"Well, listen, there is no doubt that Noach Dear … has some history of not exactly being, uh, an advocate of gay rights — that's sort of putting it mildly…He is, however, a religious Orthodox Jew, and just like [for] any other religious group, whether it’s Protestants or Catholics or Jews … crossing over and embracing gays and lesbians is a very difficult chore for them. I can’t think of one elected official that’s religious that has that ability to do it….[Dear] has assured me that as it relates to gay and lesbian rights — and women’s rights — that he will be sensitive and responsive and that he will look upon each case … on its merits."
Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, as recently quoted in New York Magazine Daily Intelligencer (9/17/07)
As I acknowledged in my last piece, I’ve done the Noach Dear thing to death, and thought there was no more crude to be drawn from that oily well. Moreover, in returning to the blogs, I really, really intended to try to stay away from Brooklyn, the epicenter of all my blog-related troubles. But some people make it really, really hard. This week, while researching my piece on the Dear/McCall election, I came across the above referenced example of res gestae, excitedly uttered by a pol with pretenses of becoming the next Chief Magistrate of the large tart Granny Smith we call our home. The quote just sits there naked, its legs spread wide, calling my name, and winking at me seductively, with a come-hither look, begging for me to pound my rock-hard deconstruction into its juicy, sopping-wet silliness. Please forgive me, Domestic Partner.
I know there will be those who say that this piece is a cheap-shot, that Markowitz didn’t say what he meant or mean what he said, that pretending to take a Markowitz quote seriously is cheating, and that riffing on a remark by Markowitz is like shooting at animals caged in the zoo; I respectfully disagree. As much as Markowitz's antics sometimes makes folks cringe, including (or perhaps, especially) his supporters, the furor of the animosity directed against him by his critics indicates that people's problems with him come because of substantive rather than stylistic differences. And, in due deference to Markowitz, who used to have trouble keeping his pants on in public, that is an improvement. Give Markowitz credit, ideas like Atlantic Yards may be a disaster (or not), but he's proven that a Borough President can use his limited powers to make something big happen.
Markowitz's positions, many of which I find misguided and/or objectionable, usually come out of a heartfelt concern for poor and working people. And, anyone who doesn't believe that really doesn't understand that this, along with a seemingly bottomless need for approval and attention, is what drives the man (although it may not drive him to City Hall). He is nothing if not sincere.
Many Markowitz critics question his sincerity; I do not. While statements issued to the press by Markowitz’s staff are, by and large, even lamer than most (dissembling by means of buzzwords, on auto-pilot, sometimes without relation to the topic at hand); this cannot be said of his own words. When he’s not delivering a prepared speech, Markowitz’s words are usually a reliable reflection of what he actually “feels”. I use the term “feels”, rather than “thinks”, because it more accurately reflects the quality of what the words expressed. But he really means them. Lou Reed once said “between thought and expression lies a lifetime”, but, despite Mr. Reed’s numerous trips to Totonno’s and BAM, he’s clearly never encountered Mr. Markowitz.
When, as a candidate for Borough President, Markowitz stated that his plan of action for maximizing Brooklyn’s resources would be to become the best friend of whoever was elected Mayor, members of the Borough’s intelligentsia laughed out loud and voted for Ken Fisher. Now, six years later, Markowitz will jump however high the Mayor asks, even if it’s off a cliff (with his arms wrapped around Leonora Fulani). Likewise, when Markowitz says that a Brooklynite of low moral character, the temperament of a grizzly bear caught in a trap, and virtually no legal experience, is a preferable choice for the bench to an experienced jurist from Manhattan, this is undoubtedly what he “feels”, even if no real thinking was involved.
As such, Markowitz’s “thought-feelings” deserve thorough scrutiny. First, because they more accurately reflect his worldview than the utterances of most other politicians reflect theirs. Secondly, in those rare instances when Markowitz has been caught dissembling, or in the somewhat more frequent instances when he’s blathered out something he couldn’t possibly mean (and wouldn’t say in the unlikely event he’d reflected upon it more thoughtfully), such statements still provide a useful frame of reference for understanding his method of analysis and its intellectual underpinnings (such that they are). Back when he was a State Senator, Markowitz once excused his vote for the death penalty by saying he could never pull the switch himself (this was quoted approvingly[!?!] in the Village Voice back in 85). Could anyone have so eloquently summed up the nature of a chronic inability to take responsibility for one’s actions?
Now that Markowitz is running for Mayor, this is even more important, and not only because of public policy concerns. The Mayor’s office is a superb bully pulpit, affording its occupant the ability to expound into one of the world’s largest megaphones about all manner of matters. When the office is held by someone insufferable, in the manner of an Ed Koch or Rudy Giuliani, the potential pollution to the world’s intellectual environment poses nearly as great a threat as global warming. As such, it is instructive to examine this preview of what we may have in store.
"…He is, however, a religious Orthodox Jew, and just like [for] any other religious group, whether it’s Protestants or Catholics or Jews … crossing over and embracing gays and lesbians is a very difficult chore for them. I can’t think of one elected official that’s religious that has that ability to do it…”
Hmm, let’s see, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the most prominent yarmulke-wearing Jew holding elected office in the United States of America (Joe Lieberman goes topless) just recently voted to allow same sex couples to partake in the rites of marriage. Perhaps the Brooklyn Borough President should think a little harder. But that’s letting Markowitz off far too easily.
"Well, listen, there is no doubt that Noach Dear … has some history of not exactly being, uh, an advocate of gay rights — that's sort of putting it mildly…He is, however, a religious Orthodox Jew, and just like [for] any other religious group, whether it’s Protestants or Catholics or Jews … crossing over and embracing gays and lesbians is a very difficult chore for them. I can’t think of one elected official that’s religious that has that ability to do it….[Dear] has assured me that as it relates to gay and lesbian rights — and women’s rights — that he will be sensitive and responsive and that he will look upon each case … on its merits."
I didn’t intend to make this piece about Noach Dear, but since Markowitz seems intent on transforming Dear’s record into a matter of heartfelt spirituality, let me make clear that Noach Dear is not some kind hearted old Rebbe obeying the dictates of his conscience while handing out dollar bills to the poor (more likely Dear would be collecting the bills from the poor, by force, if necessary, and pocketing them). While many elected officials who, for reasons of religion, oppose protecting the rights of homosexuals, do so reluctantly, Dear did so with relish, big onions and a kosher pickle.
In fact, Markowitz’s comments are an insult to those whose social conservatism is a matter of religious belief. Dear is surely not the only model. Take, as a contrasting example, former Council Speaker Peter Vallone, whose autobiography spends pages outlining his agony in deciding whether to let the Gay Rights Bill come to the council’s floor, as the received wisdom of the Catechism fought the acquired accumulated wisdom of his own life experience (although he certainly did not describe it that way).
Also take Dov Hikind, a pol I’ve been so critical of that he was subjected to false accusations that he’d been responsible for my departure from the web. Despite Hikind’s somewhat callous remarks during the recent debate on marital rights, Hikind’s normal response when asked about gay issues is to try and change the subject, sometimes, as in the case of SONDA, even avoiding the opportunity to vote (in fairness, absence from legislative proceedings on Hikind’s part may just be force of habit). Hikind apparently spent a great deal of time consulting with judges and Rabbinical sages before voting in favor of a bias-crimes bill which protected homosexuals. Hikind concluded that Jewish ethics did not support the idea of people being beaten up, and he acted accordingly. Hikind’s extraordinary effort to do the right thing on bias crimes was especially noteworthy, given his normal indifference towards most Albany matters. For his troubles, Hikind ended up getting attacked by the nutcase elements of his community, led by Buchanan supporting Rabbi Yehuda Levin.
By contrast, Dear never avoided gay issues, he preferred to exploit them, most infamously having his campaign tape record pro-gay remarks made by his opponents, for later distribution as political pornography and motivational messages (don’t believe me; ask Anthony Weiner). While it is probably foolish to expect Assembly and Council Members from areas like Borough Park to support the positions of the gay community, it would be succumbing to the soft bigotry of low expectations (not to mention patronizing), not to expect such electeds to be careful to avoid fanning the flames of hatred (even inadvertently). Hikind’s efforts to avoid doing so have sometimes been less than perfect, but his worst moments seem to have been ones of damage control, rather than exploitation; by contrast, Dear’s efforts to use such the fires of hatred to fuel his career have been limited only by ineptitude and expediency, rather than by any evidence of decency.
Markowitz deserves criticism not merely for supporting someone with such a record, but also or for supporting for elevation to the bench someone little better than a common criminal, whatever their position on gay issues. He’s clearly earned every bit of grief he’s gotten for the Dear endorsement. But, for those already offended at him on those grounds, the above-referenced quotation contains little worthy of further outrage (as opposed to further laughter and derision), and were that the only reason for taking finger to keyboard, I probably would not have done so, having already set forth my objections twice.
“…and just like [for] any other religious group, whether it’s Protestants or Catholics or Jews … crossing over and embracing gays and lesbians is a very difficult chore for them. I can’t think of one elected official that’s religious that has that ability to do it."
Those who should be most outraged by Markowitz’s ill-chosen words are people of faith who belong to religious congregations which embrace an agenda of tolerance. Markowitz seems to regard us as non-existent, most of all in his own religious community. How is it that a supposedly liberal pol can so blithely refuse to acknowledge the existence of liberal people of faith?
Although Markowitz carries a Jewish name, his actual embrace of “Yiddishkeit” (things Jewish) seems largely to be culinary, acquired at the deli rather than the schul (in fairness to Markowitz, it is the very gastronomical nature of his religious connection which puts his faith amongst his life’s highest priorities). Ironically, it is quite common amongst this sort of Jew to regard only religious Orthodoxy as being authentically Jewish.
This is certainly the Israeli attitude. In the words of one of Israel’s few Reform Rabbis, “most Israelis won’t set foot in a Synagogue, but the Synagogue they won’t set foot in is an Orthodox Synagogue”. The real fights in Israeli religious wars are not between the Orthodox and the non-religious, but between the Orthodox and the Heterodox. Orthodoxy does not regard itself as threatened by the non-religious, but by competition in the marketplace of ideas, which, in Israel, it attempts to stifle with every weapon at hand. Sadly, this has often been the case. In the Middle Ages, it was not uncommon for more literalist Rabbis to facilitate the burning of works by the overly rationalistic sage Maimonides. Many, and perhaps most, non-religious Israelis regard Heterodox streams of Judaism as inauthentic eccentricities, and they are perfectly willing to cede official civil control over all life cycle matters, such as marriage, to the religiously “authentic”, so long as they can ensure that their own personal contact with such authorities will be limited and fleeting.
Unfortunately, this position leaves those non-Orthodox Jews seeking religious contact more than three or four times in their lifetime Shit Out of Luck.
In Israel, progress on this front has been mixed at best. For years Reform Jews from America have asked Israel to recognize us as authentic Jews by treating our conversions exactly as they treat those done by Orthodox Rabbis from America; so I suppose it is good news that they now do so, but only because Orthodox conversions from America are no longer automatically recognized either, owing to ultra-Orthodox fears of their possible inauthenticity.
On the basis of his lack of real regard for his less than Orthodox “co-religionists”, Markowitz, though born in the Borough of Homes and Churches, deserves designation as an honorary Sabra.
“…He is, however, a religious Orthodox Jew, and just like [for] any other religious group, whether it’s Protestants or Catholics or Jews … crossing over and embracing gays and lesbians is a very difficult chore for them. I can’t think of one elected official that’s religious that has that ability to do it."
Forget, for a moment the error concerning our Assembly Speaker, and savor the implications here. How is Markowitz defining religious? In the unlikely event that Markowitz should ever choose to spend his Saturdays in any Jewish activity more spiritual than the consumption of smoked and pickled fish, he will find that the two Jewish Congregations in shortest walking distance of his home in Park Slope have Rabbis who are out-lesbians. One, a member of the Conservative movement, was recently married to her partner, and is pregnant. Is Markowitz saying that these Rabbis are not religious? I might tolerate such an attitude from someone who’s spent more than five minutes during their lifetime engaged in the study of Torah and/or Talmud, but where would our Borough President draw the basis of his knowledge for coming to such a conclusion?
Surely, Markowitz is not alone amongst government officials in, de facto, regarding only the dogma of religious conservatives as authentically religious. His words are merely one more example of a far larger phenomenon.
Years ago, when I belonged to a Congregation with a female Rabbi, I was saddened to learn that DA Joe Hynes (a pol I’ve mostly been quite kind to; Maurice Gumbs would say too kind) had put her on his “Women’s Advisory Council”, but not on his equivalent body for the Jewish Community, which seemed reserved for folks with beards (and no, I don’t mean lesbian Rabbis). In other words, on the panel giving our District Attorney advice and counsel about our community, the majority of Brooklyn Jews were entirely unrepresented, except for the token presence of Conservative Rabbi Joe Potasnik, the guy politicians call, like Ghostbusters, whenever they need someone to provide them this sort of cover. If the office of the District Attorney would like to argue that the situation described is no longer the case, it should feel free to forward to me the names of all the female Rabbis who’ve served on the DA’s Jewish Advisory Council since its inception.
And Markowitz and Hynes are surely not alone. Take last year’s “Foreskin Saga”. City Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Frieden and State Commissioner (as she was then, by virtue of the rigorous selection process of George Pataki, after being lifted from the obscurity of being the sister-in-law of the comic who played Father Guido Sarducci) Dr. Antonia Novello came to blows (perhaps a poor choice of words) over the charmingly anachronistic practice of Brit metzitah b’feh, in which a Mohel orally removes the blood from a circumcission procedure from the infant’s genitalia. Oy!
Almost as charming was the debate in the blogosphere, as words like genital mutilation and child molestation were tossed about with impunity. That being said, Frieden was right in attacking a set of protocols proposed by Novello which facilitated the practice while pretending to do the opposite.
If I had my way, it would require a compelling government interest before a law, even if facially neutral, could be applied to impinge upon a religious practice (this was once the standard, until the Supreme Court screwed it up, and then Congress and state legislatures muddled matters further trying to undo their damage). But, protecting the health of infants, who have not developed any meaningful immune systems, from a disease, which could kill or disable them (even though, in adults, oral herpes is little more than a nuisance) would seem to fall into that category. Nonetheless, as a free exercise demon, I’d probably permit this practice amongst those who, fully informed, still feel it is religiously mandated.
A compelling interests test would require a sincere belief among a religion’s adherents that the practice being scrutinized was religiously required. There’s no doubt that such a belief is sincere in this instance. However, it should be noted that this practice is a matter of some controversy even amongst Orthodox Jews, with some scholars having eloquently concluded that the dangers inherent require that the practice be abandoned. Not that this had much impact amongst Rabbis in Borough Park and Williamsburg, still unwilling to acknowledge that the great sage Maimonides was correct in his opposition to the pre-Yom Kippur ritual of swinging a live chicken over one’s head. Since the great Rambam also wrote eloquently about the right to perform cunnilingus upon one’s spouse, perhaps he’d be more comfortable among the Rabbinate in Park Slope.
This division in opinion is significant. There are a limited number of Mohels. It is quite common for Mohels to come from more traditional streams in Judaism than their clientele. Religiously liberal Jews (and even non-religious “Sabras” like Markowitz) often employ Hasidic or ultra-Orthodox Mohels. Even if we created an exception for those whose beliefs require this practice, it would seem, at the very least, that there be full disclosure required so that those whose scruples do not require, or, in fact, forbid, exposure to such dangers, not be put into that position. Since most witnesses to this religious ritual avert their eyes during the procedure in question, it’s not as if most folks would even know if this highly questionable practice were taking place.
But, as in Israel, exposure to too much competing information in the marketplace of ideas was regarded as a threat by elements amongst the ultra-Orthodox, who preferred a posture of protectionism in opposition to the dangers posed by intellectual globalization. Prevailing upon Novello, they made sure that her protocols only gave lip service (perhaps a poor choice of words) to the concept of informed consent, by making sure that the enforcements provisions had no teeth (perhaps a poor choice of words), thereby ensuring that the protocols delivered less than they’d promised to the point of meaninglessness.
Was this really the act of a medical doctor and publc servant? I cannot help but find instructive the contrast between Novello and Maimonides, who both performed simultaneous service as physicians and government officials. Although, of the two, only Maimonides was also a member of the clergy, he was nonetheless able to reconcile the demands of religion with those of medicine without needlessly sacrificing the dictates of science to those of faith. By contrast, Novello allowed herself to become the chicken being swung by the ultra-Orthodox community.
Novello should have shown as much respect for the religious scruples of those who find this practice halachically objectionable, as she did for those who find it halachically required. But, in Albany, as in Brooklyn, some religious beliefs are regarded as more equal than others.
I would be remiss, before I left this topic, if I didn’t share from our Oral Tradition (perhaps a poor choice of words) some time-honored punchlines from our best-loved mohel jokes: “Nu? What would you put in the window?”; “He works for tips”; “Minkowitz always cuts at the same angle”; “If you like it, I’ll give you a whole one”; “Just a little bit off the top, please”; “It won’t be long now”; “When you rub them, they become suitcases”; “Chewing gum for gay men”; “If they’re so smart, how come they’re subtracting instead of adding?”. All this clownishness about the subject of putzes serves to brings us back to the main topic of this essay (say what you will, at least I resisted making a pun about Anthony Weiner).
“…He is, however, a religious Orthodox Jew, and just like [for] any other religious group, whether it’s Protestants or Catholics or Jews … crossing over and embracing gays and lesbians is a very difficult chore for them. I can’t think of one elected official that’s religious that has that ability to do it."
How does one define the level of one’s religious commitment before it gets sanctioned as authentic by Rabbi Menachem Mendel Markowitz (as much a reference to Sholem Aliechem’s luftmensch as it is to the late Lubavitcher Rebbe), not to mention “Holy Joe” Hynes and Mother Superior Sarducci? Perhaps it is a matter of putting one’s beliefs into practice. Does Markowitz find Unitarians and Episcopalians insufficient on such matters? How about Reform and Conservative Jews? Perhaps, before coming to such conclusions, he should explore further into his own constituency, at a site only a few steps from his place of work. Perhaps he remembers visiting it recently, for a photo op after it had been defaced by vandals.
The Reform Congregation in Brooklyn Heights charges families a whopping $ 1800 a year in dues, not including extras like religious school, membership in the Reform Zionists of America (so that Brooklyn Reform Jews can lobby non-religious Jewish officials in Israel for the equal regard denied to us by non-religious Jewish officials in Brooklyn), the dinner dance, “free-will” donations, or the something like $5000 members must commit to the congregation’s building fund. For most New Yorkers, this may require a more arduous level of commitment than giving up shrimp.
Every Saturday, members of this congregation gather for heated discussion of the week’s Torah portion. Surely, that should cause some to reconsider using the terms “religious” and “Orthodox” as if they were synonymous. Much more importantly, every winter, this congregation turns its basement into a homeless shelter staffed by volunteers from the congregation, who wash the dishes, prepare home-cooked meals, spend the night sleeping with those less fortunate, and then clean the facility, mopping it down, while picking up the dirty sheets and spraying them with disinfectant.
By any measure, one can certainly appreciate that affiliation with such an institution requires a large measure of commitment, so that those who’ve made such a commitment would seem to have earned the right to call themselves “religious”, at least to the same extent as those who choose to wear a piece of cloth upon their heads. More importantly, they’ve earned the right to be thought of as “religious” by others. To deny to them this right is surely an act of desecration far worse than painting a swastika upon their building. Amongst the members of this Congregation is the local member of the City Council. This Council Member has, without exception, legislatively supported measures ensuring the legal equality of his homosexual constituents.
“….whether it’s Protestants or Catholics or Jews … crossing over and embracing gays and lesbians is a very difficult chore for them. I can’t think of one elected official that’s religious that has that ability to do it."
Marty Markowitz, meet David Yassky.