I'm Gonna Have To Say Something About Prop 8

When I started this blog, I essentially explained its raison d’etre in the equivalent of three pages when I could have explained it one sentence. To wit: I am ostensibly a self-hating conservative who is forever trying to intellectually justify my conservative positions as exceptions to my imagined ingrained liberalism.

Prop 8 provides an illustration of said phenomenon.

As a believing Orthodox Jew, knowing what I know about the sources of Jewish Law and its legal system, I consider myself intellectually bound to believe in its truth.  I will not even try to argue with anyone who considers my views on Prop 8 to be homophobic; in today’s political climate, they probably are. I also personally believe there is no way to mitigate the Jewish legal prohibitions vis-a-vis homosexuality with any degree of intellectual honesty.  But that’s another discussion (see the last article below).

So I'll say this:

Other than the purely theological, there is no truly logical reason to morally oppose homosexual relations between consenting adults.

Anyone claiming otherwise is either intellectually dishonest or self-delusional.

So, again for the record, had I been in the voting booth in California, I would not have pulled the lever in either direction, for the simple reason that no salient non-theological argument has been proffered in its favor. I count myself to be on the side of Prop 8’s proponents (certainly, those who voted “no” would put me there, even if—or possibly because—I would have abstained).  However, the burden of proof of the proposition’s non-theological moral saliency is clearly on its proponents, and they have not come close to meeting it.

Below are four articles that illustrate just how far they are. (And, if you read Lisa Miller’s Newsweek article (fourth below), you’ll see how tenuous the theological argument is.)


An Orthodox Jewish religious perspective:
'MARRIED' AND THE MOB,  Rabbi Avi Shafran

It seems clearer than ever that gay activists are not, as was once thought, interested only on being left alone, or, as was later thought, on being granted the same privileges as others. They are fixated, in fact, on creating a society where traditional religious perspectives on homosexuality and marriage are regarded, in law and in social dialogue, as the equivalent of racial or ethnic bias.
The scenario of religious people - and institutions like churches, synagogues and mosques - being branded as bigoted simply for affirming deeply-held religious convictions is around the corner. And eventual prosecution of the same for voicing those convictions is only another corner or two away.

What began as a plea for "rights" is rapidly, and noisily, morphing into an assault on freedom of speech and conscience.

Jews who take their religious tradition seriously will not allow the shifting sands of societal mores to obscure the fact that the Torah forbids homosexual acts, and sanctions only the union of a man and a woman in matrimony. They know, further, that the Talmud and Midrash teach that a saving grace of human society throughout the ages has been its refusal to formalize unions between males.


A politically conservative “natural law” perspective:
California Proposition 8 and Natural Law Rights

Natural law morality guided by conscience preserves and strengthens those relationships and social bonds, builds trust, inhibits our selfishness. We need to regain an appreciation of the morality of natural law as the foundation for our law, both domestically and internationally, and the courts must self-police in recognizing the consequent inherent limitations on their powers, or the grand aspirations of the American Declaration will have come to naught.

The People of California need to reassert their natural law rights against a State Supreme Court that has disdained and disregarded them. They need to overrule the Court’s decision to redefine marriage according to a morality that sees only libertine license as good, with no counterbalancing duties and responsibilities. A State, any State, is a poor substitute for responsible self-governance, self-control, and self-discipline. Nothing less than freedom, true freedom, is at stake, for our children and grandchildren, if not for ourselves.

Please, California, enact Proposition 8. Much more than marriage is at stake, and not just on your fair shores. Help protect our children’s and grandchildren’s marriages, and in doing so, help us take back our Constitution from those who were sworn to preserve it but have been its greatest undoing.


A secular law perspective:
Democracy, Religion and Proposition 8
Geoffrey R. Stone

Does Proposition 8 violate the Constitution? There are several arguments one might make for this position. One might argue that Proposition 8 discriminates against gays and lesbians in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. One might argue that Proposition 8 unconstitutionally limits the fundamental right to marry. One might argue that Proposition 8 violates the separation of church and state. It is this last argument that interests me.

Laws that violate the separation of church and state usually take one of two forms. Either they discriminate against certain religions (“Jews may not serve as jurors”), or they endorse particular religions (“school children must recite the Lord’s Prayer”). Proposition 8 does not violate the principle of separation of church and state in either of these ways. It neither restricts religious freedom nor endorses religious expression.

What it does do, however, is to enact into law a particular religious belief. Indeed, despite invocations of tradition, morality and family values, it seems clear that the only honest explanation for Proposition 8 is religion.
[]
Proposition 8 was a highly successful effort of a particular religious group to conscript the power of the state to impose their religious beliefs on their fellow citizens, whether or not those citizens share those beliefs. This is a serious threat to a free society committed to the principle of separation of church and state.


And, the best argument against Prop 8 from the religious angle, which shows how tenuous even the 
theological argument might be.

Our Mutual Joy
Lisa Miller

Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?

Someone's Paying Attention

In my July 24 post Dirty Laundry I discussed the phenomenon of ostensible enforced silence regarding certain uncomfortable cultural phenomena in the furthest-right Orthodox communities. I specifically didn't deal with abuse of children at that time; that was--and remains--the touchstone phenomenon.

So it was encourgaing to see this, from VosIzNeias, advertised as "The Voice Of The Orthodox Jewish Community":

http://www.vosizneias.com/24091/2008/12/11/borough-park-ny-charedi-girl-molested-on-way-to-school-hiknd-kudos-to-family-for-reporting-it-to-law-enforcement-hynes-speaks-out/

Chareidi Girl Molested On Way To School; Hikind: Kudos To Family For Reporting It to Law Enforcement; Hynes Speaks Out

Borough Park, NY - Last week, in the shadow of the Mumbai massacre, a significant battle in the ongoing war against sexual abuse in the Orthodox community was begun.

A Chasidic resident of Borough Park, beard, conservative clothes and all, lured early morning a Chasidic girl on her way to school into his home off the street in broad daylight under the pretext of needing some assistance. He then proceeded to force and molest his victim, who is under the age of 13.

According to State Assemblyman Dov Hikind, who has championed the cause of abuse victims in recent months, the family first reported the incident to his office. They then contacted four community rabbonim to ask whether they were halachically permitted to report the perpetrator to the authorities. Three rabbonim allegedly said they didn't want to get involved. The fourth, in contrast, permitted them, and apparently strongly urged them to proceed.

The family then reported the incident to the offices of Kings County DA Charles Hynes, which shortly ordered the arrest of the perpetrator. The perpetrator has been Arrested and charged with Sexual Abuse in the Second Degree and Endangering the Welfare of a Child, and is awaiting trial.

VIN News praises the "heimishe" family, as Assemblyman Hikind describes them, for coming forward. VIN News also gives high marks to the courageous, forward-thinking rabbi who allowed the incident's reportage to the authorities. Praises goes out once again to the courage of Assemblyman Hikind for publicizing the issue. And a special recognition needs to go out to Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz Menhal Of Yehsiva Darchai Noam In Monsey, NY who has been speaking out publicly on this subject for many years.

[Editors Note: For those who question why VosizNeias posts columns on the matter of abuse; our response is that discussing problems is the first step in solving them. In fact, Rabbi Yakov Horowitz addresses this very question in his column Why I Write Columns on Abuse which appears in this week's issue of The Jewish Press. His words speak for themselves -- and for the editors of VosizNeias]

VIN News reminds its readers that this incident was perpetrated in the heart of Borough Park, in daylight hours, by a presentable, average-looking Chosid and community member—in contrast to the abuser stereotype of a sinister-looking stranger from the street.

Investigators believe there are more victims of the same perpetrator. VIN News joins investigators' call for victims and their families to come forward. Abuse crimes may be reported to the offices of Assemblyman Hikind or DA Hynes.

In related news, DA Hynes denied charges by a victim's father that Orthodox community leaders pressured him into lightening charges against his child's abuser. In a TV report last night by New York's PIX 11, Hynes argued that he was working hard to prosecute abusers. "There is a suspicion that the orthodox community will hide its sins," he told an interviewer. "I have not found that to be true. They know that I am very, very aggressive on this stuff."

However, in an anonymous interview in the same report, the victim's father insisted that Hynes had been pressured into lessening charges against the accused perpetrator. "I was actually forced to agree to that," he said. "The rabbis in the Jewish community tell the District Attorney, 'Back off.' "

Countered Hynes: "I have two signed statements from parents—they don't want to put their kids through the torture of a trial." The report added that Hynes is pushing for a change in extradition laws with Israel to allow old flights from justice to be returned to American courts for trial.

Perhaps most significantly, the report mentioned that Hynes "would like to sign a memo of understanding" with Orthodox community leaders that they would turn over allegations of abuse to his office instead of trying to handle them within the community—similar to the 2002 agreement with the Catholic Church in the wake of its abusive-priests scandal. VIN is unsure yet cautiously optimistic about this latter development.

Republi-Karma Coda: Blagojevich and Plunkitt

Gov. Rod Blagojevich seems to have directly bypassed traditional Illinois machine politics in managing his career. Instead , one might find a well-worn copy of George Washington Plunkitt’s 1905 Series of Very Plain Talks on Very Practical Politics: “There's an honest graft, and I'm an example of how it works. I might sum up the whole thing by sayin': 'I seen my opportunities and I took 'em.'"

(For the record, Plunkitt did believe there was such a thing as "Dishonest Graft", according to Plunkitt, would be using influence to have a project built on land after the land had been purchased. In any case, he may not have objected to Blajo's practice of selling offices to the highest bidder, as this was a Tammany staple. However, if Blajo actually did read Plunkitt's treatise, it would be unlikely that he would have progressed as far as a passage decrying anything as "dishonest".)

Has the “liberal” media been engaged in an attempt at a massive cover-up of the messianic mess? Unlikely. It seems like they’ve been asking the “hard questions” and then jumping to answer for Obama, but that may be just because there isn’t anything traceably fungible between Rod’s and Barack’s camps. As this investigation had been going on for five years, which pre-dates Jack Ryan’s implosion and Obama’s cakewalk of a Senate election versus GOP heavyweight Alan Keyes, one can safely surmise that Obama was smart enough to stay away.

Additionally, had there been anything substantive and the Republicans gotten wind of it, one thinks that they would have been able to make charges of rank corruption stick; even they hadn’t been simultaneously so brazen and incompetent. In any case, the conservative media has been behaving in exemplary fashion since the election; most “serious” outlets (e.g., not including Limbaugh and Coulter) have essentially been saying the same thing: We Blew It. The realization has set in that they had their moment—28 years of it—and now its over. In terms of political capital, conservatism is certainly experiencing its own recession, and nobody is about to bail them out. Still, even while appearing to be duly chastened, conservatives on whole have been genuinely gracious.

Gary Hart owes Gov. Goniv a thank-you note for one-upping “follow me around; you’ll be very bored”. Hell, Blagojevich even makes Nixon look good; at least Tricky Dick didn’t tell anyone he’d been taping until he was forced to, and besides, JFK was actually the one who had installed the system in the first place.

But to dare the authorities to wiretap you? And after 9/11? The only explanation I can come up with is that Blajo was laying the groundwork for what might turn out to be a successful insanity defense.

Too bad Plunkitt isn't available to defend him.

Bailing Myself Out

I didn’t expect that actually trying to keep up with the election was gonna depress me so much that I would get so sick of it, to the point where I couldn’t bring myself to vote for either candidate.

(Well, I won’t go so far as to say I fell into depression. Maybe a recession, and it took till now to get myself bailed out).

I was spoiled the first time I voted in a Presidential (actually, any) election, in 1992. At that point, being pro-Israel dovetailed perfectly with the politics of the Democratic Party; the convention in New York was described as one of the most overtly pro-Israel in years.

Contrast that with the fact that only four years before, in Atlanta, Jesse Jackson and his minions (e.g., Alton Maddox and Vernon Mason) had hijacked the proceedings and practically made the pre-Oslo Arafat Dukakis’ running mate; add to that the image of Pat Buchanan making the keynote speech in Houston at the 1992 GOP convention. The choice for a pro-Israel voter was ostensibly as obviously Democratic then as Republican now. In 1992 it wasn’t all that difficult to be liberal and pro-Israel.

What made the 2008 cycle ultimately so depressing was that it became increasingly more difficult to intellectually justify my vote beyond the Israel factor, especially since I continue to bend over backwards to try to convince myself and others that I’m not conservative. After watching the Katie Couric interviews with Sarah Palin (forget the Supreme Court decisions---couldn’t name a NEWSPAPER or MAGAZINE???? Hell-LLLO?!?!?) it became well-nigh impossible.

(I’ve concluded that Bristol Palin preganacy was not the result of her lack of access to sex ed. She got pregnant because she didn’t have access to ANY ed. Her mother’s knowledge of current events was so lacking, one can only imagine what her daughter’s intellectual proclivities were.)

The good thing about this election is that it seems that the truly toxic partisan elements of our political culture seem to have played themselves out. Granted, things in general are a lot messier now than they were in 2000 and 2004, and there seems to be at least some salient idea, however nebulous, of what’s at stake, and that we all may be on the same side, after all.

Blame the Jews?

Ironic, isn’t it, that the first ones to blame the Jews if Obama loses will be… the Jews.

Obama’s Jewish poll numbers seem to approach that of Carter, the last Democratic candidate not to get a majority of the Jewish vote. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that, to religious Zionist Jews like me, his campaign betrays a decided leftist bent reminiscent of every utopian socio-political fad that ultimately was destructive not only to us, but to the country and, in many cases, the “world order”, for lack of a better term.

For Jews who subscribe to a different set of commandments, their support of Obama is undoubtedly due to the fact that his campaign portrays a decided leftist bent reminiscent of every utopian socio-political fad that ultimately was destructive not only to us, but to the country and, in many cases, the “world order”, for lack of a better term.

“Different set of commandments”?

Absolutely.

I’ve come to the conclusion that, because I’m the one who holds myself accountable to a set of religious principles over and above a set of nebulous ethics that have become as axiomatic--if not more--than any fundamentalist religious doctrine, I am more tolerant and more open-minded than any of my co-religionists who subscribe to the contemporary liberal creed. And, make no mistake about it, contemporary liberalism is a creed.

I didn’t like being preached at during my long and extensive religious education. I don’t like being preached at when I read religious texts for my own edification. However, I never forget that what I’m reading is designed—whoever is responsible for the design—to do exactly that: preach, and preach from a Judeo-centric point of view. It is ultimately up to me to decide what morally and intellectually binds me as a result.

However, I’ll say it again: the Jews who throw an alternative moral code at me are no less self-righteous—or fundamentalist—than the farthest right-wingers with the longest beards. There are certain liberal tenets I can accept, but the beauty of liberal doctrine was supposed to be that it would be up to me to decide what would be morally binding.

That no longer being the case, I can handle the implication that my Judaism—especially when combined with my support for Israel—ipso facto renders me morally suspect, as far as liberals are concerned. I should have expected that long ago. What I suppose I’m going to have to get used to is the implication that my being Jewish should actually morally bind me to leftist doctrines, and that my refusal to do so renders me the wrong kind of Jew, or insufficiently Jewish.

If Sarah Silverman wants to be my Rabbi, where was she when I was in high school?

Back to School

I was going to write that I had thought Sarah Palin’s obvious weaknesses could have been converted to strengths.

I was going to write that her obvious inexperience in foreign policy—or, any real policy outside of Alaska—would be blunted by controversy surrounding Obama’s “community organizing”, either because of its purported lack of gravitas or the unsavory characters Obama associated with in these organizations. (This despite the fact that Obama’s Chicago “communities’” populations might have approached the total population of Alaska).

I has hoped that Gov. Palin’s sex would serve to a) reintroduce gender into the race after the Obama campaign thought it had cleared that hurdle by beating Hillary, at the same time that it would b) serve as a living breathing rejoinder to hard Left Marxist gynocentrism that remains a fundamental part of the current Democratic zeitgeist, in spite of—or even because of—her Assembly of G-d-driven outlook (vis-à-vis abortion, sex education, etc.).

I had surmised that her lack of policy experience, her relatively short political c.v. and her deeply held, unabashed belief system would be less vulnerable to generic political charges of flip-flopping, because she hadn’t had enough opportunities to do it.

I was going to theorize that the combination of these factors, and the fact that she (credibly) holds herself out as a working-class mom with a regular family (and, a certainly “imperfect” family, which could only work in her favor) and rising from the PTA to the governor’s mansion would resonate more widely with the American public than Obama’s tale of growing up with a single mother in, while not privileged, certainly a unique set of circumstances that relate to American life in much narrower (and, certainly his case, more “elite”) sense.

I hoped, once I had ceased being a swing voter and committed to the McCain-Palin ticket, that all of this would coalesce into a solid electoral asset for the ticket; especially with an economic crisis afoot where the conventional wisdom and general perception is that it is a Republican creation, her impression of a complete political and economic outsider could only help the ticket’s prospects.

I couldn’t decide whether she had handled, or been handled, in her interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric. However, it was evident that she had been able, to q certain degree, deflect their obvious biases, if not highlight them, so those were, at worst, a draw for her.

Then I watched tonight’s debates and saw what exactly she was up against.

It was obvious that she is being kept on a short leash.

It was clear that the hope was that, unlike her appearance onstage in Minneapolis where she truly shined, that she would simply not screw up.

It was revealed that she was truly a national policy neophyte who needed her talking points scripted and that she, unlike her counterpart, was breaking her teeth selling them in an arena where the playing field was actually level.

More importantly, it was the first time the people running the McCain campaign were really in a no-win situation, realized it, but realized they couldn’t do anything about it.

Obama sounded like a Senator. McCain sounded like a Senator. Biden sounded like a Senator.

Sarah Palin sounded like a schoolmarm, or at best, a parochial high-school social studies teacher conducting a current events lesson.

Now I might be biased, because there was only one social studies teacher I ever liked/had a crush on, and she looked nothing like Sarah Palin. I don’t think that was the case, however; I didn’t get the impression that she was being overbearing. It made her look like she wanted to finish the lesson before the class became inevitably unruly.

This time, Biden took her back to school.

I have written off the McCain campaign before, even as I had been leaning to (and am now committed to) voting for the McCain ticket.

I’m not doing that now. Up until now, Palin was an unqualified asset to the ticket. And, now that she has been freed from this social obligation of the electoral season, its time for the ticket to take off the leash and let her do what she does best.

Attack.

Republi-Karma III: Economics

In the simplest sense, the economic crisis is the result of the perfect convergence of Republican deregulation and Democratic affirmative action.

To wit, the removal of barriers between, and oversight from, investment and commercial banking, which was the true culmination of deregulatory impulses stemming back to the 1980’s, combined with the policy of handing out loans deliberately to those who were more likely to default, but whose entitlement to said loans was influenced by other factors.

One may not even have to “stoop” to identifying said factor as ethnicity; it seems as if the borrower’s likely inability to pay was the deciding factor in actually lending the money. This is paradigmatic “acqusitionism”: EVERYONE has a RIGHT to OWN a home, no matter who has to pay for it. Just like health care and education.

(This also might raise questions about whether need-based “affirmative action” in academia and elsewhere is a more reasonable policy than ethnicity-based admissions/placement. I still think it is, especially with regards education, particularly due to its more intangible benefits. )

However, there are two reasons why this crisis, beyond the stereotypical Republican-as-Wall-Street-versus-Democrat-as-Main-Street stereotype, is going to hurt the Republicans more than the Democrats.

The first reason is that, while housing was the primary catalyst is precipitating this crisis, it was more a symptom than cause, particularly because while profits were being made no one was going to complain too loudly, or at least do anything about it. The Republican claim of warnings issued about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whether they are true or not, lack credibility because the culture of deregulation is undoubtedly their creation.

The second reason is that, like 1968, the already hemorrhaging treasury is being simultaneously drained by an unpopular and divisive war. The party in charge paid for it then, and may pay for it now.

It also seems that the Democrats have gotten over their fear of playing politics to win; Nancy Pelosi seems willing to drag out the crisis long enough to allow the playing field to be tilted further in the Democrats favor. However, this naked tactic is certainly not unknown on the other side of the aisle; after 9/11, the Wall Street Journal advised Bush and his administration to use the events to his political advantage (although Rove, Cheney and his minions would have, and did, do exactly that in any case).

The only question is whether Congress is having fun grandstanding while the Treasury drains. There is no question of whether they care. They don’t.