Avi Shafran on the Rotem bill

Avi Shafran, in his article Abuse of Power | Cross-Currents, writes in his usual articulate but pointedly demagogic way, about the recent flap over the Rotem bill. A few points worth responding to:

Shafran notes that:

The bill’s essential aim is to allow non-Jewish Israelis a greater choice of religious courts than presently. The bill, further, formalized the decades-old religious status quo placement of conversion in Israel under the auspices of the country’s official Chief Rabbinate

which may be the case, except for the problem that the Chief Rabbinate has been hijacked by reactionary Haredim who have increasingly abused their position to disenfranchise anyone who takes issue with their far-right version of Jewish law (which I have increasingly come to believe is not Jewish at all, but is a new religion that is based on Judaism but has fundamentally broken with central tenets of the Jewish Mesorah)

This leads to Shafran's next point:

On cue, the Jewish Federations of America, local Jewish Federations, Reform and Conservative leaders and an assortment of pundits all, as they say, went ballistic at the notion that halacha, or Jewish religious law, would determine conversion standards in Israel.

The issue is not whether halacha will govern conversions but whether a small, far-right, reactionary and hostile group of fanatic "rabbis" will hold sway over determining what is halacha. Judaism has not only tolerated but even encouraged a level of pluralism and diversity in halachic views. Real Judaism understands that the principle of Elu v'Elu is fundamental to a proper understanding of Halacha. But this ideal has no place in the Haredi community, which would ostracize anyone who disagrees with their narrow point of view. No wonder the vast majority of worldwide Jewry is appalled by the current climate in Israel, for which the Rotem bill was only symptomatic.

Shafran also disingenuously attacks the use of the political machinery to address this issue:

If it turns out that American Jewish communal leaders took upon themselves to pressure American elected officials to meddle in the domestic affairs of another country, particularly in a matter of no concern to the vast majority of those officials’ constituents (and in fact contrary to the concerns of a good portion of their Jewish ones), would that constitute a responsible wielding of communal clout, or an egregious, unprecedented abuse of the same?

Shafran's organization and the Haredi community in general thinks nothing of ramping up their own political machinery whenever they feel threatened. But when another community does the same, he cries "foul"

It is time that world-wide Jewry start to recognize that the goal of the Haredim is to change Judaism into a barely recognizable shell of itself, one that tolerates no diversity or dissent, one that acknowledges no value in secular education or pluralism, one that denigrates anyone, Jewish or otherwise, who believes differently from themselves. This is not Judaism. This is something wholly new and inconsistent with the Torah that G-d gave us at Sinai.

Avi Shafran gets it wrong (again)

In his article Coercion in the Name of Liberty | Cross-Currents Avi Shafran responds to David Ellenson's call for the Orthodox to demonstrate their commitment to religious liberty by joining a call for the government to allow same-sex marriages. Shafran argues:

Americans’ definition of marriage for secular legal purposes, however, is expressed through the body politic’s collective will. The resultant definition may seem constraining or disconcerting to some, and, for their own religious purposes, they are welcome to a more expansive take. But marriage in the eyes of secular law – constitutionally removed from the dictates of any individual faith – need not honor any religious group’s particular choice of definition.

As is so often the case, Shafran gets the message wrong. Shafran is correct that government policy reflects the popular will, which is not an endorsement of any specific religious view. Shafran is wrong in thinking that there is no impact on religious liberty when the public expresses its will. Religious liberty exists in tension with the public right to constrain it for the general good. The public, in declaring same-sex marriage illegitimate, does constrain the right of religious groups who support it to act according to their religious beliefs. There is no suggestion in the debate the religious groups that oppose same sex marriages would have to perform them or support them within the religious contexts.

Ellenson is not asking the Orthodox to agree with his position on same-sex marriage. But he is pointing out that the Orthodox stance to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples is not consistent with religious liberty. As American Jews, we have learned that religious liberty is among the greatest gifts that this country has given to us. To limit that gift because we don't always like the outcome is to lessen and possibly endanger it.

Shafran is simply wrong here. The Orthodox can have it both ways. They can express their personal discomfort and opposition to same-sex marriage, but still affirm that in the civil, legal, and non-religious realms, it deserves support because it increases religious liberty.

| Cross-Currents

Once again, Agudath Israel (the Haredi organization, not our shul) has taken a nonsensical position on the Emmanuel school issue. Zwiebel reports on a 1925 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that recognized the right of parents to choose their child's school, by upholding their right to send their children to private school instead of mandating that all children be educated in public schools.

Zwiebel argues that

"The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the lower court’s decision and thus enshrined in federal law the right of parents to choose the school setting most appropriate for their children."

The problem with Zwiebel's argument is two-fold:

First, the school in Emmanuel is state-supported. It is not a private school

Second, the issue of racism trumps private education. If, as the Israeli Supreme Court found, the school in Emmanuel was discriminatory, then, even if the school were private, it would be required to address this behavior.

| Note by R' Chaim Dovid Zwiebel

NorthJersey.com: Newark Mayor Booker endorses N.J. Gov. Christie's property tax cap

Very interesting that Booker, who I think will be a great Governor one day, is backing Christie, of whom I am not enamored, in proposing a Constitutional Amendment capping property tax hikes at 2.5%. I'm not sure I agree - there are unforeseen events where an exception might be exactly the right decision at that point in time.

NorthJersey.com: Newark Mayor Booker endorses N.J. Gov. Christie's property tax cap

Hareidism, Xenophobia--and another disgrace of the Torah | Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals

Marc Angel reacts to the recent Haredi violence and bigotry at Beit Yaacov in Emmanuel, Israel: Hareidism, Xenophobia--and another disgrace of the Torah | Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals. He correctly points out the Chillul Hashem that is taking place there.

Cemeteries Are Becoming New Challenge for Interfaith Families – Forward.com

Regarding the article Cemeteries Are Becoming New Challenge for Interfaith Families – Forward.com - it seems to me that one argument that is missing in this discussion is respect for the decision of the deceased not to convert to Judaism. To bury the deceased in a Jewish cemetery is to essentially ignore the decision that the deceased made during life, which is that conversion to Judaism was something that they chose not do pursue. To then bury them in a Jewish cemetery is to ignore and even disrespect this decision.

One of the decisions that an intermarriage creates is how to address burial. We need to raise this within our communities with respect and love. Should the non-Jewish partner choose not to convert, that decision should be made with knowledge of the consequences. Then we should respect that decision, not brush it away.

David Brooks: Obama’s Christian Realism - NYTimes.com

In the NYT times today, David Brooks writes in Obama’s Christian Realism that Obama's liberal realism is based on Christian dualism, an acknowledgment that each of us carries the instinct for both good and evil: "[A]s you act to combat evil, you wouldn’t want to get carried away by your own righteousness or be seduced by the belief that you are innocent. Even fighting evil can be corrupting." No person or group of people, no matter how righteous and God-fearing they may be, should trust that their intentions will lead inexorably to good outcomes. They must be vigilant not only of their enemies, but of themselves.

What strikes me is that this understanding pre-dates Christianity. It is part of the Jewish belief in the Yetzer HaTov [instinct for good] and Yetzer HaRa [instinct for evil]. Each of us in endowed with both instincts. Judaism takes this notion further, finding this fact to be a positive statement about our humanity. The Yetzer HaTov is clearly the instinct that we would choose to be primary in our lives. But, according to Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 9:7), “were it not for the Yetzer HaRa, a person would not build a house and would not marry and would not procreate and would not deal in business.” Thus, Judaism recognizes that even the evil inclination has a purpose that can lead to a good outcome. Capitalism is based on the notion that the pursuit of selfish interests can lead to economic value for all.

But, we need to be constantly aware that this inclination is at least as likely to lead to outcomes that can be destructive. Thus, we limit and restrain ourselves. David Brooks quotes Harry Truman, “We all have to recognize, no matter how great our strength, that we must deny ourselves the license to do always as we please.”

Cake Fight in Israel

The Media Line carries an article today that reports that the Israeli High Court has gotten involved in the issuance of Kashrut certificates. Specifically, whether a Kashrut certificate can be denied to a Messianic Jew. Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar wants the Knesset to draft a law that would ban the Israeli courts from getting involved in Kashrut

The chief rabbi's request follows a ruling by the high court that the Rabbinate had illegally revoked the kosher certification of a pastry shop owned by a woman who believes in Messianic Judaism, a movement that combines elements of both Judaism and Christianity.

This would seem to be a simple case of discrimination. Certainly a non-Jew can operate a Kosher establishment. But, buried in the article, is an important point that has me agreeing with those who argue that the High Court ruled incorrectly and should not have gotten involved:

The rabbinate had demanded that a kosher supervisor be given the keys to the pastry shop so as to ensure that kosher standards were adhered to.

Normally, I am as ready as any secular Israeli to assume the worst of the Rabbinate, but in this case, I think that they have a point.If they refuse to grant a Kashrut certificate under any circumstances, that is grounds to argue discrimination. However, implied by the article, they would grant the certificate if they were able to adequately inspect the facility operated by a non-Jew. So long as this approach is consistent with what they would do for any facility owned and operated by a non-Jew and does not preclude the owner from running his or her business, it seems to be a legitimate step to ensure that the store that they have certified as Kosher actually is.

Who Needs ID? – Part One | Cross-Currents

Who Needs ID? – Part One | Cross-Currents - a Reaction

Yitzchok Adlerstein writes an interesting piece about Evolution and Intelligent Design in Cross Currents. What makes it interesting is that Adlerstein is a generally a hard-line, fundamentalist Haredi who has little patience for those who would evince any doubt about the divine origins of Torah and the ultimate and exclusive correctness of his brand of Judaism. Having just finished Karen Armstrong's book "A Case for God", I understand a little better why a fundamentalist feels the need to reconcile his religious view with science. To Adlerstein's credit, he is not just rejecting science, but trying to come to terms with it:

Maybe I’m not properly Orthodox, but evolution is just not an issue for me. [...] I recognize that I am in the minority in this regard (although not so sure if this is true for frum folks with scientific background), but I made peace with evolution years ago. I’m neither convinced of its truth (although it explains volumes of collected phenomena that no one in the frum community even begins to deal with) nor convinced of its untruth. Of course I reject one small assumption made by some evolutionists, including the most strident and vocal ones. They believe that not only did G-d have no part in it, but that having adequately explained the Great Mystery of Life, there is no need to believe in G-d, c”v. My belief is that if the Ribbono Shel Olam set up the original conditions, including the physical constants of nature in such a way as to produce the world as we know it, using natural selection and about 15 billion years (a span of time so large I simply can’t wrap my mind around it to decide whether the scenario is plausible or ludicrous), I for one would have no objection. As R Samson Raphael Hirsch wrote in the infancy of the theory – well before he could, in all fairness, properly analyze it, but also before over a century of corroborating evidence – if the theory turns out to be true, we will stand in even greater awe of the wisdom of HKBH. There is wondrous elegance in reducing all of existence to what was contained in the singularity that preceded the laws of nature as we know them. Reducing all there is to a mysterious oneness has great appeal to me.

Adlerstein has been willing to loosen his grip on a literalist meaning of the Torah, at least the first chapters that describe in decidely non-scientific terms the creation of the world. This can be no easy feat for someone so squarely in the Haredi camp. He goes on to acknowledge the advantages of a non-literalist view to the scientist: "Evolution provides a framework for understanding much of the natural world... The language of biology is the language of evolution, and it has been that way for decades."

But Adlerstein knows that there are many in the Haredi camp may be better off simply keeping science at an arms length:

If you have no occasion to ever step over the threshold of modern science, there would seem to be little reason to abandon the plain meaning of the opening of Bereishis. This seems to be the message of quite a few Gedolei Torah who live in communities in which science simply doesn’t figure. Their advice should be vigorously heeded.

It is unfortunate that Adlerstein thinks that anyone should heed advice to remain ignorant. Ignorance is the antithesis of what Judaism stands for; Judaism has always been a search for truth. The greatest Jewish theologians and thinkers have been those who have understood that truth is elusive and conditional, subject to change and refinement through the introduction of new data.

But all of this discussion could be simply avoided by acknowledging that the purpose of science is neither to prove the existence of G-d nor to describe G-d's ways in the world. Neither is subject to scientific proof nor can they be disproved by any scientific method. Science, not religion, can explain the physical processes by which the piece of rock on which we exist came into being. Science, not religion, can explain the biological mechanisms by which single-cell protozoa may have mutated and evolved into human beings as well as other species. But science can provide no moral reason for that mutation, nor should it try. Having become human, science can not tell us how to live our lives with meaning, cope with adversity, die with dignity, and find our way to the bright light that is G-d's love - that is the realm of religion. So, I agree with Adlerstein (a rarity) when he says: "I feel comfortable getting up in the morning and shouting, 'Mah rabu ma’asecheh Hashem…!'"

Who Is a Jew? Court Ruling in Britain Raises Question - NYTimes.com

Who Is a Jew? Court Ruling in Britain Raises Question - NYTimes.com The New York Times reports on a case in Great Britain in which a family is suing a Jewish Day School because the school rejected their son's application to the school.

A few of the relevant facts of the case:

• The boy's father is acknowledged to be a Jew.


• The boy's mother is a convert in the Progressive movement (the European equivalent of Reform)


• Religious schools receive funding from the state

The family sued and lost in the lower court, but the appeals court overturned that decision stating: “The requirement that if a pupil is to qualify for admission his mother must be Jewish, whether by descent or conversion, is a test of ethnicity which contravenes the Race Relations Act,” the court said. It added that while it was fair that Jewish schools should give preference to Jewish children, the admissions criteria must depend not on family ties, but “on faith, however defined.”

The case is now before the English Supreme Court.

I have no insight into English jurisprudence, but it seems to me that the argument of the decision of the appellate court is right but for the wrong reason. The appellate court should not get involved in the question of whether a Jew is anyone who calls themselves a Jew. If a religion sets certain tests on one's membership, that is the business of the religious community and the state should not get involved. Where the court should get involved is to decide how the state determines where the authority for determining religious membership lies. Does the state recognize different types of Judaism (Orthodox, Progressive, Liberal, Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Humanist, etc) or does the state recognize only a religion called Judaism? If the former, then the state has determined that there are actually many different religions, each calling itself Jewish, but each in fact distinct and therefore entitled to define membership according to its own rules. However, if the state determines that there is only one religion called Judaism within which there are several legitimate but variant streams, then the state may elect to recognize that any person who is acceptable to one of those streams is a Jew for the purpose of the state's functions. The state may also choose to disenfranchise all of the streams but one or to create tests that allow a determination of what is considered a legitimate stream for the purpose of state recognition within the body called Jews.

The mistake that the appellate court makes is in trying to make a state determination of who is a Jew. The court would be better off determining who can legitimately make that determination within the competing Jewish claims.

But most important for Americans, this is a cautionary example of the slippery slope that could affect Jews in this country should state financing of private, religious schools be enacted. Once a school opts to accept state financing, whether offered directly in the form of grants or indirectly in the form of vouchers, the school loses substantial control to determine who may and may not attend the school. In a school whose population is itself a statement about the school's philosophy, this could be a serious challenge to their identity.

One could use this case to warn those in the religious community who support school vouchers to be careful what they wish for.

Send Bush | Capital J | JTA - Jewish & Israel News

Send Bush as Middle East Envoy: Ami Eden notes that "Writing in Newsweek, Gregory Levey argues that President Obama should tap President George W. Bush to be his Middle East envoy..."

Levey writes: "During the Bush years, Israelis were consistently among the few foreign populations that gave the American president high approval marks -- often in far greater proportion than Americans themselves... Neither Obama nor his proxies enjoy anywhere near the same level of faith. ..."

How does this make any sense. Send someone who is a proxy for the Israelis and whose every proposal will be seen as an Israeli proposal and not as a third-party U.S. proposal? This makes no sense at all.

Obama is in a much stronger position to move the Palestinians towards the measures that they have to take to make negotiation acceptable - unfortunately, there is no Israeli partner anymore either. So, for the time being, Obama would best serve the interests of the Middle East by keeping an engaged mediator who will help to defuse tensions and keep low-level talks going until both parties are ready and able to move to more serious final stage talks.

The Kosher Pig

From Maariv

האם קיים איסור על אכילת בשר חזיר?
לא. במשרד הבריאות מבהירים כי אין כל חשש מאכילת מזונות וכי “המחלה איננה מועברת במזון”. בארגון הבריאות העולמי מדגישים כי אין חשש מאכילת בשר חזיר שבושל כהלכה

Is there a prohibition to eat pork? No! The Ministry of Health clarifies that there is no danger in food consumption. The disease is not transmitted through food. The WHO emphasizes that there is nothing to be concerned about in eating pork that is cooked according to Halacha

From "Heretics and Humility"

In reaction to the 200 anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth: Avi Shafran writes in Cross-Currents:

Part of evolution’s upshot, of course, is that living things forever remain mere works in progress, which lends the hoopla over Darwin a tasty irony, since precisely the same is true about science. Even as seemingly perfect a system as Newtonian mechanics was subsumed, subtly but conclusively, by Einstein. Yet those who elevate Darwin’s theory to an article of faith seem unwilling to even consider that the current understanding of how species came about might one day be explained by a different and grander, if currently unimagined, conclusion than the one reached by the famed biologist. The idea that earth’s astounding array of life may owe itself to something other than the random mutation of species into others – a metamorphosis never reproduced in any laboratory – is a forbidden thought. Imagining “a biological Einstein,” to borrow Verlyn Klinkenborg’s phrase, has become heresy.

Shafran, to his credit, doesn't try to debunk evolution so much as to rail against those who accept it uncritically. However, we know that this is a thin veil for the type of pseudo-scientific rantings of the religious right who try to take scripture and turn it into a science textbook.

Shafran writes:

Thus, efforts to permit open discussion of Darwinism are derided as a “war on science.” And a leading scientific group is boycotting Louisiana because a law there permits teachers to use supplemental texts to “help students critique and review scientific theories.” And the Texas Board of Education is being petitioned to amend the state curriculum so that students are no longer encouraged to explore “the strengths and weaknesses” of all scientific theories – words, the petitioners say, that dangerously suggest that Darwinism could be wrong.

What he fails to say is that the Louisiana and Texas issues are the maddening attempt by the religious right to inject religious belief into the science lab. To suggest that religious belief can substitute for or be used to critique science to fail to understand both science and religion. Science is the attempt to explain physical behavior through verifiable and testable models. Religion is an attempt to explain the metaphysical and inherently unknowable reasons behind the physical world. The two have no place side by side because they explore entirely different propositions.

Shafran calls for humility among those who accept the theory of evolution:

A little humility would help us recognize that, no matter our scientific progress, we humans resemble nothing so much as the proverbial blind men first contemplating an elephant, each touching a different part of the pachyderm and concluding that the beast is shaped, variously, like a tree, or a snake, or a sail or a wall. No, not an elephant; we are blind men confronting a rainbow.

Perhaps some humility among the religous right, acknowledging their limited ability to comprehend the will and working of G-d, would be similarly welcome

A Huge Mistake: OU says Lookstein broke their rules

The JTA reports: "A Rabbinical Council of America official told JTA that Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, the religious leader of Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun in New York City, broke the organization's rules by participating in the service Wednesday at the National Cathedral on the morning after Barack Obama's inauguration."

This is a huge mistake by the OU to have even released the press release. I understand that they, mistakenly, believe that it is inappropriate for a Jew to enter a space used by another religion (church, mosque, temple, etc), but it is a big political mistake to make a big deal of it on the day of Barack Obama's inauguration. The OU should have simply looked the other way and let it go.

Google Reader (9)

Yaakov Menken demonstrates the effects of cognitive dissonance. He still can't believe that Jews voted for Obama and that his guy lost. To make his point, he contrasts the Bush Administration's response to yesterday's Israeli action with that of the Obama transition team. Bush, correctly, responded by supporting Israel. Obama, correctly, responded by supporting Bush. Menken writes that:

"“She [Brooke Anderson, Obama’s national security spokeswoman] said Saturday that Obama ‘is closely monitoring global events, including the situation in Gaza, but there is one president at a time.’” In other words, if you think Obama and Bush see eye to eye… well, iy”H this war will be over long before January 20."

How does Obama's correct assertion indicate anything but support for Bush? It would be highly inappropriate for Obama to have said anything else. To have inserted his own position, even if it corresponds exactly with the current administration, would be to indicate that there is more than one legitimate source for U.S. policy.

Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas - Jeffrey Goldberg

Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas - Jeffrey Goldberg writes:

"Via Instapundit comes the news that Amazon has now banned the term 'Christmas' from one of its advertising campaigns. It is now, on Amazon, '12 Days of Holiday,' rather than '12 Days of Christmas.'"

Apparently, Amazon has realized the error of its ways and re-inserted Christmas into its web page. I can't figure out who objects to using the word Christmas to describe the holiday that occurs on December 25 every year. Avi Shafran wrote that he had no objection to the fact that the White House had mistakenly sent its Hanukkah invitation to him using the Christmas artwork. It may be a sign of the continuing Bush White House incompetence, but it hardly rises to the level of offensive.

What surprises me is that in this age of personalization, Amazon doesn't give customers a way to modify their account to indicate holidays of interest. It would be pretty easy for Amazon to give me the option to be greeted with "15 days to Hanukkah/Kwanza" or some other drivel if I object to Christmas.

Secular, but Jewish | The Telegraph | JTA - Jewish & Israel News

I have argued for some time that there is a fundamental difference between how a Jew sees him or herself in the Diaspora from self-identity in Israel.

Anshel Pfeffer in Ha'aretz writes:

"Israel, the Zionist project, was founded... to serve as a secular Jewish alternative to life in the Diaspora. And while it's far from perfect, for most Israelis, it is still a credible option. They are not blind to its shortcomings, but they are still content with living their Jewish lives here."

Pfeffer is right, but mostly he is wrong. That many early Zionists were secular and envisioned a secularization of Judaism is undeniable. However, many early Zionists were also deeply religious. To say that Zionism is an exclusively secular pursuit is simply wrong. To say that secular Israelis are living "Jewish lives" is equally wrong.

Jews in the Diaspora have no real way to define themselves as Jews except in relation to a religious context. Whether they are themselves religious and define their Judaism through their religious sensitivities or in opposition to religion, the Diaspora Jewish identity is essentially one of religion or its rejection.

Jews in Israel have a national identity that they can substitute for or which can sublimate religious identity. Israeli religious involvement suffers from the same forces that have driven religion largely out of the public space in Europe: an exclusivist and rigid view of religion leads most people to opt out of religious engagement altogether. Israelis may be very much interested in the questions that religion can address, but the right-wing's hold on all religious expression provides them with no outlet. Therefore, they are driven towards a nationalist view of Jewish identity that denies space to a religious outlook.

That Judaism means nothing more than Israeli citizenship for a majority of Israeli Jews is not a circumstance for celebration but one that should raise profound concern for all who cherish what it means to be Jewish.

Bigotry? I don't think so.

Yaakov Menken writes in Cross-Currents:

"[...] racism is but one variety of bigotry. One Orthodox Rabbi silenced a supposedly “liberal” student by asking her: “ok, so you know your parents would be happy, tolerant and loving if you chose a black man to be your spouse. What if he were black-hatted?"

This is not bigotry - as if there is no difference between a black-hat Jew and a liberal, even modern Orthodox, Jew. The problem is not some uninformed mistrust of the "Other" whose only real difference is skin color. It is the very real knowledge that the very black-hatted Jew rejects and decries the very religious truths that we hold dear. Instead of "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner," we would have "Guess Who Won't Eat With Us"

I'm sorry but the schism that exists between black-hats and the rest of the Jewish world is very real and very defensible.

Poor Michael Lerner: Rahm Emanuel No Reason for Celebration

Poor Michael Lerner. He is saddened that Barack Obama, once the darling of the left wing, has inexplicably moved towards the center. He writes: "So no wonder [after the Obama's win] many of us were shocked and deeply disappointed when we learned on Thursday that Congressman Rahm Emanuel was to be the Chief of Staff in the Obama White House."

No matter that perhaps Obama wants to be President for the entire country, not just the progressive wing of the Democratic party (of which I am a proud member). No matter than Emmanuel is known not as an ideologue but as someone who knows how to get things done. No matter that Emmanuel's selection calms the worst fears of the vast majority of Jews who support Israel.

I too think that the Bush administration was too soft on Israel and too disengaged. I agree that territorial compromise is necessary and that many of the settlements need to be either removed or handed over to a Palestinan state. But I don't harbor the illusions that Lerner apparently still clings to that the Palestinians are ready to assume the mantle of responsible leadership. There is no indication that any positive moves by Israel would be met with appropriate positive responses by the Palestinians.

It is possible, like Nixon and China, that the selection of an Israeli hawk like Emmanuel (if he really is one), provides the cover for Obama to take serious, considered and positive action to broker a deal that will lead to a two-state solution. Many have suggested that Emmanuel will provide the "bad-cop" cover for Obama in various political situations, why not with Israel and the Palestinians?

My goodness, Michael - you can't even call him President yet and the honeymoon is already over?

California Proposition 8: Gay Marriage

I was reading a blog post praising the passage of proposition 8 (which, had I been able to vote in California, I would have opposed), which reminded me that I wanted to make a short comment about gay marriage - or more accurately about the state's position in marriage.

(UPDATED: You might want to take to look at this "bloggingheads.tv" discussion on the issue)

The issue of whether the state should allow two adults of the same sex to marry has been a social hot topic for several years. Various state courts have taken up the question as to whether their individual constitutions require such a provision. New Jersey's Supreme Court decision opted for a middle ground requiring that all of the benefits and obligations inherent in civil marriage must be extended to gay couples, but that the state need not call this "marriage." Instead, the state could call it a "civil union." When I asked then Attorney General Stuart Rabner what the legal difference was between "marriage" and "civil union" as a result of the court ruling, he replied "None." It is only a difference in name. Significantly, when Rabner issued his ruling that public officials who performed weddings could not refuse to perform gay weddings (all or nothing was the essential ruling), he exempted religious officials from that edict, thereby signaling the difference between state-sponsored marriages and those performed by a religious institution.

That short conversation and subsequent thinking led me to the conclusion that the state should remove itself entirely from the business of regulating "marriage." The state's business should be in creating the ability to enter into legal domestic arrangements that would, for the purpose of the state, be called "civil unions." Marriage would become the sole prerogative of each church, which could bestow the sanctification of marriage as the church saw fit. Churches (used inclusively to refer to all religious institutions) would be able to determine without any state interference whether to sanctify a particular union or not. The state would determine entirely independently of any church whether a domestic arrangement rose to the level of a civil union. The two would likely be similar in most cases, but they would not longer be tied together.

What would be the result of such a change? It would change the nature of the debate. Once the religious issue is separated from the civil issue, we can focus on other questions. Is promoting civil union in the interest of the state? I believe that it is. Our community benefits by stable family units that have predictable and defined rights and responsibilities to each other and the community. If that is the case, then promoting stable gay families is no less beneficial than promoting stable straight families. There are those who would argue that a gay couple is less capable of raising children than straight couples. While the welfare of children is certainly a central concern of the state, all evidence suggests that gay families are just as stable as heterosexual families. Other evidence suggests that having gay friends leads the rest of us to be more tolerant and open of all people, clearly a goal that the state should promote.

Most importantly, however, is the very idea of fairness. As state after state has done away with discriminatory practices against individuals who are gay, so should it do away with discrimination in this important area. Recognizing that the religious sphere, which can, sometimes of necessity, be discriminatory, should be protected from the interests of the state (the very basis of the separation of church and state), the state should relinquish its claim to "marry" people and instead focus on civil unions that promote the interests of the state.