Conservatives approve gay rulings

[jewscout]

Conservatives approve gay rulings



The Conservative movement's central halakhic authority approved three contradictory teshuvot - halachic opinions - on Wednesday regarding homosexuality and Jewish law.

Two received majorities in the 25-member Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS), meeting at a synagogue on Manhattan's Upper East Side. One submitted by Rabbi Joel Roth, a professor at Jewish Theological Seminary in New York, reaffirmed the movement's current position, which denies ordination to homosexuals and prohibits same-sex commitment ceremonies or marriages.


The second, drafted by Rabbis Elliot Dorff of the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, Daniel Nevins of Farmington Hills, Michigan, and Avram Reisner of Baltimore, retains the prohibition against homosexual intercourse but allows ordination for gays and lesbians, and for their committed relationships to be recognized, although not sanctified as marriages.

The third teshuvah, written by Rabbi Leonard Levy, upheld the traditional prohibitions and urged the development of educational programs within the community to promote understanding for gays and lesbians. This motion passed without receiving a majority, as a teshuva only requires support from six out of the 25 voting members on the panel to be considered an acceptable interpretation.

The advisory nature of the CJLS means that each rabbi and congregation has the authority to decide whether to follow the new rulings.
One of the four main Conservative Jewish seminaries, the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, is expected to begin ordaining gays in the near future.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1164881836291&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

 

[NoahideHiker]

So by their own standards of halakic recognition they could vote that pork is OK to eat too. I mean anything that gets enough votes is OK to change, right? I can't understand throwing out the whole Oral Law but to start tossing out the written too?

Devarim 4:2

2. Do not add to the word which I command you, nor diminish from it, to observe the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Devarim 4:40

40. And you shall observe His statutes and His commandments, which I command you this day, that it may be well with you and your children after you, and that you may prolong your days upon the earth which the Lord your God gives you forever.

 

[jewscout]

So by their own standards of halakic recognition they could vote that pork is OK to eat too. I mean anything that gets enough votes is OK to change, right? I can't understand throwing out the whole Oral Law but to start tossing out the written too?

Devarim 4:2

2. Do not add to the word which I command you, nor diminish from it, to observe the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Devarim 4:40

40. And you shall observe His statutes and His commandments, which I command you this day, that it may be well with you and your children after you, and that you may prolong your days upon the earth which the Lord your God gives you forever.

well that's the problem that Conservative judaism sometimes finds itself in...they insist that they are halachically based but that it's open for discussion, essentially.

 

[NoahideHiker]

well that's the problem that Conservative judaism sometimes finds itself in...they insist that they are halachically based but that it's open for discussion, essentially.

This very fact IMHO shows the intrensic connection between the written and the oral laws. They are both fully dependant upon the other and can not be taken one without the other. I don't see how a movement can be halachically based without the oral law.

 

[jewscout]

This very fact IMHO shows the intrensic connection between the written and the oral laws. They are both fully dependant upon the other and can not be taken one without the other. I don't see how a movement can be halachically based without the oral law.

and this is much of Orthodoxy's criticism of Conservative judaism...they use the oral law but they feel they can tweek things for the times

 

[hue&cry]

As a keen observer I have noticed that homosexuals are easy to accept any policitcal party that will to put the I belong tag on them, yes I am be pedantic but Conservatism has always stood for non liberal democrats and to date every homosexaul caught being active in the Tory party has had to resign in social disgrace, the Tories has always stood on this moral ground comming from sound teaching, now gay rulling what gay rights are you mad? marching down tha street like some fany peacock on their so call pride day no to mention the inappropiate public action, this is no more than another attempt to dilute good policy give them rulling rights and they will start to change you party policies, just as the Anglican Chruch has wrongfully allowed same sex marriages in church (NO) much to the disapproval of the Vatican (I quote, we see no reason to saction same sex relaionship nor is there any eveidence to do so) yes this is the voice of religion and not potlics but effectivly the same principal, I tell you as long as Christ is in his holy place I shall accpet no homosexaul no rulling , what's next a sexist secularist.
CS
Thank Be to God
Marshall Inquisitor.

 

[Zardoz]

This isn't a debate forum.

 

[elisheba]

too many health problems with homosexual activities - guaranteed

 

[ShaunGoldstein]

Well even as a reform Jew, I am a bit skeptical about gay marriages.

It's one thing for non-Jews who are not obligated to follow the law to allow it, because well, they are only obligated to follow the Seven Noachide Laws (which say nothing specifically about homosexuality) but another thing when you claim to be "Jewish" then go against the Torah.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Shaun what if they can't help it? What if they're born gay? It's not fair to tell them that relationships are allowed, but not intercourse. Either God made them that way, or he didn't.

 

[ShaunGoldstein]

Shaun what if they can't help it? What if they're born gay? It's not fair to tell them that relationships are allowed, but not intercourse. Either God made them that way, or he didn't.

I said I was skeptical about gay marriages, but I didn't say I was completely against them. I was just saying that it is imperative for non-Jews to accept homosexuality, since it was never a part of their religion. I didn't say that discrimination is necessarily right.

And, as a secular humanist, who believes in a secular America, I think that everyone should be able to get married in the eyes of the state at least to the person of their choice.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

What if they happen to be a Jew and they're gay shaun? I'm a secular Jew, I'm gay

 

[Autodidact]

Just want to remind everyone--no prohibition against lesbianism in the Tanakh.

 

[Evee]

Yeah...but bisexual ladies seem to get a raw deal. We're looking at Lev. 18:22 here " You shall not lie down with a male, as with a woman: this is an abomination." So, what, you have to choose? Either sleep with "a male" or "a woman", but you can't lie with one as you do with the other? What does the Oral Law have to say about it?

 

[Levite]

There are halakhic solutions to this problem. The biggest issue with the permissive Conservative teshuvot is that they are halakhically unconvincing.

What is needed is for a bet din to issue a takanah l'akor davar min hatorah, which is a legal injunction that a certain verse may no longer be used to interpret and effectuate practical law. This would be a takanah l'shem tikkun ha-olam, which is a legislative innovation done in order to restore harmony to the functioning of society. It would also be a takanah of limited duration, usually done in the form of an injunction lasting a thousand years, or until the moshiach comes, whichever comes first. Clearly, we have been trying to interpret the two problematic verses in Leviticus for a couple of thousand years, and we can't come up with a viable interpretation that doesn't leave gay Jews in an untenable position. Therefore, the halakhically functional solution is to declare that we are incapable of understanding it correctly, and we must wait for the moshiach to arrive, and teach us how the verse is to be understood correctly, which surely would be a way that does not oppress gay Jews.

As for gay marriage, I don't see any way that the traditional kiddushin marriage can be done by two men with halakhic effectiveness. But I don't like the traditional kiddushin marriage anyway, since it is deeply androcentric and inequitable. My recommendation for all non-Orthodox Jews-- straight and gay-- is to use the Reform theologian Dr. Rachel Adler's brit ahuvim marriage ceremony (you can find it in the last chapter of her book, Engendering Judaism). She went back to the halakhot of business partnership, and created an entirely new kind of marriage, based on covenants and shutafut (partnerships), which sidesteps the entire problematic morass of kiddushin. It is an egalitarian marriage of equal partners, with consistent, traditional marriage customs preserved as part of the ritual.

But to my mind, at least, leaving gay and lesbian Jews in the lurch because one of the Torah authors clearly misunderstood what God was trying to convey, and yet God creates people to be gay and lesbian as well as straight, is simply not an option. The halakhic recourses may be radical, but they are there. There's no excuse for not using them.

 

[ShaunGoldstein]

There are halakhic solutions to this problem. The biggest issue with the permissive Conservative teshuvot is that they are halakhically unconvincing.

What is needed is for a bet din to issue a takanah l\'akor davar min hatorah, which is a legal injunction that a certain verse may no longer be used to interpret and effectuate practical law. This would be a takanah l\'shem tikkun ha-olam, which is a legislative innovation done in order to restore harmony to the functioning of society. It would also be a takanah of limited duration, usually done in the form of an injunction lasting a thousand years, or until the moshiach comes, whichever comes first. Clearly, we have been trying to interpret the two problematic verses in Leviticus for a couple of thousand years, and we can\'t come up with a viable interpretation that doesn\'t leave gay Jews in an untenable position. Therefore, the halakhically functional solution is to declare that we are incapable of understanding it correctly, and we must wait for the moshiach to arrive, and teach us how the verse is to be understood correctly, which surely would be a way that does not oppress gay Jews.

As for gay marriage, I don\'t see any way that the traditional kiddushin marriage can be done by two men with halakhic effectiveness. But I don\'t like the traditional kiddushin marriage anyway, since it is deeply androcentric and inequitable. My recommendation for all non-Orthodox Jews-- straight and gay-- is to use the Reform theologian Dr. Rachel Adler\'s brit ahuvim marriage ceremony (you can find it in the last chapter of her book, Engendering Judaism). She went back to the halakhot of business partnership, and created an entirely new kind of marriage, based on covenants and shutafut (partnerships), which sidesteps the entire problematic morass of kiddushin. It is an egalitarian marriage of equal partners, with consistent, traditional marriage customs preserved as part of the ritual.

But to my mind, at least, leaving gay and lesbian Jews in the lurch because one of the Torah authors clearly misunderstood what God was trying to convey, and yet God creates people to be gay and lesbian as well as straight, is simply not an option. The halakhic recourses may be radical, but they are there. There\'s no excuse for not using them.

Thanks, this is a really cool explanation. I couldn\'t really add more to this if I wanted. :bow:

 

[Zardoz]

...But to my mind, at least, leaving gay and lesbian Jews in the lurch because one of the Torah authors clearly misunderstood what God was trying to convey, and yet God creates people to be gay and lesbian as well as straight, is simply not an option. The halakhic recourses may be radical, but they are there. There's no excuse for not using them.

Excellent post. I agree with Shaun, this is the right way to go. :yes:

 

[Avi1001]

I am glad to see the Conservative movement is making these fundamental changes. Does anyone think they should become more halachically liberal in other ways ?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., leaving gay and lesbian Jews in the lurch because one of the Torah authors clearly misunderstood what God was trying to convey, and yet God creates people to be gay and lesbian as well as straight, is simply not an option. The halakhic recourses may be radical, but they are there. There's no excuse for not using them.

A gutsy formulation! Well done.

What is your view of the Marriage Equality Act awaiting action in Illinois?

 

[Levite]

A gutsy formulation! Well done.

What is your view of the Marriage Equality Act awaiting action in Illinois?

For me, at least, there is absolutely no excuse in American law for refusal to recognize marriage between the same sex. All such arguments for refusal ultimately arise from religious arguments, and I believe in a very strong separation of religion and state: the only way, IMO, to preserve religious freedom in America is for governmental institutions to be rigorously secular.

My personal opinion is that while I am glad to see DOMA gone, I am glad to see more states embracing marriage equality, none goes far enough. I think the government-- federal and state-- should get out of the marriage business altogether. I think what we now call civil marriage should be reclassified as registered domestic partnership-- for everyone, regardless of the genders of the partners. Marriage, IMO, should be a purely religious affair, and thus it should be up to individual religious communities how they will define marriage in their faiths, and who will and will not be deemed married according to them.