Theoretical halachic question:

Can an orthodox Jew attend the wedding of a gay couple?

Does it matter if they are family?

Does it matter whether they are male or female?

Does it matter if they are otherwise observant of mitzvot or not religious?

Why or why not?

  • 3
    It is at least as bad as the "wedding" of a Jew and a non-Jew. Aug 13 '17 at 15:43
  • 3
    When you say "wedding" do you mean a secular ceremony, another religion's ceremony, or something represented as Jewish (kiddushin)? Aug 13 '17 at 15:45
  • @MonicaCellio if there's a halachik distinction, both.
    – Yehuda
    Aug 13 '17 at 15:46
  • 2
    We evaluate duplicates on the question, not the answers. Even though in both this case and that of an intermarriage the answer will include "it's not halachically a marriage", I don't think that warrants marking this as a dupe. Aug 13 '17 at 17:51
  • 2
    Monica hinted to something in her comment, namely, that this is not a Jewish wedding of any format. Even if they perform things using a chuppa and witnesses and a "ketubah" and whatever else (excluding blessings), this is "fake". Essentially, it would be like attending a non-Jewish wedding.
    – DanF
    Aug 14 '17 at 17:46

הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך, rebuking a person who is doing a sin.

[Vayikra 19:17] "You shall surely rebuke your fellow, but you shall not bear a sin on his account."

[See Rambam (Sefer Hamitzvos, Assei, 205) "The 205th mitzvah is that we are commanded to admonish a person who is performing a transgression or who is preparing to do so. One must verbally warn him and admonish him..."]

In this case, honoring the participants by attending the event, is the not only the antithesis of rebuke, but also sends the message that we tacitly condone their actions.

[Note: This answer draws inspiration from the Sefer Chafetz Chaim (Essin, 5, Be'er Mayim Chaim) who formulates a similar ruling regarding someone who neglects to admonish a person who is beginning to speak Lashon Hara or Rechilus, and is an ample precedent for this Halachic approach].


If both parties are non-Jewish and female there seems to be no problem in attending. (From a Jewish prospective it is not a wedding, just a party celebrating a legal agreement for legal purposes (taxes, immigration, etc.) and nothing more.)

If they are men or they are Jewish, it seems that for you to attend you are obligated to clarify that you only support the legal agreement for legal purposes (for taxes and immigration and so on) but are against any sexual relations (which seem secondary or not necessary for an American marriage).

(There may be an exception allowing non-Jewish men to perform fellatio or other relations without pennitration of the anus (which might also be permitted for them to do).)

  • This answer requires sources, otherwise it is just personal opinion.
    – N.T.
    May 7 at 0:50
  • @N.T. regarding which point whould you want a source?
    – hazoriz
    May 7 at 1:12
  • You make a lot of assertions without any sourcing.
    – N.T.
    May 7 at 1:17
  • @N.T. I believe them all as true if you want sources I can find for you, regarding which part whould sources be helpful?
    – hazoriz
    May 7 at 1:19
  • In general, MY requires sources to be useful. It's not so much about any one claim as all of them.
    – N.T.
    May 7 at 20:35

As always, if this situation applies to you practically, consult with a rabbi who knows you and your situation well before taking action, especially to engage in confrontation.

You have an obligation to go only if you think they or other attendants at the wedding will listen e.g close family who respect your opinion. You should protest (see source below) what is is being before or during the wedding, in an informative non aggressive way by first mentioning that G-d bestowed so much good to them in form of health wealth happiness etc.,and we should thank him by following his ways and not transgressing the mitzva of "A man you shall not sleep with like a woman"(leviticus 18, 22). Also tell them that G-d will bless them to find true happiness with a woman spouse if they take upon themselves just this one mitzva of sanctity that separates us from the other nations. this is with regards to 2 men.

while 2 women is not a prohibition as severe as 2 men which is Chayav sekila -death by stoning, it is still a unity of disgust as said in the Shulchan aruch even haezer 20, 2 נשים המסוללות (פירוש המשחקות והמתחככות) זו בזו -- אסור, וממעשה ארץ מצרים שהוזהרנו עליו, וראוי להכותן מכת מרדות הואיל ועשו איסור. ויש לאיש להקפיד על אשתו מדבר זה, ומונע הנשים הידועות בכך מלהכנס לה ומלצאת היא אליהן: women who have a unity is prohibited and is under the category of "Don't do like the actions of the Egyptians"(vayikra 18, 3), and they are fitting to be lashed rabbinic lashes since they have sinned. So the same degree of action should be taken just quoting the relavent source.

the source of reprimanding someone who misconducts himself. is in the torah Vayikra 19,17 הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך ולא תשא עליו חטא see sefer hachinuch 239 and rambam sefer hamitzvos asei 205:להוכיח אחד מישראל שאינו מתנהג כשורה בין בדברים שבין אדם לחברו או בין אדם למקום, שנאמר (ויקרא יט יז) הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך ולא תשא עליו חטא. ואמרו בספרא (קדושים פרק ד מ"ח) מנין אם הוכחתו ארבעה וחמשה פעמים ולא חזר, שאתה חייב לחזור ולהוכיח? תלמוד לומר הוכח תוכיח. ועוד אמרו זכרונם לברכה בגמרא (ב"מ לא א) הוכח תוכיח אפילו מאה פעמים. ואמרו שם בספרא יכול מוכיחו ופניו משתנות? תלמוד לומר ולא תשא עליו חטא. וזה מלמד שבתחלת התוכחה שראוי לאדם, להוכיח בסתר ובלשון רכה ודברי נחת, כדי שלא יתביש, ואין ספק שאם לא חזר בו בכך, שמכלימין החוטא ברבים ומפרסמין חטאו ומחרפין אותו עד שיחזר למוטב.

Sotah 3a is specifically written with regards reprimanding in a case of pritzus. תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל אין אדם מקנא לאשתו אא"כ נכנסה בו רוח שנאמר ועבר עליו רוח קנאה וקנא את אשתו מאי רוח רבנן אמרי רוח טומאה רב אשי אמר רוח טהרה ומסתברא כמאן דאמר רוח טהרה Rashi there says רוח טהרה - ששונא את הפריצות:

I pray to Hashem that they should change their ways as EVERY JEW that keeps ANY MITZVA is crucial for the continuity of this world

  • 2
    Do you have any sources for your bold assertions in this answer?
    – Yehuda
    Aug 17 '17 at 21:22
  • 3
    Do note that the passuk you quote only prohibits “relations” with another man; there is no passuk that prohibits “marriage” with another man.
    – DonielF
    Aug 17 '17 at 21:43
  • 2
    And you can lessen the confusion by translating them while you’re at it
    – DonielF
    Aug 17 '17 at 21:44
  • 5
    Assuming they would listen, are you really advising protest at the wedding, when the discussion and any resulting cancellation would be public and embarrassing? Aug 18 '17 at 14:44
  • 2
    @MonicaCellio, in some ceremonies, the officiant requests such protests from the audience. Maybe that was the idea here. I've never seen it at a Jewish ceremony, however.
    – msh210
    Aug 20 '17 at 6:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .