We begin by suggesting that, in this argument, the burden of proof does not rest with us. This is no mere debaters' quibble. Frequently, in discussions ofthis sort in liberal circles such as ours, one hears the question posed as "Why not?" That is to say, "Why shouldn't we, as liberals who are open to new ideas,adopt this change?" To frame the issue in this way is to declare that, at least on this subject, the cumulative weight of millennia of Jewish tradition hardlycounts. That tradition, as we have seen, condemns homosexual behavior in no uncertain terms, and even the Reform Jewish tradition has to date spokennegatively to the subject of our she'elah [inquiry]. As members of the Responsa Committee, we take tradition seriously and consider it prayerfully. Even on thissubject, so often (and, to some of us, falsely) presented as a stark contrast between the values of the present versus those of an outdated past, tradition serves asour interpretive starting point. Those who advocate a revolutionary transformation of Jewish marriage law and practice rightly shoulder the burden of provingthat theirs is the better position. .
Those who advocate homosexual marriage have not, in the opinion of our majority, met their burden of proof. That is, their arguments do not succeed inovercoming the opposition to this practice found in both the Jewish and the Western traditions. We do not accept the suggestion that the ritual category ofto`evah [abomination] is irrelevant to the question under discussion. While we Reform Jews have departed from traditional practice in many areas, we continue to "abhor"virtually all the sexual prohibitions listed in Leviticus 18 and 20 as destructive of the Jewish conception of a life of holiness and morality. While it may betrue that we as a community no longer look upon homosexual behavior, as we once did, as a revulsive act, the fact remains that no Jewish community has evergone so far as to sanctify as marriage a sexual relationship which the Torah defines as ervah [sexually forbidden]. Not even we, with all our liberality, have ever done thisbefore. To do so now would be a revolutionary step, one which would sunder us from all Jewish tradition, including our own, down to the most recent times.
At this point, we raise the delicate issue of Jewish unity. The extension of kiddushin [traditional marriage] to gays and lesbians would break so sharply with the standards ofreligious practice maintained by virtually all Jewish communities as to wreak havoc upon our relationships with most of them. A decision of this nature wouldcontinue a trend, which many Reform rabbis find quite troubling, of pushing the Reform movement toward the margins of our people, of the Jewishcommunity as a whole. It would have dramatic and negative effects upon the standing of our progressive colleagues in Israel and elsewhere.
Reform Judaism, as most of us understand it, does not mandate gay/lesbian marriage. Yes, we recognize that the attitudes of our community and societytoward homosexuals and homosexuality have undergone a profound transformation in recent years. All of us are encouraged at the signs that a long history ofrepression and hatred is at last beginning to give way to a spirit of tolerance and inclusion. All of us stand as one behind the statement of the Ad HocCommittee that "all human beings are created betselem Elohim ('in the divine image'). Their personhood must therefore be accorded full dignity. Sexualorientation is irrelevant to the human worth of a person." But this affirmation, which demands that we work for full social and political equality for gays andlesbians, does not logically require that we must also support a Jewish religious "right" to homosexual marriage. From our acknowledgement of the right ofgay and lesbian couples to arrange their financial affairs in the way they see fit, it does not logically follow that we must declare that their relationship partakesof the same religious sanctity as does traditional marriage. Similarly, we recognize that the understanding of homosexuality as an orientation rather than anintended choice leads to the conclusion that the act of homosexual intercourse cannot be understood in traditional legal terms as apunishable sin. Again, however, the fact that a pattern of behavior is in some way involuntary does not necessarily mean we must sanctify it. Indeed, given theprevailing uncertainty as to the causes and development of sexual orientation--genetic or environmental? constitutional or socially constructed?--some of us arequite hesitant to draw the kinds of conclusions which need to be drawn in order to justify the institution of homosexual marriage.