On 16th
January 2016 the membership of New London Synagogue voted, at an Extraordinary
General Meeting, to accept the following proposals.
1.
The Synagogue should offer
a religious ceremony of commitment for same-sex couples as detailed in the
paper that follows. As soon as possible the procedures for registering such
ceremonies under the provisions of the 2013 Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act
shall be pursued.
2.
That same-sex couples
should be offered the same welcome and support in the community as heterosexual
couples in all ways.
The proposals arose from a paper from Rabbi Jeremy,
reproduced below, which details the reasoning behind this decision and includes
links to extensive Halachic (Jewish legal) reasoning. Anyone wishing to discuss
such a service should contact the Rabbi by email in the first instance.
---
This, and other
issues related to same-sex commitment, test every element of our religious and congregational
make-up. In the paper that follows there are reflections on theology, the role
of ritual, the nature of married life and the realities of congregational
change. That said I believe the question of whether and how New London should
offer ceremonies for those committed to those of the same-sex can be distilled
down to five key questions; three of which I find easy to answer, the other two
of which are difficult.
I've structured
this paper around these key five questions and included a number of excurses -
an idea lifted from Rabbi Jacobs' work Principles of the Jewish Faith - to
engage with some of the broader questions that the direct engagement with such
ceremonies beg. Rather than use footnotes there are hypertext links to other
documents, Youtube videos and the like for those interested in further detail.
At this point
this paper is drafted for the purpose of allowing congregational consultation.
The recommendations for next steps are included towards its conclusion.
The First
Easy Question
Our key
question must be this; 'what do we want for Jews who are only attracted to
those of the same sex?'
I don't
struggle to answer this question, it's the same answer I would give to any Jew;
I want these Jews to find other Jews with whom they can make a bet ne'eman
b'yisrael - a faithful house in Israel. I want these Jews to feel New
London Synagogue is a welcoming and non-judgemental community for them and,
should they be so blessed, their families.
Excursus - Sex
I've spent a great deal of time studying
and teaching issues around the kinds of sexual intimacy our tradition deems
permissible and prohibited both between same-sex and heterosexual couples.
Source sheets and a video of my most recent presentation on the subject can be
found here and here. I follow the
position taken in this
very detailed working through of the issues in a responsum accepted by the
Masorti Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS). This responsum finds a
single act of homosexual male-to-male intimacy forbidden, but permits other
acts of sexual intimacy between couples of the same sex in the context of
committed, ritually-affirmed relationships of love. But, frankly, not much of
this study impacts on the position I take in the paragraph above. There are
standards of sexual behaviour our tradition mandates for couples of all sexual
orientations. The welcome and openness I attempt to offer, both as a gatekeeper
of the Jewish tradition and as an employee of this community, is not predicated
on whether - and forgive the bluntness of the language - our straight members
might be engaging in sexual practices that breach Halachah. That is not to
condone breaches of Halachah, that is rather to separate issues of welcome from
issues of acceptance of behaviour.
Those who find the Torah's use of the
term toevah to refer to those who engage in male-to-male anal
intercourse such an absolute taboo as to drive a level of disengagement from
both gay and lesbian desire for intimate companionship are encouraged to
understand that I do not consider anal-intercourse between men permissible, but
are also directed to this
analysis of the uses of the term toevah throughout the Hebrew Bible (or
those seeking a lighter, if blunter, analysis this clip from the TV
show The West Wing).
Excursus - Procreation
The oft-raised issue of procreation
should be treated similarly. There is a wonderful Midrash (Shir HaShirim Rabbah
1:4.2) in which an infertile couple, back in the days when this used to happen,
prepare to separate having been married for ten years without producing
offspring. Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai allows the wife to take one thing from the
matrimonial house - and she takes her husband. The Halachah changes and
infertile couples are no longer expected to divorce (SA EH 1.3 Rema). Of course
procreation is important, but sanctified intimate companionship in Judaism is,
and has always been, about a lot more than procreation. Even putting aside the
notion that same-sex couples, by varying means, are able to raise children, it
is necessary to distinguish between a commitment to procreation and the
question of the welcome we should offer those attracted to members of the
same-sex.
Excursus - New London Synagogue and
the Toleration of that Which is Not Halachically Acceptable
This is one of my favourite 'Louis'
stories. In the old days the Jacobs family lived on the other side of the St
Johns Wood High Street from the Synagogue. And on Shabbat, rather than cut
across the High Street - with the possibility of seeing members, God forbid,
emerging from shops and cafes on the Holy Sabbath Day, Rabbi Jacobs would take
the long route home. It wasn't condoning a breach of Halachah, it was placing
his own discomfort - the extra journey time - below that of embarrassing a
fellow New London member in public. As a community we have always, rightly,
been proud of our non-judgemental and broadly welcoming attitude to all. We
have never used Halachic non-compliance as a reason for turning away anyone who
would otherwise want to be part of our community.
The First
Difficult Question - What Now?
What role
should a Synagogue play in helping a same-sex couple create a bet ne'eman
b'yisrael - a faithful house in Israel? I'm not asking about civil
legal protection, that part is easy. We certainly would support the protections
offered by the State to those in same-sex relationships, but should we offer
anything in addition to these protections within the Synagogue community?
Currently we
adopt a sort of 'don't ask, don't tell' approach that communicates to those
attracted only to the same-sex that we will accept their sexuality without
offering any religious marker of their choice of life partner. But this
seemingly clear-cut distinction frays in the realities of the lives lived by
our members.
When a same-sex
couples announce they wish their relationship to be acknowledged as significant
do we print a congratulation in our newsletter, do we use the loaded term
'Mazal Tov?' There are a myriad of incremental decisions one simply can't
escape making - as a member or as a Synagogue. Should we record same-sex
couples as families on our databases? Do we offer baby blessings to couples who
have a child, or announce an adoption? If we do offer a baby blessing, do we
sing Mazal Tov in full voice, or in a tone designed to communicate (or unable
to hide) our ambivalent approval/disapproval of such a family?
Excursus - How to Say Mazal Tov When
You Feel Uneasy
Judaism is a pursuit of truth, normally.
But not absolutely, certainly not when the feelings of another are at risk. The
classic text on the appropriateness of a 'white lie' comes in a response to the
question - how should one dance before an ugly bride on their wedding day?
(Ketubot 16b-17a). Shammai insists the ugly bride is to treated as she is.
Hillel - who models our normative response - insists we say she is beautiful
and graceful. At a wedding, regardless of whether one finds the parties under
the Chuppah attractive, we are commanded to dance with joy. To do otherwise is
cruel and cruelty can never be holy. At a wedding you have to say Mazal Tov as
if you mean it with your whole heart, even if you don't.
We can make the
claim that it is possible to construct a myriad of responses, both explicit and
implicit, that count as being fully supportive and welcoming of same-sex
couples without offering a religious ceremony designed to celebrate same-sex
coupling in the same way that heterosexual coupling is celebrated - indeed this
is what we currently do at New London. But I am not convinced. It can sound a
little like the treatment of Jews in the bad-old-days of 'acceptable' English
antisemitism. We were, as English Jews, allowed some access to some parts of
English society, but in a myriad of ways, both subtle and gross, we were
informed we were only being tolerated and that the openness of our host
community was tempered by limits and quotas. We were encouraged to feel these
limits weren't brazenly antisemitic but we knew how our surrounding society
truly felt about us. Old fashioned 'acceptable' antisemitism wasn't acceptable.
I feel the same about our current approach. The 'don't ask, don't tell'
approach is half-hearted; there is some welcome, but a lot of pushing-away. I
don't like it and I don't accept it models the best of who we, as a community,
are and should be. If we are to adopt the status-quo as our formal position, at
the very least, we should admit of its pushing-away qualities; making clear the
rejection of those attracted only to those of the same-sex. I don't believe we
are a community that should, or genuinely wishes to do that. Certainly, as a
Rabbi and member here, I do not wish to do that.
On the other
hand there is a level of pain associated in making a dramatic change to the
range of lifecycle offerings we offer as a community. I know there are members who
relate to same-sex physicality attraction on a scale between incomprehension
and aversion. I'm among members who have been on a journey in terms of
understanding what it means to support those who find themselves attracted in
this way. I know there are members here who are so hostile to a significant change
on these issues that they share that a decision of the community to offer a specific
same-sex ceremony would lead them to feel alienated from a community they might
have been members of for decades. I don't like debates that threaten the sense
of security of any of our members.
If there is a
cost to the status quo, there is a cost entailed in making a change. That is
what makes this a difficult decision.
The Second Easy Question - Where should the pain fall?
In many ways the
question about whether or not to perform these ceremonies is a question about
where we want the pain to fall. We can allow the same-sex attracted members of
the community to carry the pain of our limited toleration of their sexuality.
Or we, finding ourselves as gatekeepers of the norms of this community, can
shoulder that pain ourselves; even if we do not understand what might draw a
person only to a member of their own sex; even if we experience a level of
uneasiness around what such a new venture might mean for traditional Jewish
life.
Put like this,
I find an easy answer. When faced with a choice as to who should bear a pain
the Jewish tradition responds with an almost unheard of unanimity. The secure
and the entitled are commanded to bear the pain on behalf of the insecure and
the excluded. This command finds its sharpest articulation in the oft-repeated
Torah mandate to love the stranger, the outsider amongst the community of
Israel. We should love the outsider because we know the experience of the
outsider, for we were outsiders in the land of Egypt. We are asked to place
ourselves in the position of the other and make the decision they would wish us
to make. I know the experience of so many same-sex attracted Jews trying to
make their way in the broader Jewish community has been one of being 'othered,'
excluded and objectified. The central claim of a Jewish morality is that the
people who experience exclusion are precisely the people who should not have to
bear the pain of the discomfort they might instil among those who count
themselves as normative.
Certainly I
don't look at those who are attracted to those of the same sex as cursed or
choosing to place themselves in such a situation; and therefore responsible for
their own pain with no suggestion that I might be called upon to share in this
burden. That seems entirely wrong.
Excursus - On God & Humans
Somewhere, on this issue, one needs to
come to a theological decision about the nature of the desire towards same-sex
physical intimacy. If one sees this desire as equivalent to the desire to eat
bacon, or steal, then the correct response to feeling this desire is
suppression of action. Suppression results in the potential thief walking past
the opportunity for thievery and the pork-phile not eating pork. But it leads someone
attracted only to those of the same-sex condemned to a life without intimate
companionship. That seems cruel on a very different level to the level of pain
suffered by a kleptomaniac or pork-phile. After all the Torah itself mandates
it is not good for a person to live alone.
On a theological level I am simply unable
to believe God created some people specifically in order to test their ability
to live without intimate companionship. Rather I see the sexuality of a fellow
human being as a part of their creation in the image of the divine, as a part
of the essential humanity of a human. And the correct response to an element of
our essential humanity (as Jews) is to express that essence with decency and
respect for one's fellow in the context of a Halachic framework that engages
with every element of our lives. This is not hedonism, this is the search to
find and walk on a path of decency within a broader Jewish community.
The Third
Easy Question - What does it mean to be welcoming?
If we do want
to be welcoming there is only one option. We need a ceremony that seeks to
offer same-sex couples the same power afforded heterosexual couples.
Excursus - The Nature of the Power of
the Wedding Ceremony
I've had the great pleasure of
officiating at over 200 wedding ceremonies and, to distil the whole affair into
a sentence I believe the Jewish wedding ceremony is a blessing, given in the
name of God and the Jewish people, in the sight of friends and family. This
blessing, I believe, gives strength to the couple on the uneven road of a
life-time's monogamous commitment. And at the heart of this blessing is the
term kiddushin. The Hebrew root K-D-SH is usually translated as
'holy,' but more technically the root suggests 'exclusion;' you can't have that
which is kodesh. God, of course, is the ultimate-ungraspable. But when,
at a heterosexual wedding, a groom says 'behold you are meKuDeSHet to
me,' the bride becomes excluded for all other partners. Monogamy and holiness
are wrapped up together in one moment.
I'm arrogant
enough to believe that our same-sex attracted couples need the same public
affirmation of this holy exclusivity, wrapped up in a blessing - a gashbanka
or stamp of acceptability - which can strengthen their commitments to one
another and a Jewish future. I'm humble enough to know we, as a community,
needs the commitment of all of its members if we are to have the bold, bright
future we wish for ourselves.
Certain
elements of a heterosexual ceremony ensure the ceremony is seen as an act of kiddushin
- a commitment to sanctified exclusivity and not a second-class
ambivalent toleration; a canopy - chuppah, a document, rings, wine ... I
also think that we should offer the same access to provisions in civil law that
heterosexual couples are afforded. I don't think you can offer heterosexual
couples a full service in both religious and civil matters and tell same-sex
couples to go to the Town Hall.
Some of the
legal mechanisms of a heterosexual ceremony can't / shouldn't be drafted into a
same-sex ceremony. These are the mechanisms of kinyan - acquisition. Kinyan
- of the bride! - is at the centre of Halachic models of heterosexual marriage.
Traditionally a bride is at the very least (and the point is hotly debated)
very close to a 'chattel' which the groom 'acquires' through the rituals of a
traditional wedding. I do not advocate drawing these elements of the
traditional heterosexual ceremony into the rituals for same-sex couples.
I believe New
London Synagogue should offer ceremonies along the lines discussed above. See
also this
responsum of the CJLS which sets out a number of options for ceremonies
(including material regarding dissolution of relationships).
Excursus - On Acquisition in Heterosexual
Marriage
Increasingly I am not being asked to
perform entirely traditional heterosexual marriage ceremonies where the groom
is 'koneh' - acquiring - and the bride is 'nikneit' - acquired.
Rather couples are using more mutual ritual including egalitarian Ketubah
language - as discussed here and mutual
language around rings which become, no longer the consideration in a
transaction of a quasi-bridal-purchase, but rather the symbol of two
individuals coming together in a partnership - shutafut. I discussed the
Halachic validity of this egalitarian ceremony in a class available to view here. See also the paper
by my colleague, Rabbi Joel Levy, on
page 16 of this publication.
Excursus - On Kinyan and Kiddushin in
Masorti Discussion of Same-Sex Ceremonies
In the key responsum
accepted by the CJLS, the following sentence, appears; 'Commitment ceremonies that avoid the legal mechanisms of kiddushin
may be designed for gay and lesbian couples.' This sentence is also at
the heart of a paper on Partnership
Ceremonies for Same-Sex Couples authored by my colleague and senior rabbi
of the Masorti Movement in this country, Jonathan Wittenberg. Unfortunately this sentence
conflates two distinct ideas;
· One being
the legal mechanisms of traditional heterosexual ceremonies, most accurately
referred to as kinyan, but here confusingly associated with the term kiddushin.
· The second
being the notion of a sanctified exclusivity - which is the spiritual meaning
and outcome of the term kiddushin once freed of the legal mechanisms of kinyan.
It
is clear that the authors of this responsum are fully in favour of sanctified
exclusivity, so are, as I understand matters, every other supporter of these
ceremonies. When I use the term kiddushin in this paper, and advocate
for its inclusion in same-sex ceremonies, I refer to sanctified exclusivity, not
the legal mechanisms.
Excursus - New Jewish Lifecycle
Ceremonies
When has Judaism created a new
lifecycle-ritual? When hasn't Judaism created new life-cycle rituals. The Bar
Mitzvah is new,
the Bat Mitzvah is newer
- originating in 1922. The blessings of welcome shared with baby Jewish girls
are new. The heterosexual marriage undergoes a complete transformation between
Biblical and Rabbinic periods (a process clearly set out here).
In the former there was a mohar - a price paid by the bride's family to
the groom. In the latter there was a ketubah - a sum nominally placed in
escrow by the groom for the benefit of the bride. It is one of the greatest
truths of Rabbi Louis Jacobs' career's work, Judaism is a living
tree, continually shifting and evolving.
The Second
Difficult Question - How should New London Synagogue address the pain entailed
in making such a ceremony available?
In the December
2014 survey of members 56% of the 240 members who responded said they did want
to see these services offered. 19% said they had no opinion, or wanted to learn
more about the issue, 25% were opposed to seeing these services offered. We
are, just as in the case of the our conversations on the role of women, having
to weigh up questions around democracy - are all members equal in their claims
over the future of the Shul, what is the power of the status quo, and
the dangers and necessities of change. This is all complex.
Many of the
members opposed to our offering these services are already struggling with
changes in the Shul on the role of women, though there are many who are pro one
issue and opposed to the other. Many members opposed to this change are members
of long-standing (that is not to say that all long-standing members are opposed
to this change). I am aware that I take a very different stance from my august
predecessor, Rabbi Louis Jacobs in a number of his general writings on the
subject. I have a sympathy for members of the community who feel the community
is moving away from their expectations of membership leaving them to feel less
at home in their Jewish home. That is not easy.
On the other
hand I feel more clarity about the long-term future of the community on this
issue. I can't see the future of this community being one where we fail to
offer these ceremonies. Nor do I want New London to be the sort of community
that tells some of its members they are only half-welcome, in the way discussed
above.
This is a
change I believe we should make. The question of pace is one that is complex
but, partly because ceremonies will only directly impact on those who choose to
attend such a ceremony, I recommend that we begin offering ceremonies with
immediate effect. We should pursue the linking of civil marriage protection
also with immediate effect, although in practice it might take a while for
civil arrangements to be made. As far as announcements, recognition and support
of couples we should adopt a policy of warm unstinting support, again with
immediate effect.
Posts
