May 31, 1912
From “Repentant Sinners”
There has been a noteworthy change in the attitude of some of the periodicals that until recently ranked among the unkindest critics of Jews, as witness the following:
“There should be no forms of caricature in the theatre or in any other institution that appeals to the general public tending to offend any race or make light of any religion. The caricatures of the Jews against which pertinent complaint is made have no place in plays, in songs or in journals, and no decent part of the public has ever applauded or encouraged them. ‘Judge’ stands against any such distortion, exaggeration or burlesque of racial characteristics and believes that public sentiment will applaud their eliminations everywhere.”—Judge.
When it is recalled how horribly grotesque were some of the caricatures of Jewish faces that so often defaced “Judge’s” pages the change of heart becomes easily apparent.
Here is another example—that of a more serious journal, “Leslie’s,” which in a recent issue says:“The Jew as an immigrant or as a citizen seldom becomes a public charge. The race is not only charitable to others, but it takes care of its own.”
May 26, 1972
From an installment of Earl Raab’s “Candid Comments” column titled “Homosexuals And The Jews.”
“There are more homosexuals in San Francisco than there are Jews.” That is a rather facile way of dramatizing the size of the gay community. But it should not obscure the fact that there are many Jewish homosexuals. One of them, a young man, sought out the official Jewish community last week and warned that the Jewish community had too long ignored the problem. To begin with, he was suggesting that Jewish parents were unprepared to deal with the phenomenon as it appeared, increasingly, among their children. And, consequently, it was more difficult for young people to deal with themselves.
So far, that might seem to put homosexuality in a familiar “mental illness” contest. One could see programs of counseling, treatment and education by the agencies of the Jewish community, all designed to correct or ameliorate the destructive effects of this deviant behavior.
But that’s not what the young man meant at all. Instead of a “mental health” approach, he proposed a “life style” approach. Homosexuality was not to be considered a disability of any kind, but rather a legitimate, “alternate life style”.
There’s a world of difference between these two approaches. It is one thing, for example, to talk about the civil rights of homosexuals. This past month, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance prohibiting employment discrimination against any individual on grounds of his or her sexual orientation. Of course. But it’s quite another matter for society to say that homosexuality is a socially acceptable alternate life style.
The young man put his finger on it. “The traditional idea of the family must now be brought into question,” he said. When we begin to talk about homosexuality as an alternate life style, we are no longer talking about personal morality, or about the individual’s right to engage privately in deviant behavior — we are talking, at the least, about the social role of the family.
Perhaps more than that. Homosexuality, as a concept is by its nature antithetical to the idea of children, to the idea of continuity, and finally to the concern about future generations. But a society is a social invention one of whose very purposes is to be concerned about continuity and future generations. Under those circumstances — while a civilized society can be humane toward homosexuals, can it be neutral on the subject of homosexuality? … Last week, the board of Rabbis of Northern California voted to support the legalization of any private sexual act between consenting adults, including those now forbidden by law. They were following similar action by the Commission on Social Justice of the Catholic Archdiocese, and others. Seen from one angle, they were voting to remove hypocrisy form the statute books, and to decriminalize private “victimless” behavior. From another angle, they were voting to weaken society’s formally expressed bias against homosexuality as an alternate life style.
Should society legalize homosexual marriages? Should society invite homosexuals into the schools to expound on their philosophy? At what point do we cross the line — from supporting individual rights — to bestowing society’s official approval to homosexuality as an alternate life style?
J.’s print editions go back to 1895, and have never been digitized. We seek funding to make this precious history available online for future generations. Please contact [email protected].