Rabbi Elliot N.

Dorff

R a l ~ h Ruth aricl R a h l ~A ~ r ~ ha\ e each \\sitten \\ell-researcliecl ancl l~ausionate i i so~i nl3lWn on llornosexualit>-.Each of them. though, assunles that \re line\+- ~rnuch more about the rele\-ant facts concerning lioniosexualit!- than x\-e actually linow. I understand full!- tlie desire to collie ' to definitix-e decisions about this matter. for it affects in an!^ lix-es arid arise* inex~ital~l!and perhaps often in a rald~i'srei-\-ice. \Inreover. llunlan beings often manifest ~ r l l a t1)exveF called a ..que?t for certainty" - for ps~chological. not for philosophical or social. reason;. if E> like to ha\-e things neat and clean. It gix-ez 11s a bense of becurit!- ancl order. It also con\ lil-e. ho~ve\~er> as U e ~ r e y is. noted. not static firms our sense of self. The \rorlcl in ~ r h i c h \ ~ e or easil! delinecl. and so h a t clueat is not onl! rriisg~~icled. L I ~ en ti all^ clangero~~a. I J pot Law that comes out of the need for certainQ- ~vlle~en none can legitimately he hacl is aha>-a hacl law. Tlle same is true for ethics. As Aristotle said. ""Our cliscussion uill he adequate if ita fits for degree of clarig~ tlie sul~ject-rnatter: we sllould not seeli the same degree of exactne*a in all soits of arguments alike. a ! more than in the products of different crafts:"' n For reasons that T shall delineate he lo\\^. we do not I<no\v rnougli now to nialze a clrfinitirr tlrcision on hc~lnoirsualit!-. In that sitllation. aclolrting ritllrr R a l ~ l Rotll's or ~i Kahbi .%rtson's responsnm is. at least at this time. a "no-~t~in" situation for 11s. ancl adopting botli is worse. Still, I car1 pro\-icle > o r r ~ e ~ \ -rrlorr detail tllar~I l~rex-ioubl!-snl~l~liecl l~at as to tlie nature o l the stud! I propose and (lie interirn ~ ~ o l i c i I > suggesting. I arn. e an1

therefore. writing nolr to surnrrlarize and supplerr~entthe argulnentb I hax-e presented at our last two 111eeting.ifor rnl; three-pronged prolroral - narnel!-. that. (1) RC. ab t l ~ c Cornrnittcc on Jc~vibhLaw and Stanclardb. affirlrl tllc 1990 Rabbinical Issemljl!- resolution on gay ancl leshian Jews and the similar 1991 resolution of the United Synagogue of Conserratil-e Jutlaism.' ( 2 ) \\e asli t h e Presiclent of t h e Kabbinical Assembly. the Chancellor of t h e Jewish Tlleological Serninary of rllnerica, ancl t h e President of t h e l-nited Synagogue of Con.erl-atil-e Juclaiblrl - t h e three leaclerb ~vlloseal~l)oirltlrlerltb bear - to constitute a we cornnlisbior~that ~ v o n l dbpearheacl a rnorerr~er~t-wide stucly of Loth heterosexual and l~onlojeaual norlns. Tlle study slloulcl exanline all relerant llalalil~ic precedents. guiclecl b responsa alreacl!- suhlnitted to t h e CJLS and an!- other inaterial ~vrittenfor it: ! solicit germane expert scientific teatimoil!-: investigate pertinent sociological realities: and address t h e theological and moral concerns i n r o l ~ ~ e i n these issues as it seelis to cl make a judgrnent as to good social policies for the Conser~~atix-e nloreinent o n seauality. The coinnlission should include rahhinic and lay m e n h e r s . inen and \ronlen, heteducational arlns of t h e erosexuals and lloinosexuals. and a cross-bection of age>. T l ~ e \lorerrlent illoulcl h e engagecl in creating approlrriate educational materials ancl prograrrli on tllcic iisucs for tccnagcrb ancl adults as part of t l ~ c proccss of tllii Rlorcincnt\\~iclestudy. Tlle commission should be asliecl to report its findings to t h e three leaders ~vho constitutecl it ant1 to t h e C:olnn~itteeon Je~vish Law ancl Stanclarclz as soon as p0bsible. 11nt hol)efillly no later than three years frorrl t h e adol~tionof this 11rol)osal. (3) In the meantime. as according to our usual procedures. the status quo norms \rill relnairl i r ~ effect. Sl)ecificall>-. (A) R e will not perfor111 c o r r ~ n ~ i t r r ~ e r ~ t cerernor~ies gays or 1esl)ianb. for (B) R-e \\-ill not lino~\-ingl!-admit a ~ ~ o ~ vllolnosexuals to our rabbinical or cantorial ecl scllools or to the Rabbinical ;Isselnbly or t h e Cantors' Aisselnbly.- i t the same time. we

GXYXKII L H S E I AJ~ u ~ . T R H E R E \5Ju(ldi3111 idfirrn> tliiit t11vTlilir~vi111agvrvflvl,tv(l 11) v\vr> I I U I I I llvirig I T I U : ~ ~II aIx\-+.; 11,. ~.hrvi.;li(,(i ;~ff;v~ni,~I. l antl dn~ RHERE.lS Jc\\- ha\ al\\a!s l ~ ( . c n s~>n.iti\(. I ~ I i111pat.t 01 oSL ial a1111 unoSIi(~ia1 to . pr~:i~l~li(.c' and tlisl'vimination. ~ r t i r ~ e \ e v tli~el.trtl.and \\ HEllL.LS g:~?iul(I l v ~ l ~ I iI W 3 11;1x~(, ~ x ~ ~ c r inot 1)111\ t111, t un&;~nt ~~n ~ (m(~~~d t111~;1t> l ~ l ~ ~ ~ i ( ~ ~ ~ l of \i,olrli~ ar111 i ~ ~ r ~ i ~ o ~ r r i eo l,it i ~ 1)ot .al-o t h r p a l l - 01 ariti-Ser11itisr11 1 ~ 1 1 ~ 1 \ \ r111 all ,Ten> ari11. v l il~ ~ >~i i additionall? 4 > m a r of painful alienation f ~ o m U T tnin ~eligiouqinqtitutiona. dntl O &HERE-LS ~11,. ,.x1,.1itl,.11 Sarnili,.c oS ;a! aritl l , . z l ~ i aJc\\c ar(. o1~(.11 n ~ ~ r n l our ~ r s ~i ~ oS ~ ~ (,ongr,.gii~ic~~ib li\v \\it11 I . O I I V V I ri 1111. 111v>iilrt!. hvi?ltli ar111 \\lie \\vll-l)vi~~g tlirir v11il~lrv11. 01 .il~lil~g> and o t h i ~ v(.lati~-~r.;. an({ RHERE.lS ~11,. I D S I rkis ha. rl~,l.nl\ cxa(,crl)atc~l h l an xi^.^\ an11 -uSS~>rinlr this vornmul ~ . ol nit! of Iext-s \rho need in t t ~ r lives the i.oml~w;sionatet onl.eTn anc suppovt maiidaterl -!,I i~ Ic\\~i>h tra(litiun. THERETORE FJT IT RESOIS-Er) tliat \\v. Wir Ral1l1i11il~al \>bvn~l)l!. \\hilr al'firn~il~gu ~1I.ao . dirion's pvvs~ i l ~ t i f ~ i~ ( T C T O V Y I I ~ Ilit>-. ~ oo ~ 1 3upl)(~rl (,i\il ~c~luali~! ga! 5 and lc.l)ianc in our nalional liL.. all11 1 lull lor 21 I)eplove rtir \iolenl.e againqt gw!s wnrl Irsl~iansin O U T ;otierv. dntl 31 1l1,itcratvthat. as arc all .leva. ga? mvn and 1cal)iana arc T I C ~ C U I ~;I> C1111~11b1~iuur CUII~ ill g ~ ~ ~ g a t i oc ~ .n c n41 Call upon our s!nagogul.s a1111 ~rrmcoS O L I 1110\ I . I I I C I ~to irl(.r~>as~. a\\arllric>s. t111. ~ ~ our unile~stanilingdrill i.on,.e~n i l ~ U T tello\\- .lens ~ \ - h aTr gay ,inti Iesl~ian. f O o Tlir KO\. 1001 ~e;olurion of the l-nitrtl S?-nagogue xt-43 itlenti(.al. rxl.ept thdt it omits the '"\hereaq~~ (.lalise tm -1IL)S and tI11. fourth r~r>olution.

I.

will riot instigate \\-itch liurits against tl~obe \rho are already irien~bers btuclents. or (c) E'ncthcr horiiobcnials Ilia!- filnction as tc~aclicrior !-cnlth lcaclcrs in our congrcgations ancl scllools will be left to the rabbi autl~orizecl malie halalihic decisions for a gi\-en to inatit~~tion \\itliin the Conser\ati\e ~ r i o ~ e r n e r ~ te.s ~ ~ r n a l ~ l ?this as in all other rriatter~. Pr in . the rabhi will make snch decisions taking into account the sensitivities of the people of his or her particular congregation or school. The rabhi's own reacling of J e ~ r i s h law on these isbuea. iriforrried 11)- the resporiaa written for the Coinrriittee on Jewibh Law ancl Standards to clatr. \\-ill also l)r a clrtrrrriinatirr factor in tlirsr cleciiions. (cl) Similarly. the rabbi of each Conserl-atil-e institution. in consultation wit11 its lay leaders. \till 11e entrusted to lorrri~~late policies regarcling the eligil~ilit? l l i o r r i o s e x ~ ~lor~ o al llonors within ~rorsllipand for lay leaclership positions. (e) In any case. in accordance with the Rabbinical rlssemhl!- and lrnited S!-nagogne rcsolutionh wc arc hcrcl~! affirriiing. gays arid lcsbians arc ~rc-.lcorric our congregations. in !-(>nthgroups. caiiips. arid schools. and alrl)n>l)riate b t e p ~ n n s t talieri to insure tliat this be ~relconle not empty rhetoric. is I irialie tliis propobal for three reasons. First. on tlle inerits of the case. I do not agree wit11 either Rabbi Rot11"s or Rabbi Artson's reading of the Jewish traclition on this issue for Second. m e n if I did concur \\it11 either of them. I do reasons that I sllall explain belo~v. not tllirili that thc Coriscr~~atirc rriox-ciiicnt is rcacl!- for citlicr oric of tlic two nl3lWn l~cforc us - again. for reasons that I shall explain ljelo\r. Finally. I do thinli that this is a golden ol)l)ortur~it!- for the Cor~ser~-atire irloverr~eritto study b ~ i r ~ e t l ~ i r i g together a r ~ d bay surr~eto thing irriportant ahout lioxv Judaisiri sl~ouldaffect a sionifica~itarea of our lives in con? t e r n p ) r x > tirries. and it \\oulcl he a terrible slianie i l tills ol~ening\\ere lost.

The Impact of Historical Consciousn~ss L ~ g a l 1 M ~ t h o d on

First. thcn. to tlic ir~crithof tlic i'aac. Rabbi Rotli asks ub to bcc ga!~ scs' as a ; ~ X Y V Hc I. reacls the tests of our traclition in a liighl!- forrnalistic Tray. -1s e\-itlencecl 1! llis 11oc11i on 1 halalihic process. that liincl of reading per\-acles his p1~ilosopll~- J e ~ r i s h generally. His of la\r formalism is not of the iriost extreirle sort. for lie does aclinoxrleclge "extra-legal" factors as potential sources for influencing clecisions. Serertheless. his view is forrnalistic in that the legal process ib been as logical cleductiori frorri previous testa of the law. Ex-en in hi> nodificcl 11rancl of forrriali~n~. x-cry h c a y 1)ilrdcn of proof irnlst 11c 1)ornc in orclcr to in\-olic a any non-textual factor to alter what the clecijor talies to be the meaning of the texts l~ecaube autlloritc ~~ltiriiatel? in tl~erri. rests Rabhi Rot11"s responsuin Ilea\-ily clepends upon his metl~ocl.Since Leriticus calls homosexnality a n a17onlination (;imin). the respoilsum begins wit11 a n analysis of what that rrieanb. There is no problein in tliia: indeed. other rrietlioclr iiiigllt begin t h e sarrie wa?. E l i r r r otlirr rrirtlioclb xvoillcl cliffer fro111 liib. l i o ~ r r \ ~ ris. in \\hat coriirs nrxt. Tllr r text. for Rabbi Roth. is so po~verful determinant of tlle outcome of tlle la\r that ex-en a interpretations as to 1t.11~. teat calls ga? sea a n ahorriiriatiori cannot be ~ l s e d clialthe to lenge the law. Incleed. h e tells us that if any or all of the interpretations are ~ ~ f o n n~ v a n t cl i n g " - that is, if the!- do not convince 11s to maintain the la\\- as stated in t h e text - %at
I ,1111 ax all. that thr, n ~ ~ r ( l i ril~ings~.xual (ll,>r orir.ntatii~n> I. tala.11 1111 11111itir m~,aning> >oml, l~(~r)l~ll: ha\ a1 for T.rt riir .a\ at rhr ollt-rr. rlirn. rhar T ilirrtiii 1 1 0 ? U I h lioliri~ 1 oririot;lti~nri>. r \ i ~ i r t c ~ dl 1i ~'~I'rJiat. -iriili]! a1111 f o \-arirt! of rtylr. I shall uqr ~ o ~ t lilir --hoinosr~ual.".-$a!-." ~-le~l,iaii.'' ~ lz -.tirtr~owxuirl." and --;t~sight" 111
~ouglil!~ eq11a1 1)~opo~tioiis. \\-ill Jicq~efull!~ n ~ i l ~iiie t c ~ l i q ~ ~the si + ~ i e < ThLit e le ~ u? in\~ol\~eC ~\itJic)tit :in! pc~qitic~ii ~ K ' Y I I ~ ~ ilr inllil atr,(l in thl. l a ~ ~ g uI~ g ~ . ~'ix .>I,.

p r o w s c>nl!- that the interpretations are inadecluate, not that homosexualit!- is not ; l > ~ l n accorcling to the Toral~:'~ Of course. the Torah does call a inan's **l?ingwit11 a iriari as one ~ r o u l d with a lie I\-ornan" a n aboinination. ancl so in t h e exclubi\-el!- textual senbe lle is o l ~ r i o u s correcct: l~ tllr text s a y xrhat llr sayb it clors. Tlir iss~le. thongh. is not that. 11ut ~ r l l r t h e r ral~l,is I\-? slloulcl no\\- determine t h e la\\ i n line \\hh that text or not. and it is tltut decision that R a l ~ b iRot11 \\ants to cleterriiine IJII strit:tl! textual grouncls. 11 interpretations o l h e rationales of t h e text cannot colint for Rahbi Rot11 against t h e text itself. factors coinpletely outside the text (lilie llistnrical context. science. morality, theology) ha\-e in his nletllod a n el-en rnore tenuons llolcl on the law. They do ha\-e some bearing on t h e la\\^. and in thib Rabbi Roth-s fornialiarri ib of a rrioclified sort. In hi5 terininolog!. howerer. 511~11factor5 are extra-legal" - outaicle t h e law - precibe1~because h e itlentifies t h e la\+-TI-it11 tlie texts in t h e first place. Giren that assuinption. such "extra-legal" factors iiiust uiiderstaiidabl!- h a w truly o~-er\+-l-llelriiing force to justif! any ccllange in t h e la\\-. It i* not s ~ ~ r l ) r i s i nthen. that R a h l ~ i g, Rot11 conclude* tllu*: ""Tr h a r e found tliat none of t h r s e [?cirntific] theories. even if as?umerl to 1,r absolutely correct with n o hint of i)DP [doubt]. nesates t h e applicability of t h e reasons for \rhich lloinoeexuality is callecl ; r m n [abomination]"' - let alone. as Rabbi Roth's specific rulings o n homosexuality malie clear. t h e ultimate jlldgment that it is a n ahomination. I tllinli that forinalisni. ex-en of this riiodified t q e . is an erroneous way to understand an!- legal system, certainly one that has nndergone all of the llistorical 1-icissitucles of JPT\-is11 la\\. One simpI!- cannot pretend that the texts of our tradition existerl in solnr pristine iiietapll~sical realrri in \+-hicllthe only isbur Tvaz the logical relationsllipb t!-ing one to another. -4s Suprenle Court Justice and legal philosopher Olirer Rendell Holnles Jr. noted allnost a centur?- ago. proper legal reasoning is not siiilpl?- a niatter of deductire reasoning froin previous texts. It is not a forrii of riiatlleinatics. where one iiiust \\-orr!~ exclusi\-el!~ about doing o11e"s surns correctl~~: requires attention to historical context and conscious it recognition of the moral judgments eat-h judicial derision in\-olres: I vnt r heaicl a el:, eminent judge sa:, that he ne\ er let a clrcision go until he \<as absolutel:, suie that it \+as right. So jnrlici,~l cliisent often is blarned. a- if it iiiearit biiiipl! tliat one aide or tlie otlier crc- not doing thcir bunib right. and. if tllc-? \~oulcl tahc lilorc trouble. dgieernent inex itabl! ould come. This iiiode of thinliing is entireh natural. Tlle training of l a \ \ ~ e r s a training in logic. The processes of analog!; discrirninais tion. and rlerluction a r r those in which the!- a r r most at Iiorne. The language of juclicial decision is mainly the language of logic. And the logical irletliocl and forrn flatter that longiilg for certainty and for repose \vhich is in ex-elT human mincl. But ccrtaint~gcncralh i- illubion. and rc-poic- i- not tllc clc~tin7

of rrian. Behind the logic a1 forin lirb a jlldgrrirnt as to the relati\ r \\oith and inlpoitdnce of competing legisldti\e giounds. often dn
inaiti~lilateancl u n ~ o n - c i c ~ n s jnclgment it is tiue. and :,et tlie \ ri? loot and n e i l e of the \+hole p~oteecling. o u t a n gix e an! tonclul

siori a logical foriii. lku ah\-a>-s car1 ili~pl>- coriclitiori in a contraid. a But \rh!- clo yo11 inipl>-it? It is hccal~sc~ ioinc bclicf as to tlic pracof tice of tlie corninnnit!- or of a class. or l~ecause some opinion as of to pulic!-. or. i r ~ short, Lecause of sorrle attitude of yours ~ i l ~ o i matal ter not capahle of exact (1nantitati~-e measurement. ancl therefore of fo~inclingexact logical conclusions. Such matters really are hattle grounds ~vllere means do not exist for determinations that shall the 11e good for all tirne. and where the decision can clo no more than ernbod!- the preference of a gix~en l~ocl!- in a gi\-en time and place.' If the historical method. to \rhich \re are coinmitted as the Consel-\-atire moremmt. rneans anything, it requires ua to consicler the historical realities hehind the relel-ant texts on any gix~en s s ~ ~ e to apply thein wit11 as clear a l~ision their historical context as \re can i and of mustn: nb then must coml7arr that context to our o\rn to see if t h r same norms sliol~ld al~pll-. The historical method also. as Holnles rightly states. recluires us to recognize that the Tray in ~ r h i c l l \ ~ e \ choose to interpret and apply receil-ecl texts depends on an antecedent nioral judgiiieiit tliat we malie. Historical ax\-areness affects not only our understanding of the past. but of the present ancl future as well. One ~ v h o such awareness nlust aclino\\~lhas edge that jurists choose lc.llic11 of many pnssihle texts to interpret and ~ r h i c l to ignore. and l they choose llnrr to interpret and apply tlie texts the!- ]la\-e selected to examine. In malting that clioice. their riioral con\-ictions ineritablj-. ancl ofteri conscionbl!-. pla? a n irriportant role, in sorrie cases e\-en a deterniinatix-e one. In a religious legal s!-stem lilie Je~vish la\\-. concepts of Gocl, hnmanit!; ancl nature inust also affecct tlie juribt's decisions. for in articulating what Jews he1iex-e is tlie case. such heliefa set tlie ideational frarrie\\-orli for cleterir~iriirigwliat o ~ r g l ~ t be. In otlier words. ah I bee it. to rrioral. tlieological. social. arid historical factors are all part arid parcel of tlie la\\- along \\-it11 tlic tc7xts that tr!- to liccp 1 1 in articldating tlic law*; origoing clc\-c7101riiicnt.Conbcqncntl!-. 13 these extra-textual (but not extra-legal) factors can and should hare a strong affect on tlle la\\ ~\itliout rneeting nearl? as heal! a b ~ ~ r c l e n R a l ~ b Rotli's r~ietl~oclolog~ as i \\oulcl iriipose. In tl~eological terms. tlien. we must 71olc. deterniirie d i a t 11-e tliiiili Gocl no\\- wants of US. In rrialiirig tliat decision. traclitiorial texts definitelj- do $! a- an iir~portantrole. for tliey lirili to our ancestors and to our lieritage. tliey articulate our traditionas uriderstariding of God. liuriianity~ arid tlic \vorlcl. arid thc!~ specify tlic lrracticcb lq- ~ r l i i c h c ~ r s J liax-c actccl on their conceptions tlironghont histor!. hIoreo~-el:in contrast to Reforrri positions. I+-e belie\-e tliat a bnrclen of proof irllist 11e borne to del-iate froiii estal~lishedlaw - ~vliether that is exprehsecl in the texts of our traclition. in its nnclerl!-ing T-ahesancl concepts, or in the practices of the ohservant J e ~ r i s h communit~- ancl xve inust mal<e such clecisions as a corninunit!-. riot as indil-icluals. In tlie process of our deliberations. ho~verer.citing tests ia not sufficient arid riot neceaaarily tlie inoat cogent liiricl of proof. for we rriujt e\-aluate traclitional texts in liglit of all tliat wr ljrlierr ancl line\+-. Yot for naught clicl t l ~ Talin~lcl r warn tlie judge in eyer!- generation to judge --according to ~vliat e sees ~vitli o ~ v n h liis e?es,-''

Oli\ 1.r T\cniicll Holr111.s.Jr.. '.Tl11. Path ol'tllc la\\.^^ Hrrrrnr(1 L(111 R(,L.~I,I[ (1807): 10 4.57 H. Har,r Hatva 1.31'1. Holiiirr' philosopti! of Id\\- ~ i a 0111! one of ttie tivst a l t r ~ n a t i ~to rIrgi~lf~~iiiali;iii: iq s ~ s it *ut.rl! ~ i o t o~il! orir. n i r ~,rrl.i?r tlir riarllrr ol'tlie i~iterai.tio~ir t \ \ r e ~ Irgal tr\t-: arill tlir la\\ as li\rd iri the b i (.ommunit!- has 111,lm \ig~,r~)u>l! <llvl~at(,d t h r tx\ ~ , n t i ~ , i~~~ntur!: in tll 1111)>t rlv,~,ntl? 1~~o1111. Ii~,l~l.rt 1)! li1~1. Ctn~1.r. 5 " ~Rotia1,I T)\\,orl,iri. ,1t1,1 bri,,li,~rlLI,~orr. . Wiis i q ti,ot the p l a , , ~ ~li-, q * tlirir \ a r i , ~ approa,,lir<'iricl to [,I o ~~s r\-,rluatr the sl)pli~.al)ility t h r i ~ h r o ~ i r s Conre~r,rtirr.le\\-i;h I;I\\. Inrtratl. ~ i t i a tI tiir\r nvitten in this of t to 3r1,rion is onl! iiiranr to dnnonsrvarr tlir liinit,ition~of the liintl of fo~.iiiali~~n R11th espolirrs. ant1 T R,il)l,i IV;I\~I~ ;l~lotllt~r to ( 1 ~ ~ ~ ~SOIUI, )of tllr l ~ t ~ > i ttil~c st~ ~ s r ( ~ ( , n t it to tinu, 101 l ~ , of ~111iloso~11~~uf 1;11t~.

The Critical Factor: The Lack of Choice

Ral~l,iRoth's legal forrnali~niib l~aclrnoligh intrllre:t~iall!-. 111lt llerr tlir rrbliltb of that lrietllod lea11 lliln - and. I feal; too Inan!- of us - to nn11elierabl~cruel results. -111 x\-llo lino~\Rabbi Roth. mnyself certainly incl~~clecl. Itno\\- that h e is anything but a cruel man. His nietllocl of interpreting Je~vislllaw. llo~verer.lias led 11i111. i11 this instance. to rebults that are unc~uestionahlycruel. Since the vast majorit>- of psychological literature on the subject attests. as Rahhi Rotll admits himself. that 11s~-cllological tecllniques are incapable of changing a llonlosexual person into a lleterosexual one. Rahbi Rotll is effectix~ely- incleecl. cplicitl!- - asliirig ga!-s arid lc.;bians to rcfrain from jcxual cx~rcbiiori thcir lix-cs. That all rebult ib do\+-nrightcruel. R1oreo~-el:it is not halaltl~icallynecessary and not ultimatel!- Je~rish.On the latter ~ ~ o i nI. .lor one. cannot Ijelie\ e that the Gocl N ~ I I J t cl.eatec1 LLS all createcl ten ~ ~ e r c e o lt LLS n to l i a w sexual clrires that cannot be legall!- expressed under an!- circ:u~nstances. That is sirnply mind-boggling - and. franl<l!; un-Jewish. Jexviuh sources see hurnan 1,einge as ha\-ing conflicting urges that can he controlled and directed 1 y obedience to the wise laws of 1 the Torah: it is Chribtian to see llurriari beings as endo\\-ecl \\it11 urges tliat sllould icleall!l)c forcx-cr b~il~l)r(:sb(:cl. l n a l i ~ s Gocl a c:nrcl c1ircc:tor in tllii clralna xrc call lifc. ancl our It tradition linexj- better. It called Gocl not onlj- ~nerciful. 11ut goocl. GocVs law. then. rriuat sure1 ~be interpretecl to talie those root heliefs of our tradition into account." In the case at hand, the aimple fact is that all of the organizations of our time that eiril~ocly relevant expertise on these issues l l a ~ ~ e officially said that lioniosexuality is not a siclines.: ancl that. i n any case. it is not rel-ersil.>le."Of conrhe there are incliriclnal ps>-chologists or psychiatrists \ ~ h o hold some other l~iexv. but to cite thein. as Rabbis Rot11 ancl Sorrrian Larrilrl do. is to clloose \\-hat are 11~now isolated opinions i n t h e ~vorlclof ~ ~ ~ ~ : 1 1 to ll~llttrr;, their wrak scientific: cab?. It is j ~ l s tlilie cploting borne of olir 0 og~ Conserx-atiw rabbinic colleapeu I+-hothinli that we should accept patrilineal descent and then pretending that that is t h e policy of the Conserwtix-e nlox~ement. Lilie it or
"llong tll,>sc1inl.s. oS ,111 argurn,~nt~ I ha\,. hc,trli o \ c r thi. la>t si\ months on tllic issuc. Ral111i \Iorris iliiil~iro.3- clvii~l! 11iv ~ ~ i o h t i il~t~.iguii~g. I I L I I . r v b ~ u a ~rrivvtii~g.11vto111 riiv 11iat i~l'tv~, H c ~ l o ~ ~11v ~ t lltvr ,\ tliv au no III~;I,T i a n I~~,lir,~-i, CIIIIII lloii. HI, t h ~ . v ~ , fs w ~ ~ , I ~ ~ r n i r n i ~ n ~ i of r ~ ~ n a.; I ~ I . I ' T ~ Y T in a i ~ s rhc i i (loii t ~ thdt Ilintl 11.; \\ith n o pr~.t,,nsion ~111.ir 01 11cing goo11in an! (IS~111. usual s(.ns~.-(ISthat \\orll. For him. ~111.11. Torall's 1111. ~n011il)itions homo;exual sru al~ts u n d r ~ g e n r ~ a ~ u l ~ ~ i (;oil's i n s ~ . ~ u t a lcommantls. 1s he of tall the l of , . ~lr ~ v m l ) h a i i ziluring our J1arl.h mr,~,ting. I, ran ~ ~ l ~ ~ l( A~ i~ sn g r ~ I ~ u nc lllust IIO a, out of a s~.nsl.of ~~l u l ~ r muralit!. t Iiurrrilit~aritl. iri ari! (as?. 011r I lralleriges 11,c ~iotg i \ r (12 g r ~ > ~ 111 1,11a1ige la\\. 1 - v siriipl! 1,a1111,et ~ ~ i ~ l > [lie u1111rrstand (;oil Ihut must ol~e! Hi? Is\\< nonetheless. Ra1111iSllapiri~ tlx. roL~rag1.(IS ( 1111\i(,tio11>~ a111iI si~l(,(>r~,l! ~i~>,,pl! t1111i a1l111ir1~ \I! o\\11 \ i ~ v that. OII the Holol wuqt and it? iinplil~dtions o OIIT faitti. exp~essedsoiire !~ea~q (..(;oil aird the Holo~.aust.'. f ~ ago .l~rrlili\~n [rrintvr 10771: f 7-34]. l~osit>. I i a l ~ l ~ i q ~ i r o 26 as Sh ilo,,>. that (;o11 Ira, inll,vil i m ~ o l x ~i ~ rthr. n l H I > ~ I I I , 1.~ I ~ ~ . -till riiai~ita~i tra11iti111iaI : 111>\\v\vr. tire l,Iitlr tlrat. r \ r l i nit11 t11'it ~ ~ ~ i l ~ ~ t l i , cl'a~i :(,,c11 l qe ulti~ it. ~ l ~ i matel!-sooil. It is 11o?rible that the iiiffr~en~.es I)rt~\-ern ave gmevational: IIOTII in 104.3. I. aftw all. ~liiinot us ~c,p'lricni,~ ~ HI o l o i , a ~ ~ast a n aliult. as 111.dill. In-t~.a(l. \\as . h a ~ c i ih tllc Sranlil! cornSortah11 -Irncri(.,cn L s I ! r ~ ~ \ i ~ . u ni r~ \rliii,li T~gl.r\\ U ~ J .and ~ri! tlivolog! u~~doul~trlll! th t11;1t - altliougli T lioFw it i, rru~ r r~v~ t 1.vllr1 invnsitix~vto tr~iin;~~i~ f f ~ ~ 21- i InT ; . ~ I ~ I I I ~ I Yrirost I ~ I ~ I ~ ~ I I ill -t h ~ H O ~ O I ~ In Ia111~a . ~ I .I l r l i ~ , ~alo~r: s~ ~ ~I I I> , ~ II~~ I ~,. \\ith thl. Jc\\ish tra~litior~. (;011. 110\<1.\ r i n ~ ~ ~ r u t at h l ~ ia ultirnatcl! good. an11that l u ~ ~ ~ l a r n c n t a l that 1. a tirnl~s. I~eliefmust entev into hlni I and all rho qtiw~e that I~rliefinte~pvet .Ir\\ihh law
' The i ~ ~ i e r i c ,Ps!(.lriatri( ;~~i

\=c>,.i;~ti~~~i I o ~ i o ~ v x ~r~ oi~ !its list 11eletv11 r l t ~i irirr11~11 1lisc>r11vrs 107L. ili . . ~lr.l.iaii)n> mall(. IIT t h ~ -\mr,riran k'si!-~rholugi~ i ~.lsio(.iatiu11 illc~l' a1111II!- t h ~ Yati~llal L ~ r i l l a~lll~lar rrr,rc . ill 1075 . I>SIII iati1111 So(it11 1~<nrl,rrc 1077. \lt1111~1glr 111 iri p~nliti~,al l'a(t~or. rii'~! 11aie iriflueri~~rcl tlrosr (1e1isio~rs l>:lrt. iri thdt rtalr~.e ~eiiri~ins I onsiilr~edopinion of t h r mental health pvofrrsionr. next- \\-itti r\-rn m o w exiilrnl~e. the See rlir ~lllelil.cx71 F's,~~iliirrtric 4sroc.icctioi1 nirrpilostir tr~itl.jttrtistic~trl\Irr71rrill qf'\k~itirl T1isoi.tlci.s. 311 eil.. r ( , x i > ~1L)Shl 1111~). ~I 1074~ lOG6.

not. the clear e\-iclence of tlie p ~ ~ c l l o l o g i c a l cornrriunity - clearer now tllarl xvhen they tooli thcir rcipcctix-c actions in t h c inicl-19706 - is that h o i n o ; c x ~ l a l i ti; not a n illncs.: ~ ancl that it is not re\-ersible. That. for me. is the critical factor that mnst leacl us to rethinli our position on this ~vhole issue l~alalil~icall!-.I arn iinpressed h the iiiaesire historical data that Rabhi _Irtson has ! hrougllt to our attention ahold the nature of hornosexualit!- in the past. and it m ! be. as he ac:ontcncls. that c~lltic:.liroriiibc~~ollb. al~llbix-c or hornoscx~lal rclationb arc tllc onl? onc6 eiur ancestors could possibly h a w meant to conclernn since those are the only kinds they line\+-. T\> all. thongh. ha\-e read Jexviih texts on this issue for so long to prohihit all fornls of homosexual it!^ that it is jolting to read tllein in his \va!-. For nie. the jur!- is iiot yet in on the issue. especiall!. gi\-en two texts: the one in the Sifra1'911atdescribes the marriages of men to each cithcr or \t-olncn to c a d i otllcr ab onc of tllc practic:cs of tllc Egyptian; ancl tllc Canaanitc6: and the one in the T a l m u d . I+-l-hich. least as Raslli unclerstancls it. praises non-Jews for at at least not writing marriage contracts for people of the same gender ~ v h o were ha\-ing sex together. p r e s ~ ~ r r i a inl ~ ongoing and stable relationsllip. h an \ h a t is clear, though. is that all the traditional Jewish texts assume that h o n ~ o s e x u alit! i:, a \-iolation of tllc la\\- I~ccaubc thc lloriio~cx~lal co~llclr h o o s ~ l ~ h c t c r o s c x ~ ~ a l . to c That. we h a w found. is definitely itot the case. Three ne\v studies raise the possibility that 1~omosexualit~- genetically and/or nenrologicall!- cleternlinecl - or. at leaht. that is genetic and nenrological factors o w r ~ t ~ l l i c h llerson has no control are rnajor factors the in rrlaliing liini or her h o i n o s e x ~ ~ a l . ~ ' These. ho\verer. are onl!- p~eliniiiia~ye s ~ i l t\[nl.eo~er. PIPTI if \ve a s s ~ ~ i n e tlie<e ~ s. that studies are correct. one can. at least at this point. raise "the chiclien ancl tlie egg problzin" i.e.. clo these pl1!-sical factors, xvhich are different in l~omosexuals.cause l~omosexualit!; or is it lloinosexua111ella~-ior that engenders these pll!-sical feature* of a person? Further research ma\^ someday soon resol\-e these c~nestinns. E k a t is thcrcforc~ rnorc c~lgcnt iiic nor\-is tllc tcbtiiiion!- of ga!-s ant1 lcsl~ianb for tllcinsell-es. Constitutional gays and lesbians - that is. those \\~llo cannot meet their pllysical and emotional neecls in heterosexual romantic relationships (i.e., those in categorj- six ancl rnaii!- of tliose in categor!- fi\-e of Icinsej-'s delineation) - attest that heing gay is not eornething they cllose. In fact. hecause of the ~\~idespread discrimination against gays and lesl~ianbin our socictT. s~lcll pcoplc ~ l s ~ ~ aclcniccl tlicir lloiiioscxllal oricntatiori for niany ll? years and actirely tried to fight off their llornosexual tendencies. Je~rish la\\- talies such e\~iclence\~ei?~ seriously. =Ilthough according to all of the r e l e ~ a n t professional organizations. hoinosexualig- is iiot an illness. it is a feature of a person that that person is likel!- to lino~v hetter than anyone else. In that sense, it is aliin (although izot equi\-alcnt) to tllc circliiiibtanccb llnclcr \t-1lic:h Jc~viill law rccognizcb a paticnfs ncc.cl for focicl on l o r n kippur: "Tibere\-er the person says. 'I need it.' ex~en a h~~nclrecl if [I~l~ysicians] that he say does not need it. xve lihten to him. as Scripture $a!-s. 'Tile heart linows its o\vn bitterness:"" Thus eren if the coinpulsion is culturally generated rather than biologically so. and even if some 11eo111e ~vould then claim that the culture must he changed in some w! to amid homoa-

- \ ~ V I , \ I I , CI~ S /T~ ~ , t ~ i , nTan -a ~ I, , tl>

VI)\-I,T-~LI;I, u t i ~ 11i~1~11~sin;an11 o t l i T I ,~ ( ~ : I T ( ' ~on thv iiidtt(,~. ~~ " l 'l'liis 11, thib ~ S S I s~ Chill1 (;a!:' Born or Drl.11: T11~ Origins 01' Hornoscx~~ali~!." ~ec.r,cl;. F P ~1002. pp. 4 0 - i 3 . Sc(1also 3y.11 24 . ."\\hat C;iusrq I'roplr to I)? Homose\ual!" \ c ~ i ~ c c i . A . Srpt. 1001. p. 5 2 : ,in11 "Su~\-r!- of I~irnti~.al '1 'lijin? l,i~il<:llic,logi~~;~l" I , ~ ~~t~itli II I ~ . l$(,iiig(;LIT- ... /.,I> -l71~gf,lt,s '/iii~f,\.1.5 l ) , ~ 1001. 11. A4:3. .

Lj. l o m a

f13a: \1.1 Hilkhot S h l ~ i t a I s o r P : X : S.1. Orah Ha!:im t

h1ll:l.

sex~iality.for the inclir-idual hoinosexual that coinpulsion is alreadj- a fact of liib or her existence - one for ~vhicli the honiose\-ual liirnself or herself ~)ro\~idrs most reliable el-irlence tlie and one \vl~ich.on the hest of authority. cannot lje altered. The coiiibination of these bources of el-iclence. it seenib to nie. necessitateh a retllinliing arid recastir~g tlle 1alz;~fi)r!f aiz\.thiig is c.letrr abortr t l ~ r of tratlitioil. it is thtrt it trssrcirted tllnt ~ G I Jbrlrcr~ior. r inniter of clloicr. Othei~vise. coinnlanclirlent forbidding it would logis 1 a icall!- riialie no sense - ail!- iriore than rc-ould a corriiriandrrieiit prohibiting hreatlling for an!- but the shortest periods of tirne. Vow. of c o ~ r s eit is logically possilole to say to gal-s and lesloians. as Rahhi Rotll cloes. that . if they cannot change their hornose\-ual orientation. they should remain celibate all their lires. As 1 said before. that flies in the face of some rely cleepl!- rooted tlleological assei'tions of Juclaisni. \Ioreo\-el; it beeiris to ine that tliat ib not 1ialal;liical~recplirecl. If gays arid lebl~ians are right in ajseifing that they h a w no choice in heing homosexual - a i d . gir-en the ~{iclespread cliscriniination in our society againbt tllein. I h a w no reason to clouljt thein in this claiin and. indeed. ex-elT reason to beliex~e tllerri - then they are as forced to he gay as htraigllt* are forced to be straight. Tllat is. g ! rrieri can no rriore extirpate their sexual or elnotional attracations to other men ancl cultirate sexual and emotional attractions of a romantic sort to\varcl omen than straight Inen can expunge their sexual or emotional attractions to women and create then1 toll-arc1inen - and. of courbe. the sarne tlling. inrrratis inrctulzdis. is tine for lesal bians and straight Tromen. Fb are all ecluallj- "forced (DIM) in our s e x ~ ~orientations. I11 discounting this line of reasoning. Raljbi Rotli cited t l ~ e coil~irient Rara" tliat 911R 11) does not apljly to a male's sexual aronsal. that having an erection is a l m y s \-nhintai?-. There are. of course. some proljlerris v i t h this assuinption strictly on a factual lex~el. Rax-a liirnself recognizes that nocturnal emissions cannot be called \ - o l ~ ~ n tsince they occur during the ai~ unconsciousne;~of slrep. Tn\~oluntaryerections. though. are not restricted to slrep. hrales (especially teenagers) often hare erections in embarrassing situations where they definitely clo not ~varit their l~enises 11e erect. Eyer1 if we interpret Rara to be referring exc1usi~-el!to to the cor~textof sexual ir~terconr>e. \\-llere 11ih reirlarl; ib inore l~laubil~le, legal nrliig 11is

rr.o~tldo111\. s v . illat hnz.iizg cell el-retioil is c11rc.cp.scoi~strtcrdto be t.olr/iltcri:\.: tile objrct rc.llicll ar.o~esesthat desive iila~. ~c.ell be - and. indeed. the existence of erection* in ernharrassnot
ing circuinstance* ~voulcl argue that it ia not. Indeed. Je\+-is11 law seems to acl;no\\~leclgethis clifferentiation I,et\\~eenthe \-oluntarism that prorluces an erection in a man and the compulsion of tlie <ituation or person that may leacl the inan to procluce it. The 'ljlmucl specifically includes incest ancl aclultery ( n i 3 3 i u 3 1 5 7 a ) arriorlg the three prollil~itions that one ir~list l ~ e y o e\-en at the cost of one's life." R'nat hal~ljens.tthongh, if a person acc~uieiceclto the forhidden sesnal act under these circnmstances? Tlle Torah already exempts a TI-oiiianw l ~ o cloes this - indeed. tliat case Ijecoiries one of tlle paradigin* for other cases of coinpul*ion. There is general agreement anlong later Jewish legists tliat this biblical exeinptiori reiliains x-alid even in cabeb of incest or aclultery despite the fact that later rabbinic law specifically pro\~ides slicll cases that she in is s~1pl)osed give up her life. if she can. to prel~ent to the illegitimate sex act." Rllat about a rnan. thongh. 11-110 has illegitilnate sex to s a w his life,? In line wit11 the talrnndic abburnptiorl that irlale erectior~sare T-oluiltai?-. no st ral.)l~ibclo not exernl)t such
'I

B. I+\arnot 5311: 1,s. KT. La\\> 01 F o r l ~ i ~ l l lI,n ~ ~ ~ r ( ~ o1:'):La\\> 01COLI~LSi l ~ l h ~ ~ l r203. R ~ l ) l )Rot11 .t urs~~ (S irlj i 1 it?> tlii> poirit ol'la\+ al)o\v. 1). 654.
I<.3 a i i l i ~ ~ l i i;la. ii

'

L)~wt. :26-2;. Cf. RI.1. Lans o f th(. t ~ , u n ( l a t i o I Ithv l;,rah 5:4: 5,lnhr~lrin20:2. 22 ~ ~~ >

rrieri froin the cleat11 penalty for such offenses, but soir~edo!' E ~ e n tllobe wllo irialie tlie rriari lial~lcfor capital pl~ni;lnricnt clo so on tllc cx1)lic:it ass~nril)tiontliat a rriari can 1)c coerced to I I . C L I I ~to ha\-e an erection:'"le is thus llelcl liable for \ranting to engage in the sex act - e \ en tliougll lie \\as being lorced into it at tlie threat ol losing liis lile arid e \ en though \\-omen so threatened \\ere exemptecl. I find this latter unclerstai~clii~g his clesires of iin~lausihle and the ruling unfair. hut for our pnrposes the iinl~ortant thing is not that: it is rather to note tliat ereri tllose ~ v h o take tlie latter lrositiori rei:ognize that a iriari (:an h a r e erections in re:,l?onse to people ancl sitllations in I\-liich lie is forcrcl to ""\rant" to participate. This is hardly the level of roluntarism for ~ r h i c l l I+-ouldnormally nlalte a person we reapo~isible.l\Iost ir~iportantl!. ral~bisOIL botlr sides oJ' tllis tlebutr clid not autoriiaticall! assunle that the men to \\horn the talmudic law appliecl must he passive recipients of the aggressor's sexual acll-ances hut rather conlcl be the actil-e partner in the forbidden sex act. This inclicatci clcarl! that all of tlicbc ral~ljii a c \ \ - that irialc crcctions wcrc not all \-olunl tr. that sexual intercourse. e\-en for a inan. conlcl 11e coerced. a! Thus Je\visll la\r recognizes the fact that \re l t n o ~ from experience. i.e.. nlales can be t~ coerced into sex. even as the active partner. D l - coinpulsion. that is - can apply to inales IH engaged in sex. Tllat is not ~ r h a \re usually expect in cases of incest. adultell. or rape. and t Ra\-a"s statement m ! therefore properly he the judicial stanrlard in assessing culpal~ilit!- in arriost :,u(:h (:asps. T l i ~ (:a;? of cngagirig in :,cx tcl s a w onc^slifc. lio~rc\-c~r. rrialics clcar that R a m I~e:,l)ealis general ~~olic!;not a n in\-iolal~le a rule. If hi.: statenlent is to l ~ consistent e wit11 the rekt of .Te~\-ibll la\\, it rarnlot l~lausil.)ly e corlbtruecl er~tirely rule out coercior~ h to as a n excuse for illegitiiriate sex for either fenlalev or inales. even ~vlleil latter produce the erections in the process.

The Legal Implications of Compulsion

W l a t arc tlic lcgal conscclucncci if oric is corrilrcllccl to do that ~vhicll against tllc la\\? is Sorniall!-. the judgrrient in Jewisll la\\- for such acts is that the persori is exerriptecl fro111 an\; punisllrnent el-en tllougll the act itself remains forbidden (11~R llDD).'" Thus. if i~ at some future tiine this person or an!- other aclult Jew engages in the act rr.it1101ct heing cornpelled to do so. h e or she ~ronlcl totally liahle at la\\ for the infraction. On the thebe ological lex~el. such a persori will liare corrirriitted a bin - that is. a \-iolation of Godab \\ill ant1 llcncc a rift i n clnc"s rclationsllip with Gotl. Tllc pcr:,on xrho sins 11-illingl!- i m ~ s 61lft fer tlle attendant consequences delineated in Jewish law ancl i n u s seek to rnalie arnencls to tliose lie or slie lias \\ranged aricl to Gucl tllrougli tlie proce>s o l returrl (;rxivn). Trie revi ions occurrence of a situation i n ~ r h i c hthe person \\as compelled is no excuse for an!- future time \\-hen h e or she is not. Tile categor>- in Je\rish la\\- of TDR ~ X 1 1 ~ ho\\-e\-er. norrriall>- applies to cases in R ~. w1lic:ll tllr c~clinl)l~lsion t e ~ i ~ p o r oTrie .c;lai:,i~al i:, ~:~ . i>aheiri tlir hIiihna11 i:, that of tlir person \rho \-o\\~s eat with his friend but is prel-entecl from doing so 11ecause the friend or llis to child 1~ec:arrieill or because a rising ri\er pre\ eritecl tlie orie \\lie \ o\\ed lrorii reaclling llis
R . 50101iio11i11ri \ ~ I I v ~ CJII Fl. l i \ a r i i ~ ) 7.31): R ~ b p o r i > a (Ftabli11ii) t oI'R'1ll1)i y i t ~ l ~ c ~ l11. S l i ~ s 1 1 vFJa1.li31(111~ 11' , t Kix-;~sti). nos. 1 11. a n d 38;: Rl,~girl Rli;hnah o n RI.'I: I.ax\-s o f I , o ~ l ~ i ( i ( i ( .In i t ( ~ ~ . i o ~ i1:').i r i n r h c i i a i n r o t . i v ..'I'tirv~ aTr t l i o ? e xi-ho <t!:i. See as^) 'lhsafot t o ti. \ I r r i m i o t 531). 5.7-. 1;IlDINw e n d 5.r. 7 - K ,

I<I.sP~ \Iishndll L 1I.T. Sanhmlrin f 0 3 . 111 ; ~ n { ~ r o ln this topic.. S I Y . ~ n ~ ~ . r . / y ~ r ~ ri /l ~ ir ci i r / i>.\. DIlN. \ol. 1. o a i l l. p ~ ) 316-:lhO. r z p , 1)~).,318-0 (N.H. n o t e ? 2 0 - 2 1 ) and p. . I 5 8 (\.ti. n. 1 1 8 ) ( H r l ~ ~ r x \ ) . . " R . R a r ' i Tiaiiiiiiii 281) r r al. ,'re also 5ifi.a o n T.rv. 20:.3: Sitxi. '"Tza~;~'e n d o t 1'11. 1 1 : 1I.T. T.axis of t h e F o u n ( l a t i i ~ nof t l l r , 'I;)rah .5:4:l l a f i ~ 1111U. 1 1 7 a m o t .i4,1. i li t

friend's residence. As R a l ~ b e n u Kibsiin enlrlains tlle passage. the RIishnal<s cases are specificall~~ cases in \rhich there is 71otf ~ d compulsion u71d?.~t person is automaticall>-freed l the of his yo\\- without the need to go to a sage for releabe fro111 it, for. as Rabbenu Kibsirn sa!-s, "it ne\~eroccurred to the one enacting the yo\\- that it \\-odd appl?- if something llaplrenecl sl~ch that one coulcl not fiilfill it:"" The ~vorcl used to descrihe \chat llapl~ens the T ~ ~ Tin to V the first RIishnall of that chapter. in fact. ib ii7n;l. "tllej unfabtenecl (releabed) it." the w r b form of ima (permitted). a consicleral~l~ more accepting el~aluation the failure to fulfill of the T-OW than 11DK 'IXK 1113D (freed of liability b11t still prollihitecl). The Talrnucl. though. cloes not go that far. "Kllen a persoil is compelled.'" explains Rara. ere11 in these temporar!- \t-a?-s. "the A11 nIercifu1 One frees lliin [froin any punishnlent] (771b@ l i r l l l DI~N)",' (Kotice the R theological language e~nl~edclecl the la\+-on this issue.) in K h a t would happen. ho~ve\~er.the person could never fillfill the conlniandrnent 11ecause if he or she ib ctlrr.rr\:c. o ~ i p ~ / / The ? c ~ ( l clobebt parallels to 311c11 a situation are those in I+-hichour lluinan ljoclies coinpel us to do soinetlling. Tllat is true. for example. of our needs to eat. to eliminate waste. and to hare sex. In each case. J e ~ t ~ i s h assunlev that \ve cannot. ancl incleecl la^\^ should not, refrain fro111 these actionb altogether. It regulates. ho\\-e\-er. the circuinstanceb in \rhich these compulsions m! be legitimately met. It says. for example. that \re may only eat aaccording to tllr dietar? l a w and \\-ith proper blessingb before and after meals; that \re irlust corer our feces: anel that \ \ ~ e nmst restrict sen to marriage. This channeling of our natural energies into a specific path for their satisfaction is one way God malies us holy. These analogues in Je~vish law. then. snggest that if hoinosexnality pro\-es to he a n orientation o r r r 12-hich the inclirich~alllab no choic.e. then the lrrclprr reailing of J r x r i ~ hlaw should h e that homosexual acts, like heterosexl~alones, shol~lclhe regulatecl such that some of tllenl are sanctified and others clelegitiinatecl - or perllaps e r e n vilified ah abominations. Putting the matter theologicall!:, as the texts on coinpulsion do. if hlnnan beings can n e v r reasonablj- require that ~ v h i c h perborl (cannot do. one ~vould a surely expect that to 11e eren more true of God. \rho. presumal~l>-" lino~vs the nature of each of us ancl therefore the coirlrrlanclrrlents a l ~ l ~ r o l ~ r itot the \-aricins groups of us. a e

The Remaining Questions Regarding Homosexuality

F! h.

then. is t h e i r CIII! c~urstioilon this issue? That is. ~zll! an1 I izot nor( suggesting that \ \ e c o n c e i ~ e llorrloaevual hex a* being llalahllicall! on a par nit11 heterosexual 3e.i of T p a t . it i i hecause the hiologital information on 11hith T h a l e ha.erl m leainning n ! a b o e i- all er! nrll. In fact. as I ha\ r ~aicl ~ all07 e. at thi- point I arrl inorr con\ incrcl h t h r ! test~rnon? 8a.s and l e > I ~ ~ atn ~ e r n s e l ~ e s to the in\ u l u n t a ~ ? a t ~ u e tllei~horn us ex^^o1 ls as n ol ali~ t11~1nI an1 !,I the tlnee recmt scientific studies that ~uggestthis T ~ P T Zof the mattel. Inother iinportant piece of e~iclence the ~ositiorl ia taller1 h all the profea-ional organi~a! tions of thoie ha\ing ps~cliologicale x p e ~ t i i e that a lioinosexual oiientation is not a di-ease ancl that. in an! Lasr. it is not i u l ~ j r c tcl cllangr b tllr trcllniclneb h n o ~ i n thrrn. t ! to Talterl t u g e t h e ~ these data a l e s ~ ~ l l ~ c101 rile to a l l i ~ r n . ~ent ~on1iclentl! that \te sllo~llcl n o longel see homosexual it^ a i a inoial abomination. The tr'1ditioi1. in sa!ing that it \\a-. clearl! ahsunled that sexual attraction to. and sexual intercourse \\ith. peolrle of
'

K a l ~ l ~ (h~ -l sii m ' ~I oiiimi~ntis pvintl.(i on t h ( , page of thi. sranilml r~iirion;of t h N;III!-lonian '1:1lm11ii. H. i ~ Scllarirn ?;a. That t11,. \ I , \ \ is ~,an(.~.l,.il ~ o r n a ~ i t ~ I ~ ~ I IIrorn RI. K,.llarirn 3:l. III' \<hi,,ll[hi- \Ii-hnall au all! M is the r \ p l a n a t i ~ ~ n .

t h e aarrie gender were totallj- x-oluntary. E> certainl!- lino~v eriougli by now to assert that that ih a fact~lal crror. I hesitate. thongh. to o w r t u r n a long hiator!- of Je\+-ihh norins o n this buljject ljy lull? equating the rriosal status o l llorrioselualit! \\it11 l i e t e s o ~ e x ~ ~ a lIJII ithe l ~ a s i s l the it\ o firm lino~c-ledge iio\\~h a w . 4 s disconcerting and frustrating as this inaj- be. to tlie we extent that law is 13asecl o n scientific information. it must take account of t h e tentatire nature of new finclings in a n area and l ~ flexible enough to respond to \chat \ \ ~ e n o ~ r e G now. recognizing alwa\-s that more information ma! nialce fiirtlier change; in an! of a \-ariet!- of clirections acl\~ihal~le. \loreox-er. e r e n if I~ornosexnality \\ere pro\-erl beyonel a bllaclo~vof a clonl)t to be involuntary. that \voulcl still not force a llalalillic conclusion. Here Rabbi Rotll's point in philosophj- of la\\- is absolutely correct: hcientific iriforrnatiori hlloulcl iriforrri t h e legist's decision. but it does not deteririine it. Tlle deciaor rriubt take a whole host of factora into consideration - scientific. moral. social. historical. economic. educational. and theological - and integrate them all into his or her decision. \ h a t are the other relex-ant consiclerations in this case'? Of the issues cliscnssecl hy Rabbi Roth. it is not. for me. the description of heterosexnality as ""natural""or ""normal""- and, con\-ersel!; of hoinosexnality as unnatural"" or ""ahnorrrial:' It is rather rriatteri of propagation ancl parenting.

"N-atural"and "iTormal"
Rahbi Rot11 and otllers denigrate homosexual acts as "'unnatural" and/or ..abnormal..' These terms. indeed. often accompany some of the most passionate anti-gay rhetoric. They express. at least. tlie feelings of tlie spealier that lloiiiosexual sex acts are revolting. that they do not fit the s p e a l ~ e r understandings of \\hat is right and proper. "~ \ h e n one examines the usage of these terms in arguments against homosexuality. llo\\-cwr. onc fincle that tllc hpcalicr.: all too casil!- blip frorri ~lbirig th('ir cl~scril)ti\-c incaning to articnlating a l~rescriljtirejudginent (G.E. \Ioc~re's --natnralistic fallacy"). Rabbi Rotll*h clisc~~bbiorl tllib inatter (aLo\-e, 1'1). 628-630) is a n exainl~leof this clar~ger.He. of anlong otllers. also T\-roiigl!- identifies lloiiiosexual sex \\-it11 anal sex. It certainly ih the case. for example. that the vagina excretes fluids that irialie penetration by the penis easier and less painful for hot11 the man and woman inrol~~ecl hetin erosexual intercoursr. while the anus Iias no such feature. That is a descriptive fact of natural. in nature. That fact imposes a norm. how-erer* only if one belieres that e\~ei-\-thing tl~ib clescril~ti~e ierlse, is goocl. T l ~ a t thongl~, .Je\+-b , Tve burelj lo ilut 11elie~-e. engage in \k meclical treatments. after all, precisel>-to alter \\hat is the natural course of a disease. In general, \loore's point ih that \re cannot cleduce values frorri facts. Facts certainly influence our ralue judgments. but one needs to in\-olie arid appl!- a \-alue s>-sternand its attendant perspecti\-e on life to proclaiin some actions good and some bad. It is precisel! that d u e judgment. howel-el: that is in cluestion wit11 regard to homosexuality. Tllus calling anal s e l acts " u n n a t ~ ~ s a l " a ~~resc:sipti\e in sense clues not r e s o l ~ e . but ratlles ]legs. tile c~uestionof \\hat our value stance shortld he ~ r i t h reprcl to such acts. l\Ioreo\-er. homosexual sex is not the sanie as anal sex. Lesbians. after all. cannot engage in anal sex: only some g! men do. ancl some heterosexnals do. too. _Is a result. a anal sex is uot the equivalent of hornosexualit! or ex~enof homosexual sex. There is. in a other \\~orcls. basic confusion of definition here. Homosexualit!- is a n orientation. probaIJ~! beat cleGnecl as "the attraction to. arid the capacitj rornanticallj to lobe. rrierribera o l the

sarrie sex.'" This orientation. like a lleterosexual orientation. iilr~ohes sex acts. hut it ib not restrictrd to thern. for nnotional components of romantic lo\-? and t h r many non-~exual rxl)res;ion; of the co~ri~riit~rieilt 1111-O~T-rcl s111:lllove play a critical role in defining the oriin acts are to be clistinguished from entation. Both a llonlosesual orientation ancl llo~nosesual anal sex acth. \\hidl are practiced by no leal~iana. some gay rrien. arid some lieterosexnals." As a result. i l aria1 sex is juclged as abnorrnal in eitller a clescripti\ e or prebcripti\ e sense. it is t l ~ n ~ r h i c h slloulcl discuss. not homosexuality or homosexual sex acts prr. sr. t we Our tradition liad an arrihi\-alent attitude toward lleterosexual anal sex.23 Altllough some sources oppose it on grollnds of being --unnatural." that. I am afraid. is cleducing norms frorri facts (Noore's naturalistic: fallacy again). Soirie people - perhaps rnari!- - simply clo not like it aesthetically. That is goocl reason for snch people not to engage in it. but not a ha<isfor the many disqualifications imposed on liornosrxuals 1 5 contemporary s o c i e t ~ hy or Je~visli traclition. Trie substanti\-e issue regarcling anal sex. it seerrib to me. is the irnpobsil~ili ~of- procreating that \ray* and I shall address the important matter of procreation below: but the11 procreatiorl is the i s b ~ e r ~ lioir~osexualitj lieteroiexuality. . ~ t or The terrri "nornial" ib e \ en rriore arribiguoub arid lierice e\ en rriore prol~lernatic.Does it sense, it mean what the statistical norm of people do? If we l~nclerstancl in that d ~ s c r i p t i \ ~ e \\-Ill- sliould we absmrie that **norrrial"hehax~ior.so understood. is necessaril!- rigllt or goocl? T\k surely can thinli of man>-cases in ~ r h i c h \roulcl say that the majority engage in dew\re rigllt innnoral actions - e r e n abominations. Does ""nornial*'instead rrieari norrnatire? If it does - arid it certainl!. seeins to denote tliis in sorrir of Ral)l)i Roth's rriatrrial - then asc:ribing n o n n a l ~to~borrir acts arid al~norrrial(:!-to : others rec[nireb a inoral jnclg~nmtabout the acts. But llcnv we should judge hornobexualitj- is ljrecisely the point at issue. It cannot 11e decided simply by calling it "normal"" (in the pre>cripti~-e rrieanir~gof that terrn) or ""al~r~orrnal": \\on111 be Legging the cpeitiorl. that

Propagation and Parenting

TI{-o other issues. ho\ve\-el: seem to me to he more cogently related to our contemporaneous judgment of horriosexualit?-. Propagation hy llonio~exuals inay he possible through the new techniques of artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood. hut the former. ancl especiall!- tlie latter. ini~-ol\~e halalihic prohleinu e ~ - einitlie context of heterosexual rriarriage and. ~ all the more so. outrirle it. .Idoption is. of course. a possihilit!- and. indeed. an honored one in our tradition: 11ut pcoplc x:cliing to adopt a child thc.;c days arc cspcricncing irrirricnsc difficulty in finding one - at least if the!- \cant a healthy infant. Consequentl!-s the interest of the Jewish tradition in propagation cannot be met as easily - p l l ~ ~ s i c aor ~ l l morally - in l~orriosexualurliorlh ab R a l ~ l - kit s o r ~ ~ suggehth. Raljbi I<irrielrnari and I - ancl. I \could irriagine. all o l tlle rest ol the Curiser\ati\e raljbinate - share the Je\rish tradition's concern for procreati\-e marriages. It is important to decades recognize. though. tliat gays and lesbians increasingl!- h a w tlie saine desires. T~vo generation"' and \\hen propagation was. in any ago, \+-hen\re were in the midst of the cabe. all but irnljobsible for llorriosexuals. eren tliobe ~ v h oranted to h a w cliildreri had to resign themse1~-es the i m p o s s i l ~ i l i ~ cloing so. Kow. in the 1990s. 11oth factors hax~e to of

" I arll inillll)~~.~J.hlr. I)a\ilJ. Dia11c.o lor rlariS!in; LO

this lor 111~. i r e I I a ~ ~ i\I. l'rliliiian. tlii.t/i ( , o i ~ t i o /iii ,/c~II~~s/I ( h r v l o ~ l c :h r ~ l+ ~ l c iii~-r~sit!d I,I!ZI o L I'T~ss. l O h 8 ) . 1)~). 1.5.5tt. f o a ~lis~~ussioiir h r aml)i~-alrnt ~ of atritudrq ~al)l)i? orrv tlir dgrq liwd ro~rdv~l sex. R a l h i Rorli anal 11i.t u>>l.> thia: s c ~ .al)o\~,..1'1). h 5 l i f f .

changed. Rlarriage and fanlilies are "in." and niedicine has n o ~ v pro\-icled leahiails arid e\-en gay m r n \\-it11 the potential for hax-ing children. Consriluently. it will no longer do. if it el-er c:cnllcl. to ol1jrc:t to hoiriobexi~alit~ the groinicle that llcirriosrx1lal6c:annot and. in an!- case. on do not want to, procreate. The?- can ancl clo - ancl so the onl? question is ~vhetller ineans the ]I\; ~ r h i c h they can ancl do. namely. artificial insernination ancl surrogate motherhood. pose any inlierent probleins in tlieinse11-es or specifically in the context of unlriarried people. The Je\+-is11 emphasis on haring and ecl~icatingchildren raises a n anomaly in Rahhi Rot11"s position. H e is willing to accept gays and lesbians to rahhinical school ancl to allo~v tlleirl lloriors in our congregation onl!- on the condition that theF reiriain celibate. That is prcciscl!- tllc btarlcc of thc Catholic Church. For Catholics. l l o ~ r c \ ~ call pricits r, and nuns must be celihate. and so their policy with regard to gays and lesbians is simply a consistent extension of their policy toward heterosexuals training for the clergy. Sinli1arl~-.h e Catl~olicClinrcll prohibits --artificialq'rrlearlb of propagatior~(or birth cor~trol) t psecisel! because the! are artificial. \\lletlier ~ ~ s e b!l Ileterobexualb or hornobea~~alb. c TYthiii Judaisin. h o ~ \ - e w rneither of those conditions applies: \ye expect rahhis to niarry . and procreate - to the point that \re even looli sorne\\~hat askance at those \rho can hut do not: and \re not only permit. but encourage, couples 11-110 are hax~ingdifficulty conceiving to u i e ~ v h a t e r e rrriethods rriedicine can pro\-ide to lie111 tllerri h a r e children with tllr rxcepticin. accorcling to inost cilrinions. of silrrclgatr inotllrrhoocl. -1 clrirlantl for celibac>- of candiclates for professional or la! leaclershil). then. seerris to be altogether curltext. even grailtecl our rrbicl~~al l~roI.)lrir~sv i t borne of the ~ l~ strange withir~a .Te~vish neb\ ~ ~ r u c r e a trrietlloda. i~e Eeyond these matters of propagation. there is the issue of parenting. One sho~ild expect the result that recent htuclies sugge5.t - nainel!. that t ~ \ - people raising one or iriore o children do better- on awrage, than one. ~f only because two people h a w t\\~ice the time ancl energ!- to cleal ~ r i t h children that one person has. These factors of time and enerthe g rciriairl tllc saint I\-hctllcr tllc txvci lrcoplc inrolx~ccl of ol?positc gcntlcri or of tllc sanic ! arc gencler. This fincling ob~-iousl? cloes not rriean that single parents will necessar!. fail or that t\ro parents \rill necessarily succeed. but the ax-ailability ancl sliills of two people can reasonal~l! be expected to be a net acl\antage o \ e r one. RIureo~er.another recent stud! has given us preliminary information. at least. that children \\-l1o grow up ~ r i t h hoinosexnal parents are no more liliely to be h o i n o s e x ~ ~thernseh-es than children who grew n p in a hetal erohexual en\-ironinent." It is. of course. also true. as Rabbi Artson notes. that sonrp hingle parents or hoinosexual couples ma!- actuall!. do a better job of loring and supporting their children (lio~re\-er obtained) than some heterose\-ual c o ~ l ~ ldo. rs As a matter of general polic!; though. it is still l~etter. I~eliel-e. cllilclren to hare 110th 1 for a rriale and feiriale parent as influences in their lil-eb rather than one parent or hvo parents US the sarne gender. Tliat certainlc has bee11 the exl~erie11c:e oS Je\\isli Big Brothers. \\llicll no\\- l~ro~icles male inoclels on at least a n occa~ional 11asis for 110th 110)s and girls g r o ~ ~ ~ up g iii esclusirely xrith their mothers. -4 Jewish Big Brother helps to some degree to fill in for the absence of the father. hut it surely is not ideal. Tile more Ire learn ahont males and females. differ frorri each other in i n i ~ r i e n s e bignificant l~ the rriore \I-e disco\-er that irieri and \+-(-oinen wa!-~. Dcl~orahTanncn^e rcccrlt lichtscllcr. 1611J71,c.rDon't [,ncl~~.stnilrl. clcirionbtratcs that males ancl feinales e l m tall; in gencler-slrecific. clistinctix-exval-s. ancl that hetrays much deeper clifferences in iriale a i d ferriale patterns of tllought, feeling, ancl action. ah other recent

studies ha\-e pro\-en. _Illindix-idualb are unique. but \re apparentl! do share soine far-ranging dlaractcristic:~ \\-it11 thc othcr incrnl~c~ri our gcnclcr that go \\-ell l,c?-oncl tllc \\a!-s rvc of elirniilate bodily waste and our pll?-sical roleb in sexual interconrbe. That ineans that. all else Leing equal (11-11icl1.of conrbe, it belclorri ih). we shoulcl, as a ir~atterof l~olicj-. prefer Ileterosexual parenting o\~er that of single parents or homosexual couples. al Please note: I arn not now claiining that these factors - the moral and p l ~ ~ i cprohlems i n - o l d in honlosexual propagation and the psychological aclmntages of ha\-ing hot11 a mothcr and a fathcr - bcar aufficicnt ~vcight juatift l~rohibiting to hornobcxual relations or to rcstrict the ~ositionsllornosexuals shol~lclbe perrnittecl to ashuine ~vithinthe Je~vibllc o r n i n u n i ~ . Tilletller they do or not is a juclg~nmt that we as the Cornrnittee on Jewish Law and Standarcls mnst malie in consl~ltatioil \\it11 the Consell-atir-ecommunity. Of the \-arious factors that Rahhi Rot11 and others inention as grounds for their opposition to condoning homosexuals funcroles. these are the ones that I take to h a w sorne substance. Tihether it is tioning in pl~hlic enol~gh jnsti$~ e x c h ~ s i o n apolicies of any type to~vard to i~ llornosexuals \+ithin our hlorement ii something that we neecl to clisc:libr oprnl!- as a moreinent. In t h e rneantirne. to bustain both t h e letter and t h e spirit of t h e resolutions of the Ral.)l)ir~ical .%sserribly and the Lr~iteclSynagogne. 12-e r~eecl clo e\-er!-tl~ir~g our power to irl to make people ancl fanlilies of all configurations - married, clirorced, single parents, singles, heterosexl~als ancl homosexnals - ~velcoine within our nliclst. Tie clare not make tllein feel sllunned or alienated b our apagoguea or educational institutionb - as all too ! many unmarried adults do. Zfter all is said and rlone. \+-hat \re reall!- \\ant is to incl.ease the number of homes in which \\ecan say that each is a i~irn?~ lax1 n72.a faithf~ll home arrior~gstthe p e o l ~ l eIsrael. Since sl1c11 l ~ o r r ~ corrie to l.)e orll!- \\it11 the eclucatior~ar~cl ei spiritual sustenance that synagogues ancl schools pro\-icle, our only hope of achie\-ing that goal clepencls upon taking positive steps to rnalie sure that t h e ~ r e l c o m ethat our \In\-einent's resolutions articulate is expressed in our actions as well as our ~ r o r d s Our . tradition has depictecl ideals of family life. ancl \ \ ~ e ma!- rnalie some decisions ahout leadership roles with thobe i n inincl: 11ut ~ v i t h well 01-er half of adult _Iinerican Jews fincling theinsel~~es outside t h e context of lleterosexual. child-bearing inarriages. \ve as a Je~j-ihh commnnity had hetter acljust our institutions and programs fast if we are going to surril-e as a people. hloreorer. ;as children of Gocl ancl meinhers of our people. Jews of all sorts cleserre no less.

The Readiness of the Conservatiue Mocement for Any Decision on Homosexuality

Having discussed the case on its merits. let me n o v turn my attention to the community for whoin our cleliberations are intended. The Talrnncl. after all, abserts that ral~hib rnay not decree rulings that the community cannot tolerate." Yllile \\-e usuall!- thiilli of that stateinent as a liinit 011 the court's authority to enact stringencies. it shol~lcl nnderstoocl to he ap11ly to leniencies as \\ell. In hot11 cases. the community's readiness for a judicial action nlust he a factor gix~enconsicleration. Law cloes not exist in a \~acunm:it can be effectix~e onl!- if it fits its al~dience. The law should guide and not just condone. hut to provide effecti\-e direction it nlunt l i n o ~ the sensitil~ities i~ and practices of the peol~le who are snl~posecl to liie I,? it. Judge3 in an? legal s?stenl rn~lstbe good eclucators. ancl that is all the rnore true for r a l ~ l ~~vllose is legal decisions are onlj- one aspect of their educational roles.
-

11. l ~ o ~Zarahh.36a ~ , al.: Rl.'l'. Rlamrim 2 : ; . l ~ t

704

Gender id en tit^^ goes to tlie \-el? root of who Ire are as lluiriari beings. -1s a result. e w n raising tlie ishues surrounding liornorexualit>-threaten> Inan!- peop1e"a uriclerstaridiilg of thernse11-es anrl tlie \ray they \rant others to see them. Fear and apprehension pervade the ati~ioaphere. Part of the fear. no clonl~t.sterns froin tlie tlireat l l o n i c ~ ~ e x u a l i t ~ to iiia~iy pohea heterosexuals' fundamental ljeliefs as to \\-hat is right and proper in sexual beha\-ior. _Ir~other part of the fear rnay corrie fro111 arl irlsecurity i r ~ one-s o\\-rl gender identity. T l ~ e roots ol tliis are her! u~iclers~anclable~ ll~urians e ~ u a l i t j lor clues /lot corrie in trio. \\elldefineel. exclusi\~epacliages. hut rather ranges 01-er a spectrum. For most of us. in fact. there is a blend of llorrioerotic aiid lleteroerotic urges. hased. in part. on the estrogen aiid testosterone that the pituitary glands of el-ery one of 11s proclnce,"' Our ~ e o ~ lel-en if not Je\vislll!- sopliisticatecl. are predoininantlj- college-educated. e. ],right. and current in their thinliing. Tlle m s t majorit>-of them. I suspect - especiall!- the !-oungcr clcrncnt. for ~vliorriscxl~al urgcs arc all tlic inorc prcbsing - not onlj- linow tllc new finclings of science and psycholog!- regarding homosexualit!-. I ~ u also lino\r that these t results require rethinliing tlie ~vliole issue of gencler i c l e i ~ t i t ~ a l ~ p r o l ~ r i ainorals for aricl te sex. This is part of \\hat is Ijehind the fact that ahout half the states of the L-nited States no\\ permit consensual sex anlong adults r e ~ ~ r c l l e of gencler.' Except for those 11~110 ss are too afraid of tliis ~vlioleissue to talk about it. then. our people line\\ enougll. ancl heen sensitized to this issue enough. to l i n o ~ r that a hlanliet prohihition of homosexuali! siinpl!- does riot accord \\-it11scientific facts ah \\-e line\\- tlieni no\\-. for it places a n undue t hurden of suppression on those \\~llo cannot clloose a heterosexual form of expression for their bexual and eiriotiorial needs. Tlic!- also linow arid apprcciatc that pa!-& and lcsbiani cannot bc blluntc-.cl off to tllc Refor111 or Reconstructionist mo\-ernents. for man!- homosexuals want to take an acti\-e role in the iriore traclitional form of Juclaisrri we ernbocl!-. eq)eciall!- those who grew 11p in our ow11 synagogues or in Orthodox synagogues. Some \\ant to be rabbis. cantors. teachers. or yontl~ leaclerh in our hIo\~err~er~t, they are ~01111riitte~l C ~ ~ l s e ~ ~ - .IUL~LI~SIII~ v a r ~ t for to a t i v e arlcl to act in a professional role to see it prosper. =I~icl tlie Coriser~~ati\~e I tliinli. is not so laitj-. ready for Rahbi Roth's paper. On the other hand. rriost of our la!-people. I thinli. are not read!- for Raljhi =Irtson's paper either. Tlle new lino\vledge about the etiology and history of hornosexnalit\- has sho\m us Inan!- things. but it ia all \-el>-new for the \~abtmajorit? of us. Indeed. it is o n 1 ~ interests lny in hioethirs and tlie plirnomenon of 1TT)S that introduced me to this ~vliole area earlier than rnoit (tllr earl!- 1980s). ancl I l?erbonally air1 still haring t r o ~ i l ~tliinliing al)ont. aricl rinole tionall!. adjusting to. the moral ancl llalalillic inlplications of \\-hat we ha\-e learnecl so far. I air1 con\-incecl that. with all sorts of exce1)tionb. tlle reaction of people to llorriosexnalit! generallc lullo\\s gerleratiorlal lines. Pec~ple curserltlc in their teer~s. tuentie5. arlcl tliirties h and large react more liberally to homosexnality than clo people in their forties. ! fifties. ancl sixties. There is a simple explanation for this. .Is one of rn>-gracluate students told rne. even if !-ou are a straight \vlio finds the wr!- illlagiliatioil of lloiriosexual sex acts disgusting. if people yo11 l<no\\-ancl lore h a ~ discorered thernsc-l\-es to be ga!; you can no ~e longer tllirili of the plleriorrieriori a j soinetliing strange and threatening. I l l a w no doubt that the percentage of gays ~ v h e n \rent to lligll scllool and college in the late 1930s and I
"

T111.r~>la~ionbllip~ . t ~ ~ c n l l o r m o n , . ~ l) tl11.s1> arul .~.xualorii.111ation. 1111\\,.\ i. an!thing 11u1s i m p l ~ Somi, ,.r. . qtudirs h a w found that xihrn gix-en te;to.;tr~.onr $a!- mr11 I)ri.omr m o ~ qaiiir-;r\. o1.irnterl. 111)t Irss. r Rasii.s: 'roiiir Questions. Ta1.r~. and T l h r s . " in Jwinrs P. S r r ~ l ~rrl.. llorcxlit\. in a. l1r(~(,tire>. (YL.( L h , l ~ ~ ~ o ~ l t\ L S T orth k1~lL~li~l1ing. ~ .&I C-I: I~~~ I C u 10'11)~ 406. 1).

'-Rii.lia~dTI. 110111: .'(;a!

earl!- 1960s \vas no snialler than it is toclaj; but I ne\-er linew that an!- of rriY friend> was gay (although T disco\-ered at tlie twenty-fifth reunion of my college graduating class that orir of rriy forinrr rooriirriatrh \\as). Olcler 13roplr iiiaj- now lint>\\- a m11rihrr of Foliilgrr propie ~vhoare p!-.11ut that ib not tlie salne thing as gro~vingup linowing s u d l 11eol)lr Consecluently. el-en if Rabbi -1rtson is totally correct - and I arn not con\-inced h e is - it \\-ill talte soiile tiiiie. particularly for those of us 11e?-ondfort) ?-ears of age. to see that lle is. Tlle same. I thinli. \vould he true of my analysis based on biological compulsion. This need for time for thol~gllt and emotional acljl1stinent is true for inan>-of 11s indiriduall!-. but it is also true for tlle Conberrati\~eriio\-enient a> a I\-llole. In the last two clccaclcb. aftcr all. 1s-c harc iilbtitutccl riiajor changcs \\it11 rcgard to tlic lcgal htatus of \\~onienwithin Judaism. 'K? had 11een preparing for those changes. though. over a long period of time and i11 many varied arenas. The nlen ancl \\omen of our nlox~ernenthax~e leer^ kittir~gtogetl~erfor prayer and stucl>-ir~g togetl~erfro111 earl>- in this cerltui?; if not belose. Tlie first Bat RIitsbali c~ccurred 192%. in but it \\as not ~111til 1960s or 1970s tliat tlie iiiany s!-nagogue liad hoys and girls do equix-alent things in celebration of reacliiiig tlle age of mitzrot. Changes in the J e ~ r i s h marriage contract (;i>inX)to insure that dirorcecl \\omen can remarr!- began in tlle 19.50s. \omen were permitted to he called to recite the hlessirigh over the reading of tlie Torall in 1951. hut. again. rrioht sl;nagogues did riot hegin cloirig that l ~ n t ithe 1970s. (:ollntirig \1-0111rn as part of a rriiri~ari l (only 1)rcaiiir \vitleslrrracl in t h r 19806. aricl onl!- now are Consen-ati\-e synagogues beginning to hire ferriale r a l ~ l ~or canis \\a> certair~lyr ~ o t always kirlootl~,a r d we are tors. The llistor!- of tlliv line of de\-elol~lrlerlt >till leeling tlie re\erI~esations tliese clla~ige>. lor one. an1 er! rii~lcllin labor o l these ol I. moclifications in Je\\~iih practice to iilclucle \\~omen. hut I recognize that the>-ha\-e taken a toll on our hense of cohesi~enesharid identic ah a rrioreiiient. \ are still hrnartirig froin k the rancor that some of these changes produced. R b llax~e not had anything lilie that preparation or time to ahsorb the new line\\-leclge al~ollt lloinosc~s~lalit!ancl tllc nc\v scnsitix- it!^ to~varclgays arid lcbl~ianb. Qllitc apart fro111 the rrierits of the case. then. I franlil>-donbt that the Consen-atire ~norerrient ready no\\ib to rnalie the liinds of changes that Rabbi Artson v a n t s us to nlalie - and certainly not \\itliout a riiajor ellost in the RIoberiierlt to stud! aex~lal riorriis 011 l ~ o t l the la? ar~cl i rabbinic le\-els. Tlle recent, fractious experience of mainline F'rotestant churches on this issue has been anything 1311t encouraging.'" But it is riot just a rriatter of tilile ancl eclucation: there are also hoirle hard (peations that iiiurt 11e an>~verecl~ e f o r e Je~vish l the corrirriunit!- can b e exlrectecl to adopt anything like Rahhi \rtson"s position. For e.tample. what \rould farnil!- x~alue3 e lilie under such h a construction:' \1hat is. or shoulcl Ire. the llalalihic ancl rnoral status of artificial insemination and surrogate inotl~erhood. aricl cloes it rrialie an>- difference if tlle c o u l ~ l e in\ o l ed is atraigllt or ga?? ~ Rllat. if an!-. are tlle implications for cllilclreii l ~ e i n g exposed to tlie sexual iiioclels of all sorts that they are in fact noTr seeing in their teacllers and yonth leaclers'? X t e r all. eren those \\~llo maintain that there is a biological hasis for l~oinosexnalityacl<no~rledge that that is onl>-part of the picture arid that other factors iriflueilce the forrriatiori of one's sexual oricntation. Rllat cloc.: that Incan. if an!-thing. rcgarclirig opcnl!- ga!- tc7ac:llcrs aricl !~olith leaclers? Or is it a matter of the age of the children or the discretion of the teacher or !-outh leacler, ~vlletller straight or gay'?

Ellat, if an!-. are the rarriificationb of ga>-parenting? . h e the preliiiiinaq result> correct naiiicl!; that thcrc arc no bigriificarit cliE(crc.ncc5 in tlic r~bllltb \-is-$-\-is th(: (~iiiotioilal s(:c11ri% and interpersonal sliills of the cllilcl \\hen cared for b either a heterosexual ancl hon~osexual ! couple? . h e the current atuclies also correct in stating that the instance of homosexna1i~iin children is no greater ~vlieii raised 11>-ga!-s than b straights? Does that matter? ! Bllat shall \re h! allout I~isexuals? \re urge tllerri to act onl!- on their heterosexuaDo al tendencies'? Is a honio?e\-ual '.putting a stmnhling hloclz heforr tlie hlinrl"" in engaging in a relationshil~ with a bisexual in tlie first place? These queutions are precisel? that - clue>tions. not \ eiled ausestions. The! besl~eali deeply felt concerns of our corriiiiunity. tliougli. inc:luding this rrieniher of it. Thus. even if Rabhi -1rtson is right. I do not tllinli that affirming his position at this time \\~ouldhe understandable to inany in our hIorerrient. arid it ~vould uncloul~tecllylead to clerisiori on the part of those \rho object to it on halalchic or other grouncls. B e are. then. precisely in the situation \re should expect \\hen new inforination has come to light: we lino~v enough to lino\v that old stanclards nlust be alterecl. hut not enough to linow lio~v.It is this interrriediate arid tentative positio~i.\\-it11 all of it* ariibiguities and frnstrations. that. I thinl~. at the heart of the 1990 resolution of the Rabbinical .lssemhly is tliat R a l ~ l Rotli cpotes arid the biriiilar 1901 reioh~tionof tlir 1-nitrcl S!-nagoglle of (:on~i serrati\~e Juclai~ni:" The rer!- fact that the Rabbinical .lsbeiiihlF aricl the l-riitecl SFnagogne went out of their \\-a! in those resolutions to malie sure that gay ancl leshiail Je~vs unclerstand tliat they are ~relconie within tlie Consei~ative riioveriient indicates. I thinli. that the Consell-atire rabbinate and laity do i l o t \\ant simpl!- to reaffirm that gay relations are a n ahornination. TI11y. aftccr all. would I+-\-(-. cxtcnd ourscl\-ccs officially to in~itccinto our midst people \vho openl!- practice acts so oclious as to merit the description ~~aborninations" (not . .. just "s111s )? That ~voulcl rnalie no sense. I tl~irll~. tl~erefore, that irly reaclir~gof the tradition on this matter. as indicated a h \ - e . is a rriucll inore faithful rendering of these resolutions tliari ih R a l ~ h Rotll's. i On the other hancl. the resolntions' reassertion of heterosexuality. \\~hile consistent \\~ith R a l ~ h .li-tbonqs position. was intenclecl. I think. to h! that we cherish Je~vizll i afarnil>-values and do not yet lino~v how they can be preserl-ecl in the context of a homosexual union. Conseq~ieientlj-. dare to tllirili that rrij- proposal is also inore in line \\-it11 the resolution than is I Rabbi -1rtson"s. I recognize f ~ ~ l that "justice clela>-edi j justice denied." arid so lioniosexuals, in particl>ular. \\ill justifiabl!- feel frustrated by the clela!- in action on this issue that I am proposing. I also recognize tliat there is a hasic inconsistency in niy pohition: on the one hand. I \\ant 11s to ~vorli eliminate licentioujness in hot11 heterosexual ancl homosexnal relationships: to hut. on the other hand. I air1 not. at least at this time. adx~ocatiiigtliat we perforrri coininitrnent ceremonies for gays or lesbians. Veedless to say. I am not happy ahout these results. Tlic T a l n ~ ~ ~ c l . tllollgh. wab \visc~ rccpiring ral)l)ib tc~ in talic comimlnit!~ rcccl~tix-it? into account in their legal findings. That does not inearl tliat the law shoulcl s i ~ r i p conclone l~ ~ \ l l a t e ~ the conirn~lnit? doing: on the contsar). religious lab\ can and S ~ I J L LI ~J C110ser is ~~ matiw. e\-en to the extent of asliing the community to stretch in its moral aspirations to l~ecoiiiea holy people. There is a point. though, when the elahticit!. of the corninunity
-'I

I,IX 10:14. \\-hi( ti is i n t ~ , ~ l ~ ~ I)>- ~ tt (h, (ttal~hi< ~ 1 ~ o h i k ) iot t I I I ~ I > ~ a l ~ t i > s ia1 st111nk)Iing I<.I)iit a l a n ( ~ l to n ( I)lo~ ~ i n t ~ ~ l l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~s~cc~iall!. on^.. E~a111l)lc.s this \ Icrsl. h1.i11g an~l. u a l t a rnoral III' in~l.rgrct~.(l ~)rohil)it pll!si(,al >t11111LO a l ~ l i n gl)lc)c~l<:H . \Ioecl IKata11 .5;i. \11 intelle~,tual one: Sif~a. ~~l\edo~tiiin.'.l , e ~ O : l l : 1 . \edci~iiii621). 1 c111 1 1 ~ i i o r ~on,,: 1%. t1r.;~liiiii il 221~:13. \lor11 l \ ' ~ t ~ ~17~1: l k i d ~ l ~ ~ ~ :32~1:13. l3;1\~;1 \ I ( ~ t z i a ii 13. liiii 751). ' SIY, l ) t ~ x ~ 1). 602. n.2. 1tal)l)i ;l r,~ Iloth 1.itr.5 it al~rn~~.. 1)1).h73-674. It is (lrann from 1'lU 52 (1000):27i.

apljroaclie- tlie 11reahing point. and rabbis ha\ e the re-pon-ibilit! to recorrrii~ethat point P anrl to fiarne theii rleriiions accoidingl!. Othelxise the la\\ ma! 13e 111iitine in iti puiit! ancl lopicall! conect in its sums - uliether in maintaining past \ie\cs oi in legislatin: ne\\ ones - hut sirnultdneousl! h e the source of cleiision. d l ~ n d o n m e n t .01. \\orhe still. the b ~ e a l i u l ~ the ~ o r n r i i u n i t ~ \\ah rilearit to guide aricl gobel11 in the G ~ s t ~ l d ~ e ol it 1 If I am collect, then, \\ e clo not. az a mo\ ement, ha1 e ,IT this tiinr a definitix e position on homoseuualit!. Tl1'1t cloes not mean. h o \ ~ rel. that n e hare m,lcle no decisions \\hatso\ errr. Based. I thinh. largel! on the n r ~ c infnimation \ \ e ha\ r ahout the im ohntai? nature of homosexualit!. \ \ e hale. tliiougli tlie Rahhinical 4-ienihl! and 1 niter1 S!nagope ieiolutionz. rejected the cla-sification of all honlo~exual relations a5 an abomination - altliough -oinr form- of ga! .r\ clrarl! are an al~oiiiination, jubt ab 'oine forin- of btraight be\ are. If \\e 11dcl 11ot ~1o11e that, the iesolutiorl \\oulcl ri~dhe srrl-e. B e ~I,I\ r not, I l o ~ ~ e ~ le~io u g l ~ t rlo t . thiough , 1 of the implications of this n e ~ hno\\leclge. especi'~ll! h o ~ u e shonlcl reconcile 11 \ \ it \\it11 the tiaclitionc~l Jevisll famil! ralues 7\e cheiish. Both iesolutions. 177. juxt,~po-ing 0111 opennes. to ga! and leshiail Jell. wit11 oui coinrnitmrnt to Jeuish famil! ralues. asl, us. separatelq and together. to call? out tlie proreas of tliinhing through theye t u o con\iction-.

The Challenge
r .

- and Opportunity - Before

Us

l h e case of homosexuality begs for legal reconsideration precisely for tlie reason that Rabbi Rot11 denionstrates - namely. that the word 73Ulil (abomination). ~ r h i c h Torah the abcril~es I~oinobexualhen. cloeb ilot clebcril~e fact of r~atllre to a but rather abbi~ilb rnoral a and legal assessment to a given act. Since we i i o ~h ~ r e new liiio~c-ledge ta aljout it. ~c-e ral111is haye the clear ohligation to see lioiiio~enual anew " ~ r i t h sex our own eyes" in light of that lino~c-ledge. these cases, e\-en if in none other. Holrries is c:ertainl!- right: when new facts In ljrcscnt thcriisc1~-ci. law ccrtainl? (cannot bc a iiiattcr of doing onc's au111.; using thc prcx-ious texts - as if it ever can he. I arn arguing for as open and l~roacla process of reconsideration as possil~le. Only if we discuss selual norrns openl! \\ill1 our coriirnunit? can o ~ l cliscussion I J in~orrnecl r ~ arid legall? effectix-e. 0111~- ~c-e if fi.anl+ and lionestlj- discuss lieterosenual norms of sexual conduct before \re address lionlosexual nornia can straights h a w an!- credil~ilicxith ga!-s on tliis issue. For that mattes. \\hen 71-e come to l ~ o i n o s e n ~ a l i ~ ~and lesbians innst he included in the disgays . cnssion. This \\-hole process may he painfill. for if the statistics on heterosexual actir-ig~ our in society are right. se\-en?-nro percent of high scliool seniors h a w had sexual intercourse. ahnost all ~rliile unmarried. and 11y the senior year of college it is uncloubtedl>-closer to eighty li\ e or riirietc percent.' Tlle percentages onl? go liiglier as people age lurtller. Rabbis across the continent h a w coilfirinecl i n - experience that couples coming to he married cluring the last ten years or so oveilc-helnlingly list the same aclclress and are no longer m e n einl~arrassecl ahout that. Gir-m these realities. traditional norins restricting legitimate sexual intercourse to marriage almost definitely ill need to he acljusted - or reinain ignored. I. for onc. l~clic\-c that rchtricting sc~sual intcrco~lrsc iiiarriagc hllcnllcl rcriiairi thc to icleal: with all tlie sexual license of our aocietj; I still belie\-e strongly in the institution of
'l

That se\e~it?-t\\o pervrrit ol'!iigli si~tioolse~iiors!late v1igL?gv(l r ~sexual i~itrri,oursei* (li*~~lose(lOiv report i ill uf thv fr,rl~,ral gox~lvrnm~,nt'. Cr.ntvr> fur L)isr,aic Control. as rr,l)ort~r~l ~"54'141 High Sr hool lout11 H a w in uf Ha11 Se\. Rrport Sa!s..' I.(,? 4 n + ~ v / ~ .Tit~z(,<. J,~ri.1002. 11. I-?. (Fliile 1 gor<zr~l s 4 tliat riglit!-fi\r ~ I I~iiriet! Fwwvnt c~fcollr;~ senio~qhare r n p ~ g r inl sexual i n t e w o u ~ s e ~ x\-hvn I xj-~ote vrsponzmn. sul~srtlumtl! a this drfinirix-r stu~l!- ~.onfirnierl rliwt guess: Rolwrr T. Ilii~hael. Jolin H. (:agnon. Edxia1.110. T.aumwnn. a n d din;i I\ol~ta.3r,.\ in 4711r,7 iru: 4 L)r,fiif;iliri~.~ SZII.L.~\ [Uo-toll: Littlrl. L < ~ o T and Coml)an!-. 10041. 1). 01.) I~.

maiiiagr, in ;roln ,111d 17W1?p. and the i r s e ~ \ a t i o n sexual i n t r i c o l ~ i s r of until then. Conterriporai! iahbi.. though. lilie those of the ini~lliiaic peiiod. 1riu.t i e c o g n i ~ ethat not r\er!one will ahide h t11;rt ideal.' l 7 1 1 5 , llorc rr ri. cl/ortld /lot ~ ~ z r n n Jlrdrtr,7il t l ~ e l l~ I U C ! tllut
( / ~ ) 0 7\l f\ I I ( I / 7 0 1 1 f 0 f / l O \ P 1 1 h0 01P 710f ( I C / I I P ~ P 1115 7llg t h l C / P ( l l 7 1 1 f h l \ f l l P ( I : l f ~ sl/o7tlcl /lot br ''all or i/otl/rizg."Judai5in. I think. ~ t o u l d still ha\ e inuch to sa! to couplez u h u a i r nut hicl cling 1! tllr ic1ecd. J e ~ l i s h 7 \,11urs irlr\ ,lilt tu -11c11 a hituatiun \\oulcl inclucle 170fh77lp f0 5Ct\

tlie follouing. airlong otlieis: inode.t! in diess arid .pee& and p i i ~ a c j sexual expiesin sion: honeit! and openne-s in deteinlining the natuie of the ielationsllip and its planned chiration t t n l t l l in aclx citising"): coinpa-c ion ancl fairncis in t l i ~ ~ o l \ i n g rclation~hip tllc (if that happens) and in dilidinn the foimeil! sllared piopert!: the Je\\ish concein foi lle,~lthin c ommnnic,~tinghoi~estl! ahont one's suscrptihilit! tu %IDS ;~ncl othei \ eneto leal di-ease? and in protecting each otllei frorri tlleirl to the extent that that is possible: responsihilit! in planning for tlle possibilit! of cllildien - and foi cuitod! of thrrn if the arrangciricrit is cli-~ol\c-cl: ctc. Tllc p r o c c ~ iof clctcrrniriing l i o ~ \J c \ \ i ~ l l \a111ci c an itill instruct a n lniiriarriecl ~ o u l ~liling together inaj disturl, us rabbis arid otlirrs cle\ cited to lr the tlaclitlon. ~ J L lt is dbsolutel? n e c e s s d l I[ Juclaisrri IS polrig to ha\ e an? ellect \\llatsoL ~ ex er on Jr\\ s" -eunal li\ es. In \ i e ~ tof rn! interest in a n open dihcuh.iori of thehe ~riatteis.one other tliirig rnust h e said. li much a i T ohject to tlie c~uelt! of Ra11hi Rotli'i ultimate judgmenti. T ohject exen nlore to the suggestion h e rndcle in the first draft of his papel that his opinion 11e ,~dopted s tlir sole ol)irlior~ 1 ' that arl! C o ~ l s r r \ ~ ~ t1a1)LiIrla! folio\\. or1 pair^ of rul)ulsior~.~' e i\ Oui ne\\ liiionledge about lloino?rxualit! is enough at l ~ a s to sa! that iiobodj car1 speali t \\it11 one clefiniti~ T oice on the etiologj of the pllenoinenon 01 on \that -tandaiclh a i r hest r fo~ Judaiqin anrl for Jens \+it11lepard to it. Rahhi Rot1i"- suggeition of inxolzing p ~ e c e d e n t of X l D n lp5 srnachs of 11it~11 llnnts ancl inquisitions - ancl. franbl!. of the utter fear rnarij ul o u ~ O~tliocloxcolleagues habe o l \oiclrig tllell lionest o p ~ n i o n s nian? issues arlcl ol 011 acting oil them. \ o indtter what oui \arions positions on l ~ o i n o s r x u a l i tma! be. \ze must ~ clearl! arid clefiniti~eljreject -ucll a rno\e in order to preser\e one of the real assets of Conie~xati~e Jtidaism. its lecognition of the d!namiim of Jeni-11 hiitor! and the consequent ~+isclorn opennesi aricl l~hirali-in dealing nit11 i s i n r ~ l l l e r e critaintirs are of in ~ olcl no lorigel so c e ~ t a i ~ i . 117. l ~ r o p o - ~ ~ l froin 1 proceclnr,~l p ~ o b l r i n : m o \ e to tahle i r c ~ u i i r s inajoiisuffer' a a t. ~ t h i l e ! acceptance a- a ~aliclatedoption nithin tlie Conserxati~errio~eirieritreyuiresix. T the CJT S in its niidom. then. r r f i ~ i e - table thi- matte1 anrl arlopt the plan T am f to 11iol)o-ing. I \till iubniit rnj paper as a 1esl)onbuin rrcluiring -ix x o t e ~ Ral111i Rot11 ha. soltened tlie al~l~llcationl his pozitiori sorne\\llat .lrlLe ~ L L IFebl~lalcrrieeting. ancl. at o hottom. that puts hi- rulings not fa1 fioin mine. at least foi the piesent. I. ho\\e\ei. \\auld leaxe it to incli\iclual rabbis to deterrriirie tlle htatu- of honiosexual+ nithin tlleir s j n a gogue-. ia\ing onl! the prohihition againit rornmitment reremonie* for the interim. ullilr h e ~\ciulcl iriorr r r s t r i c t i ~ e . he \lore irril)ortantl!. h e arid I disagree on the -tatus of llomosexual sex acts lo1 the ~onstitutional lioniuzrxual. H e sees tlierri as a n a l ~ o n i i ~ i a t ~ o n to he a\oiclecl h celihC~c!:I -er thein as the onl! \+a! soine of God's cre,~tuirscan fulfill ! their sexual aricl eiriotional riercls and therefore not a n al~oinination pel be. Cleailj. sorrie
.- RI. I \ ~ ~ t ~ i l )1 : its . l ~ o t i~.af)lan,~tion r x p a n s i i ~ nin H . l i i ~ t i i l ~ l ~ :'a. dn(l \ I . '~r,~-ainot 0 all tr,.;tift t o t h ~ f;wt . antl 1 ot 4:l , that i n J ~ l ~ l c(in (1111~ra.c 1111. (;alil~.~.) ~ I ~ L I S ~ I I \\a. that a Illall li\ ~ ( \\it11 ~ l l c a LO L P II~ 1 lamil! 01' ~111. \\or~larl 111.
intended t o 111,i~~yu ~ i n g h e yeal. I ~ e t \ i e mIhrt~oth~il in,i~~iwge. d antl (:onsequent> tie Tiaq Ihwl.l.et1 froin i.laiiii. t. ing that sh,. rr,l: not ,I xingln ;it iiiarri;lgl >in(,(.nc, ;i..lrnic. that 11,. 11! \n.Il 11,. t l i ~ , n l n lio iii;id,, rti;rt 30. 1; 1 o For t h ~ final \~~,raion. al)t~x~~v. . s1.r. 1). 668.

horrio-exual sex acts are an abolnination, just ab soriie heterosexual hex act- are. arid me ricccl to clcfiric tllc ylicctnlin of scx acts. fro111 ahoinination, to ,anctificcl rclation,hip,. for both hrtrrobexual, ancl horriosrxuals. me nercl. in otllei ~~circlb. explorr both lletto eio,exualit! and l~oinosexudlitjto cle\i,r r l O i i l l b thdt ieflrc t Je\+isl~ 1)rliefs ,111cl \,lluei ancl that \\ill 11e t,lhen -rrionsl! in oui time. Ol~eiling the i*.ue of horrioaexualitj eiiipllati~all! doe. not entail o\ eituining all the other prohibition- in Lexiticu- 18 or LO. That is the uorst sort of ube of tlie doniino tlleoi?. l b \tit11 riicjbt aljplicationb of that tllc-013. it ignorcs r c l c ~ a n t diffcicnccb arriong the ~ a r i o u i inrinl~er-of tlie group. differences that f11ll~account for \$11\. contran to the theo~?.l a ~ z i aricl people do not fall liltr cloininos. In our cab?, the \\hole point of tllii p a 1 1 is that hoiiio~ ~exualit? diffeient fioiri all otllei sex acts in that list in tliat cuiient e~iderice is indicates that the hoiiiosexual lla-. no choice in being hoiiiosexual. It i. tliat piece of ne\t iriforination that underlie-. a rethinliing of tlie statu* of holno-exual sex act*. Tlli. ~learl! doe* not appl! to an! of tlie other art> prohibited in Lexiticu-. Heterosexual- ina! ~ u r e l ? terriptecl to lla\ e be \ex vith foibidclen human paitneiq oi e\en uith animals. hut the! can. and !I, la\\ mu-t. choose to channel their sexudl eneigies \tithin the 11ounds of malitdl >ex. One last riiatte~:Rablx Flairit aslieel \\lletlle~the n u r i i l ~ eo l people \\e ale talliing ~ about inalie-. an! diffeience. 'les and no. les. if onl! one oi t\to pel Je\\ish c orriinunit? u e i e in\ o h ed. I rriiglit saj TI e *lioulcl juht she\ e tlie ihsue ahicle llalahhicall! arid deal nit11 the iriatter bolel! on the 11abis of coun~elling. taheb con.iclera11le tiine. energ!. and elnotionIt a1 inrr,tinrnt. after all. to rethinlt pattern, of tholight ancl action that \+e ha\ e pi~r,i~ecl for centurir-. r,l~eciall! \$hen the? are e~ribodied J e ~ i i i l la\$. But no. that is not the case. in i At the I rtj l o ~ t e , tv,tlrlrate. 1ou1 I J ~ I L ~ lI the l i ~ ~ r i i~ o rin r i i u n i tis horiio~exual.I l tlle o ~ ~ a~ ~ lmeiican Je\\ish coin111111lit! ~llnnhers ~ l ~ l ~ i o ~ i i l sixt ~nillicon.th'lt Ineanb that 240.000 c la el~ J r ~ l s hoinosrxnal - allnost as man!. ,lctoicling to the c l ~ i ~ ~ ~ r c ~r r i1 IlC I I l e n i book. as ale J 1 there a i r in Rabhi Fiaint's lloine to\\n of giedter (-hitago. If the nloie commonl! accepted eitirnate ot ten p n r e n t i i uird. \ + ? ale tallzing ahout 000.000 - a n u m h e ~equi\alent to all the Jeus in Chicago. Philadelphia. and Boston put togethei. Because of the lligll social a c r ~ o ~ n cost 1 t a i 1I c 1 1 1 o l l i 1 1 ghoi~losexu~~litj. or1 ' bul)l)~brcll! ~Irlorl!ic e\ rii i inous sur\ e, the e*tiin;rtrs ale, if c~il!tllii~g, ! lo\\. I s I -aid cluring the Urcemhei meeting, I t l ~ i n it~\\oulrl be a disastei foi the h l o ~ e l nlent if the Connnittee on Jr\$ish La\\ and Standaids appioxed opposing papeis on a topic a* rential to pro111e'i lixei as theii ie\ualit! ii: it \ \ o ~ ~ lmean that \ \ e ale totall! inrolierrl ent. 1 thinly it 11 ol~lcl r PT PII 11 (1rbe. thoug11. if onl? Ra1111i Roth's position \$err \ aliclatecl. b B e ~ionld tlierl not onl! be igr~orecl.rsl)eci,~ll! l)! 1r1o.t of our jonngei rneir11)eii. -tiCligllt a, \$ell 15 ga!: T \ P \ ~ o ~ i lhe heen a. ,In-trie. alien'lting. ancl ciurl. ' cl This. hone\ei. brings me hatli to the beginning. I stiongl! ietorninencl t1~1t table \le action on Rabbi Rotll's and Rabbi lrtbon'b nixiwn ancl engender a \lo\ eiiient-nicle cliscuisioil of appropiiatc- Jcnibll btandarcl- of -c'xualit\ for our age-. I alil ron\inccd that it \\oulcl not taltr all that long to cle~isr sl~cll itarlclaiclb - iiia\l,r t\$o or three !ears - aricl that \illate\ er tirne. Inone!, and energ! it nciulcl tahe \+onlcl l,r inore than ~zortllit. B e \\oulcl he acldiebbing something that. in some foim. iz 11'1it of litelall! e\ei!une's life. ancl \\e mould he doing it openlj. Je\$i.lll!. ancl. hopefull!. intelligentl?. I ha\ e no special \\iacloirl as to the rrioat effecti\ e forrnat for this cliscuaaion; that is a inattei \\e sllol~ld diicuii among ouisehes ancl \\it11 the eclncational aims of the hlo\ enlent. Tlle tadis would be trio-fold. piobabl! accomplislled in different va!s and I,? different people: (I) to estal~lish Jenish .exnal staridarcls for our tirrie, iecognizinp in that proces. the lalues of the t~adition.tlie soc~al e a l i t ~ ol riiocle~nlile. and tllr ne\\ lirlo\tledge \\e lla\e o1 the 101~ es

rriatiori of besual orieritations: and. ( 2 ) to educate our constituent! as to the product of our that Judaism. in this area as in all others. condeliberations so that they will at least lino~r it.: tinues to h a w scirnething irriportant to bay to tlierri e w n if one is riot full!- ccirriplying ~vitll ideal nornis. Lay leaders of T-ariousages allould he ill\-olx-ecl on 11otli l e ~ ~ etos gire us ral~bia l sorne input as to both the l~ractices and views of those not as in\-ol\-ed \\it11 the tradition aa we are. \Ioreo~-er.giwn tliat at borrie lroirit we will \+-antto apply tlie tradition to hornosexua1 bes. ga!-s blio11lcl be sl~rcificall!- iricll~drd tlie dibcnzbion. in If the CJLS vere to initiate such a process. we \roulcl he acting as rabbis for our conlmunit!- in a \~ery po\verfi~lsense of the title ""rahhi." for \ve ~voulcl bringing the d u e s and be laws of the Je~riall tradition to hear on an irriportant part of the real lix-es of our people. Khat \re neecl now is creatil~e vision and cooperatire cliscnssion. not a premature lashing out at tlie ""otller:' Kk ha\-e a golden oppcirtuni9 in our liancls to generate sorrie real intellectual arlcl inoral rnorrrnerlt in our hIo\-rrnrr~t: bl~ould lllibb it,;' we not

'I

1 \\o0111liltr to ~liaril,lrr. Tia\i11T<iari~,o Ral>l~i ,1ri11 Tit31iirl(;or~Ii-.1111tli \\li,ori~ 01 1li11riir tlir I',I\Io~ l > r ~ ~ \ i ~ l 111 in$ ilrtsilerl ,mil ~ . o n s t ~ u i ~ v~.itic[ursof r s ~ l i tl~sftsof thiq IlsprT. I \rould also i l w to tlii~nkttir iiieml)rv? ti\~r r~
of rlir Coiiiiiiittrr ot Jr\\isli T,ax\- Lind Srand,i~iis.in,iny ot \\-hose ~.omiiirnts tlir rlivrr mrrtings ,it \\lii~.li at this .ul)jc~.t as ilis uss1.11a l w 11.11ti, r~.thinl<ing n anil r~.\isii~n. I'hat is hlnv 111 I ~ u r n ! '