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.

The Name Game

New York Times reporter Judith Miller is in jail for refusing to reveal her source for an article that revealed that Valerie Plame, wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was then a CIA undercover operative. Columnist Robert Novak, who published the same information, has apparently divulged his source to Independent Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, but not to the public. (1) Meanwhile, Time Magazine has given Fitzgerald reporter Matt Cooper's notes on the same story, which indicate that Karl Rove, assistant and political guru to President Bush, was the source of his article on this story.
On July 17, Cooper told "Meet the Press" that Lewis Libby, Chief of Staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, confirmed the Plame role with CIA.
Robert Luskin, Rove's lawyer, admitted publicly that Rove identified Wilson's wife as a CIA agent, but did not name her.

The Plame Case
An Independent Counsel and federal grand jury are investigating the leak of Plame's role with CIA because it is illegal to divulge the name of a CIA secret agent. Some suspect that her name was leaked, thus ruining her career as a secret agent, to punish her husband for publicly disputing President Bush's claims about Sadam trying to buy uranium in Niger. American leftists, who were angry in the Fifties at people who "named names" to government inquiries, are now sore at those ( like Novak and Miller) who refuse to "name names." They must be a hard bunch to please, at least in the long run.

Should the law shield reporters?
A "shield" bill introduced in Congress by Senator Richard Lugar and Rep. Mike Pence, both Indidana Republicans would permit journalists to keep their sources secret, except where national security requires disclosure. The primary rationale for such a law is that people with information about wrong-doing are less likely to speak freely to reporters if a judge could force the reporters to reveal their names. NY Times columnist William Safire supported the bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee July 20, while a spokesman for the Justice Department opposed it.
The case of "Deep Throat", now known to be then FBI Deputy Director W Mark Felt, is a good example. (2) It is illegal to reveal grand jury testimony, but some of the tips Felt gave to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward were based upon such testimony. Woodward promised to keep his identity secret, and did so for over thirty years, until Felt revealed his role to another reporter earlier this year. Woodward was never hauled before a grand jury and ordered to give up his source; but if he had been, no one knows if he would have endured jail like Judith Miller or broken his word to Felt.
Sources of information about crime risk not only their jobs, but even their lives, by talking to reporters. Would a shield law enable more investigative reporters to crack big cases?
Despite the risk to "whistle-blowers" and criminal informants for talking to reporters, I believe that a shield law would do more harm than good.
The public has the right to know what is going on in government, but the public has no way of gaguing the credibility ( or even the existence) of a secret source. Maybe the reporter is lying about having a secret source (as occured at the NY Times, Washington Post and New Republic in recent years) or maybe the source is lying. A secret source can seriously harm the reputation and career of an innocent person, without accountability of any kind. Information about crime is of little use to prosecutors unless they can locate the source of the info and make them testify about it in court. In some cases, such the Plame leak, divulging secret information is itself illegal, and those with direct knowledge of the offense (i.e., reporters) should be required to co-operate with law enforcement officials just like everyone else in this country.

The Future of a Scandal
Here is the Glazerbeam's fearless forecast of how this incident will turn out:
1. Karl Rove will be foreced to resign from the White House staff, but will continue to advise George W Bush from a cushy office in a K-Street lobbying (i.e, influence peddling) firm, where he will earn more than twice his White House salary. In this Administration, no foul deed goes unrewarded.
2. Valerie Plame will quit the CIA, and will write a book about her indignation over the untimely termination of her career as a secret agent entitled "Plame Aflame." Her advance from the publisher will exceed fifty years of CIA pay.
3. Pundits will name this scandal Plamenameblamegate.(3) Historians will love it.
4. Judith Miller will take Valerie Plame's place at CIA, where ability to keep secrets is an important job qualification.
5. The Senate will hold hearings to determine what the President knew, when did he know it, and what more does he want to know now about Plamenameblamegate.
The answers will turn out to be :
Nothing
He still doen't know about it and
Less than you think.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Robert Kuttner of the Boston Globe, published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, July 14, 2005, page 17A.
(2) See "Felt-Tipped" in the June 8 Glazerbeam for details.
(3) Since 1972 all Washington scandals must have a name ending in "gate".