The Pluralism Diaries by Rav Goni

Friday was a sad day for the cause of freedom and equal rights for all and for rational discourse. The NY State Court of Appeals ruled that same-sex couples can be reasonably excluded from the legal institution of civil marriage. This is not the place to go into an analysis of the majority opinion. You can read the two sides at this link.

I can't help pointing out one bizarre feature in its argument, though. Justice Robert S. Smith seems to think that heterosexuals' relationships are so tenuous that they need the state to exclude gays from marriage so as to feel an incentive to marry rather than live sexually promiscuous lives. This sets the old attack against gays - for being too promiscuous - on its head!

I am proud to point out that The Academy for Jewish Religion had signed on as a friend of the court for the plaintiffs, supporting civil marriage for same-sex couples. Unfortunately, , as far as I can tell from the court papers, AJR was the only Jewish seminary to do so.

The need for religious voices to be heard on this issue has now become acute. Many religious leaders, while uncomfortable with the idea of sanctioning religious marriages for same-sex couples, have comforted themselves by thinking that the issue could be handled by civil laws. But one lesson to be learned from this defeat in the courts is that it is not possible to keep these areas separate. If religion - Judaism, specifically - is to be a force educating toward justice and pluralism, it must step up and speak clearly in support of the possibilty for same-sex couples to live in responsibility, commitment, dignity and sanctity.

The alternative is being played out before our eyes in Jerusalem. The International Gay Pride Parade is scheduled to take place in Jerusalem on August 10th. The prospect of this event has united religious leaders who would normally hate to have any contact with each other. I recall a photo in the Times from a previous year. At first sight it was really inspirational - a long table at which Christian, Muslim and Jewish clerics sat together for a common goal. Unfortunately, reading the caption revealed that the goal was not world peace, or eradicating poverty or slavery, or opposing political totalitarianism. The goal was opposition to the Gay Pride Parade.

Let us be clear. Everyone knows that these clerics are against any acceptance of homosexuality. And everyone knows that homosexuals - those who have not internalized traditional teachings of condemnation - reject the traditional religious stance and insist on their right to live openly, with full rights to fullfill their legitimate dreams, just like any other person created in God's Image. The disagreement is firm. The question is - what practical conclusions flow from this irreconcilable disagreement?

Pluralism does not mean that one has to like what the other party thinks or does. It does mean that, as long as one's own spheres of thought and life are respected, the other party, however obnoxious its position, may go about expressing its views and living accordingly. With respect to holding a Gay Pride Parade, the issue is not whether the feelings of religious traditionalists will be offended. Of course they will be. But we live in a world in which we are constantly offended by other people's actions and ideas. That is not enough of a reason to mobilize all one's energies in order to repress the expression of the other side. This is not a question about disagreeing respectfully. The opposition to the parade is expressed in the crudest language of contempt and hatred. Religious leaders must take responsibility for this "teaching of contempt," which is no less unacceptable than when it was fostered by Catholic teachings with regard to Jews.

Whether in New York, Jerusalem, or anywhere this issue arises, a strange phenomenon has emerged: Many people are convinced that the best way to strengthen traditional values such as marriage, child welfare or moral responsibilty is by attacking gays and lesbians who wish to uphold those same traditional values. When practiced quietly and locally, this kind of exclusionism is characteristic of private clubs. When practiced vehemently and politically such exclusionism is characteristic of mobs and their demagogic leaders. The religious community must choose - shall it continue to abet the teaching of contempt or shall it work toward the teaching of courageous pluralism?