Religion & Beliefs
Yeshiva of Flatbush: No Homos At the Reunion
By Tamar Fox / January 23, 2008
Last week both the Forward and the Jewish Week reported on a scandal at Yeshiva of Flatbush, a prestigious Modern Orthodox school. In December the school hosted a ten-year reunion for the class of 1997, but openly gay graduates were sent a letter explaining that they couldn’t bring their partners to the reunion. Specifically, the letter said:
The Director of our Alumni Association forwarded your request to bring your partner with you to the 10th anniversary reunion this coming Saturday night. As previously stated to you, we welcome your attendance and look forward to your participation. However, your partner cannot attend. The policy of the school and that is enforced is that only graduates and their spouses (engagements are recognized) are invited. We cannot acknowledge or define your partner relationship as one that falls under this policy. We kindly ask you to respect and follow our Yeshivah’s policy and attend the reunion without your partner.Â
Some gay graduates chose not to attend. Others created a Facebook group called "Open Flatbush Reunions – End Censorship and Alumni Profiling" which now has over 330 members, including, according to the Jewish Week “a Nobel Prize winner who attended the school over six decades ago and a former principal of the school, Rabbi Alan Stadtmauer, who resigned from his position in 2004 as he came to terms with being gay himself.” The best response I’ve seen so far is on Jewschool, where a gay alum of the Yeshiva of Flatbush writes about why and how the school is being hypocritical. My favorite passage:
Until this particular issue came up however, everyone was welcome at the high school reunion. There was no “tsitsiss check” or religious litmus test, no approved favorite movie or banned political opinion. People showed up, they brought guests, they shmoozed and ate and re-connected with their classmates. It didn’t matter what you named your kids. And it didn’t matter what halacha you may have broken in your life. Nobody asked you to testify as to which hashgacha certified your existence as kosher. So when Mr. Eisenberg, the administrator, claims that “there are standards of halacha that guide the Orthodox community. All of our graduates are welcome to attend our reunion but only those involved in recognized halachic relationships may register to attend as a couple,” I don’t buy it. The standards of halacha that guide the Orthodox community surely exist — but they cover a lot more than the gender of who you date and marry. Modesty rules. Ethical business rules. Rules for sabbath observance. Sexual practices of heterosexual couples.
POST A COMMENT
I can’t believe I am reading this, a college reunion is about fining all the graduates and gather them in a beautiful event. Why are gay people excluded from the reunion as long as they graduated that school? This is not supposed to happen, an orthodox school should also teach about acceptance and tollerance, an orthodox school is supposed to make people better. When we had our college reunion we spent months to find people and we did everything we could to get them all to be present, that’s the point of the event.
"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.
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. Â
 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. Â
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.Â
–Z
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.
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.Â
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. Â
Sorry, Z–I see no distractions or straw men in my MY handling of the topic.Â
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?Â
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.Â
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. Â
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.
…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
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.
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.
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).
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.
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pornography):
pornography
1
:Â the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2
:Â 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.
<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. Â
Basically, what I'm saying is if you're going to make an case – try to use some good arguments.
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!
I'd attend Tamar's party. Sounds far more amusing.
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.Â
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?
"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?)Â
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!