Elad Nehorai, a young Jewish writer, describes how he lost his faith in gay rights:
It was the summer of 2008 in Chicago. The month before I went to yeshiva for the first time. I was excited. My friends and I had talked about doing this for a while now.
We were going to the gay pride parade. I remember how happy I was when we went, how happy I was to finally go to one of these. Over half of my friends in college were gay or bisexual, and I wondered why I had never been to one before.
We spent the whole day there, taking in the sights, enjoying the happiness and feeling of freedom.
I don’t know exactly what I was thinking that day, but I do know that I never expected to change how I felt about gays or gay rights. Sure, I was going to yeshiva, but I didn’t even believe that the Torah came from G-d. I liked the spirituality.
Anyway, this was who I was. And nothing would change that, no matter what happened in Israel.
But then it did.
I don’t really know how it happened, or when it happened. There was never a conscious decision. It was something I struggled with for a while, then tried not to think about because it upset me. And then one day, I woke up, and I realized I looked at the world differently.
Nehorai writes with love and respect for gay acquaintances who will disagree with his new view, but he believes friendship requires being up-front: “The orthodox Jewish world is full of people with a lot of love, with a lot of care, for the gay community, but who nonetheless don’t believe in gay marriage.”
At some point, the parade always ends.
January 8th, 2013 | 5:30 pm
This article is an interesting contrast with the message from Shmuel Herzfeld. Herzfeld concludes that homosexuals deserve love and respect. Yet Herzfeld also concludes that homosexuality is inconsistent with Jewish teachings, and concludes that people who oppose state recognition of same-sex marriage are not necessarily bigots.
Nevertheless, Herzfeld supports state recognition of same-sex marriage, just as he supports state recognition of other non-Jewish marriages that might conflict with Jewish teachings. He draws a distinction between religious teachings and civil law, and concludes that civil law should not be a tool for imposing religious teachings. Opposition to state recognition for same-sex marriage, even while well-intended, has the foreseeable consequence of furthering bigotry. Having long been oppressed by such practices, Jews should exercise the utmost care to avoid joining in oppression of others.
January 9th, 2013 | 9:21 am
nobody really wrote “Opposition to state recognition for same-sex marriage, even while well-intended, has the foreseeable consequence of furthering bigotry.”
This made me go back to the Herzfeld article which I now read in full. I do not find this belief in there nor his support for state recognition of SSM. Perhaps nobody will provide links?
In the meantime, I disagree with the statement “nobody really” makes. Disagreement is not equivalent to bigotry, which seems to be the heart of this Herzfeld article, and never has been. The United States is founded on the idea that we humans can disagree peacefully. If there is a case for SSM, it needs to made explicitly with the intention of persuading others. The closest such argument I’ve heard has been based on emotions. However, I, for one, have never found the argument “It will make people feel good,” persuasive. The statement is not an argument but a claim. Turned into an argument it comes out “SSM should be state-recognized in order to prevent encouraging bigotry.” Unfortunately, that argument is a disconnected tautology that could be made for any claim.
Let’s hear a cogent, connected argument for state recognition of SSM. And then leave the decision to the people without condemning one side or the other.
January 9th, 2013 | 9:51 am
Elad Nehorai says:
Compare this with the language of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2357-2358), which is much closer to the language of modern psychology and psychiatry, and then to the understanding of the latter two fields themselves.
Without starting the whole debate over whether anyone has ever “converted” from homosexuality to heterosexuality, it seems clear to me that both the Catholic Church and especially modern psychiatry and psychology understand that “gays can’t change their fundamental nature.” To believe otherwise or even to be agnostic on this point is so at odds with reality that I am not sure it doesn’t preclude dialog in other areas.
Having read the Chaim Levin piece Elad Nehorai would not publish (but has no problem linking to), I am baffled by his characterization of it as “too political.” I appreciate Nehorai’s sympathy and good will toward gay Jews, but I am more impressed by Levin’s relative equanimity in the wake of Nehorai’s rejection. It is usually better not to extend an invitation at all than to extend it and then withdraw it.
January 9th, 2013 | 11:52 am
Well, the link is here. I apologize if my paraphrase mischaracterized some of the rabbi’s nuance. Regarding Herzfeld’s support for state recognition of same-sex marriage, I was referring to text on p. 3 – 5:
Is that helpful?
January 9th, 2013 | 11:55 am
Regarding the idea that Herzfeld thinks that opposition to state recognition for same-sex marriage, even while well-intended, has the foreseeable consequence of furthering bigotry, I was referring to the text at pp. 5-6:
January 9th, 2013 | 12:01 pm
The sequence of events described by Elad Nehorai is not clear. If the change he describes – his re-evaluation of the possibility of marriage between two persons of the same sex (their devotion and commitment to noble friendship not being in question) did coincide with his beginning Torah study at yeshiva, the following passages will be relevant.
The first is from the writings of Professor Nahum M. Sarna (“On the Book of Psalms”):
Psalm 1: “Why was the composition chosen to head to Book of Psalms? … First and foremost, there is its major theme: the ideal of the centrality of God’s Teaching – in Hebrew “Torah” – in the life of the individual and its indispensable role in the definition and attainment of righteousness. This alone would justify its preeminent position in the Psalter.”
The second provides commentary on scripture study from a Catholic perspective; this by Fr. Hans von Balthasar (“Prayer”):
“Anyone entering the sphere of radiance of the divine word is held fast by it; he knows from experience that this word not only communicates knowledge about God, but – hidden within the garb of the letter – actually has divine qualities: in itself it is an overpowering manifestation of God’s infinity and truth, his majesty and love. … The [reader] had imagined that he was dealing with a word he could grasp and evaluate, like other great and profound utterances of mankind; yet once he enters its field of force, he himself is the one who is grasped and evaluated.”
Professor Sarna, Father von Balthasar, Elad Nehorai, I, and certainly countless others have been “grasped and evaluated” in this way.
But, as an eminent rabbi has written: There are certain phenomena ” – incomprehensible from the outside – that you have to live in order to understand.”
January 9th, 2013 | 12:03 pm
Mike Melendez,
I don’t know how opponents of same-sex marriage can argue, on the one hand, that too many of the victories for same-sex marriage have been won in the courts, and on the other hand that the arguments for same-sex marriage are emotional. Emotional arguments don’t win court cases; legal and rational arguments do. We certainly can’t present full-scale arguments for same-sex marriage in this thread, but many of the arguments are based on arguments about rights, fairness, and equality. You may not personally accept those arguments, but in essence I think you may be saying that when gay people argue they have a right to something, they are merely saying they want it.
The United States is founded on the idea that we humans can disagree peacefully.
And the United States wouldn’t be here today if there had not been a very bloody Civil War! It’s obviously not the case that in every disagreement with two opposing views, one view must be bigoted. However, it is also obviously not the case that where there are two opposing views, both of them are benign. The fight over slavery is an obvious example.
Going back to the Elad Nehorai piece, while it is clear he opposes same-sex marriage, it is not clear to me that he opposes everything that might fall under the classification “gay rights.” But unfortunately he does not make his position clear. Is he calling for some kind of real change of heart on both sides, or is he recycling the old notion of “love the sinner, hate the sin”?
January 9th, 2013 | 12:27 pm
That was a very interesting piece. I also found the first comment under it, by a gay Jewish man who was once orthodox, to be very interesting as well. In it, he says that he understands the writer’s point of view and that anyone who takes strict Judaism (is it Hassidic? I couldn’t quite figure that out — I’m not familiar with all the different kinds of Judaism) seriously has to admit that the Torah forbids same-sex intercourse. BUT, he says, “life is complicated” and it is simply not practical to expect anyone to be celibate. This is a Jewish version of an argument I hear very often (applied to sex between unmarried heterosexual people as well): You can’t seriously expect anyone to be celibate. I don’t understand that argument at all. Why can’t anyone be expected to be celibate? Why is that impossible? It seems to me to be perfectly possible for anyone of either sex or of any “orientation” to be celibate, and hardly an unreasonable expectation for a great many people in a great many circumstances. When did that become so “impossible”?
January 9th, 2013 | 2:12 pm
You can’t seriously expect anyone to be celibate. I don’t understand that argument at all.
Gail Finke,
I think you are not fully dealing with hawudl’s comment. He doesn’t say you can’t expect anyone to be celibate. He says celibacy is unreasonable in the majority of cases. I’d point out that while celibacy is thought of as a “higher calling” in Christianity, this is not at all the case in Judaism. In post-Biblical literature Jewish opinion stands out clear and simple: marriage is a duty, and celibacy a sin.
huwadl also says, “I cannot square what you say about this with the way you emphasize in another post that one’s Torah observance cannot be at the expense of one’s mental and emotional well-being.”
Recall that the Seventh Commandment is, “You shall not steal.” And yet from the old online Catholic Encyclopedia article on theft: we are told that a person who steals to save himself or his family from starvation is not guilty of wrongdoing:
It would obviously take a much longer argument than huwadl makes or I am making here, but certainly the argument can be made that if Jewish Law (or Christian morality) is going to cause harm, then it is perfectly legitimate to question it and possibly “bend the rules.” (“The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.) If the prohibitions against stealing in the Decalogue are not absolute, than why should the prohibitions against homosexuality be?
January 9th, 2013 | 2:17 pm
Gail Finke -
There is a distinction between expecting people to be celibate and legally requiring them to be celibate, though. For example, Catholics expect – indeed, require – their adherents to avoid divorce and remarriage. They don’t lobby to prevent non-Catholics from divorcing or remarrying.
January 9th, 2013 | 2:55 pm
David Nickol writes: “Emotional arguments don’t win court cases; legal and rational arguments do.”
To which I can only ask, what world are you living in? One has only to read the disagreeing judgements of our Supreme Court, let alone listen to pro- and op- ponents’ construals of them to know there is more than rationality there. Certainly you don’t claim that the Dred Scott decision was based on rationality.
My claim is that I have heard none that persuade me. Clearly there are those who are persuaded, as in the recent election, and those who are not, as in all the states with Constitutional amendments on the definition. That is where the persuasion should continue. I would much prefer it was without the coercion of declaring those who disagree are bigots, but that appears to be where we are.
As to your reference to the Civil War, that seems to me a major failure on our part. We did not persuade. I hope you’re not suggesting that civil war will be necessary to resolve this issue. I would note that the Civil War did not resolve the underlying problem in the law. That took another hundred years and the persuasive powers of a Martin Luther King, Jr.
Thanks to “nobody really” for the links. They’re a help. It turns out I disagree with Herzfeld. That’s fine by me. I have no problem with disagreements in themselves.
January 9th, 2013 | 3:26 pm
Ray Ingles: I don’t know where your argument comes from. No opponent of ssm I know of is proposing that we require homosexuals to remain celebate. They can (and do) have all the sex they want outside of marriage.
Dave Nichol: I find your casuistry strange. I don’t see the parallel between theft and sexual intercourse. On your reasoning, rape is justified if I haven’t “gotten any” in a long time. As far as “bending the rules” if it causes “harm to one’s psychological well-being” then, in that case, it may well cause “psychological distress” for someone to refrain from adultery. Does that make it justified then in those circumstances? Any sinful inclincation causes psychological and emotional distress by its very nature. That is why Jesus came to liberate us from sin.
When Jesus said, “Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath” he definitely not saying, “Hey, if the Gospel is too hard, don’t get all hung up about.” If anything he was calling his disciples to an even more stringent moral code that of external observance of the Law. If anything, he was criticizing the doctors of the Law bending the Law too much, not too little (see Mt 15: 4-9).
January 9th, 2013 | 5:05 pm
On your reasoning, rape is justified if I haven’t “gotten any” in a long time. . . .
Robert,
That is of course not true, and I think your approach is to make a crude parody of my argument which embodies a very basic principle in both Judaism and Catholicism. While certain actions are never permissible in Judaism, and certain are never permissible in Catholicism, neither religion is a set of inflexible rules to be obeyed no matter what the consequences. See this, for example, in Wikipedia:
As far as “bending the rules” if it causes “harm to one’s psychological well-being” then, in that case, it may well cause “psychological distress” for someone to refrain from adultery.
First, adultery is never permitted in Judaism or Catholicism. But let me give a very small example of “bending the rules.” My mother was always painfully underweight. During Lent, her priest not only told her not to fast, he urged her to try to eat more. When dealing with issues like well being, psychological distress, health, and so on, one can’t use them frivolously.
Please note that I did not pretend to make an argument to justify homosexuals abandoning celibacy because to be celibate was harmful. I suggested some principles that might come into play to make an argument along those lines that might be worth considering. As I said, “You shall not steal” is stated as an absolute. “You shall not kill” is stated as an absolute. Neither is…
January 9th, 2013 | 7:40 pm
David Nickol, “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not murder” (versus “kill” which is a less correct translation) are both absolutes. St. Thomas said you can take in certain circumstance, but theft is always wrong. There are no exceptions, though there are actions which look like theft, but are not. I trust you can consult the Summa on your own to study this distinction further.
“Thou shalt not lie.” That one, sir, is the tricky one. I’d suggest using that commandment to make your point.
January 9th, 2013 | 7:58 pm
Mike Melendez,
“My claim is that I have heard none that persuade me.”
I’m confused. Are you saying that you have heard no rational arguments for gay marriage, or are you saying that you have heard no rational arguments for gay marriage that you find persuasive?
I’m curious about what argument for gay marriage you have found more persuasive than others.
January 10th, 2013 | 9:38 am
Bregalad,
You make some good points, but the same interpretive strategies that allow Aquinas to say that taking of property that is not your own from the actual owner who doesn’t want to you to have it is not always stealing can be used by apologists for homosexuality and same-sex marriage to argue that the few references to homosexuality in the Bible are not meant to condemn all homosexual acts or homosexual relationships as we know them today. And many have made good arguments along these lines.
Regarding the commandment against killing or murder, once again, interpretation is critically important. A note in the New American Bible says the following of Exodus 20:13:
So if you go by “original intent,” the commandment is not a prohibition against all killing (or even all murder), but the killing of a fellow tribesman under certain circumstances. It has always struck me that the commandments against stealing and against murder tell us exactly nothing, because they don’t define wrongful killing or wrongful taking of another’s property. Stealing and murder are wrong by definition, and a command not to do something that is wrong by definition would appear to be unnecessary and redundant.
January 10th, 2013 | 10:15 am
“Thou shalt not lie.” That one, sir, is the tricky one. I’d suggest using that commandment to make your point.
Bregalad,
Of course, there is no commandment with this wording. I have read some fascinating debates about whether lying is permissible or not. Anne Frank often comes up. (Nazis: “Are you hiding Anne Frank?”) The first edition of the Catechism solved the problem neatly by defining lying as follows:
January 10th, 2013 | 2:14 pm
Robert -
I didn’t say they were. (Though I do live in a state where cohabitation is still illegal. I’ll grant the law’s rarely enforced.)
My point was that, while Christianity makes celibacy and/or chastity a requirement, our laws do not. Similarly, Catholicism forbids divorce and remarriage, but our laws allow that.
So just because (many types of) Christian would be enjoined from same-sex marriage, it doesn’t automatically follow that the law should forbid people from doing so.
January 10th, 2013 | 2:30 pm
There is no sound argumentation in favor of the imposition of so-called SSM. No pro-SSM court opinion has presented a rationale that does not depend on a crude and sentimental abuse of judicial review.
The pro-SSM argumentationis anti-marriage and pro-gay identity politics. The supremacy of identity politics is far from reasonable no matter the voice that presents it. Justices are merely fellow citizens and their rule does not rightly substitute for the rule of law and sound reasoning. The pro-SSM legal arguments invite justices to abandon marriage in favor of a specious substitution. That imposition is excused, supposedly, by a gay emphasis. This is a blatant example of an arbitrary exercise of governmental power and is not made less unjust by it being imposed for the sake of the emotionionalism of pro-gay bigotry.
January 10th, 2013 | 3:21 pm
There is a curious leap in argument amongst several comments that somehow by the government not providing a particular social arrangement legal privilege, it somehow forbids it.
There is a world of difference between outlawing something and giving it legal privilege to encourage it, with quite wide berth for simply ignoring or not recognizing it in law.
There are many types of relationships that are powerful, meaningful, life-sustaining, even useful, even life-long, that the government has nothing to do with. (Thank goodness for that.)
So, the question remains, why privilege any relationships at all?
January 10th, 2013 | 3:51 pm
Ray Ingles, marriage law and marital status is for marriage. It follows that the law discriminates between marriage and non-marriage. No one-sexed scenario is marital. This goes to the core of the type of relationship that is marital. That core is not defined by gay this or gay that; nor is it define by anti-gay this or anti-gay that. The law does not create this type of relationship. When the law gets marriage wrong, it is unjust. The imposition of SSM law is unjust.
January 10th, 2013 | 5:41 pm
There is a curious leap in argument amongst several comments that somehow by the government not providing a particular social arrangement legal privilege, it somehow forbids it.
Heloise,
I don’t understand your comment. Only state governments “provide” marriage. If the state people live in provides opposite-sex marriage but not same-sex marriage, then for all practical purposes it forbids same-sex marriage to its residents. If the state sets 16 as the age of consent for marriage, then for all practical purposes, it forbids anyone from marrying a 15-year-old.
The imposition of SSM law is unjust.
Chairm,
To whom?
January 10th, 2013 | 11:18 pm
Greetings, Chairm! As you may recall from our past discussions, my support for SSM depends on hypotheticals such as these:
Jo has kids via a sperm donor. Jo and Sue live together, raising Jo’s kids since they were infants. Then Jo and the kids are in an auto accident; Jo is incapacitated. Should the law provide for Sue to visit Jo and the kids in the hospital or not?
Jo dies. Is it better for Sue to get custody of the kids, or for the kids to become wards of the state? Would it be better if a randomly-appointed guardian ad litem had authority to prohibit Sue and the kids from seeing each other, or not?
Title to the house, cars, and checking account were in Jo’s name. Jo had no will. Would it be better for the kids if ownership transferred to Sue, or if ownership transferred, eventually and indirectly, to minor children?
If Sue gets custody of the kids, would it be better for the kids if Sue can get access to Jo’s Social Security Survivor Benefits or not?
If instead Sue abandons the kids, would it be better if the state could attach her assets to help provide for the children, or not?
For me, civil (not religious) marriage has less in common with candles and gowns than with work gloves: it’s a practical solution for practical problems. Civil marriage laws provide practical remedies for the problems noted above. Given a choice between granting legal recognition to the marriage of Jo and Sue, or not, I favor granting recognition. It’s simply practical.
January 12th, 2013 | 1:08 am
Provisions for designated beneficiaries already provide the practical solutions for the mutual dependencies of the nonmarital category of relationships and living arrangements.
Your comment does not justify special status (marital status is a special status) nor does it justify limitations on eligibility.
Pointing at the use of third party gametes is to point outside of the marital relationship. Third party procreation is extramarital even when married people partake of it. So it does not justify marital status. Your thinking is backward.
Today’s Government welfare programs do not justify marital status. Marriage has a reality independent of Government. It is a type of relationship that is the solution to societal problems that Government cannot competently solve through entitlement programs. So such Government activity does not justify marital status. Government does not create nor own this foundational social institution of civil society.
The imposition of SSM is unjustified and using an arbitrary exercise of governmental power to obscure what marriage is … well that is anti-marriage and in terms promoting the good of marriage it is simply impractical.
If Jo and Sue are women, their relationship is nonmarital. That is so regardless of the use of third party gametes. That is so regardless ofSocial Security. It is so whether or not the two women are sexually attracted to men. It is so regardless of how closely related they might be. It is so whether or not Jo and Sue join Harry (or Harriet) in a threesome … or join with the sperm donor in tripartite parenting.
But your hypotheticals would lean heavily the other way and excuse the abolition in law of the legitimate boundaries. The SSSM idea, shorn of the gay emphasis,is just a call for protective measures. But that is not the marriage idea. Marriage justifies special status not merely protective…
January 13th, 2013 | 5:47 am
Fine; for purposes of this discussion, I haven’t proposed altering reality independent of Government. I propose altering civil law – a reality dependent on government, varying jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Each time you say that, I ask you for the documents that would permit me to direct my Social Security Survivor Benefits to any person of my choosing. I’m still waiting.
But assume for a moment that your assertions were accurate: Should we then repeal all default laws governing child custody and property allocations regarding married couples? For example, should we assume that, in the absence of a will, a spouse intended her assets to default to the state?
Or should we have a default presumption to the contrary?
We have developed certain default presumptions for dealing with the practical problems couples confront. And if certain default presumptions are warranted for male/female couples, I see no reason for withholding the benefits of these same policies from same-sex couples – no reason except animus.
Jo’s minivan full of kids collided with Mary’s minivan full of kids. Ambulances take them all to the hospital – but time is running out for the drives. Jo arrives at the hospital at the same time as Bill, Mary’s husband. Neither Jo, Sue, Mary, or Joe prepared any documents governing who has access to a hospital room. Sue and Bill arrive panting at the hospital admissions desk, desperate to get to their loved ones’ sides for those last, precious moments of life.
In practice, what outcome would we want to see implemented?
January 14th, 2013 | 9:27 pm
If there is a problem with a government welfare program such as Social Securty, then, fix that instead of using it as an excuse to impose the anti-marriage conceptual mess that is SSM. I thought you were big on practical solutions.
Likewise, if you see a problem with provisions for designated beneficiaries, then, address that problem independant of the type of relationship that is marital. By the way, the marital defaults, such as they may be, are for marriange not for non-marriage.
Hospital visitation policies are not a good excuse for the imposition of SSM. Address the problem directly based on the reality that an all male or an all female scenario is not marital. But maybe you can explain the practical justification for favoring the gay subset of nonmarriage. Is the presumption that same-sex sexual behavior merits a default that is superior to other considerations in similarily situated types of relationships that do not have such a same-sex sexual emphasis? Or is the sexual part irrelevant to hospital policies on visitation?
Why the gay emphasis?Seems impractical for all of those other nonmarital types of relationship — and nongay — most of which are not sexualized.
In practice I would prefer hospitals to honor the visitation wishes of their patients and of those designated by their patients. It is a pragmatic default analogous to the service friendly notion that the customer is right.
January 15th, 2013 | 3:01 am
Whatgay emphasis? In case I’ve been unclear, I’m saying that where committed couples, regardless of sexual orientation, have the same need, the law should accord them the same treatment. If any commentor expresses a need to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, it isn’t me.
Great. The problem is called the federal Defense of Marriage Act. We’re going to repeal it. Glad to have your support.
Chairm, seated behind the hospital admissions desk, patiently explains to Sue that Jo is incapacitated and therefore cannot consent to Sue’s vist, but Sue is welcome to grieve in the waiting room as Jo dies. And Chairm sugests that she go grieve in the corner next to Bill, who is similarly excluded from being at the side of his incapacitated wife as she dies.
Jo and Bill are devestated. But they console each other as best they can, reassuring each other that with each passing day, more voters are concluding that there is a better way to struture public policy regarding couples. They will never forget the bitterness of this night, but they are comforted in the knowledge that a new dawn is coming….
January 15th, 2013 | 7:52 pm
Of all the types of relationships in the nonmarital category, why your gay emphasis? That is the question you have not answered.
For practical purposes, there is no sexual orientation requirement for eligibility to marry (i.e. to form the union of husband and wife) and no such requirement for ineligibility to marry. Two men are ineligible even if they declare themselves «heterosexual». A man and a woman are eligible even if one or both declare themselves «homosexual». Do you propose a sexual orientation test for those who’d SSM? If not, why not?
When you talk of the «same-sex couple» perhaps you do not mean to presuppose a particular sexual orientation. Hence your reference to sexual orientation was errant and not indicative of an emphasis you’d eschew. I doubt it.
January 17th, 2013 | 8:09 am
The designation is setup before an emergency … in anticipationof such a possibility however remote. That is the point of making such a provision.
Your proposed solution clearly depends on getting SSM’d beforean emegency arises. Otherwise, SS would not be a potential solution.
Why pretend the sequence only applies to SSM? Your little dramatic fiction does not shed a flattering light on your supposedly practical approach. Reread my earier remarks of provisions for designated beneficiaries and recalibrate.
January 20th, 2013 | 11:44 pm
David Nickol asked, “Chairm, To whom?”
David, I ask, “David, what?”
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact