Despite flaws, it is premature to strike down the Civil Union Law, the High  Court said yesterday, rejecting petitions from civil rights groups.  Nevertheless, the court commented in various parts of the ruling perceived  imperfections in the law, leaving the door open for the issue to be revisited in  the future.

The Jerusalem Institute of Justice and the Association for  the Rights of Mixed Families were named as the groups that filed the  petition.

The law, passed in March 2010, enables Israelis with no  officially defined religion to join a civil union recognized by the  state.

Even at the time it was approved, it was considered an imperfect  and only partial solution to the many groups of Israelis who could not legally  marry in Israel before its passage.

At the time, the legislation’s main  sponsor, Knesset Law Committee chairman David Rotem (Yisrael Beytenu), described  it as a first step to moving the country toward greater openness regarding civil  unions.

The petitioners argued several grounds for overturning the  law.

The core argument against the law is that it only allows civil  unions to two people who the state has defined as “religionless.” In other  words, if one person from the couple is religious or is even secular, but is  listed by the state as having been born into a state-recognized religion, the  couple cannot marry or get a civil union.

The four recognized religions  in Israel are Judaism, Islam, Christianity and the Druse faith.

This  means that people’s right to choose who they wish to marry is bound by the state  in ways that it is not in most Western nations even after civil unions were  created.

According to the petitioners and many opponents in the Knesset  at the time it was passed, its passage has created a worse situation because now  there is the appearance of the old problem having been solved, while the law  really only solved the problems of a small portion of those couples who still  get no state recognition or benefits.

Another argument was that it would  increase the power of the Chief Rabbinate, by empowering it to weigh in on  whether or not an Israeli citizen listed as “without religion” was actually  religionless.

A large number of immigrants from the former Soviet Union  were listed as religionless when they moved to Israel.

The petitioners  also complained that the law discriminates against those who obtain a civil  union, as they do not possess the same rights as those who marry regarding age  of marriage, adoption rights among others.

Furthermore, the law does not  remove internal religious bars to marriage such as Judaism’s many forbidden  unions, including a Cohen marrying a divorcee.

The law also does not  provide any solution to homosexual couples.

The court declined to  overturn the law at this time, noting that the law had solved the problems of  many couples.

It also noted that the law had only been passed in 2010 and  that time is needed to work out some of the issues being complained  about.

The court advised the petitioners to turn to the Justice Ministry  for resolution of some issues, such as certain forms that civil union applicants  must sign, a judgment which the petitioners called demeaning.

For  example, people who consider themselves Jewish, but only have a Jewish father,  can marry other religionless persons under the law, but need to sign a  declaration that they have no religion, regardless of their  beliefs.

Although the court did not refer to the law’s full political  history, the judges may have unofficially been taking into account that the 2010  law, however incomplete, was the culmination of a process started in 2002 to  solve a decades old problem.

Even in its incomplete version, many Knesset  members opposed its passage on the grounds that they were opposed to creating  any mechanism for couples to get recognition outside of the religious- state  apparatus.

At the time many politicians who supported the legislation  said it was important to show that at least part of the marriage problems could  be solved – whereas the judges might have been worried that striking down the  law would send the opposite signal.

The Jerusalem Institute for Justice’s  Calev Meyers, said that a democracy should never have allowed “such a law on its  books” and that he hoped that those political parties who say they fight for  citizens’ rights of this kind will, after the upcoming elections, finally throw  their support behind full civil marriage. Meyers is a Messianic (Christian)  Jew.

Currently, Israelis may still be recognized as civily married if  they are civily married overseas, and then apply for recognition of their status  by the Interior Ministry upon their return

Originally published on 10/18/2012 on http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=288419