Homosexuality in Israel: Two Legal Challenges
(1997)
Two major cases involved homosexuality. On Jan. 10,Tel Aviv District Court, acting as an IDFappeals committee, ordered the army to recognize Adir Steiner as thecommon-law spouse of the late Col. Doron Maisel
and to grant himbenefits as an IDF widower.
Maisel, who died of cancer in November 1991, hadlived with Steiner since 1984. The two shared finances and
theirrelationship was public knowledge. Steiner asked the army for thecompensation it pays bereaved spouses and for recognition
asMaisels spouse for memorial purposes. The army refused, saying thatonly heterosexual couples qualify.
Steiners attorney argued that the law does notrule out common-law spouses of the same sex and that the IDFsposition was discriminatory. The committee ruled that a woman inSteiners position would be eligible for
the benefitsas the lawapplies to both married and common-law spousesand that he was beingdenied them merely because he is
male. The committee accepted theappellants claim that the law applies equally to relations betweenmembers of the same sex.
The IDF appealed toJerusalem District Court, claiming that the language of the lawgoverning IDF
pensions cannot be interpreted toentitle same-sex partners.
Steiner had filed two other petitions as well. Inearly February, in response to one of themfiled with the
High Courtof Justice in July 1996Defense Minister ItzchakMordechay announced that his ministry would recognize Steineras if he were a family member in memorial matters. This statuswould allow
him to attend and receive free transportation to memorialservices, contribute to an entry in a memorial book, and receive
agrant with which to memorialize Maisel. Steiner had argued that thebenefits are given to live-in heterosexual partners and
that,according to the Danilowitz precedent, homosexual partners are equallyentitled to them. The Steiner decision was more
far-reaching than theDanilowitz ruling, which dealt with a private contract; gay-rightsactivists expect the former to have
ramifications for the entirepublic sector. In Steiners third suit, he sought recognition as thewidower of a fallen soldier
on the grounds that Maisels cancer wascaused by exposure to the sun during his IDFservice; in early 1998,
Steiner was appealing a verdict in favor ofthe Defense Ministry.
The other case concerned Education MinisterZevulun Hammers decision to scuttle the broadcast of anEducational Television program on homosexual teenagers. On theprogram, part of ETVs Open Cardsseries, homosexual teens and the mother of a homosexual boy told theirstories to a teenage
audience, followed by questions and comments fromthe audience. It was originally slated to be aired on Oct. 10, 1996.Hammer
postponed it to Nov. 21, but on Nov. 20 said he was postponingit again in order to review it personally. No new date was set.
Inearly January Hammers media advisor told the Knesset Committee onthe Status of Women that Hammer was delaying the program
because heconsidered its message inappropriate for an educational medium.
On Jan. 13, 1997, the Association for Civil Rightsin Israel (ACRI), joined by the LesbianFeminist
Community and the Association for the Protection ofIndividual Rights of Homosexuals, Lesbians, and Bisexuals in Israel,petitioned
the High Court to overturn Hammers decision. ACRIargued that the Education Minister has no authority
to interfere with ETVprogramming. Furthermore, alleged the petitioners, Hammers decisionviolated freedom
of expression. They asserted that one-third of teensuicides are related to homosexuality; the program was extremelyimportant,
because it shows homosexual teenagers that they are notalone and gives heterosexual teens a better understanding of theirhomosexual
peers.
There were two main issues: Did the program presenthomosexuality in a one-sided manner that encouraged teens
to try itthemselves? Was the program appropriate for an educational series?Hammer contended that the program was definitely
one-sided. Hesupported his view with the opinions of experts who asserted that itlacked balance, ignored social values, and
encouraged homosexualexperimentation. According to these experts, the program should bemade more balanced and should be moved
to a non-educational televisionchannel. The petitioners submitted the opposing opinions of otherexperts.
On Sept. 21, the High Court ordered Hammer topermit the program to be aired. In his decision, Justice YaakovKedmi
wrote that homosexuality per se is no longer a deviationto be fought. As for the argument that the program did not belong
onan educational television station, Kedmi wrote that education isa broad concept and therefore the program qualifies as educational.
Heagreed that it was not balanced but insisted that this flaw did notmake it anti-educational. Although the justices ruled
thatHammer could not prevent the broadcast, they said that opponents couldexpress their opinion in a "complementary" discussion
at the endof the program.
IsraelYearbook & Almanac 1998, pp. 257258.
Source: http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/homocase.html
