The Cease Fire - So Far So Good

Will Hamas disarm? (CNN)

The cease fire deal between Israel and Hamas is not unraveling. Contrary to claim of the many Trump and Netanyahu haters. (Some of whom salivate at that prospect because their disgust for those two leaders is so great, it outweighs their concern for the safety of the Israeli people. So they favor looking at the cease fire as a bad deal in a variety of creative ways. They feel good because their views have been vindicated.)

Their evidence for their claim is the recent airstrike in Gaza that killed dozens of Palestinians in retaliation for the Hamas attack that killed two IDF soldiers. 

Living up to their proven bias, the media gave equal credence to the claims by both sides that it was the other side that violated the cease fire. God forbid they believe Israel over Hamas. The “even-handed” mainstream media will dare not believe the belligerent Netanyahu over the peace-loving Hamas ‘fighters’ who are simply fighting for a cause they believe in. Which is to end Israeli occupation and apartheid. But I digress.

The point here is that both Hamas and Israel said they are still adhering to the cease-fire agreement — even though Hamas has not yet disarmed as the agreement requires. What they have been doing is executing the criminal element among them, which they mostly define as Palestinian collaborators with the Zionist enemy.

So much for their peaceful intentions. The president, for his part, was misled by Hamas to believe that they actually were just restoring law and order. What he didn’t realize was that this meant executing Palestinian ‘rats’.

It appears that Hamas has no real intention of complying with that most vital portion of the cease-fire agreement, and are using the cease fire to reconstitute their ranks — which, ‘sure as shootin’, they are doing right now!

Well, aren’t the naysayers right, then? If they don’t disarm, isn’t that a deal breaker? Of course it is. Does that mean it was a bad deal and a mistake to make that deal in the first place? 

Absolutely not. That deal accomplished the impossible: It got all the living hostages returned at once. And for now, the IDF is not in harm’s way in active combat. At least for the short term. These heroes of the Gaza war are out of harm’s way for the moment and can surely use the break.

What about the fact that Hamas is trying to restore itself to its former ‘glory’? What about all the Palestinian prisoners who were released as part of the deal, some of whom were convicted of terrorism and murder? Was that price too steep? 

Not in my book. 20 innocent lives were saved. What happens in the future will be dealt with then. Hopefully Israel has finally learned its lessen after October 7^th and will never ‘drop the ball’ again!

But to reiterate the question: if Hamas reneges on what I believe to be the most important part of the deal -  complete disarmament and no possibility of a role in governing Gaza - isn’t that the worst outcome? Will they not have been the ultimate winner – surviving to do it all over again in the future? I don’t think so. Here’s why:  

President Donald Trump on Thursday warned that if Hamas keeps killing people in Gaza, “we will have no choice but to go in and kill them.” 

“If Hamas continues to kill people in Gaza, which was not the deal, we will have no choice but to go in and kill them,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. “Thank you for your attention to this matter.” Trump later clarified that U.S. forces would not be involved in the renewed offensive he had threatened.

Well, if U.S. forces will not be involved (and they shouldn’t be), how will ‘we’ kill them? I’ll give you three guesses.

Never mind.  I’ll just spell it out: IDF. They will go right back in and do whatever it takes to eradicate Hamas regardless of how many Palestinian civilians Hamas puts in Israel’s way.

If Hamas has learned anything about Trump, it is that he doesn’t bluff. All they have to do is look at what he did to Iran at Fordow.

The president has repeated those comments several times in a variety of ways. Will the world scream bloody murder (at both Israel and the US)? Of course they will. Many more ‘innocent’ Palestinians will be killed. But as always they will be screaming at the wrong parties.

Besides, it doesn’t make any difference. Once Hamas is out of the picture as any kind of organized fighting force, the cease-fire agreement can be restored and the world that approved this deal in the first time will surely approve it again. Not because they love Israel (they hate Israel despite the platitudes we sometimes hear from their leaders). But because it will be in their own economic interests to do so as well as it will be in the best interests of the Arab states, the U.S., and, not least of all, Israel.

Meanwhile, the vice president is in Israel to make sure Netanyahu does not ‘jump the gun’ and restart the war prematurely. He wants to give peace a chance. 

Frankly, so do I. It’s just that I don’t have any confidence in Hamas living up to their part of the bargain. We will have to see what the deadline is for them to lay down their arms. If they do, it’s a win for Israel, the Palestinians, the Arab states, and the free world. If they don’t, it will still be a win — it will just take a bit longer and be a lot bloodier.

These are my thoughts as things stand now.

Jewish Culture Does Not Define Us

Wesleyan University president Michael Roth 

I have long been lamenting the decline of American Jews who care about identifying as Jews. That we are now at record levels in that sad statistic is well known, thanks to a Pew Research survey taken a few years ago. The corollary to that decline is that over 70% of American Jews are marrying non-Jewish spouses — which means that in about half of those cases, their children will not be Jewish at all.

Although in some — perhaps many — cases they may still identify as Jewish, it doesn’t help that the Reform Movement now considers patrilineal descent a legitimate definition of Jewish identity. When a denomination whose very genesis came about by rejecting the foundational document that created the Jewish people that defines us, it hardly lends credence to their definitional pronouncements. It only makes matters worse by confusing the rest of the world about who is and isn’t a Jew.

Besides, as most secular Jews will tell you, what difference does it make anyway how a person identifies? To most secular Jews, Judaism is a culture derived from traditions accumulated over time — traditions they later accept or reject as their cultural values evolve.

How we got here is a complicated issue that I have addressed many times. What I will say is that the vast majority of American Jews fall into a category called Tinok Shenishba — literally, ‘a child taken captive’. In this context, it refers to Jews born and raised in an environment that included no substantive Jewish education. Their parents were mostly non-observant, many of whom ran away from the ‘old world’ image of the uneducated, uncultured European Jew in order to assimilate and pursue the American dream. Children raised with those values could hardly be expected to understand what Judaism is about. At best, they will embrace cultural values like social justice and call it the quintessential Jewish value.

Conservative rabbis have only encouraged this attitude and focus little — if at all — on the mitzvos of the Torah. To the extent that they do, their congregants mostly observe those mitzvos in the breach, if they pay attention to them at all.

Even these rabbis are not entirely at fault — this is what they were taught. Reform Jews refer to mitzvah observance as a nice thing to do but ultimately voluntary, while Conservative rabbis do little to convince their congregants to observe the mitzvos they themselves consider mandatory. Which is probably rooted in the way they were educated to relate to their congregants. Both resulting in a willful disregard for the obligatory nature of halacha.

Although this is a situation not of my making, it does not make me feel any less sad. The consequences of either a lack of authentic Jewish education or its distortion by heterodox clergy upon their members have recently shocked me. This has become especially evident since the war in Gaza began and with the exponential rise of antisemitism in this country — most visibly on college campuses, especially the more prominent ones.

The pro-Palestinian voices have been coming almost exclusively from the left — the only politically correct position to take on those campuses. There is also a strong presence of students from the Middle East who are entirely sympathetic to the Palestinian cause while completely rejecting the Israeli point of view. They are joined in solidarity by their American counterparts, by DEI hires — some from the Middle East themselves, often Palestinians or deeply sympathetic to them — and by far-left progressive faculty members, many of whom are Jewish. It should be no surprise that organizations like “Jews for Justice in Palestine” exist and parrot the Hamas narrative at rallies, some of which are blatantly antisemitic and even call for the genocide of Jews in Israel.

The Trump administration has gone out of its way to clamp down on campus antisemitism, including deporting Middle Eastern students who shout such rhetoric. So when a Tinok Shenishba like Michael Roth — Wesleyan’s Jewish president — defends that rhetoric on the basis of freedom of speech, and then makes a point of emphasizing how Jewish he is, that is the saddest thing of all.

Yes, he is Jewish. And yes, he is proud of it. But what exactly is he proud of? Because his status as a Tinok Shenishba makes him unqualified to define what it means to be proud of Judaism. I do not believe he is observant. Without observance — the most essential defining characteristic of being a Jew — his definition is missing Judaism’s most vital component. It’s like a Ferrari owner proudly declaring ownership even though the car is missing its engine.

Yet he has been one of the most vocal critics of the Trump administration’s efforts to clamp down on campus antisemitism, claiming they are merely an excuse to advance a conservative DEI agenda. The thing is, if DEI policies on campus have contributed to the massive wave of antisemitic protests we’ve seen, then looking at DEI as part of the problem is a step in the right direction. So, with all due respect to Mr. Roth, I reject his framing of the Trump administration’s antisemitism policy as a cynical political tool — and his use of his Jewish identity to bolster that argument.

That the vast majority of Orthodox Jews approve of Trump’s antisemitism policies surely indicates that Jews who understand what truly makes someone Jewish recognize that these policies align far more closely with authentic Jewish values than those of cultural Jews whose values shift with the winds of time. It should not go unnoticed that Jewish college students — and even the ADL — approve of the administration’s approach.

The question then becomes: why isn’t the most exponentially growing  right-wing segment of Orthodox Jewry doing more about this? The right wing has largely failed to reach out to the Tinok Shenishba. While there are many fine organizations that do — such as Chabad, NCSY, and Aish, to name just a few — they are nevertheless a drop in the bucket, representing only a small fraction of the Orthodox world.

The last time a right-wing rabbi (Rabbi Yosef Reinman) tried to do something of significance like this — well over a decade ago — he was shot down almost before he started. And there has been no serious attempt since. That is how we get the Michael Roths of the world, who publicly speak as Jews when their Judaism is at best cultural — if that.

The right-wing Orthodox world has become so self-focused that they barely acknowledge the problem. They seem interested only in perpetuating themselves, and they are doing a pretty good job of it. The rest of the Jewish world? In their minds, it is a lost cause — best ignored.

But is this what God really wants? Does God want us to write off 90% of American Jewry? I don’t think so. The results of that attitude have so far not been favorable.

Final Thoughts upon Returning to Chicago

Now that the war is over (hopefully), and I’ve had a chance to think about it, I realized that I was here when the war began on October 7th — and I’m so grateful to be here for its conclusion. I pray that this will truly be the end. That Hamas will ultimately disarm.

The fact that they haven’t yet, and seem to have no intention of doing so, is very concerning. My hope is that they will come to their senses, just as they did regarding the return of all the living hostages.

My sense is that those hostages were their only leverage — and that they gave them up out of fear of being annihilated by an American-backed IDF that promised to do just that. They must know that if they don’t disarm, all bets are off, and the IDF will go back in and finish the job — with the full blessing of the U.S. I’d hate for that to happen, but if it must, it will.

Still, I pray that there will be no more fighting or bloodshed, and that — moving forward — peace between Israel and her neighbors will finally be achieved.

My wife and I are off to Chicago, having just completed a wonderful Yom Tov with my son and his family, which now includes five of the most adorable great-grandchildren anyone could ever ask for.

New post on Monday.

Rabbi Moshe Hauer, ZTL

Rabbi Moshe Hauer, ZTL (OU)

I never met him, but he was an inspiration to me.

I am deeply saddened to report the passing of Rabbi Moshe Hauer, Executive Vice President of the OU. He died suddenly and shockingly - apparently from a heart attack - at his home on Shemini Atzeres. He was 64 years old.

The loss to the Jewish people of a leader with his capabilities is indescribable. Rabbi Hauer was a giant of the Jewish world whose intellect was recognized by all who knew him - as that of a major Talmid Chacham.

He personified much of my own thinking on matters of faith and on issues of public concern to the Jewish people. Like the late Rabbi Berel Wein, his views reflected the essence of mainstream Judaism, yet he was unafraid to depart from the conventional ‘orthodoxy’ of the Charedi world when he felt it appropriate to do so.

One example of this was when he publicly advocated voting in the WZO elections for one of the religious parties. When he was aksed who he voted for he said the Religious Zionist party. This was despite the urging of the Charedi world to vote for Eretz HaKodesh. The Religious Zionist Party was what I voted for even though I am not a member. Nor, do I believe, was Rabbi Hauer. I assume it was for the same reason I did. I felt that the Religious Zionist party was more deserving of our vote because of the great sacrifices being made by the Religious Zionist community in Israel’s war against Hamas.

And yet, he had the deepest respect for Charedi leadership, both in Israel and in the United States. That was the measure of the man. He did not allow differences in public policy to affect his profound respect for the rabbinic leadership of the right. He recognized their level of religious scholarship and honored it accordingly. I feel very much the same way.

It should also be noted that, despite his occasional disagreements on matters of public policy, the Charedi leadership respected him as well.

Even though he was fourteen years my junior, I looked up to him as a leader and as a moral conscience for the Torah world.

As was the case with Rabbi Berel Wein, he will be difficult to replace. There are not many leaders who have the courage to stand by their convictions regardless of conventional wisdom. Rabbi Moshe Hauer was one of those rare leaders.

He will be sorely missed.

Baruch Dayan HaEmes.

Thank God - They Are Finally Home

All 20 living hostages returned to Israel (TOI)

All the living hostages kidnapped and so brutally treated under captivity by Hamas terrorists have been freed, thanks to the valiant efforts of President Trump and his negotiating team. No one believed it would happen. Least of all Netanyahu’s critics (in both Israel and the U.S.), who believed he couldn’t care less about the lives of the hostages and was only interested in prolonging the war to retain power. They have all been proven wrong.

What made this event even more amazing is what came along with it: Hamas is required to disarm. And if they don’t, the president has promised to make it happen—violently, if necessary. And if they think the president makes idle threats, I have one word for them: Fordow. I don’t think they believe he’s bluffing.

The deal includes an international peacekeeping force that, for the first time, will not consist of UN troops. Who in the past have been far more sympathetic to Israel’s mortal enemies than to Israel itself. This will be a multinational force that includes American troops.

That is the basis for the ceasefire, which will hopefully be permanent - for the first time since Hamas took over Gaza. Another plus is that the deal has the support of key Arab states and much of Europe, including nations that have not been particularly friendly to Israel, such as Turkey.

I managed to watch most of the president’s address to the Knesset. It was preceded by speeches from three Israeli politicians: the Speaker of the Knesset, Yair Lapid representing the opposition, and Prime Minister Netanyahu. All of them represented their nation with great eloquence. Despite the obvious and often rancorous disagreements between them.

With respect to Trump and Netanyahu, it was, in many ways, a mutual admiration society. The respect the president and the prime minister had for each other was obvious. One of the president’s comments about Netanyahu was that ‘he’s not easy to negotiate with’. That was followed by, ‘That’s what makes him a great leader.’

Enmity between the two? Hardly. Trump just asked Israeli President Isaac Herzog to pardon Netanyahu, with the remark, ‘Cigars and champagne? Who cares?’

The entire Knesset event was a celebration of what the president accomplished. Something all the speakers seemed to believe would eventually lead to a true peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors, beginning with the Abraham Accords. It envisions a Gaza free of Hamas, a restoration of homes and infrastructure, and economic development funded by a consortium of wealthy Arab nations. This would give Palestinians in Gaza a measure of self-determination. But the words “Palestinian state” were notably absent. As mentioned, the deal was agreed to by important Arab states.

The idea that Netanyahu was forced by Trump to accept a deal he didn’t want is laughable. Something only the most cynical anti-Netanyahu critics would suggest. Always anxious to show discord and disunity between the two. The way each of them described their relationship makes it clear that nothing of the sort happened. If I had to hazard a guess, I’d say Trump was able to quickly convince Netanyahu that he would get what he wanted under the deal. And only then did Netanyahu agree.

If I understand correctly, Trump will be receiving the Israel Prize by near-unanimous agreement of the Knesset. That he did not receive the Nobel Peace Prize for what he has accomplished - while Obama got it for accomplishing exactly nothing - says more about the Nobel Committee in Oslo than it does about either Trump or Obama.

What will history say about Netanyahu? Despite what his detractors might think, I believe he will go down as one of Israel’s most consequential leaders. First, by steering his nation away from its socialist roots and turning it into one of the most productive free-market economies (per capita) in the world. And perhaps more importantly, through his victories over Israel’s most implacable enemies he may usher in the longed-for peace Israel has sought since its creation. If that happens, it will be the most pivotal moment in Israel’s history since 1948.

All that being said, the optimism I feel depends on whether Hamas truly disarms. If they don’t, the deal allows Israel to go right back in and finish the job. But they may not have to. Since the president hasbeen assured that Hamas will disarm under the threat that - if they don’t - the U.S. will force them to. Violently, if necessary. (Maybe that’s what Trump meant by “Hell to pay.”)

As always, the devil is in the details. But either way, things are looking pretty good right now. Who’d a thunk it a few weeks ago?

Better Late Than Never

New Editor-in-Chief of CBS News, Bari Weiss (JTA)

Nowhere is the anti-Israel bias reflected by the broadcast media more strident than at CBS. While there is bias among all three major networks, CBS is by far the worst offender.

There has been enough instances of that bias over the last two years to make it abundantly clear to those of us paying attention. Unfortunately, CBS frames this bias as ‘balanced reporting’.

One of the most egregious examples was a 60 Minutes hit piece wherein Cecilia

Vega interviewed some disgruntled State Department employees who resigned over what they claimed was the U.S. government’s mishandling of the ‘atrocities’ being committed by the Netanyahu government in the war with Hamas. The report made it seem as though these individuals had inside information and irrefutable evidence of Israeli atrocities. Which they described in some detail.

None of this was verified by independent sources. And it was certainly far from the truth. But as is 60 Minutes’ habit, they made it sound like their version of events was the only truth. They had absolutely no problem ignoring Israel’s version of the truth. Which, in fact, was probably much closer to reality than what 60 Minutes was peddling.

Then there’s Imtiaz Tyab. He was hired away from Al Jazeera and is now CBS’s senior foreign correspondent. His reports from Gaza were devastatingly anti-Israel.

Perhaps the worst perpetrator of anti-Israel bias is Face the Nation host Margaret Brennan. She’s an attractive, well-dressed reporter who looks and sounds as American as apple pie. But her attitude toward Israel is not much different from Tyab’s. What may at first sound like hard-hitting but balanced questions, upon closer listening, are anything but even-handed.

Her guests on this subject are almost invariably anti-Israel, posing as objective voices—until you hear their responses to Brennan’s loaded questions, to which she often nods approvingly. On the rare occasions when she hosts a pro-Israel senator or administration official, she argues with their answers and makes sure to have the last word before going to commercial. This has been her pattern ever since the war with Hamas began.

Then there was what happened to Tony Dokoupil - perhaps the only truly even-handed reporter on CBS’s roster - when he interviewed author Ta-Nehisi Coates about his pro-Palestinian bias and failure to consider Israel’s point of view.

Dokoupil was criticized for that interview, accused of pro-Israel bias and of not living up to ‘journalistic standards’ by his bosses at CBS. This led to a backlash from at least one prominent CBS colleague, Chief Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford, who argued that his questions were entirely legitimate and deserved answers from Coates.

This episode revealed CBS’s bias as clearly as the morning sun. They view Israel’s perspective as immoral, and the Palestinian perspective as the objectively moral one. Only those with a pro-Palestinian bias would see it the way CBS management did.

Fortunately, Dokoupil was not fired and remains one of the three anchors on CBS’s morning news program. But he is virtually alone. Everyone else there seems to accept the pro-Palestinian perspective while ignoring Israel’s.

Well, things are about to change at CBS News. Apparently, the new owners of Paramount - the parent company of CBS - feel the same way I do. So did the previous owner, Shari Redstone. They both recognized the bias at CBS News and didn’t like it much either. That is one of the reasons Redstone gave for selling the company to Skydance.

Skydance CEO, David Ellison, is indeed planning to make a few changes at that news organization. The following was reported by JTA:

“Bari Weiss, the journalist who first rose to prominence for her campus campaign alleging antisemitism two decades ago, has been named editor-in-chief of CBS News, a stunning ascent that marks one of the most consequential appointments in American media in recent years.

The appointment came as Paramount Skydance, led by David Ellison, announced its $150 million purchase of The Free Press, the publication Weiss founded in 2022. Weiss will oversee both outlets as editor-in-chief, reporting directly to Ellison. The move marks a major shakeup for a legacy news division long associated with mainstream liberalism, and a bet on Weiss’s brand of provocative centrism.”

Centrism. What a refreshing change of direction for CBS. No longer will progressivism be presented as unadulterated truth while anything to the right is dismissed as extremist bias.

Predictably, many journalists at CBS’s progressive core saw this move as the death of objective journalism. How perverse that those who routinely invalidate other points of view without a moment’s thought now claim the mantle of objectivity.

The American people may soon get the fair and balanced news reporting that only a proactive centrist can deliver.

The first step Bari Weiss should take is to fire Imtiaz Tyab and replace him with a true centrist—if she can find one. Next, Margaret Brennan should be replaced, perhaps by Tony Dokoupil.

And 60 Minutes needs serious oversight by unbiased producers to prevent future “hit pieces” like the one reported by Cecilia Vega.

This is where a proactive centrist like Bari Weiss can make all the difference in the world. If the American people are finally given the truth about Israel’s conduct in this war instead of the propaganda Hamas has fed them thus far, it might just restore their long-standing support for the Jewish state.

Finding Happiness - Gay People, Sex, and Marriage

He's gay. She's straight. (Washington Post)

One of the most difficult challenges that an Orthodox Jewish gay person must endure is finding a way to live a fulfilling life without satisfying his sexual urges. Satisfying them would constitute a major violation of Halacha. The sexual act most identified with male homosexuality is considered an abomination and a capital offense in the Torah. And yet, to say that this seems unfair to a gay man is an understatement.

This is why far-left Modern Orthodox rabbis twist themselves into pretzels trying to figure out how to religiously ‘justify’ a gay lifestyle. Even to the point of officiating at same-sex marriage ceremonies.

To say that this is not OK is also an understatement. Using tortured logic to provide a non-existent Halachic imprimatur to a lifestyle that will surely involve one of the gravest sins in Jewish law is, in and of itself, an abomination. Which, as I have said in the past, takes one out of the realm of Orthodoxy.

The rationalization made by these rabbis is based on their misplaced empathy. Which is that the societal persecution gay people have long suffered has often forced them to live lives of severe degradation often leading to clinical depression. And in far too many cases it has eventually led to suicide. Thus, they might argue that providing them comfort and support is a matter of pikuach nefesh (saving a life).

I have always maintained that one must have empathy for people who struggle with these issues and NEVER persecute or denigrate them. They are to be treated with the same human compassion as anyone else, regardless of any Halachic challenges they must overcome. But having compassion and empathy is not the same as celebrating or blessing a lifestyle that will inevitably involve sexual acts considered to be an abominable capital offense by the Torah

That would be like saying we feel sorry for someone who has an insatiable desire for a cheeseburger to the point of despair if he doesn’t get one - and therefore we must give him one. If something is a forbidden act, it cannot be permitted unless it is truly a matter of saving a life.

So, if a gay man cannot marry another man, what is he supposed to do? How can he ever find happiness in life?

What about marrying a woman anyway? Would that give him enough satisfaction in life in order to make up for the inability to fulfill his sexual urges?

The conventional wisdom says that it would be a disaster for a gay man to marry a heterosexual woman. It would end in tragedy for both husband and wife. To suggest such a solution, we are told, would be the height of irresponsibility, ruining two lives and gaining nothing but tragic consequences for all.

I used to believe that — even though I know of one such successful marriage. I was told that such cases are extremely rare. They are the quintessential ‘exception that proves the rule’.

Well, I am here to tell you that the conventional wisdom may not be all that wise after all. In fact, a gay man can marry a heterosexual woman, have children naturally, and live a happy life together. It is not only not impossible it is more common than one might think. So the only path to happiness for gay men may not lie in marrying another man. He can find it by marrying a heterosexual woman and living a monogamous lifestyle.

That was, in fact, the point of a Washington Post feature article, which described the following:

Samantha Wynn Greenstone knows her husband is gay, okay?
She knew he was gay when they met in a San Diego production of “Fiddler on the Roof.” She knew he was gay when he proposed. She knew he was gay when they got married in November.

He’s not bisexual. She’s not in denial. That hasn’t stopped them from being in a committed, monogamous relationship for nearly 10 years.

“If anything, I think we are taking the sanctity of marriage to a whole new level,” said Greenstone, 38, smiling widely as she sat beside her husband, Jacob Hoff, 32, at their home in Los Angeles…

Yes, she’s pregnant. Yes, it’s his. And yes — if you must know how they conceived — in Greenstone’s words, “we birds’d and we bees’d.”

Indeed. And they are not alone. This appears to be a new trend among some gay people, as indicated by the article’s subtitle:

A new crop of couples are making content about their mixed-orientation marriages, divorced from sexual attraction but not from love

Here’s the thing: when a gay man marries a heterosexual woman under the pretense that he too is heterosexual — when in fact he is not — that’s when the consequences can be tragic. But when a man and a woman fall in love, wish to live together as husband and wife, have children, and are honest about their sexual issues, that is an entirely different ballgame that seems to make all the difference in the world.

Many gay people complain that prejudice against children being raised by a loving gay couple is unfair. I would argue that it isn’t always prejudice that motivates such concern. Rather, it is the idea that a child will lack a parent who models the missing gender in the relationship. A child with two fathers will be missing out on what it means to have — and to be — a mother. I’m not saying that it’s the end of the world, but it is far from ideal.

By contrast, when a gay man marries a heterosexual woman and is honest about his orientation, the result can look very much like the couple in the Washington Post story.

What does all this mean? I believe it means that celebrating gay marriage on the grounds that the alternative is devastation is simply not true. There are, obviously, other alternatives that allow for a very happy life despite these challenges. One can live a happy, meaningful life as a gay man married to a heterosexual woman in a monogamous relationship, having children by natural means.

This should disprove once and for all the argument from empathy — that we must devise extremist reinterpretations of Halacha to permit gay men to live together and raise children. Doing so merely indulges their desires and accomplishes little else. Instead, they should be encouraged to marry and find the kind of true happiness that 32-year-old Jacob Hoff has and many like him have found.