One of the Masorti Rabbis in Jerusalem, had a group of Rabbis visiting his congregation just before the Rabbinical Assembly convention. He took the opportunity to tell his colleagues that they need to teach more mitzvot to the members of our congregations. He noted that as the Orthodox groups shift farther to the right, we should take up the name and position of “modern orthodox” and leave behind the name “Conservative Judaism”. He said we should be teaching our congregations the real Judaism that can be found when we practice more mitzvot and more rituals.
I was troubled by his comments because I do not think he was seeing the full picture. I do not believe that performing rituals alone will make a more committed, traditional Jew.
A few months ago, I heard a debate between Rabbi Neil Gillman and Rabbi Joel Roth. Both are professors at the Jewish Theological Seminary but they teach from different sides of the Conservative spectrum. Rabbi Roth represented the traditional camp, explaining that the Jewish Legal system is designed to permit certain kinds of changes and not others. In the beginning there is Halacha, Jewish Law, and then one has to work with the system to resolve whatever issues modern living creates. Rabbi Gillman took a different track. He stated that first there has to be a reason for the Mitzvah. It should be impossible for there to be a Jewish Law that is immoral. If the Halacha we have today becomes identified as immoral or unethical at its core, then that law needs to be changed no matter what the implications inside the legal system may be. Rabbis Gillman and Roth debated that night and it ended in a draw, no minds were changed either way. I thought to myself, they are both right, but are speaking to different audiences. For those outside the Halachic system, Rabbi Gillman offers a way in. For those who come from a Halachic background, Rabbi Roth presents the most effective way to grow Jewishly. I just don’t see how both sides can work together. Yet our movement must make room for both approaches.
We live in an age where the usual Jewish denominations no longer really mean anything to the Jews of North America. Jews in this country change congregations for all kinds of reasons but theology is not usually considered. Modern Jews may leave a congregation if they have a disagreement with the Rabbi, if they move away, if they need a different kind of school, if they are looking for new friends. These are the most common reasons a family will move from one congregation to another. Theological discussions don’t usually come into the picture. Sometimes someone will not feel comfortable with the way one congregation performs one ritual or another but for the most part, North American Jews move pretty freely from one synagogue to another.
It is the Roth/Gillman debate that, in my opinion, is the real division in Judaism here in the United States. Some Jews are looking for a place where there is a great deal of respect for the Halachic system. They want to do more and more Mitzvot and they understand that the meaning for the rituals will come once they are fully into living as Jews. The Halachic system will, when fully engaged, bring structure, meaning and direction into the lives of those so dedicated. Mitzvot and modernity, tradition and change, ritual and being open to new ideas are what this approach is all about. Not everything may be possible, but when one is committed to the system, we do what we can and learn to live with what we cannot do.
But for those outside the system, the Gillman approach makes more sense. What are we doing? Why are we doing that? What does it mean? These are all important questions to be asked before one begins a ritual life. For example, a person would see someone wearing tephillin and be moved to consider wearing tephillin themselves if they thought that the person they are looking at, is in a spiritual place that they, the newcomer, wants to achieve. Only later, the newcomer would realize all the implications that come when one wears tephillin on a regular basis.
But there are also times when the law no longer represents a moral or ethical position, when the gap between what is permitted and prohibited is so great that only something outside the legal system can help us bring the system back to a sensible place. Something needs to be done or there is a danger that Jews will reject the entire system without giving it a second look.
One such issue might be the acceptance/creation of lifecycle rituals for gay and lesbian Jews. To exclude homosexual Jews from Jewish ritual is considered to be wrong by many modern, serious Jews. Such Jews claim that if we understand the Torah to say that homosexual Jews should be excluded, then we must not be understanding the Torah correctly. If these laws can’t be changed to bring gay and lesbian Jews fully into the Jewish people, then what is the use for Jewish Law at all? A Halacha that excludes Jews can’t be a moral law and if Jewish Law can’t be moral, than what use is it to a modern Jew?
We are a wide tent that includes Jews that are all over the ritual spectrum. What unites us is that we are still searching for meaning in our lives, that what we do should not be useless and futile. There is much in Judaism, in the ritual and Halacha that can give purpose and meaning to life. I don’t believe that we can teach this to our fellow Jews without offering meaning and reasons for why we do what we do. And when, issues like gender and sexual orientation threaten to throw the whole system into the realm of irrelevance, bold changes are needed. Even if such changes occasionally take us outside the official framework of the Halachic system.
I don’t think that what our movement needs is “orthodoxy”. I think we should stay with “massorti” (traditional) Judaism or “Conservative” Judaism, where we seek to “conserve” the tradition and live in the modern world. I understand that a legal system is what gives Judaism its continuity with generations in the past, but without the ability to transcend the system from time to time, we will lose our connection with Jews in the future. Halacha is not a perfect system. We need to remember that and not be afraid to act lest Judaism lose all relevance in the modern world.

The war in Gaza is over, except for the recriminations and Monday morning quarterbacking.

• Did Israel have the right to start this fight? I think so. In fact I don’t think they started this fight at all. Hamas resumed intense rocket attacks and Israel responded.

• Did Israel force Hamas to attack with their border closings? It seems hard for me to understand how the border closings hurt Hamas and the people of Gaza. The closings did not seem to stop the flow of rockets and ammunition into Gaza. The same tunnels used to rearm Hamas could have been used to bring in needed supplies. That they chose to use them for arms smuggling and not to help the people is the terrorist way.

• Did too many civilians get hurt? Yes.

• Was that Israel’s fault? Some may turn out to be Israel’s fault. There were even some friendly fire deaths early on in the war. I think it is also clear that Hamas used civilians as human shields. I also believe that in the coming days we will see that the entire number of deaths claimed by Hamas is inflated and the real numbers are much less. Any civilian death is a tragedy for the family and for both countries. Israel did not purposely attack civilians. Hamas rockets were not targeting military installations. They targeted cities and towns in southern Israel.

• Did Israel achieve anything with this war? That is a question for diplomats. We will see how the future will shape up as both sides now try to get the most from this war.

I have to admit that I never seem to understand the Palestinian side of their relationship with Israel. If the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect different results, then the leaders of Hamas certainly seem to be unbalanced. There was a disconnect this time in Hamas between the leadership hiding in Damascus and those on the ground in Gaza. Damascus wanted to fight on, but those in Gaza had enough. I think there will be a more practical ceasefire between Hamas and Israel this time and Hamas has lost a lot in this war. Fatah, their rivals, will patrol the Rafah crossing. Europeans will patrol the border looking for violations of the ceasefire, meaning smuggling tunnels. The United States will provide Egypt with technology to help them find and destroy future tunnels and those civilians who were used as human shields will take a long time to trust Hamas again. Hamas understands that they had no support from other Arab countries (except maybe Iran) and even Hezbollah, who does Iran’s dirty work, did not intervene to help Hamas.

But Israel also has not come away unscathed. For now, the rockets have stopped and that makes Israeli life easier. But as Gaza is opened to the flow of goods and services, Israel will wonder how much the EU will really intervene and stop the flow of ammunition and rockets into Gaza. Great Britain and the United States are talking about interdicting the arms as they leave Iran, but we will see how that will work out. Egypt has a problem with the Bedouins. They make a good living smuggling in the desert and they can respond with their own acts of terror (the Sharm el Sheik hotel bombings) if their livelihood is disrupted. It is unlikely Egypt will take on the Bedouins anytime soon. Gaza is not secure from terrorism and the only alternative is for Israel to take over Gaza again. It is not a very good choice for Israel.

In my opinion Israel needs to start its own counter insurgency program. Instead of fighting the Palestinians, they need to work to improve their lot, in Israel and in the West Bank and Gaza. Arab sections of Israel are second class to the nearby Jewish neighborhoods. Investing in Israel’s Arabs may be the way to start a new relationship with those we usually consider enemies. If Israel’s Arabs had a greater stake in Israel’s economic growth, perhaps they would cut the Jewish State a break.

One thing is certain; war will not bring a lasting peace to this part of the world. It will take the patient work of dedicated diplomats to create a framework for peace and there has to be willing parties on both sides, to stop acts of incitement that undermine whatever progress has been made. War may get the attention, but behind the scenes, it is quiet diplomacy that will bring about the changes needed to resolve the tough differences that still exist between Israeli and Palestinian.

May the two sides make peace and not war.

Brenda Horowitz is a good friend and while she does not post commentary to me often, when she does, I always have to pause to reflect on the issues she raises. She sent me the following comments and I have asked her permission to share them on my blog.

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about the issues that you raised in your latest Jewish Common Sense blog. I think part of what’s holding back even those (few) congregations who are theoretically open to and able to do these things is the whole business model problem. After all, these efforts are not likely, especially in the short-term, to generate new paid members or other revenue streams for the host site. And while vibrancy and continuity are certainly on almost everyone’s checklist for their goals for their congregations, it’s far from certain that these efforts would actually bring more bodies (never mind paying ones) into the building . . . although it’s almost equally certain that continuing with the status quo will not!

Specifically, given the global nature of social networking and online education, why would I turn to my local synagogue for these programs when I could just as easily find and participate in them through a synagogue or other Jewish institution in New York or LA or Cleveland or Jerusalem? And why should my local synagogue make the investment in infrastructure and technology and manpower when those who are availing themselves of what I create are just as likely to live so far away and never contribute back to or affiliate with or directly benefit my synagogue?

Is it truly necessary or desirable or beneficial or an efficient use of community resources to have every (or even most or many) of our synagogues offering these programs individually, or is there some way to leverage each other’s contributions and create some type of economies of scale in these endeavors? How much of what we’re trying to accomplish is effectively “industry marketing” (Conservative Judaism or even Judaism in general), and how much is “product marketing” (our specific program or institution)? What can we learn from other industries about the industry marketing component? (Remember the national dairy boards’ “Got Milk” advertisement?)

How should or can we join together? How should or can we specialize? These are some of the interesting questions and discussions that need to be (and hopefully are) taking place at the institutional, communal, and movement levels. I would love to hear more of your thoughts on these issues.

Regards,– Brenda Horowitz

I only wish that what makes synagogues move slowly in the area of technology is a business model issue. I would love to have a conversation with congregations about business models and budgets. Far too often the real issues are money spent on “programs” and how will we raise the money for new technology. I have found that synagogues get stuck on where they are and forget (or get lazy) and no longer continue the outreach that helped the congregation grow in the first place. I am not being cynical here. The problem that many non-profits have is that they develop a core of funders and members and then, when they reach a good place, suspend the outreach that made it all possible. It is then that they begin to die. Without new members to replace those who move away, leave for other organizations and those who die, the membership begins to decrease. Funders are developed; they do not grow on trees. How many synagogues fail to continue to work with younger members to help them grow into major funders?

The reality is that outreach work today depends on a web presence. Young people, those who are 25-35 depend on the internet for their entire social life. They invite others to parties, find out the latest information and look for good ideas on the internet. These are young professionals with money to donate and synagogues are invisible to them because we have no web presence or a poor one that does not invite them into the fold. Parents today need the web because they have little time during the day to take care of business matters. They pay bills online, exchange email, share pictures and shop online well after most synagogue offices are closed. They often don’t go online until the children are in bed and they have the time (and access to the computer). Our entire communication structure with our current members as well as outreach to people who may be moving to the community and those who are ready to find a synagogue depends on our web presence. We will also see that holding on to these members will increasingly depend on being able to reach them online.

Rather than see the online resources available from distant organizations as a problem, synagogues should see this as an enhancement for their own local programs. We need to link our sites to those that share our outlook and point of view. Conservative Judaism is far behind many other more fundamentalist Jewish groups and we need to pool together and expand the content of Conservative Judaism online. But while it is possible to get information online from places all over the world, there will always be a need for a local presence as a source for that information (links) and as a personal place where the people know your name, your needs and can link you up with others who are on a similar path, to share experiences in a more personal way than can be done online. As we grow in understanding and in ritual, we want to have the personal contact that is needed to really understand. Jewish living is an art, not a science, and sharing a Shabbat meal, celebrating holidays together and talking about prayer are still strong ways to make Jewish Ritual our own. One parent recently asked me what we could do to make parents in our schools more connected to the congregation. I replied that if we increase the rituals they do in their own homes, we can foster a connection with the synagogue since Judaism can’t be done alone for long. We need the social contact to refine our practice and to learn what will work and what will not work for our families. Some of this can be done online, but some needs the sharing of ideas and practices face to face.

I think that there is room for shared community resources. A synagogue should link to sites from the Jewish Theological Seminary, United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism, the Woman’s League for Conservative Judaism, The Federation of Jewish Men’s Clubs, Masorti, Mercaz and the World Council of Synagogues. United Synagogue already has a hosting service for those congregations who want to establish websites. It would be nice if they were to offer templates for synagogues to get online faster but it is a start. There are more and more online resources from Conservative Jewish sites and the synagogue website should be the first place to go to find reliable Jewish advice and learning. We are not there yet.

Beyond “industry marketing” synagogues need to have a web presence just to show up on the community radar. On a local level, while there are many social and political venues for seeking spirituality and finding meaning in life, a synagogue is still the best place to focus our efforts. Not every synagogue can help everyone in their search, but it can be a base out of which we can explore the world to help us in our searching. Many synagogues today try to out-program the rest of the world. But we are unique in important ways that people often forget, burying their spiritual search under a pursuit of “happiness” or some material venture. Real peace comes from being a part of a community that aspires to find a religious path in life. We can help people grow spiritually and grow our religious communities, but we will need to communicate who we are and what we are about better, and that means an investment in technology.

Congregations are now trying to address these needs. I am leaning these days to change the position of “program director” or “communication director” into a technology director. This is a start but it would be helpful if there was direction from the national movement. We need to call upon United Synagogue, both nationally and regionally, to support congregations as they seek to establish a presence on the internet.

Brenda, these are great questions you ask, but there is much to do before congregations can even ask themselves the questions you raise.

I got a great compliment from my daughter a few days ago. She said that I was more technologically savvy than most other Rabbis. I write blogs, I have a website, I can navigate the web and I understand social networking and messaging. Most of the time, my daughter, the soon to be Rabbi, thinks that I don’t understand what Jews today want so I am happy when she admits that there are things that I do right in my rabbinate.

Most of our discussions focus on young, professional Jews and their needs and why the usual synagogue experience just doesn’t cut it. I have to admit that she is usually right. She is a “member” of Kehillat Hadar, the “independent” minyan here in New York City. She shares with me the concerns of its leadership core and how they are seeking out new answers to the issues that the Minyan encounters. There can be hundreds of young Jews at Shabbat Services in the basement of the church in which they meet.

I am member of Anshe Chesed. It is the home of several minyanim, each with its own flavor and style. And yet, Hadar is not part of their constellation, and the members of each minyan at Anshe Chesed are not attracting the same demographic. Shabbat at Anshe Chesed is dynamic and participatory. Still it is not enough to attract the Jewish Young Professionals that frequent Hadar. I know that young Jewish professionals are not the entire Jewish community. There are many different age and denominational groups in Judaism, but there is a sense in the larger community that without the young Jews, the institutions will have a limited lifespan.

So my colleagues, some older, some younger, bemoan the fact that synagogues are not what they used to be. Cantors are struggling with ritual music. Sisterhood and Men’s Clubs can’t seem to attract new leadership. Synagogue boards are aging and young people are not yet ready to take on the challenge of running and fundraising for a congregation. Clearly there is a major transformation in synagogue life that is taking place, and Rabbis, Cantors and Synagogue Leadership ignore it at their own peril.

It is not that there was no warning about the changes. Demographics were the first indication that things were going to be different soon. Young Jews were marrying later, ten years later, and having children ten years later. They were not moving to the suburbs but were staying in urban downtown apartments so they could be near work and the nightlife.

Star and Synagogue 2000/3000 started ten years ago to experiment with different models of congregational life and few paid any attention. Even today, I know colleagues who see the good things that have come from their work, but insist that “It could never work here.”
My friend and colleague Rabbi Jack Moline of Alexandria, VA once admonished Rabbis who were bemoaning the fact that their synagogues were not the kind of places they would want to join if they were free to join a synagogue. He told them that if they were unhappy with their congregation then they needed to make the changes necessary to make it the kind of place where they would be proud to pray. Many have not heeded his advice.

I have written about Conservative congregations who are struggling with the question of whether or not to have instrumental music at Shabbat Services. It is the wrong question. The real issue is not whether or not to have instruments but the kind of music they are playing. If the music is right, it will not matter whether or not there are instruments. Unfortunately the music remains the same and even older Jews find themselves less interested in services.

I was in a discussion with a friend the other day about the big three auto makers who need a loan from the Federal Government but it is looking like they will not get it all. They have been behind the curve for so many years that so many people would rather they fail and start the entire auto industry over again. Even with all the people who would be out of work, it would be better for them to fail than to have people keep working at jobs that are doomed to the dustbin of history. My friend noted that the lesson here is not just for the auto industry. It is a story that we need to be aware of in the Jewish community as well. The “big three” sell cars nobody wants; we are selling a faith that people need but packaging it, Pro Israel, fight anti-Semitism, we are all responsible for each other, we need to stand together, etc., with slogans that just don’t cut it anymore for young Jews. There is a major change going on in Jewish life and if we Rabbis can’t change, if the community can’t change, then we will fade into history.

At least the car companies took surveys to see what the coveted young demographic wanted in a car. We may think that many of the newer models are ugly and strange, but that is what sells to the people they are targeting. We are still targeting our congregations to married couples with children. We fail when it comes to younger singles and married without children. We also fail when it comes to intermarried couples, single Jews by choice, divorced families, blended families, single seniors and anyone with a Jewish education beyond Hebrew School.

Many congregations were formed by founders who worked hard for many years to get the synagogue right where they wanted it and then they froze it in place as they aged. It is upsetting, I know, to wake up one morning and find that the music you love, the music you grew up with, the music that drove your parents crazy and the music where you memorized every lyric and guitar chord, now being played on the “oldies station”. What ‘s the matter with kids today that they don’t appreciate “good music” anymore? “Why can’t they be like we were, perfect in every way? What’s the matter with kids today?” (That is a quote from a musical that is so outdated it is not even a candidate for a revival).

We Rabbis and lay leadership know what we need to do. We need to face the frontier that is before us and mold our congregations for the age and territory that lie ahead. First and foremost on the list is social action programming. We trained our children to fill their lives with social action and community service. Now they are in the workforce and are still looking for ways to make a difference in the world. Don’t expect young Jews to come to administrative meetings, house committee meetings, preschool or religious school parent meetings. They want to make a difference in their lives and if our congregations are not ready to make a difference, they will go where there are Jews who are out there making the world a better place.

Second are changes to worship. Forget pews and facing the front. Try movable chairs set where those in the congregation can see other worshipers. These graduates of day schools and Ramah know nusach but they want different melodies. Carlbach tunes work because it is the same melody over and over, so it is easy to learn. It ends with La-la-la so one can sing and not know Hebrew. It is often upbeat in tempo but can be slow and spiritual. Craig Taubman and Debbie Friedman have been doing this for years as well as some lesser known songwriters. A Cantor today needs to be a bit of a composer, and the service need not be the same every week, it need not be led by the same people every week and should reflect what is going on in the wider world. The time a service begins or ends less relevant. It only needs to be engaging to those who come .

Beyond this there are many other changes that need to be made. Forget websites that open up to a picture of a building. Home pages should have pictures of people having fun. Websites must be updated weekly and have up to the minute information. It should be possible to sign up for a program and even pay for it online. You can mail notices to seniors, but young people want their messages by email. Don’t even bother with a monthly bulletin in print. Adult Education classes should be recorded and placed as podcasts on the website, for those who missed, in a timely fashion. Even better, video the class and post it as a webcast. Rabbis, Cantors, and Educators need to use blogs and the web to stay in touch and teach modern Jews. Event pictures and video should be posted on the web within days if not hours. And why not have a section of the synagogue website for members only?

How many congregations have free “wifi” in the lobby or in a meeting room so waiting parents can use their laptops while they wait for children in lessons? How many synagogues serve good coffee? And we wonder why our members are at the local coffee shop and not in shul? Ron Wolfson and the Synagogue 3000 team keep asking us why it is so hard for newcomers to find their way around an unfamiliar synagogue. Where are our greeters? Where are our nametags so our members can learn one another’s names? Where is the signage that will help visitors find their way to the sanctuary and the restroom? Do we even mark the front door and the office door for those unfamiliar or do we make them walk around the building looking for the entrance? Do we greet people at the door or do we wait until they find the sanctuary before someone says “hello”?

Do congregants share information online through a listserv? Is there a social network group so they can see which friends will be attending a program this week. Do we tell our congregation what we will be offering or do we talk to our congregants about what they need and help them organize the right group around that need?

Jews today have choices, not just the young Jews, but all Jews. We offer something with meaning and purpose to fill a life that can be so empty at times. With all the internet connections, people are lonely and want to fill their time with something that is not vapid entertainment (vapid entertainment has its uses, but nobody wants to spend all day there. Jews today want to know how Israel treats its Arab citizens and Israel’s gay/lesbian community as well. They want to know if Kosher food is more than killed properly, but maintains high moral standards. They are willing to give their money to causes that are really making the world a better place, and they will give their hands and feet to such causes as well. Do our synagogues have Habitat for Humanity work days? Do we go out and serve the hungry? Do we staff homeless shelters? Have we changed our communal light bulbs to compact fluorescents? Do we recycle at the synagogue? Does the leftover food go to the hungry? Where does the Jewish community stand in relation to Burma, Darfur, the war in the DRC and Iran? Do we send volunteers to read to children, to mentor at risk kids and help teachers in the classrooms? Are our celebrations filled with excess or is there a mitzvah project that gives it meaning beyond the walls of our community?
Have we gotten the message?
It is as old as Bob Dylan:

Come gather ’round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You’ll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth savin’
Then you better start swimmin’
Or you’ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin’.

The times indeed are a-changin’

Lisa Miller, who writes about religion for Newsweek magazine, wrote the cover story for the Dec. 15, 2008 magazine. If you would like to read the article yourself, you can find it by clicking on this link: http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653

Let me put my biases on the table right up front. I used to write for student newspapers in high school and college. I seriously contemplated a career in journalism but got my “call” to be a rabbi and to the surprise of no one but myself, I was ordained as Rabbi and not hired as a reporter. I discovered in my writing days that religion is very hard for a journalist to cover. A reporter wants to know the “who, what, where, when, why and how” of a story. Religion just does not fit into those categories. I was very happy to see that Newsweek has a regular religion column, yet it is still pretty impossible to write a meaningful article on religion since it tends to sound like a sermon or a church bulletin rather than part of a real religious discussion between believers.
That being said, Ms. Miller tries to give a take on the gay marriage question by stating that, while religious conservatives use the Bible to claim that gay marriage is not permitted by the Bible, that actually the Bible can be used to make the claim that it supports gay marriage more than it opposes it. I think that she has a good concept, but her supporting arguments just don’t do the job she wants.

Most of her case is built on the fact that marriage in the Bible is a complicated institution, due to polygamy, surrogate mothering and the Christian Bible’s preference for staying unmarried and forbidding divorce. Gay marriage is just not mentioned. She also makes the claims that all the passages that support a ban on homosexual behavior, Genesis chapter one and Leviticus, chapters 19 and 20, are not problems because the Bible was not handed down by God; the command to have children does not take into account modern reproductive techniques; and, she asks, who follows the details listed in Leviticus anymore when it comes to haircuts and blood sacrifices? Therefore, why follow the prohibitions calling homosexuality an “abomination”?
She is of course absolutely right, but her arguments just miss the point. She is talking to those who don’t really believe in the message of the Bible anymore and for them, it really doesn’t matter what the Bible says. They just try and do what they think is “right” without depending on the Bible to help them in their search.

But for believers, who feel that no matter who wrote the Bible, it is still a divine document that has a profound message to people today, they will not have anything to do with the arguments she puts forward.

So let me help her a little.

As far as the Jewish Bible is concerned, there are plenty of married people in the Bible, but no mention at all as to what the rules of marriage are or should be. The only wedding we really have is Jacob’s and we learn that it lasted seven days and the bride wore a veil. It is not much to go on. Lots of people “take a wife” but the Bible never tells us how they did it. Ms. Miller is also correct that in the United States, marriage is a two part process. “Marriage in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two.” The civil part is easier to discuss. In this country, civil marriage is not really about love and devotion, even though we try and put this into the ceremony. A civil marriage license is about a financial union (what I call the “seamy underbelly” of marriage); it is about who will be responsible for the family debts and from what moment they will be eligible for the advantages of marriage. Ms. Miller writes, “As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights and inheritance.” These are not small benefits. Can we really blame gay couples for wanting to have these “civil rights” for their relationships as do the heterosexual couples in this country? To deny gay couples these rights seems to be just another form of bigotry, not really different than racial, sexual or religious bigotry that tries to exclude from society those we just don’t like. [It reminds me of a poem, THE HANGMAN by Maurice Ogden]. We can quibble about the name of the relationship, “marriage”, “partnerships” , “companionship”, “relationship”, but we fool ourselves if we deny health insurance, tax relief, child visitation and inheritance rights to those who are in a committed relationship but just not one that is heterosexual and we think that we are not prejudiced.

As for religious arguments, there are none that could not be refuted by some other believer. That is the nature of religion, that there are multiple paths to God and we find our way through a mixture of personal seeking and tradition received from our ancestors. No two people have exactly the same mix and those who are more conservative /traditional in their faith, will never find the way to allow homosexuality and gay relationships in their faith community. That is our reality. It is also what makes gay marriage/partnerships possible in this country.

We live in a nation that allows all faiths to practice without government intrusion. As long as civilly, gay men and women have the same rights as heterosexual couples, then any faith can impose on their faithful the rules of the community as they interpret them. We already know that some faiths are more open to gay relationships and are willing to bless these unions with appropriate rites. Those that don’t are free to practice alongside those who do. The GLBTQ communities will vote with their feet where they will choose to practice their faith. Communities that don’t welcome them will have to go on without them. Those that don’t provide for the spiritual needs of the gay community will find themselves poorer for excluding them. I can’t fault any denomination that holds a genuine theological problem with homosexuality, but I also can’t blame homosexuals who will prefer to have their spiritual needs met elsewhere. Gay couples should also be free to find a faith community that will welcome them and who will serve their spiritual needs. If there is no faith community that meets those needs or if they don’t have unfulfilled spiritual needs, there should be a civil ceremony to mark the creation of a partnership (or whatever one would like to call it); civil authorities should issue such a license and a proper procedure as to how to end it if the committed relationship fails.

What I can never condone is any faith community, or any civil community, that tries to make its own personal or theological preferences the only choice in our society. Leviticus is a big issue to the traditionalists in our society. Marriage is a sacred institution in some faith communities. There are some who feel that homosexuality is not a way to live a life of the spirit. These people have to have the respect and the understanding of those who disagree with them. But we need to adjust our laws and civil society so that we don’t leave anyone unprotected by law and disadvantaged because of prejudice. Let there be gay marriage/partnerships/committed relationships. And let these couples have the rights and responsibilities that go with it. This is a big country and we need to make room for everyone.