Rabbis Itchel Krasnjansky and Peter Schaktman hail from different branches of Judaism and hold starkly contrasting views on whether same-sex couples should be permitted to form civil unions in Hawaii.

What they have in common is the ear of Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, who has until June 21 to announce whether she may veto the only pending civil unions legislation in the nation.

Lingle, in the final months of her second and last term, faces a momentous decision that carries political and legal implications. For the rabbis, with whom the governor has consulted on the issue, her choice is about much more.

For our benefit, both rabbis have written op-ed pieces outlining their views.

The anti-gay rabbi, for instance, wisely observes that a 12th-century Torah scholar believed that homosexuality is simply a lifestyle choice:

Whether homosexuality is a choice or a predetermined tendency. According to the famed medieval Jewish doctor and philosopher Maimonides, an early codifier of Jewish law, it is a matter of choice. And, as with all matters of free choice, one can choose to either surrender to or deny these inclinations.

Maimonides also believed that the earth was at the center of the universe, surrounded by “heavenly spheres” that are in fact “angels.” It’s too bad the rabbi couldn’t somehow work this into his argument, but you know how editors are.

The pro-gay rabbi, on the other hand, insists that ancient views of ‘gay’ sin no longer apply in today’s Hawaii:

Those who object to the bill on religious grounds tend to be literalists who justify their view by pointing to Leviticus 18. The problem is that by reading this text so literally, they completely remove this Scripture from an ancient social context that could not envision the possibility or appreciate the reality of loving same-sex relationships.

Why do ancient views of anything apply in today’s Hawaii? I can’t wait to read his next op-ed and find out.

For example, Jewish scripture predates the invention of bicycles and spandex, leading to silly conflicts when bike lanes run through religious neighborhoods. Similarly, Catholic proscriptions on contraception, which might have made sense back when people disgustingly used candy bar wrappers as birth control, seem pretty goofy now that actual condoms are available for free in the school nurse’s office.

And, of course, the Muslim idea that a woman should only be seen in public wearing a burqa might need rethinking now that go-carts have become popular:

The Muslim clothing the woman was wearing flew back as she sped around the track and part of it became entangled in the go-kart’s wheels.

She was strangled in a second and crashed the vehicle.

This is not only a go-kart-specific problem, either. The same could happen with a lawn mower, with a motorbike, with a roller-coaster or a Sit ‘n Spin or a Tower of Terror.

It seems pretty clear that the burqa isn’t appropriate apparel for the modern world.

I mean, I guess you could instead take the position that maybe women just shouldn’t be allowed to do any of those things, or maybe that women’s lives just aren’t that important, and a few strangulations is a small price to pay for the corresponding benefits of getting your life micro-managed by a bunch of scripture-interpreting zealots.

But religious people couldn’t be that callous. Could they?

In one of today’s hilarious posts she describes how she’ll kill her son if he someday marries a non-Jewish girl:

Here’s the thing, I like being with a Jew and think it’s important to show the value of a shared religion to my son as he starts dating. It’s a deal breaker for me and God willing will be a deal breaker for my son. By deal breaker for my son, I mean I will kill him if he puts my Grandmother’s ring on a finger that is attached to a girl who is not Jewish.

Now, as a 13-year-old, her son is theologically an adult, and therefore I suspect that he’s mature enough not to find his mother’s internet death threats even slightly traumatic. In fact, I bet he’s laughing about them right now, unless maybe he’s too busy laughing about her threats to force him to repay all the money she’s spent on his religious education.

Most of the rest of her post is a meditation on the appeal of non-Jewish women. I left a comment suggesting that part of the appeal might be that they tend not to threaten their kids with death for marrying non-Jews, but someone seems to have deleted it.

One of these is Devo, I’m pretty sure. But which one?

Most (Christians / Muslims / Hindus / Jews) manage to go through life without ever engaging in religiously-motivated violence. And while violence is never justified, we should be more tolerant and try to understand how people might have legitimate grievances about (procedures that we’ve repeatedly denounced as “murder” / the concept of “honor” our community has relentlessly promoted / the indignity of having to live under a non-Hindu government / free speech promoting a different form of superstition from ours).

In any event, we should be very careful with our words, as it wouldn’t be fair to blame an isolated incident on (religion / religion / religion / religion).

Looking at that list, one thing jumps out immediately. None of those bands are made up of Orthodox Jewish women! (Misfit Pizzazz, despite her JAP-py behavior, is in fact a Calvinist.) There are lots of possible explanations for this, many of which involve Cat Stevens, but the most likely is that Orthodox Jewish men are not allowed to listen to women sing.

After years of Rabbinic debate, the members of would-be-girl-band Ashira found a solution: ladies night:

Ashira has booked bars that lock out all men on nights they perform. Their Hebrew songs all revolve around biblical themes. Their forthcoming album will include a warning label against men opening the disc.

Because I like to be helpful, I have gone ahead and made a warning label for them:

Being good social scientists, they conducted a survey and produced all sorts of interesting results:

Notice that more respondents chose “the Jews” than any other choice offered.

It’s also interesting to look at how the results broke down across demographics:

You can see that Republicans, the college educated, and (especially) doctors were least likely to blame the Jews.

One can imagine all sorts of related problems amenable to the same sorts of analysis:

• Are “the Scientologists” responsible for the death of Lisa McPherson?
• Is “Michael Peter Woroniecki” at fault in the murders of Andrea Yates’s children?
• Are “the Jews” to blame for killing Christ?
• Is “Father Garcia” responsible for fondling me in the confessional when I was 13 years old, again when I was 24 years old, and a third time when I was 28 years old?
• Am “I” responsible for fondling him back last summer?
• Are “reptilian humanoids” controlling the bloodlines of the ruling political and economic families from behind the scenes?

It almost makes me wish I hadn’t been expelled from my career as a social scientist.