LETTERS

We prefer letters that relate to articles in the Jewish News. We reserve the right to edit or reject letters.
Brevity is encouraged. Letter writers generally are limited to one letter per 4-6 week period, space
permitting.
Letters must contain the name, address and title of the writer, and a daytime telephone number.
Original copies must be hand signed. Mail to the Jewish News at 29200 Northwestern Hwy, Suite
110, Southfield, MI 48034; fax to (248) 304-8885; or e-mail to: rsldar@thejewishnews.com
We prefer letters to be e-mailed.
More original letters are posted at www.detroitjewislinews.com

Respecting Leviticus

Aligning With Jewish Law

I appreciate Fred Shuback's response
to the letter on gay rights that I signed
together with 24 other local rabbis
two weeks ago ("Rabbis' Letter Raises
Issues," Oct. 22, page 6). Because I
did not have a hand in composing the
letter, it did not fully reflect either my
position or that of the Conservative
movement.
I do, in fact, oppose Proposal B
because we American Jews have tradi-
tionally looked warily on attempts to
legislate religious principle. A consti-
tutional amendment to prohibit that
which is already prohibited in
Michigan does not deserve our sup-
port.
I regard the Detroit Jewish News as
essentially a secular publication that
makes no pretenses to uphold the
standards of Jewish law. The fact is
that local Reform rabbis do perform
commitment ceremonies for same-sex
couples, and I understand why your
paper considers this to be newsworthy.
For these reasons, I signed the letter.
However, the letter gave a false
impression that all the signatories sup-
port gay marriage itself, which is not
the case. The Conservative movement
has been struggling for many years to
be inclusive of gay and lesbian Jews
while also respecting the wisdom of
our ancestors. I see this as an attempt
to fulfill both Leviticus 18, the biblical
code of sexual ethics, and Leviticus 19,
which commands us to love our
neighbor as ourselves.
Somehow, we must find a way to
make the entire Jewish community a
safe and welcoming place for all Jews
while continuing to revere the written
and oral Torahs. The Committee on
Jewish Law and Standards, on which I
serve, has repeatedly addressed this
challenge, yet a comprehensive solu-
tion is elusive. Our status quo is that
the Conservative movement welcomes
gay and lesbian Jews to participate
fully in our community, but does not
sanction commitment ceremonies or
weddings for same-sex couples.
I implore all members of the Jewish
community to view their fellow Jew
with greater compassion and respect.
Proponents of gay rights should
respect the religious integrity of the
traditional movements. And tradition-
alists must understand that gay and
lesbian Jews are trying to live within
our covenant with God with as much
integrity as the rest of us.
Rabbi Daniel Nevins

I am puzzled by the letter "Equal
Rights, Equal Access," signed by 25
local rabbis (Oct. 15, page 6). Their
characterization of Proposal 2 —
which seeks to amend the Michigan
Constitution to define- marital unions
as solely between a man and a
woman — as "a bigoted, hateful
attempt to enshrine discrimination in
the Michigan Constitution" perplexes
me since Jewish spiritual leaders
should know that same-gender
unions are prohibited by Jewish law.
Having not attended the same sem-
inaries as the signatories of the letter,
here is my understanding of Jewish
theology: The Torah we received at
Mount Sinai contains 613 laws,
among them the prohibitions against
certain sexual acts: adultery, homo-
sexuality, bestiality and several specif-
ic acts that fall under the broad cate-
gory of incest (Leviticus 18:6-23).
Non-Jews are not bound by the
obligations of the Torah, but are still
required to follow seven of God's
laws in order to establish civilized
and orderly societies. Among these
laws are the sexual prohibitions and
the requirement to establish laws and
courts that administer justice fairly.
It seems to me that rather than
attempting to "enshrine discrimina-
tion," Proposal 2 merely seeks to
make Michigan law comport with
Jewish law.
Ben Mayer

Adat Shalom Synagogue
Farmington Hills

10/29

2004

6

Royal Oak

No On Proposal 2

When rabbis spoke out against
Proposal 2, they behaved as leaders
should by setting a righteous example
("Equal Rights, Equal Access," Oct.
15, page 6). Gay citizens are being
singled out for legal discrimination.
They are also targeted as a focus for
fear that stems from a loss of control
over more immediate issues in most
Americans' lives, from national secu-
rity to affordable health care.
Proposal 2's broad and vague lan-
guage is open to extreme interpreta-
tions. Negative emotions incited
against homosexuals will be expressed
in ways impossible to predict. The
Nuremburg Laws of 1939 were
enacted in a similar environment of
anxiety seeking a scapegoat. How
could any Jew vote for this?
My neighbor swears, "We just want
to protect marriage. There are too
many good people out there to let

[other forms of discrimination] hap-
pen as a result of this amendment."
Were there enough good people in
Europe in 1939? Which good people
will protect me when anti-gay citi-
zens are emboldened by a constitu-
tional amendment that denies my
right not merely to marriage, but to
"a similar union for any purpose."
Will I lose my partner's health
insurance? Will our medical powers
of attorney be invalidated, our child
taken from us? Nobody can predict
the consequences as this law is writ-
ten.
Existing Michigan laws deny mar-
riage to homosexuals. That should be
sufficient until good people are sure
that any proposed law has a clear,
measurable scope.
You are those good people. You can
protect me, my partner and child,
and thousands of other Michigan
families by defeating Proposal 2.
Remember why we were taught never
to forget!
b •
Beth Greenapple

bad language. People will always
commit adultery, and no constitu-
tional ban, or religious ban for that
matter, will affect that. Adultery is
banned in the most holy of scrip-
tures, as is murder, theft, etc., but
does that really deter people from
committing these acts? The answer is
no. Would banning adultery be effec-
tive? The answer is no.
Is a ban on gay marriage just and
fair? The answer is obviously no.
Jeff Simon,

West Bloomfield

Proposal Steals Humanity

There is an unreasonable voice in our
community, a voice that is asking cit-
izens of Michigan to alter our state
Constitution to create a separate class
of citizenship, whose members would
hold fewer rights than the majority.
Going well beyond Michigan's cur-
rent law that restricts marriage to a
union between a man and a woman,
the
proposed amendment blocks the
Southfield
right to a civil union and it blocks an
employer from offering domestic
partner benefits. The loss of health
Vote Against Proposal 2
insurance would have a profound
I would like to give praise to the 25
impact upon thousands to commit-
rabbis who expressed their support
ted couples and their children.
for equal rights and opposition of
Perhaps you have visited the
Proposal 2 ("Equal Rights, Equal
Holocaust Memorial Center in
Access," Oct. 15, page 6). I would
Farmington Hills. There you can read
also like to respond to Rabbi Jack
the laws that systematically demeaned
Goldman ("Support Proposal 2,"
us and eventually took away our
Oct. 22, page 6) and Andrew Marks
humanity. Ah, but you say that can-
("Ban Adultery, Too," Oct. 22, Page
not happen here in America. One
6).
does not have to travel very far in
Rabbi Goldman's arguments are
time to unearth the laws that
flawed, manifest in saying that when
interned Japanese-Americans during
you ask a 4-year old how he/she
World War II or community laws
defines marriage, he/she would say,
that made it possible to defend turn-
"It is a Mommy and a Daddy and a
ing water hoses on our African-
little child." The average 4-year old is American brothers and sisters.
not brought up in a gay family and is
Jewish law and tradition forbid us
therefore ignorant of the homosexual from being passive or silent when
lifestyle.
another human being's life is at risk.
Secondly, it is wrong to not
Whether we are the majority in Israel
acknowledge that banning gay mar-
or the minority in Michigan, we are
riage is discriminatory and bigoted,
obligated to denounce any action
simply because you are denying a
that does harm. Proposal 2 is not
minority group certain rights because only harmful to committed couples,
of a certain preference. Just as the
straight and gay, it steals a piece of
Jewish people were discriminated
everyone's humanity.
against for thousands of years, from
Harold Kaller
Rome to Nazi Germany, we must not
West Bloomfield
turn our backs to the overt discrimi-
nation in banning gay marriage. Take
Against Proposal 2
a look at our entire, diverse country.
In response to Andrew Marks' let-
Proposal 2 is unfair from a legal per-
ter, I believe that banning adultery
spective. Simply put, unmarried peo-
would be completely ineffectual, like
ple financially subsidize married peo-
supporting an amendment banning
ple. Domestic partnership laws

