Torah as Rorschach Test
"A man hears what he wants to hear,
And disregards the rest..."
"The Boxer" by Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel (1966)
The same appears true of a woman, especially when she is Laurie Zimmerman, spiritual leader of Congregation Shaarei Shomayim in Madison, Wisconsin.
According to her commentary on the Torah Portion Balak, published in the Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle on July 15, 2005, one of the lessons of this section is that Jews ought to favor same-sex marriage. Those who favor the upgraded definition of marriage are likened to Balaam's donkey, who sees the situation correctly, and they "are challenged to understand how others do not see the love and commitment that seem so visible to us....... others lash back with hatred."
To the author, the Torah may be a type of parchment Rorschach Test, in which the reader sees what he (or she) wants to see, and disregards the rest. But if one wants to be guided by Torah in forming an attitude toward same-sex marriage, it is intellectually dishonest to disregard the following verse, which speaks more directly to that point than anything derived from the story of Balak and Balaam:
"Thou shalt not lie with man as with woman, it is an abomination ."
Leviticus (Vayikra), 18:22
According to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein (1), this is Commandment 209 (of 613) in the Torah, it applies to all men (not just Jews), and violations are punishable by stoning.
As a small minority, we Jews are in no position to impose our beliefs or laws upon the larger society in which we live. (Even if we were a majority in some state, we would refrain from doing so.) Yet it is entirely appropriate that our positions on public affairs reflect our religious beliefs, just as the positions of Catholics, Quakers, Muslims and other Americans reflect their core convictions, whether religious or secular.
Accordingly, if we view homosexual activity as inherently immoral, then our public policy positions should reflect this view. A state marriage license confers legitimacy upon sexual relations between the spouses, which the "gay" community desperately craves. (2) While we recognize the right of adults to engage in such conduct if they so choose, we still should not favor same-sex marriage, which would imply state approval.
Contrary to the implications in Miss Zimmerman's homily, some of those who oppose same-sex marriage are not blind to the "love and commitment" of such couples. Same-sex couples (as well as any group of single adults) have the right to form a household, share their assets, give each other durable powers of attorney, and leave property to each other under existing contract and probate law. They are free right now to express their love and commitment in countless ways. What they do in private stays private. But one does not have to be motivated by anger or hatred to oppose granting every such couple a Wisconsin marriage license.
Even so, I agree with Miss Zimmerman that the proposed amendment to the State Constitution that would ban both same-sex marriage and civil union should be defeated, because the latter remains a sound alternative. As noted above, civil unions can be created now under contract law. Unlike marriages, civil unions do not legitimize sexual activity, and are open to couples such as brother/sister and father/daughter that are also not eligible to marry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) "Between the Lines of the Bible", Crown Publishers, New York, 1959, page 115. Rabbi Goldstein was Professor of Homiletics at Yeshiva University.
(2) Originally, sexual relations between people not married to each other were considered crimes in Wisconsin and most other states. All such laws have been repealed or invalidated by courts, so today the legal power of a marriage license is much reduced.
However, if a married woman gives birth, her husband is considered the presumptive father of the child and is legally responsible for his or her support (unless a paternity test proves otherwise). In the case of same-sex marriage, even this remaining enforceable provision would be meaningless.
And disregards the rest..."
"The Boxer" by Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel (1966)
The same appears true of a woman, especially when she is Laurie Zimmerman, spiritual leader of Congregation Shaarei Shomayim in Madison, Wisconsin.
According to her commentary on the Torah Portion Balak, published in the Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle on July 15, 2005, one of the lessons of this section is that Jews ought to favor same-sex marriage. Those who favor the upgraded definition of marriage are likened to Balaam's donkey, who sees the situation correctly, and they "are challenged to understand how others do not see the love and commitment that seem so visible to us....... others lash back with hatred."
To the author, the Torah may be a type of parchment Rorschach Test, in which the reader sees what he (or she) wants to see, and disregards the rest. But if one wants to be guided by Torah in forming an attitude toward same-sex marriage, it is intellectually dishonest to disregard the following verse, which speaks more directly to that point than anything derived from the story of Balak and Balaam:
"Thou shalt not lie with man as with woman, it is an abomination ."
Leviticus (Vayikra), 18:22
According to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein (1), this is Commandment 209 (of 613) in the Torah, it applies to all men (not just Jews), and violations are punishable by stoning.
As a small minority, we Jews are in no position to impose our beliefs or laws upon the larger society in which we live. (Even if we were a majority in some state, we would refrain from doing so.) Yet it is entirely appropriate that our positions on public affairs reflect our religious beliefs, just as the positions of Catholics, Quakers, Muslims and other Americans reflect their core convictions, whether religious or secular.
Accordingly, if we view homosexual activity as inherently immoral, then our public policy positions should reflect this view. A state marriage license confers legitimacy upon sexual relations between the spouses, which the "gay" community desperately craves. (2) While we recognize the right of adults to engage in such conduct if they so choose, we still should not favor same-sex marriage, which would imply state approval.
Contrary to the implications in Miss Zimmerman's homily, some of those who oppose same-sex marriage are not blind to the "love and commitment" of such couples. Same-sex couples (as well as any group of single adults) have the right to form a household, share their assets, give each other durable powers of attorney, and leave property to each other under existing contract and probate law. They are free right now to express their love and commitment in countless ways. What they do in private stays private. But one does not have to be motivated by anger or hatred to oppose granting every such couple a Wisconsin marriage license.
Even so, I agree with Miss Zimmerman that the proposed amendment to the State Constitution that would ban both same-sex marriage and civil union should be defeated, because the latter remains a sound alternative. As noted above, civil unions can be created now under contract law. Unlike marriages, civil unions do not legitimize sexual activity, and are open to couples such as brother/sister and father/daughter that are also not eligible to marry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) "Between the Lines of the Bible", Crown Publishers, New York, 1959, page 115. Rabbi Goldstein was Professor of Homiletics at Yeshiva University.
(2) Originally, sexual relations between people not married to each other were considered crimes in Wisconsin and most other states. All such laws have been repealed or invalidated by courts, so today the legal power of a marriage license is much reduced.
However, if a married woman gives birth, her husband is considered the presumptive father of the child and is legally responsible for his or her support (unless a paternity test proves otherwise). In the case of same-sex marriage, even this remaining enforceable provision would be meaningless.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 9:15 AM
2 Comments:
Well spoken and thought out.
People now may use joint tenancy, contracts, powers of attorney and benficiary arrangements.
I am concerened that there exist statutes to protect the rights of children adopted and raised by such couples as there are to protect the rights of children of heterosexual couples.
In truth, the Rabbi's point made no sense..who is she to say HER perspective is the one that is enlightned? I can claim that I am like the Bilams donkey wodering how people like her can ustify homosexuality (and I have Torah verses to back me up)
Most people that believe they have achieved Nirvana through the power of THEIR intellect, likely are severaly lacking in tha department!
Post a Comment
<< Home