I had an interesting and surprisingly pleasant experience on Court Street some time ago. I was coming out of the bank and about to make a phone call when I heard a voice next to me ask “What are you, a Reform rabbi?” I turned and middle-aged man who certainly looked Jewish but showed no outward signs of affiliation was smiling at me as though he’d just made the greatest joke ever. I was wearing my green hat/kippah, and it was this that elicited the question. “No,” I told him, “I am not a Reform rabbi, but I do hope to be a Conservative rabbi soon. “Oh… oh, really…” he said. “Tell me something… the Conservative Movement, that committee, they just came out with that decision on gays, that thing that didn’t make any sense…” I sighed inwardly. This was going to be one of those conversations.

“Well,” I began, “it was actually three different position papers that were adopted…”

“And they said completely different things, right? Does that make any sense?”

“Here’s what happened,” I said firmly. “Three position papers were passed out of five that were submitted. The three papers basically said two different things: one position, Joel Roth’s position, states that the prohibitions against homosexuality still stand as they always have, that homosexual unions cannot be sanctioned, and that gay people cannot be rabbis. The other position, the one by Dorff, Nevins and Reisner, says that the only thing that is prohibited is the one specific sex act between males, and that homosexuality and homosexual relationships are not prohibited, that gays can have unions, not halachically tantamount to marriage but recognized by the community and presided over by Conservative rabbis, and that gays can and should be allowed to be rabbis.

“What this means,” I continued, somewhat surprised that I still had this man’s attention, “is that both are considered by The Movement to be halachically viable positions, so it now falls to individual communities, congregations and institutions to decide which position they are going to adopt.”

“Well, isn’t that a very divisive outcome?”

“One can look at it that way,” I conceded. “Or, you can view it as an affirmation of our movement’s commitment to pluralism.” This was, of course, a very simplistic statement on my part, and one which I would not be satisfied with were it given to me as plain as that, but this man was genuinely… I guess impressed is the only word. “Wow. That’s really interesting.” He looked up, pondering. “Yes… very interesting.” It was clear that he’d never thought this deeply about the issue. I was able to give a new perspective to a stranger on the street. I told the man that he should go to the Rabbinical Assembly’s website and read the teshuvot for himself. He thanked me and we walked on in different directions.

As I walked toward the subway I thought to myself “This is really what it’s all about.” And I felt good.