Providing Justice for Gay Families: Support of Access to Civil Marriage

By SHEILA DECTER

When the issue of gay marriage emerged in Massachusetts in 2001, the range of understanding and acceptance among Jewish organizations and synagogues varied greatly. For GBLT groups (Gay, Bisexual, Lesbian, and Transgender) and their straight allies, the failure of the Commonwealth to recognize same sex marriages was a sharp injustice. Long-time couples were denied the legal privileges, responsibilities, and benefits that stemmed from state recognition of marriage—adoption protection, tax benefits, inheritance laws, to name just a few. Couples talked about the difficulties of taking children to emergency rooms, visiting partners in hospitals, making funeral arrangements, the ordinary life cycle tasks of long-term family relationships.

For some in the Jewish community, same-sex marriage posed difficulties because of limitations of halacha—traditional interpretations of Leviticus (18:22; 20:13) which prohibited male homosexuality and a midrash (Sifra Aharei Mot 8:8-9) which prohibited Lesbian relationships. Others took guidance from Genesis 1:27: Man was created in G-d’s image, b’tselem elohim, in the likeness of G-d, male and female did he create them. If every human being has infinite worth, then all are entitled to equal dignity and respect.

The Reform and Reconstructionist Movements had allied themselves with efforts to end discrimination against homosexuals and to participate in commitment ceremonies, thus recognizing “the stamp of the divine present in each and every one of us.” During this same period, the Conservative Movement was engaged in a debate over the wisdom of a change in interpretation of the traditional halacha.

Opponents of same same-sex marriage sought to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn the 2003 Supreme Judicial Court decision on Goodridge v. Mass Department of Public Health, allowing same-sex marriage. The first goal for progressive Jewish organizations was to clarify that this public debate was over secular or civil marriage—not an effort to tell any religious body what constituted marriage within a given religious tradition.

A broad coalition of GBLT groups and straight allies (MassEquality) was established to strategize, raise sufficient funds, and to energize the community to prevent discriminatory language from being added to the state Constitution. JALSA, the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action—a Boston based social justice group—became an early member of the coalition steering committee. JALSA had been active in earlier legislative efforts to end same-sex discrimination and participated in an amicus brief supporting the Goodridge case. JALSA established a working coalition in the Jewish community, beginning a process that grew to involve eight organizations and synagogues throughout the state.

Accepting assignments from the strategic operations committee of MassEquality, Jewish groups independently pursued advocacy techniques best suited to Jewish communal and religious organizations. Early on, forums were held in key synagogues providing an understanding of the perspective of gays and lesbians and their quest for dignity and acceptance within the Jewish community. Magen Mishpacha, a Temple Israel, Boston GBLT education group, and Keshet, a new Jewish GBLT advocacy group, provided resources for synagogue forums. Rabbinic leaders provided letters to other rabbis and congregations complete with models for sermons.

The Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Mary (an interfaith clergy group with many Jewish members) provided attendees for vigils and clergy visits to legislative officials. An ADL forum demonstrated the increasing size of the constituencies pressing for justice, adding sexual orientation to its discussions of bigotry and intolerance. A statement of opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment from the Boston Jewish Community Relations Council, whose members include Jewish institutions representing a wide variety of perspectives, provided important recognition of the breadth of concern over possible new discriminatory language in the state Constitution

Keshet and Ohel Tzedek, the social action arms of Temple Israel, Boston, provided significant attendance at rallies in front of the State House. Testimony before legislative committees was provided by JALSA and others; phone banks in synagogues, letters to legislators, and visits to legislators were all utilized over the 4-year period. Hillel leadership, Jewish Labor Committee, Workmen’s Circle, American Jewish Committee, and the JCRC provided letters and visits to legislators, letters to editors, flyers and calls to action at meetings.

Ultimately, the campaign was successful. On June 14, 2007, the legislature voted against the amendment. Discriminatory language would not be added to the Massachusetts Constitution. While rejoicing in the defeat of this threat to the civil rights of the GLBT community, it is also important to reflect on the meaning of this moment for Jewish organizing efforts. By grounding our position in text and Jewish values of respecting every individual, we were able to unite people from different denominations and perspectives. While it is never possible to say that the Jewish community speaks with one voice, it became clear in the course of the debate that the Jewish community had a significant contribution to make in support of equal marriage, based in large measure on our long-standing belief in civil rights and anti-discriminatory policies. As the oft-quoted saying of Rabbi Hillel goes, If I am for myself alone, who am I? If not now, when? In this case, the when was “now” in a gathering of Jewish forces in support of the GLBT members of our community, and ultimately, in support of all of our civil rights.