![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Continuing on...
My other problem with refusing any accommodation to religious law is that it doesn't solve anything in practice.
One columnist brought up the problem of agunot. (Terminology lesson: an aguna, or chained woman, is technically a woman whose husband has disappeared. She is "chained" to the marriage because he isn't known to be dead and she can't initiate a divorce. A woman whose husband refuses to grant her a get is correctly called a mesurevet get. Popularly, they're also referred to as agunot.) Because the husband must initiate a divorce, he can refuse to grant it to torture his wife. He can also try to get her to accept a lesser financial settlement in return for the get. A woman can't be divorced against her will--she has to accept the get, so he can't just give her a divorce on his terms. The man is in a privileged position. He has two options: try to get a heter meah rabbanim, permission from 100 rabbis to marry a 2nd wife without divorcing the first (sadly rather easier to get than it should be--it's meant for when the wife is being unreasonable about accepting a get, or is insane and can't do so) or simply not marry properly. The ban on polygamy is only an edict promulgated by Rabbeinu Gershom 1000 years ago; it isn't Biblical. There's no consequences for the man if he has children out of wedlock because he could marry the woman. If a woman has children through adultery, they are mamzerim, who can only marry other mamzerim. (There are some practical ways around avoiding mamzerut, usually by ruling that the first marriage was never valid, but it's not easy.)
In some US states, and England, there is now incentive to give the get because a civil divorce may not be completed without it, and men often want the benefit of civil divorce. However, this does not prevent the possibility of extortion.
There is no way, as far as I can see, for civil law to prevent this situation. You can't dictate to a religion that it should accept a civil divorce (or marriage). Whether or not any secular accommodation is made to religious courts, there are some men who will try to abuse the system. Arguably, secular accommodation here has helped Jewish women, not hurt them, by providing an incentive for men to give the get.
A refusal to recognise religious courts or their decisions will not change the reality for many people, which is that due to their own beliefs, or pressure from their communities, they feel compelled to obey religious law in certain matters. There is no way to force them to conduct their affairs according to civil law only. The only power government has is whether or not the decisions made by these courts are legally enforceable. Even if they are not, their judgments are still enforceable by the community, and that's a powerful thing.
Muslim and Jewish women may be disadvantaged by the application of law in religious courts, but I am not sure we can "protect" them. If a woman is going to be pressured to abide by a religious court decision, this will occur regardless of the government's position on them. No one, I think, is publicly suggesting that religious law should supplant civil law in family matters. But these systems do, and always will, run in parallel. We have to acknowledge this.
My other problem with refusing any accommodation to religious law is that it doesn't solve anything in practice.
One columnist brought up the problem of agunot. (Terminology lesson: an aguna, or chained woman, is technically a woman whose husband has disappeared. She is "chained" to the marriage because he isn't known to be dead and she can't initiate a divorce. A woman whose husband refuses to grant her a get is correctly called a mesurevet get. Popularly, they're also referred to as agunot.) Because the husband must initiate a divorce, he can refuse to grant it to torture his wife. He can also try to get her to accept a lesser financial settlement in return for the get. A woman can't be divorced against her will--she has to accept the get, so he can't just give her a divorce on his terms. The man is in a privileged position. He has two options: try to get a heter meah rabbanim, permission from 100 rabbis to marry a 2nd wife without divorcing the first (sadly rather easier to get than it should be--it's meant for when the wife is being unreasonable about accepting a get, or is insane and can't do so) or simply not marry properly. The ban on polygamy is only an edict promulgated by Rabbeinu Gershom 1000 years ago; it isn't Biblical. There's no consequences for the man if he has children out of wedlock because he could marry the woman. If a woman has children through adultery, they are mamzerim, who can only marry other mamzerim. (There are some practical ways around avoiding mamzerut, usually by ruling that the first marriage was never valid, but it's not easy.)
In some US states, and England, there is now incentive to give the get because a civil divorce may not be completed without it, and men often want the benefit of civil divorce. However, this does not prevent the possibility of extortion.
There is no way, as far as I can see, for civil law to prevent this situation. You can't dictate to a religion that it should accept a civil divorce (or marriage). Whether or not any secular accommodation is made to religious courts, there are some men who will try to abuse the system. Arguably, secular accommodation here has helped Jewish women, not hurt them, by providing an incentive for men to give the get.
A refusal to recognise religious courts or their decisions will not change the reality for many people, which is that due to their own beliefs, or pressure from their communities, they feel compelled to obey religious law in certain matters. There is no way to force them to conduct their affairs according to civil law only. The only power government has is whether or not the decisions made by these courts are legally enforceable. Even if they are not, their judgments are still enforceable by the community, and that's a powerful thing.
Muslim and Jewish women may be disadvantaged by the application of law in religious courts, but I am not sure we can "protect" them. If a woman is going to be pressured to abide by a religious court decision, this will occur regardless of the government's position on them. No one, I think, is publicly suggesting that religious law should supplant civil law in family matters. But these systems do, and always will, run in parallel. We have to acknowledge this.
There are no comments on this entry. (Reply.)