My Stand on the Question of Gay and Lesbian Marriage in California
Given May 24, 2008
Rabbi Dov Gartenberg
This past week we witnessed the historic decision of the California Supreme Court to legalize Gay and Lesbian civil marriage in our state. I support this decision and hope that any attempt to roll it back with a Constitutional amendment will be defeated by the electorate. I share with you my perspective on Gay and Lesbian union ceremonies with Jewish tradition so you can understand my perspective on this issue within Judaism.
Several years ago I was asked to perform a commitment ceremony for two Jewish Gay men who are members of my former congregation. This would be a private religious ceremony since the State of Washington had no provision for giving legal weight to their relationship. Their request led to my review of Jewish law and the contemporary deliberations on the issue of homosexuality and Jewish religious life.
The issues associated with consecrating a Gay or Lesbian relationship within Jewish tradition are very difficult and weighted by pejorative understandings of homosexuality going back to the Torah itself. For instance, in Lev. 18:22 we read, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence." In Lev 20:13 we read, "If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death-their bloodguilt is upon them." While all Conservative scholars have shown that the sanctions against homosexuality no longer hold, they disagree on whether to continue to view homosexual sexuality as a 'toevah'-an abomination. . The Movement welcomes Gays and Lesbians as synagogue members and is active in defending the rights of Gays and Lesbians in civil society. This past year the movement in a split decision decided to accept Gay and Lesbian candidates to its rabbinical school.
A few years ago the Law Committee of the Rabbinical Assembly invited several scholars in our Movement to submit essays concerning the question of homosexuality and Jewish law. The papers reveal the wide disparity of views within the movement. My teacher, Rabbi Elliot Dorff, of the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, composed the most convincing essay on the subject. He argues that compelling contemporary factors force us to reassess the biblical prohibition on homosexual relations. The biblical prohibition on homosexual behaviors assumes that homosexuality is a matter of choice. According to the predominant scientific opinion of our times, homosexuality is not a matter of choice; rather it is an irreversible orientation over which a person has no control. If this is the case, modern interpreters of Jewish law must take this into account when dealing with the issue of homosexuality.
Dorff argues that we cannot deny what our basic orientation dictates. Quoting a passage from the Talmud Rabbi Dorff suggests the matter is akin to a patient's need for food on Yom Kippur: "When a person says, "I need it," even a hundred doctors say that he does not need it, we listen to him, as Scripture says, 'The heart knows its own bitterness'.
Jewish law assumes that we cannot refrain from the most basic instincts such as eating and sexuality. It regulates, however, the circumstances in which these compulsions may be legitimately met. For example, we may eat, but we must follow the dietary laws and pronounce blessings over our food. We desire sex, but we engage in it within the framework of marriage. This is the Jewish way of sanctity-channeling our natural drives into a holy framework of behaviors and living.
Rabbi Dorff concludes that if homosexuality is an orientation over which a person has no choice, then modern interpreters of Jewish law should hold that homosexual acts, like heterosexual ones, be regulated such that some of these relationships can be sanctified (monogamous and exclusive) while others are regarded as sinful behavior (indiscriminate sex).
In addition to Rabbi Dorff's powerful reasoning, I have experienced directly the pain of many Gay and Lesbians and their families over their exclusion from Jewish life. If we give a message that homosexuals are welcome in the synagogue, but prevent them from sanctifying their committed relationships in our community we add to their suffering and sense of isolation. Let's approach this from the positive side. One of my brothers is Gay. I have seen him sustain a beautiful and loving relationship with his partner of twenty years. I believe that we are doing a great Mitzvah by making it possible for Gay and Lesbian couples to consecrate their relationships.
Rabbi Dorff's essay is a superb example of how a vital religious tradition absorbs new knowledge and evolving moral insights. We have to engage in a deep reading of the Torah to accomplish this, to ask questions not posed by previous generations. We embrace a way of reading the Torah that on the one hand recognizes its continuing sanctity and authority in our lives, while also recognizing the time and context of its outlook. The Torah is not just what is found in the Five Books or in the Talmud or in a Medieval commentary, but also in Rabbi Dorff's wedding of tradition and contemporary insight.
I still do make a distinction between commitment ceremonies and wedding ceremonies within the framework of Jewish law. When I am invited to sanctify the union of a Gay or Lesbian couple, I distinguish between Kiddushin (a wedding ceremony) and a commitment ceremony. I believe the traditional Kiddushin ceremony is built around deep assumptions of the union of a man and a woman. I support the creation of ceremonies and liturgies using blessings the sanctify Gay and Lesbian unions distinct from the Kiddushin ceremony, but carrying the same legal weight of consecration of the relationship in the eyes of Jewish law.
The ceremony that arose as a result of these reflections was also created in the same spirit. I worked with the couple on a commitment ceremony that was distinct from a wedding ceremony. We anchored the new ritual in the ritual language and the feel of a Jewish wedding ceremony, but we crafted language and ritual acts that made this commitment ceremony unique and original. I do look forward to doing similar ceremonies with the knowledge that they will also have the status of civil marriage in the State of California. I welcome Jewish Gay and Lesbian couples to invite me to officiate at their ceremonies and welcome them as couples and families within our congregation.
Shabbat Shalom,
Rabbi Dov Gartenberg
May 24, 2008
3 comments:
Thank you very much for your thoughtful and insightful post. I enjoyed reading it very much.
Rev. BK Hipsher
Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto
bkhipsher@gmail.com
I greatly enjoyed reading your thoughtful comments on this important, yet controversial subject. I myself cross that bridge, to some extent, whenever I perform a bris mila ceremony for an alternative family. This debate calls into question once again the meaning of family, the sanctity of marriage and the understanding of who is a Jew. I support your conclusion to perform a sanctification ceremony that carries some level of civil legal status yet I still cling to the archaic notion that marriage, rather than a civil union, is ultimately the commitment between a man and a woman. Additionally, I have found the slow, yet progressive liberalization of the Conservative Movement interesting to observe over the years. Historically, the Conservative Movement has looked askance at the Reform Movement for making such dramatic theological changes in the past, yet over time many of the same changes previously accepted by the Reform Movement are ultimately made by the Conservative Movement. Honestly, I have long held to the belief there should be two movements in modern Judaism; the Orthodox and Non-Orthodox. Your essay clearly highlights why this should be the case. If Conservative Judaism feels comfortable interpreting the Torah in the context of modern sensibilities, political correctness, and suggesting the "time and context of its (i.e. Torah) outlook" can be factored into a re-interpretation of it meaning, then Conservative Judaism should indeed call itself "Reform".
That's my Drash and I'm a stickin to it.
Dr. Fred R. Kogen
Mohel
http://www.eBris.com
Besides appreciating the above comments, I especially appreciate Rabbi Dov's approach to sanctifying and engaging community respect for committed partnerships.
I do take exception with attempts to depict the issue - and the court's decision - as being primarily about 'gay' or 'lesbian' marriage. Similarly I take exception to focusing overly on Rabbi Dorff's earnest and eloquent and learned agonizing over sexuality and deep facts about it. Agonizing may be praiseworthy, but it is not always relevant.
The court's actual decision concerned state recognition of committed partnerships of the same gender as well as of both genders. It's a matter of equity, in state recognition of commitment.
The real challenge to the community is likewise one of equity, in recognition of commitment.
It's not a matter of understanding, let alone requiring or tolerating, various sexual performances or abstinences. Even less is it a matter of worrying about anyone's personal sexual preferences. And still less is it a matter of reacting to or worrying about anyone's mere declaration, however loud and earnest and heartfelt, of personal sexual preferences.
Despite conventional presumptions, committed partnerships of either kind - a single gender or both genders - need have little to do with sexual behavior. Partners need not be sexually active at all. Even when they are active, they may well be (with mutual informed consent) doing their thing in ways not conventionally imagined. Whether they are of one gender or of two, and whether each is homo, or each is hetero, or one is homo and the other is hetero - the partners might well each be doing their sex with others, not each other.
The issues have unfortunately been clouded by the state's needless use of the term 'marriage'. This use needlessly entangles the state with various establishments of religion and their followers, for which the term has serious and emotionally-freighted meanings. The state could readily, and should, use other terms for all legally recognized partnerships.
Post a Comment