I think that you are misunderstanding what has come about here. It is not so unusual, nor is it surprising, that CJLS has adopted contradictory opinions. Each paper that was passed received at least 6 votes from the committee, which renders each a valid halachic position in the eyes of the movement. What this has done in effect, is allowed (almost) everyone to have their own opinion on the matter validated by the halachic process, and says explicitly that there are many ways of interpreting this. The same was the case for the decision to ordain women as rabbis. There were conflicting opinions presented and passed, the inclusion of women was officially sanctioned by CJLS, but the final decision of how to include women was left up to individual congregations. This is not a modern phenomenon within Judaism... it has always been said that Torah has many faces and that many different interpretations may be correct simultaneously, even seemingly contradictory ones.

What this will likely mean in practice is that gay rabbinical and cantorial students will be allowed to be "out" while in school (cause everyone knows that there are closeted gays at JTS... even Rabbi Roth knows this) but each congregation will reserve the right to not want to hire a gay rabbi because of their halachic objections.

As for the student body having a say in the school's policy... the policy of admission to JTS is not a halachic decision. It is made "possible" by the position paper written by Rabbi Dorff et. al. but now must be decided in practice by those whom the policy will affect.

Now, for the issue of the sanctioning of gay unions, that is in itself a complicated issue which deserves, and will get, its own set of discussions. As it is, Rabbi Dorff's paper endorses the establishment of such commitment ceremonies, even if they will not be considered tantamount to Kiddushin.

And so, the outcome of the whole process is that, as far as the movement is concerned, it (ordination, homose*ual unions, etc.) is allowed... but no one will be forced to like it.

The one element with which I am really displeased with is that Rabbi Levy's paper was among those that passed which, to my understanding, suggests that homose*uality is a disease that can be treated and potentially cured. But overall, I think that those who were looking for a clear "yes" or "no," an all or none decision to come out of this are missing something essential in the halachic process... that Jewish law doesn't work on a strictly yes or no basis. There is a lot of wiggle room for minority opinions and differences of custom, and there always has been, since we became writers and followers of rabbinic law.

*breaking news*

At the end of the CJLS deliberations, four members of the Committee resigned: Joel Roth, Mayer Rabinowitz, Joseph Prouser and Leonard Levy. They expressed the view that the permissive teshuvah accepted by the Committee went beyond the bounds of halakhic process. The CJLS members have asked them to reconsider.

Creative self-destruction perhaps.

Gella wrote:

What this has done in effect, is allowed (almost) everyone to have their own opinion on the matter validated by the halachic process, and says explicitly that there are many ways of interpreting this. The same was the case for the decision to ordain women as rabbis. There were conflicting opinions presented and passed, the inclusion of women was officially sanctioned by CJLS, but the final decision of how to include women was left up to individual congregations. This is not a modern phenomenon within Judaism... it has always been said that Torah has many faces and that many different interpretations may be correct simultaneously, even seemingly contradictory ones.

Historically, I find that a bit misleading. It has always been the case, agreed, that different interpretations of the Torah existed simultaneously; however, I simply cannot imagine an ancient deliberative body, say the Sanhedrin, simultaneously issuing rulings so internally contradictory. Rabbis in various communities making contradictory rulings based on different interpretations of the halakhah is quite a different matter, IMO.

The mishnah will tell you the minority position and the majority position - but that doesn't seem to be what is going on here either since the opinions do not appear to be classified hierarchically that way.

To me, this scenario reads more like the "inclusivist" mentality we have in the Modern West, "don't leave anyone out, lest someone gets offended."

But I suppose that this kind of halakhic simultaneity may be inherent in the idea of conservatism as a "movement".

You write:

As for the student body having a say in the school's policy... the policy of admission to JTS is not a halachic decision. It is made "possible" by the position paper written by Rabbi Dorff et. al. but now must be decided in practice by those whom the policy will affect.

But if it pertains to the carrying out of Jewish law on a practical level, dictating the policy on ordination, etc, then de facto, if not de jure, it will determine the course of the halakhah, and since this is the seminary, eventually that practice will shape the community at large.

The difference between Jews and Episcopalians is that the later belong to an organized religion.

Jewish denominations are umbrella organizations that are supported by dues from member congregations. The congregations are the only organizational reality. There is no real requirement that they be affiliated with a denomination. Certain rabbis will only work at certain synagogues, because a lot of their benefits are derived from the denominational rabbinic association. I.e. most reform rabbis belong to CCAR and will only work at URJ congregations.

Congregations can and do switch affiliation. There was one nearby that switched from OU to Conservative in order to avoid a mechitzah

Episcopalian churches are the property of the diocese and their priests are employees of it as well. It is very hard for a congregation to quit.

The real question here is where can the dissenters (i.e. sane people) go. Reform and reconstruction have swallowed the gay agenda voluntarily. The orthodox have been moving rightward and even OU now demands mechitzahs.

The orthodox are frocked.

On majority rule, there's the well known story in the Talmud in which the rabbis outvote R. Eliezer, despite the fact that a heavenly voice announces that R. Eliezer's view is correct:

...R. Eliezer declared it clean, and the Sages declared it unclean; and this was the oven of ‘Aknai... It has been taught: On that day R. Eliezer brought forward every imaginable argument, but they did not accept them.

He said to them: “If the halachah agrees with me, let this carob-tree prove it!” Then, the carob-tree was torn a hundred cubits out of its place (others even say four hundred cubits). “No proof can be brought from a carob-tree,” they answered.

Again he said to them: “If the halachah agrees with me, let the stream of water prove it!” At that moment, the stream of water flowed backwards. “No proof can be brought from a stream of water,” they rejoined.

Again he urged: “If the halachah agrees with me, let the walls of the schoolhouse prove it,” and the walls inclined to fall. But R. Joshua rebuked them (i.e. the walls), saying: “When scholars are engaged in a halachic dispute, who are you to interfere?” Hence they did not fall, in honour of R. Joshua. But neither did they resume the upright, in honour of R. Eliezer. So to this day, they are still standing inclined.

Again he said to them: “If the halachah agrees with me, let it be proved from Heaven!” Whereupon a Heavenly Voice cried out: “Why do you dispute with R. Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the halachah agrees with him!” But R. Joshua arose and exclaimed: ‘It is not in heaven!”

What did he mean by this? R. Jeremiah said: “[He meant that] the Torah had already been given at Mount Sinai. We pay no attention to a Heavenly Voice, because You have written in the Torah at Mount Sinai: ‘After the majority must one incline.’”

R. Nathan met Elijah and asked him: “What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do in that hour? — He laughed! He replied, saying, ‘My sons have defeated Me, My sons have defeated Me!’”

I admit that I am not knowledgeable enough to speak to whether or not the method utilized here which has resulted in the equality of two contradictory opinions (each received 13 votes... that's why it's not a clear majority and minority issue) is consistent with the way that things were done by the rishonim. But I have to say, right now, I'm just not too terribly troubled by it. As Robert Schwartz said, we are not centralized like certain forms of Christianity. We never have been. The autonomy of congregational communities is well-established in Judaism, as is the authority of the community's rabbi as mara d'atra of his or her community and having the authority to decide what direction their community should take within accepted halachic bounds. I honestly do not think that this is about not offending anyone... if that was the concern, then Rabbi Levy's position which is deeply offensive and basically advocates for medical malpractice would never have passed.

I think that a group of well-informed halachic scholars have come together and pored over the issue and come honestly to the conclusion that the halacha can and does support both positions with equal weight. It may be true that we are doing something new here, with regards to having such starkly contradictory positions been determined as holding exactly equal weight... I don't know whether it is or not new... but I truly feel that we have come by it honestly.