I've gathered a few interesting stories regarding the status of ENDA (Employer Non-Discrimination Act) and what it will or will not include in its final version>
The Advocate posted a commentary by Riki Wilchins, the director of GenderPAC where she points out that trandgender people like her are not the only ones affected by the watered down version of ENDA now most likely to make it to the House floor.
So, now that the time comes to strike gender identity and expression from ENDA, it is difficult for us to explain why not only transgender people are affected. That effeminate gay men (like Medina Rene of Rene v. MGM Grand) and aggressive lesbian women (like Ann Hopkins of Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse) and even straight men who are not quite as manly as coworkers expect (like Joseph Oncale of Oncale v. Sundowner) all face harassment and discrimination because of their gender as well.
So I would like to speak to you who support this stripped-down, non-inclusive bill that protects only sexual orientation. If you think this bill is about identity, about you getting your rights as one of those fortunate “straight-looking and -acting” gay people, then you have made a fine decision.
But if you think it is about a community, about the love, struggles, and experiences we have all shared, then I think you have made a terrible choice. I hope you will one day decide to speak out, as I am doing, about the need for a bill that includes all of us.
In the final analysis, the moral center of a movement is not defined by how well and how long we fight for our own rights. Important as that is, the moral center of a movement is defined by how well and how long we fight for those who are not us, for those more easily left behind.
This essay from Americablog is not surprised that GLBT leaders are willing to defer the protections for transgender people since the T in GLBT is a late addition and something of a stepchild to the fight for equal rights:
As little as 14 years ago, the phrase "lesbian and gay community" was used by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force back in 1993 (while NGLTF is now leading the charge for transgender inclusion in the "LGBT" community). And as little as two years ago, GLAAD (which has also been at the forefront of trans inclusion in the gay community) still used the phrase "LGB community" on their Web site to differentiate the gay community from the transgendered community ("By dismissing these issues as merely a by-product of comedy, the LGB community gives a free pass to the mockery of the trans community"). Then, sometime in the late 90s, groups like GLAAD and NGLTF started adding the T to the LGB, and I remember at the time scratching my head as to why. And I wasn't alone.
The moral of the story: Anyone who says that transgendered people have always been accepted as part of the gay community is simply wrong. A little over ten years ago, NGLTF, the group that was quite possibly at the forefront of pushing the inclusion of T in LGB (and who is leading the effort to include trans in ENDA) didn't even use the T themselves. So the question remains, if NGLTF has only accepted transgendered people as part of the community for a little over ten years, when did the rest of the gay community do the same, and has it yet?
I would argue that the gay community never collectively and overwhelmingly decided to include the T in LGB (or GLB). It happened because a few groups like NGLTF and GLAAD starting using it, and they and a handful of vocal activists and transgender leaders pretty much shamed everyone else into doing it. Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing, and it doesn't necessarily mean that the T shouldn't have been added. I'm just saying that I don't think the T was added because there was a groundswell of demand in the gay community that we add T to LGB. I think it happened through pressure, organizational fiat, shame, and osmosis.
And that is how we got into the mess we're in today.
This article from MSNBC points out the difference between acceptance of rights for gays and lesbians vs. transgender people:
Many Americans know and work with a gay or lesbian person, but how many have a nodding acquaintance with a transgender person?
That distinction may explain why the House of Representatives is likely to vote within the next few weeks for job protections for gays and lesbians, but not for people who are transsexuals or adopt the appearance and mannerisms of the other sex.
One Democratic freshman in a Republican-leaning district, Rep. Zack Space of Ohio, said he supports the idea of banning workplace discrimination against gays and lesbians.
But legal protections for transgender people, he said, is a “more foreign” idea, and he is “not comfortable making a commitment on that.”
The HRC has been right in the middle of this controversy and, as a result, lost their only transgender board member, Donna Rose. She discussed her resignation in an interview with The Advocate:
Though Donna Rose resigned as the first and only transgender member of the Human Rights Campaign’s board of directors on Wednesday, she has no hard feelings toward the organization.
“I really believe that the board feels as though they have the best interest of the LGBT community in mind even though the end result doesn’t appear that way,” she told The Advocate, adding that work she has done with HRC has provided some of her “proudest” moments.
The HRC board’s statement posted Monday read, “HRC will not support the newly introduced sexual orientation only bill.” But the real controversy erupted around what wasn’t said -- HRC’s statement never indicated that it would oppose passing the “sexual orientation” only bill.
“I could not fulfill my obligations as a board member to support that tepid stance,” said Rose.
Most insiders believe the creation of two bills will lead to passing the non-inclusive ENDA through both chambers of Congress perhaps this year (though President Bush may very well veto it), while leaving the “gender identity” bill to languish for an untold number of years. A noninclusive ENDA was passed in New York, for instance, in 2002, while five years later, its gender counterpart (GENDA) still has an uncertain future.
The HRC posted an entry on their blog "HRC Back Story" detailing their involvement in the ongoing process of finalizing ENDA. It included this statement from HRC president Joe Solmonese:
“Some may say we should have joined the growing chorus of public dissenters earlier. We believed, and still do, that the correct course of action was to continue dialogue with our allies on the Hill and work to the last minute to effect change,” said Solmonese. “That decision, in addition to yesterday’s letter signed by GLBT and civil rights organizations, paid off when we were able to engage in direct conversations that resulted in a guarantee from House leadership to postpone the mark-up until later this month.”
Solmonese shared a personal message in a later post on HRC Back Story:
The last two weeks have been the most heartbreaking and gut-wrenching of my life—and I know I’m not alone in that sentiment. Ever since we received word last week that the original, complete version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act was in trouble, many in our community have spent more than one sleepless night tossing and turning, trying to figure out the best strategy for moving forward. And although there were different views on which road to take, I personally received strength in knowing that our goal—enacting one bill that protects the entire GLBT community—would be the ultimate destination.
Three rock-solid principles have guided my decision-making throughout this ordeal: a) In the context of decisions that lawmakers had made, HRC must craft a strategy that would achieve an inclusive ENDA most expeditiously; b) an “incremental” strategy that said we’d “come back and pick up gender identity in a few years” was not acceptable; and c) we couldn’t affect change if we weren’t part of the legislative process. Those principles have dictated all of my actions and will continue to do so.
That final principle—staying in the game in order to influence the outcome—has, thus far, been almost unique to HRC, and the actions we’ve taken based upon it have come under intense scrutiny by others. No matter how difficult it is to come under fire, however, we know that turning our backs on our relationships with Congress is not an acceptable strategy for HRC. It would completely incapacitate us in the fight for a complete bill. Everything that has transpired in the past week, and everything that we will do going forward, reflects this basic understanding: if we remain outside of the legislative process, we have no hope of influencing it.
The National Transgender Advocacy Coalition (NTAC) isn't buying it and planned to picket the HRCs annual National Dinner Saturday night.
While Solmonese's statement about "the last two weeks have been the most heartbreaking and gut-wrenching of my life" reaks of, dare I say, a drama queen moment (I bet most of wish a setback in a piece of legislation was the most heartbreaking and gut-wrenching thing that ever happened to us), I think the point he made in the last paragraph is right on. I believe leaders of the GLBT community need to stay engaged as active participants in the legislative process, not pull away and cry foul when they believe, rightly so, that they have been blindsided.
Kevin Naff, the editor of the Washington Blade, doesn't totally agree with my point but still offers one of the more reasoned opinions I've seen over the last few days:
Meanwhile, others are gunning for the Human Rights Campaign, accusing its leaders of abandoning the “T” in GLBT. The snarky press releases have been flying all week, online message boards are filled with anti-HRC invective and at least one trans group even plans to picket the HRC National Dinner Saturday night in D.C.
We all love a protest!
The problem with this overheated reaction is it’s self-destructive, counterproductive, oversimplified and, in some cases, strikingly hypocritical. Some of the most vocal opponents of Frank’s amended ENDA bill supported state non-discrimination measures that also omitted trans people not so long ago.
To be sure, no one is blameless in this mess. HRC must accept its share of responsibility for failing to adequately educate and lobby new conservative Democrats on trans issues. That responsibility isn’t HRC’s alone, though, and all those energized by this debate should stay active, visible and aggressive in meeting with and educating House members in their districts.
No one is arguing that the law should leave trans people behind. In fact, transgender people are most in need of protection from employment discrimination. But achieving these goals requires strategy and patience, not emotion and personal attacks. Instead of petitions and angry blogs, gay rights advocates should be focused on using the repreieve granted by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to educate members and strategize for the best outcome. The answer may be to pull the bills altogether and come back in 2009. If that happens, gay activists need to be more careful about the Democrats they choose to support. As we’ve seen in this debate and elsewhere in recent weeks, it’s not a given that Democrats will stand with us. They have taken gay support for granted for too long and gays have let them get away with it.
I hope that this process leads to protection for ALL people in the workplace, but still feel that the priority is to ensure at least protection for some in the GLBT community rather than a complete defeat that benefits no one.
October 07, 2007
October 06, 2007
New Study on Gender Orientation and Suicidal Tendancies
From Science Daily:
The film and television series "M*A*S*H*" featured the song "Suicide is Painless," but new research refutes that idea and indicates that being victimized because of sexual orientation is a chief risk factor for suicidal behavior among gay, lesbian and bisexual college students.
The study is the first to explore the link between victimization and suicidal behavior among college students. In the course of the study, University of Washington researcher Heather Murphy also uncovered a group of students who previously had not been studied and are at increased risk for suicidal behavior. These students identified themselves as heterosexual, but also reported being attracted to people of the same sex or engaging in same-sex behavior.
This group was three times as likely as heterosexuals to have made a plan to commit suicide in the past year and six times more likely to have actually attempted suicide in the same period. Gay, lesbian and bisexual students also were at increased risk for suicidal behavior. They were twice as likely as heterosexuals to have planned and to have attempted suicide in the previous year.
There's a lot of additional detail in the Science Daily article that is worth reviewing.
The film and television series "M*A*S*H*" featured the song "Suicide is Painless," but new research refutes that idea and indicates that being victimized because of sexual orientation is a chief risk factor for suicidal behavior among gay, lesbian and bisexual college students.
The study is the first to explore the link between victimization and suicidal behavior among college students. In the course of the study, University of Washington researcher Heather Murphy also uncovered a group of students who previously had not been studied and are at increased risk for suicidal behavior. These students identified themselves as heterosexual, but also reported being attracted to people of the same sex or engaging in same-sex behavior.
This group was three times as likely as heterosexuals to have made a plan to commit suicide in the past year and six times more likely to have actually attempted suicide in the same period. Gay, lesbian and bisexual students also were at increased risk for suicidal behavior. They were twice as likely as heterosexuals to have planned and to have attempted suicide in the previous year.
There's a lot of additional detail in the Science Daily article that is worth reviewing.
October 05, 2007
A Tale of Two Theocracies
David Rhea has a column in The Advocate drawing disturbing parallels to the theocratic leader or Iran and the President George W. Bush, who evidence shows would like the same type of job description:
Very little that happens in this perplexing world truly rates as surprising anymore. Yet Monday’s remarks by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Columbia University stunned just about everyone who heard them.
According to Ahmadinejad, gay people simply do not exist in Iran. Gays are a mere “phenomenon” that occurs, he suggests, only in Western culture. It reminds me of former first mother Lillian Carter's assertion a couple of decades ago that gays also don’t exist in Georgia, which one could excuse somewhat as age and the faultless ignorance of the times and culture in which she was raised.
While Ahmadinejad may have a cultural void in common with dear Miss Lillian, he certainly cannot attribute any portion of his ignorance to the times or to age.
Perhaps the real phenomenon here is the culture that allows a man with such a clear void of either intellectual curiosity or a firm grasp of historical and scientific reality to ascend to the highest office in his country -- albeit in Iran, where that office is effectively a theocratic dictatorship.
Upon reflection, two bitter realities then hit.
First, numerous reasonable, highly respected individuals have said the very same about the heads of America’s current regime. What is our excuse?
And second, while Ahmadinejad’s assertion that there are no gays in Iran seems preposterous on the surface, his statement -- while not quite true just yet -- is increasingly becoming reality with each passing month. When a reporter informed Mr. Ahmadinejad after his remarks that she personally knew many gays in Iran, he openly asked for their addresses so that his country’s authorities could check into it.
Click here to read the entire essay.
Very little that happens in this perplexing world truly rates as surprising anymore. Yet Monday’s remarks by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Columbia University stunned just about everyone who heard them.
According to Ahmadinejad, gay people simply do not exist in Iran. Gays are a mere “phenomenon” that occurs, he suggests, only in Western culture. It reminds me of former first mother Lillian Carter's assertion a couple of decades ago that gays also don’t exist in Georgia, which one could excuse somewhat as age and the faultless ignorance of the times and culture in which she was raised.
While Ahmadinejad may have a cultural void in common with dear Miss Lillian, he certainly cannot attribute any portion of his ignorance to the times or to age.
Perhaps the real phenomenon here is the culture that allows a man with such a clear void of either intellectual curiosity or a firm grasp of historical and scientific reality to ascend to the highest office in his country -- albeit in Iran, where that office is effectively a theocratic dictatorship.
Upon reflection, two bitter realities then hit.
First, numerous reasonable, highly respected individuals have said the very same about the heads of America’s current regime. What is our excuse?
And second, while Ahmadinejad’s assertion that there are no gays in Iran seems preposterous on the surface, his statement -- while not quite true just yet -- is increasingly becoming reality with each passing month. When a reporter informed Mr. Ahmadinejad after his remarks that she personally knew many gays in Iran, he openly asked for their addresses so that his country’s authorities could check into it.
Click here to read the entire essay.
October 04, 2007
More on Gay Life (Such As It Is) In Iran
A recent article in the New York Times delved into the question of whether or not gay people actually exist in Iran (this just in, they do).
When Reza, a 29-year-old Iranian, heard that his president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had denied in New York that homosexuals were in Iran, he was shocked but not surprised. Reza knows the truth. He is gay.
Leaning back in his black leather desk chair at home in Tehran, he said there were, in fact, plenty of gay men and women in Iran. The difference between their lives and those of gays in Europe and North America is one of recognition and legitimacy.
“You can have a secret gay life as long you don’t become an activist and start demanding rights,” he said, speaking on the condition that his family name not be used because he feared retribution.
Reza, who shaves his head and often wears an earring in his left ear, has lived in Europe extensively. Gay life in Iran, he said, “is just complicated in the same way that it is for other groups, like workers and feminists, who don’t have many rights.”
Since Mr. Ahmadinejad uttered his words at Columbia University last Monday, discussion of homosexuality has been stifled here. Sociologists and other analysts normally willing to discuss such issues on the record with a reporter suddenly were not.
But, speaking anonymously, several said that the president had clearly been caught off guard by the question because no one at an Iranian university would have dared to ask him such a thing. They also argued that it was probably better for Iranian gays that Mr. Ahmadinejad denied their existence since that made it likelier that they would be ignored and let alone.
For a country that is said to have no homosexuality, Iran goes to great lengths to ban it. Gays are punished by lashing or death if it is proved that they have had homosexual relations. Two gay teenagers were executed in 2005 in Mashad, a northeastern city.
Fear of persecution is so strong that some gay men and lesbians have sought and received asylum in Western countries.
Click here to read the entire article.
When Reza, a 29-year-old Iranian, heard that his president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had denied in New York that homosexuals were in Iran, he was shocked but not surprised. Reza knows the truth. He is gay.
Leaning back in his black leather desk chair at home in Tehran, he said there were, in fact, plenty of gay men and women in Iran. The difference between their lives and those of gays in Europe and North America is one of recognition and legitimacy.
“You can have a secret gay life as long you don’t become an activist and start demanding rights,” he said, speaking on the condition that his family name not be used because he feared retribution.
Reza, who shaves his head and often wears an earring in his left ear, has lived in Europe extensively. Gay life in Iran, he said, “is just complicated in the same way that it is for other groups, like workers and feminists, who don’t have many rights.”
Since Mr. Ahmadinejad uttered his words at Columbia University last Monday, discussion of homosexuality has been stifled here. Sociologists and other analysts normally willing to discuss such issues on the record with a reporter suddenly were not.
But, speaking anonymously, several said that the president had clearly been caught off guard by the question because no one at an Iranian university would have dared to ask him such a thing. They also argued that it was probably better for Iranian gays that Mr. Ahmadinejad denied their existence since that made it likelier that they would be ignored and let alone.
For a country that is said to have no homosexuality, Iran goes to great lengths to ban it. Gays are punished by lashing or death if it is proved that they have had homosexual relations. Two gay teenagers were executed in 2005 in Mashad, a northeastern city.
Fear of persecution is so strong that some gay men and lesbians have sought and received asylum in Western countries.
Click here to read the entire article.
October 03, 2007
October is GLBT History Month
The Equality Forum is presenting features on leaders in and allies of the GLBT community every day in October, which is GLBT History Month. I'm a couple of days late with this, but there's still plenty of time to catch up and check out the wonderful stories. There's a lot learn here, and I'd like to thank The Equality Forum for putting it together and posting it for everyone to enjoy.
Click here to visit the GLBT History Month 2007 site.
Click here to visit the GLBT History Month 2007 site.
October 02, 2007
Fully Inclusive ENDA Gets a Reprieve
From The Adovcate:
Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi issued a statement Monday saying she would postpone advancing the latest version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that includes protections for gays and lesbians but excludes transgender people. The bill was scheduled for markup in committee on Tuesday, at which point it would have been sent to the House floor for a vote.
“After discussions with congressional leaders and organizations supporting passage of ENDA, we have agreed to schedule mark-up of the bill in the Committee on Education and Labor later this month, followed by a vote in the full House,” Pelosi said in press release. “This schedule will allow proponents of the legislation to continue their discussions with Members in the interest of passing the broadest possible bill.”
The move was a nod to a critical mass of LGBT activists who came forward to adamantly oppose passing a version of ENDA that lacks transgender-inclusive language.
I appreciate the feedback I received from my recent post about the Democrats presenting a version of ENDA without gender identity protection, and let me clearly state my wish that a law that protects ALL people from discrimination in the workplace can get through Congress and force President Bush to make a decision about signing it.
I found this report on 365gay.com that details just how watered down the compromise version of ENDA is:
In addition to the missing protections for transgender people on the job, the new bill also leaves out a key element to protect any employee, including lesbians and gay men who may not conform to their employer's idea of how a man or woman should look and act.
This is a huge loophole through which employers sued for sexual orientation discrimination can claim that their conduct was actually based on gender expression, a type of discrimination that the new bill does not prohibit, said Lambda.
The new version of ENDA also states without qualification that refusal by employers to extend health insurance benefits to the domestic partners of their employees that are provided only to married couples cannot be considered sexual orientation discrimination.
This is approaching the point of "why bother" if there are too many loopholes. Let's hope GLBT advocates can successfully use this additonal time to lobby for a bill that will really make a difference.
Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi issued a statement Monday saying she would postpone advancing the latest version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that includes protections for gays and lesbians but excludes transgender people. The bill was scheduled for markup in committee on Tuesday, at which point it would have been sent to the House floor for a vote.
“After discussions with congressional leaders and organizations supporting passage of ENDA, we have agreed to schedule mark-up of the bill in the Committee on Education and Labor later this month, followed by a vote in the full House,” Pelosi said in press release. “This schedule will allow proponents of the legislation to continue their discussions with Members in the interest of passing the broadest possible bill.”
The move was a nod to a critical mass of LGBT activists who came forward to adamantly oppose passing a version of ENDA that lacks transgender-inclusive language.
I appreciate the feedback I received from my recent post about the Democrats presenting a version of ENDA without gender identity protection, and let me clearly state my wish that a law that protects ALL people from discrimination in the workplace can get through Congress and force President Bush to make a decision about signing it.
I found this report on 365gay.com that details just how watered down the compromise version of ENDA is:
In addition to the missing protections for transgender people on the job, the new bill also leaves out a key element to protect any employee, including lesbians and gay men who may not conform to their employer's idea of how a man or woman should look and act.
This is a huge loophole through which employers sued for sexual orientation discrimination can claim that their conduct was actually based on gender expression, a type of discrimination that the new bill does not prohibit, said Lambda.
The new version of ENDA also states without qualification that refusal by employers to extend health insurance benefits to the domestic partners of their employees that are provided only to married couples cannot be considered sexual orientation discrimination.
This is approaching the point of "why bother" if there are too many loopholes. Let's hope GLBT advocates can successfully use this additonal time to lobby for a bill that will really make a difference.
Interview with Rev. Steve Kindle, a Straight Ally
This from Faithfully Liberal:
The Rev. Steve Kindle has a unique ministry. He is Executive Director of Clergy United for the Equality of Homosexuals , a consulting and education organization focused on the inclusion of homosexuals and transgender persons in the church. Originally ordained in the conservative Churches of Christ, in whose colleges and seminaries he received his theological education, today he has standing in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and the United Church of Christ. Before founding Clergy United, he served as pastor of two “Open and Affirming” Disciples congregations, and since then has served as consultant to congregations exploring the process of becoming open and affirming to the GLBT community, and this fall he’ll be speaking to a number of Log Cabin Republican groups. Since the blogging bug has bit Steve, he has launched a new blog called Open Hearts – Affirming Pages.
Q. Since your background is fairly conservative, what was it that changed the way you looked at homosexuals?
A. I was raised in a very conservative home, both politically and religiously. My understanding of the gay community was formed by all the stereotypes that typically accompany such an upbringing: that they are in the main promiscuous, self-centered, lust filled, choose this “lifestyle,” and are not to be trusted around children. I happened to move from North Dakota to San Francisco and, in the course of getting to know the gay community, I discovered the startling reality that GLBTs are as normal as any other large segment of America. Also, working with many gay Christians challenged my view that “gay Christian” is an oxymoron. So, I began a lifelong pursuit of examining the scriptures used to support the antigay view and found the traditional interpretations wanting.
Q. To take this to another level, since you teach a seminar on the Bible and Homosexuality, what is the role of biblical interpretation in forming our views?
A. Most Christians don’t form their views, they inherit them. In the case of Fundamentalist, those who teach them seldom interpret the Bible; they are content to “let the Bible speak for itself.” So the surface reading of the scriptures is left as the final meaning rather than as the starting point for understanding. It’s as though the Bible should be read the same way we read the morning paper, without taking into consideration that some 2,000-3,000 years separate us from the original documents. If you are going to take the Bible seriously, you can’t take it literally; what it says may not be what it means in the least.
Q. Finally, Steve, is there anything we’ve not yet covered that you just have to get off your chest?
A. Yes, indeed, and thank you! Ultimately, the refusal of marriage to same-sex couples is a denial of their humanity. The first “not good” of creation was God’s discovery that “it is not good for the human to be alone.” When the church denies marriage to gay couples it is saying that you are not worthy of having your loneliness relieved in the only way it is possible. In other words, you are not worthy of being a human being. Imagine the anguish of a straight person not being able to marry, ever, unless he or she married someone of the same sex. God created us all in the image of God. Who are we to denigrate that which God has made?
I strongly agree with these points made by Rev. Kindle. It is always reassuring when I run across a straight person who shares the same calling of advocating for the GLBT community.
He tries to get people to think for themselves, not just take what they've always been taught at face value. I've said this before and it bears repeating here; education is the number one antidote to homophobia. I'm glad Rev. Kindle seems to approach his ministry with that goal.
The Rev. Steve Kindle has a unique ministry. He is Executive Director of Clergy United for the Equality of Homosexuals , a consulting and education organization focused on the inclusion of homosexuals and transgender persons in the church. Originally ordained in the conservative Churches of Christ, in whose colleges and seminaries he received his theological education, today he has standing in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and the United Church of Christ. Before founding Clergy United, he served as pastor of two “Open and Affirming” Disciples congregations, and since then has served as consultant to congregations exploring the process of becoming open and affirming to the GLBT community, and this fall he’ll be speaking to a number of Log Cabin Republican groups. Since the blogging bug has bit Steve, he has launched a new blog called Open Hearts – Affirming Pages.
Q. Since your background is fairly conservative, what was it that changed the way you looked at homosexuals?
A. I was raised in a very conservative home, both politically and religiously. My understanding of the gay community was formed by all the stereotypes that typically accompany such an upbringing: that they are in the main promiscuous, self-centered, lust filled, choose this “lifestyle,” and are not to be trusted around children. I happened to move from North Dakota to San Francisco and, in the course of getting to know the gay community, I discovered the startling reality that GLBTs are as normal as any other large segment of America. Also, working with many gay Christians challenged my view that “gay Christian” is an oxymoron. So, I began a lifelong pursuit of examining the scriptures used to support the antigay view and found the traditional interpretations wanting.
Q. To take this to another level, since you teach a seminar on the Bible and Homosexuality, what is the role of biblical interpretation in forming our views?
A. Most Christians don’t form their views, they inherit them. In the case of Fundamentalist, those who teach them seldom interpret the Bible; they are content to “let the Bible speak for itself.” So the surface reading of the scriptures is left as the final meaning rather than as the starting point for understanding. It’s as though the Bible should be read the same way we read the morning paper, without taking into consideration that some 2,000-3,000 years separate us from the original documents. If you are going to take the Bible seriously, you can’t take it literally; what it says may not be what it means in the least.
Q. Finally, Steve, is there anything we’ve not yet covered that you just have to get off your chest?
A. Yes, indeed, and thank you! Ultimately, the refusal of marriage to same-sex couples is a denial of their humanity. The first “not good” of creation was God’s discovery that “it is not good for the human to be alone.” When the church denies marriage to gay couples it is saying that you are not worthy of having your loneliness relieved in the only way it is possible. In other words, you are not worthy of being a human being. Imagine the anguish of a straight person not being able to marry, ever, unless he or she married someone of the same sex. God created us all in the image of God. Who are we to denigrate that which God has made?
I strongly agree with these points made by Rev. Kindle. It is always reassuring when I run across a straight person who shares the same calling of advocating for the GLBT community.
He tries to get people to think for themselves, not just take what they've always been taught at face value. I've said this before and it bears repeating here; education is the number one antidote to homophobia. I'm glad Rev. Kindle seems to approach his ministry with that goal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
