A Letter To My Rabbinic Colleagues

W. Gunther Plaut

Friends, I have been following the same-sex marriage discussion on HUCALUM and RavKav with great interest and rising fears.

I believe that historical circumstances have conspired to make this convention crucial to the future of our movement. Both those who favor a same-sex resolution and those who wish no resolution at all believe that our movement is obligated to move in either direction.

Listening to the arguments on both sides, I understand them to say:

The gay-lesbian minority among us needs the CCAR's official recognition that same-sex relationships founded on love are holy in the sight of God and Judaism as we understand it. A resolution to that end is therefore a necessity and a moral obligation for our movement. Gays and lesbians have been second class citizens long enough.

Others agree with the premise but believe that a resolution would be harmful to the Conference, to the Reform movement in various jurisdictions, and to Israel itself. It would also marginalize our movement, and send us further on our way to becoming a sect.

I have kept my silence until now, but feel I must share my concerns with you.

The tone is getting worse, and silence is no longer possible.

I do not wish to advertise myself as someone with special insights. I have, however, traveled widely in our constituencies in North America, Israel, Europe, Australia and Southern Africa and believe I have some sense of their hopes and needs.

Furthermore, I have for the last thirteen years sat as an hoc judge in human rights court, and in a highly publicized case awarded same-sex partners in a long term relationship pension rights equivalent to heterosexual couples. I reached this decision on the basis of Canadian constitutional law, as I interpreted it. Though the case was launched against the Attorney General, the government decided not to appeal and let the ruling stand. The case lasted for two years and gave me a deeper insight into the emotional as well as legal needs of the homosexual community.

In the issue before us I have concluded that we face a. situation of eilu v'eilu. I herefore approach my own decision not by asking who is more right, but which action would do the greater harm to our people and ask: Who will be harmed if there is a resolution - however, it is phrased - and if there is no resolution. Since my sympathies lie on both sides I must answer that question to myself, and I transmit my conclusion to you for your consideration. I do so also in order to lower the tone of confrontation, and thereby make a rational consideration possible.

The Arguments:

For a resolution of some kind. The needs of gays and lesbians are evident and must not be overlooked. They feel that the Reform movement cannot afford to be silent. Their mistreatment, exclusion, and denigration must end; and only a resolution acknowledging their love relationship as worthy of God's blessing can begin to heal the injuries of past and present they suffered and will make the Reform movement their true spiritual home. The failure to pass a resolution is therefore perceived as harming them as individuals and as harming the Reform movement, which by its inaction would be untrue to itself.

What harm would accrue if there were no resolution? While rabbis who perform wedding or commitment ceremonies will continue to do so (and in time their number will most likely grow), the gay and lesbian community would suffer an emotional set-back and would interpret the failure to act as a further proof of pervasive homophobia that denies human equality to homosexuals.

Against a resolution of any kind.

a. The very nature of the exercise (whether a resolution of any kind passes or fails to pass) has a deeply divisive effect and will likely cause rabbinic disaffection and thereby harm the Conference.

b. Gays and lesbians are a minority among us, but so are we in the communities of many countries. That is especially true in Israel, where our Reform congregations and rabbis are struggling against formidable odds because of the linking of religion and state, and where the media have yet to appreciate the true nature of our movements. As a movement we have a stake in Israel's future, and the further marginalization of Reform is harmful to the religious normalization of the country. The argument is often made that we don't have to kowtow to the Orthodox and therefore should not care what they say. True, but we cannot overlook the reaction of those belonging to the secular majority who are tomorrow's candidates for Reform. Israel's culture is not North America's, and unfortunately homosexuality is still seen as a form of perversion by most of its citizens. Not only will our resolution not convince them of its validity, it will reinforce the accusation that Reform is not really Jewish. This harms not only Israeli Reform, it harms Israel itself. To a lesser, though not insignificant degree, this is also true for Diaspora communities outside the United States

c. Reform has seen itself always as part of the Jewish continuum and has on occasion rejected resolutions (like the abolition of circumcision) that would threaten to sever the link to the k'lal. A resolution would drive us further to the margin of Jewish life and help to characterize us as a sect. Further, by overriding the warnings of the Responsa Committee it would undermine the legitimacy of a carefully reasoned Reform halacha.

The Balance Of Harm.

a. Gay and lesbian individuals will feel their dignity and humanity diminished. The religious services they receive will, however, not decrease; the autonomy of the Reform rabbinate guarantees their continuation and probably their growth.

b. The Reform movement will be divided by a resolution and set back in ways adumbrated above. It will take a long time to recover from the controversy and its aftermath. The formation of a more traditional, halachically oriented wing is likely to emerge, and a future separation cannot be ruled out.

c. I must therefore choose between a. and b.... I know homosexual members of the CCAR who are against solving our problem through a resolution, and I know straight members who support it. In a dilemma of this kind tradition does provide an answer. It is contained in the advice, shev v'al ta'aseh, the harm of doing is greater than the harm of not doing.

That is my choice. It is strengthened by the conviction that true democracy is advanced not by resolutions in which one side overwhelms the other, but by consensus. Let's give ourselves some breathing room to arrive at it.

Yours in friendship, W. Gunther Plaut

© W. Gunther Plaut, April 28, 1998

Published by MemHeh Productions