Lior:
1) What is the definition of Orthodox, which necessarily precludes the ordination of women?
2) The mere fact that something wasn’t done in the past, does not inherently make it bad.
3) In what way is it a “radical and dangerous departure”?
The case with R’ Weiss is very different then what I am discussing. He was clearly trying to advance a feminist agenda, and his ordainees have positions which could be halachically objectionable as positions of serarah.
My main point is that it is very important to be properly nuanced and to be clear on whether something can’t be done because of a halachic issue or because of a policy issue. Conflating the two, might be (as I posted last night) yehareg v’al ya’avor. See http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/265846/rabbi-avi-weiss-announces-his-retirement.html which says “contravening thousands of years of Jewish tradition and halacha, yes halacha”. Can that claim be substantiated? If it can be substantiated regarding R’ Weiss, can it be substantiated regarding what I am talking about?
So, to conclude, I have no problem if people are against having women Rabbis. I might even agree that we shouldn’t have women Rabbis. What I am against is the obfuscation that tends to get involved in this highly charged issue.