Legal weddings via videoconferencing and women on religious councils
Hiddush in the legal trenches
Last week, Hiddush filed a petition in the Supreme Court on behalf of itself; the Israel Women’s Network; NA’AMAT; the Rackman Center; and Women Lawyers for Social Justice to ensure adequate gender representation for women on Religious Councils and senior oversight appointments.
Uri Regev 20/05/2021 19:08
Tags: Legal advocacy · religious councils · Utah weddings
Israel Supreme Court, source: Wikipedia
The petition was filed 5 years since the Attorney General ordered the Ministry of Religious Affairs, following demands from Hiddush, to appoint women to at least 30% of the boards overseeing Israel’s Religious Councils,and to 50% of the managerial teams for Religious Councils, for which boards have not been appointed. However, the ultra-Orthodox Minister and the Ministry he heads choose to ignore their duty to ensure adequate representation for women.
According to Hiddush’s findings, there is no female representation on the councils’ management teams on some 80% of the religious councils. In practice, it was found that the vast majority of localities in Israel, in which the boards of the Religious Councils were not renewed, are now run exclusively by male managers, and their terms have been repeatedly extended by the Minister for many years now.
We waited patiently for several years in the face of promises from the Attorney General and the Ministry of Religious Affairs that they would rectify the situation, but these turned out to be idle promises. Political interests and a continuing trend of discrimination continue to dominate the Religious Councils’ affairs, contrary to the values of gender equality and contrary to the law and the consistent rulings of the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, in this matter, as well as in many other areas in which the state violates its promise of religious freedom and equality, which was enshrined in the Declaration of Independence - we are forced to turn to the Supreme Court for remedy. The Supreme Court Justice before whom this case was brought accepted Hiddush’s request to hold a hearing on the petition no later than September, before the end of the current temporary appointments, which expire in October.
We believe the State's idle procedural claims are intended to serve the ultra-Orthodox Minister's refusal to allow a breakthrough for Israeli couples to marry in accessible civil weddings, which are fast and inexpensive, and which do not require them to leave their country.
This week, the State filed a preliminary response to another Hiddush petition, regarding the refusal by the Ministry of the Interior to register Utah wedding ceremonies that were conducted via videoconference. Unfortunately, instead of responding to the substance of the matter, the State opted for procedural exercises, much like a debtor trying to evade paying his debts. According to the State, the Court should dismiss the petition outright, because it was filed by Hiddush, eight couples [representing the categories of thousands of Israeli couples who are unable to marry in Israel due to religious coercion, which include LGBTQ, descendants of the Jewish priestly tribe who wish to marry divorcees, immigrants from the Former Soviet Union whose mothers are not Jewish according to Halacha, an Israeli woman who married a non-Jewish fellow scientist from abroad, and a secular couple who are unwilling to subject themselves to an Orthodox ceremony].
The State is claiming that each couple should file a separate lawsuit in the city where they filed their registration applications, rather than in a joint petition filed in Jerusalem (home to the Interior Ministry, which is refusing to register all couples married in via Utah’s legally recognized weddings by videoconference). We believe the State's idle procedural claims are intended to serve the ultra-Orthodox Minister's refusal to allow a breakthrough for Israeli couples to marry in accessible civil weddings, which are fast and inexpensive, and which do not require them to leave their country. These tactics, we believe, are a clear indication of the difficulty they have in replying to the substance of the petition and justifying this illegal refusal.
Next week we will respond to the Court, and, of course, we will update you further down the road, regarding this important petition. This is likely to become a tipping point for the many Israeli couples who cannot marry in their own country. It will make their lives much easier, at least until Israel realizes the only true solution, which is to change the law and allow for freedom of choice in marriage, as is the case in every western democracy in the world.