We can respect tradition while supporting equality

I was convinced long ago that gays and lesbians needed to be legally protected from hate crimes and discrimination.

But I believed that marriage meant a sacred union between a man and a woman. Domestic partnerships? Absolutely. Same-sex civil unions? An idea whose time had come. But why should the definition of marriage be changed?

My children and colleagues challenged my view. Eventually, I changed my opinion. I still fully understand the desire to view marriage solely as the province of a man and a woman. This has long been reinforced at Jewish weddings, which culminate with the groom breaking the wineglass as the guests shout, "Mazel tov!"

But what convinced me was that my discomfort with a change in the definition of marriage paled in comparison with the lifetime of discomfort, hurt and discrimination experienced by gays and lesbians. It became clear that discrimination would persist absent full recognition of the right to marry.

The Jewish Community Relations Council recently took up the issue and overwhelmingly voted in favor of marriage equality.

Several longtime JCRC members spoke movingly about how their views had evolved over the past 10 years. There is something about the nature of civil rights issues that at a particular moment in time — a tipping point — a longstanding wrong comes into clear focus and we wonder what took us so long to move toward full equality. Then we look back a few years later and wonder what all the fuss was about. That will ultimately be the case with marriage equality, as it was with desegregation and other pivotal battles for civil rights.

The JCRC's 2006 statement (the full text can be found at http://www.jcrc.org) reads in part, "We believe that one of the strongest arguments in favor of same-sex civil marriage is the benefits that this policy will confer on society as a whole. Our communities benefit when adults choose to share their lives with partners based on a loving, committed, long-term union that has equal dignity under the law."

JCRC strongly opposes Proposition 8 on the November ballot in California, which would amend the state's constitution to include the words, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." In so doing, we acknowledge the complexity of traditional Jewish teachings about homosexuality and fully respect the views of community members who support the proposition. Our statement also makes clear that in supporting same-sex civil marriage we expect clergy to continue to have the right to decide whom to marry within the province of the separation of church and state, something the proposition's proponents would have us believe will be at risk.

Recently, my wife, Ellen, and I attended our first wedding between two lesbian women, our dear friends Jeanne Rizzo and Pali Cooper. The wedding, conducted by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom in his private office, had been denied them during the previous 19 years of their relationship.

There was so much love expressed between them, and among the loved ones who surrounded the couple, that there were no dry eyes in the room, including those of the mayor. We were profoundly moved that Jeanne's and Pali's civil rights were exercised — and, if Proposition 8 is defeated — will be protected.

An article in the Summer 2003 issue of the American Bar Association's Human Rights Magazine noted that 1,049 federal rights and obligations are tied to marriage, according to a 1996 General Accounting Office study. For all the loving couples we know and do not know, for this generation and for future generations, we have an opportunity and a responsibility to make a major difference for civil rights this November by sending a message that marriage equality has arrived — and must be preserved — to the benefit of us all.




Rabbi Doug Kahn is executive director of the S.F.-based Jewish Community Relations Council. He can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).




The Jewish debate over Prop. 8