Rabbinical Assembly does & does not approve queer rabbis, unions

Three resolutions, 4 resignations in protest, but all agree: No butt-f***ing.
Quick background for those not of the tribe: The Rabbinical Assembly is the world-wide organization of Conservative/Masorti rabbis. The RA has a Committee on Jewish Law & Standards (CJLS). The CJLS held scheduled, formal meetings in New York this week to debate "Homosexuality & Halakhah." Halakhah is traditional Jewish law.
To get a taste of my relationship to the Law and to the Commandments, you might want to click here -- or just scroll down a bit.
What did the CJLS do today? I mean, other than confirm my dad's tepid old joke, "You got 2 Jews? You got 3 opinions!" (Betcha never heard that one before.)
According to the New York Times, the story's lead should be that the "centrist" movement in Judaism voted to ordain gay rabbis and perform gay unions.
At least the Times had a rough idea where to go for a quote: The co-chair of Keshet at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. "Keshet" means "rainbow" in Hebrew.
But that's not the story. The story is that this doesn't change anything. Conservative/Masorti congregations that don't want to go along with the liberalizing resolution won't. And our homophobic families get to keep their attitudes, with new justification from the other 2 CJLS resolutions (the ones penned by the 4 rabbis who quit the committee today), one of which actually calls for "reparative therapy." For another law blog's take, check this.
For a different Jewish take, check this.
To read the email the incoming chancellor of JTS sent out, check this.
A bloggin rabbi posted the official press release here.
Whether openly-LGBT rabbinical students can receive ordination will be up to individual seminaries. The University of Judaism (the UJ) in Los Angeles, will do it. JTS hasn't decided yet. i looked, but couldn't find definitive answers for what the JTS in Budapest or the large seminary in Buenos Aires will do.
One more thing. The "good" resolution is supposed to represent a "compromise." You go 'head and ordain those LGBT rabbis, but be sure-n-tell the men, "No sodomy."
So that's it. i gots to go. There's a commandment against serving the Ashtaroth (Judges 2:13 & elsewhere) that i gotta break, & i'm late.

Tags: Judaism, Conservative Judaism, skepticism, sacredness, homosexuality, bisexuality, LGBT, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, queer, feminism, religious right, Biblical literalism, pagan science.

Comments

[TallSkinny]

As a non-Jew, I have no business telling Jews what their religious practice should be.

But you have my sympathy. Cheer up. Things could be worse. You could be Catholic -- our hierarchy is blatantly bigoted against LGBTs.

[Kenn Chaplin]

I have just ranted - as a far-left, self-identified Christian - on the absurdities of religious legalism and doctrine. It is comforting to know, in this case, that a slender branch of God's family tree has diagnosed me as less sick than used to be the case.

[Stein]

Starry Decisive is off somewhere, so I'll reply to TS & Kenn. Do click the link, "for a different Jewish take, check THIS" -- above. The blogger has a sensitive & well-reasoned critique of the writings of one of the rabbis who quit and who recommends "ex-gay"-type therapy.

[Ezra Schwartz]

This is what was said concerning "reparative therapy"

Myth #5: Same-sex attraction (sexual orientation) cannot be changed through therapy
This position has been forwarded by mental health organizations such as the APA and has come to be accepted as dogma.
Fact #5: While it is true that many people who have attempted to change their sexual orientation through therapy have failed to do so, and many of them have been harmed in the process, there are people who report that their sexual orientation has changed following therapy.
The credibility of many of these reports was confirmed in a study by Dr. Robert Spitzer, the psychiatrist who edited the DSM-III and was instrumental in removing homosexuality as a diagnosis. Dr. Spitzer started the study skeptical of the possibility of changing sexual orientation but after conducting interviews with the 200 subjects of the study, he became convinced their claims to "have made major changes from a predominantly homosexual orientation to a predominantly heterosexual orientation" were credible, in his opinion. The major changes were "not limited to sexual behavior and sexual orientation self-identity," but also “encompassed sexual attraction, arousal, fantasy, yearning, and being bothered by homosexual feelings. The changes encompassed the core aspects of sexual orientation. Even participants who only made a limited change nevertheless regarded the therapy as extremely beneficial. Participants reported benefit from nonsexual changes, such as decreased depression, a greater sense of masculinity in males, and femininity in females, and developing intimate nonsexual relations with members of the same sex”.
Spitzer continues:
“The findings of this study have implications for clinical practice. First, it questions the current conventional view that desire for therapy to change sexual orientation is always succumbing to societal pressure and irrational internalized homophobia. For some individuals, changing sexual orientation can be a rational, self-directed goal. Second, it suggests that the mental health professionals should stop moving in the direction of banning therapy that has as a goal a change in sexual orientation. Many patients, provided with informed consent about the possibility that they will be disappointed if the therapy does not succeed, can make a rational choice to work toward developing their heterosexual potential and minimizing their unwanted homosexual attractions. In fact, the ability to make such a choice should be considered fundamental to client autonomy and self-determination”.

These findings of considerable benefits and no obvious harms in the study sample suggest that the current recommendation by the American Psychiatric Association (2000) that “ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals sexual orientation” is based on a double standard: It implies that it is unethical for a clinician to provide reparative therapy because there is inadequate scientific evidence of effectiveness, whereas it assumes that it is ethical to provide gay affirmative therapy for which there is also no rigorous scientific evidence of effectiveness and for which, like reparative therapy, there are reports and testimonials of harm.
When people are distressed by their same-sex attractions and seek professional help in dealing with them, it is extremely important to carefully follow ethical guidelines to minimize the potential harm that could come from any treatment, whether its goal is to help the person accept his or her same-sex orientation or to attempt to reduce or eliminate the SSA and help develop or increase opposite-sex attraction.

Reference: Robert L. Spitzer, M.D., “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 32, no. 5 (October 2003): 403–17

[Stein]

Thanks for the comment, Ezra.
Readers should know that the cited study -- and uses it is sometimes put to -- are are somewhat problematic.
The first problem is the great gulf that divides the 200 study participants and the vast majority of queer folks in the world. There's a thing that statisticians call "sample bias".
Dr. Spitzer did phone interviews w/ 200 persons who had, before he called him, (A) identified as other than heterosexual; (B) expressed unhappiness w/ their sexuality or gender identity; (C) sought religious or clinical assistance in changing their sexuality or gender identity; and (D) made a public declaration of some sort claiming to have succeed in their change efforts, lasting several years.
Dr. Spitzer found the study participants upon referrals from ex-gay ministries & others, including therapists.
Dr. Spitzer solicited their honest answers to basic, Kinsey-like questions about sexual behavior, including fantasy life; affectional / romantic interaction w/ others; and self-assessed emotional well-being.
Others have said & written (& I'm looking for the cites / links to post later) that these 200 folks could reasonably be expected to validate the outcome of their change efforts.
That's a polite way of saying that if you're queer in a homophobic society & you're miserable & you try to change & you finally get some peer / parental / community acceptance, you've got a pretty high stake in continuing to play along seriously.
That's a critique of the study itself -- & I hope we can get a working professional / academic in here to put it better.
Here's the critique of the uses the study is typically put to: Suppose you're not like the 200 study participants in that you don't want to be somebody else, only who you already are. Here comes the reb / reverend / parent / shrink waving "Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32(5), 403-17 (Oct. 2003)" at you, and whether Dr. Spitzer is a decent man, rigorous professional, competent care provider who would regard this pressure on you as unconscionable, it just happened to you.
We don't suppress debate on this blog, and comments like Ezra's will be permitted. But I'm the editor & I get to say: The ex-gay movement is perpetrating a dangerous fraud.
Starry Decisive was right to criticize the CJLS resolution for encouraging ex-gay-type therapy.

[Stein]

Another blog to have a look at on ex-gay issues:
http://a_musing.blogspot.com/

[TallSkinny]

Me, I simply refuse to address the question of whether gender-object-choice is innate.

Why meet the bigots on their terms? I mean, whether it's a choice, or an innate characteristic, it's your right, and no-one should interfere with it.

This debate began when some genetic determinists (especially Wilson) suggested there was a genetic basis for homosexuality. At the time, LGBTS were seriously besieged on all sides, so I guess I can't blame them for latching on to a shred of scientific theory to support the notion that they can't help themselves.

But who cares if you can't help yourself or not? I mean, your choice is your choice.

And arguing that any complex behavior has a basis in genes is simply unscientific to begin with.

Richard Lewontin, a radical (though highly respected and qualified) genetic biologist would classify this whole debate as: "Bullshit" (see his "Not In Our Genes".)

When arguing this issue, you flirt with genetic determinism, which is a poisonous doctrine which led, among other things, to pink triangles and gas chambers for gays in Nazi Germany.

Who cares whether you can change or not? It's your choice. Not theirs.

[Anonymous]

A quote from Rabbi Daniel Nevins (taken from http://jspot.org/?p=772 )

It has been reported that Rabbi Leonard Levy called for “reparative therapy” for gay and lesbian Jews to function as heterosexuals. This is, as Len likes to say, a “sweeping generalization.” In fact, his point was that while most people who experience same-sex attraction may never be able to change that, even if highly motivated, a small percentage nevertheless may, and they should be offered that opportunity. I don’t think anyone disagrees that people should be able to understand their sexual orientation with the assistance of open minded counselors. Where we disagree with Len is in his claim that you can maintain an exclusive public policy that bans all homosexual intimacy and the recognition of homosexual families while also creating a welcoming and respectful environment for people who identify as gay or lesbian. I voted against Len’s paper, but I don’t think it should be distorted.

[Starry Decisive]

Thanks for the post, and we allow anonymous posts, but prefer it when folx use goofy pseudonyms. Readers should follow the link Anonymous left, and also surf some of the other links in the rabbi's blogs.
For a good summary of what the law committee did Wednesday, go here:
http://jspot.org/?p=764