A Clash of Creed: The Paradox of LGBTQ+ Pride Within Orthodox Judaism

In 2015, 16-year-old Shira Banki was stabbed to death at the Pride Parade in Jerusalem, Israel, by Yishai Schlissel, an Ultra-Orthodox Jewish man protesting the celebration of LGBTQ+ rights. This was not an isolated incident; Schlissel executed three similar stabbings at the Jerusalem Pride Parade in 2005, defending his actions on both accounts with devout faith to Orthodox Judaism. Drawing from various biblical and rabbinical passages condemning homosexual relations, Orthodox Judaism rejects same-sex marriage, claiming that it directly violates religious law. In an interview with the Jerusalem Post, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded to the attack with a promise to deliver justice and uphold Israel’s “most basic values,” protecting an individual’s freedom of choice, in response to these stabbings.^[1] Since Israel promotes itself as a “Jewish State”—where both Orthodox political parties and an official Rabbinate executive branch are granted the power by the State of Israel to define what’s considered “Jewish”—balancing religious ideologies that contrast modern human rights, as given by international law, marks an ongoing debate within Israeli politics and society.^[2] Although the prohibition of same-sex marriage in Israel is enforced by the Orthodox presence in the government through biblical and rabbinical justifications, prohibiting homosexual practice infringes on rights of self-determination that are also central to Israeli state law. This contradiction thus invokes the question: which set of doctrines should codify laws on homosexuality—secular rights to individualism or Orthodox mandates, which the Orthodox community claims upholds Israel’s promise to remain a “Jewish State”? This essay aims to use the context of this case study to investigate the blurred intersection of human rights laws and religious doctrine by parsing both the rabbinical basis for anti-LGBTQ+ orthodoxy and the State of Israel’s human rights laws in order to analyze how LGBTQ+ rights are perpetuated within contemporary Israeli society.

The circumstances of this case study present a lived-experience of the clash between the secular emphasis on self-identity and the conservative homonegativity that characterizes Orthodox Jewish doctrines. The difference between the demographics of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem best highlights this contrast: in the secular hub of Tel Aviv, homosexuality itself is commemorated an outlet of individuality, while in Jerusalem, protesters march not only in celebration of pride, but also in pursuit of tolerance and acceptance within the large faction of the Orthodox religious community that resides there.^[3] While allyship for the LGBTQ+ community is paraded through Tel Aviv, in Jerusalem, this demonstration is not a simple celebration, but rather, it’s a movement that yearns to blend LGBTQ+ and Jewish identities that are held separate within Orthodox ideologies. Therefore, although they share the same creed—supporting and celebrating LGBTQ+ rights—the essential difference between the annual pride marches in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv resides in the full title of each gathering: while those in Tel Aviv attend the Pride Parade, individuals participate in the March for Pride and Tolerance in Jerusalem, where there’s a particularly strong Orthodox Jewish presence.^[4]

What differentiates the Orthodox responses to homosexuality from that of other sects of Jewish groups in Israel is the prevalence of Jewish law, or halacha, within the daily lives of Orthodox Jews; although halachic law guides Jewish people of all denominations, it’s most strictly upheld within Orthodox communities.^[5] Specifically, the foundation for anti-LGBTQ+ principles in modern Orthodox Judaism resides in halachic discourse, through a conglomeration of biblical evidence from both the Torah, which is sanctified in Judaism as containing the divine word of God, and rabbinical law, concentrated in the Mishnah and Talmud. As Rabbi Elazar Ben-Lulu describes in “Let us Bless the Twilight,” homosexuality is considered, according to the Torah, to be “an abhorrent thing,” known as to-evah in Hebrew, that is “punishable by death.”^[6] The acute basis of the “Jewish prohibition against homosexual acts” stems from the book of Leviticus, which states: “Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence” (Leviticus 18:22), and “If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death; their bloodguilt is upon them” (Leviticus 20:13). Whereas Reform Judaism “believes in the right of each individual to shape his or her Jewish way of life”—and its modern origins and evolution alongside international human rights laws innately infuses Reform doctrines with Western virtues prioritizing self-expression—Orthodox Judaism strictly adheres to rabbinic tradition in such a way that identifying as LGBTQ+ induces oppression for homosexual individuals who also claim membership in the Orthodox Jewish community.^[7]

The Mishnah, the foundational text of Jewish law, further reflects the rabbinic stance on homosexuality through the presence of a “tight gender grid” that guides the Orthodox belief in rigid adherence to gendered roles that are based on reproductive responsibilities.^[8] Religious Studies scholar Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert claims that rabbinic halachic discourse “institutes a functional gender duality anchored in the need for reproduction of the Jewish collective body.”^[9] Although this claim to practicality aims to undo Jewish social constructions surrounding gendered practices, the justification of functional gender roles encourages the rejection of homosexual relationships that inherently cannot reproduce. Additionally, this emphasis on gendered divisions based on anatomical differences reinforces the preservation of the “nuclear family,” further isolating homosexual relationships that don’t reinforce this standard and cannot contribute to the proliferation of the Jewish community.^[10] However, prominent Israeli Orthodox rabbi Benny Lau contends that Judaism doesn’t outlaw same-sex couples that intend to build families; and while this might refute the assertion that a rejection of homosexuality is, in fact, based on the practical necessity of reproduction, his belief that there is still “no acceptable solution” to officially recognizing homosexual marriages within Judaism instead reflects persistent homonegativity and a reluctance to tolerate homosexual behavior within the Orthodox community at large.^[11]

The basis of Orthodox opposition to homosexuality also resides within the Talmud, or the rabbinical interpretation of the Torah.^[12] Through an acute stress on “community and interconnectedness,” these rabbinical doctrines, written across the third through seventh centuries, uphold Jewish values of “group identity and solidarity,” which stand directly at odds with secular modern culture, which instead prioritizes individualism and self-expression.^[13] Although modern Reform movements attempt to secularize traditional Judaism, Orthodox ideologies enforce a degree of separation between homosexual and Jewish identities.^[14] Attending the Jerusalem Pride Parade, the self-proclaimed religious LGBTQ+ community marches and dances to Jewish religious music, sporting rainbow flags in addition to kippot, tzitzit, and hair coverings.^[15] Acknowledging their Jewish and LGBTQ+ identities separately, these individuals make active efforts to “[celebrate] all parts of their identity in unison” by using their physical appearance to combine elements of Orthodox tradition with secular culture.^[16] Such contrast between Reform and Orthodox stances on homosexuality can be traced to key rabbinical teachings that emphasize the long-term oppression and ostracization of the Jewish people as an ethnic group.^[17] Due to this history, a core concept of Judaism is the acceptance of and sympathy for other victimized groups; Jewish teachings not only center social justice at the forefront of literature, but Jews are instructed to question teachings and uphold individual opinions.^[18] However, because both the Torah and rabbinical authorities specifically command the prohibition of homosexual relations, such unavoidable evidence takes priority over the general acceptance and support of LGBTQ+ individuals who, as a collective group, also suffer oppression within both society and the Jewish community. This paradox of principle thus isolates homosexual individuals as exceptions to Jewish precepts.^[19]

In addition to abiding by rabbinical law through the instruction of the Chief Rabbinate, Israel also grants its citizens human rights as dictated by international standards. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees the freedom of religion or belief, and, since Israel is a member of the United Nations, Israeli state law protects such rights to individualism and self-determination.^[20] Included in this freedom of expression is both the right to religious practice and the right to individual identity, which creates a paradoxical intersection of rights and induces the question: if state laws enable the freedom of both religious and individual expression, what happens when religious expression interferes with or prohibits other aspects of one’s identity? Which laws should take priority in the instance where one’s LGBTQ+ identity is used as an axis of oppression under religious law? According to Special Rapporteur Ahmed Shaheed, the United Nations claims that laws that discriminate and criminalize individuals along the basis of gender or sexual orientation “facilitate religious practices that violate human rights,” and that “states have an obligation to guarantee everyone, including women, girls, and LGBTQ+ people, an equal right to freedom of religion or belief.”^[21]

However, while the United Nations declares that Israeli state law should create “an environment where pluralist and progressive self-understandings can manifest” by ensuring the protection of all its citizens regardless of differences in race, religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation, Israel defines itself as “Jewish and Democratic,” guaranteeing the rights of minority groups under explicitly Jewish governance.^[22] Although a democratic nation, Israel is firstly Jewish since the nation was initially founded in 1948 as a homeland for the Jewish community. According to the Constitution for Israel, the center of the nation’s “ethos” is the belief that the State of Israel, as a Jewish State, remains the only place in the world where “Judaism can come to its full fruition.”^[23] However, Avraham Burg, former speaker of the Knesset—the supreme legislative body of the State of Israel—highlights the inherent contradictions between the notions of identifying as both a Jewish and democratic state that underlay governance in Israel. He states that while “democracy is a method based on liberties, that say that all is permitted except that which is forbidden, Judaism, on the other hand, is a system of responsibilities, which says that all is forbidden except that which is permitted.”^[24] Essentially, he recognizes that while Israel upholds democratic values emphasizing individuality and equal rights across diverse cultures, the state also cedes legislative control to religious powers within the government, who then determine the bounds of what is considered properly Jewish in the eyes of the state, thus inhibiting the right of an individual to outline their own religious participation.^[25]

Despite the influence of international policies on Israeli democracy, it is the structure of the Israeli government that enables the nation to uphold Jewish laws. The Israeli government is a parliamentary democracy, and consists of legislative, executive, and judicial branches in addition to the Presidency. The legislative branch contains the Knesset, or the parliament, which regulates Government policies, while the Government is the executive authority of Israel, managing the execution of laws internally.^[26] On the other hand, Israel’s Judiciary functions independently of these two branches and is headed by magistrates during civil and criminal cases and rabbinical courts on matters of personal status.^[27] Therefore, Israel maintains its status as a “Jewish and Democratic” state by delegating state-sanctioned, judicial power to religious authorities, and as a result, it is the laws of the Ultra-Orthodox Chief Rabbinate that ultimately dominate legislation surrounding LGBTQ+ rights, among other laws regarding civil marriage and divorce, work and public transportation on the Sabbath, and religious education.^[28] However, despite this widespread influence of conservative policy, within the past three decades, Israel has adopted a progressive approach to ensuring the rights of gay and lesbian individuals. For example, the Equal Opportunities in Employment Act of 1992 forbids discrimination in the workplace along the basis of sexual orientation, and the Anti-Discrimination Law of 1997 further protects LGBTQ+ individuals from defamatory slander.^[29] Additional laws, enacted within this same timeframe, further protect gay families’ rights to adoption, marriage recognition, and social security.^[30] Additionally, there are a plethora of organizations and resources that both offer support and protection for LGBTQ+ religious individuals: for example, Havruta, an Israeli LGBTQ+ organization, claims to “emphasize the integrity of the religious LGBTQ identity” by protesting the existence of conversion therapies and the proliferation of a general homonegativity among Ultra-Orthodox factions.^[31] Similarly, the National Association of LGBT in Israel, the Jerusalem Open House, and the lesbian Bat-Kol organization all present examples of religious support groups that aim to offer outlets of protection in response to the condemnation of homosexuality prevalent among conservative Orthodox Jews. Thus, Mike Hamel, board member of Israel’s National LGBTQ+ Task Force, claims that the Israeli government cannot take credit for Israel’s progressivism; he asserts that it’s rather due to the hard work of these organizations working in spite of outdated government policies, which reflect Orthodox Judaism, that Israel has become so secular.^[32]

Given this composition of political parties in the Israeli government, in addition to the surrounding social climate of organizations birthed in response to state policies regarding the LGBTQ+ community in Israel, the stabbing of Shira Banki presents a critical opportunity to observe the intersection of Orthodox Judaism and secular policy. In response to the stabbing, due to his association with the influential Haredi Orthodox political parties, Netanyahu was pressured, by Meretz chairwoman Zehava Gal-On, among other secular political figures, to “unequivocally condemn” the attack.^[33] Echoing Jerusalem mayor Nir Barkat’s description of Schlissel’s stabbing as “an attempt to…prevent the basic right of freedom of expression,” Netanyahu asserted that “it’s up to us to make sure that every man and woman can live in safety at all times in every way that they choose to live.”^[34] Although promising that “justice [would] be dealt” to Schlissel, because “in the State of Israel, an individual’s freedom of choice is one of the country’s most basic values,” Netanyahu’s ultimate lack of action on the matter was powered by “political considerations,” as he feared losing the support of the Orthodox Jews in the Knesset.^[35] Even though this apparent support for human rights reflects the secular policies of the Israeli state, the political restrictions imposed by the Orthodox community served to curb Netanyahu’s public condemnation of anti-LGBTQ+ behavior, subtly encouraging such extremist action without fear of legal reproach.^[36] Additionally, in response to the stabbing, both Chief Rabbis David Lau and Yitzhak Yosef denounced the attack and asserted that such violence violated the law of the Torah and prompted the intervention of state legal authorities.^[37] Therefore, Netanyahu’s response, which seemingly intends to enforce the progressive aspects of state legislature, is actually fraught with political motives that instead endorse Orthodox policies; while on the other hand, the rabbis, who might be expected to uphold the anti-LGBTQ+ virtues that characterize Orthodox Judaism, instead condemn such violence and call for legal action.

Thus, while independent laws ensuring individual rights contrast religious laws within Israeli state legislation, they converge on the goal of sanctioning freedom of expression. Since the 2015 stabbing of Shira Banki, the Israeli government has evolved a new coalition, which includes a small Islamic party and more leftist parties, enabling a secular shift in both policy and political influence as the power of the Ultra-Orthodox political groups diminishes.^[38] The fact that Banki was Jewish further demonstrates the controversiality of identifying as homosexual, or even simply an ally to the LGBTQ+ community, within Orthodox Judaism. Although Jewish tradition is predicated on extreme communal loyalty and teaches sympathy for minority groups, the fact that the Torah and other rabbinical interpretations explicitly prohibit homosexual relationships overrides these community ties and instead subverts equality to the divine commandment of God. Essentially, even though Banki was Jewish, her mere support of LGBTQ+ rights excluded her from her Jewish identity, according to Schlissel, who instead contended that identifying as Jewish and identifying as homosexual were mutually exclusive.^[39] However, Schlissel’s actions present yet another dimension of complexity through his claims to uphold divine law through murder, which, as the Torah states, is explicitly prohibited. Although the Torah imposes the death penalty for “sexual sins,” including “anal sex between men,” among other infractions such as “violating the Sabbath” and “worshipping idols,” the death penalty is actually rarely carried out by religious courts since “Judaism is deeply uncomfortable with capital punishment.”^[40] Additionally, the act of killing is prohibited as one of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:13; Deut. 5:17). Therefore, although Schlissel might have claimed that his actions were righteously carrying out Jewish law by delivering the death penalty on account of “sexual sins,” his actions actually directly violate Jewish law, further complicating the intersection of legislation responsible for this ideological paradox.^[41]

However, as the Israeli government leans into the interests of the progressive organizations that are increasingly dominating public culture, the paradox of freedom ever-intensifies: the secularization of Israeli policy only amplifies the prioritization of human rights, which, founded upon the enlightenment values of individualism and self-determination, strengthen support for both individuality and religious expression. Thus, while the investigation over which laws take precedence with regards to the LGBTQ+ community—secular policies or Orthodox Jewish doctrines—remains inconclusive, it’s clear that the murder of Shira Banki presents a “trigger point” for the future of LGBTQ+ legislation and acceptance in Israel.^[42] As progressive organizations continue to gain influence in Israeli society, Orthodox doctrines evoking homonegativity might become more secularized, too, perhaps evolving to extend the same compassion central to Jewish teachings to LGBTQ+ individuals as well.^[43]