|
|

Advertisement
August 25, 2009 | 11:10 pm
Posted by Rav Yosef Kanefsky
| Tweet |
Last Saturday night, I finally saw “Milk” on DVD. I had been wanting to see it when it was in theaters last year, both because of the critical acclaim that it had won, and because the film’s trailer yanked me back to a memory from teenager-hood, of hearing the breaking news that the Mayor of San Francisco and a County Supervisor had been shot and killed. It was that news flash which introduced me to a world and to a set of issues about which I had known nothing before.
Despite this however, I never made it to the theater. In large part because it’s always hard to find time to get out to the movies. But possibly also because I was not looking forward to dealing with the inner conflict that watching the film would generate. As an Orthodox rabbi and Jew, I knew I’d be on the “wrong side” of the film.
Not because Orthodox Jews should oppose equality in housing and employment for gays and lesbians, the issue around which the movie is centered. Quite to the contrary, there is no basis in Halacha for favoring such discrimination. But having been produced in 2008, the film was really about the ongoing struggle for full legal equality for gays and lesbians. And especially here in the land of Proposition 8, this means the struggle for the legal recognition of gay marriage.
I cannot and will not perform a gay marriage, just as I cannot and will not perform the marriage of a Jew and a Gentile, or a Kohen and a divorcee. When I received my Orthodox ordination, I signed up to lead my community by the strictures of Halacha (and at Sinai I personally accepted the same commitment.) But when Harvey Milk poses the question to Californians as to whether or not homosexuals are also included in the declaration that “all men are created equal” and are therefore deserving of equal treatment under the law, I am left awkwardly and unpersuasively claiming clergy exemption. Why would I have paid 10 bucks plus parking and a babysitter only to wind up feeling like that?
Now that I have seen the movie though, I am reminded that there is a reality that I can not, and do not desire to deny. I am an Orthodox Jew and rabbi .And I am also a human being. A human being who deeply appreciates the spiritual values of human dignity and civil rights that are the foundation of our democracy. Almost all of the time these two essential components of who I am reinforce and encourage one another. Here though, they are in conflict. I know what the Torah says of course, and its words are binding upon me. But as a human being reared on democracy, I cannot articulate for myself a convincing argument as to why the legal recognition of civil marriage should be withheld from citizens who, by dint of how they were born, are only able to form bonds of love and commitment with members of their own gender.
As an aside, I know that the domestic partnership laws afford almost all of the same rights and privileges that marriage does. But domestic partnerships belong to that category of “separate but equal”, suffering from the same kinds of unofficial inequalities that racially segregated schools did. It seems to me that we’re still left with a straightforward claim for “equality under the law”.
In the end, I’m glad I watched the film, despite the fact that it produced a solid sleepless hour later that night. Thank God we have a tradition in which we can - and do - live with tensions that we cannot resolve. We can come to the end of a discussion and say, “kashya”, “I don’t know what to say”. It is tempting to think concluding this way renders the entire preceding discussion a waste of time. But this could not be further from the truth. The lives of human beings are ultimately the subject of this discussion, and there is nothing more religiously irresponsible that to not recognize that the tension exists. The discussion is important to have, even when the final word is “kashya.”
2.7.12 at 2:12 pm | Let's bring sanity back into the room. . .

2.7.12 at 2:10 pm | American Jews, secular and religious alike, have. . .
2.7.12 at 11:46 am | Rabbi Zev Farber argues for the desexualizing of. . .
2.1.12 at 10:07 am | . . .
1.29.12 at 7:04 pm | One of the lessons from Bet Shemesh, and beyond. . .
1.18.12 at 2:33 pm | It was suggested that I put the entire letter I. . .

2.7.12 at 2:10 pm | American Jews, secular and religious alike, have. . . (7)
12.29.11 at 9:21 am | The recent incidents in Beit Shemesh and. . . (4)
2.7.12 at 2:12 pm | Let's bring sanity back into the room. . . (3)
We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.
Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.
JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.
obama storyblog netanyahu palestinian statehood counting of the omer tznius orthodox jewish osamabinladenkilled modern orthodoxy prayers modern orthodox religion jewish women chasidic aipac palestine passover orthodox judaism osama bin ladend dead orthodox jew fire modern orthodox rabbi victims judaism orthodoxy feminism brooklyn israel palestinian state days of my life tzniut omer orthodox jews osamabinladendead modesty los angels modern orthodox jews women orthodox women leiby kletzky
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
Contemporary Issues
Halacha (Jewish Law)
Jewish Thought
Meditation
Parshiot/Holidays
Prayer
Women and Judaism
Blogs
Bloggish-mobile
Foodaism-mobile
Hollywood Jew-mobile
Jews and Mormons-mobile
Keeping it Real-mobile
Keeping the Faith-mobile
Morethodoxy-mobile
Nice Jewish Doctor-mobile
Rosners Domain-mobile
Tattletales-mobile
The God Blog-mobile
The Ticket-moblie
Leisure-mobile
Multimedia-iPad
Photos-iPad
Videos-iPad
| |||||||||
All men are not created equal. Some are short, some are tall. Some are smart, some are Democrats. Some are black, some are yellow, some are white. Some have great physical health, some are genetically doomed to a lifestyle of medical assistance. Some even have breasts and a uterus - we call those women (usually).
When the founders of your country announced “All men are created equal” they meant in terms of basic opportunity, that no one should be denied a chance to achieve the American dream of life, liberty and the pursuit of the better hamburger. It is the secular left which has twisted the phrase from equality of opportunity into equality of results and used it to introduce quotes and thought police.
The difference between secular liberalism and religious thought is that the former is based on charters or bills of rights. The latter are based on documents listing responsibilities. In Harvey Milk’s world, a kohen can even marry a male divorcee because he has rights. In the Torah’s world, he can’t because he has responsibilities.
Whether a person gravitates towards rights or responsibilities depends on their personal maturity. Any child knows how to scream “I have a right” but it takes a mature adult to say “I can’t have such and such, I have responsibilities.”
Gays are afforded the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex. The questions boils down to why is marriage a civil institutions, and I would argue, it is because the state wants to encourage such behavior. As such, a hetero-marriage should be preferred over a same sex one.
Yasher koach- your reflections in this piece are thoughtful and a wonderful model of how we can approach difficult conversations from a place of humility and commitment to ahavat yisrael. How appropriate for the month of Elul! One small piece of correction, I do not think it is accurate to say that domestic partnership laws provide almost all of the same protections as marriage- that would only be true if there was a FEDERAL recognition of domestic partnerships. Most proponents of domestic partnership laws or “civil unions” support a state-by-state system, which would still leave same-sex couples without many of the key rights and protections provided to opposite-sex couples by the Federal Government. So the issue of same-sex marriage vs. civil unions is NOT only about the language but also about the specific rights afforded by each. Kol tuv, Rabbi Amber Powers