Shehecheyanu...

[rymenhild]

After years of debate, the Conservative Movement's Committee for Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS) has finally come to a conclusion regarding commitment ceremonies and ordination for gays and lesbians. The Conservative Movement of American Judaism being what it is, the committee has actually come to three conclusions.

From the press release, as posted at cons_judaism:

At the CJLS meetings, five specific teshuvot were extensively discussed in a spirit of collegiality and open-mindedness. Two teshuvot -- one authored by Rabbi Joel Roth and the other authored by Rabbis Elliot Dorff, Daniel Nevins and Avram Reisner -- obtained clear majority support. Rabbi Roth’s responsum “Homosexuality Revisited” reaffirmed the prior position, which denied ordination as clergy to active homosexuals and also prohibited same sex commitment ceremonies or marriage. In contrast, Rabbis Dorff, Nevins and Reisner, while retaining the Torah’s explicit prohibition, as understood by the rabbis banning male homosexual intercourse, argued in “Homosexuality, Human Dignity and Halakhah” for the full normalization of the status of gay and lesbian Jews. Under this ruling, gay and lesbian Jews may be ordained as clergy and their committed relationships may be recognized, although not as sanctified marriage.

A third teshuva accepted by the CJLS, written by Rabbi Leonard Levy, which upheld the traditional prohibitions, argued that homosexuality is not a unitary condition and urged the development of educational programs within the community to achieve understanding, compassion and dignity for gays and lesbians. There was also some support on the committee for a more comprehensive repeal of the prior ban against homosexual relationships. All authors of teshuvot shared a universal appreciation for the principle of kvod habriot and the welfare of gays and lesbians in our community.

During its deliberations the CJLS did not discuss – nor do any of the papers reflect – any determination regarding gay marriage.

My response: Thank God, the Dorff opinion passed. I'm relieved to know that ordination of gays and lesbians and performance of commitment ceremonies is possible (at rabbis' discretion) in my movement. That said, I find myself -- surprisingly -- disappointed that neither of the opinions further left than Dorff's passed. I should be glad to see that the Conservative movement is keeping itself within rigorous Jewish law, and that it isn't discarding tradition for the sake of rendering all homosexual activity (read: anal sex for men) permissible. And yet, and yet... I can't articulate what it is about not passing the Tucker opinion that disappoints me, but something does.

In any case, I certainly don't mind that gay and lesbian relationships can't be recognized as marriage. The Jewish marriage ceremony, ancient and venerable as it is, still has elements that make the feminist in me cringe. I mean, it's designed to pass a woman into the control and guardianship of her husband. If I were straight and planning my wedding, I'd probably use a minimally modified traditional Jewish wedding ceremony for the sake of the tradition. Not having access to that ceremony doesn't make me feel deprived, in any case.

Thoughts, anyone? Say what you want honestly, but bear in mind that this is my journal, and homophobia of the sort I've seen spouted on other Jewish LJ communities this week will either be stamped on or laughed at. I will not, of course, be deleting comments with which I disagree, but I may begin arguing with them.

ETA: More information from the Jewish Daily Forward. Apparently four CJLS committee members, including Rabbi Roth, resigned to protest the approval of the Dorff tshuvah. The article also discusses what today's results are likely to mean for ordination at the movement's two rabbinical schools.

Edited again to add: I just noticed (with help from spin0za1) further description of the Levy tshuvah in the Forward article.

At Wednesday’s vote, held at Manhattan’s Park Avenue Synagogue, five teshuvot were on the table, covering a diverse spectrum of opinion. The teshuvot in favor of upholding the ban on gay ordination and same-sex unions included...one written by Rabbi Leonard Levy, making the case that homosexuality is an illness that can be cured.

Other sites I've clicked on today suggest that Rabbi Levy is actually endorsing reparative therapy -- and that this endorsement is now legally part of Conservative Judaism. Excuse me? What on earth is bad science doing in an approved CJLS opinion?

Third edit: Rabbi Jason Miller has posted further information on his blog.

Fourth edit: In response to the CJLS decisions, the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism (USCJ), the arm of the movement that governs synagogues (rather than rabbis), is planning to change its policies to permit the hiring of openly gay or lesbian employees. Rabbi Jerome Epstein, executive vice president of USCJ, has also spoken out against reparative therapy. (Thanks, Dan!)

Comments

[nepheliad.livejournal.com]

Thank God the Dorff opinion passed rather sums up my opinion, too, though I do kind of wish that my culture were entirely okay with me being a lesbian, sometimes.

This might be why we're really a family of reform Jews who occasionally act conservative.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

*hugs* Actually, quite a lot of movement rank-and-file is made up of Reform Jews who occasionally act Conservative. When I was on the phone with my sister this afternoon, she was saying that while she prefers Conservative services, all her opinions and positions are Reform. I have a lot of sympathy for that position, and I'm not that far away from it myself. My own observance and opinions have drifted left since I finished college.

[batyatoon]

Actually, quite a lot of movement rank-and-file is made up of Reform Jews who occasionally act Conservative.

I found that out in college, and simultaneously found out that this fact had severely distorted my Orthodox-upbringing childhood perceptions of Conservative Judaism.

[batyatoon]

This has long been something I'm conflicted about -- very nearly as conflicted as I am on certain gender issues -- in Orthodox Judaism. Which, as you know, is a lot less inclined to be anything like as flexible as the Conservative movement.

The best internal compromise I've been able to reach is perilously close to outright internal contradiction. On the one hand: a firm belief that the halakha is the halakha, and we do not edit Divinely given law in order to better suit what we currently think is right. On the other: a fierce advocacy of full equality under secular law, and of making sure no one is any more bound by religious law than they choose to be.

And on the gripping hand, a fervent wish to draw a better distinction between halakha and habit. I'm honestly bothered by the use of the word tradition as synonymous with law; there are some things we do because God told us to, and there are some things we do because we've always done them, and it worries me when these get conflated.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

And on the gripping hand, a fervent wish to draw a better distinction between halakha and habit. I'm honestly bothered by the use of the word tradition as synonymous with law; there are some things we do because God told us to, and there are some things we do because we've always done them, and it worries me when these get conflated.

Hear, hear. Thanks for your thoughtfulness.

There's also a category of "things we do because we're told we've always done them," which doesn't mean the same thing as "things we do because we've always done them." The clearest example I can think of is in the Conservative Jewish community of England (which does not map on to American Conservative Judaism). I went to an English Conservative synagogue once which had separate seating but no mechitzah. My host family there told me that Orthodox synagogues in London had begun to use mechitzahs (mechitzot?) recently (last forty years, maybe? Don't remember, and if someone reading here knows, feel free to correct). They'd started using them because Orthodox Jews from elsewhere had said, "We're Orthodox, and Orthodox Jews have physical barriers separating men from women at synagogue." However, traditional English Jews, since they returned to England in Cromwell's day, had apparently never had those physical barriers; they weren't traditionally English, and they weren't halachicly mandatory.

I don't think that example is actually relevant to issues of Judaism's treatments of homosexuality, although I find it interesting as representative of the issues facing a religion bound by varying sets of tradition.

In any case, conflict and compromise, internal and external, are part of what makes Judaism important to me. We admit our conflicts, value our conflicts, and invest time and thought in arguing about them. The process is painful, but maybe it gets us, gradually, to something God might want for us.

[batyatoon]

We admit our conflicts, value our conflicts, and invest time and thought in arguing about them. The process is painful, but maybe it gets us, gradually, to something God might want for us.

God I hope so.

[taylweaver.livejournal.com]

It is a shame that Rabbi Roth resigned from the committee. Rabbi Rabinowitz too. They are both people I respect. I don't think it was a spontaneous decision, in any case - I am pretty sure that they thought about it long and hard.

And you should know, I am pretty sure it had nothing to do with their attitudes toward homosexuality. I think it had more to do with their approaches toward halakha.

From what I understand, they found themselves in a sticky situation in which they were torn between a personal desire to find a way to make it work, and an understanding of halakha that prevented them from doing so.

Rabbi Roth, this past summer, in his halakha class at the Conservative Yeshiva, went through the arguments of all three tshuvot with us - though he couldn't give us anything in writing, of course. He felt that there were three major weaknesses in Dorff's paper, and that its acceptance would be akin to accepting the driving tshuva - not because of the content, but because of the way it was argued.

I also know that he predicted that this would happen - that the far left tshuva-turned-takana would not pass, and that his and Dorff's would. (I don't think he expected that third one to pass.) He also predicted that it will be like the tshuvot that led to egalitarianism - it is permissible to be nonegalitarian in a Conservative shul (that is, not let women lead stuff/count in a minyan) - but the vast majority of shuls ended up going egal. Basically, I think he felt that once the Dorff tshuva passed, whether or not his passed didn't matter because it became irrelevant.

Having heard Rabbi Roth's perspective on all of this, I am really not sure where I stand. Maybe the Conservative movement should have found a different path to this. Maybe they should have passed a takanah (not the one on the table - a different one - one a bit more respectful to the Torah than the takanah that they had) so that they could acknowledge that this flies in the face of traditional halakha.

Like I said, I am torn on this stuff.

That having been said, what's done is done. And maybe now United Synagogue will let USY hire openly gay staff members. That would be nice. To end that sort of discrimination (which they get away with by being a religious organization). The fact that an openly gay person can't currently work in the USY office definitely bothers me - that has nothing to do with marriage and ordination, and I hope the passage of the Dorff tshuvah will encourage United Synagogue to change its policy.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

Which reminds me, I'm supposed to forward you, and anyone else I can find who was at some point on United Synagogue or USY staff and might be interested in signing it, a link to my friend Dan's petition regarding openly gay staff at United Synagogue. There's the petition; I'll email you a link to the letter around it.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

Petition emailed to your gmail account; I've forgotten which one you check lately, so check that one.

Do you know anything about the Levy opinion?

[taylweaver.livejournal.com]

I remember Rabbi Roth saying something about it being a more scientific analysis (this says nothing for the quality of the "science") or something along those lines, and that he felt it would be irrelevant, ultimately, because his tshuvah had the same outcome - with different rationale, of course - that there shouldn't be ordination of homosexuals or homosexual commitment ceremonies. I got the sense from him that it wouldn't pass because it wouldn't need to - but he may have just been saying it didn't matter if it did. Anyway, he focused on the other three. (though it seems that there are four others that got voted on - I don't know which other one I don't know about.)

And yes, I check the gmail - and that's where the address from my own domain name forwards to as well.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

And we have further good news..

[muchabstracted.livejournal.com]

I read most of this with interest but as an outsider who *looks around furtively* does not particularly feel bound by halaka. But the idea of reparative therapy for homosexuals being endorsed in any forum makes my skin crawl. (Seriously, parents sometimes come to me hoping that I'll steer their wayward children away from anything resembling homosexuality. Fortunately for my peace of mind, they're generally also clear that they'll love their children no matter what.)

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

I'm there with the skin crawling. Ick.

[shirei-shibolim.livejournal.com]

Other sites I've clicked on today suggest that Rabbi Levy is actually endorsing reparative therapy -- and that this endorsement is now legally part of Conservative Judaism. Excuse me? What on earth is bad science doing in an approved CJLS opinion?

The USCJ endorsed bad science when they decided to actively encourage conversion of the spouses of intermarried Jews. Maybe the CJLS wanted to show them up. "Our bogus psychological theory trumps your bogus sociological theory. Nyeh!"

(And just for the record, yes, it's true. I've been led to believe that it is not the focus of the teshuva, but Levy's paper does mention and endorse reparative therapy.)

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

Really? What poor science was involved with the conversion decision?

[shirei-shibolim.livejournal.com]

The undisputed fact: A Jewish child raised by a Jewish parent and a non-Jewish parent is statistically less likely to identify as a Jew and to practice Judaism than a Jewish child raised by two Jewish parents.

The USCJ's post hoc argument: Being raised by a Jewish parent and a non-Jewish parent causes Jewish children to be less likely to identify as Jews and practice Judaism. If we modify the households in question so that both parents are Jewish, we will fix this problem.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

...Oh.

I have noticed lately that students don't always come out of high school understanding the difference between cause and effect. Maybe the USCJ missed the lesson too.

[shirei-shibolim.livejournal.com]

I have noticed lately that students don't always come out of high school understanding the difference between cause and effect.

I wish I could say that were surprising. Has it had much of an effect on your teaching?

The practical answer to that

[elettaria.livejournal.com]

Coming from a community where most of the relationships are mixed-faith (the Jewish population of Edinburgh is tiny) and are welcomed (hell, we couldn't run the community otherwise - all the major figures in the community are in mixed-faith marriages, and the newsletter is written by the Catholic wife of our administrator), but originally from a very Jewish part of London in which mixed-faith relationships were generally discouraged, in my experience it's the community approach to mixed-faith relationships that governs how the children are raised. If the Jewish partner is rejected by their community for "marrying out", they are unlikely to raise their children as Jewish. If both partners are welcomed by the community and the non-Jewish partner's faith (or lack thereof) is fully respected, there's a much stronger chance that the Jewish partner will remain part of the community. If they are given support for the raising of an interfaith family, they're more likely to do it. Around half the members of my community are regular shul attenders, which is far higher than I've known in other communities with lower intermarriage rates. The "convert or sod off" attitude towards non-Jewish partners is more likely to alienate the Jewish partner than anything else.

...and yes, apart from being generally disrespectful, that argument you cite is dreadful logic.

Re: The practical answer to that

[shirei-shibolim.livejournal.com]

Thing is, the USCJ already had a policy of openness to intermarried couples. I don't know how effective it was or even how long it's been in place, but this is a really funny way to supplement it.

Re: The practical answer to that

[elettaria.livejournal.com]

Maybe they decided that their openness policy was causing The Destruction of the Jewish Race?

I saw a scary article recently on what looked like a fundamentalist Christian site where some rabbi was denouncing Israel's recent decision to recognise same-sex marriages from abroad as the equivalent of another Holocaust. Brrr.

more info

[(Anonymous)]

You should check out
http://uscj.org/Law_Committee_Decisi7193.html
http://uscj.org/Ordination_of_Gays_a7194.html

It talks about the new USCJ policy. As of today, someone who is gay or lesbian can be hired by USCJ. It is unclear whether individual employees can still discriminate based on sexual orientation. I emailed Rabbi Epstein to request a clarifican and I also sent him our current signatures at:
http://netivotshalom.org/uscj/USCJantidiscriminationpetition.pdf

As an added bonus the USCJ statements publicly disagree with the endorsement of reparative therapy. For an organization that tends to defer to the CJLS, this is quite significant.

I also noticed on the link to Rabbi Miller's page a comment on why the two others didn't pass. They were declared takanot which means they would have needed 13 instead of 6 signatures to pass. It doesn't say how many they received. From other conversations, I've been told that there was some parliamentary fuzziness on how things were declared takanot so the final decisions on those responsa might still change.

Dan H.

Re: more info

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

Fabulous, Dan -- thanks for telling me, and thanks for your work on this!