The approach I find the most shocking is that of Rabbi Ramon, who as I remember was the first Israeli woman ordained a rabbi by the Conservative movement. I had thought that she was a feminist, from her earlier writing. I cannot believe that she has bought into this complete right-wing nonsense that the inclusion of gay people is intended to destroy the traditional family. Could she be putting forth this perspective in order to protect the right flank of the Israeli Conservative movement?

“is that like the Judaean people’s front?”
No no. It’s the People’s Front of Judea. They hate the Judean People’s Front more than they hate the Romans. To say nothing of the Judean Popular People’s Front.

Hi Alan,
Thanks for your response. I do see how the tshuva may on a practical level be a step forward. On an ideological level – that is, making the ideolgoical assertation that being gay is acceptable – I don’t find it progressive.
Practically, I’m pleased that gays and lesbians can be conserv rabbis (we hope) and have conserv commitment ceremonies (we think). Ideologically and “meaning-wise” and “psychologically” and “emotionally-speaking”, I find the tshuva empty of any ethical imperative to accpeting gays. I personally do not identify with this type of a decision, because it lacks that sort of ethical imperative.
Finally, I do not think the niddah issue is parallel to the issue of banning anal sex. Heterosexual intercourse is not considered unacceptable – in fact it is sanctified and celebrated by the tradition. Rather, it is restricted during certain times. (I could also commen that it is not hetrosexual intercousrse that is “marked” as wrong, but perhaps certain times of a woman’s cycle, but that’s another issue altogether.)

It seems to me that the “traditional family” that Ramon wants to protect doesn’t include her pursuing higher (especially rabbinic) education, working outside the home, or speaking out in such an untzniusdik way. If she is so committed to this model of the family, she should be at home cooking for her husband instead of speaking in this forum.

Thanks for setting us straight, Eric! All these long teshuvot could have been a lot shorter if their authors had seen things as “plainly” as you do. Now I bet they’re kicking themselves for all that wasted time.

I would like to comment on just one of the things said and also express something that was taught to us by one of our teachers at Machon Schechter (where I am studying for the year). Moshe Benovitz gave us an explanation as to how to understand the ban of anal sex for gay men but allowing everything else. He made a chart and said that in heterosexual sexual relationships, all sex is allowed some of the time, and no sex at all (some would say even other forms of sex, oral for example) some of the time. With homosexual sex, under this system, some sex is allowed all of the time, and anal sex is allowed none of the time. He was asked about this and said that although it is difficult, it is part of religious struggle and observance. He said that he has spoken to many gay men about this issue and many of these men do not express themselves sexually through anal sex. The thing I find most interesting is straight rabbinical students arguing that anal sex has to be allowed ethically, yet I have not heard opinions from actual homosexuals. I would be interested in hearing this perspective.
Mobius (the author of the original post) says that he or she is at school with me at Machon Shechter. Furthermore, he or she claims to be in Rabbinical School at either the UJ or JTS. Last month, Mobius made an unfounded and inappropriate claim about Rabbi Joel Roth. I sent an email to everyone in my school for this person to please identify him or herself because I wanted to talk to them in person at school. I am still waiting for this person to come up to me in school. Mobius wrote:
*I am an American Conservative Rabbinical student spending this year studying and growing in Israel. I write anonymously out of concern for the unlikely possibility that my thoughts will be held against me.
I do not know how your thoughts would be held against me. Furthermore, it is unprofessional and childish to hide behind a computer. If you feel a certain way, then be honest and represent yourself. I am not asking you to do this on the Internet, I am asking you to do this in person, at school. This is David from JTS for your information Mobius. Until you identify yourself, your libel against Rabbi Roth borders on cowardice. Mobius, do not worry, I will not tell any of our teachers who you are, this I promise you. You will not get into any trouble through our schools. If you do not identify yourself, I ask that you publicly apologize for your libel against Rabbi Roth in this forum.

who/what was the splitters comment about?

Can someone explain to David that Mobius is not the person in question in these posts?
Ok, I’ll do it.
David, Mobius is not the person in question in these posts. Allow me to elaborate:
“Our anonymous friend who raised a ruckus with his or her initial post on the then-still undecided CJLS decision on ordaining gay rabbis returns again with a follow up:”
This quoted piece above comes directly from Mobius. The rest of the piece is from the anonymous friend. No one has responded to your email because Mobius does not go to school with you.
In terms of the so-called libel, this anonymous friend of ours was citing an event that is in the public record, and was done so in order to call into question some of the more delicate issues surround the CJLS decision. I’m not here to cast judgement in that situation on anyone involved, just pointing out the facts. And the anonymous friend is in no way guilty of cowardice.

I think JTS would be badly advised to accept people who can do nothing but concentrate on their sexuality all the time. It seems this entire debate has spun way out of control. What will the seminary do with a transgendered applicant? what about someone who engages in BDSM? how about someone with a fetish for long underwear?
How about we stop making sex and sexual practice the epicenter of human life? It seems to me that at the moment what’s going on is pushing limits for the sake of pushing limits.
waste of time, if you ask me. Better all those wannabe transgendered rabbis could just plunk themselves down for a while and learn some gemara. Which is what I’m going to do right now.

Mobius,
Would the student in question be able to clarify Einat Ramon’s comments on Reconstructionism? I’m a Recon rabbi who got to know her slightly a few years ago, and am, frankly, surprised to hear the views attributed to her coming from her — though I haven’t talked with her in awhile, and never about this issue. Alternatively, can you point me to anything she has written on the issue, in Hebrew or English? If your friend would like to email me privately, using the address I logged in with, that would be fine.
(I find what was written particularly bizarre on a strictly personal level, given my own status as a straight male rabbi, married with three kids; and knowing a great many other Recon rabbis, male and female, straight and LGB, who are similarly making a fair attempt at fulfilling the Purimschpiel label of the “Reproductionist Movement.” Though given the pressures on rabbis’ kids and families, maybe it’s a fair question as to whether that’s a truly pro-family stance. Heh.)

Marisa-
I don’t think transgendered rabbinical students are “a step further”, since the CJLS seems to have already said that trans people are AOK (though the same website says that there have not been any openly trans rabbinical students in the Conservative movement yet).
Amit-
The would-be rabbinical students in question would like nothing better than to “plunk themselves down for a while and learn some gemara”. Openly gay people don’t “concentrate on their sexuality all the time” any more than openly heterosexual people do; it’s the institutions (by restricting admission based on sexual orientation) that are “making sex and sexual practice the epicenter of human life”.

In response to Invisible Hand who said:
i am also a jts student. here at school they teach us to read text in an accurate and exact manner. if you applied this methodology, then you would have discovered that the author of the post was not mobius himself but rather an anonymous poster who mobius published. there is a serious difference in attribution there.
furthermore, i am unable to find what you call “libel” and “slander” against Rabbi Joel Roth, who, though i disagree with his point of view re: this issue, i am proud to call my teacher and rav.
My response:
I didn’t realize that I had to apply critical text study to blogs, but, nevertheless, I am sorry for my mistaken attribution. So let me state again, whoever anonymous is, please talk to me in school.
The libel or slander (please don’t post definitions of these terms) that I am referring to is when this anonymous poster said last month that Rabbi Roth should not be involved in this matter because of his questionable sexual history. I followed the link that the person gave as backup and it is clear that the term this person used was inaccurate and inappropriate. To see for yourself, go to the posting from last month. My classmates were very upset with this attack against Rabbi Roth and some asked me to hold a meeting to find the person (these weren’t the right wing students who asked me by the way). Finally Invisible Hand, do yourself a favor and write about issues instead of nit-picking about unimportant inaccuracies. It will suit you better in your studies at JTS.

This will be my last post because arguing over these little issues truly is Bitul Torah. But to defend my lack of critical study: critical study is not the knowledge of who post what on a blog.
In regards to the other issue of calling the person out publicaly: I am not asking this anonymous person to say his or her name, I just want to talk to them face to face, alone, and not through a computer. That is all. Good luck with all your studies.

A well-known midrash in Pesikta De-Rav Kahana says: “The Holy One appeared to them like an icon that has a face on every side, and a thousand people look at it and it looks at all of them. So when the Holy One spoke, each person in Israel said He spoke to me, as it does not say I am the Lord your God, but rather thy God…”
This wonderful midrash, and others like it, teach us that God speaks to each of us differently. In a similar vein, Rabbi Solovetichik observed that “pluralism is founded on reality itself….Pluralism asserts only that the object reveals itself in manifold ways to the subject, and that a certain telos corresponds to each of these ontical manifestations.”
But another midrash (in Shemot Rabba) also teaches us an important corollary: “I am the Lord thy God: Did ever people hear the voice of God speaking (Deut. 4:33)? How? Had it been written (Psalms 29:4) ‘The voice of God in its power [be-koho],’ the world could not endure. But it says ‘The voice of God in the power [ba-koah],’ that is, in the power of each and every one: The young according to their power and the old according to their power, and the children according to their power.” Not only does God speak differently to each of us, but each of us hears God’s voice differently, in accordance with our nature, character and ability.
If this be true of how we hear the voice of God, how much more must it be true when we hear one another!
And so I must carefully take exception to some of the assertions made by Anonymous in regard to what was said by the rabbis who presented the various positions at Machon Schechter. With all due respect, having attended that meeting, I cannot help but get the feeling that Anonymous came expecting validation of certain preconceived opinions, and s/he heard the presentations in a way that served to fulfil that desire.
I realize that this may sound harsh to some, but it is not a mere feeling. It is supported, I think, by objective facts.
For example, before beginning the description of the meeting, Anonymous condemns Rabbi Leonard Levy’s responsum with the words “Shame on the author and on those who voted for this antiquated idea.”
The “antiquated idea” that Anonymous seems to assert as characterizing the responsum is that of “reparative therapy.” A careful reading of Rabbi Levy’s 64 page responsum shows that it is not about reparative therapy, and it does not recommend it in its conclusions. Although the responsum does discuss the issue, and although it does recognize that it can, in some cases, help a person who is distressed by same-sex attraction to change that orientation, the responsum also makes it clear that such therapy has the potential of inflicting serious harm.
Anonymous’s condemnation of Rabbi Levy’s paper seems extreme and not well-founded, unless the condemnation springs from a belief that discussing the issue is taboo, and that it is unethical for a mental health professional to consider providing such therapy to a person who – knowing its risks – wholeheartedly desires it despite its risks.
In discussing the meeting at Machon Schechter, Anonymous depicts Rabbi Lazar’s presentation as follows: “Rabbi Lazar presented what could be described as a modern halachic approach.” While certainly that description might be appropriate for Rabbi Lazar in general, his presentation could not be described as “modern halachic” by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, Rabbi Lazar prefaced his remarks by saying that he was not going to present a halachic argument, but would leave that to the other panellists. Rabbi Lazar spoke from the heart, and his passionate presentation was truly moving and reflected deep commitment to alleviating suffering. But it was not a halachic approach, and it was not presented as one.
Anonymous’s comments are most problematic in their portrayal of Rabbi Ramon’s presentation. Rabbi Ramon spoke as dean of the Schechter Rabbinical Seminary and as a researcher and teacher of gender studies, and her remarks were, I think, more nuanced than those of the other speakers. Anonymous describes Rabbi Ramon’s remarks in harsh terms: “Rabbi Ramon, who sees homosexuality as a choice, feels that the ‘traditional family’ is endangered. Conservative Judaism must protect the family from those with an agenda to see that it is destroyed. Those are the homosexuals who have already succeeded in this destruction within the Reconstructionist Movement…”
That is what Anonymous heard. Is it what Rabbi Ramon said? I think not.
It is true that Rabbi Ramon believes that Conservative Judaism, by its nature as a halakhic movement, committed to tradition, cannot fully accommodate the desire of the GLBTQ community for full equality. That is a given that must be acknowledged.
Rabbi Simcha Roth, who supports one of the most liberal positions, prohibits anal intercourse, and while he supports commitment ceremonies, he rejects the idea of kiddushin for same-sex couples as a halakhic impossibility. The Dorff-Nevins-Reisner paper also takes that view. And that view can hardly be taken as fully accommodating.
As it stands, even the more inclusive wing of the Conservative Movement will not say that homosexuality and heterosexuality are absolutely equal. Full equality would require saying that a committed same-sex relationship is equally valued as holy, and equally deserving of kiddushin. It would require that just as any sex act is permitted between married heterosexual partners, so any sex act is permitted between married homosexual partners. Rabbi Ramon – like the authors of the inclusive responsum – does not think that the Conservative Movement can go that far and remain true to its fundamental nature.
And, as Rabbi Ramon pointed out, full equality would also require a comprehensive rethinking of our religious symbolism and a redrafting of the language of our liturgy. It would require changing the halachic and biblical paradigms of the tradition that Conservative Judaism represents.
However, as Rabbi Ramon pointed out, the Reconstructionist Movement has chosen to go in that direction. It is in that context that Rabbi Ramon offered Recontructionism as an alternative. She did not attack some homosexual cabal that has undermined Reconstructionism and that seeks to destroy Conservative Judasim, nor did she tell the GLBTQ community that it is unwelcome and should take a walk, but observed that while Conservative Judaism, by the self-imposed restrictions of its own definition, cannot be fully inclusive, Recontructionist Judaism, by its self-defined theological priorities, does provide a fully accommodating home for members of the GLBTQ community. Her words were recognition of the fact that those seeking full equality will not find it in Conservative Judaism, but can find it in other movements.
Rabbi Ramon also defended the traditional ideal of the heterosexual family, and rejected the concept of the changing definition of family. She stated explicitly that LGBT were not responsible for undermining heterosexual relationships, but she did support the view that there needs to be one liberal religious movement, one spiritual space, that recognizes the validity of the historically traditional concept of the ideal family. That view does not denigrate single-sex relationships, but it does argue for the validity of maintaining the traditional ideal, with its symbolism. And it does argue that there should be a spiritual home for those who take heterosexuality seriously and wish to confront and grapple with the issues presented by that ideal in a traditional Jewish framework.
Did she say homosexuality is a choice? As a scholar of gender studies, she testified that all the leading LGBTQ thinkers claim that homosexuality is a cultural and erotic choice. She also pointed out that research intended to show that homosexuality is a genetic or biological trait has not only been conclusively disproved, but has also been roundly criticized by LGBTQ thinkers and advocacy groups on ideological grounds. On that basis, she wondered how the drafters of the inclusive responsa simply ignored that data.
That, at least, is what I heard Rabbi Ramon say. I think what I heard is very different from what Anonymous heard. And while Anonymous may disagree with Rabbi Ramon, I would suggest that s/he take heed of her/his own comment regarding Rabbi Joel Roth: “I was proud that he was able to respect those with whom he differed.”

kiddushin (or more accurately, “kinyan” =acquisition of one party by the other) for same sex couples IS a halachic impossibility. But why are people seeing that as a bad thing? Without kinyan, not only is there is no yucky symbolism, and both parties have equal rights to end the marriage should that need to happen.