Same-sex marriages are back in the news, following the Masorti movement's recent decision to offer partnership ceremonies. Supporters of the Masorti move feel that the traditional Jewish concept of marriage doesn't take account of social change or of life in the modern world, that people in same-sex relationships have the same right as heterosexual couples to have their union celebrated in shul. Opponents argue that, irrespective of personal attitudes, synagogues cannot sanction something which directly contravenes halachah.
Judaism has always evolved and adapted to changing situations. The debates around certain new medical technologies is a good example. But trying to adapt to changing social attitudes can sometimes have consequences far beyond the original intention.
When it comes to Jewish weddings, the tension between tradition and change goes much further than just the question of same-sex relations. In modern terms, the legal principle that underpins Jewish marriage is highly politically incorrect. But does this mean we should change it?
There is no question about the sanctity of a Jewish marriage. We call the betrothal kiddushin, meaning "sanctification". But what we are sanctifying is a man's acquisition of a woman. When the groom places a ring on the bride's finger and declares "Behold you are betrothed to me… according to the law of Moses and Israel", this is a formal acquisition. She is now, in legal terms, under his control.
And when we read the ketubah at the ceremony, we are reciting the terms of a contract which the couple enter into, a contract which confirms the man's acquisition and which protects the rights of the woman.
The legal principle that underpins jewish marriage is politically incorrect
It is hard to conceive of any modern Jewish family in which the wife considers herself to be the property of her husband. We all know Jewish men who feel it is the other way round. But, as far as Jewish law is concerned, under every chupah an acquisition takes place. Many people, once they become aware of this, find it unsettling.
Of course, the acquisition is only a formality; nobody today argues that a husband has rights of possession over his wife. We condemn husbands who refuse their wife a get. But granting a get is in the husband's power because he has acquired his wife and, unpleasant as it seems, he has the right to dispose of his acquisition. Although marital harmony is rarely disturbed by the fact that the husband "owns" his wife, marital disharmony can be profoundly affected by it.
The other serious consequence that comes out of the principle of acquisition is the calamity of agunah, the woman who doesn't know if her husband is dead or alive. (This doesn't include the case when he is slumped in an armchair in the living room). An agunah, literally a "chained woman", is unable to remarry until she can produce evidence that her husband is dead. Men do not suffer the same disability.
In recent years elements of the marriage ceremony have evolved to make it appear more egalitarian. Some couples swap rings. Some brides take on the kabbalistic practice of walking seven times around her new husband.
Certain Progressive synagogues have adapted the betrothal formula, so that both husband and wife declare that they are betrothed to each other "according to the law of Moses and Israel". But while the innovations serve to make the ceremony feel more equal, they have no bearing on the legal situation; when a bride places a ring on her husband's finger she is not acquiring him, at least not as far as the law is concerned!
Jewish marriage is based on the ancient principle that a woman is the property of her husband. This, in turn, is a consequence of the different status that men and women had in the pre-modern world. It is clearly out of step with modern Western society.
Leaving aside the distressing issues of get and agunah, which everyone accepts can be problematic, the question is, does this imbalance at the marriage ceremony matter?
Should we, like the advocates of same-sex partnerships, seek a new ceremony which recognises the equal status of men and women in the West today? One in which the marriage ceremony is recast to eliminate the question of acquisition and ownership, and the ketubah reformulated? Or do we believe that the beauty and tradition of a Jewish ceremony should remain untouched, even if it is founded on principles most of us no longer subscribe to, or are even aware of?
The tension between tradition and change is fundamental to Judaism. The fact that our laws and customs remain important and relevant to so many of us is due to our ability to manage this tension successfully. But the modern world presents us with unprecedented challenges. The wedding ceremony is just one small example.
