Conservative Judaism just wrestled with this same issue. Can we have openly gay rabbis and cantors? Can we bless gay marriages?
We have a Law Committee of 25 appointees. Whenever a halakhic question arises--that is, a question about Jewish law--any member of the law committee can issue a response. As long as at least six members of the committee endorse a particular response, that response is considered a tenable, allowable position as far as the law goes.
Well, there ended up being about five responses (
teshuvot) on the table when it came to homosexuality. After much debate, argument, study and prayer, this month the Law Committee endorsed three of them.
In fact, the primary two that passed contradict each other. One says that while every sympathy should be shown to those with a homosexual orientation, homosexual relationships are still forbidden by Jewish Law.
The other says that, for a variety of reasons, the restrictions placed on homosexuality in the Torah, Talmud, etc., don't apply to monogamous homosexual unions. Therefore, we can have openly gay rabbis and cantors and we can bless gay unions.
There are some restrictions to the more liberal response--one particular act between two men is still frowned upon and bi's are encouraged to enter a heterosexual marriage. For more details on any of the
teshuvot that passed, see the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism:
http://www.uscj.org/index1.html
So, in essence, Conservative Judaism is saying that this is a complex issue and you can argue successfully for or against it within the confines of our law, scripture and tradition. Therefore, there's no point in favoring one reading of the law above the other. Both are valid--and there's room enough for both.
Now it will be up to each individual Conservative synagogue to decide whether or not to bless gay unions and whether or not to hire a gay rabbi or cantor.
This has happened before--passing contradictory
teshuvot, I mean. It happened over the egalitarian issue. That's why most Conservative synagogues allow women to be cantors and rabbis--but there are still a few traditional hold outs that do not.
Admittedly, no one's perfectly happy with this outcome regarding the homosexual issue. But at least we're all equally miserable.
The Episcopalians might want to come up with a similiar ruling. Why not say that both parties have a valid point and leave it up to each individual church to decide? If an individual church has enough power--or thinks it has enough power--to up and leave a diosece and then turn around and start a legal battle over the property, how much trouble could it be just to tell them to decide for themselves whether or not to take on gay priests and whether or not to hold gay committment ceremonies?
Bottom line: let liberal churches and conservative churches each go their own way on this issue--and let each recognize that the other has a valid argument. A Church should be large enough to hold more than one opinion.
