Op-Ed: Prop 8 goes against God’s love for every person

November 3, 2008

By David Ellenson

NEW YORK (JTA)—As a rabbi, I would urge all residents of California to vote No on Proposition 8, the state ballot measure that would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.

In voting No on Prop 8, Californians would be upholding a fundamental right of the California constitution and issuing a moral, religious proclamation about fairness and equal rights of all persons in our nation and the larger world.

When my 15-year-old daughter and her high school classmates performed “The Laramie Project” some years ago—a play about the 1998 murder of a gay student, Matthew Shepherd, near that Wyoming city—I thought of the revulsion our society so often displays toward gays and lesbians that at times has led to the type of violence Shepherd suffered.

I am painfully aware that this attitude stems from the rule contained in Leviticus 18:22 that defines homosexuality as an “abomination.”

The power this biblical passage has played in shaping the attitudes of so many—particularly those who define themselves as religious—is undeniable. This may be why a study conducted four years ago by the Pew Center found that people with a high level of religious commitment oppose gay marriage by a margin of 80 percent to 12 percent.

The Rev. Louis Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition, which often has taken the lead in attacking same-sex unions, celebrated this finding. Indeed, religious fundamentalists generally have claimed a monopoly on the stance that religion takes toward same-sex marriage.

Yet I refuse to allow such negative judgments regarding gays and lesbians to go unchallenged from a religious perspective. As Catholic scholar Elizabeth Schussler-Fiorenza has maintained in her powerful book “In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins,” the divinity of any passage in Scripture that diminishes the humanity of another—as the one in Leviticus does—surely can be questioned.

The thrust of one such passage should not override an overarching biblical ethos that teaches us that God loves and affirms the full humanity of each human being.

I see no reason why religious believers like me have any less right than my more fundamentalist brothers and sisters to speak for religion in the public square. Votes against same-sex unions discriminate against gays and lesbians and run counter to the ethos of love that the Bible teaches. It also discriminates against those of us whose religious beliefs mandate us to perform same-sex weddings.

As a rabbi, I applaud the California Supreme Court for affirming the legal right of same-sex couples to marry, thereby asserting that gays and lesbians should receive the same rights, dignities and privileges afforded to heterosexual couples. It is unconscionable that many rights heterosexual couples take for granted are inaccessible to homosexual men and women. Same-sex couples display the same capacity that heterosexual couples do to create warm and loving relationships, and those blessed with children surely possess the same ability to care for and nurture their children that heterosexual couples do.

The time has come for such recognition to guide our culture, and religious people should not be hesitant in stating this truth—that gays and lesbians are human beings created in the image of God, are no less holy than their heterosexual brothers and sisters, and are deserving of full rights, including marriage.

When the day arrives that this truth is completely fulfilled, no more Matthew Shepherds will be scorned or tortured. By voting No on Proposition 8, the voters of California will proclaim that all persons regardless of sexual orientation are equally loved by God, and will allow righteousness to pour down like a mighty stream.

(Rabbi David Ellenson is the president of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.)

This article was made possible by the support of readers like you. Donate to JTA now.

Discussions About this Article Elsewhere

Trackback URL: http://jta.org/trackback/1000720/

No trackbacks have been created for this article, be the first to create one.

Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments

pcs

11/03/08 03:18 PM

Better we should work to change the attitudes of hatred into a more appropriate and constructive response to immorality, rather than change/weaken the moral structure of our society to accommodate immorality simply for the sake of unconditional inclusion.

The revulsion that a majority of people feel when confronted with homosexuality is no different from what we feel about other moral issues. This is a natural part of us, just as God created us. It is argued that there is a genetic basis for male homosexuality, but there are equally strong (if not stronger) arguments for genetic predisposition to alcoholism. Do we say that God created alcoholics and homosexuals, so as a society we must embrace, affirm and support their respective behaviors and lifestyles?

We must certainly reach out to these segments of the population with love and compassion, but we do not need to affirm or support poor lifestyle choices or restructure our social values to accommodate and support them. I do not understand how this is interpreted as a hateful point of view, when this is simply a necessity for preserving the moral fabric of our society.

And separate from that, have we learned nothing at all about responding to the Word of God with “yes, but...”?

docgfd

11/03/08 06:16 PM

Sadly, the Rabi’s comments are typical of the ever-increasing apostasy written about in the book of Revelations as we near the end-times. Similar to the ‘feel good’ religion so prevalent in this modern society, the Rabi is attempting to mold the Bible into something that fits his human logic and emotions. The Bible is non-negotiable, and that includes the passage in Leviticus quoted in the article.

It is quite true that the Lord is a loving God. However, it is also true that he is...the Lord. The Lord made the rules and we as followers are meant to obey them. Today, many use the cliche of ‘if it feels good, do it,’ and add on ‘don’t worry about it, God will let it slide because, after all, He’s a sport and loves you,’ and this is exactly why the US and the world are in the mess we all find ourselves in today.
And of course, the modern-day knee-jerk reaction to anyone adhering strictly to the writings in the Bible is to immediately accuse them of being biased and worse, being guilty of a hate-crime. Slowly but steadily, the world is drawing further and further away from God, using human logic to rationalize fictionalizing the Bible.
Is there hate involved by being in favor of Proposition 8? You betcha! Except where the Rabi errs is that the hate is towards the sin............not the sinner!

no image specified

Michael Hanna- Fein

11/03/08 06:38 PM

I find the first two comments to be very sad indeed. The commentators actually believe it is perfectly fine to discriminate against an entire group of people who simply want the same rights they have, to love the person of their choice. What’s worse they compare it to alcoholism and admits that God creates them as well. But they believe we have the obligation to turn our backs on these people because of their personal revulsion to these individuals.

Alcoholism is a disease that can and should be treated. Homosexuality is another form of perfectly normal human behaviour that harms no one. While there are definite societal consequences for alcoholism, no such negative consequence exists due to homosexuality other than the discrimination and hatred these individuals face because of the belligerence and arrogance of these “I, and only I know the right way to live,” of these commentators.

John

11/03/08 09:39 PM

Marriage is a religious term with thousands of years of history that is intertwined in the fabric of society. Who better to control the definition of the term than the religious institutions from which it came! A Yes on 8 vote would force California to rethink its terminology - does the state really marrying couples or are these better described as civil unions? If a marriage is truly rooted in faith, how can the state, void of any theology, ever truly marry a couple regardless of gender? Civil unions/domestic partnerships are a better description of the states role in marriage.

A vote against proposition 8 is not a vote against same-sex unions or inherintly discriminatory against gays; rather it is a vote to return marriage to its roots and give it back to the religions that brought it to society. With marriage being defined as between a man and woman, California would be forced to apply new terminology that results in equal rights for all types of unions. Thus marriage for the purposes of the state would inevitably become obsolete, and Rabbi you would be free to perform them at will.

This is not the quick fix of marriage for all; but in order to reestablish marriage as having a value greater than any government can assign, it is the more elegant solution.

John

11/03/08 09:54 PM

Marriage is a religious term with thousands of years of history that is intertwined in the fabric of society. Who better to control the definition of the term than the religious institutions from which it came! A Yes on 8 vote would force California to rethink its terminology - does the state really marry couples or are these better described as civil unions? If a marriage is truly rooted in faith, how can the state, void of any theology, ever truly marry a couple regardless of gender? Civil unions/domestic partnerships are a better description of the states role in marriage.

A vote for proposition 8 is not a vote against same-sex unions or inherintly discriminatory against gays; rather it is a vote to return marriage to its roots and give it back to the religions that brought it to society. With marriage being defined as between a man and woman, California would be forced to apply new terminology that results in equal rights for all types of unions. Thus marriage for the purposes of the state would inevitably become obsolete, and Rabbi you would be free to perform them at will.

This is not the quick fix of marriage for all; but in order to reestablish marriage as having a value greater than any government can assign, it is the more elegant solution.

docgfd

11/04/08 12:49 AM

What’s sadder yet is Mr. Fein’s post. First of all, there is no discrimination here. What there is, in fact, is no accomodation. Why should something as Biblical and sacred as marriage be altered just to accomodate a group of folks who live a different lifestyle? Why should their choice of a way of life intrude upon a long-standing tradition, and be forced down everybody else’s throats? Next, there is no ‘they’ in associating alcoholism with homosexuality. Althought the first poster did mention it, it was obviously not in a relational sense, although that is what Mr. Fein attempted to create. Homosexuality is not a “normal human behavior;” the Bible says so.
And best of all: “While there are definite societal consequences for alcoholism, no such negative consequence exists due to homosexuality other than the discrimination and hatred these individuals face because of the belligerence and arrogance of these “I, and only I know the right way to live,” of these commentators.”
No negative consequences? Ever heard of AIDS? So, besides IV drug abuse, guess what one of the main modes of that nasty little virus being transmitted is?
Further, if you paid attention to my post, it is the sin that should be hated, not the sinner. I have several patients that are gay and even socialize with them on occasion. What part of that escaped you? Instead, you use terms such as ‘beligerant’ and ‘arrogant.’ Knock yerself out with your self-righteousness: that only proves my point on apostasy. I’ll pray for you.

Amir Bem

11/04/08 06:57 AM

Why does Mr. Ellenson need to tell us that he is ‘painfully’ aware of God’s prohabition against homosexuality? Why does it pain him? Perhaps he feels that as an enlightened mortal he knows better than God. I’m amazed that a man can parade around with the title of ‘Rabbi’ and reject a basic tenet of his own religion. Absolutely shameful!

Larry Mark

11/04/08 11:44 AM

Thanks for a great essay. I hope more religious leaders will speak out for love and equality. The posted comments above are frighteningly sad.

Avrom Faderman

11/04/08 02:24 PM

I’m a bit loath to push my own content on a public web site, but you can find a personal story (mine) about Proposition 8 here:

http://www.avromroyfaderman.com/2008/11/on-a-completely-different-note/

matthew skurdahl

11/04/08 03:42 PM

Lots of problems with the first couple of comments posted here (especially PCS)

#1. Putting religious dogma into the CA constitution is a clear violation of the separation of church / state.
#2. Stating that most people are repulsed by homosexuality is an opinion only, and perjorative.
#3. No evidence that there is a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. Also, the analogy is irrelevant. Turnaround: should we also amend the CA constution to prohibit alcoholics from marrying?—this would probably be more beneficial for society than a ban on gay marriage - less domestic abuse, child abuse, etc.
#4. No one is asking for your “affirmation, support,” or anything else other than that you refrain from imposing your viewpoints upon us. If you don’t want to marry someone of the same sex, then don’t.
#5. Reall tough to understand how PCS thinks that it is showing “love” by denying someone fundamental rights an treating them as second class citizens.
#6. If “Marriage” were the issue here than this proposed amendment would include a ban on divorce.
#7. I’m “repulsed” by a lot of heterosexual behavior—conceiving kids before the parents are ready (or the quickie marriage to cover up conception before marriage), divorce, spousal abuse, etc. This doesn’t give me the right to tell them they shouldn’t marry.
#8. “God created me” gay. I was raised by a Lutheran minister and taught nothing but the straight lifestyle. After over a decade of struggling I finally accepted that God made me just the way that I am, and that the very best I could do with my life was to share this with someone else that “God made” the same way. What’s so hard to understand about this?

How ironic that the Mormon church—the sponsors of polygamy—would dare to tell Californians how they should define marriage. That the irony of this is lost on the “Yes on 8” people is simply amazing.