Marriage is not a relationship between two individuals. Marriage is a divine cocoon through which members of two different sexes become one whole. If there aren’t two sexes there can be relationships, but there can’t be marriage.

In Askmoses Fashion: 

A Question of Definition

The debate on the issue of same sex marriage has focused in part on the distinction between same sex marriage and same sex unions. This distinction is dismissed by some as mere semantics but I believe it is a question of definition. Does the concept of marriage apply to members of the same gender? This is not a question of rights and freedoms but one of concept.

Proponents of the legislation will instinctively respond with a resounding yes. Opponents of the legislation will respond with an equally forceful no. The predicate of this dispute is homosexuality itself. Those who view homosexuality as a legitimate life style support same sex marriage. Those who don’t view homosexuality as a legitimate life style don't support same sex marriage.

Does the concept of marriage apply to members of the same gender?... This is not a question of homosexuality but of marriage. What is the definition of marriage?

Why do two people who love each other marry in order to become a family? Why not simply profess their undying love and commitment and proceed to build a home and family together?¹

Invitation to G-d

Jewish thought views marriage as the sanctification of a relationship. In marriage we summon G-d into our relationship and ask for His blessing. Before the marriage it was a partnership of two. The marriage ceremony introduces a third partner, namely G-d.

Geometrically a three point triangle is the strongest structure. Introducing a third point that husband and wife can look to in mutual devotion introduces a new measure of strength and consistency. Indeed, our sages taught that a thrice threaded rope is not easily undone.

On a deeper level, marriage binds man and woman on a dimension that was not accessible to them earlier. A man and woman can pledge undying commitment to each other before marriage, they can connect intellectually and emotionally before marriage, but their souls cannot connect until they invoke G-d’s name and channel His blessing into their relationship.

Indeed man and woman may even experience a spiritual connection before marriage. This is because they may be potential soul mates, but this connection cannot be consummated until the moment of marriage. Shared interest, uniform response to issues, identical personalities and easy rapport, are only external indications of spiritual connection. The inner connection is formed when the souls are bound together and that occurs at the moment of marriage.

When G-d Declines

Once we view marriage as an invitation to G-d to join the relationship it becomes obvious that marriage is only possible under circumstances sanctioned by G-d. A member of the clergy who officiates at a wedding can at most invite G-d to join a relationship but he cannot force G-d to join.

Furthermore, when one knows that G-d does not approve of a marriage is it not considered inappropriate to invite Him? If you were celebrating a business merger that one member of the board protested would you send him an invitation to the party? Would you announce after the party that this board member attended and that he gave his blessing to the merger when he did not?

That is why the very term same sex marriage is an oxymoron. We cannot induct G-d into the relationship of a same sex couple against His own will.²

Civil Unions

The natural response to this argument is: “Rabbi, we’re not talking about religious marriage. We know that religious authorities cannot sanctify same sex marriage. We’re only talking about civil marriage, so what’s the great fuss?”

Marriage is not accomplished by the performance of the ceremony but by the presence of G-d. When G-d absents Himself the marriage is not in effect.

As long as the courts sanction unions that are not sacrilegious I do not object to the use of religious terminology in the judiciary. But when courts confer marriage upon a couple that cannot be married religiously I must object to its use of the religious term marriage. Because a civil union is not a marriage, it is simply a legal agreement that confers legal benefits upon the parties involved.

Is this merely a case of semantics? No, it is actually one of definition but I would argue that semantics are also important. Words create images and form mental pictures in the minds of orators and listeners alike. These mental images often form impressions that in turn influence popular opinion.

This is why I refuse to accept marriage terminology in same sex unions.

Rabbi Gurkow, a member of the Askmoses team of scholars, is spiritual leader of congregation Beth Tefilah in London, Ontario. He has lectured extensively on a variety of Jewish topics, and his articles have appeared in many print and online publications. For more on Rabbi Gurkow and his writings and talks, please go to www.innerstream.ca.