The case of Taylor v. Feinberg pitted the descendants of Max and Erla Feinberg against the estate of their grandparents. According to the Feinberg’s will: “A descendant of mine other than a child of mine who marries outside the Jewish faith (unless the spouse of such descendant has converted or converts within one year of the marriage to the Jewish faith) and his or her descendants shall be deemed to be deceased for all purposes of this instrument as of the date of such marriage.” In other words, if anyone marries a gentile, they are to be considered dead.
I am not sure which is more disturbing, that grandparents could relate to a choice made by their grandchildren as synonymous with their deaths, or the appellate court ruling that enforcement of this provision, referred to as “the Jewish clause” (not to be confused with the Santa Clause), was “in valid and unenforceable because it was against public policy”. Public policy for whom? Should clergy be compelled to perform intermarriages because failure to do so is also bad public policy? They are so wrong, they are not even wrong!
Furthermore, the court held that the clause seriously interfered with and limited the right of individuals to marry the person of their choice. No it did not! It simply demanded that those who made a choice of which their grandparents did not approve, not be rewarded by their grandparents’ estate! I’m no lawyer, but if that is not inappropriate judicial activism, I don’t know what is.
None of this is to defend the grandparents though.

While I can understand the fears (about the Jewish future) and hostility (to non-Jews, especially since they came of age at a time when gentiles rejected Jews as suitable marriage partners) which probably informed their decision-making process, having buried people’s children and grandchildren, it’s truly hard to be okay with any parent or grandparent reaching a similar conclusion. Objecting, I understand. Not wishing to reward, I also understand even if I may not agree. But Dead?
People are dead when they are dead, not when they do things of which we may not approve. And confusing a person’s life with their decisions about how to live it can be a very dangerous problem. Many cultures and communities have found that it’s a very short step from declaring people dead for violating social or religious norms, to going out and actually killing those who cross those lines. Perhaps that is what the court was concerned about. We cannot know because they did not explain themselves more fully.
What we can know, is that it never makes sense to love someone less right now, because of the possible future ramifications of their actions in the present. And for those who will surely wonder about it, that includes the practice of mourning inter-married children. In truth, the practice was never about inter-marriage per se’. It was a response (not clear how widely observed) to apostasy and based upon how people decide to marry today, such mourning truly has no place in contemporary Jewish practice.