Letter to the Editor – Aleph Melbourne

Letter to the Editor: A Flawed Genius | AJN

Letter to the Editor, Australian Jewish News, May 5 2023, p17

A flawed genius

AS much a genius and friend of Jews Barry Humphries was seen to be (AJN
28/04), these accolades fall short of him respecting transgender people.
Consummate at presenting as a woman, Barry failed to appreciate the
depth of hurt his words wielded when in 2016 he first ripped into the very
heart of transgender identity. He proceeded to take further swipes at
the LGBTIQ+ community in 2018, where he was shunned by the comedy
community and beyond.

To see Jews laud a person who inflicts harm on vulnerable people
makes me very uneasy. We cannot afford room for any intolerance, lest we
wish to invite similar upon ourselves.

Michael Barnett
Ashwood, Vic

AJN Letter to the Editor: “Sondheim’s Sexuality”

It would be remiss to recount the life of the legendary playwright Stephen Sondheim (AJN 03/12) without also acknowledging that he was a gay man who only came out at the age of 40.
He met his partner Jeffrey Romley in 2004, whom he described as a great joy in his life. They married in 2017 and it was in his husband’s arms that he died. Although he did not have children, he said if he had his time again he would definitely have been a parent, admitting he fell victim to historical stigmas around gay men parenting.

The erasure of Sondheim’s personal life and sexual orientation is disappointing, as they are just as important as his professional achievements. Had he been married to a woman, it would have been noted along with the duration of their relationship.

Michael Barnett
Co-convenor, Aleph Melbourne
Australian Jewish News; December 17 2021

SOURCES

LGBTQ NATION: Legendary gay composer & Broadway genius Stephen Sondheim passes at 91

ABC Radio National – The Music Show: Jeremy Sams remembers Stephen Sondheim, and Braille music with Ria Andriani (42:22)

Letters: Tackling vilification | AJN

Tackling vilification
I am deeply grateful to David Southwick MP for personally extending an invitation to Aleph Melbourne to provide a submission to the Inquiry into Anti-Vilification Protections. I am also grateful to the committee of the inquiry for accepting our submission.

For many years I have witnessed vilifying comments originating within the Jewish community, directed at Jewish LGBTIQ+ people. These hateful comments, which appeared in Jewish print, broadcast, online and social media outlets, formed the basis of Aleph Melbourne’s submission to the inquiry.

The committee found our submission sufficiently compelling that they quoted from it in their report.

The Jewish community does not tolerate an iota of hate directed at it, and it should not tolerate an iota of hate emanating from it.

The committee recommended strengthening anti-vilification laws, including adding protections for LGBTIQ+ people and those with HIV/AIDS. Doing so will make Victoria a safer place for all people, whether they are Jewish, LGBTIQ+, or any other category.
Michael Barnett
Co-convenor, Aleph Melbourne
Australian Jewish News, March 19, 2021, page 19

AJN Letters: Defending Orthodox rabbinical opposition to same-sex marriage

15 November 2013
The Australian Jewish News Melbourne edition

Letters to the editor should be no more than 250 words and may be edited for length and content. Only letters sent to letters@jewishnews.net.au will be considered for publication. Please supply an address and daytime phone number for verification.

Orthodox rabbis are being victimised

THE fuss over gay marriage has now crept into the Jewish community and is causing pain and misery to all involved. Among the victims in all this controversy are our Orthodox rabbinical authorities’ rabbis who are being touted as the villains of the drama.

Those that are reading this letter might be aghast that I am of that opinion. Well, let’s look at it this way – our rabbis did not write the Torah, they are only interpreting it the best way they can or know, and they represent most of the Jewish community.

But they are being pilloried from pillar to post. They cannot accept a union between a man and another man, it’s simply not allowed as homosexual relations in the Bible are forbidden. Sexual relations between a woman and another woman are not frowned upon but still a marriage between two females does not meet the normal criteria of a normal nuclear family, meaning a man and a woman.

If homosexual within the Jewish community want their relationships legitimised, they should not demand it from the Orthodox Jewish authorities and the rabbis should not be forced to justify their position time and time again, as they are not the authors, only the custodians of the Torah and they have every right to stand by the moral codes that they have lived by and studied all their lives.

We cannot change thousands of years of Jewish tradition just to suit modernity.

No one is saying we need to discriminate against gays or lesbians, but we also need to take into account that the onus of the debate should not be brought down upon our Orthodox rabbis who have a historical duty as teachers of our tradition to uphold the laws set down by God on Mount Sinai, and we accept nothing less of them.

They are becoming the innocent victims in all this controversy as all they are doing is defending our heritage.

SUSAN WEINER
Vaucluse, NSW

AJN Letters: Response to Susan Weiner on same-sex marriage

22 November 2013
The Australian Jewish News Melbourne edition

No threat from same sex marriage

IN defending Orthodoxy, Susan Weiner overlooks the fact that in Australia “homosexuals” are not asking Orthodox Judaism to change one iota. We are simply asking the federal government to remove gender-based discrimination from the Marriage Act and, until such time, for states and territories to provide similar legal mechanisms. This is purely a matter of civil law and it will have no legal impact on any aspect of Jewish religious life or observance.

While Ms Weiner is justified in her concern for the welfare of Orthodox rabbis in genuine circumstances of attack, in this case her energies would be better aligned with those denied the very civil rights she has the luxury to access should she desire.

It is important to understand that all proposed legislation for “same-sex marriage” comes with adequate protections for religious ministers and will in no way impinge on hers or anyone else’s civil or religious freedoms.

In our society, people are entitled to disapprove of another person’s choice of life partner, but it is poor form to get in the way of star-struck lovers when it comes to marriage, whether they both be Romeos, Juliets or one of each. Live and let live, love and let love, Ms Weiner.

MICHAEL BARNETT
Ashwood, Vic

AJN Letters: Response to Bialik joining SSCV – March 15, 2013

15 March 2013
The Australian Jewish News Melbourne edition

Note: the letters on this page refer to last week’s story Bialik to be a ‘safer’ school.

The importance of inclusion for all

MAZAL tov to Safe Schools Coalition Victoria Jewish schools The King David School, Sholem Aleichem College and now Bialik.

Safe Schools Coalition Victoria is a coalition of schools and individuals dedicated to creating safer educational environments where same sex attracted and gender questioning young people are supported, where every family can belong, where every teacher can teach and every student can learn. I am proud of these schools for taking this proactive step. As a lesbian parent, it means so much for my children to know that they are safe, secure and included at school.

SHAUNA SHERKER
Melbourne, Vic

All Jewish schools should be ‘safe’

WE welcome Bialik College as a new member of Safe Schools Coalition Victoria, in a week that also saw Geelong Grammar join us in showing their commitment to supporting diversity.

There are now 93 members of the coalition, from all sectors of the education system – government, independent, and religious. Our program works in partnership with the Department of Education and the Department of Health to actively support gender and sexual diversity in schools.

Research from Australia shows that it takes more than just general anti-bullying policies and practices to make schools truly inclusive. Increasing the visibility of gender and sexual diversity throughout the school, and inclusion across the curriculum, help to make young people feel not only safe, but able to be themselves.

We would love the opportunity to work with more Jewish schools to ensure that same sex attracted and gender diverse students, staff, and families that form part of all these school communities are not just free from bullying, but healthy and happy.

ROZ WARD
Coordinator,
Safe Schools Coalition Victoria

AJN Letters: Response to the appointment of Mark Dreyfus as Attorney-General – February 15, 2013

15 February 2013
The Australian Jewish News Melbourne edition

Commending Dreyfus

A HEARTY mazal tov on the appointment of Mark Dreyfus as federal Attorney-General.

I am heartened by his solid support for removing discrimination in the federal Marriage Act introduced under the Howard government in 2004, which purposefully prevents same-sex couples and intersex people from obtaining a civil marriage.

It is also reassuring that Dreyfus backs the inclusion of protections under proposed federal anti-discrimination legislation on the grounds of gender identity and sexuality.

These changes will greatly benefit the Jewish community by ensuring our families and children are better protected, less susceptible to discriminatory practices and able to celebrate loving, committed relationships on par with the rest of society.

MICHAEL BARNETT
Ashwood, Vic

AJN Letters: Marriage Equality – a response to Rabbi Gutnick, another from Rabbi Ingram – November 2 2012

2 November 2012
The Australian Jewish News Melbourne edition

Time to update view on marriage

IN response to the opinion piece by Rabbi Moshe Gutnick in The AJN (26/10), I find it remarkably ironic that he should enjoy the freedoms and rights that come with the laws of Australia, and yet he lectures on what marriage should and should not be, based on reasoning that originated elsewhere and from a very different historical and time context.

It is time that people like him updated their views, aligned themselves with basic human rights and embraced the idea of a fair go for all, as is the supposed Australian ideal. As usual, gay rights are being misconstrued and twisted into taking away from or devaluing heterosexual rights, when in fact we simply want what our parents, siblings and friends enjoy – the right to get married, the right to have a fabulous party and the right to be left alone and not dictated to by some stranger who thinks their values can somehow inform what I may or may not do.

DAVID REID
Brisbane, QLD

Standing up to political correctness

THE predictable flood of emotive and irrational invective (AJN 26/10) against my sober refutation based on Torah outlook (19/10) of Justice Rothman’s views on homosexual marriage (12/10) graphically illustrates why the courageous public stand against the rising tide of political correctness of 150 prominent Australian doctors opposing same-sex marriage speaks far more loudly than the fact that 1000 other doctors endorsed it.

After all, it isn’t everybody in professional life who wants to take an unpopular public stance on an issue and risk insult, vitriol and ostracism from a vociferous interest group, as well as from those preferring to espouse the popular “wisdom” of the day.

Of the five letters published, not one dealt with the points I raised. Three were rude and insulting and one expressed the intolerant desire to silence me as well as all those who disagree with them. Sadly, they reveal more about their authors than the subject of their criticism. But thank God free speech is still alive and well in The Australian Jewish News.

RABBI CHAIM INGRAM
Bondi Junction, NSW

AJN Letters: Marriage Equality – Responses to Rabbi Chaim Ingram – October 26 2012

26 October 2012
The Australian Jewish News Melbourne edition

No rational basis for opposing gay marriage

IN his response to Justice Stephen Rothman’s article, “Marriage Rites Are Rights For All” (AJN 12/10), Rabbi Chaim Ingram (AJN 19/10) rejects as “patently risible” Rothman’s view that “current opposition to same-sex marriage is irrational”. Rabbi Ingram then continues: “Opposition to homosexual marriage is eminently rational.” However, other than baldly stating that such opposition is “eminently rational”, Ingram provides little evidence of precisely how that opposition is rational.

The closest Ingram comes is citing the opinion of 150 doctors that marriage is between a man and a woman exclusively is the basis for a healthy society. However, the Australia Medical Association (AMA) has rejected the stance of those 150 doctors. In fact, the AMA president has reportedly said the doctors’ claims are irresponsible and at odds with medical evidence. The AMA president cited a growing body of evidence that children of gay and lesbian parents are just as happy with themselves and their own sexuality as children of heterosexual parents with no difference in development, psychological adjustment, or peer popularity.

Moreover, the Australian Psychological Society (APS) – the largest professional association for psychologists in Australia, which represents more than 20,000 members – has endorsed the American Psychological Association’s calling for marriage equality. In a unanimous resolution, the APS has called for legalisation of same-sex marriage, on the basis of psychological evidence showing the mental health benefits of marriage, and the harm caused by social exclusion and discrimination arising from not having the choice to marry.

I ask Rabbi Ingram to have another attempt at explaining the rational basis for opposing same-sex marriage. In particular, I ask the rabbi: What is the rational difference between a committed, exclusive relationship of one man and one woman and a committed, exclusive relationship of one man and one man or one woman and one woman? The rational difference cannot be children, since one does not need to have to children to get married in Australia; and one does not need to get married to have children. What, then, is the patently rational difference?

TROY SIMPSON
Fraser, ACT

The reality of homosexuality

DOES Rabbi Ingram have any compassion for those whose natural sexual desires are toward their own, rather than the opposite, sex? Homosexuality has been observed in animal species as well as in humans, so perhaps some people are born that way. What has the Orthodox rabbinate to say on that?

The Torah also has a command that “wayward” sons be brought to the community to be stoned. Naturally the application of this law is abhorrent and the rabbis have found ways around the law.

But when it comes to homosexuality, an ancient prejudice that has lead to suicides, only the Progressive rabbis have made a positive step to justice.

Tell me rabbi: How would gay marriage in any way affect those of us in heterosexual marriages? How could it change our relationships with our spouses and children? Why, rabbi, do you take such a strong stand on this subject?

PETER COHEN
Bentleigh East, Vic

Most medics are pro gay marriage

Rabbi Ingram refers to 150 doctors who oppose changes to the Marriage Act that would allow same-sex attracted and intersex people the right to marry the person of their choice. What he conveniently neglects to mention are the over 1000 Australian medical practitioners who have signed their names to support such legislative changes, on the basis of credible medical evidence. The list of names and research papers are all available at drs4equality.com. With stark headlines such as the recent “Suicide rates high for Orthodox homosexual youths” in The Jerusalem Post, and in the face of the evidence presented by Doctors for Marriage Equality, it doesn’t take much to realise that people like Rabbi Ingram are exacerbating the problems their communities are facing.

Contemporary scientific and medical understanding is so completely foreign to what was acceptable decades ago, let alone 4000 years ago. Rabbi Ingram must learn to move with the times or be rendered a prehistoric relic who does more harm than good.

Michael Barnett
Ashwood, Vic

Disgusted at rabbi’s homophobic views

I AM ashamed that Chaim Ingram’s homophobic and offensive comments were allowed in last week’s letters. I am extremely disappointed and embarrassed by this representation of our community.

Being a philosophy student and an atheist secular humanist Jew, I am once again shocked by this widely held view in the religious community. Ingram tries to apply logic to his emotional plea and fails miserably. We, as people, are meant to spread love, compassion and kindness, and this letter is taking us in the other direction.

JAKE FEHILY
Melbourne, Vic

How would rabbis react to gay kids?

I AM writing to express my disgust at the letter from last week’s AJN from Rabbi Chaim Ingram in reply to Justice Stephen Rothman’s article (12/10).

Again it displays the total ignorance and intolerance of many of our rabbis. It is disgusting in its content.

What would many of the so-called rabbis say if they personally had a gay son or daughter? I fortunately belong to a congregation on Melbourne where are rabbis are understanding and very tolerant of all sexual relationships, and welcome heterosexuals and homosexuals equally, remembering we are all created equal in the sight of God.

A letter like this is a sure way of losing many Jews from the various congregations.

MARCUS MOSS
Black Rock, Vic

AJN Letters: Marriage Equality – Rabbi Chaim Ingram responds to Justice Stephen Rothman – October 19, 2012

19 October 2012
The Australian Jewish News Melbourne edition

Rothman wrong on same-sex marriage

Justice Stephen Rothman’s article “Marriage rites are rights for all” (AJN 12/10) is intellectually flawed several reasons:

While he, like everyone, is entitled to express his view, to state that “current opposition to same-sex marriage is irrational” is patently risible.

Opposition to homosexual marriage is eminently rational. It is based on the universal age-old, time-hallowed, sacred definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Will Justice Rothman perhaps advocate a similar change to the definition of death and redefine it as, say, “the loss of a will to live”, thus paving the way for voluntary euthanasia? After all, it is less conscience-pricking to kill an already dead man.

Will he, moreover, accuse those opposed to such a radical redefinition (and redefining marriage is no less radical) of being “irrational”?

Such intolerant pejorative labelling is redolent of the anti-intellectual tactics of the far left.

That can be no meaningful comparison between opposition to circumcision, a practice sanctified nearly four millennia ago by Abraham, progenitor of the three monotheistic faiths accounting for 60 per cent of the world’s population, and opposition to same-sex marriage which, prior to the 21st century, was instituted in only the most decadent ancient cultures.

Justice Rothman rightly cites evidence that female circumcision “injures the ‘victim’ both physically and psychologically”.

However, there was other medical evidence he didn’t mention.

Earlier this year, 150 prominent doctors – including Victoria’s deputy chief psychiatrist – publicly declared in the face of political correctness that in their considered medical view marriage between a man and a woman exclusively is the basis for a healthy society.

Even supposing the evidence is not conclusive, should Justice Rothman not take it into account? Worse, on what intellectually sound basis does he excoriate those who do and tell them they are irrational?

Justice Rothman declares that homosexual marriage is “not antithetical to the values of society in which that minority resides”.

I beg to disagree.

The values of Australian society are founded on what is often termed Judaeo-Christian ethic and which Jews term the Noahide Code, according to which homosexuality is one of a handful of offences (and prawn-eating is not one of them), which one is bidden to resist even on pain of death.

RABBI CHAIM INGRAM
Bondi Junction, NSW