An Orthodox Gay Wedding? by R. Yosef Kanefsky

As has been widely reported, Rabbi Steve Greenberg performed a Jewish wedding ceremony for Yoni Bock and Ron Kaplan last week, a ceremony being referred to in at least one press account as “the first Orthodox gay wedding”.  This description derives from the fact that Rabbi Greenberg’s ordination is from YU, and that he has always identified himself as being Orthodox. I know the latter to be true not second-hand, but through the friendship that he and I have maintained over many years, dating back to our years at Yeshiva.

This wedding ceremony raises a serious question for the part of the Modern Orthodox community in which I live. The question is not about whether we should recognize the ceremony as being religiously significant. We obviously do not and cannot.  The formal religious partnering of two men or two women is unalterably contrary to both the law and the spirit of the Torah and the Halacha, and an Orthodox gay marriage ceremony is as hopeless a misnomer as an Orthodox intermarriage is. How we assess the religious significance of the ceremony is clear-cut and simple.

 The question that it raises rather, is whether we should continue to publicly speak about Orthodoxy and homosexuality in the nuanced way that we have been speaking about it over the past several years. I hope that you are by now familiar with the “Statement of Principles” in which many Modern Orthodox rabbis and teachers affirmed the importance of being inclusive of, and sensitive to the challenges of gays and lesbians within the Orthodox community, even as we recognize that Halacha views same-sex sexual interactions as prohibited.  This is indeed a highly-nuanced position. So much so, that our shul hosted a major event last summer whose purpose was to explore what exactly this all means in real life. (And we were pleased to have Rabbi Greenberg participate in that discussion.) But when I read about the wedding, I wondered to myself whether our nuanced approach had unwittingly contributed to the erosion of the halachik standard, whether we had created the impression that the values of sensitivity and inclusion must ultimately trump the law. I asked myself whether with regard to this issue, nuanced discussion simply couldn’t be heard.   

 As I thought the question through, I came to the conclusion that despite these legitimate questions, our nuanced public discussion must go on. The essential premise of the discussion, that the religious prohibition on homosexual sex must not be turned into a justification for demeaning, embarrassing or harassing gays and lesbians, is still as true as ever. The central idea that gays and lesbians who desire to daven and perform mitzvot should be welcomed into the community of davening and mitzvot, still makes sound religious sense. I do think that last week’s wedding compels us to think more – and to talk more explicitly – about the point at which inclusion begins to send a misleading message. And I do think that we must take even greater care now to not be naïve in our deliberations. But I also believe that any decision to abandon our nuanced discussion would be a decision to abandon many cherished members of our community. It is our responsibility to them to carefully forge ahead.

19 Responses to An Orthodox Gay Wedding? by R. Yosef Kanefsky

  1. Anonymous Orthodox Lesbian says:

    This post apparently has no author attribution – I can’t seem to figure out who wrote it which is odd. Regardless, I wanted to chime in to say that a lot of Orthodox LGBT people were really angered by Steve Greenberg’s choice to officiate at a same-sex wedding ceremony. Not because all of us are opposed to any and all ways of creating meaningful ceremonies to formalize our commitment to our partners (something that many think is important, especially for those with children, and such cermeonies need not always be religious), but because such a ceremony need not ridicule halacha overtly like this. Doing a ceremony that purports to be a Jewish marriage and is based on kiddushin is clearly crossing every line there is. More importantly, when someone who publicly identifies himself as an Orthodox rabbi and is widely perceived as “THE gay orthodox rabbi” choses to do this and to speak of the ritual in ways that make it sound like it was a form of kiddushin, it undermines the progress LGBT frum Jews have made in being taken seriously and accepted in our communities. Steve Greenberg has been on the fringe for a long time, and I think he has just stepped over the edge. Please understand that he does not speak for most Orthodox LGBT Jews. It seems he lives in a bubble consisting mostly of people who are no longer Orthodox. He does not seem to realize the impact of his actions on those of us who actually live our daily lives in the Orthodox community or whose children do. Those of us who live in the Orthodox community have not misunderstood your sensitivity as a desire to undermine halacha. I do not want a rabbi to officiate at any ceremony I would have to concretize my life-long commitment to the partner with whom I have several children. I do not want that ceremony to mock Jewish tradition. I simply want to be able to go to a shul where I can daven and also be wished “good shabbos” rather than stared at or whispered about, where people know that we are a family and respect my childrens’ connection to both of their parents, where i can be involved in supporting synagogue life, where my children are not punished because their parents are different, where i can be seen as the religious and mitzvah-observant person that I am… and, more than anything, to have my community be more concerned with encouraging people to perform mitzvot than they are with stigmatizing people because of their orientation. Fortunately, I have a Modern Orthodox shul and community that fits that description perfectly. Unfortunately, if Steve Greenberg continues to be seen as the self-appointed spokesperson of the LGBT Orthodox community, some of this progress is going to be reversed.

  2. Steve Greenberg says:

    To my colleagues and friends:
    I would like to clarify what exactly happened last week. No doubt much misunderstanding could have been avoided had I shared this with you beforehand. (And for this omission, I apologize)

    While it was a wedding according to the laws of the District of Columbia, it was not a kiddushin. My position was and still is that is that kiddushin is not appropriate for same-sex couples.

    Here’s what we did. The ceremony consisted of a blessing over wine and a shehecheyanu to begin. Then we read their shtar shutafut. Earlier at a tish we did a traditional ritual of acceptance of the document’s terms that included lifting a bag with an object belonging to each party. This marked their partnership and since this partnership included emotional elements uncommon in business partnerships, the couple added those elements in their document.

    However, both I and the couple found this wanting. Exclusivity is not articulate in an ordinary shutafut. A person may make multiple partnerships and for this endeavor, it is important to make limits clear. In order to do this, the men both took an oath to be loyal to the other in emotional and physical ways, conditional upon receiving a ring. When the partner gave the ring, he recited a descriptive sentence that made the moment of the neder’s legal force identitical to receiving a ring. That led us to the texts below:

    Behold I vow that from the moment I receive from you a ring, I will set aside myself, body and soul, to our joint partnership and life together.
    הרי אני נודר שמרגע שאקבל ממך טבעת אקדיש את עצמי, רוחי וגופי לשיתופינו זיווגינו וחיינו ביחד

    The other party responded with the following phrase and gave his partner a ring:

    Behold, by receiving this ring, you are set aside to me by virtue of the oath you have just made.
    הרי אתה מוקדש לי בקבלת לטבעת זו בתוקף הנדר אשר נדרת

    We followed with seven birchot shevah that the gentlemen chose and then the breaking of a glass. 

    I did not and do not claim that this ritual was Orthodox. However, it was in my view, halakhically meaningful.  Whether it, or something like it, can be or will be accepted by any Orthodox authority in the future is not knowable.  Rabbi Aaron Lichtenstein once said that things that could not be said ten years ago can be said today and things that cannot be said today will be said in ten years.  I am not invested, per se, in this effort being the last effort of its kind.  In retrospect I already see a number of flaws in it. However, I still feel that it was a good first effort.

    What I hope it does is push the conversation further toward a deeper understanding that we are simply people built differently with the same desires for love and intimacy, commitment and family that most others desire. The halmark of love for one’s fellowman according to the Rambam demands profound empathy. What you would like for yourself do for others. Those who cherish their ability to give and receive lifelong love from a partner, to be nourished and challenged by a lover and friend, should want that sort of love for all of us.

    Indeed, I have hesitated for over a decade to perform a same-sex ceremony, and have turned down a number of requests in the past because I was unready and I felt that the community was unready.  I only recently changed my mind.

    My partner and I returned from India with our daughter last December.  During the year of planning for her birth I began to feel that it was time to give young people hope in a religiously coherent future as they find spouses and decide to put together families.  Naming her in an Orthodox synagogue and celebrating her birth there sealed my resolve. Things are beginning to move, in part, due to the empathy and courage of a number of my colleagues. While I do not expect any Orthodox rabbis to perform a ceremony of this sort any time soon,  I do expect that we come to earn their respect as we take the frames of halakhah seriously in constructing our lives together. I look forward to any thoughtful response, comments, questions and disagreements that in this blog are consistently offered respectfully and with a generous spirit.

  3. Andy Marcus says:

    Thank you for your explanation, Rabbi Greenberg.

  4. Aviva says:


    I am extremely grateful for your depth and insight. I thank you for having realized that the ceremony that took place last week ought not have any bearing on orthodox communities efforts of inclusion of gays and lesbians who desire to share shabbat, daven in orthodox space and strive towards fulfillment of mitzvot.

    I would like to share with you that in the gay and lesbian orthodox communities there has been much discomfort and concern about this wedding ceremony. There are several support group / community list serves that exist for orthodox gays and lesbians. There we discuss halachic issues that pertain to us and share personal struggles and stories. All of these groups have been discussing this topic all week long and a large part of the discussion has been critical.

    I know that being gay or lesbian is not a choice. If it were, orthodox gay and lesbian Jews would choose to be straight. It’s no fun path in life… I assure you. Choice or no, it is important for every orthodox Jew to go through life with clear intent of bringing kedusha to everything they do. I don’t know the two men involved in the wedding ceremony. I don’t know if their intent was to make it public. I don’t know if it was their intent to call it an orthodox wedding. I don’t know if it was their intent to make it halachically binding. I don’t know if they studied the halacha before they made their choices on creating their ceremony and in my ignorance and my efforts to assume the best of everyone, I hope their intent meant no disrespect. I hope their intent was to find some way that fit their understanding of Judaism to me’kadesh their efforts to connect to another human being and to define some sort partnership for themselves. I wonder if this ceremony and the community reaction to it is an indication that what the community needs is more dialogue between the orthodox rabbinical umbrella and it’s gay and lesbian community members about ways gay Jews can make lives for themselves that fit the orthodox construct. For most of the orthodox world… it’s so easy to stand on the outside and cast off gay and lesbian orthodox Jews as if they are just some statistic worth throwing away. These people turn their backs on us and say we should just leave orthodoxy so they don’t have to look at us. For most of the orthodox world… it’s so easy to stand on the outside and determine that since we aren’t real people anyways… we should exist in some inhuman way… sad, dejected, ostracized and alone. In reality gay and lesbian orthodox Jews are humans… with a human need for meaning, purpose, joy, fulfillment, community, love and as everyone else, someone to share their life with. Most importantly, we are fellow Jews… and we are people who are trying our best to be what Hashem made us to be with adherence to the orthodox principals we love. This is hard. Thank you, Rabbi, for standing with us as we all figure out ways to build orthodox community that can be inclusive. May Hashem always bless you and keep you, may He shine His countenance upon you and may He always grant you peace in your life.


  5. Lisa Liel says:

    First, I would like to thank Hyim Shafner for writing this. For someone who is very much on the left wing of Modern Orthodoxy and has more than amply shown that he is interested in making Judaism more welcoming to GLBT folks speaks very strongly.

    But Steve Greenberg’s states that:

    “My position was and still is that is that kiddushin is not appropriate for same-sex couples.”


    The other party responded with the following phrase and gave his partner a ring:

    Behold, by receiving this ring, you are set aside to me by virtue of the oath you have just made.
    הרי אתה מוקדש לי בקבלת לטבעת זו בתוקף הנדר אשר נדרת

    And that confuses me. Because “Harei ata mukudash li” is explicitly language of kiddushin. I’m a little at a loss to understand how those two statements aren’t in direct contradiction one with the other. I’m sure I’m not the only person who finds this perplexing.

    Finally, to Anonymous Orthodox Lesbian, who I have to guess is someone I know, thank you so much for your comment. You are *definitely* not alone in feeling as you do. I have expressed the same sort of reservations on Facebook and have been roundly criticized (to put it lightly) for doing so. I’m glad that you spoke up, because I’ve been afraid they may think I’m the only “malcontent” who is troubled by the public statements and actions of Steve Greenberg, who is, as you pointed out, seen as a leader of our community.

  6. Lisa Liel says:

    Oops. I saw Hyim Shafner’s name on the side of the page and typed that instead of Yosef Kanefsky. My apologies.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Let me see if I understanding these statements correctly:

    > know the latter to be true not second-hand, but through the friendship that he and I have maintained over many years,

    If a rabbi with a YU semicha came forward and identified himself as the Chilul Shabbos Orthodox Rabbi, would anyone take that seriously?

    > Not because all of us are opposed to any and all ways of creating meaningful ceremonies to formalize our commitment to our partners

    To what end? Such a ceremony would have no legal significance. What exactly would the ceremony recognize? That you and your partner are BFF’s?

    As for Greenberg’s apologetics: let’s see, you had a tish, a chuppah, a kesubah (even though you won’t call it that) and you told them they’re dedicated life partners. But it’s not a marriage?

  8. (Rabbi) Avram H. Herzog says:

    Dear Readers,

    I am pleased that Rabbi Steven Greenberg took the time to explain the details of the much talked about ceremony at which he recently officiated. As the issue of the inherent,even blatant, contradiction (in Rabbi Greenberg’s first stating that this was not intended to be a kiddushin and then incorporating the very same language of kiddushin in the ceremony itself) has already been addressed by a previous poster, I’ll focus instead on the beginning of the ceremony.

    The ceremony began with a b’rachah over wine followed by the recitation of “shehecheyanu”. Think about it: this b’rachah, as all b’rachot, was coined, or at least codified, by the talmudic sages–individuals who were working within the framework of halachah (which I loosely translate here as “Orthodox Jewish law”). Whether one is sympatetic and/or even accepting of a gay relationship, one thing is clear: the act of homosexuality is forbidden by the Torah itself, and thus by definition is outside the framework of halachah. As such, the recitation of “shehecheyanu” at a gay union/ceremony would not have been ordained by the talmudic sages, even in today’s society.

    Furthermore, the very language of the b’rachah, while I’m sure it was meaningful for the couple, is not applicable at such a ceremony. One can perhaps appreciate the couple’s being grateful for reaching this milestone, even while disagreeing with this lifestyle. However, the full translation of this b’rachah is “Blessed are you, Adonai, our God, Master of the universe for allowing us to live (“shehecheyanu”) and reach (“v’higiyanu”) this milestone.” How can one bless God, the same God who explicitly forbids this relationship in the Torah, for having reached this milestone?

    I have no doubt that this couple wishes to live a beautiful, meaningful life together. Perhaps one could even hope that they succeed in this endeavor. But one thing is certain: a ceremony celebrating a homosexual union/marriage is not in consonance with the Torah and the talmud. As such, the b’rachah “shehecheyanu” is not applicable.

    I wish to add one more point. Rabbi Greenberg correctly quotes Rabbi A. Lichtenstein. At the same time, however, he misappropriates Rabbi Lichtenstein’s comments. Rabbi Lichtenstein, like the b’rachah “shehecheyanu” itself as I explained it, is working within the framework of halachah. Rabbi Greenberg’s incorporating Rabbi Lichtenstein’s view regarding the evolving of halachah is thus irrelevent to the discussion at hand.

    (Rabbi) Avram H. Herzog

  9. […] describes his most recent action, performing a gay marriage, in a comment to the Morethodoxy blog (link): …The ceremony consisted of a blessing over wine and a shehecheyanu to begin. Then we read […]

  10. Anonymous says:

    Rabbi Greenberg,

    Your quoting R Lichtenstein shlit’a is both offensive and ridiculous. I can assure you that, if R Lichtenstein was quoted correctly (which I assume he was), he was certainly not referring to homosexual exemptions in halachah, and I imagine (based upon my five year learning at his yeshiva) that he would take offense at such an intimation – if you don’t believe me you can call him yourself (I have his number).

    I imagine you justify your position by looking to a new and utopian halachic future that you have in part heralded with your actions. Indeed halacha recognises technological change and innovation; however its view of social change has always been more conservative if at all. Of course there is the debate over women’s learning and communal leadership, but these are questions which can be found in the talmud and are not new. The notion that one rabbi can invent a new halachic position (as you yourself seem intent on doing), which not only has no halachic precedent, but is intent on usurping all other postions before it in order to reinvent the halahcha’s frame of reference vis-a-vis a certain topic; this notion is preposterous.

    I call on you to retract your position.

  11. minda says:

    ma tovu ohaleha yaakov

  12. Heshie Billet says:

    Rabbi Greenberg’s insertion of Rav Aharon Lichtenstein’s name into this discussion misleads many readers and is dishonest as well. What Rabbi Greenberg chose to do is a personal choice and certainly totally outside of any halachic norm. The only one he can legitimately quote on this matter is himself.

    With all due respect to my friend and colleague, Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky, I must disagree about the Statement of Principles that he refers to. I was asked to sign it and refused to do so because I feared that it could be misunderstood to being more than just a statement of compassion for fellow Jews who are gay. It’s language is too nuanced and in places could be mistaken to mean Orthodox approval of alternative life style and choices.

    Rabbi Greenberg’s actions confirm my fears and also arouse some concerns by Rabbi Kanefsky. I would hope that if Rabbi Greenberg can bring himself to be honest about his post he would strike Rav Lichtenstein’s name from it. In a sense associating Rav Lichtenstein to such a dishonest endeavor is further proof of its falseness.

    Heshie Billet

    • Yosef Kanefsky says:

      Thank you, Rabbi Billet, for engaging this important disucssion. As I indicated in my post (and as you noticed therein), I share the concerns you raise. Our disagreement-for-the-sake-of-Heaven will continue to be as to how much risk we can/should take for the sake of the Avivas of this world (see several comments up). It’s a hard question.

      • Heshie Billet says:

        Dear Rav Yosef

        I continue to have great respect for you. And yes, I suspect, we will continue our discussion/debate in the future. But I do agree that Aviva and her colleagues deserve to be heard and deserve compassion and a loving ear from the Orthodox Rabbinate. It seems to me that Aviva understands the constraints that halachic parameters impose on a caring and compassionate Orthodox Rabbi. Such a Rabbi cannot violate his sacred trust and must uphold halachic principles which cannot be synchronized with the needs of those who are gay and must struggle with the reality of their human condition and the burdens of the yoke of heaven.


  13. DL says:

    Thank you Rabbi Greenberg for clarifying the content and intent of the marriage ceremony.

    I am curious – what are the flaws you identify in retrospect? (I totally understand if you feel that this is not the most appropriate forum to address that, as I am most interested in bringing this into more of an open source type of environment where others can ultimately build upon and refine the work you began).

    The Conservative movement’s CJL recently discussed and voted upon same sex ceremonies, but nothing has been made public yet. I am curious if there has been any inter-denominational collaboration or idea sharing during this process.

  14. I Tick says:

    I think there’s a simpler question to be asked here, regarding the exact issue R Greenberg attempts to justify.

    He’s not asking halacha to recognize homosexual intercourse, or a partnership based on an exclusive homosexual relationship, as permitted or as kiddushin min hatorah.

    However, he is asking halacha to recognize a legal partnership of indeterminate nature (nowhere does he explain fully what the partnership entails, or how the oath and the shtar work, except that the former involved a ring and the latter a [different] kinyan) that seemingly includes a clause of physical loyalty.

    Now, if physical loyalty refers to physical intimacy, what specifically does this involve? Penile-anal intercourse? Some other set of activities? Anything the conscience of either party considers sexual?

    The problem here is not whether or not this is too similar to kiddushin to be thought of as a blatant loophole, a halachic kiddushinesque arrangement, binding but outside the original definition of kiddushin min hatorah. The problem is not what Rav Lichtenstein meant when he said some things might be possible to accept in the halachic community in the future (something such as a halachic alternative to kiddushin through a binding neder of physical and emotional sexual fidelity).

    The problem here is a very technical one.

    How can one make a neder to avoid something already forbidden by the Torah: sexual intimacy with another man, or at the very least penile-anal intercourse with another man? (I’m assuming here that the neder of physical fidelity does not refer to excluding a woman, and at least implies exclusion of another man.)

    Furthermore, how can one make a neder to avoid a forbidden act to protect the exclusivity and personal or legal meaning of the same forbidden act?

    In other words, how can R Greenberg consider any halachic meaning to exist in a ceremony, an oath and a promissory document which forbids what is already forbidden, creating an invalid vow on top of a vow (Mushba VeOmed MeHar Sinai), especially if the implication is to thereby create a legally recognized exclusive relationship of forbidden activity?

    Halacha cannot validate any such arrangement, not because homosexual activity is forbidden and not considered marriage, but because homosexual activity is, as a forbidden activity, technically removed from the realm of binding oaths regulating its conduct.

    The entire premise is halachically meaningless, and should not be advertised as such.

    If R Greenberg wants to construct a spiritually or even religiously meaningful way of sanctifying or celebrating a gay couple’s choice to embark on an exclusive romantic partnership, he cannot do so with any appeal to halacha.

    (The beracha issue is, most likely, a similar technical problem. The idea that one cannot thank God for engaging in a forbidden activity is not a problem, as I see it, theologically. Obviously, the couple from R Greenberg’s ceremony have made some peace with God. That’s not the problem. The problem is that even if they feel genuinely thankful to God, God’s Law as it stands might not allow them to express that thanks with the beracha of shehechiyanu, either because it’s considered improper halachically to make the beracha on occasion commemorating a forbidden activity, or because that beracha is halachically reserved for specific situations.)

    • Steve Greenberg says:

      To I Tick.
      I welcome the conversation regarding the details of the ceremony I performed in November. My aim was not to create an uproar. I did want to create a smart and meaningful way for two men to celebrate their relationship and to create a frame for long term commitment. It is likely not the last or best version, but an attempt to move forward.
      Regarding the domain of sexual relations that are permitted the couple, the ceremony performed did not mention biblically forbidden relations any more than heterosexual marriages mention issurei erva. It’s intent was not to permit the forbidden any more than heterosexual marriage permits sexual congress during menses. However, it did assume that there was a domain of sexual relations that were permitted.
      If indeed one would hold that all sexual relations between men (or between women for that matter) are prohibited to such couples, then of course it would make no sense to conduct a same-sex ceremony of this sort. It is my view that is not possible to exclude gay people from the ability to find love, intimacy and companionship. Allowing rabbinic rulings to permanently exclude people from the possibility of any sort of commited romantic relationship is counter-intuitive to the halakhic process.
      Same sex sexual relations, long outside the bounds of normative life, are under legislated. The ceremony in DC highlights the need for creating for gay people a religiously coherent Jewish life in reasonable halakhic terms. This work in only beginning now.

      Regarding the neder, there were challenges. The oath was not going to be perfectly analagous to the limits of kiddushin. It was in some ways problematic because it was more demanding and in other ways problematic because it was weaker. It was stronger in that it was not just about sex. The neder was meant to include both emotional and sexual disloyalty, which is not articulate in kiddushin.
      However, that said, what exactly would the neder prohibit? Does an infatuation or a single kiss violate the agreed upon loyalty or just full on sexual relations? The men intended the vow to articulate an exclusive domain and said that they knew, between them, what would constitute disloyalty. I was troubled by this until I considered how heterosexual commitments work. This issue of what constitutes disloyalty is in fact equally troubling in heterosexual relationships. If a woman kisses another man, have biblical rules (between the couple) been violated, or not? And if not then, then at what point? In the Torah, if a woman merely secludes herself with another man, it can lead to suspicions and accusations and no longer practiced biblical rituals. While the kiddushin is violated only with intercourse, that hardly expresses the full meaning of sexual loyalty.
      Moreover, what constitutes marital violation when it comes to husbands is not specified at all. While a woman’s disloyalty has some clearer demarcations, the husband’s disloyalty in halakhic terms is similarly vague. Since men who have affairs with single women are not formally violating the marital commitment, and certainly not in any biblical fashion, they too could only be held to account only in a negotiated frame for what loyalty means. Till the middle ages a man could take a second wife. However, if the woman negotiated a stipulation in her ketubah that he could not do so.
      If so, then the neder the two men swore holds them more clearly accountable to a mutually agreed upon, if still somewhat vague, set of commitments than ordinary husbands. Criticize the vagueness if you like and claim that such lack of specificity formally weakens the force of the neder. Straight marriages then suffer from an equal vagueness and do not have the frame of a neder to help couples explicitly define the meaning of disloyalty.

      • I TIck says:

        I want to thank you for responding to my comment and, for the most part, addressing the specific issue I raised.

        I am not aware of the details of nedarim, including whether one may make a neder regarding an issur d’rabbanan.

        I am not interested in reducing marriage, sexuality or sexual loyalty to intercourse.

        I am not interested in dismissing the human value of what you have attempted to do with the ceremony you have designed.

        However, I have to say that it seems disingenuous to suggest that marriage and sexual loyalty are not, at their core, based on sexual union and sexual fidelity, and that sexuality in this context is not, at its core, referring to intercourse or direct genital stimulation.

        Their may be ways in which a neder could be halachically meaningful, ways in which such a very ambiguous or very limited neder could still be subjectively meaningful in representing the commitment between romantic partners, but I do not believe a wide audience would ever think such a marriage ceremony or such a neder to be genuinely meaningful if it does not address the core of romantic, marital and sexual fidelity.

  15. Yishai the truth teller says:

    When Steve Greenberg says”I did not intend to create an uproar”, he loses all credibility.
    Total malarkey – this whole is publicity stunt change Rabbinic Judaism into something that is more comfortable to him.
    “A man lying with another man as with a woman is an abomination” does not specify the act (Rabbis did) – the simple pshat is that for two men to have a “mate” of same gender is an Abomination. There is NO wiggle room for Gay men. Many people have to live without what they desire in this life. Get over it. Lesbians have more “wiggle room”(pun intended)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: