"Reunions should be about figuring out
who had a nose job and who got a trophy wife, and networking with the
geeky kid who’s now adorable and an exec at Google."

Hehe... leshon hara at an Orthodox high school reunion? Tamar, you're just making things worse!

Also, where's the halacha prohibiting asshattery? Are we talking Hillel here, or is it more recent?  I think some of the members of the Jewcy community could use a refresher on that particular halacha. (Does that make me sound like an asshole?) 

Got to wonder if they allowed alumni to bring their shiksa wives and girl friends...

So the gay alums are pissed because they're not accepted at an Orthodox Yeshiva?  They are down with a branch of Judaism which defines half the kids of intermarriage as not-MOT, but can't understand why their same-sex partners aren't welcome at the reunion? 

Look, I'm totally for homosexual equality and gay marriage.  I think my gay Rabbi is great.  But I think it's kind of hypocritical for people who practice Judaism in a way which builds so many walls around the community to get pissed when they find themselves on the other side.  These are the Orthodox community norms, and the Yeshiva alums are well aware of them.  They chose to live a different life when they got out into the wider world.  And in their adult lives, they either continued to attend Orthodox services and left their partners home, or they found people to worship with who accept them as G-d made them, i.e. Conservative or Reform Jews. 

So they want to support the Yeshiva, who says that my house is unclean because I have only one dishwasher, but they want my sympathy because they were welcome at the reunion, but their partners weren't?  Eat a bowl of matzah ball soup at my house, then we can talk, bubbelah.

Tamar, it is interesting that regarding your "friend" the porn star, you suggest that such impulses are disgusting and degrading and have a bad social impact while regarding homosexual impulses--all is fine and there is nothing wrong with it.  Would you care to explain such a contradiction?

The position of the Yeshiva makes perfect sense.  An alumnus who is homosexual should not be banned and the person at issue is allowed to come--to invite his homosexual partner would suggest that his union is acceptable and this cannot be allowed.  This is a common blind spot found on this blog time and again.  The fact that we all fall short of the standard does not condemn us--what will condemn us is if we rally against the standard.  Ergo, where we fall short of the law, it is best not to advertise and take pride in the fact and it is offensive to  lobby against the law.  For the Yeshiva (and for all fair-minded Jews who are instructed to not judge people, only actions), the actions of an alum are separate from the legitimacy of the person himself.

We all must contain our sexual impulses. Gay marriage is a very divisive issue and this is why it is much more problematic than other violations of the law.  Judaism's opposition to homosexuality is extensive and legendary and homosexuality is also a prohibition set forward in the Noahide laws.

Secular liberalism is supposedly "inclusive" but this is actually quite a deceit.  The kind of ethics displayed on this blog rarely hold a live and let live attitude and instead, there is a very harsh critique of Torah Judaism.  Live and let live is a calling card of religion and our American culture is quite happy to give homosexuals virtually the same freedoms as all other Americans, except rights which pertain to married couples as couples.  Jews have quite a lot to say about marriage, its value and its sanctity--to suggest that a Yeshiva should be silent about a sensation created on its own premises strains credulity.

Given your background, it is quite a surprise you might expect a different reaction. 

For those who take the side of the Yeshiva, you're on solid footing only if the Yeshiva did not allow shiksa wives and girlfriends to attend.  If non-jewish women were allowed to attend with their jewish male partners, the stance of the Yeshiva was hypocritical since they allowed one type of "forbidden" relationship couple to attend and not another...at least that's my thinking.

David--I'm not at all surprised.  But I'm not surprised when someone sets off a suicide bomb in Baghdad now.  Does that make it okay?  No.  You make an interesting point regarding why the partners shouldn't be allowed in, but I don't buy it.  I don't know why someone attending has to mean that the union is acceptable.  How many times have all of us gone out with friends, and one of our friends brings their significant other, who is incredibly annoying?  Going out for coffee, or having lunch, or going to a museum with someone doesn't have to imply anything about them.  I think it's clear that YofF doesn't condone homosexuality.  This seems like an unnecessary gesture.

Religion is arbitrary.  The way we practice it is even more arbitrary.  But it's their house, and their rules.  How many times have we seen posters at this website telling us that Reform Judaism is not real Judaism?  If you want to associate yourself with a branch of our religion which is so obsessed with excluding people, you can't expect sympathy when you find yourself excluded.  Of course same-sex partners should be invited.  But the Orthodox say a prayer thanking G-d every day that they weren't born women.  What can you expect?

David, I'd like to point out a few issues in your post.

First, I don't see any moral equivalence between pornography and homosexuality. The first is a perverse form of entertainment, the second is a way in which people love each other.  Homosexuality is only "immoral" because religions say it is; pornography doesn't need any underlying religious doctrine to be declared immoral, it is inherently so.

You write, "For the Yeshiva (and for all fair-minded Jews who are instructed to not
judge people, only actions), the actions of an alum are separate from
the legitimacy of the person himself." If we are only to judge others by their actions, then how can you argue that the Yeshiva can judge its homosexual alumni and their parters as unfit to be together at the reunion?  Did the Yeshiva observe their actions? Did they watch them violating the commandment against homosexual sex?  If not, then by what actions can they be judged?  As far as I know, there is no commandment against being homosexual, only against two men having sex with each other.

Believe me, I understand the issue and I understand why the Yeshiva is doing what it's doing (even if I disagree with it). But by your own standards, David, these gay alumni should be allowed to attend, as long as they don't have sex on the premises. 

...or in this instance, the closet.

while the Noah Feldman incident was on a different level of what Orthodox Judaism classifies as a "forbidden relationship", the sentiments are the same. Feldman married a non-Jew, yet no one told him not to bring her to the reunion. on the one hand, perhaps she should have stayed home with the kids. then maybe we could have avoided this whole New York Times mess in the first place. but on the other hand, Feldman had the balls to announce in a public forum what everyone already knew: the Orthodox are closed-minded. now, obviously this is not true of all Orthodox. if Matisyahu had a problem with non-Jews attending his concerts and buying his CD's, he wouldn't be nearly as successful as he is today. he obviously knew that alienating the majority of the population would be hazardous to his career.

so how come Y of F has issues with people bringing their same-sex (presumably Jewish, but possibly not) partners to a reunion while Noah Feldman had no trouble bringing his non-Jewish wife to the party? there's something that doesn't quite make sense here.

this article and the Noah Feldman piece should serve as a wake-up call to yeshivas everywhere who are still under the impression that all their students will remain the same once they exit the halls for good. one person who comes to mind in this instance is David Draiman, lead singer of the band Disturbed. he was born in Flatbush, but ended up relocating to Chicago and attending yeshiva there as well as in Jerusalem. look at him now. he's a bald angry Jew with a giant piece of metal protruding from his chin, yet he's raking in tons of cash and has a devoted legion of fans. he may be a pariah in the Orthodox community, but to the rest of the world he's a talented and highly respected individual. and even though it took a number of years for his parents to come to terms with his life choices, they're proud of his accomplishments. and whatever yeshiva he graduated from should also be proud. because how many Orthodox Jews go on to reach that kind of status? other than the aforementioned Matisyahu, not too many.

I'd attend Tamar's party.  Sounds far more amusing.

Went to the same high school as I did!  He's definitely invited the the reject reunion, too.  So now it's me, a porn star, Noah Feldman, a couple of gay guys from Flatbush and their partners, Faith, and David Draiman.  Sweet!

OK, Dan.  First you say pornography is a "perverse form of entertainment, then you say it is inherently immoral.  "Inherent" really cries out for a definition--by what standard is a photo of a loving couple enjoying sex together "immoral"?  I was not making any special moral equivalence between the two--I was asking Tamar to explain how she could condemn pornography and accept gay marriage?  The moral equivalence offered is between marriage and homosexual unions--this is to be rejected since they are very different things.  The defining aspect of marriage is that it asks a man to become one with his opposite, a woman (and vica versa). Your claim that there is something self-evident about images of sex between two people (most often heterosexual) as disgusting--I can only see pornography as a problem via a ":religious" perspective as you say. While pornography is a world-wide pleasure, homosexuality is marginalized  in many societies with no respect for God whatsoever.  Similarly, incest is considered a societal crime in God-centered cultures and also those with no knowledge of God.

If we compare homosexuality and pornography--both are abhorrent under Jewish norms and we ask which is worse--homosexaulity is clearly worse.  We cannot survive if the standard of sexual norms are made equivalent but we could clearly survive with pornography--our culture would be made more coarse not unacceptable.

The objection to a man bringing a non-Jewish date to such a reunion or even a non-Jewish spouse is not offensive on its face since we do not know in the first case if there is going to be a marriage and in the second, if there is going to be a conversion.  Feldman was so "in your face" about it--it created a sensation. If any particular alum fails to adhere to one bit of halacha or another--it cannot matter since the standards of the yeshiva rule and those shortcomings are not on display.  If, however, some crazy person wanted to say to all the attendees that he was not shomer shabbos and he found the whole thing wrong--he would likely be asked to leave. A gay alum is not screaming his lifestyle to others but the gay alum who is with his boyfriend is telling everyone--I disagree with the Jewish standard and I am at a Yeshiva event! He is, in effect, screaming his disagreement with Torah.  Again, we all fall short of the standard but we do so because we lack the time or the commitment--I fail to daven three times a day on many days--I do not state publicly that because I do not daven to the standard--the standard should be changed to meet my lifestyle.  

The Yeshiva does not need to see the action to infer the conduct.  The conduct is real and proclaimed--a demonstration is not desired or necessary.  You fail to address the fact that this conduct is not merely a technical violation of halacha--it is a fundamental one. The revelation that its participants are active homosexuals is a sure controversy and the Yeshiva must be free to protect its reputation. 

<i>If we compare homosexuality and pornography--both are abhorrent under
Jewish norms and we ask which is worse--homosexaulity (sic) is clearly
worse.  We cannot survive if the standard of sexual norms are made
equivalent but we could clearly survive with pornography--our culture
would be made more coarse not unacceptable.</i>

Was anyone here suggesting that everyone become queer?   Just as we couldn't survive as a species if everyone became asexual, neither is likely to happen.  Only about 3-10% (at a maximum) of people identify as gay and most likely have since the beginning of humanity.  Some psak blessing the boys of Flatbush is not going to up that number to any measurable degree.  

Basically, what I'm saying is if you're going to make an case - try to use some good arguments.

Even though I'm totally against the orthodox stance on homosexuality I can't deny they have a right to exclude who they want here. It would be one thing if the school didn't allow the gay alums to attend--that would be a ridiculous policy that punishes a violation of 1 Mitzvah while making no provision for the other 612. 

But bringing your gay partner isn't like coming to a reunion even though you don't keep kosher at home.  It's more analogous to bringing a bacon cheeseburger to the reunion, which I'm sure they would not allow.  Dan Garwood--your point that no one knows what the couple does behind closed doors is disingenuous.  The invitations are only directed at alumni and spouses.  When you present a person as your "spouse", it's pretty clear (at least in a very broad sense) what type of physical relationship you have with that person. 

All that being said, I agree completely with Baltimom that orthodox standards are ridiculous.  But the fault is with the standards themselves--not in the Yeshivah's desire to live up to them.

--Z

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pornography):
pornography
1
: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2
: material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
[emphasis mine]

Pornography isn't a couple taking nude photos of themselves for their own enjoyment. It's a perverse form of entertainment.  What you, David, described as "pornography" isn't immoral, what pornography actually is certainly is immoral. Pornography is not a photo of a loving couple enjoying sex, it's an exploitative, chauvinist, and thus immoral form of entertainment.  If you're asking how someone can accept one and not accept the other, you're stating moral equivalence: "I think they're both bad, but you don't; explain yourself."  This point is tangential, anyway.

"While pornography is a world-wide pleasure, homosexuality is
marginalized  in many societies with no respect for God whatsoever."  The fact that "everyone does it" doesn't make it morally right.  The fact that lots of people think it's wrong doesn't make it morally wrong.  In religiously-centered societies, religious doctrine is the reason why homosexuality is considered immoral (though this is not always the case).  Homosexuality gets a bad rap in non-religious societies because it is misunderstood.  It is commonly asserted that people fear things they don't understand. I'm not a sociologist or a psychologist, so I can only back that up by hearsay.  Regardless, as far as I know, homosexuality is not an issue in contemporary ethics.  I suspect that most ethicists would regard homosexuality as an ethically irrelevant feature of a person's life.  In today's society, homosexuality is bad because Judaism/Christianity/Islam/etc. says it is, not because it is self-evidently so.

David, let me request something of you.  Could you please participate in the following thought experiment: imagine you have no religion. Now, spend some time coming up with all the reasons you can think of that homosexuality is immoral.  Once you have that list, then we can discuss whether homosexuality is immoral in a vacuum.

I have my own theory as to why both homosexuality and incest are considered abhorrent in non-religious societies, but I'll wait for your response before going on about that.  I'll also hold off on responding to some of your other points until we get this sorted out.

Yes and no, zbird.  Certainly it's implied what the physical relationship is, but if David is going to argue that we should judge actions, not people, then its unfair to exclude people who are only expected to be sleeping with each other.  What if there is a couple which chooses to abide by the Biblical prohibition on gay sex?  It may be an unlikely proposition, but I'm sure it's not unheard of.  Should they be excluded because everyone thinks they do break that prohibition?

Isn't there a teaching that if you see a Jew eating a hamburger and drinking milk, you should assume he's drinking coconut milk unless you are absolutely certain otherwise?

First, Dan--we are instructed to judge to the positive and not to throw common sense out the window. Therefore, if one sees a righteous Rabbi walking out of McDonalds--it might be a proper reaction to assume he was using the bathroom. If one sees an affectionate homosexual couple in public, it is quite fair to assume that they are engaging in illicit sexual relations.
Faith-- misunderstood the position. The moral equivalence argument is right there in our face and this is the question. Gay sex understood as equivalent to heterosexual norms is the battle line with the secular left 100% in favor of the new mandate of moral equivalence. We offer a live and let live attitude with our standards intact. The response is that tolerance is not acceptable. Gay rights activists require a hecksher for their activity and they need to know that what they do in their bedrooms is equivalent to how a married couple performs--their unions have identical social, moral and political value. This is the battle. No longer can we offer open mindedness and tolerance. If there is something that on any level is not fully equivalent--there is shame and outrage leveled at the feet of "RELIGION."

The problem at hand is what happens to us when we abandon the standard of normative sex and marriage? When marriage ceases to be a special union of a man and a woman under proscribed terms and turns into a contract between two individuals of any sex--we have opened a grave danger. This is why even some prominent gay individuals oppose gay marriage. On a related matter, this is why I argue atheists should live in a religious society so their interests are better protected since under atheism, we all lose-ironically, especially the atheist. And for your other implied point--could loosening societal standards actually lead to more homosexuality--the answer is yes--absolutely. It is a stone cold fact since sexuality is a very fluid thing and not something rigid and fixed at birth.

I really like you Dan and I don't like giving you a hard time but you are clearly wrong on the facts concerning pornography.

The suggestion that pornography is to be defined as exploitative, perverse and immoral is not a fair reading on secular terms. On its own terms--pornography can be exploitative but then again, so can almost anything. You have a point if one is to go to third world nations or even in other parts of the world. Looking at the industry as it exists in the US and in most of Europe-- it is more than obvious that there is no exploitation and the participants would deny the accusation. Porn stars make fabulous incomes--at the very top--incomes that blow away those of our best Jewish financial planners. These women (and a few men)are more like pro athletes than the kind of exploited kids that we read about in Thailand.

To be clear--pornography is immoral from a Jewish perspective and hence from mine but surely not on secular terms. After all--if one listens to Larry Flynt or Howard Stern--these are true liberals in the best sense of the term so I would not trample on all your friends. This is why I am a bit surprised concerning your stand and that of Tamar's--it is so inconsistent with your general openness, liberality and need to be inclusive. You are so harsh and judgmental--thanks--no problem for me.

I must correct you that the definition of pornography you put forward is DEFENDED as perfectly NORMAL by the industry execs who put this stuff in every hotel room, cell phone and all over the internet. Pornography is so big and so mainstream--the list of companies that deal it in are household names. The execs are the supposed pillars of our society.

It is great that you don't like it Dan--I am pleased to stand with you. But if you insist that it is immoral on its face, you will get a real argument. Things have changed quickly, Dan so I invite you to be a religious conservative. Boy scouts were once considered exemplary--now they are perverts. Nudists were once considered freaks--now it is those of us that prefer to stay clothed who are thought of as freaks. Pornography has gone from a place where weirdos congregate--now is reported that over 40% of its consumers are women and a majority of them even married women.

If nice Jews get tattooed (I don't think so!!)--surely many, many nice people watch pornos. We need to oppose it but we can't pretend it is because it is obviously immoral.

I'll get back with you.

David, you didn't answer one of my questions. What, other than the Torah, makes homosexuality immoral?

"It is a stone cold fact since sexuality is a very fluid thing and not something rigid and fixed at birth." Uh, wrong. There's no conclusive evidence to support either side of this argument. You can believe whatever's been stuffed down your throat by dogmatists and bigots, but there's no comprehensive scientific understanding of homosexuality yet.

"When marriage ceases to be a special union of a man and a woman under proscribed terms and turns into a contract between two individuals of any sex--we have opened a grave danger." What, exactly, is that danger?

We can nitpick about the definition of pornography and whether it is immoral, but as I said above, it's tangential. Furthermore, the fact that I argue on secular terms is irrelevant. Sometimes secular morality and Jewish morality just agree. How is that so confusing?

I'll be honest, I don't know who Larry Flynt is, but I strongly dislike Howard Stern. He is not entertaining, and he is not someone I consider admirable and to be looked up to. In short, he is not my friend. Liberalism is not the belief that everyone should be given a carte blanche to do whatever they want, as you seem to imply. I have my liberal tendencies and I have my conservative tendencies. To claim that it is inconsistent for my stance on pornography to be illiberal and my stance on another issue to be liberal is disingenuous and meaningless. I'd ask you to refrain from pigeonholing my beliefs (or those of anyone else).

You are my hero. :)

I promised I would get back with you. Give me a second, please.

Regarding your objection that I am pigeon-holing you--I see you as a moderate and neither liberal or conservative. You made a fuss over the alleged immorality of pornography and I responded that we agree it is immoral but the majority does not. The fact that the majority disagrees does not make the majority correct--rather, it simply refutes your point that the immorality of pornography is self-evident. Your response is to back down and claim the matter is tangential. Fine, I will accept your concession on the point.

Now, regarding your question about what makes homosexuality immoral except for Torah--I think you wish me to alter the question since all morality for the Jew is based in Torah. I think you mean to ask if I could consider what would be wrong with homosexuality beyond Torah-based objections, which include prohibitions in the Noahide laws for all societies. Truly without Torah, I would be a radically different person. I would try to avoid sexual relationships with men since they were prone to have disease, including deadly ones and premature death is a good reason to avoid such unions--the relationships of themselves are selfish and incomplete and this is why they tend to be promiscuous. I would have to abandon any ambition of fathering children-- I would live a life with far less happiness and purpose. I have known many homosexuals and more than a few gay couples who have been together for a long time. Some appear happy on the surface but most are more troubled than normative marriage. The immoral part cannot be removed from the context of Torah so I don't know if this is the kind of "list" you are seeking from me.

The point remains that yes, of course, a Yeshiva is free to set its own standards of morality--in fact, one can easily argue that if a Yeshiva cannot set its own standards, no one can.

The danger is so obvious--it is in front of us right now. Homosexuality is not the cause of divorce in this country--this is not at all fair-minded. It is a contributing factor to our continuing societal disunity. No coincidence that our magazines, social trends, TV shows and movies have a significant input from the gay community--they have not made us miserable, rather, they have helped make us feel more comfortable about being more miserable. Our societal comfort with sexual misadventures has grown so far so fast--it is tough for people to even recognize the fact that there is morality in our sexual choices. I had to argue fiercely on this blog on a few other threads. The fact that Jews have a hard time believing they can do anything wrong sexually is in some significant part, thanks to the homosexual lobby---and their willing accomplices in the Jewish community and in the liberal world at large.

50 years ago, we had so much more cohesion as a society, marriage was a very stable institution--men and women alike stood with their families and did not act on their impulses to the detriment of their families. The man who stepped out would stand nearly alone among their peers--today--it is much more common place for a married woman to seek an affair and the magazines are there to tell her such an adventure may be therapeutic. We once did the right thing for each other, now, we follow our bliss. I keep asking by what standard, by what principle and no one answers since it is obvious standards and principles have been shot down and individual sensibilities have taken hold.

I will **NOT** blame homosexuals for the general trend. A vacuum of morality was been created and they simply entered the vacuum so now the sensibilities of gay activists have a stronger impact on much of society while the power and influence of religion has been shamed and gravely reduced.

We do not live in a country where homosexuals are treated as second-class citizens--indeed, I would not wish to live in such a country. Instead, we live in a country where homosexuals are fawned upon, our prime taste makers and preachers of what is and is not moral. A good test is to gauge the reaction when someone takes a pot shot at a religious Jew--the Jewish community is often times pretty silent-- this was the experience with a total innocent such as Yankel Rosenbaum and I could name a few others. By comparison-- note what happens when a conservative has some undiplomatic things to say about gay marriage, gay rights groups or homosexuals- the Jewish community explodes with anger and calls of bigotry.

OK, I have given out some raw meat. I might not be able to respond until Monday.

To Tamar: Yay! Keep writing interesting articles!

To David: Response forthcoming. I've asked a friend to help me respond to your non-religiously based objections to homosexuality, since I'm not an expert on those issues. The response will include a rather comprehensive explanation of why that's important.

Nobody going to the reunion is neccessarily condoning Orthodoxy. Heck, who says most of these kids were Orthodox when they went attended YofF?? The only thing proven when I attend a reunion is that my parents shelled out a bunch o' cash to keep me out of public school, and I managed to graduate - it does not prove that I buy the religion they are selling.
If I despise Orthodoxy does that mean I should not get to ask a social organizing committee of MY PEERS, (not my old hypocritical principal or exec. dir.) to keep their opinions to themselves (and I truly believe most alumni from any year would never have dreamt up this action, had the matter been left in their hands) and let me enjoy a peaceful evening with old friends?

p.s. I am an alum of YofF, I was Orthodox in HS, (got some grief from frum administrators for being too frum) and I look Orthodox now (tho I am not) and it would never occur to me to attend a reunion, but I still don't see why others should not be allowed to enjoy same.

...and invite whoever you want. Just make your own reunion. But if other people are going to the trouble to a make a reunion for you, you play by their rules.

--Z

Too much to respond to. David: who are these gay men you know and why are they so unhappy?? and why do i know so many happy ones -- at least as happy as their straight counterparts -- who have been in long-term relationships?? disease-laden? HIV/AIDS is growing among straight women at an alarming rate both here and in places like Africa. They contract it through heterosexual sex. and i guess since we're talking about yeshiva boys it's no surprise that lesbians aren't mentioned -- women! shocking! who don't need men!!

anyway, enough soapbox! i just want to make sure i can come to tamar's party!

"Instead, we live in a country where homosexuals are fawned upon, our
prime taste makers and preachers of what is and is not moral."

Can I come live wherever it is that you live? I never heard of such a place. Can I marry the person I love in a civil wedding there, one that grants me equal rights to married heterosexual couples? Can I be on my partner's health insurance? Can I adopt a child like everyone else? If my partner has a child and we are married, and my partner (G-d forbid) should die, would the state take away our child and declare me a legal stranger to her? If my partner is in the hospital, will the hospital inform me and let me in to visit? Can I donate blood to save someone's life? (Is donating blood kosher? I never thought to wonder before.)

I'd happily trade seeing bad stereotypes of me declared natural fashion experts on television to know that I couldn't (legally) be fired or denied housing or health care because someone thought that I acted gender-inappropriately, or that my love for my partner was disgusting. I don't think being considered a "tastemaker" is at all useful for me in any practical sense. It certainly doesn't lessen my risk of experiencing homophobic violence.

We have bigger things to worry about than whether Yeshiva High will let GLBT Jews bring our partners to the reunion. It's a dumb move, as you say, Tamar. They can do it, and we can talk about how stupid it is, with perfect freedom, thank G-d. And when we're done with that, we can spend some time on the real need for equal rights for GLBT Jews in the larger society, and David can tell me how to get that Birthright Homolandia ticket I've been praying for.

Homosexuals have equal rights as Americans--are homosexuals EQUAL in all ways--no.  Is this a problem?  In what respect might we look at ANY other behavior group and demand full and total equality? 

Equality of opportunity is the law of the land in America.  All things are not equal in every context--this is the necessity of LAW in the first place.  We have marriage laws in this nation and having a law means that it cannot be a free for all.  If Americans wish to change marriage laws in this nation--the nation can change marriage through the democratic process but since marriage is so foundational--it is not going to happen (except for judicial activism that short-circuits the process)and you can stop pointing a finger at so called conservative bigots and look across the board to people like Bill Clinton and so many on the Left who also see merit in the marriage standard.  The problem centers once again on having a standard and what this means.  Please tell me how we can have a law, any law, and not create a discrimination?  But the Left is loaded with calls for laws--laws against all kinds of things making all kinds of discriminations and most of these are based upon nothing foundational--indeed, nothing even relevant. 

It is quite a tale to suggest that gays are second class based upon tall tales about wills or hospital visits.  Anyone can write any will one pleases and please show me a case you know personally when a gay partner was somehow denied visitation?  Blood giving--there is no law against gay men but all blood must be screened.  Homophobic violence--huh?  In America?  When violence happens to me, it is violence--when it happens to a gay, it is a bias crime--this makes no sense.  Who is denied housing or health care based upon homosexuality in America today?

Finally, to repeat, yes gay couples have what appear to be average relationships on the surface--they are not the kind of relationship that is a marital unit.  No one anywhere in America would ever propose for a moment that a gay couple should not have the freedom to live together and achieve whatever measure of happiness that can be achieved.  Please--live together and be happy.  It cannot be defined as a marital unit since it is not comparable.  I am sorry to point out that some things are the same and some things are different.  Indeed, it was the point of older gay living to call oneself "queer" for a reason.  

Now the plan and purpose is the call the norm and the standard "queer" and the relationships of the homosexual the ideal.  The American electorate is willing to do almost anything for the homosexual community.  I believe that the nation's good will would also be better spent upholding our standards so that the nation at large might gain a better measure of health instead of searching vainly for some kind of discrimination in need of repair that is not there to be found. Alas, homosexuals are not suffering.  Marriage is in trouble in part because we have adopted the style of the gay lifestyle as our own.

...without actually answering anyone's question or providing a coherent argument:

Your first straw man (or men) are all those pesky liberals who oppose any kind of discrimination (in the most basic sense) against any qualities whatsoever. The notion that government cannot discriminate for any reason is patently absurd. Of course society will treat 5 grandmothers sitting on a park bench differently then they would treat 5 escaped felons. But no one here is arguing for taking non-discrimination to such an absurd degree. They are arguing that government should not discriminate based upon a person choosing to have sexual relationships with people of their own sex.

Next distraction: That America can change marriage through the democratic process but hasn't, except through "judicial activism." Frankly, I sympathize with the notion that certain societal changes, even if desirable, should not be imposed by judicial fiat. And in retrospect I think the Massachusetts Supreme Court did the nation a disservice, if only because they helped Bush get reelected. But once again, no one here is arguing for a judicially imposed regime that undermines the democratic process. In fact, by posting to this blog, the participants here are, in their own small ways, trying to use a democratic process to change the law. They present arguments as to why the law should be changed. The simple fact that the "democratic process" has not yet come around to their views is not an argument against making such changes to the law.

Third non-argument: That hospital visitation rights for gays is not a problem if you don't know anyone who's been denied those rights. Funny measure of a law's utility. On that basis, we should all oppose laws banning partial birth abortion, unless we know someone who's had one. I don't know anyone who's been denied visitation rights because they are gay but the law is clearly structured in a way that could deny such rights. Visitation is often restricted to family members. As long as gays cannot marry (or at least join in state sponsored civil unions), they are not "family" in the eyes of the law. If you think that's okay, please tell us why, but don't pretend the law doesn't have problems just because you don't know anyone who's suffered as a result of it.

Finally, you note that "some things are the same and some things are different," which is of course a truism. But the operative question here is not whether gays and straights are "different," but whether that difference should form the basis of different treatment under the law in certain circumstances--marriage, family visitation, military service, blood donations, etc. I don't deny that in specific contexts, you can conceivably make a convincing argument showing why the differences between gay and straight should lead to different treatment under the law. But to simply recite the differences is no argument at all.

As an aside: The law expressly discriminates against gay men (or at least non-abstinent gay men) who wish to donate blood by forbidding donations by men who have had sex with other men within a certain period of time. IMO, this is a rare circumstance where discrimination based on sexual orientation is warranted, because HIV antibodies are undetectable within a certain period of time after first exposure, and men having sex with other men have a high risk of HIV exposure.

--Z

Please direct me to where I have not been responsive.

I am pleased you applaud the right of blood banks to protect the nation's blood supply and identify a risk group.  That you applaud such discrimination is interesting and sets a standard.  Fine-- let's go with it.

Your first complaint ignored my point completely where I stated that the left is crazed to discriminate and force laws down our throats which are patently absurd and then, when it comes to something which deserves specificity--they want brain dead "equality."  There is almost never argument that says why gay marriage must be accepted--there is simply the claim that there must be equality, equal is equal, gay sex is the same as heterosexual sex, what is good for one couple must be extended--just because. Our society does not discriminate against free associations--two men or a group of men or two women are free to do as they choose--the issue is marriage and what our government is going to call a proper marriage.  Go ahead and speak to the topic.

If you think no one is arguing for judicial activism you are surely off the mark.  This is precisely the style of gay activism to FORCE their point of view on the rest of society.  They have not a hope of achieving their goal democratically and it is fine to make the argument over time.  I applaud an open exchange of ideas and if America wants gay marriage democratically, just as they want "progressive" taxation where I pay a much higher rate of tax than my employees--I will not be here to say that this is wrong.  I would use the democratic process to get another vote along with those who agree that changing the terms of marriage is a bad idea.  Please respond to the facts--the battleground is strongly in the courts.

If it is possible that a hospital will deny visitation to someone who is a "significant other"-- this is not an issue that demands intervention by the government since this is not a civil right or even a "discrimination."  My point is that one would be very hard pressed to find such a hospital.  Your analogy concerning partial birth abortion has  no merit since it is a form of abortion that has been practiced and it is a procedure that the legislature can make illegal since this involves the killing of a human being. A private hospital may have policies that are objectionable and it is not for the government to intervene.  No doubt, a good complaint to the hospital would fix the problem.  To save the lives of innocent children is precisely what the government should be doing--so your analogy is off base.

Your admission that the blood of a gay man should be handled differently than the blood of a married man--or single heterosexual man-- is an ample admission. 

Gay couples easily mingle with the rest of us and this is no crime.  Such coupling is not marital since it fails to address the essential difference between the sexes and fails to allow for the normal creation of children which is such a societal need.  Gay unions are private and personal--marriage is a religious rite in the majority and no religion has sanctioned gay marriage (although some denominations have).  Marriage is also a public institution and it seems to me that homosexuals are far better protected under terms of freedom and privacy than under the terms and regulations of public scrutiny.  

Sorry, Z--I see no distractions or straw men in my MY handling of the topic. 

There are more than 1400 rights federally guaranteed--meaning you can access them in any state, not just the one you were married in--to married heterosexual couples that are not granted to gay couples, including those registered as domestic partners. Gay people must spend years and thousands of dollars in legal fees to access (in even one state, and that only a state that recognizes domestic partnership) some of the same rights that heterosexual couples can get for about $100 and an hour in a county clerk's office. These rights include immigration rights, hospital visitation, recognition of parental status (If my partner has a child from a previous marriage, and I am helping them raise the child, and my partner should G-d forbid die, then despite the fact that our child may recognize me as a parent, we are legally considered strangers, and I would have no visitation rights let alone adoption consideration), divorce process, retirement benefits, shared health care plan... but I see I'm losing your interest. Once this lengthy and expensive process is over, if my job or my partner's job should require us to move to another state, poof! All those legal rights and responsibilities have just vanished. We will have to start all over again, and that's if it's any possibility at all in the state we've moved to. That's a great way to ensure that gay people can never build enough wealth to take care of ourselves, and will be on the mercy of social security when we are old and sick... of course my partner's pension won't apply to me either.

Yes, I know gay people who have been denied visitation with their partners, in public hospitals. Public hospitals generally have policies that only someone's legally married spouse or nuclear family member can visit them in the ICU. That clearly excludes gay partners. However, as zbird points out, personal knowledge of actual cases is not a valid consideration; someone's heterosexual spouse has that legal right anywhere. Perhaps in a hospital in the city I live in now, chances are I would be let in to see my partner by a sympathetic nurse. But whether the person I love dies without seeing my face one last time should not be up to the whim of one stranger.

That a denomination doesn't have huge enough doctrinal differences from another denomination to be called its own religion doesn't mean their position on marriage should be disregarded. My shul marries same sex couples because it is part of how we understand our faith. The Christian fundies who run our country say we can't do that. Who are the Christians to tell us how to practice our faith, or to say that our marriage is not legally valid? We can have a legitimate conversation about Jewish marriage with fellow Jews, within our denomination and outside it, but the Christian Right has no place in that discussion for us. And certainly, civil marriage should be extended to everyone regardless of their religion, or lack thereof.

As far as the blood donation is concerned, if I am a gay man in a monogamous relationship for ten years and I use condoms even with my long term partner, I am still prohibited from donating blood EVER, not just within the period of elevated risk, despite the fact that I am at lower risk for carrying HIV than a promiscuous heterosexual of either sex. The metric for determining risk needs to be a bit more nuanced than "man who has ever had sex with a man? or woman who has ever had sex with a man who has had sex with a man? Get out of here!" Especially given that it provides no such additional protection from heterosexuals. Incidentally, the period durig which HIV infection cannot be detected has narrowed to less than two weeks, and initial infection with HIV during that time is detectable by fever, which bars a person from donating blood anyway. More info here: http://www.libertyeducationforum.org/downloads/1h_whtpa_pbl00.pdf

Gay people are still subject to increased risk of violence in the US directed at us because we are gay. The FBI reported that in 2006 hate crimes against gay people rose from 14% to 16% of total hate crimes. Specifically, there were 1,195 reported incidents of hate crime against someone motivated by perceptions of their sexual orientation (gender identity and expression is not considered by the FBI). For context, there were 967 reported incidents of antisemitic hate crime. All violence is wrong. I should especially not be at increased risk for violence because of who I love, any more than I should be at increased risk of violence for wearing a kippah. You can find that information here: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/table1.html

Certainly some things are quite different. No one knows that better than I, who have experienced both kinds of relationships. But the differences do not make the love my partner and I feel any less worthy of recognition and provision under law than the love you may feel for your own partner, if you have one.

David,

 I'll respond  to your points in order:

 1.   You complain that "there is almost never argument that says why gay marriage must be accepted."  I think Cavanaugh has presented exactly such an argument.  In short, gays and lesbians (and their children) are needlessly suffering because they cannot marry.  Now the burden is on you to show what overriding public concern would outweigh the fact that, without gay marriage, such suffering is inevitable.  In response to this second question, the right wing has presented endless hysterics about how gay marriage will mean the downfall of heterosexual marriage, religion, apple pie, and everything good and wholesome that we love about America.  The problem (okay--one of many problems) with these paranoid scenarios is that it's already 2008.   Many European countries (along with Canada and Massachusetts) have allowed gay marriage for years, and even more jurisdictions recognize some sort of civil union.  So far I've seen no evidence that the presence of gay marriage has had any effect on heterosexual marriage or on any other measure of happiness, wholesomeness, peace, or anything else that we hold near and dear.  If you have evidence to the contrary I'm all ears.  But please spare us the lectures about the end of civilization, etc., unless you have any data to back up your claims.  

 2.     I never said that no one is arguing for judicial activism--I said no one here is arguing for judicial activism.  In case I wasn't totally clear, I was referring to the discussion happening in this blog post about the merits of gay marriage.  No one in this blog post was talking about whether gay marriage should be judicially imposed until you brought it up, which is why I say you are changing the subject rather than addressing other commentators' "democratic" arguments.

3.    I'm not really sure what your next point is.  Originally you tried to imply that hospital visitation is not an issue because no one is denied such visitation rights.  Now you seem to acknowledge that people can actually be denied those rights but say this is not government's concern because hospitals can make their own rules.  Apart from Cavanaugh's completely valid argument that many hospitals are public, I would point out that marriage is necessary to allow for hospital visitation because hospitals have a legitimate interest in restricting visitors.  The health of a patient (and the patients who might share the same hallway) can be jeopardized if every patient's "friend", "lover", "partner", etc. were allowed to visit outside of regular visiting hours.  That's why hospital rules restrict visitors to people who have specific, biologically or legally-defined relationships with the patient (parent, son, daughter, spouse, etc.).  Hospitals have a legitimate reason for not making special rules for homosexual partners to visit--they don't want to investigate every visitor to determine if that visitor is "close" or "special" enough to the patient to merit the same treatment as a spouse.  That's where gay marriage could be so helpful--if the gay partner can say he/she is the patient's spouse, then the partner will be treated no differently than any other spouse.  

I'll add that the above reasoning makes a good argument for gay marriage in  various contexts--sure, gays can hire lawyers to draft contracts that will give them many of the rights and obligations of marriage--but it will cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars and force them to rewrite/renegotiate the wheel every time, rather than just sign up for a pre-established program.

 Finally, your last paragraph doesn't seem to have any point.  First you state that no religion recognizes gay marriage without saying why that should matter to a secular government's laws.  I don't think any religion says much about the home mortgage deduction, but that's not a valid reason to remove it from the tax code.  We're talking about civil marriage here. I'm not saying that Pat Robertson has to marry gays in his church.

Then you say that homosexual relations are private while marriage is a public institution.  Well, yes.  That's the whole reason why gays want marriage--to enjoy all the public benefits that come with it, as Cavanaugh so nicely outlined. 

--Z

I'm not even going to argue with you. I'm just going to sensuously rub your trembling body with exquisite tropical oils.

"Based on the criteria set out by Yeshiva of Flatbush, no assholes should be admitted, because being an asshole is non-Halachic. But something tells me the assholes of the class didn’t get letters explaining that until they could certify non-assholiness they couldn’t attend."

You've got to be kidding me.

 

I've heard the prayer translated as blessing Gd (novel concept, that) even though I (male) wasn't made a women.  You know how Hebrew is with prepositional phrases and extra clauses and whatnot.  Sort of makes the whole thing a bit Rorshachy.