The Reluctant Acceptance of Same-Sex Unions and Parents in Israel

以色列對於同性婚姻與家庭的承認與接受

 以色列婚姻法具有宗教性質，但其沒有規定公證婚姻。值得注意的是，儘管程度有限，同性婚姻在以色列得到了其法院的承認，而且在國外進行的同性婚姻也得到了以色列當局的登記和承認。本文探討了在一個法律之制定以宗教為基礎的國家中，同性伴侶和父母雙方日益接受彼此的情況。我認為這種法制上的默許有兩個主要原因：（1）以色列猶太文化非常重視家庭和生育，並在文獻中被描述為生育主義者。因此，選擇長期生活在一夫一妻制關係中並生孩子的LGBTQ人被接受，因為他們可以被視為生活在猶太文化及其家庭取向中；（2）所謂的人口問題，用於鼓勵以色列猶太人生育更多孩子以繼續超過以色列巴勒斯坦人，允許猶太LGBTQ個人加入這一國家努力，從而為他們的家庭獲得合法性。正如文章所示，同性伴侶和父母根據以色列法律享有的任何權利都不是由立法機構自願授予的。所有這些權利都是在經過漫長而昂貴的訴訟之後才被以色列法院承認的，而這些訴訟通常是在以色列總檢察長的激烈抵抗下進行的。因此，雖然猶太以色列同性伴侶享有相對較高的社會法律認可度，但仍應僅被視為法制上的「勉強接受」。

Israeli marriage law is religious in nature, and makes no provision for civil marriages. It is thus remarkable that same-sex unions have been recognized, albeit to a limited extent, by Israeli courts, and that same-sex marriages performed abroad have been registered and recognized by Israeli authorities. This article explores the growing acceptance of both same-sex partners and parents in a country where personal law is based on religion. I argue that there are two main reasons for this acquiescence: (1) Israeli-Jewish culture places great emphasis on the family and on procreation, and has been characterized in the literature as pronatalist. Therefore, LGBTQ people who choose to live in long-term, monogamous relationships and have children are accepted, as they can be seen as living within Jewish culture and its familial orientation; (2) The so-called demographic problem, which is used to encourage Israeli Jews to have more children in order to continue to outnumber Israeli Palestinians, allows Jewish LGBTQ individuals to join this national effort, thus gaining legitimacy for their families. As the article shows, none of the rights that same-sex partners and parents have under Israeli law were voluntarily awarded by the legislature. All of these entitlements were recognized by Israeli courts only after lengthy and costly litigation, oftentimes against fierce resistance on the part of Israel’s Attorney General. Hence, while Jewish Israeli same-sex partners enjoy a relatively high degree of sociolegal recognition, it should nevertheless be considered a “reluctant acceptance.”