Orthodox, celibate, gay and that’s OK

Update: Saying Amen after a Conservative or Reform "rabbi's" beracha

 update: a number of  commentators  to this post seem to be unaware of the view of Rav Moshe Feinstein (Translation published here a number of years ago

update: Just added Rabbi Norman Lamm's comment on to'eivah

http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2009/03/homosexuality-obvious-why-it-is prohibited

Igros Moshe (Y.D. 3:115): When the manuscript was sent to me I saw in it another matter. The wicked had intended to weaken the prohibition of homosexuality. First of all by raising the question as to why the Torah prohibited it. This itself is a great evil and it weakens the prohibitions to the wicked with this disgusting lust. In fact it is one of the greatest abominations that even the nations of the world know that it is an incomparable abomination. Therefore there is no need for any rationale to explain why it is an abomination that the whole world despises. The world already holds that the transgressors of this sin are disgusting and are not members of civilization at all. So when a reason is sought for this prohibition, this removes the obscenity from it. It removes the embarrassment, shame and disgrace and completely downplays the seriousness of this issue. Furthermore the answer - given in this manuscript to this question - is that the prohibition is in order to ensure that men will marry women and fulfill the obligation to have children. This further diminishes and weakens the prohibition. It is equivalent to saying that there is in this issue no sexual prohibitons at all but that the reason is just to ensure observance of the positive command to reproduce - which is not viewed as important by the world. These views are prohibited to publish. just as if they were outright heresy, since they represent a view which is contrary to the view of the Torah….

Igros Moshe (O.C. 4:115): 
שו"ת אגרות משה אורח חיים חלק ד סימן קטו

תשובה לנכשל במשכב זכור ר"ל א' דר"ח אדר ראשון תשל"ו. מע"כ הבחור הנכבד שליט"א שלום וברכה לזכות לתשובה גמורה.

הנה אף לטרדותי המרובות מכיון שחז"ל אמרו כמה דברים מפני תקנת השבים כ"ש שמוכרחין להזדקק להשיב לבעל תשובה בין שהוא להשיב להלכה בין שהוא לחזוק שאל יפול רוחו ולהתרשל בדבר שצריך חזוק גדול להנצל מעצות היצר הרע, שלכן פניתי מעט להשיב לו על מכתבו, והנה איני רואה שאלה להלכה במכתבו כי אף שבמכתבו שהוא איסור כרת מסתמא יודע שמשכב זכור הוא גם איסור סקילה כי בתורה בפרשת קדושים נאמר יומתו דמיהם בם וילפינן ג"ש מאוב וידעוני שהוא בסקילה כדאיתא בסנהדרין דף נ"ד ע"א עיין שם וכרת כתיב בסוף פרשת אחרי ונכרתו הנפשות שקאי על כל הא דלעיל עיין ברש"י ריש כריתות, ונמצא שאתה רוצה שאכתוב לך דברי חזוק להנצל מיצר הרע ואיזה עצה.

והנה ראשית הידיעה דחומר האיסור דסקילה וכרת וגם שנקרא תועבה והוא מחטאים המגונים ביותר ואף בני נח נצטוו ע"ז הוא כח גדול לעמוד כנגד היצר הרע, ושנית שהוא דבר שלא מובן שיהיה ע"ז ענין תאוה דבבריאת האדם בעצם ליכא תאוה מצד טבעו להתאוות למשכב זכור, שלכן אמר בר קפרא לרבי על תועבה זו שנאמר באיסור דמשכב זכור דפירושו תועה אתה בה בנדרים דף נ"א ע"א ופי' הר"ן שמניח משכבי אשה והולך אצל זכר, וכוונתו דהוא על לשון תועבה שנאמר במשכב זכור יתר על לשון התועבות הנאמר ד' פעמים בסוף פרשת אחרי שקאי על כל העריות דעל קרא דתועבות לא הוקשה לו משום שאין צורך לבאור שפירוש שהם דברים מתועבין ומאוסין מצד איסורי התורה, אבל הוקשה לו על לשון תועבה הנאמר בזכור שני פעמים בפ' אחרי כשנאמרה אזהרה בלאו ובפ' קדושים שנאמר העונש מה שלא נאמר כן בשאר איסורי עריות דאם מצד האיסור מ"ט לא נאמר זה בשאר עריות, וע"ז תירץ בר קפרא שהוא תביעת הקדוש ברוך הוא בהקרא להרשעים, שלעבירה זו דמשכב זכור הרי ליכא כלל תאוה מצד הטבע שבראתי שיהיה להם תאוה למשכב הנשים דבלא תאוה לא היה אפשר לקיום ישוב העולם כדאיתא בגמ' בשני מקומות ביומא דף ס"ט ע"ב ובסנהדרין דף ס"ד ע"א, ולא אפשר שיהיה פלגא שיהיה לו תאוה לאשה המותרת ולא יהיה לו תאוה לעריות כמו שאיתא שם שפלגא מרקיעא לא יהבי ע"י תפלה שהוא מהטעם שלא נברא בתחלת הבריאה פלגא, אבל למשכב זכור ליכא שום תאוה מצד הבריאה וכל התאוה לזה הוא רק תועה מהטבע לדרך אחר אשר גם רשעים בעלי תאוה שלא נמנעין מצד חטא ועון אין הולכין לשם שיצר הרע זה אינו אלא מחמת שהוא דבר אסור שהוא כמו להכעיס ח"ו, והחלוק הוא דהרשע הרי איתא ביומא דף ל"ה ע"ב שמתרץ עצמו נאה הייתי וטרוד ביצרי הייתי ומחייבין אותו רק מצד שיוסף מחייב את הרשעים, אבל על עבירה דמשכב זכור אין להרשע העובר על זה שום טענה לתרץ את עצמו כי לא היה שייך להתאוות לעבירה זו. והוא פירוש המדויק והנכון.

ועיין בפרש"י שם בנדרים שכתב כלומר שמניח אשתו של היתר ותפס זו של זנות, וזה תמוה דזה הא שייך על כל איסורי עריות שנאמרו שם בפרשה ולא נקט לשון תועבה בכולם אלא בזכור, אבל ידוע שפירוש רש"י הנדפס בנדרים הוא פירוש מוטעה בכמה מקומות ואינו מרש"י או שאיזה מעתיק טועה ומשבש בכל אופן אין לסמוך על לשונו ואם היה העתקה מפרש"י פשוט שהיה הגירסא שם כלומר שמניח את אשתו ותפס זו של זכור והמעתיק הוסיף תיבות של היתר והוא מטעם שלשון של אשתו הוא בדוקא שא"כ הוא מחמת שהיא היתר ולכן הוסיף לפרש כוונת פרש"י והוקשה לו על לשון של זכור דהא כל הנשים אסורות אינם של היתר ולכך הגיה לכתוב של זנות והוא טעות ברור, בלשון שכתבתי שאפשר היה כתוב כן הרי הוא בתוס' ורא"ש שמניחין נשותיהן והולכין אצל משכב זכור, ופשוט שמש"כ נשותיהן אין הכוונה כאן לענין היתר ואיסור, אלא משום דהקרא הא איירי אף באינו חשוד לעבור על זנות עם עריות אלא על משכב זכור, שג"כ הוא נחשב תועה אף לענין התאוה, דלא שייך כאן אף מה שאיתא בע"ז דף כ"ו ע"ב דאכל פרעוש או יתוש ה"ז מומר שהוקשה למ"ד דלהכעיס הוא מין ותירץ התם בעי למיטעם טעמא דאיסורא, דהתם נמי אין הפירוש שאיכא תאוה טבעית לאדם לעבור עבירות אלא כדפרש"י התם לא להכעיס אלא מתאוה לטעום טעמו לפי שאין ישראל טועמו מעולם, שפירושו שחושב אולי יש בזה איזה טעם מאחר שלא טעמו מעולם, דבמשכב זכור לא שייך זה והוא פירוש אחד עם של הר"ן ולרבותא פירשו כן והר"ן חשש לטעות איזה מעתיק לכן כתב סתם שמניח משכבי אשה והולך אצל זכר שהוא לשון שלא שייך לטעות בו.

עכ"פ תאוה למשכב זכור הוא נגד עצם התאוה וגם רשעים אין להם תאוה לזה בעצם אלא שכל התאוה הוא רק מחמת שהוא דבר אסור והיצה"ר מסיתו להמרות נגד רצון הקדוש ברוך הוא וידיעה זו הוא חזוק גדול נגד יצה"ר שכבר נצחתו שאתה מאמין בהקב"ה ובכל הי"ג עיקרים ובכל התורה שבזה תנצחהו על מה שמסיתך להמרותו ולהכעיסו, וקרא מפורש בהאזינו בתועבות יכעיסוהו ופרש"י כגון משכב זכור שזה קרא הכתוב שהוא להכעיס, ומש"כ גם כשפים משום שהוא הכחשה בפמליא של מעלה כדאיתא בסנהדרין דף ס"ז ע"ב והוי הפירוש שגורם שיכחישו גזירת שמים ויעשו להכעיס ח"ו, ובספרי ליכא אלא משכב זכור לבד ורש"י אולי היתה לו גירסא אחרת בספרי, או מצא במקום אחר. חזינן דאף שנאמר בסוף הפרשה דאחרי לשון תועבות על כל העריות לא מפרש הספרי אלא על משכב זכור והוא משום דכל העריות הוא ודאי בתאוה ואינו להכעיסו שלכן הוכרח לפרש רק על משכב זכור.

ושלישית הגנאי אף לבני אדם שכל העולם אף הרשעים מבזין לבעלי עבירה דמשכב זכור ואף בעיני הרשע השני שעושה עמו העבירה הוא מזולזל ובזוי שזהו חזוק גדול נגד היצה"ר, ועיין בסנהדרין דף כ"ט ע"א דאמרינן לעדים כשמאיימין אותם שלא יעידו שקר בשביל תאות ממון לפי המסקנא דא"כ אשי אמר לי נתן בר מר זוטרא סהדי שקרי אאוגרייהו זילי, הרי מפורש שזהו עצה טובה לחזק עצמו מתאות הממון וכמו כן היא עצה טובה נגד תאות עבירה מגונה ובזויה זו שלבד שהוא נגד התורה באיסור חמור היותר גדול הוא גם נגד עצם האנושיות שנעשה שפל ובזוי בתכלית השפלות, ולא רק שהוא גנאי הוא גם גנאי היותר גדול לכל משפחתו.

והעצה הגדולה הוא למוד התורה בעיון שהוא מציל ושומר מכל העריות ואף מהרהורים כדאיתא ברמב"ם סוף הלכות איסורי ביאה גדולה מכל זאת אמרו יפנה עצמו ומחשבתו לדברי תורה וירחיב דעתו בחכמה וכ"ש שיועיל זה להנצל מיצה"ר דעבירה בזוי הזו. והנני גומר בברכה שתהא תשובתך שלימה וגמורה ותתגדל בתורה ויראת ה'. משה פיינשטיין.

Rabbi Norman Lamm(Homosexuality): It may be, however, that the very variety of interpretations of to'evah points to a far more fundamental meaning, namely, that it is an act characterized as an "abomination" is prima facie disgusting and cannot be further defined or explained. Certain acts are considered to'evah by the Torah, and there the matters rests. It is, as it were, a visceral reaction, an intuitive disqualification of the act, and we run the risk of distorting the Biblical judgment if we rationalize it. To'evh constitutes a category of objectionableness sui generis: it is a primary phenomenon. (This lends additional force to Rabbi David Z. Hoffmann's contention that to'evah is used by the Torah to indicate the repulsiveness of a proscribed act, no matter how much it may be in vogue among advance and sophisticated cultures: see his Sefer Va-yikra, II, p. 54).

 


=============================================

Times of Israel     by David Benkof

With increasing awareness of homosexuality within the Orthodox Jewish world, a common, barely challenged refrain has been that abstaining from sex is not a real option for frum (traditionally observant) gay men. Often, advocates for changing Orthodox attitudes and policies on homosexuality have discussed celibacy with language and arguments that are poorly reasoned and insulting – even homophobic. 

Yet traditionalists rarely respond convincingly, whether they would rather not discuss sexuality at all, are afraid of sounding bigoted, or simply have never heard cogent answers to such claims. This essay attempts to fill that gap.

I am a formerly sexually active gay man who has been celibate for more than 13 years as part of my best attempt to follow halacha (Jewish law). I have a heter (permission) from my rabbi not to date, marry, or have children. [...]

Clearly, the arguments advanced by rabbis like Farber and Greenberg for increased tolerance of gay male sexual aveirot are inconsistent with our tradition. But also problematic is the practical advice they give to those who feel they just can’t be successful at refraining from same-sex relations.

Rabbi Greenberg’s message to young men who “cannot” be celibate without engaging in self-harm is to “find a partner, join a shul and seek a way to make a family.“[...]

A message for Orthodox gays

Here’s my message for frum gay men:

For men like us, following Jewish law about sexuality is an enormous struggle which often takes place without much sympathy or support. God loves us even when we cannot understand why He would limit our sexual options. Ideally, we’ll never have any sort of intimate contact with other men. But any exceptions should be as infrequent as possible, with as few halachic violations as possible. Be especially careful to avoid mishkav zachar. The process of teshuvah exists precisely so people in such situations can pick themselves up, rectify their beh

avior, and move on. Take advantage of it.

By contrast, Rabbi Greenberg says he tells young gay men looking for halachic advice that “if you find a committed monogamous partner and avoid anal intercourse, you are better off halachically speaking than all the Orthodox Jews you know who do not keep the niddah (menstrual purity) laws.” [...]

Israel likely to deport British Jewish pedophile

ynet  Todros Grynhaus, 48 from Salford, was charged with seven sexual assaults on children in Manchester.

He violated his bail conditions last year when he went on the run with his wife and children, fleeing Britain with a fake passport. He was arrested in February in Jerusalem after the British police issued an international warrant for his arrest. 

Grynhaus hired two Israeli legal teams to fight his deportation by trying to gain Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return, or otherwise seeking to settle in countries that don't have extradition agreements with the UK.  

Israeli law only allows formal extradition of foreign criminals, a process that could take up to two years and risk the possibility that Grynhaus could be released from prison during the proceedings. 

Grynhaus's lawyers tried to force Britain to use complicated extradition powers rather than allow Israel to deport him back to England, to draw out the proceedings against him. 

But District Court Judge Dana Marshak-Marom ruled that Grynhaus's "failed efforts" to avoid being returned to the United Kingdom strengthens Israel's legal authority to deport him and other suspected foreign criminals. [...]

PBS Are private charter schools monopolizing public resources?

Here’s Why This Best-Selling Book Is Freaking Out the Super-Wealthy

Time   There are many reasons why French academic Thomas Piketty’s 685-page tome, “Capital in the 21^st Century,” has vaulted to the top of the Amazon.com best seller list and is being discussed with equal fervor by the world’s top economic policy makers and middle class Americans who wonder why they haven’t gotten a raise in years. The main reason is that it proves, irrefutably and clearly, what we’ve all suspected for some time now —the rich ARE getting richer compared to everyone else, and their wealth isn’t trickling down. In fact, it’s trickling up.

Piketty’s 15 years of painstaking data collection—he poured over centuries worth of tax records in places like France, the U.S., Germany, Japan and the U.K—provides clear proof that in lieu of major events like World Wars or government interventions like the New Deal, the rich take a greater and greater share of the world’s economic pie. That’s because the gains on capital (meaning, investments) outpace those on GDP. Result: people with lots of investments take a bigger chunk of the world’s wealth, relative to everyone else, with every passing year. The only time that really changes is when the rich lose a bundle (as they often do in times of global conflict) or growth gets jump started via rebuilding (as it sometimes does after wars).[...]

That’s one of Piketty’s biggest messages–inequality will slowly but surely undermine the population’s faith in the system. He doesn’t believe, as Marx did, that capitalism would simply burn itself out over time. In fact, he says that the more perfect and advanced markets become (at least, in economic terms), the better they work and the more fully they serve the rich. But he does believe that rising inequality leads to a less perfect union, and a likelihood of major social unrest that mirrors the sort that his native France went through in the late 1700s. Indeed, the subsequent detailed collection of wealth data in the form of elaborate income and tax records made France a particularly rich data collection ground for his book. (Bureaucracy is good for something!)[...]

Philantrhropist Rapfogel Admits Stealing More Than $1 Million From Charity

NY Times    For most of his long and very public life as a philanthropist, William E. Rapfogel has been surrounded by powerful friends and politicians, chief among them Sheldon Silver, the New York State Assembly speaker.

But as he sat in State Supreme Court in Manhattan on Wednesday, about to plead guilty to several criminal charges, Mr. Rapfogel was all alone.

Grim-faced in a dark suit and black skullcap, Mr. Rapfogel quietly read passages from a well-thumbed copy of the Torah while his lawyers, Alan Vinegrad and Paul L. Shechtman, went over terms of a plea agreement.

A few minutes later, Mr. Rapfogel, 59, stood before Justice Larry Stephen and admitted stealing more than $1 million from the Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty, the influential social service organization he had led for more than two decades.

The plea marked a stunning downfall for a man once considered one of the New York City’s most respected philanthropists, whose work and close ties to Mr. Silver, a Manhattan Democrat, gave him influence and prominence in political circles. [...]

Mr. Rapfogel will be sentenced to 31/3 to 10 years in prison and must pay $3 million in restitution to the charity; to date, he has repaid $1.8 million. If he fails to pay the full restitution by his sentencing date, July 16, he will be sentenced to four to 12 years in prison, Gary T. Fishman, an assistant attorney general, said in court.[...]

Schlesinger Twins: Beth accuses Michael of illegally forging her signature for financial gain

 update - contrast of documents increased for easier reading
Beth has a number of allegations concerning wrong doing by Michael. I don't have an independent way to verify these claims - so I am simply presenting them as is. I am relying on Beth's reliable and consistently honest reporting of events so far. But to keep this as objective as possible I am also inviting Michael to explain and justify what he did with a guest post. Thus this post is not to decide whether Michael has done anything wrong - but it simply is adding to the total - consistent picture - of an incompetent (?) secular system and failure of the Jewish community to properly support both sides to reach a fair resolution.

The allegations do involve issues in Jewish as well as secular law. For example according to halacha a wife's earnings technically belong to the husband. But that is assuming that the husband is supporting the wife. Furthermore I am not aware of a heter to use forgery to acquire money - even if the money is rightfully his. (In fact I received a psak from Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky that forgery is not permitted in such a case).

Beth's point - that this is against secular law - yet Beth allegest that this is another example of the secular courts favoring Michael at her expense

===========================================

Dear Rabbi Eidensohn,

I hope you are well and had a lovely Chag.

It seems the maintenance posting has stirred up a lot of strong emotions. Perhaps this would be an opportune time to release the information below now?

Kol tuv,

Beth

=========================================

If you have the right connections and know how to play the system, it seems there's no end to what you can get away with in Vienna.

People are horrified that I am being extorted for maintenance payments now we are divorced, yet while I was still married to Dr Schlesinger he forged my signature to get my child benefits paid into his account. From September 2009 to February 2010 he deceitfully received a total of 4,080 Euros until I realized how he'd betrayed me. I was too busy caring for my newborn babies to suspect anything at the time.

I was also to discover that all our joint savings - over 50,000 Euro - he had secured in an account in his name alone, leaving me virtually penniless after I had saved up scrupulously and contributed my salaries from the 2 jobs I had to 'our' savings account.

He even spent the money we received at the Bris in presents for the boys and didn't put it away for them.

My lawyer reported him to the police on 5.11.2012 for the forgery - a blatant criminal act - but they dropped all charges.

When I cited the forgery as evidence in the divorce court, his defense was that I told him to do it! Even if I had (which of course I hadn't), it's still illegal to forge someone's signature, even your spouse!

The form with his forgery is below together with an application with my signature. The handwriting is clearly different. I always sign 'B.Alexander', he forged 'Beth Alexander'.

============================
Beth's genuine signature- outlined in blue

The signature on this document is clearly different from that on the above document. Beth alleges that her signature was forged in this document.
page 1

page 2 - forged signature circled in red

Supreme Court Void $3.4 Million Award to Child Pornography Victim

NY Times    The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside a $3.4 million award to a victim of child pornography who had sought restitution from a man convicted of viewing images of her. That figure was too much, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for a five-justice majority, returning the case to the lower courts to apply a new and vague legal standard to find a lower amount that was neither nominal nor too severe.

The victim in the case said the majority’s approach was confusing and meant that she might never be compensated for her losses. [...]

The case arose from the prosecution of Doyle R. Paroline, who was convicted in 2009 of possessing 280 images of child pornography. Two of them were of a woman known in court papers as Amy.

Images of Amy being sexually assaulted by her uncle as a child have been widely circulated and have figured in thousands of criminal cases. Amy has often sought restitution for her losses under a 1994 federal law. Every viewing of child pornography, Congress found, “represents a renewed violation of the privacy of the victims and repetition of their abuse.”

Amy’s lawyers say her losses — for lost income, therapy and legal fees — amount to $3.4 million. She has been granted restitution in about 180 cases and has recovered about 40 percent of what she seeks. [...]

The 1994 law allows victims of child pornography to seek the “full amount” of their losses from people convicted of producing, distributing or possessing it, and Amy asked the United States District Court in Tyler, Tex., to order Mr. Paroline to pay her the full $3.4 million.

Mr. Paroline said he owed Amy nothing, arguing that her problems did not stem from learning that he had looked at images of her. Amy’s uncle, who was sentenced to 12 years in prison for his crimes, bore the brunt of the blame, Mr. Paroline said, but was ordered to pay Amy just $6,325.

Mr. Paroline was sentenced to two years in prison, but the trial judge said Amy was not entitled to restitution, saying the link between Amy’s losses and what Mr. Paroline did was too remote.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, disagreed and awarded Amy the $3.4 million she sought. Mr. Paroline should pay what he could and seek contributions from his fellow wrongdoers if he thought it was too much, the court said, relying on the legal doctrine of “joint and several” liability.

The Supreme Court adopted neither of the lower courts’ approaches. Acknowledging that he was employing “a kind of legal fiction,” Justice Kennedy said the only sensible method of apportionment was for courts to require “reasonable and circumscribed” restitution “in an amount that comports with the defendant’s relative role.” [....]

Tzedaka with accountability: The Robin Hood Foundation

Kolko Lakewood case: The role of the Lakewood roshei yeshiva in driving out Rabbi S.

In the Kolko case the Lakewood establishment succeeded in driving out a major talmid Chachom as the result of his reporting the abuse of his son. He only did this after going to beis din and consulting with gedolim. Nevetheless he was still driven out and labeled a moser! I received the following insider account from someone in Lakewood regarding this case and received his permission to publicize it.

==========================

1. The whole Lakewood was told that Rabbi S. dreamt up the accusations "without a shred of evidence", and that he didn't have a psak to go to Court. Even the biggest and loudest rabble rousers were lied to (thus the heart full public apology by one such "askan" when he was finally told the truth) and tricked into thinking they were fighting against an injustice. Without these two important lies NOBODY in his right mind would have helped Kolko. 

Of course, Kolko had already admitted to 4 independent adults, and leading Poskim were behind Rabbi S. One of the BMG Rosh Yeshivas  was from the handful of people that knew these facts, Rabbi S. told him everything. Even if he was inclined to believe Kolko over Rabbi S. he could have done his own research, the adults were and still are, alive and well. Not only did it not stop him from harassing Rabbi S. and family, he was active in the misinformation campaign. He led his henchman and the greater community to believe there never was any abuse, and he leaned on the Rabbonim in an attempt to get them to take back their heter.

2. This RH, spent hours and hours and countless meetings scheming and strategizing on kolko's behalf.

3. Rabbi S. left town at his own will. No one, even after the harmful cruel things that were said about them, ever took away any of Rabbi S's many positions. Except BMG. His job was taken from him against his will.

4. NOT ONE of the Rosh Hayeshiva ever apologized in public or even in private!?! They simply don't regret what they did. 

5. The ONLY reason he got his job back was because of a written psak from EY!!!!

In short, the problem here was not that they FOLLOWED the wrong people, but rather that they LED people in the wrong direction. Rewarding bad behavior, especially to these ever powerful establishment types, only encourages more bad behavior.

Please,  publicly demand they right this terrible wrong. 

I would like to sign off on a positive note. The party that really deserves our praise is Rabbi S's kehilah. Despite unbearable pressure to fire him, they stood by him. And, when he was here in Lakewood before Pesach, they were "mechabeid" him to give a shiur. The place was jammed!!!

May we be zocheh to LEADERS that will LEAD us to greet Moshiach very very soon.

Gut Shabbos,
Lakewood Charedi.

Can Limiting Divorce Make Marriage Stronger?

 update This article comparing marriage to military enlistment was also suggested Spousebuzz

 Bloomberg By Megan McArdle  ..I see via Rod Dreher that there is a movement afoot in some states to restrict no-fault divorce, on the grounds that easy divorce is undermining marriage. Rod and I disagree about lots of things, but we’re both in agreement that marriage could certainly use some shoring up. The question is, is this a good way to do that?

I can see the appeal of making marriage more difficult to get out of. My brief tour through the divorce literature indicated that ending a high-conflict marriage is better for everyone, including the kids -- despite the financial and emotional drawbacks, it really is better to have two homes, rather than one where Mom and Dad are engaged in a bitter civil war.

On the other hand, the evidence on ending low-conflict marriages -- one in which maybe one party, or both, doesn’t feel perfectly fulfilled, but they get along OK -- wasn’t so happy. Children of low-conflict marriages whose parents divorce have more difficulty adjusting than the kids of high-conflict marriages. It’s thought that the divorce comes as a shock to these kids; a relationship that seemed fine to them suddenly dissolves, which changes their ability to trust the world and other people.

These divorces aren’t necessarily so great for the adults, either. Divorce tends to be a financial disaster for all but the very rich, because it’s more expensive to support two households than one. And people who exit marriages don’t necessarily find this makes them happier. We tend to think that marriages are good, and then they go bad, and then you divorce and get happy again, but unhappiness can often be a temporary condition that later improves.

Some approximation of this insight is what structured divorce laws before the no-fault revolution. You exited marriages in which there was abuse, adultery, abandonment or wild financial irresponsibility, not because you were just sick and tired of being married. [...]

The lesson is that when you make it harder to exit, you also make people reluctant to enter. If we try to strengthen marriage by clamping down on divorce, we may find that more and more people simply refuse to get married in the first place.

The divorce laws of an earlier era were one part of a complex social institution with mutually reinforcing norms and a fairly elaborate system of punishments and rewards. People were encouraged to stay in marriages because divorce was difficult -- but it is at least as important that divorce was heavily stigmatized. Even more important is the energy society spent encouraging people to get married in the first place -- not just with the gauzy dreams of wedding gowns and perfect babies that help sustain the institution today, but also with a complicated system of carrots and sticks that have now completely vanished. Old maids were stigmatized; women who had babies out of wedlock were shunned. Marriage was the only socially permitted way to cohabit and, for that matter, often the only legal way to do so: Landlords didn’t like renting to people who were shacking up, and hotels that rented to rooms to openly unmarried couples risked being indicted as brothels. On the positive side, getting married often meant a raise for a man, and for both parties, it constituted instant admission to adulthood. [....]

Even if you accept the premise that marriage needs to be strengthened -- which I do! -- and even if you accept the premise that the state therefore has a right to force people to stay married, which is a bigger stretch, I’m not sure that the state should. As conservatives are fond of noting, societies, like economies, are very complex organic systems. We do not understand them, much less control them with a few simple tweaks.

The Antidepressant Generation By Doris Iarovici, M.D.

NY Times    Read the comments to the article to get a clearer picture of the issues

Antidepressants are an excellent treatment for depression and anxiety. I’ve seen them improve — and sometimes save — many young lives. But a growing number of young adults are taking psychiatric medicines for longer and longer periods, at the very age when they are also consolidating their identities, making plans for the future and navigating adult relationships.

Are we using good scientific evidence to make decisions about keeping these young people on antidepressants? Or are we inadvertently teaching future generations to view themselves as too fragile to cope with the adversity that life invariably brings?[...]

Children and adolescents increasingly take antidepressants. In 2009, a large trial called the Treatment for Adolescents With Depression Study showed that those who took an antidepressant in conjunction with therapy for nine months were much less depressed, and less suicidal, in the year after stopping treatment than those without treatment — so clearly treatment is critical. But for how long? And is medicine on its own, without therapy, sufficient?

More students arrive on campus already on antidepressants. From 1994 to 2006, the percentage of students treated at college counseling centers who were using antidepressants nearly tripled, from 9 percent to over 23 percent. In part this reflects the introduction of S.S.R.I. antidepressants, a new class of drugs thought to be safer and have fewer side effects than their predecessors. 

At the same time, direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs also became commonplace. Some of this very helpfully reduces stigma, allowing people who are suffering from depression to get much-needed relief. But it also creates demand where genuine need may be less clear.[...]

We walk a thinning line between diagnosing illness and teaching our youth to view any emotional upset as pathological. We need a greater focus on building resilience in emerging adults. We need more scientific studies — spanning years, not months — on the risks and benefits of maintenance treatment in emerging adults. Maybe someday, treating people like this young graduate student, I won’t have to feel like we’re conducting an experiment of one. 

Rabbi Eliezer Berland arrives in Johannesburg in latest attempt to avoid arrest for suspected sexual harassment

JPost   Israeli Rabbi Eliezer Berland, 77, fled to South Africa last week after Zimbabwe deported him for violating its immigration laws.

Berland, a member of an offshoot of the Breslov Hassidic sect, left Israel to avoid arrest after several women, including a 15-year-old girl, complained of being sexually abused. Before Zimbabwe Berland hid in Miami, Zurich and Morocco.

South African Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein sent an email to his colleagues throughout the country informing them that Berland and a number of his followers had arrived in Johannesburg.

“Our community [must] not be involved with sheltering or supporting Berland and his followers,” Goldstein warned.

Any congregants likely to be “drawn into supporting or sheltering Berland and his followers” should be spoken with, he added.

“Berland must return to Israel to face the criminal justice system,” Goldstein insisted.[...]

Raising a Moral Child

NY Times   What does it take to be a good parent? We know some of the tricks for teaching kids to become high achievers. For example, research suggests that when parents praise effort rather than ability, children develop a stronger work ethic and become more motivated.

Yet although some parents live vicariously through their children’s accomplishments, success is not the No. 1 priority for most parents. We’re much more concerned about our children becoming kind, compassionate and helpful. Surveys reveal that in the United States, parents from European, Asian, Hispanic and African ethnic groups all place far greater importance on caring than achievement. These patterns hold around the world: When people in 50 countries were asked to report their guiding principles in life, the value that mattered most was not achievement, but caring. [...]

Praising their character helped them internalize it as part of their identities. The children learned who they were from observing their own actions: I am a helpful person. This dovetails with new research led by the psychologist Christopher J. Bryan, who finds that for moral behaviors, nouns work better than verbs. To get 3- to 6-year-olds to help with a task, rather than inviting them “to help,” it was 22 to 29 percent more effective to encourage them to “be a helper.” Cheating was cut in half when instead of, “Please don’t cheat,” participants were told, “Please don’t be a cheater.” When our actions become a reflection of our character, we lean more heavily toward the moral and generous choices. Over time it can become part of us.

Praise appears to be particularly influential in the critical periods when children develop a stronger sense of identity.  [...]

Praise in response to good behavior may be half the battle, but our responses to bad behavior have consequences, too. When children cause harm, they typically feel one of two moral emotions: shame or guilt. Despite the common belief that these emotions are interchangeable, research led by the psychologist June Price Tangney reveals that they have very different causes and consequences.

Shame is the feeling that I am a bad person, whereas guilt is the feeling that I have done a bad thing. Shame is a negative judgment about the core self, which is devastating: Shame makes children feel small and worthless, and they respond either by lashing out at the target or escaping the situation altogether. In contrast, guilt is a negative judgment about an action, which can be repaired by good behavior. When children feel guilt, they tend to experience remorse and regret, empathize with the person they have harmed, and aim to make it right. [...]

If we want our children to care about others, we need to teach them to feel guilt rather than shame when they misbehave. In a review of research on emotions and moral development, the psychologist Nancy Eisenberg suggests that shame emerges when parents express anger, withdraw their love, or try to assert their power through threats of punishment: Children may begin to believe that they are bad people. Fearing this effect, some parents fail to exercise discipline at all, which can hinder the development of strong moral standards.

The most effective response to bad behavior is to express disappointment. According to independent reviews by Professor Eisenberg and David R. Shaffer, parents raise caring children by expressing disappointment and explaining why the behavior was wrong, how it affected others, and how they can rectify the situation. This enables children to develop standards for judging their actions, feelings of empathy and responsibility for others, and a sense of moral identity, which are conducive to becoming a helpful person. The beauty of expressing disappointment is that it communicates disapproval of the bad behavior, coupled with high expectations and the potential for improvement: “You’re a good person, even if you did a bad thing, and I know you can do better.”[...]

The most generous children were those who watched the teacher give but not say anything. Two months later, these children were 31 percent more generous than those who observed the same behavior but also heard it preached. The message from this research is loud and clear: If you don’t model generosity, preaching it may not help in the short run, and in the long run, preaching is less effective than giving while saying nothing at all.

People often believe that character causes action, but when it comes to producing moral children, we need to remember that action also shapes character. As the psychologist Karl Weick is fond of asking, “How can I know who I am until I see what I do? How can I know what I value until I see where I walk?”

Schlesinger Twins: Beth's open letter to Michael - erev Pesach

Michael,

You don't respond to my private emails so perhaps you will understand why I have resorted to contacting you in this way. We don't see see eye to eye on anything but at least on one thing we may agree: what we are all going through is horrible and humiliating. I'm sure you wish for an end to it as much as I do.

However, for us to reach any kind of resolution, I think it's time you faced reality and answer these fundamental questions. For your own sake more than anyone's, the truth, however ugly and unpalatable, needs to come out.

1) Why did you marry me? The week after we were married you repeatedly banged your head against the wall and said you had to punish yourself, that you were a bad person for marrying me. What did you mean? Were you forced into it? By whom? Why?

2) Why did you talk to 'Janet' about taking me to ESRA so deceitfully? It seems you wanted to get rid of me as soon as I had the babies. Why?

3) Why did rumours go around the community that I called the police and had you evicted? That wasn't true and the police documents prove it.

4) Why did you want to have me committed to a mental hospital when you knew there was nothing wrong with me?

5) Why are you obsessed with trying to label me mentally ill when you know it's not true? After both ESRA and the police psychiatrist confirmed there was nothing wrong with me, why the rumours around the community that I was mentally ill? This was all behind my back while I was breastfeeding our babies and recovering from a painful caesarean. Why didn't you talk directly to me if you were genuinely concerned about me?

6) Why were there vicious rumours going round the community that I neglected the children and they had to be taken away from me because I couldn't look after them properly? The Judge even wrote that you did not disagree with all the positive reports about me as a mother:

“The mother takes good care of the children both in their daily care and upbringing and concerns herself with their welfare. This is well attested in the submitted reports in the file, including the reports of the Social Services (second district) and the statements from play groups. This point (the care of the mother for her children) is also not disputed by the father.”

7) Why did you go behind my back to Rav Pardess to tell him stories about me during our marriage? What did you hope to achieve by this? Why did he never call us both together to talk or hear me alone?

8) Why do you want to deny our children their mother? You told me in the coffee shop that you would be a mother and a father to them. Don't you see that's not possible?

9) Why are Fillipino women looking after our children instead of their mother? Does this mean that you haven't had the support of your family that you expected?

10) Our little boys cannot talk. They have many problems and need their mother's love to help them grow and develop normally. Why are you denying them that chance? Is your hatred for me so great that it overrides the love for your own children?

11) Do you really want the best for Sammy and Benji? Do you want them to catch up with other children their age?

12) When will you stop denying they have severe problems and need their mother's love and care?

Our boys will be 5 years old next month. Don't you agree they have suffered enough?

As you sit at the Seder table (hopefully with Sammy and Benji) discussing the miracle of Pesach and celebrate 'freedom', perhaps you could give these questions some thought. I don't think you feel free at all. You have trapped yourself in a very tragic situation but you have the chance to release yourself if you will only concede.

The mother of your children,

Beth