No idea what marriage is
CommentsOne problem with the “marriage equality” movement is that too many of its leaders have no idea what marriage is. For example, one of the most prominent rabbis defending same-sex marriage in California is in an open relationship with her husband in which each has the other’s permission to commit adultery.
(I have held my tongue on telling this story for more than a decade, but now that this woman’s agenda has come to fruition, I think it’s important for people to understand the vision of “marriage” supported by some adherents of this movement. On the advice of an Orthodox rabbi I’m friends with, I’m not disclosing this rabbi’s name or congregation.)
A dozen years ago, when I first began to wonder whether my commitment to my Jewish faith necessitated an end to my pursuit of gay sex and a transition toward opposite-sex dating and even marriage. I approached a thoughtful rabbi who had done much work with LGBT people, and we shared a meal in which we discussed my feelings. What follows is a greatly condensed version of the key exchange in our conversation:
Rabbi “Angelina”: I think you need to have sex with a woman, and see how it feels.
Me: What do you expect me to do - hire a prostitute? Start frequenting pick-up bars until I get lucky?
Rabbi Angelina: Well, why don’t you have sex with me?
Pause.
Me: But you’re married. You have a kid.
Rabbi Angelina: My husband and I have an arrangement. He’d be OK with it.
Me: Thanks, but I’ll pass.
Rabbi Angelina: Well, why not? I find you attractive. I like how smart you are.
Me: Um, you’re 15 years older than I am. I’m just not interested.
Rabbi Angelina: Now you’ve hurt my feelings. I’ve put myself out there for you and you shot me down.
Me: Well, I’m sorry…
Rabbi Angelina: After all, you came on to me first.
Me: Excuse me?
Rabbi Angelina: You came on to me, with all that talk about sex. Everybody knows that when a man makes explicit sex talk to a woman, he’s interested in sleeping with her.
The whole conversation disturbed me, and helped convince me that those pushing to abandon Judaism’s preference for opposite-sex relationships were not making much moral sense. A few years later, I approached Rabbi Angelina, and suggested she seek counseling, with or without my assistance, to explore the possibility her behavior may have been inappropriate for a rabbi. Her response? “Never contact me again.”
For the past few years, Rabbi Angelina has refused to sign marriage licenses for brides and grooms in protest of the fact same-sex couples couldn’t marry. Of course, she never admitted to anyone that her vision of acceptable marriages is not limited to ignoring the sex of the the prospective spouses, but to making fidelity optional as well.
I am certainly not saying that all supporters of same-sex marriage are adulterous abusers of the power of the clergy. Most are not. But a surprising number are very confused about what marriage is. I know one gay man who sees no reason for the government to prevent a father and his teenage son from tying the knot. And as far as I can tell I am the only member of the LGBT community who has expressed concern about the extension of marriages to relationships based in part on the eroticization of incest (Daddy-boy relationships) and of chattel slavery (master-slave relationships). Not all members of these subcultures of the gay community keep their kinks in their bedrooms. Some of these couples live out their role playing in their daily lives. Extending matrimony to such relationships would so dilute the meaning of marriage that the institution would become unrecognizable.
So the next time someone proposes changing the definition of marriage, ask a lot of questions about what they think marriage is all about. You may be surprised that they, like Rabbi Angelina, are very confused about the purpose of marriage in our society.
“Not all members of these subcultures of the gay community-”
A~nd, hold it.
Subcultures of the gay community.
I think you mean ’subcultures of the human community’? Unless you’re implying that homosexuals are the -only- ones who have fetishes of this nature, in which case you are both wrong and prejudiced.
Rabbi “Angela” is obviously a mislead woman; but, she is unlikely to be -the one- who will be rewriting marriage laws to allow gays and lesbians to become married. That power will fall on either the leaders of the marriage equality movement, judges or other elected officials of the United States government, or perhaps both. And they will -not- include non-monogomous relationships under the title of Marriage.
“Extending matrimony to such relationships would so dilute the meaning of marriage that the institution would become unrecognizable.”
Quite so. However, heterosexuals dilute the meaning of marriage every, single, day.
These ’such relationships’ are not in fact -homosexual- relationships, but -fetishist relationships-. And, if you’d like to propose a marriage amendment requiring all would-be-married couples to submit proposals stating that their relationship is not fetishist in nature, then I wholeheartedly support you. But to deny gays and lesbians marriage equality due to the sins of a few members of their community, you might as well take marriage away from everyone. No group, white, black, heterosexual, homosexual, Christian, Jewish, is without serious sins among their members. This is no cause to deny rights to the entire group.
And since you are so kind to ask…
Here’s what I think marriage is all about.
Marriage is, in law, the legal bond joining two loving, monogamous human beings into a legal entity of ‘Married Couple’, and bestowing all rights and titles associated with that entity.
Extralegally, however, marriage is an important social bond, relating to the raising of a family; in heterosexuals, they may adopt, conceive via in-vitro, or conceive via intercourse. In homosexuals, they may adopt or conceive via in-vitro (and for lesbians, the possibility of conceiving with both parent’s genetic makeup present in the child is fast emerging.)
Marriage is responsible for giving social and legal tangibility to the bond two people share with each other, and serves as a safe haven in which to raise a child, which will grow up to become a functioning member of society, perhaps become married, and renew the cycle.
That’s what marriage is, and there’s no confusion about it.
Sincerely,
Andy
Andy-
I am neither wrong nor prejudiced when I assert that there is no significant subculture in the heterosexual community of male-female couples that base their relationships on the incest model or the slavery model. I have spent at least 8 years each as an adult moving comfortably in the gay and and in the straight worlds. I never ran across a “mommy-boy” couple or a straight master-slave couple, but I certainly encountered such things in the gay community.
Because I cannot demonstrate Rabbi Angelina’s importance in the “marriage equality” movement without causing many readers to immediately know her identity, all I can do is assert that she has played a major leadership role in that cause. I fail to see how non-monogamous relationships will be barred under the new California marriage regime. While many heterosexuals stray, it is rare for a straight couple to set up rules that allow for adultery. Among LGBT people (this rabbi is bisexual), it is extremely common.
It’s interesting that you require “loving” as part of your understanding of what marriage is. Love is not required for Jewish marriages. Our forefather Isaac, according to the Torah, married Rebecca before he loved her. Many Orthodox and Hasidic couples never say or mean “I love you” until well after the wedding. I thought people weren’t supposed to impose their definition of marriage on minority groups!
As to “mommy-boy” culture, see:
http://mommyboy.tribe.net/thread/1e692b03-2e86-4f10-b2c2-41e2d9a8f5d7
I found that with a simple Google.
Also, there are lots of heterosexual leather enthusiasts who definitely enjoy master-slave relationshiops.
To Dan Dirsken;
Quite right, and thank you for submitting that for our perusal.
Speaking now to David…
–”"I cannot demonstrate Rabbi Angelina’s importance in the “marriage equality” movement without causing many readers to immediately know her identity, all I can do is assert that she has played a major leadership role in that cause.”"–
Right now, you aren’t giving marriage equality proponents a -thing- to work with; by ‘respectively’ not mentioning Angelina’s real name, you are not giving us any way to know that she is indeed of any type of leadership position in the marriage equality movement. We have only your word (word which you concede is predisposed to be wary of marriage equality) that this Angelina is anyone of any importance; indeed, that she even -exists-.
If she’s said she’s never going to speak to you again, what loyalty do you imagine you feel towards her? Why not reveal her for the philandering marriage-dunce she is, and thus deal a tremendous blow to the marriage equality movement? Surely it would be all-too-easy.
I suppose I just don’t fully understand why I’m supposed to forfeit the fight to obtain equal rights for myself only on the understanding that someone who might exist doesn’t know what marriage is, and might be the one who writes the law that will ruin it for everyone.
“A small leak can sink a great ship.”
- Benjamin Franklin
Given what a small ship you appear to be pioneering, ‘Gays Defending Marriage’, it might be in your best interest to fix big leaks like this one.
Sincerely,
Andy
Dan-
Did you even read the Web site you sent me to? It is titled “Queers 4 Mommy/Boy Dynamics” and most of the posters appear to be lesbians and transgender men. Examples:
“I’m a good little boy, er…well, legally female. But you know. Any interested, hit me up! 19/ftm/NY.” (ftm indicates a transgender male.)
“I *love* cute momma’s who like sweet and sexy, but sometimes bratty boidykes like me!”
“I’m dating a somewhat old-school fag who recently let me know that one of his roles was that of an 8-year old boy.”
Do you think such relationships, along with the far more popular “Daddy-boy” configuration, should be extended marriage rights? I definitely don’t.
Your “proof” of opposite-sex relationships based on the incest model reminds me of the gay man who wrote to point to the “straight” song “My Heart Belongs to Daddy.” I responded that the song was written by a gay man (Cole Porter), sung by singers very popular among gay men (like Marilyn Monroe and Eartha Kitt), and has a gay-themed movie about a drag contest named after it.
As for Rabbi Angelina’s identity, I wanted to reveal it but was told not to by one of my rabbis. Andy, if you E-mail me offlist I will give you some more information on a confidential basis that will support Rabbi Angelina’s importance. If you can think of another way I can show I’m telling the truth without hurting the rest of her family, especially her offspring who have done nothing wrong, I’d like to hear it.
I’ll match your Rabbi Angelina with the rather well documented saga of Rev. Ted Haggard.
Peter Hoh-
It sounds like we agree: people like Rabbi Angelina and people like Ted Haggard should not be taken seriously when discussing the future of marriage. Because I think Rabbi Angelina is an extreme but not completely exceptional case, I urge voters to ask “marriage equality” people specific questions about their ideas about marriage before deciding which side to support. If you want people to do the same for conservative clergy, I would be quick to agree to that.
My oh my. David, how did I know you were going to harp on those few posts?
Well, in this case, I think it’s better to let the facts speak for themselves, then. You are correct, that there are homosexuals on that site mentioned by Dan; but, if I take a look at the site and -tally- the number of homosexuals versus the number of heterosexuals…
I come up with:
2 posts by bisexuals,
3 posts by homosexuals,
8 posts by heterosexuals.
In statistical terms, heterosexuals are 37.5% more prevalent in this thread than those who experience -any- attraction to the same gender. Heterosexuals are 62.5% more prevalent than Homosexuals, those who are only attracted to members of their own sex.
Homosexuals are not “most of the posters” by any means.
Incidentally, the ftm is in -your- camp as a heterosexual. As the law defines gender by body parts, she will be able to marry a woman if she so chooses once becoming physiologically male.
As for Rabbi Angelina:
If you’d like to email me the details, I would be quite happy to peruse them; and, of course, I fully agree not to disseminate the contents of that email to any third party.
Unfortunately… you realize that even if you do divulge the identity of Angelina, -nothing- is resolved, isn’t that true?
You give me the identity of Angelina; but, given my pledge not to reveal her identity to third party, I am still left with nothing but your word that this person you’ve identified as Angelina actually -feels- the way you say she does about marriage.
The only way to prove this matter, I’m afraid, would be to publicly ask the real Angelina in -real life- what her stance on marriage is; or, given that Angelina appears to feel no guilt whatsoever for her behavior, could it be that she has already publicly made her non-monogamous-marriage public knowledge? (Although if that were the case, I imagine there would be an uproar far bigger than just on this blog.)
So while I am pleased that you trust me enough with the true identity of this pseudonymous individual, I’m afraid that it will not lead anywhere in the vein of connecting Angelina’s remarks with flesh and blood. (I will take you up on your offer, however, because I’m curious. I of course still vow confidentiality.)
It’s not that I feel you would deliberately lie to us; but, given that in this case of he said/she said, the integrity of a leader in the marriage equality movement is on the line, surely you will forgive my caution?
Sincerely,
Andy
Andy-
Most of the heterosexuals on that list contain at least one genderqueer person. Given that my criticism is that too many LGBT people’s relationships are so far from marriage that I’m reluctant to let them redefine it, I think counting transgender people’s relationships as “heterosexual” is kind of cheating.
I originally wanted to name Rabbi Angelina, but my rabbi told me not to and Orthodox Jew are supposed to take their rabbis’ advice. I also have legitimate concerns about Rabbi Angelina’s innocent family members, who may be humiliated if her open relationship comes to light. I have E-mailed you more information about Rabbi Angelina, and you can do some investigating and get back to the blog readers.
So because David hasn’t met any mommy-boy or daddy-daughter relationship fetishists, or straight master-slaves therefore they don’t exist? I’ve been Out of the Closet and active in the gay community for about a decade and I’ve yet to meet any gay people who fit what you describe. Surely if there is SOOO many of them, I should’ve met one couple by now, right? See what’s wrong with your logic? It works (or rather DOESN’T WORK) just as well for the opposing side.
However, pick of Dan Savage’s “Skipping Toward Gamorrah”. In the chapter on “Adultery” you’ll find statistics from a Swingers Conference that show that there are more Straight swinging couples than there are POSSIBLE gay couples. Meaning there are more straight people involved in swinging than the largest estimate of homosexuals in America.
And if you don’t know what a daddy daughter relationship is, you’re blind. Anna Nicole and Howard ring a bell? That may-december romance on Northern Exposure? Half the atttractive 40-50 year old men in Hollywood have someone young enough to be their daughter on their arms. I know they may not be honest about their fetish, but you can’t be telling me that there are no straight folks into this. There are several fetish community events throughout the year, and they often have straight people there.
That’s some lousy logic, especially since the law does not require a specific relationship type in order to be husband and wife. It does not require monogamy. Hell, “Traditional” marriages included polygamy, something your side seems to want to forget. Your argument is designed more to incense those already grossed out by homosexuality than to appeal to reason, logic, fairness, or matters of law.
The pro-marriage side has supported marriage amendments that rule out polygamy. So we are not so forgetful, Jason, considering also that polygamy remains a felony throughout the country.
Chairm, you missed something, reread what I wrote. I wasn’t talking about the pro-marriage side in relation to polygamy.
Jason D-
I imagine it’s possible for someone to have never confronted the Daddy-boy subculture if you’ve never:
• Been to a major urban gay pride parade
• Cruised AOL, gay.com, or any of the other popular chat settings for men seeking men
• Visited a leather bar.
Most of us who have done at least one of those things has encountered this subculture. But I have searched the Web and found no evidence of parallel subcultures among male-female couples. Age differences don’t mean the eroticization of incest. And I don’t think a man and woman who model their love on the incest framework have any business getting married, so at least I’m consistent.
Jason, I’m not sure if we are talking about the same side when we refer to “pro-marriage”. I misunderstood if, with that phrase, you meant the opponents of the man-woman criterion and the advocates of the SSM-merger who have opposed the marriage amendments.
* * *
David, I have also noticed that it is common among gay men to refer to their social circle of sexual partners (usually intermittent rather than monogamous) as their family. That is, these men are like siblings to a not insignificant extent.
There is also the quasi-parental type relationship that is sexualized. Not in the sense of a deliberate playing out of an incest-based fetish.
I am not here referring to people actually related by blood; but to people related socially in such a way that they informally “adopt” one another as relatives.
It is not literally a type of incest. Merely a social equivalent. Close friends can become like family and that’s not unique to gay people, of course.
Considering the sort of ostracization that some gay people experience within their families of origin, this social practice would be an understandable attempt to fill a painful void. Creating an extended family based on gay socialization.
However, what I am referring to is the sexualization of such very close related-like friendships.
If someone is like a sister to me, apart from the fact that I am happily married, I understand that there is a line that we shouldn’t cross — not even in appearances alone. Treating someone like a member of the family means there is an incest-like rule.
This doesn’t seem to commonly apply where gay people create family but do not categorically rule-out sexualization — even if only intermittently — such relationships.
Maybe this is not actually as common as I’ve noticed in my experience. What has been your experience?