Ordained in 2003 from the Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion in New York, Rabbi Craig Axler is a Rabbi at Congregation Beth Or in Maple Glen, PA.

First time blogger - does that come with a special Shehecheyanu?

Monday of this past week, I had the amazing blessing of participating in a day of lobbying and awareness-raising on behalf of a coalition of religious groups that have come together under the banner of "Clergy for Fairness." The single issue that brought us to Washington from locations as diverse as Baton Rouge, Atlanta, Boston and Philadelphia was the proposed "Federal Protection of Marriage Amendment" (S.J. Res 1) which has been passed through the Senate Judiciary committee for a likely vote on the Senate floor sometime in the next few weeks. For those unfamiliar with the FMA, you can read the resolution and find out about its history by going back to the home page of the RAC. The basic premise though, as I said at the press conference on Monday, is an attempt to enshrine within the Constitution discrimination against a single group in American society by prohibiting any rights or responsibilities attached to marriage from being granted by federal or state constitutions to anything but the union of a man and a woman.

At the press conference, I was struck by the courage of the many clergy who were there at great potential risk to their own positions, speaking up on this issue even as the role of homosexuality and gay marriage is an active and controversial debate within their denominations. I was also so proud to be able to stand up as a Reform Jew, acknowledging the position of the Reform movement at the forefront of seeking to protect the rights of all individuals, and specifically to see the inherent kedushah (sanctity) in same-sex relationships.

A number of news stories have been written in the past few days reporting on the efforts of those of us who lobbied on Monday. (see the NY Times and the Forward) In the span of this week, a number of bloggers have picked up on the story. On the supportive side, I was encouraged to see links to the article by individuals who were pleasantly surprised to see religious leaders standing (for once) on the side of protecting the rights of the LGBT community. On the other side, I was amused to see the analysis of the Federalist Society, where they correctly identified that I had mistakenly called this the first instance of discrimination enshrined in the Constitution. Of course, the examples they offer are the age-discrimination for things such as voting and serving in political office, and the restriction that the President can only be a citizen born in the United States. The absurdity of the juxtaposition I think only strengthens the case against the FMA.

One final, personal note. I am writing this blog entry on my 10th wedding anniversary. As I think about both the simcha of this date for my wife and I, and the many rights and responsibilities that have come to us over the past 10 years of legal and recognized marriage, I am struck even more so by the inequality posed by the FMA and the lack of any similar rights and responsibilities afforded to my friends who are in long-term same-sex unions. I am excited to join with others across the religious spectrum to defeat this discriminatory legislation and to hopefully see a day when our society and government recognize the equal rights of all of its citizens.