GAYS DEFEND MARRIAGE

Since I published my “Phantom Gay Past” essay arguing that being gay is a recent innovation that doesn’t go back more that 150 years, I have been accused of stretching the truth and misrepresenting the scholarship. So I did a little survey and found that more than 85% of gay historians and anthropologists (n=28) disagreed with the following statement, which I believe is widely shared in the gay and lesbian community. I call it the Essentialist Credo:

Being gay is pretty much a naturally occurring sexual orientation that has existed throughout history. Every society and culture has always had a minority of gay and lesbian members, whether they come out or not.

I will be writing about the implications of this consensus among gay historians this April in a Jerusalem Post column entitled “God didn’t make me gay.” But for now I thought I would share some comments from these historians, in a page above entitled “Nine Scholars.” My conclusion from the idea that being gay is a recent, not a timeless, state of being is that God didn’t make me gay and therefore I have to reject the following gay-Jewish attitude: “God made me gay, so of course He expects me to express it, no matter what His laws say.”

I believe people have and develop all kinds of sexual impulses and attractions. As we grow, we organize them in our minds and our public lives, almost always in ways consistent with the sexual matrix of the society we live in. In ancient Greece, I probably would have had sex with a younger male lover and a wife (if I was a citizen). If I was a Native American a few centuries ago, I might have cross-dressed and had sex with both men and women. In contemporary Morocco, I probably would be married and maybe would have sex occassionally with younger men, although always playing the dominant role. Today, I organize my sexuality in a way that can be fairly called “gay,” although in my case I’m celibate.

Since I realize that this way of organizing my sexual impulses, desires, attractions, and fantasies is so contingent on living in the modern West, I can’t accept that this way is “true” and “essential” and “eternal” and all other people who had same-sex love, sex, and relationships were “ignorant” of their true selves or could not “come out.”

The concept of “sexual orientation” isn’t rocket science. It’s not like the fact that 5th-century people didn’t understand that electrons orbit the nucleus of the atom. They could have come to the conclusion that some people were oriented toward men and others toward women and others toward both. But they didn’t, because that wasn’t true to their own experiences, not because they were too primitive to understand it.

The Newsweek cover story described itself as a “religious case” for gay marriage, but it certainly was not a Jewish case. The argument was almost wholly based on the Bible, and while some Protestants take the Bible literally word for word, 99.9 percent of Jews do not (see my Leviticus Traps). A Jewish case for gay marriage, if such a thing was thinkable, would have to deal not only with Biblical texts (they shall be as one flesh, anyone?) but the Talmud (which forbids same-sex civil and religious marriage to Jews and to gentiles), the codes of Jewish law, and modern responsa. There are a tiny number of Bible-only Jews, known as Karaites, and they number maybe 25,000 in the world, to be generous. The cover story was “A liberal Christian case for gay marriage” – which is hardly shocking, since liberal Christianity has been moving in that direction for a long time anyway! Harumph.

This piece appeared in the Jerusalem Post and the San Francisco Sentinel December 10 of last year. I thought I would post it (and in coming days, other things I wrote after July 13 when the blog went on hiatus) in case people would like to see what I was doing when not blogging.

Some excerpts:

Just as many Jews tend to gravitate to liberal positions on a variety of issues, the segment of the Jewish community favoring same-sex marriage has grown larger and louder in the past few years.

That’s unfortunate, because if any issue has a “Jewish view,” it’s this one, and that view opposes redefining marriage.

Some reasons:

• First and foremost, same-sex marriage is against Jewish law. “So what?” many have argued, “we don’t try to ban pork or outlaw spending money on Shabbat.” But unlike those two transgressions, the prohibition of same-sex marriages – both religious and civil – is a Noahide law, as explained in the Talmud (Masechet Hullin). That means the ban on same-sex marriage, like the bans on adultery and murder, also apply to non-Jews. We therefore have a strong interest in rejecting such nuptials, regardless of the religion of the participants.

Even the increasingly liberal Conservative movement is on the record favoring man-woman marriage. Every paper on homosexuality ever passed by that movement’s Law Committee has either rejected same-sex marriage or taken no stance on it. Every paper embracing same-sex marriage has been voted down.

Rather than accusing people who support the traditional definition of marriage of imposing Jewish law on people of other faiths, it’s more useful to understand that support as an attempt to get the US government to reflect our values, which people on every side of every issue try to do all the time.

Also:

• Same-sex marriage hurts children. Gays can be wonderful parents, but children whenever possible should have both a mother and a father. Think of it this way: A lesbian can be a very good mother, but she cannot be a good father. Jewish tradition specifies different roles for mothers and fathers. For example, the Talmud states that a father should teach his child to swim. The Midrash says mothers should introduce their children to Torah. There are also intangible notions of what it means for a girl to become a woman, and how a man should treat a woman, for example, that one learns best from one’s mother and father.

However, under same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and California, legislatures and courts have required adoption agencies and fertility doctors to ignore whether a family provides both a mother and a father in providing services. In Massachusetts, in fact, if an adoption agency gives mother-father families even a slight tiebreaker preference, it faces being shut down by the government.

The more same-sex marriage succeeds, the quicker the idea will take hold throughout the government and society that favoring man-woman marriage is a kind of bigotry akin to racism. Teachers will be punished if they teach that marriage is a union of a man and a woman. Students who express distaste for same-sex marriage and state that they only want an opposite-sex spouse may even be reprimanded for being closed-minded.

I know that liberal Jews in particular are unlikely to be persuaded by some of the arguments above. But I hope everyone can agree that they are legitimate arguments, and that those of us who agree with Judaism’s prescription for man-woman marriage are not narrow-minded bigots trying to make gays into second-class citizens. Rather, we are individuals using our free-speech rights and our votes to help shape a society that is consistent with our values.

 

I contacted 20 newspapers with the op-ed piece below, and kept getting the same reaction: it’s good, but it’s too old. Dr. Laura? The West Wing? What decade are you in, anyway?

On the other hand, one of the largest newspapers in California asked me to write for them a more general opinion piece responding to the tiresome, intellectually vacuous left-wing demand “Don’t impose your religion on me!” It should appear some time next week.

So here’s the original “Leviticus traps” piece, which explains why asking an Orthodox Jew “Do you support the death penalty for wearing mixed fabrics?” shows utter ignorance of what Orthodox Judaism is:

When Orthodox Jews and other traditionally religious people discuss our ideas about marriage and other public-policy issues relating to homosexuality, we often run into what I call “Leviticus traps.” Such quasi-arguments suggest that people who follow the Bible are singling out homosexuality for condemnation out of prejudice or narrow-mindedness – because if we really valued Scripture we’d also follow all the other “silly rules” in the Bible.

Perhaps the most famous Leviticus trap was set by President Josiah Bartlet, played by Martin Sheen on the former NBC television series The West Wing. A character (“Dr. Jenna Jacobs”) modeled after radio advice-giver Dr. Laura Schlessinger (an Orthodox Jew at the time) visited the White House and the president confronted her:

Bartlet: I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.

Jacobs: I don’t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President, the Bible does.

Bartlet: Yes, it does. Leviticus.

Jacobs: 18:22.

Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it OK to call the police? … Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?

This confrontation, which is based on a Leviticus trap in an open letter to Dr. Laura that circulated on the Internet eight years ago, sent gay and lesbian opponents of traditional religion into a tizzy of righteousness and self-congratulation. The problem is, the scene shows zero awareness of the beliefs and practices of Orthodox Jews like me, Dr. Laura at the time, and presumably Dr. Jacobs (a Jewish name).

Because Orthodox Jews believe not only that the written Torah (the first five books of the Bible) is divine, but that God gave an oral Torah as well, which has come to be written down in rabbinic literature such as the Talmud and the Midrash. Orthodox Jews believe male-male intercourse is forbidden to everyone not because we open the Torah, read a verse from Leviticus, and reason out its meaning. Rather, we listen to our rabbis who are experts at the entire Jewish legal corpus, which explains how we should understand the written Torah. All legitimate Orthodox rabbis agree that male-male intercourse – and same-sex marriage – are universally prohibited.

Bartlet’s diatribe dramatizes a made-up death penalty (it’s mentioned nowhere in the Bible) for mixing two threads together. It’s true, Orthodox Jews do not wear garments with both linen and wool – I had to get my new suit approved by a rabbi before I could buy it – but doing so has never been a capital crime. The Biblical prohibitions that do carry the death penalty demanded such a high burden of proof that executions for the violation of Jewish law were rare. I know of no specific case where a Jewish court executed someone for gay sex, for example. Punishments, in Jewish thought, are meant as atonement, not vengeance. Today’s Jews look at each violation’s corresponding punishment as a measurement of the severity of the sin, not a practical plan for disciplining offenders.

In addition, many of the examples Bartlet gave – such as mixing fabrics and observing the Sabbath – are laws that apply only to Jews. In fact, we believe non-Jews are forbidden to fully observe the Sabbath. So Dr. Jacobs’ special condemnation of gay sex actually does make sense, because the prohibition of intercourse between males (and, incidentally, of same-sex marriage) are “Noahide” laws that apply to all human beings. In other words, one answer to “Why don’t you lecture your radio listeners about violating the Sabbath and wearing mixed fabrics rather than just homosexuality?” is “Judaism believes only the prohibition of the latter applies to everyone – and most of my listeners aren’t Jewish.”

The people who set Leviticus traps for Orthodox Jews display a basic ignorance of Orthodoxy. It’s time to have some honest dialogue on marriage and other gay issues, but nobody’s beliefs should be misrepresented or mocked.

I got an unsigned letter in March from a father who got my E-mail address from a family friend of his. He told me that his daughter, while still keeping kosher and observing the Sabbath, now identifies as bisexual and lives with another woman. He said his daughter knows better than to bring the woman’s name up in his presence, but she does discuss her relationship with his wife, her mother. He asked for reading suggestions and queried “What can we do? How can we help her back on the derech?” (The derech is the “way” of Orthodox Judaism.)

My response is below, with a few translations added in parentheses. I’m not sure I handled it exactly right (and I hate corresponding with anonymous people anyway), but I did my best. Those of you who think I’m an ogre may be surprised.

From the data you have given me, I’m not so sure she’s off the derech. Unlike men, women have no requirement to marry or have children. Women may not have genital relations with other women, but do you really know your daughter is participating in the sexual activities (“nashim hamesolelot“) that are against halacha (Jewish law)? I certainly don’t advise you to ask her. It may make the most sense to have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy about her bedroom activities.

As far as I understand it, it is not against halacha for a Jewish woman to love another woman, live with another woman, and even share the same bed with another woman. While it is no doubt deeply disappointing to you as parents that she has not chosen to marry a Jewish man and have children with him, it is a legitimate Jewish choice. You would be mistaken to condemn her for doing something that is not against halacha. I think it is unfortunate that you have made it clear that she cannot talk about the woman she has chosen to share her life with. If she were discussing sexual immorality, I could understand it. But most likely she wants to talk about much more mundane things, some of which include this woman.

The most important thing you can do is express your love for your daughter, whatever her life choices. Particularly given that it appears she’s not flagrantly violating any halacha, I think it would be a mistake to use guilt or other incentives to try to change her behavior. Since she identifies as bisexual, not lesbian, and since female sexuality is particularly fluid, it is entirely possible that she will wind up with a more traditional Jewish family some day. Even if she doesn’t, you should be proud that you have instilled within her a basic religiosity that is expressed by her being, for the most part, shomer mitzvot (Jewishly observant).

The best book on homosexuality and Judaism is Rabbi Chaim Rapaport’s Judaism and Homosexuality: An Authentic Orthodox View. It’s mostly about men, though. You can also access my pamphlet on the subject by visiting www.isjudaismhomophobic.com.

My guess is I haven’t given you the kind of response you’re looking for. Believe it or not, I am a conservative Republican who opposes same-sex marriage and gay rabbis and thinks the halacha on homosexuality contains tremendous wisdom. But I see no need to demand that people go beyond the halacha with regards to how they structure their bedroom and family lives.

If you have further questions, let me know.

Best,

David Benkof

I rarely talk about my specific religious beliefs about the Torah’s obligations on Jews in the area of gay sex, nor do I spend much time specifically spelling out the disturbing evidence that a signicant minority of the gay and lesbian community has no objection to adult-child sex. I think talking about either issue can needlessly hurt people who aren’t Jewish or who think pedophilia is disgusting, so I rarely do so. But the most prominent opponent of the “ex-gay” movement, a petty, self-hating, ignorant Jew named Wayne Besen, has thrown down the gauntlet by banning me from his Web site for allegedly advocating the murder of homosexuals and comparing gay people to child molesters. As you will see, I did neither of the above, but since I am banned from his site, I must defend myself somewhere, so I’ll do so here.

1) Jews believe that almost any Jewish law can be suspended in order to save a life, because we believe life is precious. However, there are three categories of mitzvot (commandments) that supercede that principle. They are called yehareg v’al yaavor – be murdered rather than transgress. The three categories are idol worship, murder, and gilui arayot – certain sexual sins that include male-male anal intercourse. I confirmed to Wayne that I and all Orthodox Jews think a Jew is commanded to allow himself to be killed rather than commit the act described above. That does not mean I think it’s right for anyone to kill a homosexual! Far from it. That means if someone puts a gun to my head and says “Sodomize me” I and every other Jew who follows halacha (Jewish law) would refuse.

2) I never compared all gays to child molesters. I am fully aware that the majority of both the lesbian and the gay community is horrified by pedophilia. But there is significant evidence that a subset of the gay community has no objection to adult-child sex. In fact, there’s a participant in the discussion at Wayne’s site who insists that “the general consensus” is that pedophilia is a medical, not a moral problem. He didn’t specify but if I agreed with him I would want child molesters sent to psychiatric hospitals rather than prisons. I wonder how he feels about imprisoning what he calls “mentally sick” pedophiles. I will give just two other examples of the sympathy for adult-child sex in segments of the LGBT community, and if I am pressed, I have many more.

For example, I know of no gay or lesbian individual or organization who has objected to the stated position of the gay arm of the ACLU that “everyone agrees” that a mentally retarded 14-year-old can consent to sex with an adult. (For some reason my computer won’t access the site so the language might be slightly off but it’s pretty close.) I think by definition a 14-year old, especially if he is mentally retarded, cannot consent to sex, and I am disgusted at the fact that the LGBT project of the ACLU successfully fought to free the adult repeat statutory rapist of a mentally retarded youth barely out of puberty who allowed him to perform oral sex on him at first but then got uncomfortable and said please stop (which the predator thankfully did).

Second, a prominent gay-rights organization in Canada, Egale, argued against raising the national age of consent from 14 to 16 in part because it considers sex between a 14-year-old and an adult to be “non-harmful sexual activity.” Other pro-gay Canadian organizations opposed outlawing sex with 14-year-olds because “it would interfere with efforts to educate youth about pregnancy, disease prevention and sexual rights and responsibilities.” The executive director of Egale, Kaj Hasselriis, testified that “Egale believes very strongly that it is possible… even common… for 14 and 15 year olds to consent to sex, even with people over the age of 20.” My googling has found no evidence of prominent Canadian or American gays or even lesbians, nor important LGBT organizations in Canada, who were offended by Egale’s position and stated the obvious: there is something terribly wrong with a 21-year-old having sex with a 14-year old.

Does the above mean I advocate the murder of homosexuals and compare gay people to child molesters? I don’t think so. But I stand by every word I wrote, so you be the judge. If pressed, I will give more information on exactly how wrong Judaism thinks gay sex is, and how I know that a minority – only a minority – of the gay community has no problem with adult-child sex. I would rather not, but I will if it’s important to clarify that I did neither of immoral things Wayne Besen has accused me of doing.

I recently ran across the Web site of Randy Thomas, the executive vice president of Exodus International. They’re perhaps the most prominent “ex-gay” group, but by no means the most extreme. They don’t embrace reparative therapy and confrontational behavior the way groups like JONAH and NARTH do. Anyway, Thomas mentioned on his site that he’d like to meet me. I posted that I’d be happy to talk to him, but I had some concern about the fact that on that page he told a Jewish gay man “repeatedly” that he sees him converting to Christianity someday. I made it perfectly clear that a condition of our dialoguing was his not trying to convert me.

His response was if a Jew is offended by his proselytism, he will apologize – obviously insincerely because he will definitely still keep reminding him that he is praying for him to convert. He then proceeded to show he means what he says by apologizing to me – and saying he wants me to convert.

When I called him on his bigotry he said he checked with a supposedly Orthodox Jewish friend of his (who he didn’t name – perhaps it was a “Messianic” Jew) and the friend said I’m insecure (people, you know me, am I insecure?) and trying to recruit me against my will like that was not “culturally insensitive.”

Now, I have been a Jew for 37 years. I know thousands of Jews. Maybe five would think proselytizing a Jew who has told you he’s not interested is not culturally insensitive.

JONAH speaks positively about this organization three times on its Web site. I’ve heard JONAH people talk about going to Exodus conferences. Why are the leaders of JONAH turning Jewish souls over to predators like Thomas? This is a man who openly proclaims he will only talk to a Jew who agrees that Thomas may repeatedly and continuously try to convert them. Isn’t a Jew’s spiritual health more important than his sexual orientation? What on earth is JONAH doing?

UPDATE: A Christian reader of my blog says it’s unclear if I think a Christian who wants Jews to convert and prays for their conversion is automatically a bigot. Definitely not. It’s a Christian who won’t respect a Jew’s request not to be proselytized that’s a bigot (defined as someone completely intolerant of other people’s beliefs).

FURTHER UPDATE: I’ve been communicating with Alan Chambers, the president of Exodus International, who I like. He apologized for the initial interaction I had with Randy, saying “that isn’t how we do things around here.” And Randy apologized as well, and has promised to never again push his faith on Jews or anyone else who indicates they do not want to hear it.He reserves the right to pursue conversion with a Jew whose position he doesn’t know, which is fine. But if asked to stop, he has agreed to stop. I think Exodus’s reaction to this whole episode is terrific. It’s not easy to admit you were wrong, especially in deeply personal matters like religion. Of course, whatever complaints I may have about “ex-gays” they by definition know how to admit they’re wrong, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

A woman wrote me yesterday reacting to my writing on gay marriage by recommending I visit jonahweb.org, a Jewish “ex-gay” Web site. She says I am “in denial” about the fact that homosexuality is “preventable and treatable.”

The funny thing is, based on the time she sent the note and the time zone she lives in, it is clear this Jewish woman wrote me on Shabbat. Indeed, a lot of Jewish advocates of the “ex-gay” approach to homosexuality openly violate major Jewish laws. And jonahweb.org promotes far more Christian ideas about homosexuality than Jewish ones. These people who have the chutzpah to push LGBT Jews (some of us quite observant) to follow their non-Jewish ideas about sexuality in the name of Judaism should instead focus their energies on their own observance of things like Shabbat, keeping kosher, and daily prayer. If an Orthodox Jew wants to tell me my observance of Jewish law in the areas of family and bedroom life is not sufficient, I’m happy to listen to him or her. I don’t see why I should take these other amei ha’aretz and m’challelei Shabbos (Jewishly ignorant Sabbath-breakers) seriously.

I haven’t checked with a rabbi on this, but I’m pretty sure that if my correspondent had to pick one Jewish law to violate, Judaism would prefer it if she engaged in lesbian sex rather than send me an E-mail on Shabbat. Yet she tells me in the name of Judaism that “ex-gay” is the way to go.

Oy vey.

I’ve been concerned that more than 100 rabbis affiliated with Conservative Judaism, the movement in which I was a member and leader for my entire life until 2003, have been quoted in the press or signed statements opposing the man-woman definition of marriage. Same-sex marriage is forbidden by both Conservative and Orthodox Jewish law. So I have written rabbis who have done so (whose E-mail addresses I could find) the following letter:

Dear Rabbi-

I’ve been surprised at the large number of Conservative rabbis (I count at least 115) who are openly supporting same-sex civil marriage. The list includes some rabbis I have known and respected for many years (I was an observant Conservative Jew until 2003 when I became Orthodox). Given our tradition’s clear opposition to same-sex civil marriage, I was hoping you might explain to me why you think it is legitimate to support something our tradition suggests that G-d rejects.

Of course, I know there are many Conservative rabbis who think halacha is binding unless it conflicts with the platform of the Democratic Party. But the list of Conservative rabbis supporting same-sex civil marriage includes many rabbis who I know to be far more sophisticated and committed to the halachic process than that. The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards has never endorsed same-sex civil or religious marriage, so I would like to hear your intellectual and religious bases for flouting halacha in this area. The facts, as I understand them, are as follows:

1. The Talmud in Chullin 92a quotes Ulla as saying “This verse (Zacharia 11:12) refers to the 30 commandments which the Noahides have accepted. But they keep only three of them,” one of which is not drawing up marriage contracts between men.

2. The Sifra on Acharei Mot discusses the pasuk (Vayikra 18:3) warning us against the “deeds of the Land of Egypt” and the “deeds of the Land of Canaan.” It says that the deeds in question include that “a man would marry a man, a woman would marry a woman, and a woman would be married to two men.”

3. The midrash in Bereishit Rabbah (25:6) quotes Rav Huna: “The generation of the flood was not obliterated until they wrote marriage contracts for males and animals.”

4. The notion that Jews must try to establish the Noahide laws for everyone is well established. For example, the Lubavitcher Rebbe insisted that we enforce Noahide laws by any means at our disposal: “We must do everything possible to ensure that the seven Noahide laws are observed. If this can be accomplished through force or through other kinder and more peaceful means through explaining to non-Jews that they should accept God’s wishes [we should do so]…Anyone who is able to influence a non-Jew in any way to keep the seven commandments is obligated to do so, since that is what God commanded Moses our teacher.” (“Sheva Mitzvot Shel Benai Noach,” Hapardes 59:9 7-11, 5745)

Clearly, Jewish law calls on committed Jews to oppose same-sex civil marriage. Taking the above rabbinic texts seriously, I do not see how one can conclude anything other than that G-d wants us to fight “marriage equality.” Could you please explain your thought process in coming to the opposite conclusion?

Unless you ask me not to, I will happily post your answer at my Web site, GaysDefendMarriage.com.

Yours,

David Bianco Benkof

So far I have heard back from ten rabbis, none of whom has given a substantive reason relating to Jewish law as to why it’s OK to advocate something Conservative and Orthodox Jewish law oppose.

Yet to be heard from are four LGBT rabbis (Jill Hammer, J.B. Rosen, Benay Lappe, and Tracee L. Rosen), six rabbis who have written pro-gay legal opinions – though no opinion approving of same-sex marriage has ever been approved by the movement’s Law Committee (Avram Reisner, Brad Artson, Daniel Nevins, David Fine, Elliot Dorff, and Gordon Tucker), and six rabbis I have known for a long time (Amy Eilberg, Elianna Yolkut, H. David Rose, H. David Teitelbaum, Marvin Goodman, and Sheldon Lewis). In all, 91 rabbis have yet to respond. Rabbis are busy people, of course, and many go on vacation during the summer. As the responses come in, I will post them, along with my reactions, in the comments section below.

Something bothered me about the Los Angeles Jewish Journal’s April 11 feature story on Jews for Marriage Equality’s close working relationship with two of the main plaintiffs in California’s big Supreme Court case on same-sex marriage. While the story identified one of the women, Robin Tyler, as Jewish, the reporter, Julie Gruenbaum Fax, was silent on the religion of the other woman.

Curious, I wrote Steve Krantz, the group’s president, and Tyler herself, with whom I used to work, to inquire on Diane’s religion. No answer. I wrote each again. Still no answer. Finally, I E-mailed the pair’s smart, outspoken feminist lawyer, Gloria Allred, and twelve minutes later I had my answer: Olson is not in fact Jewish, though she wants to marry in a Jewish ceremony. (Fax says she knew Olson wasn’t Jewish but did not consider that fact “relevant.”)

One problem: none of the three major Jewish religious movements approves of a Jewish ceremony to “marry” Olson and Tyler. Orthodox and Conservative Judaism do not believe in interfaith marriages of any gender combination, and even Reform Judaism, in its famous “Greenboro resolution” supported same-sex religious ceremonies only for all-Jewish relationships.

Even some supporters of Jews for Marriage Equality say the group’s promotion of Tyler and Olson as the group’s poster-child couple is a step too far. For example, Rabbi Marvin Goodman, executive director of the Northern California Board of Rabbis, and a Conservative rabbi who has endorsed Jews for Marriage Equality said that any union between Olson and Tyler is “not a Jewish marriage….a Jewish marriage needs to be between two Jews. Whatever gender they are is a whole other issue.” Goodman said he does not regret endorsing the group, but would have preferred if he had been given a chance to “opt out” of the group’s promotion of Olson and Tyler’s quest for marriage.

Of course, many rabbis may think Olson and Tyler can never have a Jewish marriage without conversion, but still support civil marriage equality for them. And that’s fine. My point is just that this more evidence that many, many supporters of redefining marriage have no idea what marriage is – in this case no idea what a Jewish marriage is. That smart Conservative rabbis like Elliot Dorff, Ed Feinstein, and Menachem Creditor can enthusiastically support a Jewish group that spotlights a couple that even they no doubt would refuse to “marry” is quite troubling.

There certainly is a coherent, consistent attitude toward marriage that suggests we should throw out all the rules and let anybody marry anybody. But I happen to reject that attitude, and anyone else who rejects it would be smart to insist that any changes to marriage in our society happen slowly and carefully, if at all.