From the Christian Post:
A transgender minister is allowed to remain pastor of a Baltimore congregation, the United Methodist Church's highest council announced Tuesday.
The Judicial Council's ruling affirmed a decision by Baltimore-Washington Bishop John R. Schol last spring who reappointed the Rev. Drew Phoenix to St. John's of Baltimore City after the transgender minister underwent surgery and hormone therapy to become a male. Phoenix was formerly the Rev. Ann Gordon who had led the church for five years.
Local clergy in the Baltimore-Washington Conference had appealed Schol's decision to the United Methodist Judicial Council amid opposition. While the United Methodist Church bars self-avowed practicing clergy from ordination and does not support gay unions, according to the denomination's Book of Discipline, it says nothing about transgender clergy.
After considering whether to remove Phoenix from leadership, the Judicial Council decided to allow the transgender minister to stay on the job, referring to a church policy stating that a clergyperson in good standing can't be terminated without administrative or judicial action.
"The adjective placed in front of the noun 'clergyperson' does not matter," the council ruled. "What matters is that clergypersons, once ordained and admitted to membership in full connection, cannot have that standing changed without being accorded fair process."
"We at St. John’s UMC have a long history of supporting people through various life transitions," said the congregation, which boasts "inclusion" and "diversity," in a statement. "We love and support our pastor. Rev. Phoenix is an effective, professional pastor who has our deep and abiding respect."
God's anointing does not discriminate, that's something people do. Good job by the United Methodist Church!
November 01, 2007
African-American Leaders Step Up Against Homophobia In Maryland
More encouraging news from Baltimore, via the Baltimore Sun:
Elbridge James wasn't surprised when many of his fraternity brothers ridiculed him for supporting same-sex marriage.
But what James didn't expect was for a handful of his old college buddies to rise to his defense. They, too, believed that gays' and lesbians' battle for marriage is a matter of civil rights.
"We're talking about a black fraternity that has had issues with homophobia," he said. "But I think when you get the message out, and people start to listen, they realize the question is about respecting others' rights."
The experience gave James, former political action chairman for the Maryland National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, hope that more blacks are willing to support gay rights than conventional wisdom might indicate.
In an effort to raise the issue of gay unions within black communities around the state, James and other activists have formed the Maryland Black Family Alliance, a group of predominantly heterosexual African-American leaders pledging their support for same-sex marriage.
"There's a scarcity of information on this issue in the black community," said James, the group's director. "The black press doesn't cover it; talk radio doesn't cover it. ... We have this sort of 'don't ask, don't tell policy' in our community."
When I first saw the headline about a group focused on black support for gay marriage, I had mixed feelings. I was concerned that this might be an effort to splinter off the African-American GLBT community and for them to do their own thing, but I was relieved to see that this is apparently not their goal. Subdividing GLBT activists, already a small number, into racial groupings would only further dilute the strength of their message. On the other hand, a concerted effort to draw more African-Americans into the conversation could be a very positive thing, and I applaud these leaders for stepping out and initiating this group.
Here is a press release from the ACLU regarding the launch.
This blog post from BET points out that the leaders are mostly heterosexual. The comments below it point out the uphill struggle they have ahead of them.
Elbridge James wasn't surprised when many of his fraternity brothers ridiculed him for supporting same-sex marriage.
But what James didn't expect was for a handful of his old college buddies to rise to his defense. They, too, believed that gays' and lesbians' battle for marriage is a matter of civil rights.
"We're talking about a black fraternity that has had issues with homophobia," he said. "But I think when you get the message out, and people start to listen, they realize the question is about respecting others' rights."
The experience gave James, former political action chairman for the Maryland National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, hope that more blacks are willing to support gay rights than conventional wisdom might indicate.
In an effort to raise the issue of gay unions within black communities around the state, James and other activists have formed the Maryland Black Family Alliance, a group of predominantly heterosexual African-American leaders pledging their support for same-sex marriage.
"There's a scarcity of information on this issue in the black community," said James, the group's director. "The black press doesn't cover it; talk radio doesn't cover it. ... We have this sort of 'don't ask, don't tell policy' in our community."
When I first saw the headline about a group focused on black support for gay marriage, I had mixed feelings. I was concerned that this might be an effort to splinter off the African-American GLBT community and for them to do their own thing, but I was relieved to see that this is apparently not their goal. Subdividing GLBT activists, already a small number, into racial groupings would only further dilute the strength of their message. On the other hand, a concerted effort to draw more African-Americans into the conversation could be a very positive thing, and I applaud these leaders for stepping out and initiating this group.
Here is a press release from the ACLU regarding the launch.
This blog post from BET points out that the leaders are mostly heterosexual. The comments below it point out the uphill struggle they have ahead of them.
October 31, 2007
Who Said You Can't Find Justice These Days?
Fred Phelps and his church (mostly relatives) of right-wing extremists lost a lawsuit in Baltimore, Maryland today and now owe the father of a serviceman who's funeral they picketed $10.9 million. From CNN.com:
A grieving father won a nearly $11 million verdict Wednesday against a fundamentalist Kansas church that pickets military funerals in the belief that the war in Iraq is a punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.
Albert Snyder of York, Pennsylvania, sued the Westboro Baptist Church for unspecified damages after members demonstrated at the March 2006 funeral of his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq.
The jury first awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages. It returned later in the afternoon with its decision to award $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for causing emotional distress.
U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett noted the size of the award for compensating damages "far exceeds the net worth of the defendants," according to financial statements filed with the court.
Here's the part that really gets me:
Earlier, church members staged a demonstration outside the federal courthouse.
Church founder Fred Phelps held a sign reading "God is your enemy," while Shirley Phelps-Roper stood on an American flag and carried a sign that read "God hates fag enablers."
Members of the group sang "God Hates America" to the tune of "God Bless America."
Hopefully pretty soon they won't have a pot left to pee in. Even if they don't learn any lesson from this, at least it will be more difficult for them to inflict pain on people like Albert Snyder.
A grieving father won a nearly $11 million verdict Wednesday against a fundamentalist Kansas church that pickets military funerals in the belief that the war in Iraq is a punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.
Albert Snyder of York, Pennsylvania, sued the Westboro Baptist Church for unspecified damages after members demonstrated at the March 2006 funeral of his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq.
The jury first awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages. It returned later in the afternoon with its decision to award $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for causing emotional distress.
U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett noted the size of the award for compensating damages "far exceeds the net worth of the defendants," according to financial statements filed with the court.
Here's the part that really gets me:
Earlier, church members staged a demonstration outside the federal courthouse.
Church founder Fred Phelps held a sign reading "God is your enemy," while Shirley Phelps-Roper stood on an American flag and carried a sign that read "God hates fag enablers."
Members of the group sang "God Hates America" to the tune of "God Bless America."
Hopefully pretty soon they won't have a pot left to pee in. Even if they don't learn any lesson from this, at least it will be more difficult for them to inflict pain on people like Albert Snyder.
Right Wing Nut Blames Gays for California Wildfires
I suppose it was only a matter of time. From Ethics Daily:
A controversial anti-abortion activist says California wildfires are God's judgment on a new anti-discrimination law that some conservative Christians say promotes homosexuality in public schools.
"Last week I groaned when I read how Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill into law in California which foisted homosexuality upon the children of that state through the state school system," Matt Trewhella of Missionaries to the Preborn wrote in an e-mail quoted on liberal Web sites Hot Flash Report and Talk2Action.
Trewhella said the bill, SB777--also called the California Student Civil Rights Act--signed into law Oct. 13 "clearly redefines (perverts) what sexuality is, as well as promotes the legitimacy of homosexuality upon children starting from kindergarten on up."
"Seven days later, on October 20th, wildfires broke out across California in several places," Trewhella continued, describing widespread damages that prompted President Bush to declare a state of emergency.
"Do you think they will see it as a warning from the Lord for their calling evil good?" he asked. "Do you think they will be able to connect the dots? I won't be holding my breath."
I've got a better idea pal--go ahead and hold your breath.
Trewhella, a pastor from Milwaukee, is no stranger to controversy. In 1993 the FBI investigated him for making a statement that authorities took as a veiled threat to assassinate doctors who perform abortions.
Not long after the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, he made headlines when members of his Mercy Seat Christian Church distributed a bullet-shaped, pro-gun flier at Milwaukee schools.
In addition to his belief that the Bible supports gun ownership, Trewhella also has written that Christians should not obtain a state marriage license, because in doing so they place themselves under jurisdiction of unbiblical laws, and that property taxes are immoral.
Clowns like this wouldn't bother me except for the way they warp scripture and claim God's name when they spew their hate. People who don't know any better, in this case especially gay people, actually think this represents what Christianity is all about.
Nothing could be further from the truth, and those of us who DO know better need to make sure we let as many people know that as possible.
A controversial anti-abortion activist says California wildfires are God's judgment on a new anti-discrimination law that some conservative Christians say promotes homosexuality in public schools.
"Last week I groaned when I read how Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill into law in California which foisted homosexuality upon the children of that state through the state school system," Matt Trewhella of Missionaries to the Preborn wrote in an e-mail quoted on liberal Web sites Hot Flash Report and Talk2Action.
Trewhella said the bill, SB777--also called the California Student Civil Rights Act--signed into law Oct. 13 "clearly redefines (perverts) what sexuality is, as well as promotes the legitimacy of homosexuality upon children starting from kindergarten on up."
"Seven days later, on October 20th, wildfires broke out across California in several places," Trewhella continued, describing widespread damages that prompted President Bush to declare a state of emergency.
"Do you think they will see it as a warning from the Lord for their calling evil good?" he asked. "Do you think they will be able to connect the dots? I won't be holding my breath."
I've got a better idea pal--go ahead and hold your breath.
Trewhella, a pastor from Milwaukee, is no stranger to controversy. In 1993 the FBI investigated him for making a statement that authorities took as a veiled threat to assassinate doctors who perform abortions.
Not long after the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, he made headlines when members of his Mercy Seat Christian Church distributed a bullet-shaped, pro-gun flier at Milwaukee schools.
In addition to his belief that the Bible supports gun ownership, Trewhella also has written that Christians should not obtain a state marriage license, because in doing so they place themselves under jurisdiction of unbiblical laws, and that property taxes are immoral.
Clowns like this wouldn't bother me except for the way they warp scripture and claim God's name when they spew their hate. People who don't know any better, in this case especially gay people, actually think this represents what Christianity is all about.
Nothing could be further from the truth, and those of us who DO know better need to make sure we let as many people know that as possible.
October 30, 2007
Acceptance Growing Among Families of GLBT Kids In Catholic Church
From Deb Price's syndicated column (via the Washington Blade):
A groundbreaking report by Fortunate Families, based on its survey of 229 Catholic parents with gay children, concludes: "Parents love their (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) children, and they love their church. But they do not see their love, or God's unconditional love, reflected in how the institutional church relates to their LGBT sons and daughters." (Go to: fortunatefamilies.com.)
Catholic parents now learning their child is gay report higher initial levels of comfort than parents who learned five or more years ago. And Catholic parents who know another parent with a gay son or daughter are "significantly more comfortable" with their child's orientation than are isolated parents.
The parents are far more likely to call gay-friendly P-FLAG, New Ways Ministry and Fortunate Families "very helpful" than to say that about their parishes.
One mom with a gay son lamented, "I do not feel the Catholic Church offers any support with our children. I remain a Catholic only because of the Mass and the Eucharist."
At the recent PFLAG national convention, I had the opportunity to chat with the co-founders of Fortunate Families, Casey and Mary Ellen Lopata from Rochester, NY. Mary Ellen wrote a book titled "Fortunate Families," which their organization was spun off from. In the book, she write about their family's nine-year struggle to reconcile their son's gayness with their church.
From the same perspective I've asked the question here how someone could be gay and republican, I asked them how they could have a gay child and still be Catholic. The answer did not come easily, but it was very similar to the mom quoted above. They love their church, they love their son, and instead of losing their relationship with either one, they decided to work toward bringing them together.
The Lopatas also stressed how helpful they found it when they realized they weren't the only family in the church with a gay child. Not feeling isolated was an important step toward accepting their new reality when their son came out to them. That led them to start Fortunate Families and help other Catholic families avoid that type of isolation.
God bless them for their efforts, and I hope they bear fruit.
A groundbreaking report by Fortunate Families, based on its survey of 229 Catholic parents with gay children, concludes: "Parents love their (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) children, and they love their church. But they do not see their love, or God's unconditional love, reflected in how the institutional church relates to their LGBT sons and daughters." (Go to: fortunatefamilies.com.)
Catholic parents now learning their child is gay report higher initial levels of comfort than parents who learned five or more years ago. And Catholic parents who know another parent with a gay son or daughter are "significantly more comfortable" with their child's orientation than are isolated parents.
The parents are far more likely to call gay-friendly P-FLAG, New Ways Ministry and Fortunate Families "very helpful" than to say that about their parishes.
One mom with a gay son lamented, "I do not feel the Catholic Church offers any support with our children. I remain a Catholic only because of the Mass and the Eucharist."
At the recent PFLAG national convention, I had the opportunity to chat with the co-founders of Fortunate Families, Casey and Mary Ellen Lopata from Rochester, NY. Mary Ellen wrote a book titled "Fortunate Families," which their organization was spun off from. In the book, she write about their family's nine-year struggle to reconcile their son's gayness with their church.
From the same perspective I've asked the question here how someone could be gay and republican, I asked them how they could have a gay child and still be Catholic. The answer did not come easily, but it was very similar to the mom quoted above. They love their church, they love their son, and instead of losing their relationship with either one, they decided to work toward bringing them together.
The Lopatas also stressed how helpful they found it when they realized they weren't the only family in the church with a gay child. Not feeling isolated was an important step toward accepting their new reality when their son came out to them. That led them to start Fortunate Families and help other Catholic families avoid that type of isolation.
God bless them for their efforts, and I hope they bear fruit.
October 29, 2007
Obama and the "Ex-Gay' Gospel Singer
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has taken a lot of heat for including "ex-gay" gospel singer Donnie McClurkin in the South Carolina performance of his campaign's "Embrace the Change" gospel series.
Rightly so.
Here is an excerpt from McClurkin's comments at the concert from CNN:
McClurkin has said that homosexuality is a choice and that he overcame homosexual desires through prayer, comments that drew fire from gay and lesbian activists and caught the Obama campaign, which has been using faith to reach out to African-American voters, off guard.
The Grammy-winning singer said Sunday his words had been "twisted."
"Don't call me a bigot or anti-gay, when I have been touched by the same feelings," McClurkin went on. "When I have suffered with the same feelings. Don't call me a homophobe, when I love everybody … Don't tell me that I stand up and I say vile words against the gay community because I don't. I don't speak against the homosexual. I tell you that God delivered me from homosexuality."
McCurkin also took time to say that homosexuality was a sin, least there be any doubt where he stood on that point.
Why did Obama stick with McClurkin's participation in this event even after GLBT activists raised such a stink about it? Also from the CNN report:
A September poll conducted by Winthrop University and ETV showed that 74 percent of South Carolina African-Americans believe homosexuality is "unacceptable."
In my opinion, that's all you need to know. While Obama publicly restated his support for the GLBT community, he sold them down the river to the South Carolina African-American community and round up some votes in a critical primary state.
This is just the latest example of a politician pandering to people's faith in order to get their votes. I guess Obama is overcoming his inexperience and learning how to play the game.
Too bad.
Rightly so.
Here is an excerpt from McClurkin's comments at the concert from CNN:
McClurkin has said that homosexuality is a choice and that he overcame homosexual desires through prayer, comments that drew fire from gay and lesbian activists and caught the Obama campaign, which has been using faith to reach out to African-American voters, off guard.
The Grammy-winning singer said Sunday his words had been "twisted."
"Don't call me a bigot or anti-gay, when I have been touched by the same feelings," McClurkin went on. "When I have suffered with the same feelings. Don't call me a homophobe, when I love everybody … Don't tell me that I stand up and I say vile words against the gay community because I don't. I don't speak against the homosexual. I tell you that God delivered me from homosexuality."
McCurkin also took time to say that homosexuality was a sin, least there be any doubt where he stood on that point.
Why did Obama stick with McClurkin's participation in this event even after GLBT activists raised such a stink about it? Also from the CNN report:
A September poll conducted by Winthrop University and ETV showed that 74 percent of South Carolina African-Americans believe homosexuality is "unacceptable."
In my opinion, that's all you need to know. While Obama publicly restated his support for the GLBT community, he sold them down the river to the South Carolina African-American community and round up some votes in a critical primary state.
This is just the latest example of a politician pandering to people's faith in order to get their votes. I guess Obama is overcoming his inexperience and learning how to play the game.
Too bad.
October 28, 2007
Sexual Orientation as an Issue in a Political Race
A candidate's sexual orientation does not determine whether he or she will make an effective council member. Nor does a candidate's political party affiliation.
It always good to see that in a major newspaper, but especially good to find it in the Fort-Worth (TX) Star-Telegram. Since Texas is not known as a particularly progressive state (after all, it gave us President George W. Bush and I, for one, can hardly wait to give him back), it speaks to the fact that even in the so-called "Bible Belt" of the south and southwest, attitudes are changing and acceptance of GLBT people is growing.
The quote was in an editorial that slammed Fort Worth City Councilman Chuck Silcox, who made an issue out of the fact that one of his opponents in an upcoming election is gay. From the Star-Telegram:
"We have two people of opposite partisan politics, opposite philosophical persuasions and opposite sexual orientations."
"I didn't tell you which one was homosexual," Silcox said as the crowd laughed. Pointing to Turner, Silcox continued: "He's married to a female, and the other's married to a male. You make your own mind up."
Silcox later said he raised the issue because he believes that the Star-Telegram's coverage of the race has not mentioned that Burns is gay.
"The Star-Telegram doesn't talk about it. They don't put the negative out there," he said.
"Every damn article that was written about Louis McBee mentioned that he was gay. I'm just [angry] about the way that the Star-Telegram has treated this."
McBee has been quoted or featured in 21 articles, according to Star-Telegram archives. One report in May 2006, when McBee was running for the City Council District 4 seat, mentioned his sexual orientation. Danny Scarth won the election.
Do all Texas republicans so blatantly ignore facts and make up their own? I hope it's just the President and this guy.
Kudos to the Star-Telegram for bringing forward facts and for slapping Councilman Silcox down for trying to make his opponent's homosexuality into a liability.
It always good to see that in a major newspaper, but especially good to find it in the Fort-Worth (TX) Star-Telegram. Since Texas is not known as a particularly progressive state (after all, it gave us President George W. Bush and I, for one, can hardly wait to give him back), it speaks to the fact that even in the so-called "Bible Belt" of the south and southwest, attitudes are changing and acceptance of GLBT people is growing.
The quote was in an editorial that slammed Fort Worth City Councilman Chuck Silcox, who made an issue out of the fact that one of his opponents in an upcoming election is gay. From the Star-Telegram:
"We have two people of opposite partisan politics, opposite philosophical persuasions and opposite sexual orientations."
"I didn't tell you which one was homosexual," Silcox said as the crowd laughed. Pointing to Turner, Silcox continued: "He's married to a female, and the other's married to a male. You make your own mind up."
Silcox later said he raised the issue because he believes that the Star-Telegram's coverage of the race has not mentioned that Burns is gay.
"The Star-Telegram doesn't talk about it. They don't put the negative out there," he said.
"Every damn article that was written about Louis McBee mentioned that he was gay. I'm just [angry] about the way that the Star-Telegram has treated this."
McBee has been quoted or featured in 21 articles, according to Star-Telegram archives. One report in May 2006, when McBee was running for the City Council District 4 seat, mentioned his sexual orientation. Danny Scarth won the election.
Do all Texas republicans so blatantly ignore facts and make up their own? I hope it's just the President and this guy.
Kudos to the Star-Telegram for bringing forward facts and for slapping Councilman Silcox down for trying to make his opponent's homosexuality into a liability.
October 27, 2007
Introducting a New Contributor
Hi there. My name is Sharone Belt. Some of you have read comments that I've written on this blog in the past few years.
I am writing today to introduce myself as a new contributor to this blog. Thank you, Jim, for inviting me to be more involved in the blog. I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts and ideas with your readers.
I am 41 years old and live with my partner of 14 years, Erica. We have been living in Texas, but will be moving back to the Washington, DC area in the next few months and are happy to be "coming home". We are renewing our membership at Believers Covenant Fellowship when we return. We were members of the church for about 7 years before leaving almost 2 years ago to move out of the area.
Jim and I became fast friends when his then girlfriend, Brenda, introduced us at church. He has a big heart and a quick wit, so we had a lot in common. Our shared vision for sharing God's love to GLBT people in particular was something that helped us bond early on. We both have a passion for writing our thoughts when we have strong emotions about a news story, personal situation, etc.
While Jim is an awesome advocate for us, I think that I can bring a different sensibility to this blog since I am gay myself. I also have some beliefs and convictions that are unique. For one thing, I was a Republican most of my life. I only became an Independent last year out of disgust for the Republican Party's constant problem with integrity as well as it's catering to the religious right. I am also a person who believes abortion on demand to be detrimental to the women, men, and children involved. It's not a real popular view, especially with my GLBT friends!
Well, that's about it for now. I just wanted to share a little bit about me. I'll write more as time goes on. I hope that you enjoy my take on things.
God bless.
Sharone
Sharone has spent time working with Equality Virginia and was a GLBT activist well before I even addressed those issues. I'm happy to have her as part of this blog and looking forward to her contributions.
I am writing today to introduce myself as a new contributor to this blog. Thank you, Jim, for inviting me to be more involved in the blog. I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts and ideas with your readers.
I am 41 years old and live with my partner of 14 years, Erica. We have been living in Texas, but will be moving back to the Washington, DC area in the next few months and are happy to be "coming home". We are renewing our membership at Believers Covenant Fellowship when we return. We were members of the church for about 7 years before leaving almost 2 years ago to move out of the area.
Jim and I became fast friends when his then girlfriend, Brenda, introduced us at church. He has a big heart and a quick wit, so we had a lot in common. Our shared vision for sharing God's love to GLBT people in particular was something that helped us bond early on. We both have a passion for writing our thoughts when we have strong emotions about a news story, personal situation, etc.
While Jim is an awesome advocate for us, I think that I can bring a different sensibility to this blog since I am gay myself. I also have some beliefs and convictions that are unique. For one thing, I was a Republican most of my life. I only became an Independent last year out of disgust for the Republican Party's constant problem with integrity as well as it's catering to the religious right. I am also a person who believes abortion on demand to be detrimental to the women, men, and children involved. It's not a real popular view, especially with my GLBT friends!
Well, that's about it for now. I just wanted to share a little bit about me. I'll write more as time goes on. I hope that you enjoy my take on things.
God bless.
Sharone
Sharone has spent time working with Equality Virginia and was a GLBT activist well before I even addressed those issues. I'm happy to have her as part of this blog and looking forward to her contributions.
Gays in Singapore Can't Be In the "Mainstream Way of Life"
That appears to be the official position of the Singapore government, which according to this article from PinkNews is just now getting around to legalizing oral and anal sex between two consenting opposite-sex adults in private. Needless to say, any sexual activity among homosexuals is against the law in that nation.
At the forefront of keeping the status quo in that area is Ho Peng Kee, a Law and Home Affairs Minister:
Mr Ho said yesterday that the ban on "gross indecency" will remain in place and male homosexuals still face up to two years in prison for gay sex.
"Repealing section 377A will be contentious and may send a wrong signal that the government is encouraging and endorsing the homosexual lifestyle as part of our mainstream way of life," he said, according to AFP.
He added that the push for decriminalisation of homosexual acts in the city state of nearly five million people had been contentious and that the majority find them "offensive and distasteful."
The authorities have not brought anyone up on charges of gross indecency for several years and the country has an active gay scene.
Based on that last statement, the Singapore government's actions appear to be mainly symbolic, but it is some really nasty symbolism.
Mr. Ho is probably right saying that the majority of resident of his nation find homsexual acts offensive and distasteful. I believe that is true in the United States--I find the mental image of two men having sex very distateful. That being said, however, I will fight for their right to do so, and the fact that they can has ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT ON MY LIFE.
The PinkNews article shows that scare tactics predicting the end of civilization as it is currently known if GLBT people are granted more legal rights is not restricted to the U. S. I am sure it is as big a load of crap over there as it is here, and I suspect more of the citizens of Singapore know it just as most Americans do.
Nations like Singapore will continue to stick to their rigid restrictions of GLBT people's legal rights, but they won't be able to control their behavior. Laws like that are just about as effective as prohabition was in American back in the 1920's. Fortunately, our leaders knew enough to repeal those laws, and eventually wiser, more accepting people will abolish these types of laws in other nations too.
At the forefront of keeping the status quo in that area is Ho Peng Kee, a Law and Home Affairs Minister:
Mr Ho said yesterday that the ban on "gross indecency" will remain in place and male homosexuals still face up to two years in prison for gay sex.
"Repealing section 377A will be contentious and may send a wrong signal that the government is encouraging and endorsing the homosexual lifestyle as part of our mainstream way of life," he said, according to AFP.
He added that the push for decriminalisation of homosexual acts in the city state of nearly five million people had been contentious and that the majority find them "offensive and distasteful."
The authorities have not brought anyone up on charges of gross indecency for several years and the country has an active gay scene.
Based on that last statement, the Singapore government's actions appear to be mainly symbolic, but it is some really nasty symbolism.
Mr. Ho is probably right saying that the majority of resident of his nation find homsexual acts offensive and distasteful. I believe that is true in the United States--I find the mental image of two men having sex very distateful. That being said, however, I will fight for their right to do so, and the fact that they can has ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT ON MY LIFE.
The PinkNews article shows that scare tactics predicting the end of civilization as it is currently known if GLBT people are granted more legal rights is not restricted to the U. S. I am sure it is as big a load of crap over there as it is here, and I suspect more of the citizens of Singapore know it just as most Americans do.
Nations like Singapore will continue to stick to their rigid restrictions of GLBT people's legal rights, but they won't be able to control their behavior. Laws like that are just about as effective as prohabition was in American back in the 1920's. Fortunately, our leaders knew enough to repeal those laws, and eventually wiser, more accepting people will abolish these types of laws in other nations too.
October 24, 2007
Most Christians Left of Right-Wing
Despite their best efforts to marginalize people not like them, the religious right is slipping toward becoming marginalized itself. This column from the Washington Post's "On Faith" series expresses the view that most Christians, not to mention the general population, have political views well to the left of the religious right.
It should come as no surprise that a recent opinion poll among younger people shows great skepticism if not outright resistance to Christianity. Given the preponderance of mainstream media reporting on a minority of U.S. Christians such attitudes make sense.
I suspect these young opinion poll takers are responding to what I call a political philosophy masquerading as gospel that is wrapped in religious rhetoric and painted red, white and blue.
One of its chief cheerleaders is Ann Coulter. She has dismissed most of the Bible and the words of Jesus defending the poor, the widow, the prisoner—the least among us—and spewed her venom that has little or nothing to do with orthodox Christianity. But Ms. Coulter and her ilk are the ones to whom the media gives most of its attention.
The majority of faithful Christians in the U.S. have nothing to do with James Dobson and his Focus on the Family, Tony Perkins and his Family Research Council or John Hagee and his Christians United for Israel.
Most American Christians struggle each week to apply Biblical truths in their daily lives. They seek to follow the words and actions of Jesus reminding his followers about taking care of the widow and the orphan, the hungry, welcoming the stranger, clothing the naked and visiting the prisoner.
What really threatens the extreme right is our member churches' ability to disagree on many issues yet come together on such matters as living wage, racism, health care, justice for women, and an unjust war in Iraq. It is a multi-partisan organization that threatens those who are “triumphal dominationalists” such as Ms. Coulter. Those who are convinced they’re right and everyone else is wrong feel undermined when people who differ are able to cooperate and collaborate.
But isn’t that what America was supposed to be about? Weren’t we founded to offer freedom of religion and not be dominated by one particular group? There are some signs that the toxic message of the extreme right of American Christians may be faltering. I hope so.
So do I. No religion and no individual has all the answers. It's only by listening and sharing with others that we learn. Education, however, is the enemy of the black and white world religious right zealots live in. It's a very small world, much smaller than the one me and most people I know live in.
It should come as no surprise that a recent opinion poll among younger people shows great skepticism if not outright resistance to Christianity. Given the preponderance of mainstream media reporting on a minority of U.S. Christians such attitudes make sense.
I suspect these young opinion poll takers are responding to what I call a political philosophy masquerading as gospel that is wrapped in religious rhetoric and painted red, white and blue.
One of its chief cheerleaders is Ann Coulter. She has dismissed most of the Bible and the words of Jesus defending the poor, the widow, the prisoner—the least among us—and spewed her venom that has little or nothing to do with orthodox Christianity. But Ms. Coulter and her ilk are the ones to whom the media gives most of its attention.
The majority of faithful Christians in the U.S. have nothing to do with James Dobson and his Focus on the Family, Tony Perkins and his Family Research Council or John Hagee and his Christians United for Israel.
Most American Christians struggle each week to apply Biblical truths in their daily lives. They seek to follow the words and actions of Jesus reminding his followers about taking care of the widow and the orphan, the hungry, welcoming the stranger, clothing the naked and visiting the prisoner.
What really threatens the extreme right is our member churches' ability to disagree on many issues yet come together on such matters as living wage, racism, health care, justice for women, and an unjust war in Iraq. It is a multi-partisan organization that threatens those who are “triumphal dominationalists” such as Ms. Coulter. Those who are convinced they’re right and everyone else is wrong feel undermined when people who differ are able to cooperate and collaborate.
But isn’t that what America was supposed to be about? Weren’t we founded to offer freedom of religion and not be dominated by one particular group? There are some signs that the toxic message of the extreme right of American Christians may be faltering. I hope so.
So do I. No religion and no individual has all the answers. It's only by listening and sharing with others that we learn. Education, however, is the enemy of the black and white world religious right zealots live in. It's a very small world, much smaller than the one me and most people I know live in.
"For The Bible Tells Me So"
I have not seen this movie, but I've heard many wonderful things about it. Here is information from the official website.
Can the love between two people ever be an abomination? Is the chasm separating gays and lesbians and Christianity too wide to cross? Is the Bible an excuse to hate?
Winner of the Audience Award for Best Documentary at the Seattle International Film Festival, Dan Karslake's provocative, entertaining documentary brilliantly reconciles homosexuality and Biblical scripture, and in the process reveals that Church-sanctioned anti-gay bias is based almost solely upon a significant (and often malicious) misinterpretation of the Bible. As the film notes, most Christians live their lives today without feeling obliged to kill anyone who works on the Sabbath or eats shrimp (as a literal reading of scripture dictates).
Through the experiences of five very normal, very Christian, very American families -- including those of former House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt and Episcopalian Bishop Gene Robinson -- we discover how insightful people of faith handle the realization of having a gay child. Informed by such respected voices as Bishop Desmond Tutu, Harvard's Peter Gomes, Orthodox Rabbi Steve Greenberg and Reverend Jimmy Creech, FOR THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO offers healing, clarity and understanding to anyone caught in the crosshairs of scripture and sexual identity.
From PageOneQ, here is the video and a transcript of former Congressman Dick Gephardt and his daughter Chrissy who both appear in the movie.
I don't know when I will get a chance to see this movie myself and offer a review, but I would encourage any of my readers who do get a chance to view it to share their opinions in the comments section of this post.
Can the love between two people ever be an abomination? Is the chasm separating gays and lesbians and Christianity too wide to cross? Is the Bible an excuse to hate?
Winner of the Audience Award for Best Documentary at the Seattle International Film Festival, Dan Karslake's provocative, entertaining documentary brilliantly reconciles homosexuality and Biblical scripture, and in the process reveals that Church-sanctioned anti-gay bias is based almost solely upon a significant (and often malicious) misinterpretation of the Bible. As the film notes, most Christians live their lives today without feeling obliged to kill anyone who works on the Sabbath or eats shrimp (as a literal reading of scripture dictates).
Through the experiences of five very normal, very Christian, very American families -- including those of former House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt and Episcopalian Bishop Gene Robinson -- we discover how insightful people of faith handle the realization of having a gay child. Informed by such respected voices as Bishop Desmond Tutu, Harvard's Peter Gomes, Orthodox Rabbi Steve Greenberg and Reverend Jimmy Creech, FOR THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO offers healing, clarity and understanding to anyone caught in the crosshairs of scripture and sexual identity.
From PageOneQ, here is the video and a transcript of former Congressman Dick Gephardt and his daughter Chrissy who both appear in the movie.
I don't know when I will get a chance to see this movie myself and offer a review, but I would encourage any of my readers who do get a chance to view it to share their opinions in the comments section of this post.
October 23, 2007
Thoughts on the "Values Voters" Concept
Last weekend, an all-star team of right-wing bigots gathered in Washington DC at the "Value Voters Summit" to swap stories and plan strategy on how to gain more political power, or at least avoid losing more than they have the last couple of years. It was ironic that this event was held concurrently to the incredible worship and celebration weekend we had at my church with GLBT ministers from around the nation and Canada.
Anyway, I saw a couple of essays about the whole "Values Voter" concept that I thought were worth sharing. The first one is from the Chicago Tribune:
The right's hold on "values" is now so strong that most news coverage I saw and heard about last weekend's second annual "Values Voter Summit" of Christian conservatives didn't even bother to nestle the word dubiously inside real or implied quotation marks. Fewer than 1 in 10 recent accounts of the summit I found in a national news database bothered to put "so-called" in front of the first reference to "values voters."
It's galling. I mean, sure, the activists who assembled in Washington vote in accordance to their values. So do I. So do you, reader, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum.
Anyone who casts a ballot is a "values voter." And to allow one group to squat on that title is to concede without a fight that their values are, if not superior to others' values, then at least stronger and more important to them than the flimsy ethical whims of their ideological foes.
There is clearly an air of superiority and arrogance when folks like James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and Gary Bauer get together to chew the fat. Love and compassion for people not cut out of the same mold as them, however, is scarcer than a liberal gay person.
I also ran across this piece from the Roanoke Times:
As Bishop T.D. Jakes has observed, good political leaders don't have to be Christians, and good Christians don't always make good leaders. But if someone campaigns under "Christian values," I'm looking for kindness, respect (even for the opponent) and faith -- not fear.
Maybe these values are difficult to maintain in the heat of politics today. Chuck Colson, on a recent "Focus on the Family" radio broadcast, noted that values voters "have lost respect for the people in politics -- and rightly so."
But that disrespect can begin long before an election, when glossy campaign ads hit our mailboxes attacking the opponent as a contemptible villain and featuring the most demeaning photo obtainable -- usually from video footage and blurred, like a bank-robber caught on somebody's security camera.
But there are hidden costs in yoking this kind of derision to the term "Christian values."
First, it denigrates not just the opponent, but the voter, who is assumed to be unintelligent, ignorant of the actual Christian message and as mean-spirited as the ad's creators. Hence, I've heard many people, disgusted by a season's attack ads, declare they would not vote. Others, like me, are pleased to go vote for the candidate who ran a respectful campaign.
As for "Christian," the cost of hinging that word to derisive personal attacks doesn't enhance Christian values, but in fact devalues the Christian message.
If Jesus was running a political campaign, He wouldn't be tearing anyone down. He wouldn't be lecturing on restricting people's rights. He wants people's live to have more, be fuller, not to limit them or take things away. He came to Earth to give people hope.
How many politicians, especially ones wearing the "Christian Values" mantle, do that for you these days?
Anyway, I saw a couple of essays about the whole "Values Voter" concept that I thought were worth sharing. The first one is from the Chicago Tribune:
The right's hold on "values" is now so strong that most news coverage I saw and heard about last weekend's second annual "Values Voter Summit" of Christian conservatives didn't even bother to nestle the word dubiously inside real or implied quotation marks. Fewer than 1 in 10 recent accounts of the summit I found in a national news database bothered to put "so-called" in front of the first reference to "values voters."
It's galling. I mean, sure, the activists who assembled in Washington vote in accordance to their values. So do I. So do you, reader, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum.
Anyone who casts a ballot is a "values voter." And to allow one group to squat on that title is to concede without a fight that their values are, if not superior to others' values, then at least stronger and more important to them than the flimsy ethical whims of their ideological foes.
There is clearly an air of superiority and arrogance when folks like James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and Gary Bauer get together to chew the fat. Love and compassion for people not cut out of the same mold as them, however, is scarcer than a liberal gay person.
I also ran across this piece from the Roanoke Times:
As Bishop T.D. Jakes has observed, good political leaders don't have to be Christians, and good Christians don't always make good leaders. But if someone campaigns under "Christian values," I'm looking for kindness, respect (even for the opponent) and faith -- not fear.
Maybe these values are difficult to maintain in the heat of politics today. Chuck Colson, on a recent "Focus on the Family" radio broadcast, noted that values voters "have lost respect for the people in politics -- and rightly so."
But that disrespect can begin long before an election, when glossy campaign ads hit our mailboxes attacking the opponent as a contemptible villain and featuring the most demeaning photo obtainable -- usually from video footage and blurred, like a bank-robber caught on somebody's security camera.
But there are hidden costs in yoking this kind of derision to the term "Christian values."
First, it denigrates not just the opponent, but the voter, who is assumed to be unintelligent, ignorant of the actual Christian message and as mean-spirited as the ad's creators. Hence, I've heard many people, disgusted by a season's attack ads, declare they would not vote. Others, like me, are pleased to go vote for the candidate who ran a respectful campaign.
As for "Christian," the cost of hinging that word to derisive personal attacks doesn't enhance Christian values, but in fact devalues the Christian message.
If Jesus was running a political campaign, He wouldn't be tearing anyone down. He wouldn't be lecturing on restricting people's rights. He wants people's live to have more, be fuller, not to limit them or take things away. He came to Earth to give people hope.
How many politicians, especially ones wearing the "Christian Values" mantle, do that for you these days?
October 22, 2007
Religious Leader With a Big Mouth
As I train for the pastorate, I am reminded that one of the important things that a pastor, a leader of the faithful, needs to know is when to keep his mouth shut.
According to this article from Ethics Today, that is a fundamental lesson that Frank Page, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention, either forgot or never learned:
Unless presidential candidates want a spiritual smack down, they should avoid talking to Southern Baptist Convention president Frank Page, who failed to retain the pastoral confidentiality of two conversations and then boasted to other pastors about his soul-winning ways. In both cases, Page elevated his own evangelistic credentials and degraded the spiritual character of candidates.
The SBC leader bragged to a gathering of Southern Baptist fundamentalist pastors in Oklahoma that in a private, two-hour meeting with Rudy Giuliani, a Roman Catholic, that he "shared Christ with him."
Page's perception about Giuliani's lack of Christian faith was so strong that at the end of the meeting he recounted: "Rudy, I'm not going to leave this place unless I give you an opportunity to pray with me to receive Jesus as your savior. Would you do that with me Rudy?"
Page said Giuliani rejected his invitation to salvation: "He said, 'No, Frank, I'm not ready to do that. My daddy knows Jesus like that, but I'm not ready for that.'"
Undeterred, Page, the pastor of First Baptist Church in Taylors, S.C., said he gave Giuliani his cell phone number and encouraged him to call when he was ready to talk about Jesus.
Baptist theological exclusivity also found expression in Page's recollection to the Oklahoma preachers of his face-to-face question to Sen. John McCain, a professing Episcopalian who attends a Southern Baptist church that leans towards moderation. Page claimed he asked, "Who owns your soul, John McCain?
Folks, this is not about sincerely seeking a spiritual breakthrough for these candidates. This is a leader of a large Christian denomination going out of his way to show everyone how important he is. "Look at me, look at me," his actions and words shout. How would you like to be a member of his church and need pastoral counseling, where confidentiality is at least as strong a requirement as psychological counseling, if not more so?
A person would probably be safe going to Page if they weren't famous, but it is very disturbing to see a leader violate pastoral ethics, not to mention failing miserably to display the humility of Christ.
More from the article:
As the Christian Right leaders haggle over whether the Republican presidential nominee needs to be a real Christian, Christian pastors should prioritize the confidentiality of private spiritual discussions over the potential for political gain.
Power does corrupt, and political power is one of the most tempting mistresses. For what a person gains from power in the world, that and more is usually lost in spiritual power and the ability to be a true, effective, servant for Christ.
Especially when you can't keep your mouth shut.
According to this article from Ethics Today, that is a fundamental lesson that Frank Page, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention, either forgot or never learned:
Unless presidential candidates want a spiritual smack down, they should avoid talking to Southern Baptist Convention president Frank Page, who failed to retain the pastoral confidentiality of two conversations and then boasted to other pastors about his soul-winning ways. In both cases, Page elevated his own evangelistic credentials and degraded the spiritual character of candidates.
The SBC leader bragged to a gathering of Southern Baptist fundamentalist pastors in Oklahoma that in a private, two-hour meeting with Rudy Giuliani, a Roman Catholic, that he "shared Christ with him."
Page's perception about Giuliani's lack of Christian faith was so strong that at the end of the meeting he recounted: "Rudy, I'm not going to leave this place unless I give you an opportunity to pray with me to receive Jesus as your savior. Would you do that with me Rudy?"
Page said Giuliani rejected his invitation to salvation: "He said, 'No, Frank, I'm not ready to do that. My daddy knows Jesus like that, but I'm not ready for that.'"
Undeterred, Page, the pastor of First Baptist Church in Taylors, S.C., said he gave Giuliani his cell phone number and encouraged him to call when he was ready to talk about Jesus.
Baptist theological exclusivity also found expression in Page's recollection to the Oklahoma preachers of his face-to-face question to Sen. John McCain, a professing Episcopalian who attends a Southern Baptist church that leans towards moderation. Page claimed he asked, "Who owns your soul, John McCain?
Folks, this is not about sincerely seeking a spiritual breakthrough for these candidates. This is a leader of a large Christian denomination going out of his way to show everyone how important he is. "Look at me, look at me," his actions and words shout. How would you like to be a member of his church and need pastoral counseling, where confidentiality is at least as strong a requirement as psychological counseling, if not more so?
A person would probably be safe going to Page if they weren't famous, but it is very disturbing to see a leader violate pastoral ethics, not to mention failing miserably to display the humility of Christ.
More from the article:
As the Christian Right leaders haggle over whether the Republican presidential nominee needs to be a real Christian, Christian pastors should prioritize the confidentiality of private spiritual discussions over the potential for political gain.
Power does corrupt, and political power is one of the most tempting mistresses. For what a person gains from power in the world, that and more is usually lost in spiritual power and the ability to be a true, effective, servant for Christ.
Especially when you can't keep your mouth shut.
October 21, 2007
Christians Need to Think Like a Gay Fish
I saw an essay from Rick Warren, the Purpose Driven Life author, that really resonated with me:
If you’re going to be good at fishing, you’ve got to learn to think like a fish. If you’re going to be an effective fisher of men, you’ve got to think like a lost person. Here’s the problem. Unfortunately, the longer you are a Christian, the less you think like an unbeliever. I don’t think like a non-Christian; I think like a Christian. In fact, I think like a pastor. That’s even worse! It’s two generations removed from the people I want to reach.
You can tell just how differently pastors think than lost people when you look at church advertisements in the newspaper. You’ll see advertisements like, “Preaching the inspired, inerrant Word of God.” Who will that appeal to? I know what the inspired, inerrant Word of God is. In fact I believe in it. I’d die for the inspired, inerrant Word. But non-Christians don’t care about your view of inspiration.
Or you’ll see a church advertise “Holy Spirit services.” That’s going to scare people away! Non-Christians don’t know what you mean by the Holy Spirit. Is that Casper the Friendly Ghost? You must learn to think – and communicate – like a non-believer if you are going to communicate the Gospel to them.
In their attempts to reach unchurched homosexuals, most mainline churches not only refuse to even attempt to think like the fish they're catching, they insist the fish (lost GLBT people) think like a fisherman, jump up into the boat, and open wide so they can get a hook slipped into their mouths. Now what fish with any sense would do that? Only one with a death wish.
So often the few gays who do submit to the teachings of fundamentalist churches want to die, or at least the gay part of them. If they don't want it to die, they feel the need to hide who they really are to gain at least a superficial level of acceptance.
So why is it that these churches can't reach more gay people?
Because they don't try. They expect gay people to reach for them. Given the terms that are usually set, it is irrational to think many of them would. Of course, that assumes churches are sincerely open to homosexual members, even ones who are closeted or trying to "change". I don't think that is a safe assumption--some do, many don't.
It's churches like mine who think like a (sometimes gay) fish that catch some. I have already run across a lot of GLBT people who were astonished that there are actually open and affirming churches available to them.
There are lots of gay fish out there to catch for Christ, lost lives to save. As Rick Warren wrote, we just need to remember what our lives were like before we knew Him and meet people where they are. The power of the Gospel will do the rest.
If you’re going to be good at fishing, you’ve got to learn to think like a fish. If you’re going to be an effective fisher of men, you’ve got to think like a lost person. Here’s the problem. Unfortunately, the longer you are a Christian, the less you think like an unbeliever. I don’t think like a non-Christian; I think like a Christian. In fact, I think like a pastor. That’s even worse! It’s two generations removed from the people I want to reach.
You can tell just how differently pastors think than lost people when you look at church advertisements in the newspaper. You’ll see advertisements like, “Preaching the inspired, inerrant Word of God.” Who will that appeal to? I know what the inspired, inerrant Word of God is. In fact I believe in it. I’d die for the inspired, inerrant Word. But non-Christians don’t care about your view of inspiration.
Or you’ll see a church advertise “Holy Spirit services.” That’s going to scare people away! Non-Christians don’t know what you mean by the Holy Spirit. Is that Casper the Friendly Ghost? You must learn to think – and communicate – like a non-believer if you are going to communicate the Gospel to them.
In their attempts to reach unchurched homosexuals, most mainline churches not only refuse to even attempt to think like the fish they're catching, they insist the fish (lost GLBT people) think like a fisherman, jump up into the boat, and open wide so they can get a hook slipped into their mouths. Now what fish with any sense would do that? Only one with a death wish.
So often the few gays who do submit to the teachings of fundamentalist churches want to die, or at least the gay part of them. If they don't want it to die, they feel the need to hide who they really are to gain at least a superficial level of acceptance.
So why is it that these churches can't reach more gay people?
Because they don't try. They expect gay people to reach for them. Given the terms that are usually set, it is irrational to think many of them would. Of course, that assumes churches are sincerely open to homosexual members, even ones who are closeted or trying to "change". I don't think that is a safe assumption--some do, many don't.
It's churches like mine who think like a (sometimes gay) fish that catch some. I have already run across a lot of GLBT people who were astonished that there are actually open and affirming churches available to them.
There are lots of gay fish out there to catch for Christ, lost lives to save. As Rick Warren wrote, we just need to remember what our lives were like before we knew Him and meet people where they are. The power of the Gospel will do the rest.
October 20, 2007
Philadelphia Stands Up to Discrimination, AFA Has a Hissy Fit
This is an excerpt from the latest American Family Association e-mail blast:
The city of Philadelphia has decided to punish the Boy Scouts of America because it will not allow homosexuals to serve as Scout Leaders. City officials said they will charge the Cradle of Liberty Scouts Council $200,000 a year to use the city-owned headquarters. The Council was paying $1 per year (since 1928). The city owns the land on which the Council's 1928 Beaux Arts building sits.
The city says it is charging the scouts $200,000 a year because the scouts discriminate against homosexuals. But the city finds nothing wrong with their discrimination against the scouts because of the scouts' belief.
First, kudos to the city of Philadelphia for not subsidizing discrimination. The Boy Scouts (of which I was a member many eons ago) or any private organization has no entitlement to a rent subsidy by a local government. I have no problem if a city decides to give one to an organization considered to benefit the community, which the Boy Scouts does in numerous ways, but a government should NOT subsidize discrimination, also something the Boy Scouts do. It bothers me that the city of Philadelphia let this go on as long as they did, but at least that mistake has been corrected.
The last line of the quote from the AFA just floors me. They twist this action of not funding discrimination by the city of Philadelphia into a form of discrimination itself. Sadly, this is just another example of the warped sense of reality leaders of the religious right have acquired. Also, this was not a snap decision as AFA's e-mail would imply. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, there have been discussions going on between the city and the Boy Scout chapter since May.
Taking a stand against an organization because they exclude a group of people from their activities is not discrimination--it's taking an admirable moral position and standing up for equality for ALL people. The Scouts have won their legal right to discriminate in a 2000 Supreme Court decision, but they do not have the right to have it supported by taxpayers.
The city of Philadelphia has decided to punish the Boy Scouts of America because it will not allow homosexuals to serve as Scout Leaders. City officials said they will charge the Cradle of Liberty Scouts Council $200,000 a year to use the city-owned headquarters. The Council was paying $1 per year (since 1928). The city owns the land on which the Council's 1928 Beaux Arts building sits.
The city says it is charging the scouts $200,000 a year because the scouts discriminate against homosexuals. But the city finds nothing wrong with their discrimination against the scouts because of the scouts' belief.
First, kudos to the city of Philadelphia for not subsidizing discrimination. The Boy Scouts (of which I was a member many eons ago) or any private organization has no entitlement to a rent subsidy by a local government. I have no problem if a city decides to give one to an organization considered to benefit the community, which the Boy Scouts does in numerous ways, but a government should NOT subsidize discrimination, also something the Boy Scouts do. It bothers me that the city of Philadelphia let this go on as long as they did, but at least that mistake has been corrected.
The last line of the quote from the AFA just floors me. They twist this action of not funding discrimination by the city of Philadelphia into a form of discrimination itself. Sadly, this is just another example of the warped sense of reality leaders of the religious right have acquired. Also, this was not a snap decision as AFA's e-mail would imply. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, there have been discussions going on between the city and the Boy Scout chapter since May.
Taking a stand against an organization because they exclude a group of people from their activities is not discrimination--it's taking an admirable moral position and standing up for equality for ALL people. The Scouts have won their legal right to discriminate in a 2000 Supreme Court decision, but they do not have the right to have it supported by taxpayers.
October 19, 2007
Could There Be Wide-Spread Homosexuality Among Catholic Priests
I give you a moment to get over the shock of the premise of that question. Seriously, though, a recent scandal in Rome has prompted a new inquiry into investigating gay priests according to this report from Newsweek.
The case has raised questions about the extent of homosexuality in the Vatican. Those who dismiss Stenico's explanation believe the priest may be part of a small "underground" gay community of Vatican officials. Some officials readily admit such a community exists, but according to one, "it's not a formal network through which they are able to protect themselves." Others have long regarded Rome as a haven for gay priests, sent to the Vatican because they would not survive in a parish. "Rome's famous for it," said one parish priest in Italy who asked not to be named. "They've got to go somewhere, and so are given something innocuous to do in Rome." For some, that perception was underscored last year, when a senior ranking monsignor was involved in a high-speed police chase after being pulled over in a Rome district known for male prostitution.
Ultimately I suspect this will only result in more unwanted publicity for an organization that really didn't need any more, the Roman Catholic church. Let's face it, the church has trouble attracting priests these days anyway, and given their requirement of celibacy, who do you THINK would be most likely to sign up for that? Not anyone who wants to have sex with women, that's for sure. If they start outing priests, the church's doctrine would require them to be removed from the priesthood, and one would think there would HAVE to be an awful lot of open spots they would be unable to fill.
I just don't see it happening, but either way there there will probably be yet another black eye for the Roman Catholic church to deal with.
The case has raised questions about the extent of homosexuality in the Vatican. Those who dismiss Stenico's explanation believe the priest may be part of a small "underground" gay community of Vatican officials. Some officials readily admit such a community exists, but according to one, "it's not a formal network through which they are able to protect themselves." Others have long regarded Rome as a haven for gay priests, sent to the Vatican because they would not survive in a parish. "Rome's famous for it," said one parish priest in Italy who asked not to be named. "They've got to go somewhere, and so are given something innocuous to do in Rome." For some, that perception was underscored last year, when a senior ranking monsignor was involved in a high-speed police chase after being pulled over in a Rome district known for male prostitution.
Ultimately I suspect this will only result in more unwanted publicity for an organization that really didn't need any more, the Roman Catholic church. Let's face it, the church has trouble attracting priests these days anyway, and given their requirement of celibacy, who do you THINK would be most likely to sign up for that? Not anyone who wants to have sex with women, that's for sure. If they start outing priests, the church's doctrine would require them to be removed from the priesthood, and one would think there would HAVE to be an awful lot of open spots they would be unable to fill.
I just don't see it happening, but either way there there will probably be yet another black eye for the Roman Catholic church to deal with.
Do Open and Affirming Churches Want to Be "Gay Churches?"
That's something I've been curious about ever since the first time I walked into my church nearly three years ago. When Pastor Brenda first invited me to Believers Covenant Fellowship, knowing that it was predominantly made up of gay and lesbian people, I wondered how they would accept a straight guy. From the first moment, I was shown nothing but love and acceptance, but I then wondered if they were an exception or if that was common among similar type churches.
I had an opportunity to discuss that with several people in GLBT ministry last night in preparation for our church's special Fall Renewal weekend (check out our website if you live near Northern Virginia--it will be a truly special spiritual experience). We have a number of guest ministers visiting from across the nation and Canada, and several of us met for dinner last night. As always at Apostle Dale's home, he wound up at the piano leading us in a spirited round of old time hymns and contemporary worship songs, but there was also some informal sharing time where we were swapping stories and sharing our different perspectives.
Pastor Brenda and I spent some time with Pastors Debbie and Sue from Living Water Fellowship in Kenmore, Washington (we are also happy to have them as our houseguests this weekend) and Pastor Dylan of Rainbow Community Church in Vancouver, British Columbia. Along with being wonderful people of God, they have also led their churches to be among the first affiliates of the Affirming Christian Network Internet ministry that Pastor Brenda and I have started.
At one point, the discussion turned to the makeup of our churches, and one point really jumped out at me.....no one there wanted to have a "gay church." Open and affirming to GLBT people, of course, but not one that excluded straight people either. I was really struck by the passion of their desire to have their congregations more inclusive of straight people. There was no interest of developing a sub-culture, which from my distant perspective it appears many African-American churches have done. I believe that does exist among some gay-affirming churches (I'm told of some experiences of straight people being unwelcome in Metropolitan Community Churches), but our group of Pentecostal style, Charismatic bible believing churches does want everyone to share worship together and share the love of Jesus on equal footing.
It was just more affirmation that I'm with the group I need to be with, the group that God wants me to be in ministry with. Funny how God works that way, isn't it?
I'm sure I have more to share from our Fall Renewal over the next few days. We've been anticipating this event for months and are expecting excitingspiritual revival to pour over us.
I had an opportunity to discuss that with several people in GLBT ministry last night in preparation for our church's special Fall Renewal weekend (check out our website if you live near Northern Virginia--it will be a truly special spiritual experience). We have a number of guest ministers visiting from across the nation and Canada, and several of us met for dinner last night. As always at Apostle Dale's home, he wound up at the piano leading us in a spirited round of old time hymns and contemporary worship songs, but there was also some informal sharing time where we were swapping stories and sharing our different perspectives.
Pastor Brenda and I spent some time with Pastors Debbie and Sue from Living Water Fellowship in Kenmore, Washington (we are also happy to have them as our houseguests this weekend) and Pastor Dylan of Rainbow Community Church in Vancouver, British Columbia. Along with being wonderful people of God, they have also led their churches to be among the first affiliates of the Affirming Christian Network Internet ministry that Pastor Brenda and I have started.
At one point, the discussion turned to the makeup of our churches, and one point really jumped out at me.....no one there wanted to have a "gay church." Open and affirming to GLBT people, of course, but not one that excluded straight people either. I was really struck by the passion of their desire to have their congregations more inclusive of straight people. There was no interest of developing a sub-culture, which from my distant perspective it appears many African-American churches have done. I believe that does exist among some gay-affirming churches (I'm told of some experiences of straight people being unwelcome in Metropolitan Community Churches), but our group of Pentecostal style, Charismatic bible believing churches does want everyone to share worship together and share the love of Jesus on equal footing.
It was just more affirmation that I'm with the group I need to be with, the group that God wants me to be in ministry with. Funny how God works that way, isn't it?
I'm sure I have more to share from our Fall Renewal over the next few days. We've been anticipating this event for months and are expecting excitingspiritual revival to pour over us.
October 18, 2007
Healing from Hurts Administered by "The Church"
Allow me to take a moment to add my perspective to one of the points I frequently hear from GLBT people—“I’ve had such a bad experience with the church.” I understand that and have heard some real horror stories. Many GLBT people would not allow you to drag them into a church at gunpoint. At the PFLAG convention Pastor Brenda and I attended last week, you could even see some of the straight family members veer away from our table when they noticed we were from a church.
It is critical to make this point. “The church” does not truly exist. Christianity has been splintered off to where there are very few basic concepts that all denominations would agree on. I listened to a recorded presentation from a Billy Graham Evangelistic Association Evangelism Training Conference that was very illuminating. The speaker broke down doctrine into three categories; foundation, conviction, and preference.
The list of items under foundation, those indisputable facts taken directly from scripture, were very short and did not venture much past Jesus being the Son of God and being resurrected from the dead. Convictions were beliefs that, while biblically based, were not indisputable. Preferences are mostly differences in how to approach worship; styles of music, types of prayers, etc.
The speaker pointed out that most conflict in churches (and he was speaking to an audience identified as being comprised of people from 59 different denominations) was caused by differences in conviction and preference. More importantly, he stated that it was the foundational beliefs and ONLY those that determined a person’s eternal destination—whether they would go to heaven or hell.
I bring that up here specifically for those who have been deeply wounded by their church experiences. If someone has told you that you would go to hell because you acted upon your homosexual experiences, they were speaking on their convictions, and convictions, being subject to interpretation of the scripture, can be wrong. If someone has called you an abomination, that was also from their convictions; how they read a passage from the Bible.
Ultimately, you relationship with narrow-minded people spewing judgment and condemnation in God’s name is just that, a relationship with people. All that ultimately matters is your relationship, and it is exactly that, a relationship, with Jesus Christ. If you have been in a church where people, even a pastor, told you that you could not have unless you renounced your homosexuality, they did that based on a conviction, not a fundamental fact.
There are churches like mine that, instead of pushing you away from God or requiring you to change, will teach you how to draw close, how to feel His love, and find the peace you have been seeking your entire life. Only Christ can heal the scars that hateful people have administered to your psyche, perhaps down to your very soul. I assure you, from first hand experience, that there are people in other churches that will love you as you are, where you are, and show you the path to receive the love that Jesus is so eager to give you.
The next time you hear someone state “the church’s” position on homosexuality, remember they are speaking only for THEIR church. There are others who will love you, nurture you, and accept you as God made you.
If you are seeking a church like that, I would be glad to help. Drop me a note at straight_notnarrow@yahoo.com.
It is critical to make this point. “The church” does not truly exist. Christianity has been splintered off to where there are very few basic concepts that all denominations would agree on. I listened to a recorded presentation from a Billy Graham Evangelistic Association Evangelism Training Conference that was very illuminating. The speaker broke down doctrine into three categories; foundation, conviction, and preference.
The list of items under foundation, those indisputable facts taken directly from scripture, were very short and did not venture much past Jesus being the Son of God and being resurrected from the dead. Convictions were beliefs that, while biblically based, were not indisputable. Preferences are mostly differences in how to approach worship; styles of music, types of prayers, etc.
The speaker pointed out that most conflict in churches (and he was speaking to an audience identified as being comprised of people from 59 different denominations) was caused by differences in conviction and preference. More importantly, he stated that it was the foundational beliefs and ONLY those that determined a person’s eternal destination—whether they would go to heaven or hell.
I bring that up here specifically for those who have been deeply wounded by their church experiences. If someone has told you that you would go to hell because you acted upon your homosexual experiences, they were speaking on their convictions, and convictions, being subject to interpretation of the scripture, can be wrong. If someone has called you an abomination, that was also from their convictions; how they read a passage from the Bible.
Ultimately, you relationship with narrow-minded people spewing judgment and condemnation in God’s name is just that, a relationship with people. All that ultimately matters is your relationship, and it is exactly that, a relationship, with Jesus Christ. If you have been in a church where people, even a pastor, told you that you could not have unless you renounced your homosexuality, they did that based on a conviction, not a fundamental fact.
There are churches like mine that, instead of pushing you away from God or requiring you to change, will teach you how to draw close, how to feel His love, and find the peace you have been seeking your entire life. Only Christ can heal the scars that hateful people have administered to your psyche, perhaps down to your very soul. I assure you, from first hand experience, that there are people in other churches that will love you as you are, where you are, and show you the path to receive the love that Jesus is so eager to give you.
The next time you hear someone state “the church’s” position on homosexuality, remember they are speaking only for THEIR church. There are others who will love you, nurture you, and accept you as God made you.
If you are seeking a church like that, I would be glad to help. Drop me a note at straight_notnarrow@yahoo.com.
October 17, 2007
Can Right Wing Operatives Gain Just a Touch of Perspective?
Here is the latest push from the Liberty Counsel, the right-wing legal activist organization spawned by the late Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. From One News Now, the reporting arm of the American Family Association:
A Christian legal organization has launched a petition drive asking Radio Disney to stop censoring the word "God" from advertising promoting the new movie, The Ten Commandments.
Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver says he recently received a copy of an email from a Radio Disney advertising executive that instructed that the phrase "chosen by God" be omitted from ads playing on the network. The animated movie by Promenade Pictures opens this Friday in theaters nationwide.
During the previews to the movie, Staver appears in a three-minute video promoting the film, talking about the importance of the Ten Commandments to the modern legal system. He says it is shocking that Radio Disney would censor the word "God" from ads promoting the movie.
"This movie is an epic. It is obviously part and parcel that God is part of this movie, that God chose Moses to lead His people out of bondage and gave him the Ten Commandments that have profoundly influenced our notions of right and wrong," the attorney states. "Yet to censor God from the Ten Commandments is actually just unbelievable. So we are asking people around the country to make their voice known."
Staver encourages people to sign the online petition, found on the Liberty Counsel website, and to call Radio Disney to protest the policy. He says his organization plans to flood Radio Disney's email with the petitions and that the quicker people sign the petitions, the quicker they will be sent.
Are you kidding me? I will grant that it does seem odd to promote a movie about the Ten Commandments without using God, if that is indeed the case. Fair enough.
It sickens me, however, that whenever the religious right has their very sensitive senibilities offended, their tender feathers ruffled, they have to become a nuisance to whoever they deem to be the offending party. The AFA is also famous for doing this, and have already sent out e-mails about "defending Christmas."
Is God truly diminished by His name being omitted from the advertising of a movie about, well, Him? Is he that easily offended? I doubt it, but apparently there are plenty of people willing to take offense in His name and defend His honor.
I just wish they could take all of that energy and put it toward something constructive like collecting coats for the homeless with the cold weather coming up soon, or working to expand health care for children in this nation instead of fighting to restrict it.
You know, the kind of work Jesus would be doing if he walked the earth right now.
A Christian legal organization has launched a petition drive asking Radio Disney to stop censoring the word "God" from advertising promoting the new movie, The Ten Commandments.
Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver says he recently received a copy of an email from a Radio Disney advertising executive that instructed that the phrase "chosen by God" be omitted from ads playing on the network. The animated movie by Promenade Pictures opens this Friday in theaters nationwide.
During the previews to the movie, Staver appears in a three-minute video promoting the film, talking about the importance of the Ten Commandments to the modern legal system. He says it is shocking that Radio Disney would censor the word "God" from ads promoting the movie.
"This movie is an epic. It is obviously part and parcel that God is part of this movie, that God chose Moses to lead His people out of bondage and gave him the Ten Commandments that have profoundly influenced our notions of right and wrong," the attorney states. "Yet to censor God from the Ten Commandments is actually just unbelievable. So we are asking people around the country to make their voice known."
Staver encourages people to sign the online petition, found on the Liberty Counsel website, and to call Radio Disney to protest the policy. He says his organization plans to flood Radio Disney's email with the petitions and that the quicker people sign the petitions, the quicker they will be sent.
Are you kidding me? I will grant that it does seem odd to promote a movie about the Ten Commandments without using God, if that is indeed the case. Fair enough.
It sickens me, however, that whenever the religious right has their very sensitive senibilities offended, their tender feathers ruffled, they have to become a nuisance to whoever they deem to be the offending party. The AFA is also famous for doing this, and have already sent out e-mails about "defending Christmas."
Is God truly diminished by His name being omitted from the advertising of a movie about, well, Him? Is he that easily offended? I doubt it, but apparently there are plenty of people willing to take offense in His name and defend His honor.
I just wish they could take all of that energy and put it toward something constructive like collecting coats for the homeless with the cold weather coming up soon, or working to expand health care for children in this nation instead of fighting to restrict it.
You know, the kind of work Jesus would be doing if he walked the earth right now.
October 16, 2007
"Ex-Gay Harm: Let Me Count the Ways"
One of the most contentious points in the ongoing debate regarding the concept of becoming an "ex-gay" is that of the amount of harm the process can do to someone seeking to be changed but not realizing any perceptible difference after going through counseling, sometimes after spending years of their life and thousands of dollars trying to rid themselves of homosexual attractions. They are often motivated by familes or churches telling them they are "aborations to God" or sexual deviants, among other lovely things.
I have not come across anyone who has provided a more intimate, up-close, and personal view into this than Peterson Toscano. Peterson is an entertainer, blogger, and activist who journeyed through a personal hell trying to get to the point where he could be comfortable living as a straight man. That effort failed miserably, and he has devoted much time and energy to helping others avoid the pain he went through. He cofounded the organization "Beyond Ex-Gay" to reach out to more people than he could individually.
I share this with you because Peterson has posted a blog entry titled, "Ex-Gay Harm: Let Me Count the Ways" and was kind enough to share it with me:
In the past 4.5 years I have been in contact with over 1000 ex-gay survivors. These are people who pursued ex-gay experiences, either on their own, or more often, assisted by others like a therapist, minister, ex-gay program. They attempted to change or suppress their sexual orientation and may have referred to themselves as ex-gays or simply strugglers or by some other name.
Through hearing their stories (some of which are posted on Beyond Ex-Gay--bXg) and in unpacking my own ex-gay journey, I have begun to understand the many ways people can be harmed by their ex-gay experiences. Many of us also received certain benefits from our ex-gay experiences, but in most cases the harm outweighs the good.
I realize that the ex-gay experience is not the only culprit in bringing harm. The anti-gay church and a homophobic society and in many cases one's own family contributes to the damage. But what the ex-gay experience does is deepen that harm by offering hope for some sort of change or freedom. Led by sincere and caring people, our ex-gay programs, therapists and ministers encouraged us and because of their kindness and sincerity, we often pressed on long after we realized the it was not working. Only afterwards did we began to understand the trauma we introduced into our lives as a result of submitting to ex-gay experiences.
Below is a list of categories outlining areas of harm along with brief descriptions for each. I invite ex-gay survivors to leave comments with specific examples and further explanations for any of the categories that resonate for them. They can even add new categories.
(warning: this can be heavy stuff to look at, so before you do, make sure you feel somewhat prepared and aware that this might bring up stuff for you)
If you are confused about how to handle same-sex attractions you are experiencing and have considered pursuing the "ex-gay" route, it is imparitive that you click through to Peterson's blog entry and not just read it, but study what he writes and decide if you really want to subject yourself to some if not all of the damaging issues that can manifest during that therapy/counseling.
If you are someone who has encouraged a person to take this path, or if you have supported an ex-gay ministry in the past, I emplore you to carefully review Peterson's post and reconsider your approach.
I have not come across anyone who has provided a more intimate, up-close, and personal view into this than Peterson Toscano. Peterson is an entertainer, blogger, and activist who journeyed through a personal hell trying to get to the point where he could be comfortable living as a straight man. That effort failed miserably, and he has devoted much time and energy to helping others avoid the pain he went through. He cofounded the organization "Beyond Ex-Gay" to reach out to more people than he could individually.
I share this with you because Peterson has posted a blog entry titled, "Ex-Gay Harm: Let Me Count the Ways" and was kind enough to share it with me:
In the past 4.5 years I have been in contact with over 1000 ex-gay survivors. These are people who pursued ex-gay experiences, either on their own, or more often, assisted by others like a therapist, minister, ex-gay program. They attempted to change or suppress their sexual orientation and may have referred to themselves as ex-gays or simply strugglers or by some other name.
Through hearing their stories (some of which are posted on Beyond Ex-Gay--bXg) and in unpacking my own ex-gay journey, I have begun to understand the many ways people can be harmed by their ex-gay experiences. Many of us also received certain benefits from our ex-gay experiences, but in most cases the harm outweighs the good.
I realize that the ex-gay experience is not the only culprit in bringing harm. The anti-gay church and a homophobic society and in many cases one's own family contributes to the damage. But what the ex-gay experience does is deepen that harm by offering hope for some sort of change or freedom. Led by sincere and caring people, our ex-gay programs, therapists and ministers encouraged us and because of their kindness and sincerity, we often pressed on long after we realized the it was not working. Only afterwards did we began to understand the trauma we introduced into our lives as a result of submitting to ex-gay experiences.
Below is a list of categories outlining areas of harm along with brief descriptions for each. I invite ex-gay survivors to leave comments with specific examples and further explanations for any of the categories that resonate for them. They can even add new categories.
(warning: this can be heavy stuff to look at, so before you do, make sure you feel somewhat prepared and aware that this might bring up stuff for you)
If you are confused about how to handle same-sex attractions you are experiencing and have considered pursuing the "ex-gay" route, it is imparitive that you click through to Peterson's blog entry and not just read it, but study what he writes and decide if you really want to subject yourself to some if not all of the damaging issues that can manifest during that therapy/counseling.
If you are someone who has encouraged a person to take this path, or if you have supported an ex-gay ministry in the past, I emplore you to carefully review Peterson's post and reconsider your approach.
Religious Right Flexing Its Muscle in Australia
America is not the only nation where the religous right is working to influence policy and elections. Focusing on a campaign against gay equality, there is a like minded group, the Australian Christian Lobby, rising down under that is trying to influence the upcoming general election.
From PinkNews
The Australian Christina Lobby is committed to fighting gay equality.
"We reject HREOC's attempts to normalise same-sex relationships by extending the definition of de facto marriage and redefining parenthood.
"Such a move plays directly into the hands of activists whose long-term aim has been to redefine marriage and family," the group said in a pre-election statement.
That phrase, "normalis(z)e same-sex relationships", always pisses me off, with the clear implication that people with same-sex orientations are abnormal, which in the minds of religious right zealots means not like them.
It's sad to see that bigotry in God's name is not limited to this continent. Hopefully GLBT advocates in Australia will be able to push back and not let this organization gain an even stronger foothold than it appears they already have.
From PinkNews
The Australian Christina Lobby is committed to fighting gay equality.
"We reject HREOC's attempts to normalise same-sex relationships by extending the definition of de facto marriage and redefining parenthood.
"Such a move plays directly into the hands of activists whose long-term aim has been to redefine marriage and family," the group said in a pre-election statement.
That phrase, "normalis(z)e same-sex relationships", always pisses me off, with the clear implication that people with same-sex orientations are abnormal, which in the minds of religious right zealots means not like them.
It's sad to see that bigotry in God's name is not limited to this continent. Hopefully GLBT advocates in Australia will be able to push back and not let this organization gain an even stronger foothold than it appears they already have.
October 15, 2007
This Just In: Christians Considered Judgemental and Anti-Gay
The Barna Group has released results of a survey conducted among people ages 16-29 that reveals a very negative perception of Christians and Christianity in general.
From the USA Today:
Majorities of young people in America describe modern-day Christianity as judgmental, hypocritical and anti-gay. What's more, many Christians don't even want to call themselves "Christian" because of the baggage that accompanies the label.
A new book based on research by the California-based research firm The Barna Group found that church attitudes about people in general and gays in particular are driving a negative image of the Christian faith among people ages 16-29.
"The Christian community's ability to take the high road and help to deal with some of the challenges that this (anti-gay) perception represents may be the ... defining response of the Christian church in the next decade," said David Kinnaman, Barna Group president and author of the book, UnChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity.
"The anti-homosexual perception has now become sort of the Geiger counter of Christians' ability to love and work with people."
This is a very strong final statement and one that I strongly agree with. Christ did not show any indication of witholding his love from someone based on their sexual orientation, yet many Christians do just that under the guise of "hate the sin, love the sinner." Guess what part of that comes across the most clearly to people? I've said this before but it bears repeating; we are a LOT better at hating than loving, and if try to combine the two, hate will invariably rule the day.
If people can not clearly see the light of Christ in the life and through the actions of a Christian, that is way off the mark from the example Jesus set for us to live by.
Apparently people notice that.
From the USA Today:
Majorities of young people in America describe modern-day Christianity as judgmental, hypocritical and anti-gay. What's more, many Christians don't even want to call themselves "Christian" because of the baggage that accompanies the label.
A new book based on research by the California-based research firm The Barna Group found that church attitudes about people in general and gays in particular are driving a negative image of the Christian faith among people ages 16-29.
"The Christian community's ability to take the high road and help to deal with some of the challenges that this (anti-gay) perception represents may be the ... defining response of the Christian church in the next decade," said David Kinnaman, Barna Group president and author of the book, UnChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity.
"The anti-homosexual perception has now become sort of the Geiger counter of Christians' ability to love and work with people."
This is a very strong final statement and one that I strongly agree with. Christ did not show any indication of witholding his love from someone based on their sexual orientation, yet many Christians do just that under the guise of "hate the sin, love the sinner." Guess what part of that comes across the most clearly to people? I've said this before but it bears repeating; we are a LOT better at hating than loving, and if try to combine the two, hate will invariably rule the day.
If people can not clearly see the light of Christ in the life and through the actions of a Christian, that is way off the mark from the example Jesus set for us to live by.
Apparently people notice that.
October 14, 2007
Has Gay Inclusiveness Gone Too Far Too Fast?
That provocative question is the topic of a column at Salon.com by John Aravosis, a longtime gay rights advocate and editor of Americablog.
I have a sense that over the past decade the trans revolution was imposed on the gay community from outside, or at least above, and thus it never stuck with a large number of gays who weren't running national organizations, weren't activists, or weren't living in liberal gay enclaves like San Francisco and New York. Sure, many of the rest of us accepted de facto that transgendered people were members of the community, but only because our leaders kept telling us it was so. A lot of gays have been scratching their heads for 10 years trying to figure out what they have in common with transsexuals, or at the very least why transgendered people qualify as our siblings rather than our cousins. It's a fair question, but one we know we dare not ask. It is simply not p.c. in the gay community to question how and why the T got added on to the LGB, let alone ask what I as a gay man have in common with a man who wants to cut off his penis, surgically construct a vagina, and become a woman. I'm not passing judgment, I respect transgendered people and sympathize with their cause, but I simply don't get how I am just as closely related to a transsexual (who is often not gay) as I am to a lesbian (who is). Is it wrong for me to simply ask why?
No, it's not wrong to ask the question. Actually, it's a very good one.
I support transgendered rights. But I'm not naive. If there are still lingering questions in the gay community about gender identity 10 years after our leaders embraced the T -- and there are -- then imagine how conflicted straight members of Congress are when asked to pass a civil rights bill for a woman who used to be a man. We're not talking right and wrong here, we're talking political reality. Our own community is still grappling with this issue. Yet we expect members of Congress, who took 30 years to embrace a gay ENDA, to welcome the T's into the bill in only five months.
That's why James Dobson, Tony Perkins and the men at the Concerned Women for America are so hell-bent on defeating ENDA. To the religious right, ENDA without gender identity isn't a weak, meaningless bill fraught with loopholes. Our enemies know that passage of any federal gay civil rights legislation is a legislative and cultural milestone that would make it that much easier for all of us -- gays and lesbians, bisexuals and eventually even the transgendered -- to realize all of our civil rights in our lifetime.
I agree with Aravosis about the political reality of ENDA (as I've previously written here), but there is another important question that he does not address--if transgender people can't partner up with gays and lesbians, then who WILL advocate for them? I fear the answer is no one, and, if left to fend for themselves, they wouldn't even register a blip on the political radar.
Now wouldn't that be a step BACK for civil rights?
I have a sense that over the past decade the trans revolution was imposed on the gay community from outside, or at least above, and thus it never stuck with a large number of gays who weren't running national organizations, weren't activists, or weren't living in liberal gay enclaves like San Francisco and New York. Sure, many of the rest of us accepted de facto that transgendered people were members of the community, but only because our leaders kept telling us it was so. A lot of gays have been scratching their heads for 10 years trying to figure out what they have in common with transsexuals, or at the very least why transgendered people qualify as our siblings rather than our cousins. It's a fair question, but one we know we dare not ask. It is simply not p.c. in the gay community to question how and why the T got added on to the LGB, let alone ask what I as a gay man have in common with a man who wants to cut off his penis, surgically construct a vagina, and become a woman. I'm not passing judgment, I respect transgendered people and sympathize with their cause, but I simply don't get how I am just as closely related to a transsexual (who is often not gay) as I am to a lesbian (who is). Is it wrong for me to simply ask why?
No, it's not wrong to ask the question. Actually, it's a very good one.
I support transgendered rights. But I'm not naive. If there are still lingering questions in the gay community about gender identity 10 years after our leaders embraced the T -- and there are -- then imagine how conflicted straight members of Congress are when asked to pass a civil rights bill for a woman who used to be a man. We're not talking right and wrong here, we're talking political reality. Our own community is still grappling with this issue. Yet we expect members of Congress, who took 30 years to embrace a gay ENDA, to welcome the T's into the bill in only five months.
That's why James Dobson, Tony Perkins and the men at the Concerned Women for America are so hell-bent on defeating ENDA. To the religious right, ENDA without gender identity isn't a weak, meaningless bill fraught with loopholes. Our enemies know that passage of any federal gay civil rights legislation is a legislative and cultural milestone that would make it that much easier for all of us -- gays and lesbians, bisexuals and eventually even the transgendered -- to realize all of our civil rights in our lifetime.
I agree with Aravosis about the political reality of ENDA (as I've previously written here), but there is another important question that he does not address--if transgender people can't partner up with gays and lesbians, then who WILL advocate for them? I fear the answer is no one, and, if left to fend for themselves, they wouldn't even register a blip on the political radar.
Now wouldn't that be a step BACK for civil rights?
"Are Christians Contributing to Unbelief?"
That's the question asked in this article on The Christian Post by conservative writer S. Michael Craven.
Could it be that our own actions are causing the religiously-inclined but nonetheless lost to doubt the existence of God? Is it possible that the Church is pushing people toward unbelief by virtue of its approach to culture and the world? Has Christianity become so politically defined that true faith and the person of Jesus Christ is obscured in the minds of many? Is it possible that Christians are conducting themselves in such a way that the spiritually seeking are looking anywhere but to Christ? I don't know for sure but I certainly think it is possible and that is enough to make me examine my self in light of these questions. It should cause us all to examine ourselves.
From the balance of Mr. Craven's article, I would surmise that his idea of corrective action is quite different from mine, but I do take some consolation that someone of the conservative ilk is even asking those questions.
I firmly believe the hatefulness and judgementalism of right-wing, anti-gay Christians is a big factor in the recent trend of atheisim becoming cool. If people are going to accept the existence of God, not to mention take him as their Lord and Savior, they need to see the light of Christ through people's lives. If they see something different on a consistent basis, then I can understand how they come to believe that God either does not exist or is impotent and of no value to them.
In Matthew 5:16, Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount:
.....let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.
If the light is not there in our lives, yet we claim to follow Jesus, then what is there for others to praise?
Not much, and that's a serious problem. If you profess to be a Christian, let me suggest you take a look in the mirror and try to understand how others see you. If they aren't seeing the light of Christ through your life, it's time to change the bulb and let it shine brightly.
It DOES make a difference.
Could it be that our own actions are causing the religiously-inclined but nonetheless lost to doubt the existence of God? Is it possible that the Church is pushing people toward unbelief by virtue of its approach to culture and the world? Has Christianity become so politically defined that true faith and the person of Jesus Christ is obscured in the minds of many? Is it possible that Christians are conducting themselves in such a way that the spiritually seeking are looking anywhere but to Christ? I don't know for sure but I certainly think it is possible and that is enough to make me examine my self in light of these questions. It should cause us all to examine ourselves.
From the balance of Mr. Craven's article, I would surmise that his idea of corrective action is quite different from mine, but I do take some consolation that someone of the conservative ilk is even asking those questions.
I firmly believe the hatefulness and judgementalism of right-wing, anti-gay Christians is a big factor in the recent trend of atheisim becoming cool. If people are going to accept the existence of God, not to mention take him as their Lord and Savior, they need to see the light of Christ through people's lives. If they see something different on a consistent basis, then I can understand how they come to believe that God either does not exist or is impotent and of no value to them.
In Matthew 5:16, Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount:
.....let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.
If the light is not there in our lives, yet we claim to follow Jesus, then what is there for others to praise?
Not much, and that's a serious problem. If you profess to be a Christian, let me suggest you take a look in the mirror and try to understand how others see you. If they aren't seeing the light of Christ through your life, it's time to change the bulb and let it shine brightly.
It DOES make a difference.
October 13, 2007
"Gay Animals out of the Closet?"
That's the title of an article from MSNBC (thanks to the Washington Blade for the tip).
I am firmly convinced our cat, "Cuddles," is gay, so it's nice to see that he has plenty of company in the animal kingdom.
From male killer whales that ride the dorsal fin of another male to female bonobos that rub their genitals together, the animal kingdom tolerates all kinds of lifestyles.
A first-ever museum display, "Against Nature?," which opened last month at the University of Oslo's Natural History Museum in Norway, presents 51 species of animals exhibiting homosexuality.
"Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them," said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition.
I am firmly convinced our cat, "Cuddles," is gay, so it's nice to see that he has plenty of company in the animal kingdom.
From male killer whales that ride the dorsal fin of another male to female bonobos that rub their genitals together, the animal kingdom tolerates all kinds of lifestyles.
A first-ever museum display, "Against Nature?," which opened last month at the University of Oslo's Natural History Museum in Norway, presents 51 species of animals exhibiting homosexuality.
"Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them," said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition.
October 12, 2007
Positive Movement on ENDA
There is some encouraging news on the status of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act today. This from the Human Rights Campaign:
The Human Rights Campaign has collaborated with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to craft a solution to the controversy surrounding the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Today, in a meeting with HRC and other gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender advocacy groups, Speaker Pelosi took an unprecedented step and committed to giving H.R. 2015, the fully-inclusive version of the bill, a floor vote in the House once enough support for it to pass has been secured. This commitment by the Speaker of the House is an unprecedented departure from the usual delays seen in Congress on an issue that will have already been considered by the full House.
Additionally, as the community continues to advocate and educate Members of Congress to secure enough commitments for final passage, the inclusive version of the legislation will receive committee hearings.
Although H.R. 3685, the version of the bill that provides workplace protections on the basis of sexual orientation only, will move to committee mark-up next week, Speaker Pelosi has given HRC her word that as soon as the commitments to pass a fully-inclusive ENDA are acquired, she will move that bill ahead.
“Speaker Pelosi’s promise to put a fully-inclusive ENDA to a vote continues to underline HRC’s passionate advocacy on behalf of the entire GLBT community,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “Our strategy throughout has been to stay at the table and fight for the ultimate goal that we all share. Today, that strategy has proven to be successful. With this commitment, the inclusive ENDA bill will continue to receive legislative action as it moves through the committee hearing process during the time HRC, and other coalition organizations, continue to advocate directly with Members to support this critical inclusive workplace protection bill.”
Solmonese continued, “Since the introduction of a sexual orientation only ENDA, HRC has ramped up its efforts to push for a fully inclusive ENDA that protects our whole community. Through calls to action to our supporters and frequent visits to Capitol Hill by our staff, Board of Directors and volunteers, HRC has fought hard to receive the kind of commitment that Speaker Pelosi gave us today.”
HRC has generated more that 80,000 calls, e-mails, letters and visits to Capitol Hill—more than any other GLBT or allied organization.
“Now the real work begins,” continued Solmonese. “We must maintain the momentum we have built up to persist in educating members of Congress and the public about issues facing the transgender community. HRC will continue to lead the lobbying and education campaign until we reach the goal we all share—workplace protections for the entire GLBT community.”
The Human Rights Campaign has collaborated with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to craft a solution to the controversy surrounding the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Today, in a meeting with HRC and other gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender advocacy groups, Speaker Pelosi took an unprecedented step and committed to giving H.R. 2015, the fully-inclusive version of the bill, a floor vote in the House once enough support for it to pass has been secured. This commitment by the Speaker of the House is an unprecedented departure from the usual delays seen in Congress on an issue that will have already been considered by the full House.
Additionally, as the community continues to advocate and educate Members of Congress to secure enough commitments for final passage, the inclusive version of the legislation will receive committee hearings.
Although H.R. 3685, the version of the bill that provides workplace protections on the basis of sexual orientation only, will move to committee mark-up next week, Speaker Pelosi has given HRC her word that as soon as the commitments to pass a fully-inclusive ENDA are acquired, she will move that bill ahead.
“Speaker Pelosi’s promise to put a fully-inclusive ENDA to a vote continues to underline HRC’s passionate advocacy on behalf of the entire GLBT community,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “Our strategy throughout has been to stay at the table and fight for the ultimate goal that we all share. Today, that strategy has proven to be successful. With this commitment, the inclusive ENDA bill will continue to receive legislative action as it moves through the committee hearing process during the time HRC, and other coalition organizations, continue to advocate directly with Members to support this critical inclusive workplace protection bill.”
Solmonese continued, “Since the introduction of a sexual orientation only ENDA, HRC has ramped up its efforts to push for a fully inclusive ENDA that protects our whole community. Through calls to action to our supporters and frequent visits to Capitol Hill by our staff, Board of Directors and volunteers, HRC has fought hard to receive the kind of commitment that Speaker Pelosi gave us today.”
HRC has generated more that 80,000 calls, e-mails, letters and visits to Capitol Hill—more than any other GLBT or allied organization.
“Now the real work begins,” continued Solmonese. “We must maintain the momentum we have built up to persist in educating members of Congress and the public about issues facing the transgender community. HRC will continue to lead the lobbying and education campaign until we reach the goal we all share—workplace protections for the entire GLBT community.”
If Dear Abby Says It's OK, Then It Must Be
From The Advocate:
For years rumblings have surfaced on the Internet, conjecture about her casual references to ''sexual orientation'' and ''respect.''
Now Dear Abby is ready to say it flatly: She supports same-sex marriage.
''I believe if two people want to commit to each other, God bless 'em,'' the syndicated advice columnist told the Associated Press. ''That is the highest form of commitment, for heaven's sake.''
What Jeanne Phillips, a.k.a. Abigail Van Buren, finds offensive and misguided are homophobic jokes, phrases like ''That's so gay,'' and parents who reject or try to reform their children when they come out of the closet.
Her views are the reason she's being honored this week by Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, a national advocacy group that provides support for gay people and their families. The original Abby, Phillips's 89-year-old mother, Pauline, helped put PFLAG on the map in 1984 when she first referred a distraught parent to the organization.
Jeanne Phillips, who formally took over the column when her mother was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease five years ago, has continued plugging the group, as well as its affiliate for parents with children who identify as transgender, and a suicide hotline aimed at gay teenagers.
''I'm trying to tell kids if they are gay, it's OK to be gay. I've tried to tell families if they have a gay family member to accept them and love them as they always have,'' she said Friday.
If you're going to solicit advice from someone, a person who is accepting of EVERYONE is a pretty good choice. Kudos to Dear Abby and congratulations on receiving PFLAG's first "Straight For Equality" award.
For years rumblings have surfaced on the Internet, conjecture about her casual references to ''sexual orientation'' and ''respect.''
Now Dear Abby is ready to say it flatly: She supports same-sex marriage.
''I believe if two people want to commit to each other, God bless 'em,'' the syndicated advice columnist told the Associated Press. ''That is the highest form of commitment, for heaven's sake.''
What Jeanne Phillips, a.k.a. Abigail Van Buren, finds offensive and misguided are homophobic jokes, phrases like ''That's so gay,'' and parents who reject or try to reform their children when they come out of the closet.
Her views are the reason she's being honored this week by Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, a national advocacy group that provides support for gay people and their families. The original Abby, Phillips's 89-year-old mother, Pauline, helped put PFLAG on the map in 1984 when she first referred a distraught parent to the organization.
Jeanne Phillips, who formally took over the column when her mother was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease five years ago, has continued plugging the group, as well as its affiliate for parents with children who identify as transgender, and a suicide hotline aimed at gay teenagers.
''I'm trying to tell kids if they are gay, it's OK to be gay. I've tried to tell families if they have a gay family member to accept them and love them as they always have,'' she said Friday.
If you're going to solicit advice from someone, a person who is accepting of EVERYONE is a pretty good choice. Kudos to Dear Abby and congratulations on receiving PFLAG's first "Straight For Equality" award.
October 11, 2007
The 16th Edition of the International Carnival of Pozitivities Is Available
From Ron Hudson,
The 16th edition of the ICP is now available at Ogre’s Politics and Views. This edition represents an attempt to reach out to a conservative political community about HIV/AIDS. It is my hope that our messages might encourage those who normally do not come in contact with the issues of HIV/AIDS to think about how to help us fight the pandemic. We have poetry, video, personal accounts and news from around the world.
This in an interesting theme they're using for this edition, and there is always an interesting variety of contributions. If you have any interest in how people deal with AIDS, this blog is always worth checking out.
The 16th edition of the ICP is now available at Ogre’s Politics and Views. This edition represents an attempt to reach out to a conservative political community about HIV/AIDS. It is my hope that our messages might encourage those who normally do not come in contact with the issues of HIV/AIDS to think about how to help us fight the pandemic. We have poetry, video, personal accounts and news from around the world.
This in an interesting theme they're using for this edition, and there is always an interesting variety of contributions. If you have any interest in how people deal with AIDS, this blog is always worth checking out.
Let's Get Personal
The more things change, the better they get if you're seeking God's will in your life. That's what Pastor Brenda and I are experiencing in our lives right now, and it's a very exciting time, especially for me. I've mentioned our church, Believers Covenant Fellowship in northern Virginia, on a fairly regular basis and told you that my wife Brenda is a Pastor there. I've also shared some about Apostle Dale, the leader of our little church. Well, they've gone and done it now--I've been appointed as a Pastor In Training.
That's right, for you fans of the old "Taxi" television show, in a year I'm on track to be Reverend Jim.
I hope it's no surprise for readers here that I am a practicing Christian, but the pastor part just might be. When I told my two best friends the news, their initial reaction was "Wow!" If I take a step back and look at my life three years ago today, when my beloved wife Bette suddenly passed away, to where I am now, happily married to Brenda, and advocating for the GLBT community in politics and the church, it's hard for me not to say WOW myself!
I am answering the call I have been hearing for a while now and moving into the ministry with the goal of being able to devote myself to it full time sooner rather than later. God has blessed me beyond any reasonable measure.
As I transition into this next phase of my life, you'll notice the content here change a bit. I'll still be posting about the important political and social issues facing the GLBT community, but I'll also be writing about my journey into the ministry, sharing what I learn along the way. I hope you will find it of value. I'll also share a bit more about my life, put myself out there more than I have so far. I had thought of starting another blog, but I decided against essentially establishing two identities for myself. GLBT advocacy, serving Jesus Christ, and life itself--it all works together and, as Paul wrote in Romans 8:28, it works to the good for those who love God.
I had a hard time swallowing that three years ago after losing my wife, but I'm living proof that those words are true. I hope you read something here that helps you believe that too.
That's right, for you fans of the old "Taxi" television show, in a year I'm on track to be Reverend Jim.
I hope it's no surprise for readers here that I am a practicing Christian, but the pastor part just might be. When I told my two best friends the news, their initial reaction was "Wow!" If I take a step back and look at my life three years ago today, when my beloved wife Bette suddenly passed away, to where I am now, happily married to Brenda, and advocating for the GLBT community in politics and the church, it's hard for me not to say WOW myself!
I am answering the call I have been hearing for a while now and moving into the ministry with the goal of being able to devote myself to it full time sooner rather than later. God has blessed me beyond any reasonable measure.
As I transition into this next phase of my life, you'll notice the content here change a bit. I'll still be posting about the important political and social issues facing the GLBT community, but I'll also be writing about my journey into the ministry, sharing what I learn along the way. I hope you will find it of value. I'll also share a bit more about my life, put myself out there more than I have so far. I had thought of starting another blog, but I decided against essentially establishing two identities for myself. GLBT advocacy, serving Jesus Christ, and life itself--it all works together and, as Paul wrote in Romans 8:28, it works to the good for those who love God.
I had a hard time swallowing that three years ago after losing my wife, but I'm living proof that those words are true. I hope you read something here that helps you believe that too.
Come Meet Us at the PFLAG Convention
Pastor Brenda and I will be manning a booth for our church, Believers Covenant Fellowship, at the annual PFLAG Convention on Friday. They were nice enough to hold it within a short drive of our church, so we decided to participate and let more people know who we were. We'll also have information on our Internet ministry project, Affirming Christian Network. We're looking forward to meeting a lot more straight, not narrow folks there.
October 10, 2007
October 11 is National Coming Out Day
The Human Rights Campaign has a webpage with a video and several resources coving various issues related to coming out, and it is well worth checking out if you are at the point where you are giving that serious consideration.
For what it's worth, I strongly encourage you, if you are gay or lesbian, to take the huge leap of faith needed to come out and publicly acknowledge how God made you. It is critically important for friends, family, and members of the faith community, both GLBT and straight allies, to support those who have the courage to take this life-changing step forward in their lives.
I will offer a prayer to everyone struggling with this decision and assure you that, despite what many people say, God is with you and will bless your life just the way He made you.
If anyone has any encouragement and/or experiences related to coming out they would like to share, I would encourage you to post a comment here and do so.
For what it's worth, I strongly encourage you, if you are gay or lesbian, to take the huge leap of faith needed to come out and publicly acknowledge how God made you. It is critically important for friends, family, and members of the faith community, both GLBT and straight allies, to support those who have the courage to take this life-changing step forward in their lives.
I will offer a prayer to everyone struggling with this decision and assure you that, despite what many people say, God is with you and will bless your life just the way He made you.
If anyone has any encouragement and/or experiences related to coming out they would like to share, I would encourage you to post a comment here and do so.
"Sometimes (Bible) Passages Can Be Interpreted Differently"
I'll bet you didn't expect that headline quote to come from a Southern Baptist preacher, did you? Well, I'm happy to say, it did. From the AFA's One News Now:
In a recent post on his personal Internet site -- also known as a "blog" -- Wade Burleson, pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid, Oklahoma, said while he agrees that the essentials of the gospel should not be compromised, he believes too many pastors and leaders have dogmatic interpretations of tertiary, or secondary, issues in scripture. He notes those individuals sometimes refuse to fellowship with those who disagree with them on those secondary issues.
Pastors in the Southern Baptist Convention must be sure that their views line up with scripture, he says, and not tradition. "I guess what I'm saying is, when somebody says, 'Thus saith the Lord, ' they need to be really, really sure the Lord is saying it," he cautions. "And somebody [responds], 'But it's in the Bible.' Well, of course it is -- but sometimes passages can be interpreted differently."
Burleson made headlines two years ago when, as a committee member on the International Mission Board, he questioned a proposal regarding the use of a private prayer language for missionary candidates. He feels that situation illustrates the problems that can be caused by dogmatic interpretations of scripture on secondary issues.
"Baptists traditionally have said that tongues have ceased; but that's an interpretation of the sacred text," he says. "There are some conservative, Bible-believing Christians who believe that the gift of tongues continues as it did in the days of the apostles. I think both sides need to take a humble approach and say this is what I believe, but I could be wrong."
Burleson has been criticized in the past for posting information on his blog site that some Southern Baptist officials said was never meant for the public.
It's nice to see that same-sex "marriage" isn't the only word they put in quotes.
The point that Rev. Burleson makes is critical to the entire issue of the acceptance of homosexuality by the church. Some churches, small ones like mine or entire denominations like the Metropolitan Community Church, interpret scriptures to either accept or stay neutral on the issue of committed same-sex relationships. Many others, like the Southern Baptist Convention, believe the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination, among other things.
One of those views is wrong. Homosexuality either is or is not sinful, although I believe most Christians accept the idea of promiscuity, regardless of the genders involved, as being against God's wishes.
Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who can not accept the possibility that they may be interpreting scripture wrong is waaaaaaay too sure of themselves and needs a major dose of humility mixed in with reality. God's ways are sooooooo far beyond what we can understand that no human being can rationally believe they have the full revelation of Him. It can't happen. Therefore, if we don't know the whole story, the parts we are missing could be critical toward understanding God's will for issues like committed homosexual relationships.
The obvious solution here is for Christians not to expend so much energy condemning people not like them and concentrate on reaching the lost and loving EVERYONE as they would want to be loved.
Unfortunately, that approach does not lead to political power and/or the accumulation of wealth. It doesn't make news or get fancy churches built.
Come to think of it, though, Jesus didn't have any of that either, and I've heard very good things about His ministry.
In a recent post on his personal Internet site -- also known as a "blog" -- Wade Burleson, pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid, Oklahoma, said while he agrees that the essentials of the gospel should not be compromised, he believes too many pastors and leaders have dogmatic interpretations of tertiary, or secondary, issues in scripture. He notes those individuals sometimes refuse to fellowship with those who disagree with them on those secondary issues.
Pastors in the Southern Baptist Convention must be sure that their views line up with scripture, he says, and not tradition. "I guess what I'm saying is, when somebody says, 'Thus saith the Lord, ' they need to be really, really sure the Lord is saying it," he cautions. "And somebody [responds], 'But it's in the Bible.' Well, of course it is -- but sometimes passages can be interpreted differently."
Burleson made headlines two years ago when, as a committee member on the International Mission Board, he questioned a proposal regarding the use of a private prayer language for missionary candidates. He feels that situation illustrates the problems that can be caused by dogmatic interpretations of scripture on secondary issues.
"Baptists traditionally have said that tongues have ceased; but that's an interpretation of the sacred text," he says. "There are some conservative, Bible-believing Christians who believe that the gift of tongues continues as it did in the days of the apostles. I think both sides need to take a humble approach and say this is what I believe, but I could be wrong."
Burleson has been criticized in the past for posting information on his blog site that some Southern Baptist officials said was never meant for the public.
It's nice to see that same-sex "marriage" isn't the only word they put in quotes.
The point that Rev. Burleson makes is critical to the entire issue of the acceptance of homosexuality by the church. Some churches, small ones like mine or entire denominations like the Metropolitan Community Church, interpret scriptures to either accept or stay neutral on the issue of committed same-sex relationships. Many others, like the Southern Baptist Convention, believe the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination, among other things.
One of those views is wrong. Homosexuality either is or is not sinful, although I believe most Christians accept the idea of promiscuity, regardless of the genders involved, as being against God's wishes.
Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who can not accept the possibility that they may be interpreting scripture wrong is waaaaaaay too sure of themselves and needs a major dose of humility mixed in with reality. God's ways are sooooooo far beyond what we can understand that no human being can rationally believe they have the full revelation of Him. It can't happen. Therefore, if we don't know the whole story, the parts we are missing could be critical toward understanding God's will for issues like committed homosexual relationships.
The obvious solution here is for Christians not to expend so much energy condemning people not like them and concentrate on reaching the lost and loving EVERYONE as they would want to be loved.
Unfortunately, that approach does not lead to political power and/or the accumulation of wealth. It doesn't make news or get fancy churches built.
Come to think of it, though, Jesus didn't have any of that either, and I've heard very good things about His ministry.
October 09, 2007
Non-Christians Views of Christianity Deteriorating, Partially Due to Attitudes Toward Gays
The folks over at Box Turtle Bulletin quote a survey by the Barna Group which shows a deteriorating perception of Christians held by non-Christians:
Nine out of ten outsiders found Christians too “anti-homosexual,” and nearly as many perceived it as “hypocritical” and “judgmental.” Seventy-five percent found it “too involved in politics.”
Churchgoers of the same age share several of the non-Christians’ complaints about Christianity. For instance, 80% of the Christians polled picked “anti-homosexual” as a negative adjective describing Christianity today. And the view of 85% of non-Christians aged 16-29 that present day Christianity is “hypocritical — saying one thing doing another,” was, in fact, shared by 52% of Christians of the same age. Fifty percent found their own faith “too involved in politics.”
Here is a quote to remember from The Barna Group's David Kinnaman in an interview with Time Magazine regarding the relationship between anti-gay Christians and the GLBT community:
The two sides ought to have some respect for each other — and the responsibility should be on Christians to lead by example instead of just shouting at others through the ballot box or talk shows.
He went on to address the flawed approach of trying to reach GLBT people without establishing relationships with them
I have encountered numerous GLBT people who have shared their horror stories with churches and the people who populate them, experiences full of hatred and judgement and often devoid of Christ's love.
I spoke up during our church service last Sunday and said if I wasn't a Christian and was evaluatling the faith by the people who are so often the face of it in the media and public gatherings, I doubt very seriously I would want anything to do with it. I saw a lot of heads nodding and heard no voice of objection.
Folks, this is tragic. Seriously, this is a tragedy because lives are ruined and souls are lost because of this. How can Christians expect to lead people to Christ and fulfill the Great Commission if their words and actions repell people?
Sometimes the hardest thing to do is see ourselves as others do. For many people who portray themselves as Christians, a good look in the mirror is long overdue.
Nine out of ten outsiders found Christians too “anti-homosexual,” and nearly as many perceived it as “hypocritical” and “judgmental.” Seventy-five percent found it “too involved in politics.”
Churchgoers of the same age share several of the non-Christians’ complaints about Christianity. For instance, 80% of the Christians polled picked “anti-homosexual” as a negative adjective describing Christianity today. And the view of 85% of non-Christians aged 16-29 that present day Christianity is “hypocritical — saying one thing doing another,” was, in fact, shared by 52% of Christians of the same age. Fifty percent found their own faith “too involved in politics.”
Here is a quote to remember from The Barna Group's David Kinnaman in an interview with Time Magazine regarding the relationship between anti-gay Christians and the GLBT community:
The two sides ought to have some respect for each other — and the responsibility should be on Christians to lead by example instead of just shouting at others through the ballot box or talk shows.
He went on to address the flawed approach of trying to reach GLBT people without establishing relationships with them
I have encountered numerous GLBT people who have shared their horror stories with churches and the people who populate them, experiences full of hatred and judgement and often devoid of Christ's love.
I spoke up during our church service last Sunday and said if I wasn't a Christian and was evaluatling the faith by the people who are so often the face of it in the media and public gatherings, I doubt very seriously I would want anything to do with it. I saw a lot of heads nodding and heard no voice of objection.
Folks, this is tragic. Seriously, this is a tragedy because lives are ruined and souls are lost because of this. How can Christians expect to lead people to Christ and fulfill the Great Commission if their words and actions repell people?
Sometimes the hardest thing to do is see ourselves as others do. For many people who portray themselves as Christians, a good look in the mirror is long overdue.
I Guess It's Not the 21st Century Everywhere
I'm not sure what else to say about this from PinkNews:
Two men have been publicly flogged in Saudi Arabia after being found guilty of sodomy and sentenced to 7,000 lashes.
The men, who have not been identified, received an unspecified number of lashes in the south-western city of Al-Bahah on Tuesday evening, according to a report from the Al-Okaz daily.
The men will remain in prison until the rest of their punishment can be completed.
In Saudi Arabia, homosexuality is illegal under sharia, or Islamic Law.
The maximum sentence it carries is the death penalty and this is most commonly performed by public beheading.
Gay rights are not recognised in the kingdom and the publication of any material promoting them is banned for its "un-Islamic" themes.
With strict laws restricting unmarried opposite-sex couples, however, and public displays of affection accepted between men, some Westerners have suggested that sharia encourages homosexuality.
Last April, a court in Saudi Arabia sentenced two Saudis, one Yemeni and a Jordanian to two years in jail and 2,000 lashes after a police raid on an alleged gay party.
Iran has been condemned for carrying out the death penalty on men found guilty of having gay sex.
Are you freakin' kidding me? As I write this, I'm watching the movie adaptation of John Jakes' novel "North and South," set in Civil War times. I was sickened watching fictional slaves being flogged--I can't even conceive that humans still do that to fellow humans simply because they are different.
It would be easy to write this off as the symptom of a non-Christian nation, but then I can't help but think that there are more than a few people in the United States who probably think flogging GLBT people is a good idea.
Two men have been publicly flogged in Saudi Arabia after being found guilty of sodomy and sentenced to 7,000 lashes.
The men, who have not been identified, received an unspecified number of lashes in the south-western city of Al-Bahah on Tuesday evening, according to a report from the Al-Okaz daily.
The men will remain in prison until the rest of their punishment can be completed.
In Saudi Arabia, homosexuality is illegal under sharia, or Islamic Law.
The maximum sentence it carries is the death penalty and this is most commonly performed by public beheading.
Gay rights are not recognised in the kingdom and the publication of any material promoting them is banned for its "un-Islamic" themes.
With strict laws restricting unmarried opposite-sex couples, however, and public displays of affection accepted between men, some Westerners have suggested that sharia encourages homosexuality.
Last April, a court in Saudi Arabia sentenced two Saudis, one Yemeni and a Jordanian to two years in jail and 2,000 lashes after a police raid on an alleged gay party.
Iran has been condemned for carrying out the death penalty on men found guilty of having gay sex.
Are you freakin' kidding me? As I write this, I'm watching the movie adaptation of John Jakes' novel "North and South," set in Civil War times. I was sickened watching fictional slaves being flogged--I can't even conceive that humans still do that to fellow humans simply because they are different.
It would be easy to write this off as the symptom of a non-Christian nation, but then I can't help but think that there are more than a few people in the United States who probably think flogging GLBT people is a good idea.
October 08, 2007
Turning Tragedy Into Positive Action
Deb Price writes about Jeffrey Montgomery, the founder of Detroit's Triangle Foundation, on the occassion of his stepping down as executive director of the organization. Montgomery's story is a wonderful example of turning a tragedy, the murder of his boyfriend, into the motivation to work for the benefit of the GLBT community.
Click here to read the article.
Click here to read the article.
African-American Leaders Step Up to Fight AIDS
From the Christian Post:
Over 150 of the nation’s top African American leaders, including megachurch pastor T.D. Jakes, are convening in New York this week for the first national conference devoted toward creating a plan to address the HIV/AIDS epidemic among the African American community.
The National Black Leadership Commission on AIDS (NBLCA) will host the historic National Conclave on HIV/AIDS Policy for Black Clergy at the AOL Time Warner building with a public news conference scheduled for Tuesday. The closed-door gathering, which began Monday, will be co-chaired by world-renowned pastors Bishop T.D. Jakes, senior pastor of The Potter’s House in Dallas, and the Rev. Dr. Calvin O. Butts, chair of NBLCA.
The two-day meeting will mark the first time African American leaders from all sectors – including clergy, scholars, government and health agencies – have collaborated toward ending what Butts has called “a crisis” among the African American community.
While African Americans make up 13 percent of the population, according to a 2000 Census report, they accounted for slightly over half of the estimated 37,331 new AIDS cases in 2005. African Americans also lead other ethnic groups in the rate of AIDS diagnoses for adults and adolescents – ten times the rate for Caucasians and three times the rate for Hispanics. Even for new AIDS cases among children under 13, African Americans represented 46 of the total 68 cases.
"Once you hear the numbers, you realize the impact, the unthinkable loss of lives that we as a community are facing,” said Butts, who is senior pastor of Abyssinian Baptist Church, the historic African-American church in Harlem. “You absolutely know that a lot of this could be prevented.”
Click here to read the rest of the article.
Over 150 of the nation’s top African American leaders, including megachurch pastor T.D. Jakes, are convening in New York this week for the first national conference devoted toward creating a plan to address the HIV/AIDS epidemic among the African American community.
The National Black Leadership Commission on AIDS (NBLCA) will host the historic National Conclave on HIV/AIDS Policy for Black Clergy at the AOL Time Warner building with a public news conference scheduled for Tuesday. The closed-door gathering, which began Monday, will be co-chaired by world-renowned pastors Bishop T.D. Jakes, senior pastor of The Potter’s House in Dallas, and the Rev. Dr. Calvin O. Butts, chair of NBLCA.
The two-day meeting will mark the first time African American leaders from all sectors – including clergy, scholars, government and health agencies – have collaborated toward ending what Butts has called “a crisis” among the African American community.
While African Americans make up 13 percent of the population, according to a 2000 Census report, they accounted for slightly over half of the estimated 37,331 new AIDS cases in 2005. African Americans also lead other ethnic groups in the rate of AIDS diagnoses for adults and adolescents – ten times the rate for Caucasians and three times the rate for Hispanics. Even for new AIDS cases among children under 13, African Americans represented 46 of the total 68 cases.
"Once you hear the numbers, you realize the impact, the unthinkable loss of lives that we as a community are facing,” said Butts, who is senior pastor of Abyssinian Baptist Church, the historic African-American church in Harlem. “You absolutely know that a lot of this could be prevented.”
Click here to read the rest of the article.
October 07, 2007
More on ENDA
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
