hatam_soferet (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
hatam_soferet) wrote2006-12-06 09:27 pm
hatam_soferet) wrote2006-12-06 09:27 pm
Entry tags:
(no subject)
The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS) has been prodding the issue of homosexuality* for a good many years now. What is the official position with regard to Gay People?
Forward article
It hardly seems necessary to say that the full spectrum of opinions exists in the Jewish world just as it does in the secular world, but perhaps it is necessary. One finds everything from full acceptance to complete shunning. The traditional position does not condone homosexual activity, but some of the more liberal types advocate being nice to gays just as one would be nice to e.g. people who break Shabbat, although not to the extent of letting them get married.
The C Mvt sways between halakha and modernity, and as such tends to get involved when social agendas change. Twenty years ago the question was about whether women could be rabbis; that went along with whether women could be counted full and equal members and leaders of a community, which is a discussion that other institutions (universities, for example) had already been pushed into. Now the hot issue is whether gays may marry; liberal institutions (like the State of California) are inclined to say yes, of course they may, and less-liberal institutions are inclined to say that God's laws must be upheld.
Hence to the CJLS, who, once "May gays marry?" became an acceptable question, were asked "May Jewish gays marry?" and all the corresponding questions - may a rabbi perform the ceremony, etc. The C Mvt adopted a similar sort of position to the one it had on women - you're welcome in the shul, you can take minor leadership roles if the rabbi is okay with that, but you're not an ideal role model and we're not going to have you in the rabbinical school. I can see why that wasn't particularly satisfactory, but I don't know why the issue came to the CJLS again recently. I mean, I don't know why now. But anyway, people have been putting together papers which outline the different approaches to gayness, and the CJLS met to vote on them and decide which ones they wanted to endorse.
They seem to be pretty well agreed that the Torah is Right and anal sex is Not Okay. There was a voice which said that anal sex is Okay and the Torah is Not Right, which is a valid approach, but hardly one the CJLS could endorse without compromising itself quite severely, since one of its basic (only) premises is that Torah Is More Right Than Most Other Things.
Within this, there seem to be two main views. One: that Anal Sex is Not Okay and neither is living a gay lifestyle; we understand that sometimes that's how people are built, but the system is the system and it rules that way for a reason, sorry about that. Two: Anal Sex is Not Okay, but gay lifestyles are socially acceptable these days, so we should permit that and just trust people not to have anal sex.
I have my own views on all this, but that's another post. What troubles me is how the CJLS is approaching the question. Essentially, the question is "Is it desirable to have homosexual couples in our communities?" That's where the social balance is. Secular and religious societies both decided that it was tolerable; now their question is whether it's desirable. In brief, View One thinks no, it is not desirable, because the Torah bans anal sex, and View Two thinks yes, it is desirable, just don't have anal sex. The problem is that the CJLS has answered a completely different question in a really unhelpful way. The CJLS does not ask: Which of these directions do we as a movement want to follow? it asks: Are these views beyond the pale of Conservative Judaism?
So, if one asks the real question, whether homosexual couples are a desirable component of society, the answer is "Yes and No are both valid Conservative positions."
That's not a decision. That's what's technically known as a cop-out. They did the same when they were talking about women: the underlying question was really "Should women be full and equal members of society?" and the answer again was "Yes and No are both valid Conservative positions." I understand pluralism, and I understand grey areas, and I understand that boundaries are hard to draw, but this is the body whose job it is to decide on these sorts of things in the name of the movement.
At some point, self-definition requires boundaries: one has to have the courage to look at an issue and say "Yes" or "No." Framing the question as "Is this position compatible with who we are?" is very different from saying "Do we want to do this?" - the former tests how far one's boundaries can be stretched, but the latter is at the core of one's being. On a policy level, it's quite a lot more important to ask "Who are we?" than "Is this okay by us?". Any community needs to identify its underlying questions and answer them honestly. The CJLS is vaguely aware of the major underlying questions, but it doesn't try to articulate them; instead it forms related but lesser questions and answers them in a way which does nothing to further its identity, purpose or values.
* that came out as "homosequality" the first time - good typo, no?!
Forward article
It hardly seems necessary to say that the full spectrum of opinions exists in the Jewish world just as it does in the secular world, but perhaps it is necessary. One finds everything from full acceptance to complete shunning. The traditional position does not condone homosexual activity, but some of the more liberal types advocate being nice to gays just as one would be nice to e.g. people who break Shabbat, although not to the extent of letting them get married.
The C Mvt sways between halakha and modernity, and as such tends to get involved when social agendas change. Twenty years ago the question was about whether women could be rabbis; that went along with whether women could be counted full and equal members and leaders of a community, which is a discussion that other institutions (universities, for example) had already been pushed into. Now the hot issue is whether gays may marry; liberal institutions (like the State of California) are inclined to say yes, of course they may, and less-liberal institutions are inclined to say that God's laws must be upheld.
Hence to the CJLS, who, once "May gays marry?" became an acceptable question, were asked "May Jewish gays marry?" and all the corresponding questions - may a rabbi perform the ceremony, etc. The C Mvt adopted a similar sort of position to the one it had on women - you're welcome in the shul, you can take minor leadership roles if the rabbi is okay with that, but you're not an ideal role model and we're not going to have you in the rabbinical school. I can see why that wasn't particularly satisfactory, but I don't know why the issue came to the CJLS again recently. I mean, I don't know why now. But anyway, people have been putting together papers which outline the different approaches to gayness, and the CJLS met to vote on them and decide which ones they wanted to endorse.
They seem to be pretty well agreed that the Torah is Right and anal sex is Not Okay. There was a voice which said that anal sex is Okay and the Torah is Not Right, which is a valid approach, but hardly one the CJLS could endorse without compromising itself quite severely, since one of its basic (only) premises is that Torah Is More Right Than Most Other Things.
Within this, there seem to be two main views. One: that Anal Sex is Not Okay and neither is living a gay lifestyle; we understand that sometimes that's how people are built, but the system is the system and it rules that way for a reason, sorry about that. Two: Anal Sex is Not Okay, but gay lifestyles are socially acceptable these days, so we should permit that and just trust people not to have anal sex.
I have my own views on all this, but that's another post. What troubles me is how the CJLS is approaching the question. Essentially, the question is "Is it desirable to have homosexual couples in our communities?" That's where the social balance is. Secular and religious societies both decided that it was tolerable; now their question is whether it's desirable. In brief, View One thinks no, it is not desirable, because the Torah bans anal sex, and View Two thinks yes, it is desirable, just don't have anal sex. The problem is that the CJLS has answered a completely different question in a really unhelpful way. The CJLS does not ask: Which of these directions do we as a movement want to follow? it asks: Are these views beyond the pale of Conservative Judaism?
So, if one asks the real question, whether homosexual couples are a desirable component of society, the answer is "Yes and No are both valid Conservative positions."
That's not a decision. That's what's technically known as a cop-out. They did the same when they were talking about women: the underlying question was really "Should women be full and equal members of society?" and the answer again was "Yes and No are both valid Conservative positions." I understand pluralism, and I understand grey areas, and I understand that boundaries are hard to draw, but this is the body whose job it is to decide on these sorts of things in the name of the movement.
At some point, self-definition requires boundaries: one has to have the courage to look at an issue and say "Yes" or "No." Framing the question as "Is this position compatible with who we are?" is very different from saying "Do we want to do this?" - the former tests how far one's boundaries can be stretched, but the latter is at the core of one's being. On a policy level, it's quite a lot more important to ask "Who are we?" than "Is this okay by us?". Any community needs to identify its underlying questions and answer them honestly. The CJLS is vaguely aware of the major underlying questions, but it doesn't try to articulate them; instead it forms related but lesser questions and answers them in a way which does nothing to further its identity, purpose or values.
* that came out as "homosequality" the first time - good typo, no?!