Back From Mexico

I got in very late Thursday night from a wonderful Convention in Mexico City. I’ll write later about some of the sessions as well as the vibrant Jewish community that hosted us. But first, I’ll talk about the issue of Ordination of Gay and Lesbian Rabbis, which was the hot topic. In spite of what you might read in the paper, the Conservative Movement is not dodging the issue. It was reported that the Law Committee did not want to vote on the position papers. It was reported that the Law Committee wanted to have 80% approval of a paper for it to be accepted as a recognized opinion. False and False. (I'll take on the first "False" in this post).

Here’s what’s really happening. First, some background on process: When a “She-aylah”, a question of Jewish law, is sent to the Movement’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (made up of 24 Rabbis noted for their skill in legal matters) , the Law Committee must first decide if it is one that merits full inquiry. Once that is established, a subcommittee is assigned the task of doing the research and writing papers on the matter. They work, independently, to trace the issue through Jewish legal sources and whatever other extra-legal sources they deem relevant. This can take many months. When the papers are ready for a first reading, they are presented to the entire Law Committee (which also has 5 non-voting members from the United Synagogue and one rep. from the Cantors Assembly).
At that meeting, the full body discusses each paper in detail. They offer criticism of both the content and reasoning and often send the authors back to the sources. Papers are never voted on at the first reading. The meeting of the Law Committee that occurred last month was for the first reading of four position papers regarding the ordination of gay and lesbian Rabbis. No vote was taken because it would have been premature and inappropriate to do so. These papers have not been distributed – not to the Rabbis and not to the public. The papers were critiqued and sent back for rewrites. THAT’S WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. At the next meeting, the reworked papers will be presented. At that point, the usual process is for the committee to offer more critique, and, where possible, encourage the authors to coalesce their varied papers into one or perhaps two cohesive opinions. This too will take some time. Inevitably, those who want positions stated quickly and unequivocally will want a rapid vote, but in all likelihood the Committee will urge the authors to further refine their positions. That is, to my mind, as it should be.

In my next couple of posts I’ll talk about what we accomplished in Mexico City, which quite frankly, given the fact that deliberations and rewrites are ongoing on the papers, wasn’t much. I’ll also write about the debate over what a Takkanah is as well as what I think it might mean for the Movement, but I thought at this point it’s best to have some context for the discussion. Stay tuned.