Rabbi Zev Farber |
In a move described by one scholar as “inconceivable” just two years ago, 75 Republicans have signed the brief to be filed in the case of Proposition 8, a California law banning same-sex marriage, The New York Times reported. The nation’s high court will hear arguments on the law in late March.
Four former governors, including Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey, and members of President George W. Bush’s cabinet, such as former Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, signed the brief, the Times reported. Some of those, such as Meg Whitman, who ran for California governor in 2010, had once opposed same-sex marriage.
I have stated my position on this issue many times. Even though it seems inevitable that it will become the law of the land - I am
opposed to legalizing gay marriage. This has nothing to do with how to treat
people who have same sex attractions. My position on that is clear. They should
be treated as equals among us. And there ought not be any discrimination or
disparagement of them. Nor should we judge them. It is not our job to judge
what other people do in the privacy of their own homes. Even if we suspect sinful
behavior. What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is
between them and God.
When it comes to interacting with openly gay people, we have
an obligation to treat them with the human dignity that every one of God’s
creations deserve. They are no less created in God’s image than people who are
attracted to the opposite sex. Who we
are attracted to does not define who we are. To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther
King, we ought to judge people by the content of their character. Being gay is
not a character issue.
But that does not make gay sex permissible or excusable. The
Torah is very clear about that too. It is a very serious violation of biblical
law. There is no way around that no matter how compassionate we try to be. It
is for this reason that I oppose gay marriage. Because the implication of that
is to place a public imprimatur on behavior that is sinful. It is in
effect Koshering a forbidden lifestyle. Making gay marriage not just value neutral but
something positive.
This ignores the underlying sinful behavior - completely removing
it from the category of sin. By definition marriage gives a societal blessing a
gay couple implying that that gay sex is as moral as heterosexual sex. We are saying via legislation that we approve
equally of both types of behavior. Gay marriage does not only permit gay sex – it
virtually endorses it as a completely legitimate alternative to heterosexual
sex.
I don’t blame gay people for wanting to be treated as completely
normal in every way possible. No one likes to be stigmatized – even a little
bit. The homosexual community wants the world to look at them in the same way
as they look at heterosexuals. As
complete equals living a sin free lifestyle – same as heterosexual.
Much as I feel for their plight and their desire to be treated
as normal, treating gay sex a sin free sex is not what the Torah intended by
forbidding it.
This has nothing to do with how to treat gay people. But it
has everything to do with how we treat gay sex. We cannot say it’s OK to have
gay sex when it is not.
I know there are people who disagree with me on both sides
of the issue. I have little patience for bigots who would deny human rights to
a gay person and refuse to grant them any human dignity. But on the other side
of the issue - sometimes one can have too much compassion and end up completely
rationalizing away gay sex between two men. There is no doubt in my mind that it
is a biblically forbidden act no matter what the circumstances are.
And yet well intentioned people are trying to rationalize the
sin away entirety. This is the case with Rabbi Zev Farber. About a year ago he wrote
an essay wherein he came up with a novel approach to gay sex that would
completely take away any culpability for sin by two gay men engaging in it.
While acknowledging that there has been an evolution of
sorts even among Charedim with respect to treating gay people with compassion,
he felt that both an Agudah Statement as well as an RCA statement fell short of
treating gay people fairly. The implication of both statements is that gay sex
is still forbidden and that they must live celibate lives to avoid sin. Here is
how he stated his problem:
I once suggested the following thought experiment to a colleague: “If, for some reason, it became clear that the Torah forbade you to ever get married or to ever have any satisfying intimate relationship, what would you do?” My own reaction to this question is: although part of me hopes I would be able to follow the dictates of the Torah, I have strong doubts about the possibility of success, and I trust that my friends and colleagues would be supportive of me either way.
His point of course is that it is unnatural if not
impossible to ask a human being to deny his sex drive no matter what his sexual
orientation is. And yet gay sex is a forbidden act according to the Torah. The
vast majority of educated opinion is that gay people cannot change their sexual
orientation. His solution is to apply a Halachic principle called Oness
(pronounced Oh-Ness) Rachmana Patrei. If
one is forced to commit a sin, the Torah exempts him from any culpability. The
obvious question is, why should a voluntary act of sex (of any kind) at any
given moment be considered forced?
Rabbi Farber argues that when there is no Halachic outlet at
all to satisfy one’s natural sex drive then at some point that drive takes over
and must be satisfied. That makes it an Oness – forced. When a gay person
succumbs – he therefore is absolved of any guilt. He is in effect forced by his
own God given nature to act in a way that would be forbidden to heterosexual
men.
The problem is that this argument eliminates the sin of gay
sex in it’s entirely. Heterosexual men would hardly violate that law. And gay
men are exempt from it. So why would the Torah even mention it? Furthermore
this argument can be used for pedophiles too. It is well known that pdeophiles too
cannot not control their attraction to children either. Oness Rachmana Patrei! Thereare of course reasons to forbid sex with
minors. But the Onesss is still there… and we should not discriminate based his
sexual orientation. Is there a soul anywhere that would agree with that?!
To Rabbi Farber’s credit, he does not advocate gay marriage
in Judaism:
To be sure, calling something oness does not make the action halakhically permitted; it is not. Moreover, adopting the oness principle does not mean that halakha recognizes same sex qiddushin (Jewish marriage) – it does not.
The bottom line for me is that I think he errs in his use of
the Halachic device of Oness Rachmana Patrei. And I also believe that he errs in suggesting
we encourage “exclusivity and the forming of a loving and lasting
relationship-bond as the optimal lifestyle for gay Orthodox Jews who feel they
are oness and cannot be celibate.”
It is completely wrong to encourage a lifestyle that is
conducive to sinful behavior. But I
agree that we ought not be judgmental about it when we see it.