From: Jacob Rothman Subject: JUD/HOMOSEXUALITY Judaism, Homosexuality, and Political Activism: Analyzing the Need for Diversity in Approaching Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual Politics Jacob Rothman Bowdoin College English 318 Professor Wilson Running Head: JUDAISM, HOMOSEXUALITY, POLITICAL ACTIVISM The present work argues that the advancement of a gay/lesbian/bisexual political agenda is largely dependent on the degree to which a united movement analyzes the complexity and interconnectedness of the ethnic, religious, racial, and psychological backgrounds that inform the lives of their individual members. In order to demonstrate this claim, the relationship between Judaism and homosexuality will be discussed. Specifically, the Traditionalist approach to same sex erotic relationships, the biblical and halakhic (traditional Jewish law) documents used to support this perspective, contrasting models that have been presented in relationship to this issue, and the ramifications of the latter for gay Jews living in the United States. In addition, the role of Judaism in re-directing the self-destructive and masochistic behavior that is often associated with marginalized individuals who are expected to conform to heterosexual norms will also be discussed. Masochism is defined here as repeated actions designed to inflict pain on the psyche that eventually limit autonomy, and the capacity for healthy interpersonal relationships. These factors are considered within the boundaries of this work in order to make salient the need for a tightly woven network between specified psychological problems and the establishment/progression of communities who can assist the latter. In reviewing this essay it is important to note that there are two fundamental biases that underlie the progression of ideas presented. First, that the modern midrashic (interpretation of the halacha) on this subject fails to provide an accurate representation of the complexity of homosexuality and the issues involving the gay, lesbian, and bisexual Jewish community. Second, that providing a better understanding will ultimately assist modern synagogues in the process of Jewish renewal. This exploration will conclude by discussing the shared importance of this type of approach for Judaism, and for the advancement of united gay/lesbian/bisexual political groups. Any discussion of the Traditionalist perspective must begin by recognizing that there has been a general repudiation of homosexual relationships by the Jewish community. Quoting Moshe Spero (1979), homosexuality "destroys the individual's ability for ontological fulfillment in the halakhic world." Expanding on this sentiment, many modern rabbis have attempted to explain why Judaism and homosexuality are mutually exclusive. In reference to this question Rabbi Norman Lamm has stated that homosexuality: frustrates the divine intent of procreation; undermines the family; and is biologically and anatomically unnatural. Concluding his argument he asserts that homosexuals should be viewed as patients rather than criminals. As a result, psychological assistance must be extended to those who cannot avoid homosexual desire. This statement of course denies the possibility of viewing homosexuality as a viable form of sexual fulfillment and personal expression. Regrettably, this has been the majority opinion of both Conservative and Orthodox rabbis. Although it should be noted that the Reform and Reconstructionists movements have generally taken a more tolerant stance on the issue of homosexuality, there is still a failure on the part of the latter to extend religious legitimacy to homosexual desire. In order to understand this claim, it is important to examine the specific halakhic arguments in more detail. As described by Rabbi Yoel Kahn, the following five concerns are reflected in the halakhic discussion of sexuality: economy of seed; the procreative purpose of sex; the role of women and the conjugal duty of men to engage in intercourse weekly (the onah); and the concern for ritual purity. All five are based largely on ancient conceptions of physiology, anthropology, and various theological claims regarding the nature of revelation in the Torah. For example, in reference to the fourth concern, it is understood that the Torah (Exodus 21:11) provides an outline for conjugal rights. In the Mishna, a 2nd century codification of the oral law, the frequency in which the onah must be provided is further specified. In addition, it is explained that male sexual energy is boundless, while the energy of the female is subdued and therefore must be aroused. As a result of this biblical and physiological understanding there is an emphasis not only on providing the onah, but on the specific techniques that men must master in order to perform the latter correctly. The ancient rabbis were fundamentally concerned with the proper methods of arousal in order to fulfill this obligation. To be able to arouse a wife is viewed as a mitzvah, or a sacred obligation for men. Therefore, according to this understanding, sex between men is not a mitzvah because it occurs outside of marriage, and does not focus on arousing a woman. In reference to the other four concerns, the basic understanding and biases of the ancient rabbis largely dictates the parameters of sexual expression as defined in the halacha. Summarizing the behavioral norms that are generated from these beliefs, it can be stated that sex is only licit and sacred when it occurs: between opposite sex partners; in the context of marriage; through vaginal intercourse; preferably in the missionary style; at permitted times during the religious calendar; at permitted times during the woman's menstrual cycle; with attention to women's satisfaction and pleasure; with the expectation that it will be procreative. In order to further understand the prohibition of same sex unions however, it is necessary to turn to the specific narratives in the Torah that enliven these debates. Specifically those found in Genesis and Leviticus. Instead of drawing specific parallels between the halachic material mentioned and the stories described in these books however, an attempt will be made to shift to more modern or scholarly interpretations. Confronting the account of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis is extremely difficult for gay men and lesbians. Indeed, even without considering the halacha, these passages seem to strongly indicate that the founding Jewish communities prohibited sex between male partners. This connection is made by juxtaposing the request of the Sodomites with the final destruction of Sodom by the wrath of God. In 19:5 the men ask, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them." Since Lot responds to this request by offering his virgin daughters as substitutes, few have questioned the sexual content of this account, and therefore the prohibitive implications for gays and lesbians. Similarly, the restrictions in Leviticus appears to clearly forbid sexual relationships between men. In 18:22 it states, "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination." Focusing primarily on the implications of using the word abomination or to'evah in Hebrew, traditional interpreters of this passage have claimed that the act is fundamentally sinful and beyond human manipulation or judgment. In reference to this Norman Lamm states, It may be . . . that an act characterized as an abomination is prima facie disgusting and cannot further be defined or explained. Certain acts are considered to'evah by the Torah, and there the matter rests. It is, as it were, a visible reaction, an intuitive disqualification of the act, and we run the risk of distorting the biblical judgment if we rationalize it. To'evah constitutes a category of objectionableness sui generis: it is a primary phenomenon. Therefore, resting on these seemingly clear textual representatives of the biblical view of homosexuality, many modern Jewish theologians have condemned sex between men. It should also be noted that although Genesis and Leviticus do not mention lesbian sexuality, the contents of these passages have also been extended to cover this form of emotional and erotic fulfillment. Recently however, there has been a surprising amount of scholarship that provides alternative explanations for these claims. It is necessary to review this work. In 1980 John Boswell published Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, arguably the most controversial work that has been done in relation to the question of homosexuality in the Genesis narrative. Briefly stated, Boswell claims that there are several different explanations that can be discovered by a more disciplined reading of the primary texts. In their most basic form these are: That the Sodomites were destroyed for their general wickedness; that the city was destroyed because the men threatened with rape were angels; that Sodom was destroyed because the men tried to engage in intercourse with these angels; that the city was destroyed because of the inhospitality of the inhabitants. In reference to the later, Boswell describes the historical importance of the Near Eastern code of hospitality. In addition, it is recognized by the author that the sin of the Sodomites is never mentioned in connection with homosexuality in any other part of the Torah or New Testament. Boswell states, There are, moreover, numerous other references in the Old Testament to Sodom and its fate, and scholars have failed to accord this facet of the controversy the importance it deserves. Sodom is used as a symbol of evil in dozens of places, but not in a single instance is the sin of the Sodomites specified as homosexuality. Other sins, on the other hand, are specifically mentioned. Ecclesiastics says that God abhorred the Sodomites for their pride (16:8), and the book of Wisdom advances the same theory (19: 13-14) . . . In Ezekiel the sins of Sodom are not only listed categorically but contrasted with the sexual sins of Jerusalem as less serious: "As I live, saith the Lord God, Sodom thy sister hath not done . . . as thou hast done . . . Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy" (16:48-49, KJV). Further, it is mentioned that there are other passages in the Torah that mirror the Genesis story. In Judges 19:22, for instance, Ephraim and his concubine are unable to find shelter in Gibeah until an old man offers to take them in. Similar to the men of Sodom, the residents of Gibeah are outraged because they have not been introduced to the strangers. To remedy the situation the daughter of the old man is offered to the community as a replacement. According to Boswell, few historians have attached homosexual themes to these passages. Instead, the sin of inhospitality is discussed. In addition to these finding Boswell has sited the infrequency of the words "to know" in connection with intercourse in the bible. On page 94 he states, "In only ten of its 943 occurrences in the Old Testament does it have the sense of carnal knowledge." Keeping this relatively small sampling of Boswell's work in mind, it is possible to see that Genesis 19 can be interpreted in a variety of different manners. In addition to this method of biblical criticism however, it is also interesting to discuss how related approaches to the historicity of sexuality inform the reading of both Genesis and Leviticus. Although the work of David Halperin focuses primarily on homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world, the theories he presents in relation to sexuality in general have a great deal of significance for the present discussion. Specifically, that sexual expression is a product of culture rather than genetics. According to this view, homosexuality as a cultural construct changes as the community progressives through time. In order to provide evidence for the claim he sites numerous examples in both art and literature where the representation of sexuality is different from the modern interpretation. In the Greco-Roman world, homosexuality was conceptualized as one of many forms of erotic fulfillment that one could engage in, but did not necessarily define one in terms of the restrictive categories of hetero and homosexuality. In reference to this Halperin states, I am claiming that there is no such thing as homosexuality or heterosexuality itself. Those words do not name independent modes of sexual being, leading some sort of ideal existence apart from particular human societies, outside of history or culture. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the atomic constituents of erotic desire, the basic building-blocks out of which every person's sexual nature is constructed. They just represent one of the many patters according to which human living-groups, in the course of reproducing themselves and their social structures have drawn the boundaries . . . Further, Halperin demonstrates that the language used to describe sexuality also changes over time. The word homosexual, for instance, is a product of the eighteenth and nineteenth century European need to scientifically categorize erotic desire. Boswell also discusses this aspect of modern language and recognizes that there are no words for homosexuality in Greek and Roman. This of course is important since many of our modern words for sexual activity (fellatio, cunnilingus) are derived from these languages. Although it should be noted that Boswell and Halperin differ sharply in terms of their views on homosexuality (Halperin is a constructionist, Boswell is an essentialist), both historians recognize the inadequacy of mapping modern sexual language and social perspectives on ancient cultures. Although this framework is fundamentally applied to other areas of historical concern, it is lacking in the issue of homosexuality. This discrepancy should be noted. In reference to sexuality in ancient Judaism David Biale states, "The crossing of boundaries, both sexual and ethnic, became a central component in the ideology of the monarchy as well as the national ideology of the Israelite people." Although in Eros and The Jews, he does not specifically address the issue of homosexuality, Biale describes the foundation of ancient Judaism as being based on a series of sexually transgressive acts. The story of King David, for instance, is fundamentally connected with adultery, deception, and murder. According to the author, this is only one of many instances where the rules of sexual conduct are abandoned and the subsequent activity is left unpunished. Although the author recognizes that the creation of these narratives pre-date the prohibitions in Leviticus, it is important to note that there was no apparent attempt to exclude them from the original cannon. In reference to the issue of homosexuality, it is interesting to consider the validly of modern restrictions that base their claim on these biblical texts. If the issue of crossing sexual boundaries did not provoke the founding communities to redact the sacred literature, why should modern Jews posit such a strict view of supposed sexual perversion? Further, Biale mentions the inadequacy of viewing ancient Judaism as a monolithic entity. The early communities instead should be studied in light of their apparent conflicts and the tensions between the law and foundational narratives. Therefore, it is quite possible that the early communities had opposing views of erotic fulfillment. As such, it seems ludicrous to rest entirely on a strict interpretation of the Genesis and Leviticus passages. This notion however, needs to be viewed in light of a new study done on sexuality in ancient Judaism. In a recent work entitled God's Phallus, an effort is made to explore the heterosexual relationship between God and Israel in the Torah. Briefly stated, Eilberg-Schwartz claims that this latter dynamic proposes a tremendous amount of psychological difficulty for men. Particularly in relation to homosexuality. According to the author, men cannot accept being in a love relationship with a male creator without finding ways to displace this anxiety. As a result, God has been traditionally presented in the Hebrew scriptures without a phallus. It is also interesting to note that circumcision is recognized as an attempt to feminize men in order to better interact with God. However interesting, these issues are initially problematic in terms of the present examination. Specifically, it must be noted that Eilberg-Schwartz assumes that homophobia was a preoccupation for the early Jewish communities. As discussed, this may not have been the case. In addition, as Halperin demonstrates, the categories of hetero and homosexuality may not be applicable to ancient societies. Therefore, the strict use of the marriage theme and the subsequent hiding of the phallus may not be linked to an avoidance of homosexuality. On the contrary, it may simply be connected with the need to describe the covenental bond in terms of the only commitment based love relationship linked to reproduction and progeny. Although fascinating, the work of Eilberg-Schwartz must be seen as contradictory to other descriptions of sexuality in the ancient world. In terms of the present work, it is important to keep this trend of writing at the forefront of critical analysis in order to avoid the mistake of applying modern categories of sexuality to ancient cultures. Returning to the theme of halacha, it is necessary to review the type of work that has been done in response to the Orthodox or Conservative movements by Jewish gays and lesbians. In reviewing the latter however, it is important to keep the process of midrash in mind. Specifically, the active interpretation of unclear or ambiguous passages in the Torah. For centuries, this is how Judaism has been able to survive in various situations throughout the Diaspora. Further, this engagement of the Torah in order to adapt to new environments has been deemed by many theologians to be the appropriate means of accessing divine order. This notion rests on the belief that God encoded every possible meaning within the Torah, and that modern Jews must responsibly find this meaning in order to make the document relevant to their daily lives. As such, many have produced their own midrash on Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. This has been done through looking at the historical, cultural, and linguistic settings that contributed to the construction of the specific passages. Attempting this process, Rabbi Rebecca Alpert has determined that the traditional reading of the word to'evah is incorrect. In reference to linguistics she states, We can explain why homosexual acts were considered to'evah from a different perspective by examining parallel linguistic uses of the word. We discover that to'evah is actually a technical term used to refer to a forbidden idolatrous act. From this information, we may conclude that the references in Leviticus are specific to cultic practices of homosexuality. This explanation is supported by reference to the other legal condemnation of homosexuality in Deuteronomy, which directly interdicts homosexual practices related to cultic activity. In addition, John Boswell has also noted that the latter refers to something that is ritually unclean, not intrinsically evil. This of course enhances the midrash of Rabbi Alpert who is looking to link the Leviticus passages with cultic practices, and the desire on the part of early communities to distinguish themselves from the to'evah ha goyim, or the perceived impurity of the gentiles. Although this appears to be an anthropological statement, and have little effect on the lives of modern gay and lesbian Jews, it is important to understand that each midrash is not considered in isolation. On the contrary, each contribution to the body of work labeled midrash adds to a collective understanding, and is therefore fundamentally connected to the entire corpus of Jewish knowledge. In order to demonstrate how this might effect a modern understanding of homosexuality, one further midrash should be examined. In response to the midrash noted above regarding the mitzvah of sexual relationships during marriage, Rabbi Kahn has demonstrated that the modern understanding of the equality between the sexes, and the role of intimacy demands that the concept of the onah be replaced with an alternative model. Recognizing the importance of sexual relationships on a human and on a divine level (here Martin Bubber is invoked in order to demonstrate the importance of the link between the interpersonal and the divine) it is argued that making love can be considered akin to making religious (and secular in other articles) justice. Extending this directly to the concept of the onah, it is posited that it is a mitzvah for both partners to seek to satisfy one another. Mirroring the criteria licit sexual criteria in the halacha, Kahn posits the creation of a system that values sexuality when it is expressed: 1. between equals (people who are peers in maturity, independence, and personal and physical powers) 2. who share mutual respect and affection 3. who assume equal responsibility for the possible consequences of their sexual activity 4. with concern for one another's sexual pleasure 5. with concern for another's physical and emotional health 6. in the context of open communication and truth telling 7. with respect for one another's body right and body integrity 8. and in the context of an with attention to each person's existing personal and communal covenental obligations to others. Furthermore, in reference to the prohibitions in the halacha against the spilling of semen and non-procreative intercourse, it is noted that these are no longer the concerns or practices of modern heterosexual Jews. Therefore, summarizing the midrash of Kahn, it is possible to conclude that he provides an updated sketch of sexual relationships that encompasses our modern understanding of psychology and human rights. This however, is achieved in dialogue with the Torah, the halacha, both ancient and modern midrash, and provides a basis for accepting modern gay and lesbian sexuality. The importance of continuing this line of investigation can be seen through examining the work of Lawrence Mass. On page 20 of Confessions of a Jewish Wagnerite Mass exclaims, "Could anything really be more important, especially to a neurotic young Jewish opera queen, than a big, unclipped German dick?" Embedded in this statement, several of the themes of Confessions are exposed. Juxtaposing the issues presented, one finds the practice of Judaism connected with sadomasochism, German culture, commitment based relationships, and the love of opera. In other parts of the autobiography, this structure or pattern of behavior is labeled as selbsthtass, a German word associated with self-hatred or masochism. In reference to the present examination, this work provides a context for which to view gay politics as fundamentally associated with issues of race, ethnicity, religion, and psychology (Mass was trained in psychology). In order to demonstrate this claim, it is necessary to discuss the individual components of selbsthass in the life of Mass. Analyzing the title of the book, it should be recognized that a large portion of the experience of Mass revolves around understanding the significance of identifying with the music of Wagner. Here, Wagner is identified as a strongly anti-Semitic German nationalist whose music was associated with the political and social ideology of Hitler. For Mass, to become a Wagnerite means a complete fascination with the composer and an unconscious tolerance or denial of the politics associated with the music. The ramifications of this denial for Mass becomes the leitmotiv for both the practice of his Judaism and the expression of his homosexuality. Specifically, in the context of the book, denial is equated with both masochism and closeted behavior. That is, all interpersonal actions and intrapersonal ideation is performed and conceived in order to provide pain or limit expression. In regards to Wagner, Mass begins to identify with his Judaism only when he can recognize the politics of the composer and eventually reject his music. This process is initiated when he writes to an opera critic about the portrayal of the dwarf Alberich as a Jew in the Chereau Ring Cycle. In addition, the generalized love of opera also becomes a forum for understanding issues of homosexuality. Here, Mass describes the reality of the opera world being largely populated by gay and bisexual men. This is referred to as "a fact of life in the world of the arts," and demonstrates the interconnectedness and complexity of religion, sexuality, art and culture for the author. Related to the complexities of assuming the life of a Wagnerite, Mass explains the effect of masochism in his interpersonal relationships. Again, this has ramifications for both the expression of Judaism and homosexuality. In the second chapter of the book entitled "Wicked Love," this theme is demonstrated by the description of Andrew Bullen, who begins seeing Mass while still a student at Berkeley. Although Andrew (or Andy) is described in many places as being a positive influence, the inability of Mass to adequately express himself as a representative of his religion, age, and sexuality leads to the fostering of an essentially masochistic relationship. This becomes even more salient when one considers that Andy is a priest, associated with the European aristocracy, and many years older than Mass. Assuming the role of a father (described by Mass as such), Andy is described as frequently paying for vacations around the globe, but being essentially strict in allowing Mass any access to his money. Describing the effect of these trips on his conception of himself as both a man and a Jew he states, I was always the perfect Jew on these trips--groveling adulatory of German culture, especially Wagner, unquestioning about the past, and utterly obsequious in manner. In any event, what did anti-Semitism have to do with me? Though ethnically Jewish, I was an American citizen and a very contemporary child of the Sixties. I had completely rejected all that garbage about race and religion and denomination and class. Hadn't everybody, or at least everybody who counted. When Mass begins to emerge as a self-conscious Jew and politically active gay man, there is a recognition of the need to break off from Andy. This occurs in the context of a drunken Christmas eve argument in 1983. Calling Andy "Mr. fifty-one percenter," a term used to mock his supposed elitist tendency to defend the status quo, Andy responds by stating the need to be with "people of his own class." The relationship is subsequently terminated. From New Years 1983 to the conclusion of the work, Mass describes an explosion of self-discovery. In regards to Judaism, Confessions recounts dozens of examples where the author confronts and overcomes both icons and incidents of anti-Semitism. These range from an analysis of the etymology of the term "Jew Fish" (a Southern fish designated as such becomes of the size of its lips), to a critique of the movies Silence of the Lambs, Psycho, and popular culture in general. Although some of these experiences refer specifically to understanding Judaism, many are interwoven with issues of sexuality and gay rights. Therefore, Mass is able to find a home in contemporary American culture and politics by developing the ability to examine and understand how the complex protean flow of images and experiences relate to his own identity as a gay and as a Jew. Although the latter half of the book is filled with repetitive discussions of why the gay and Jewish David Geffen represents the homophobic and anti-Semitic band Guns 'N Roses, and the possibility of homosexuality among SS officers, these can be understood as largely a product of a developing gay and Jewish consciousness. In terms of the present work, it is important to understand that these developed symbiotically. This can be seen through a description of the conclusion of Confessions. In describing Arnie Kantrowitz, the eventual lifetime partner of Mass, the latter chooses to relate a story about an SM scene at the Everard baths in New York. Arnie, who was blindfolded, was asked to describe the worst thing that he had ever done. The response, "I gave away my cat," personifies the relationship that eventually proved to fulfill the needs of Mass for intimacy and commitment. That is, a relationship fundamentally defined by the antithesis of masochism, and the absurdity of its presence in a healthy life. Led by Arnie, Mass is able to explore his Judaism on a more personal level (reminiscent of Bubber's description of religion and relationships). This begins with the experience of Jewish cuisine, and eventually leads to the exploration of painful experiences associated with growing up Jewish. (This relationship is personified by the nickname of Roogy for Mass, in reference to a rugelach pastry.) Although it should not be construed that the present work argues for the separation of interpersonal relationships by the categories of race or culture, it is argued that a healthy experience is defined by the mutual respect of these categories. Moreover, to the extent that masochism leads individuals to attach themselves to situations or people that limit or mock the expression of the latter, it is important to understand the psychological consequences of this pattern. For Mass, as a result of his experiences with other men, a relationship with a gay Jewish man was a necessary conclusion to a series of anti-Semitic relationships and a catalyst for a successful gay and Jewish life in the future. Using the experience of Mass as an example, it is necessary to review some of the specific aspects that are often problematic in living a gay and Jewish life. Although the broader context of understanding the complexities of the midrash and halacha have been juxtaposed with the psychological masochism that can often be associated with being both gay and Jewish, how these issues combine on a practical or functional level has not been discussed. More specifically, although it is possible (and important) to understand the long history of anti-gay and anti-Jewish attitudes, in terms of the present discussion it is critical to isolate the specific events in the lives of gay Jews that lead to a feeling of abandonment by both their Jewish and secular communities. In recent years, these questions have been addressed by several innovative gay and lesbians synagogues in the United States. Although it is not possible to review the long and complex history of gay and lesbian synagogues within the boundaries of this work, it is important to state that the need to provide Jewish institutions that focus on the issue of homosexuality has been noted by the Reform movement and acknowledged through full accreditation. The first of these, Beth Chayim Chadashim (House of the New Life), was established in Los Angeles in 1972. Other similar institutions like Sha'ar Zahav in San Francisco, and Congregation Beth Simchat Torah in New York, soon followed. Similar to any synagogue or religious center, these places fundamentally provide their members with a place to synthesize their external lives with their internal or spiritual strivings. For gays and lesbians, this becomes particularly important when one considers the degree to which modern social patterns seek to ridicule and limit the expression of gay men and women. Thus, life-cycle issues like marriage, birth, death, and mourning take on the added significance of being able to affirm both the passage of time and the reality of being gay or lesbian. Moreover, when these ceremonies, both daily and monumental, are performed in the context of an individual's family history, it further provides an important connection with family and generational issues. In essence, there is an added benefit or double blessing to attending gay synagogues. At the same time the individual is acknowledged for being gay or lesbian, and recognized as someone with a past, present and future, someone with religious obligations to family and other human beings, and a duty to God. In short, someone who is defined by more than a sexual object choice. One example of the dynamic discussed in the preceding paragraph is described in an essay entitled "A Ceremony of Commitment," written by Paul Horowitz and Scott Klein. Here, the need for experiencing a ceremony that identifies the two men as committed partners is described. More specifically, this desire is discussed not only as an issue that is important for the two authors, but as a means of clarifying their relation for family and friends. Moreover, since both men consider themselves to be practicing Jews, the importance of providing a Jewish ceremony is expressed. This occurs through the leadership of Rabbi Kahn, an ordained gay Rabbi and leader of Congregation Sha'ar Zahav, and is described as being a synthesis of both Jewish and Gay symbols and meaning. The ceremony begins, for example, with the New York City Gay Men's Chorus recording a Stephen Sondheim song, "Our Time," and is given content by a responsive reading of the words of Walt Whitman, Harvey Milk, and the Song of Songs. Much to the surprise of the authors, both men are lifted on to chairs during the hora (a traditional Jewish dance at weddings where men and women are frequently lifted on chairs), a photograph of which appeared later on the front page of the Village Voice. In terms of the present discussion, it is important to note that this type of ceremony could not have occurred outside the context of a Jewish setting (traditional practices associated with race, ethnicity, and other religions also implied). Indeed, there simply would not have been an alternative setting that incorporated God, family, and religious responsibility. Returning to the example of Mass and his experience of being a Wagnerite, it is possible to compare some of the concerns or problems described in his autobiography, with the specific issues addressed by a gay synagogue. First, and perhaps most important, Mass notes that being in the closet (both as a gay and a Jew) is fundamentally defined by the inability to express a specific gay or Jewish voice. This problem is frequently discussed in the description of the relationship with Andy. Although Mass was able to find someone who could facilitate the development of a gay and Jewish identity, many do not have this luxury. Speaking generally, synagogues foster the development of a voice. This can be achieved in several ways. First, as exemplified by the two examples of gay and lesbian midrash, they provide a basis in which to develop a dialogue with the tradition. Second, they necessitate communication with others who share similar experiences. Third, they provide a forum for addressing secular issues. In regards to the latter two, it is interesting to note the development of synagogue publications such as news letters, and circulars. One example of these comes from Sha'ar Zahav, and the publication of The Gaily Forward. Analyzing a cross section of newsletters from 1983-1995, it is interesting to note the spectrum of gay Jewish interests that are discussed. These range from announcements regarding upcoming holiday parties, AIDS awareness information, parking notices, advertisements sponsored by gay and lesbian businesses, discussions of Jewish ritual observances, and interviews with interesting members of the congregation. Although the creation of a newsletter may seem to be a relatively mundane aspect of community life, it is interesting from the perspective of giving a voice to issues that are kept quiet during the normal course of the work week. When considering an individual like Lawrence Mass, the importance of this theme can be viewed clearly. To live a gay and Jewish life requires constant discussion of the issues associated with being a representative of specific categories of sexuality and religion. Although parking notices may seem mundane, they are parking notices that refer to gay and Jewish parking problems that can be discussed openly within a periodical like the Gaily Forward. The privilege of speech is one way of avoiding masochistic behavior generated as a result of repressing gay and Jewish identities. Concluding this essay, it is important to note that many of the ideas discussed are proposed in response to an article entitled, "Queer Nationality," written by Lauren Berlant and Elizabeth Freeman. Specifically, the notion of appropriating and occupying public space. Although the concepts of "making all public spheres truly safe for all of the persons who occupy them" is an important goal for the advancement of gay and lesbian politics, the means in which this is achieved cannot be considered similar for all individuals. Moreover, the interpretation of this space is so complex that it is impossible to conceive of a strategy of appropriation without first understanding the specific qualities that define our ability to process information. For Lawrence Mass, an analysis of the popular culture and issues of dominant ideologies are fundamentally linked to his understanding of himself as a Jew, and his psychological ability to express himself in terms of the categories of religion and sexuality. Public space is not hyper-space or a media marketing strategy, but is viewed through the lens of sacredness and a duty to God. Furthermore, the appropriate metaphor for finding a home within culture/religion should not be that of a guerrilla movement, but essentially linked with the religious obligation and sacred responsability. As Jews, we can be of little or no assistance in the advancement of gay and lesbian politics unless we first understand who we are as individuals. Moreover, to the extent that we are able to synthesize our gay/lesbian lives with our Jewish lives, we receive the added benefit and responsibility of Tikkun Olam (A term describing the healing or repairing of the world). In reference to this Rabbi Kahn states, "The realization of our most intimate yearnings is not a closed circle which in turn leads us back to our partner; rather, the Jewish dialectic of personal and communal obligation turns us from the most intimate sphere to return and re-engage in the labor of healing the world." Therefore, by operating primarily within the framework of our tradition we not only find ways of legitimating our sexuality, relationships, and life-cycle events, but obtain the added importance of assisting in the process of Jewish renewal. The energy that we bring to the task of re-evaluating the sacred and secular texts can be considered not only a model for our own religious strivings, but as an important method of obtaining justice for other gay, lesbian, and bisexual organizations. Works Cited Balka, Christie & Rose, Andy. Twice Blessed: On Being Lesbian or Gay and Jewish. Boston: Beacon Press, 1989. Berlant, Lauren and Freeman, Elizabeth. "Queer Nationality." Article distributed in class. Biale, David. Eros and the Jews. New York: Basic Books, 1949. Boswell, John. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. Eilberg-Schwartz, Howard. God's Phallus. Boston: Beacon Press, 1994. Halperin, David. One Hundred Years of Homosexuality. New York: Routledge, 1990. Hertzberg, Arthur. Judaism. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991. Kahn, Yoel. "Making Love as Making Justice: Towards a New Jewish Ethic of Sexuality. A paper presented at the American Academy of Religion, (1991). Lerner, Michael. Jewish Renewal: A Path to Healing and Reformation, New York: Grosset/Putnam, 1994. Mass, Lawrence. Confessions of a Jewish Wagnerite. New York: Cassell Villiers House, 1994. Shokeid, Moshe. A Gay Synagogue in New York. New York: Columbia Press, 1995. -------. The Holy Bible. Revised Standard Edition. Philadelphia: A.J. Holman Company, 1952. *Please note that the Gaily Forward resides in the archives of Sha'ar Zahav, and was studied during the Winter break of 1996.