consanguinity and adultery on the part of the married woman are considered mamzerim. Any change would also alter this definition to the disadvantage of infant children.(3) It is extremely doubtful whether our rabbis or our laymen would follow any additional restrictions in the field of marriage. It is difficult enough to enforce some strictures which we have now, much less impose others. In other words, any restrictive decision on the part of our committee in this matter would represent a mere gesture toward the feminist movement rather than an effective effort. Anyhow, one should not legislate when it is obvious that no one will follow what has been decreed(Yev. 65b, Shabbat 148b)
In addition, our Reform Movement has made some changes: (1) We have recognized the marriage of divorcees to those of priestly descent. This permissive change was made as we no longer recognize priestly privileges.(2) We have accepted civil divorce as sufficient for remarriage. The reliance on civil divorce is, ipso facto, an effective and realistic measure toward equality of both sexes, since women can and do institute divorce proceedings in their own right under State laws. Both changes have gained complete acceptance by Reform Jews and also by a large percentage of the American Jewish community.
The existing Table could be rewritten in a more permissive way That also does not seem appropriate for us for the following reasons:(1) We are continuing to try to work out distinctive, but naturally agreeable approaches to family law along with our Conservative and Orthodox co-religionists in order to avoid conflict over family matters in the Land of Israel. A decision such as this on our part would increase the difficulties of this task.(2) Most state legal systems parallel our Table of Consanguinity or are very close to