Don't vote your conscience on marriage

By David Benkof
DavidBenkof@aol.com

I've been corresponding with a liberal Jewish supporter of same-sex marriage. He recently wrote me that he expects me and all other Orthodox Jews to support "equal civil rights for all citizens" with regard to marriage, even if our religious beliefs cause us not to extend those rights in our religious communities.

First off, I do support equal civil rights for all citizens. Gay men and lesbians can and do get married - to members of the opposite sex. I was once gay-identified, and I hope to marry someday. But marriage is by definition a union of a man and a woman. A gay person cannot marry a same-sex person, just as he cannot marry a tomato. Both kinds of unions are completely alien to the longstanding understanding of what marriage is.

Furthermore, my religion teaches me that same-sex marriage is immoral, and calls upon me to fight it. But because my correspondent disagrees, he can demand that I vote against my conscience? I thought this was a democracy.

Liberal Jews have often expressed the opinion that prayer has no place in public schools. Well, what if I told one of them that I expect him to support a constitutional amendment guaranteeing "equal civil rights for all citizens" to pray in school if they so desire - even if his personal beliefs cause him not to choose to pray in school himself?

The two situations are precisely parallel.

Labels: Judaism, Marriage

posted by David Benkof at 4:30 AM | link

State House in AZ gives initial OK to bid to ban gay marriage

Full story here.
posted by Imapp Staff at 9:52 PM | link

What's morally wrong with "What's morally wrong with homosexuality?"

By David Benkof
DavidBenkof@aol.com

Dr. John Corvino's talk, "What's Morally Wrong with Homosexuality," has been canceled by Aquinas College in Grand Rapids, Michigan (a Catholic school) and the same talk has been rescheduled for tomorrow night at the Fountain Street Church.

Corvino has been giving versions of this talk in many venues over the last decade, challenging his listeners to articulate exactly what - if anything - is morally wrong with gay sex and gay relationships. He has quick, thoughtful comebacks to many of the standard answers ("It's harmful," for example, and "It's unnatural.") I've read some of Corvino's arguments at the Independent Gay Forum Web site, and I admire the fact that Corvino acknowledges that decent, intelligent people can disagree on moral issues relating to homosexuality. However, I must say that Corvino's approach could never convince an Orthodox Jew like me.

First off, I should make it clear that Orthodox Judaism does not believe that homosexuality (as a set of attractions or an orientation) is itself immoral. Gay sex and gay marriages, however, are considered immoral.

Corvino's approach to morality is similar to Descartes' approach to reality - one can sit alone in a room and think hard about morality and figure out what's moral and what isn't. Judaism rejects this approach. Instead, we believe that morality comes from G-d - as revealed in His written Torah (the five books of Moses) and oral Torah (codified in the Talmud and elaborated in other rabbinic texts).

Exactly which kinds of intimacy are moral and immoral - and between whom - are spelled out in this legal corpus. Virtually all sexual contact between males, and much sexual contact betwen females is forbidden, and same-sex marriages are rejected for both Jews and non-Jews.

Now, Corvino could probably sit in his room and come up with lots of reasons that aspects of Judaism are "immoral" while things Judaism rejects are actually "moral." He could claim that it is never OK to perform elective surgery without the patient's consent - and infant circumcision, the very sign of G-d's covenant, would be out. He could rail against G-d's commandment that the Jewish people annihilate the Amalekites (a people we no longer can identify) and claim that genocide is "always immoral." He could claim that even though Jewish methods of slaughtering are clearly humane, newer methods actually cause less pain and therefore kosher slaughter is immoral. And he could argue (as he has) that gay sex makes certain people happy, and it therefore must be moral.

The problem is, Corvino is not divine. We may think we've figured out why certain behaviors are moral or immoral, and even find some of G-d's moral calculus to be frankly troubling. But we are moral dwarves compared to the infinite wisdom and goodness of the creator of the universe. One rabbi has compared the situation to a young child who is perplexed as to why his mother would allow the doctor to inject him with painful needles. But parents know that inoculations, while painful, are essential to a child's well-being. Similarly, we may feel that for us, avoiding gay sex is painful and it may even seem "immoral," but G-d knows better than we do what is best for us.

I doubt that anything written above will change the mind of anyone who isn't an Orthodox Jew. And I have no idea to what extent the argument I'm making applies to religious Catholics, Protestants, or Muslims. It's even possible that Dr. Corvino doesn't really have a beef with Orthodox Jews, since none of his arguments seem to address people like me. But I think it's important to point out that for some of us who believe that gay sex is immoral, Corvino's clever ripostes and well-rehearsed arguments are pretty much beside the point.

Labels: homosexuality, Judaism, morality

posted by David Benkof at 8:24 PM | link

Vt. commission stops short of recommending gay marriage

From the Associated Press:

"A special commission appointed by legislative leaders to study same-sex marriage stopped just short in its final report Monday of recommending that the state become the second in the country -- after Massachusetts -- to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.
The Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection was appointed last summer to study whether Vermont, which became the first jurisdiction in the United States to offer legal recognition to same-sex couples with its civil union law in 2000, should take the next step.
The 11-member panel, chaired by the former legislator Thomas Little, who chaired the House Judiciary Committee when it wrote the 2000 law, said it decided not to make a final recommendation, because to do so 'would undercut the purpose and usefulness of its work and this report.'"

The full story can be read here.

A PDF file of the report can be found here.
posted by Imapp Staff at 11:01 AM | link

Getting Beyond Gay Marriage

Ira Stup in the Columbia Spectator.
posted by Imapp Staff at 10:57 AM | link

John Corvino on his disinvitation to Aquinas College

Recently disinvited speaking at Aquinas College, John Corvino's column in response is here.

Latest news is here.
posted by Imapp Staff at 10:50 AM | link

Kansas v. Obama: Ross Douthat on the latest culture war

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat on Sen. Obama's misunderstanding of so called "values voters":

"...If well-educated voters are more likely to base their party ID on culture-war issues than are voters without college degrees, then what's happening within the non-college educated contingent? Which working-class voters are most likely to base their party ID on culture-war issues? Well, given that the working class has trended away from the Democratic Party overall, even as - pace Thomas Frank - the relationship between party affiliation and income has grown stronger, not weaker, it seems like it's the more prosperous members of the working class who are responding to culture-war issues and trending GOPward. (And yes, much of the working class has grown more prosperous during the long GOP ascendancy, contrary to what you may have heard.) In other words, both within the no-college/some-college demographic and in the country as a whole, the Obama line has it exactly backward: Voting on issues like "God, guns and gays" is an artifact of (relative) prosperity, not immiseration..."

Read the whole thing here.

posted by Imapp Staff at 10:42 AM | link

What's Next - Jews for Meat Equality?

By David Benkof
DavidBenkof@aol.com

A California organization known as Jews for Marriage Equality has been getting some attention lately, including this article (which does not bother to interview a single Jewish opponent of same-sex marriage) in the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles.

Jews for Marriage Equality makes about as much as sense as Jews for Meat Equality pushing for equal treatment of pork alongside beef, chicken, and lamb as foods approved for Jewish consumption.

The evidence from Jewish texts is overwhelming that Judaism opposes - and G-d opposes - same-sex marriage, both between Jews but also in the wider society. (See below.)

Nonetheless, Jewish proponents of same-sex marriage tend to reject the notion that a Jew can legitimately oppose same-sex marriage - and they certainly never acknowledge that theirs is a revolutionary position with little precedent in Jewish history and thought. When they do discuss traditional Jewish perspectives on sexuality and marriage, their comments are generally misrepresentations - if not outright lies.

For example, the Jews For Marriage Equality brochure states that only "the most liberal" Orthodox Jews will "concede" that gay Jews are, in fact, Jews. This ludicrous statement has no basis in fact. All Orthodox Jews agree that anyone of any sexuality who has a Jewish mother or who has converted to Judaism according to Jewish law is Jewish.

Two years ago, a coalition of eight Bay Area groups sponsored an event at a gay temple in San Francisco called "Smashing the Glass: Jewish Perspectives on Marriage Equality." There were nine speakers, not a single one of whom favors Judaism's longstanding position that marriage is by definition a union of a man and a woman. The event displayed as much chutzpah as an event called "Jewish Perspectives on Circumcision" with speakers who all argue that circumcision is immoral and therefore un-Jewish because it involves the genital mutilation of a child without his consent.

Another example is the Web site Gay Marriage: Civil Right or Civil Wrong which wanted someone to explain Orthodox opposition to same-sex marriage. So whom did they ask - a local Chabad rabbi? A representative of some major Orthodox institution? An openly LGBT person like me who believes in and practices Orthodox Judaism?

No. They asked Cantor David Berger, the openly gay Reform cantor of New York's main gay synagogue. And virtually everything he said about Orthodoxy was incorrect.

It's like asking a radical feminist to explain why the Catholic Church opposes abortion. Or inviting Jesse Jackson to justify why the Republican Party opposes racial preferences.

Berger makes five mistakes about Orthodox Judaism in just three paragraphs:

1) He claims that the Torah's prohibition of a specific type of gay sex has "been expanded in traditional Jewish law" into "a general prohibition on homosexuality." Nonsense. I know of no Jewish source or recognized authority who considers not just acts but also same-sex attractions or gay/lesbian orientations to be prohibited. There are many Jews with such attractions and orientations who follow Jewish law and are welcomed and cherished members of the Orthodox community.

2) He claims that the Torah's prohibition on gay relations "applies only to Jews.... Non Jews are neither obligated by this law nor may they be punished for violating it." False. The prohibitions against the act sometimes called "buggery" and against same-sex marriage are "Noahide" commandments. Those are laws that apply to every human being, whether Jewish or not.

3) Berger claims that state-sanctioned marriage "is not a Jewish legal category." Wrong. One of the Noahide laws prohibits adultery. If Judaism considered non-Jews in civil marriages to not really be married, then how could they commit adultery? Of course Orthodox Judaism considers non-Jews married by the state to be actually married.

4) He claims, with no evidence, that Orthodox Jewish families and schools teach "rampant homophobia" to Jewish children. Huh? In the vast majority of Orthodox homes and schools, homosexuality is not discussed at all - positively or negatively. Orthodox children are nowhere systematically taught to fear or hate gay people. True, Orthodox Jews instill the importance of channeling sexuality into the marital (male-female) bond. That is a longstanding Jewish value. But homophobia? No.

5) He rejects the "easy" notion that Orthodox Jews are against same-sex marriage because of the Torah, and writes that "the real answer" relates to "the nature of Orthodox Jewish culture, community, and education." In other words, there can be no genuine Jewish objections to same-sex marriage, only ignorant opinions based on fear or hate. So when we point to verses in the Torah (especially Genesis and Leviticus) and sections of the Talmud (especially Chullin and Kiddushin) that uphold traditional Jewish bedroom and family life, those are only smokescreens for the real reason we don't support Berger's radical stance - our irrational prejudices.

One of the many problems with this last argument is that Orthodox Jews who are not homophobic still reject same-sex marriage. I'm one example. Another is the well-known iconoclastic Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, who has many pro-gay stances. Rabbi Boteach is nonetheless firm in his opposition to both Jewish and civil same-sex marriages. Or take Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, who usually votes with the Democrats. He has sponsored gay-rights bills and adopted many gay causes. But as an Orthodox Jew, he opposes same-sex marriage. Does Berger believe Boteach, Lieberman, and me are all homophobic?

The fact is, the Talmud criticizes Babylonian society for violating nearly all the Noahide commandments - yet praises it for at least observing three such strictures, one of which forbids same-sex marriages.

Orthodox Jews believe that the Talmud, as part of the Oral Law, ultimately comes from G-d. Thus Judaism's position - and G-d's position, we believe - is that same-sex marriages are wrong even for non-Jews.

Now, I realize that non-Orthodox people have the right in a free society to disagree. But when they pretend theirs is the only Jewish position, and when they lie about Orthodox Jewish beliefs regarding family and bedroom life, they're not playing fair.

Many liberal Jews have decried the "Abortion Counseling Centers" run by pro-life people who discuss all options with pregnant women - except abortion. An evening spotlighting "Jewish Perspectives on Marriage Equality" that includes only voices that are hostile to the centuries-long Jewish position on marriage is just as deceptive.

The Web sites, publications, and organizations described above, and similar ones, should include at least one Orthodox person whenever they want honest discussions on Jewish views on sexuality and the family. My E-mail address is above, and there are many other Orthodox people - clergy and lay, straight and gay - who would be qualified to join in.

Labels: Judaism, Marriage

posted by David Benkof at 11:22 PM | link