, long-suffering Mom puts up patiently with his childlike behavior. The children are either preternaturally wise or sadly jaded—sometimes both—but they never turn to their parents for advice or guidance. Watch a few hours of TV and you will come away believing that the nuclear family does not really function, if it exists at all.

Here are a few more messages that Hollywood endlessly projects:
1. No one goes to church or synagogue. Any character who worships is the butt of jokes. Exceptions are made for Buddhism, ill-defined spiritualism and, natch, Islam.

2. The greatest threats to our planet are overpopulation and so-called global freezing/global warming/climate change. Mankind is doomed because selfish people—that’s you and me, not the Hollywood elite—do not separate their trash with proper devotion.

3. Republicans are stupid, nasty bigots, usually with very bad skin.

4. Democrats are glamorous, brilliant, tolerant and the saviors of mankind. (Try telling that to Detroit, which has been ruled by Democrats for more than forty years.)

5. A woman’s place is in the workplace. Motherhood is sooooo Leave It to Beaver.

6. There are no Torah Jews in the greater Hollywood imagination. If we do show up, we are usually there for stupid bris milah jokes.

7. Zionism is invisible. When it does appear, it is usually treated like the plague.
Hollywood glamorizes and sells its values. These values make their way into your home—if you have TV, if you go to the movies, if you watch online—in such a way that you do not even realize that your gray matter is gradually being shaped into the fashionable conformity that animates Hollywood.

From where does Hollywood get its values?

Almost every Hollywood executive, director, producer and writer I’ve ever met has attended an Ivy League university where secular, leftist thinking dominates, and where genuine education—the search for knowledge—has been replaced by a not-so-subtle intellectual brainwashing.

A few months ago, a frum high school girl and aspiring screenwriter came to me for advice. She mentioned that she loved Modern Family and would “love to write stuff like that.” This girl is from a solid Torah family. She’s active in Bnei Akiva and volunteers with Bikur Cholim—an admirable young woman in every way. I asked her what she thought about gay "marriage". She knew exactly what I was getting at. Smiling self-consciously, she said that she knew it was wrong, but she really loved the gay characters on the show and would feel as if she were betraying them if she came out against gay "marriage".

“They’re not real,” I chided gently.

“They’re real to me,” she said.


The gay characters on a fictional TV sitcom have become real to this fine young woman and to millions of viewers around the world. The fantasy world of television and movies that emanate from a giant screen, TV panel, computer, tablet and smartphone have become a simulacrum of the real world—a parallel world that worms its way into our consciousness, replacing traditional morality with alien values disguised as the new normal.

None of this happens by chance. We who write movies and television shows weigh each word and image with excruciating care. I have managed to inject my values into several films and get away with it, even winning an Emmy Award for The Devil’s Arithmetic, a time-travel Holocaust drama. But I and a few like-minded friends are in the minority, outgunned and outnumbered.

Act III:
Resolution—In Which a Satisfying Closure Is Achieved
At the shul’s kiddush, my friend comes over to continue our discussion. Mostly, he wants to hear about the star. He’s delighted that I know her, that I know and have worked with dozens of stars. He thinks it’s just great that a guy from shul hangs with Hollywood royalty.
“What are they really like?” he asks.
I decide to tell the truth. “Not one of them is anything like they seem on screen. Mostly they are self-absorbed narcissists who can barely make their way from their limos to the sidewalk without powerful pharmaceuticals. If you spend ten minutes with any one of them, you would be shocked at how shallow, ignorant and one-dimensional they are. What they do well is act. They are actors. Without a role, without someone like me to write their dialogue, they practically cease to exist.”
My friend is shocked and baffled. Am I joking?
“Don’t make the mistake of confusing reality with a carefully-tailored image. That blurring can warp the mind.”
That’s when he asks the sixty-four-thousand-dollar question.
“Then why do you do it?”
“Because I love movies—and I know the difference between reality and fiction.”
He smiles, nods and heads off to Daf Yomi.
I walk home. In my head, I’m already plotting my next script.

(Jewish Action)

A Modern Guide To Kashrus; How to Shect A Pig?

This story happened a few years ago

Being "Frum" and Gay
This weekend, the "Orthodox" Community at Penn (OCP) and JQYouth (JQY), a group that provides support to LGBT "Orthodox" Jews collaborated to develop a shabbaton aimed at addressing issues that gay and lesbian Jews face within the "Orthodox" community. The shabbaton built upon the format and ideas originally presented at the “Being Gay in the Orthodox World” panel that was held at Yeshiva University over all the Rosh Yeshivas objections this December.


After morning services, "Rabbi" Friedman held a brief survey of contemporary literature on homosexuality. Taking a "neutral" stance on the issue, "Rabbi" Friedman reviewed responses spanning from Rav Moshe Feinstein’s t’shuvah (response) stating that homosexuality reflects a deliberate act of rebellion against God, to contemporary approaches of "Rabbi" Chaim Rapoport and "Rav" Yuval Sherlo, that go so far as to deal with questions such as whether lesbian couples should wear hair coverings and observe laws of ritual purity.

The events of the weekend were widely considered a success drawing many people from diverse communities on campus. The event, according to one of the organizers, Isaac Setton, was a "kiddush hashem" as many people from many different backgrounds saw the "Orthodox" community coming together in support of the LGBT community. The "Orthodox" Community at Penn was able to organize and facilitate many discussions about the future of "Orthodoxy" and "Orthodox" education. One participant remarked, “One day, the people being educated at this event will sit on the board of shuls and schools and it will be up to them to make sure that when this issue comes up it is not a shock and is dealt with properly.” The people who attended the event were all glad they were provided with the opportunity to engage with this issue.
(From a "orthodox" lesbian website) highlights are additions they forgot to say

Law Professor Said Any Town Clerk In Utah Who Refuses To Preform Same Gender "Marriages" Should Be Placed In Contempt

SALT LAKE CITY — A day after a judge’s surprise ruling overturned Utah’s same-sex "marriage" ban, at least one county clerk intended to open early Saturday to issue licenses.

About 40 minutes north of Salt Lake City, about 300 hundred people showed up at the Weber County Clerk’s Office on Saturday afternoon but were later turned away without marriage licenses.

Clerk Ricky Hatch apologized and said that county officials had told him that opening for special circumstances may violate constitutional guarantees of equal protection. Hatch told The Associated Press he was also told that the county’s standard security requirements were not in place for a Saturday opening.

The confusion Saturday and reports of other crowds scrambling to find an open office illustrated how gay marriage caught many in Utah off guard.

On Friday, more than 100 couples rushed to wed in Salt Lake County shortly after the ruling was released. State officials slammed the decision and moved to stop licenses from being issued.

The state has given notice that it will appeal the ruling and has asked for an emergency stay to stop gay "couples" from getting "marriage" licenses. But legal experts say that even if a stay is granted, the licenses that have already been issued will likely still be valid.

For now, a state considered as one of the most conservative in the nation has joined the likes of California and New York to become the 18th state where same-sex "couples" can legally "wed".

Utah is home to the Mormon church, which was one of the leading forces behind California’s short-lived ban on same-sex "marriage", Proposition 8, which voters approved in 2008.

“For something like this to happen in Utah is mind-boggling,” Nathan London said Saturday as he and his boyfriend planned their wedding. “I’m sure they’re going to fight it tooth-and-nail.”

The 28-year-old from Cottonwood Heights and 34-year-old Alan Britton were among the dozens of waiting "couples" turned away in Salt Lake City on Friday even though the county clerk’s office stayed open for an extra two hours and issued licenses to more than a hundred couples after U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby’s ruling.

London and Britton said they planned to spend the weekend finding "wedding" rings. London said they would return around 6 a.m. Monday to wait for a license and marry “while we still can.”

Utah Gov. Gary Hebert, a Republican, said in a statement Saturday that the ruling “has created a chaotic situation” in the state. He urged Shelby to grant a motion to stay the decision until the state’s appeal can be heard.

Acting Attorney General Brian Tarbet said his office would bring the stay motion to Shelby by 9 a.m. on Monday. If the judge doesn’t immediately rule, state officials would also ask the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to grant the stay.

Shelby, a recent appointee by President Barack Obama and approved by the senate, said Utah’s ban violated the "constitutional" "rights" of gay "couples" and ruled that Utah failed to show that allowing same-sex "marriages" would affect other marriages in any way. GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch recommended Shelby for appointment in 2011.see the problem with Republicans

Carl Tobias, a constitutional law professor at Virginia’s University of Richmond who has tracked legal battles for gay "marriage", said Saturday that Shelby’s ruling was “fairly strong” and the judge seemed to indicate he didn’t "think" the state had a "good" case.

Tobias guessed if an emergency stay is granted, it could come as early as Monday or Tuesday and stop the gay "couples" from getting licenses.

As the appeal plays out, he said a final decision on gay "marriage" in Utah is at least months down the road.

Clifford Rosky, a law professor at the University of Utah and board chairman with "Equality Utah", said that until there is a stay — if there is one — Utah is obligated to continue issuing licenses to same-sex couples.
“Any county clerk who refuses to do so is violating a federal court order, and could be held in contempt of court,” Rosky wrote in an email late Friday.

As news of the ruling spread Friday, a surge of "couples" descended on the Salt Lake County clerk’s office to secure "marriage" licenses, waiting in line by the dozens and getting "married" on the spot by the mayor and ministers. "Couples" and their loved ones broke out in tears and cheers as their ceremonies were completed.

In southwest Utah, two gay "couples" received "marriage" licenses from the Washington County clerk’s office before it closed Friday, according to The Spectrum of St. George.

Local clerks in other areas waited to hear from county attorneys before issuing licenses.

Hatch said the Weber County attorney’s office did not tell them until late Friday night that they could issue the license.

At the Utah County clerk’s office in Provo, several same-sex "couples" were turned away on Friday.

Arlene Arnold, 60, said she and her partner of 20 years rushed over but were denied a license.

“I was infuriated,” Arnold said Friday. “And thought, as I watched the young, heterosexual couples sitting there, I thought, ‘How does it feel to have straight privilege?’”

Arnold still said it was “history in the making.”

“I didn’t think in my lifetime I would ever see same-sex "marriage" approved in Utah,” she said.
(AP)Highlights ours

ACLU Sues To Force School To Allow Gay Promotion Clubs In School

(Reuters) - The American Civil Liberties Union has sued a central Florida school district for denying a seventh grader the right to form an on-campus club that promotes a safe and welcoming environment for students regardless of their "sexual orientation", court documents showed.

Filed in U.S. District Court in Ocala, Florida, on Thursday, the complaint marks the second time this year the ACLU has taken up the cause of the Gay-Straight Alliance, as the club is called, at Carver Middle School in Leesburg, 45 miles northwest of Orlando.

Lake County School District spokesman Chris Patton said the district had yet to be served with the complaint on Friday so he could not comment.

The ACLU sued the school district for the first time in May on behalf of then-eighth grader Bayli Silberstein, 14, who fought for a year to establish a Gay-Straight Alliance at the middle school.

At the time, according to Patton, school board policy left decisions about on-campus clubs to the discretion of school principals.

A day after the ACLU filed its previous lawsuit, the school board capitulated and allowed the club to meet until the end of the 2012-2013 school year.


A student identified only as 12-year-old "H.F." was elected vice president of the club for the 2013-2014 school year, but her application for the club to operate in the new school year was rejected by the school district superintendent on December 5, according to the lawsuit.

"This denial violates the federal Equal Access Act, which protects students' ability to form and run clubs, as well as the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution," the lawsuit said.

The Equal Access Act, a federal law passed in 1984, requires publicly funded secondary schools to provide equal access to extracurricular clubs.

The act was originally promoted by religious groups to ensure that students had the right to conduct Bible study programs during lunch and after school. It has since been cited frequently in litigation supporting the "rights" of students to form gay-straight alliances.

The case U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, is 5:13-cv-00623-WTH-PRL: Carver Middle School Gay Straight Alliance, an unincorporated association; and H.F., a minor by and through parent Janine Faughnan v School Board of Lake County, Florida.
(reuters)

2 New Mexican Town Clerks Forced To Quit To Avoid Giving Out Same Gender "Marriage" Licenses

A rural eastern New Mexico county clerk and her deputy resigned Friday rather than abide by a unconstitutional state Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay "marriage", officials said.

Roosevelt County manager Charlene Webb confirmed that Clerk Donna Carpenter and Deputy Clerk Janet Collins announced their resignations Friday morning.

Webb declined to say why they quit. But county commissioners said it was in protest of Thursday's Supreme Court ruling declaring it unconstitutional to bar same-sex "couples" from getting "marriage" licenses.

Commissioner Bill Cathey said the two had made it clear they would quit "rather than be associated with that."

Webb says the clerk's office is closed until the commission meets Monday to hire a replacement.

Carpenter doesn't have a current phone listing, and there was no answer Friday at a listing for Collins.

Roosevelt is a rural, conservative county along the Texas-New Mexico border. Its county seat is Portales, a town of about 12,000.

Cathey said Carpenter's resignation was no surprise.

"She told us in the past that's what she would do," he said. "... I am personally very disappointed in the decision of the judges, and I don't blame our clerk for doing what she did."

Still, he said he was confident the commission would be able to appoint a replacement on Monday who would follow the court's unconstitutional order.

Meantime, other rural counties began issuing gay "marriage" licenses following the Thursday ruling, which came after county officials asked the high court to clarify the law and establish a uniform state policy on gay marriage.

In northwestern New Mexico, the San Juan County Clerk's Office gave its first "marriage" license to a same-sex "couple" Thursday afternoon, the Farmington Daily-Times reported.

Three hours later, Aztec women Luciana Velasquez and Deann Toadlena were married under Christmas lights at Orchard Park in downtown Farmington.

"We've been waiting for seven years. It's the best day of my life," said Toadlena, who plans to change her last name to Velasquez. "Everything I wanted was given to me today."

Historically, county clerks in New Mexico have denied "marriage" licenses to same-sex "couples" because state statutes include a marriage license application with sections for male and female applicants.

However, the state's more populous counties this fall began issuing licenses on their own and in response to lower court rulings. A few rural counties also followed suit, but most of the smaller counties were awaiting a final decision from the high court.

Despite the ruling, gay marriage opponents are vowing the fight is not over.

State Sen. William Sharer, a Farmington Republican, said he will ask the Legislature in January to put to voters a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.

"If they are saying it is unconstitutional, we need to make it constitutional," he said.

It's unclear how much traction Sharer's proposal, which bucks a growing national tide toward legalizing gay marriage, will have come January. New Mexico is the 17th state to recognize the unions. Since this article was published (they allowed Friday night) Utah (one of the most conservative states in the country) allowed it due to a federal judge Robert Shelby YMS.  Robert Shelby was appointed a federal judge by Obama, both Utah senators (both Republicans) Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee

The Democratic-controlled Legislature repeatedly has turned down proposals for a constitutional amendment to allow voters to decide whether to legalize gay "marriage".

And Gov. Susana Martinez, a Republican who has opposed same-sex "marriage", said she would have preferred to see voters, not the courts, decide the issue. She urged New Mexicans to "respect one another in their discourse" and turn their focus to other issues facing the state. notice how Republicans are either falling like dominoes or not fighting this evil which will destroy this country

"As we move forward pre mabul times, I am hopeful that we will not be divided, as we must come together to tackle very pressing issues, like reforming education and growing our economy, in the weeks and months ahead," Martinez said.

(AP) highlights are ours Additions

Uri L'Tzedek "Rabbi" Comes Out For Same Gender "Marriage"

Anti-Kashrus (Uri L'Tzedek) activists "Rabbi" who got "Simicha" from "Chovevei" Torah Comes out for same gender "marriage"



I am coming out of the closet. I am an "Orthodox" "rabbi" and an advocate for gay "marriage".
The history of the theological issue is "complicated", but the "moral" issue is increasingly clear. Faith leaders must stand as public allies; private support is no longer enough. Fifteen states 17, New Mexico allowed it today and he missed Illinois (number 16) and counting have formally approved so called "marriage equality". It's time that traditional faith leaders stand for "gay rights", including the "right to marriage".

As an "Orthodox" Jew, I believe the Bible except those pesukim that I disagree with was given by G-d, that Jewish law is binding except the part I don't like, and that change in our religious practice cannot happen when other people are making them impetuously. It also means that I take the pervasive biblical call for justice very seriously. I am pro-"gay-rights" because I am an "Orthodox" "rabbi", not in spite of it.

would the "rabbi" please explain this Chullin 92B gemara to me?

I only officiate at marriages between Jewish men and women according to the framework of the tradition, but I will argue (and advocate) adamantly for the political "rights" of gay people to "marry" people of the same sex. I don't believe the essence of religious conviction is that we must do what is right, not what is popular same gender "marriage" is becoming very popular. As I have come to understand, there are five important reasons that my identity and values as an "Orthodox" "rabbi" compel me to support same-sex civil "marriage".

I have "empathy" for those seeking loving relationships. The rabbis of the Talmud actually suggested that it is as difficult to find a life partner as it was for G-d to split the sea for the Israelites during their Exodus from Egypt (Sotah 2a) this further hampered by stupid people deciding to ignore God's pick of a partner and go after a member of the same sex . The most beautiful and blessed aspect of my life is my family. I cannot imagine the pain and suffering that I would feel if I were deprived of my right to return home, in full dignity, each day to my loving wife notice she is not the same sex as you and the delight of my daughter which is why you now have a daughter. The thought of being legally denied the ability to commit to my wife or raise our own children is horrifying. How can I enjoy these freedoms and not advocate for those struggling to secure similar full rights for themselves and the ones they care for? then you should advocate "gays" stop being gay and work on raising a real family.  ONE THAT CAN PRODUCE A BIOLOGICAL DAUGHTER

Granting basic "rights" to the LGBT "community" is an issue of basic economic " justice", legal "equality", and human "dignity". Traditional Jewish law has no established model for gay "marriage" notice he is also trying to make a kidushin ceremony, but this is an entirely separate matter. We have no right to coercively prevent, by force of civil law, an individual from enjoying true happiness and fulfilling their life potential when it poses no harm to any other and they're not which is why all people are allowed according to law to marry a member of the opposite sex . Our stance on religious law which considers a civil same gender "marriage" one of the worst averas in the world (see gemara above) and our stance on political law are not intertwined. This is not about any particular religious rule or custom but about the grander "ethos" of the Torah which I change as I please. Denying gay people the right to marry a member of the opposite sex is contrary to basic justice and therefore contrary to Jewish ethics however denying them the "right" to marry a member of the same sex is contrary to basic morality and therefore contrary to Jewish ethics . We must support all safe families for children and build our society around strong, loving homes. The Jewish tradition cherishes values of love, intimacy, family, and creating sacred homes where G-d can dwell and mandates that we support them.

Our obligation is derived from our shared history as Jews, religious Jews in particular. We have been very successful change makers in the world because throughout history we have often been outsiders, and we can empathize with the plight others who have been, or are being, excluded or discriminated against. However, the Jewish people are today generally accepted in America, and due the comfort of inclusion, we sometimes lose sight of our tragic heritage and the sensibilities and responsibilities we ought to have as a result. For this reason, among many others, religious Jews should support those struggling for their basic rights in America and keep in the forefront of our minds the not-so-distant exclusion, violence, and vitriol we endured in our own struggle for basic human rights.  which is completely irrelevant to same gender "marriage"

I know from my own personal relationships, many of my religious students have suffered from severe depression and have become suicidal because of harassment, bullying, exclusion, and cruelty that they have suffered for simply existing as who they are you mean Religious people. Legal inequality is another part of the larger cultural oppression that subsequently leads to higher "LGBT suicide rates".  the rate of LGBT Suicides compared to normal people is higher now then is was years ago. in Massachusetts in 1993 LGBT were 2.1-times more likely to have attempted suicide then "normal" people, in Massachusetts 2009 LGBT were 4.4 times more likely to have attempted suicide then "normal" people. I will no longer sit on the sidelines stuck in moral paralysis while this crisis continues. Any alternative to not allowing all to "marry" in civil law would feel anti-religious to me, as it continues to alienate and endanger a vulnerable religious population. Granting full and equal rights is the only moral option. But let us not delude ourselves: If so called "marriage equality" is granted, but nothing else changes, that suicide rate won't change much either but if we get rid of this LGBT nonsense the suicide rates will go down. There is still a broader cultural ethos of treating all others with dignity that must be addressed, and on this issue, religious leaders must set the tone.

The focus on controlling civil marriage definitions distracts from more important religious issues of sexual ethics, such as adultery, modesty shaming, objectification of women, rape culture, sexual purity, and a responsible sexual ethic for intimacy, and most importantly homosexuality . By focusing on gay "marriage" in a cultural context in which the nation as a whole simply does not and will not accept the premise that marriage needs to be defined by G-d and the Bible, traditionalists are losing credibility with atheists and causing people to ignore religious leaders who they would have ignored anyways when we discuss holiness in sexuality which is completely negated by homosxuality. This true and beautiful concept has come to be perceived as coded language for anti-gay sentiment as all meaning of sexual ethics has collapsed into anti-gay-"marriage" politic. The religious-sexual conversation has lost credibility, and that is a terrible misstep. Today it is critical that we emphasize our most important religious values such as tzedek (justice), rachamim (compassion), and pikuach nefesh (saving lives) as we further a discourse around the spirituality of intimacy. We have caused too many to turn from religious values or discount us as "bigoted" or no longer relevant.  and if we get rid of part of the Torah that bans homosexuality on a political whim it would show that we are picking and choosing and really don't believe anything that is in the Torah

After I die I will stand with tremendous fear before G-d, and struggle immensely, as I attempt to interpret certain passages of biblical and Talmudic wisdom. Rabbi Saadia Gaon, the 10th-century Jewish philosopher, explained that if we find a contradiction between faith and reason, then we have made a mistake in this case in reasoning that homosexuality is allowed and not evil despite the fact that homosexuals are more likley to die much earlier than ordinary people,  This alone would make Rav Saadia Gaon conclude that homosexuality is a mitzva sichlious , and we must reexamine the textual tradition and analyze our reason especially if we except the homosexualists lies until they are consistent. The text is our starting place, but we must never neglect our crucial human faculty of moral reasoning all of which conclude that homosexuality is evil.

One of my rabbinic heroeswho I don't know anything about, Rabbi Avraham Kook and is now rolling over in his grave, the first Chief Rabbi of Israel, explained that faith cannot require us to abandon our moral intuition which show clearly that homosexuality is wrong and evil, and that we dare not sacrifice basic ethics for the sake of piety or submission to the liberal doctrine :

It is forbidden for religious behavior to compromise a personal, natural, moral sensibility. If it does, our fear of heaven is no longer pure. An indication of its purity is that our nature and moral sense becomes more exalted as a consequence of religious inspiration. But if these opposites occur, then the moral character of the individual or group is dismissed by religious observance, and we have certainly been mistaken in our faith.

As for traditionalist religious leaders, I'm sure many, from various faith traditions, struggle, as I have, with this question. It is with trepidation that we stand when the bulk of our communities shun engagement (or worse, engage with fiery vitriol), but now is the time for bold and decisive action and fight against the gay agenda. I've come to the conclusion that it is simply not enough that religious leaders be inclusive and encouraging of diversity in their house of worship. To be a religious leader means to stand with people through their struggles against evil and not condone it and be an advocate for the protection of human dignity which homosexuality nullifies and for equality which gays are against. The eternal call from G-d to "seek justice" will always ring true and prevail, even during the harshest of struggles. We must be vigilant in our efforts to move prophecy to reality.

Many traditionalist faith leaders feel that our society is losing its moral base because of people like me (Shmuly Yanklowitz) , especially regarding sexuality, and that changing the definition of (civil) "marriage" is yet another disruption of that moral order. There are good reasons for religious leaders to be deeply concerned about sexual mores today, with all of the abuse, adultery, obsession, objectification, and indecency that abounds and homosexuality. I sympathize morally, emotionally and spiritually with those making sexuality issues their key issue as traditionalists today. My colleagues are not bigots but most of those who support same gender "marriage" are , as many proclaim them to be; they are but defending something deep and true in their concern about straying from traditional notions of sexuality. Many may disagree with traditionalists and their stance on gay "rights", and this is OK; however, we must keep in mind that discussion is an integral part of progress, and that traditional religious leaders and thinkers have an important role to play. Let us remember that the foundation of faith is that we humans do not have the answers to the great theological quandaries, but that we endeavor, with humility, to do our best, in accordance with the laws of god (which says that men who have sexual relations with men should be killed (in a court)) and commentary that we are privileged to study.

(Huffington Post) Highlights are our additions because Reading this with out them will make you sick