Two recent news stories brought that question to mind. First, New York state now has a law that gives authority over the burial rights of a deceased person to their same-sex partner over and beyond those of their blood relatives. In another item, there is an uproar in Massachusetts about a book that was introduced into some elementary schools that presented a family headed by same-sex parents as a "normal" family.
Both of these situations have resulted in outcries from those who are railing against the infamous "homosexual agenda" or concerned about defending the "traditional family." I don't know about you, but I have to fight breaking out in a nervous twitch when I see either of those overused, simplistic phrases.
So what is a family anyway? I'll tell you what it is to me.
When my wife passed away in October, 2004, my brother and his partner came down to Maryland from Rochester, NY, then drove with me on a round trip to Illinois for her memorial service. I did not ask them to do that. They stepped up and helped me when I needed it most. On the way home, I began referring to my brother's partner as my "brother-in-law." What they did was beyond an act of kindness, it was an act of love--the type of love that all families should have.
I have blood relatives that I have not spoken to for over a decade. There was no major rift, no bad blood existing, we just live in different worlds. It's okay with me, and apparently it's okay with them. Should I consider them my family instead of my brother's partner?
Only if I insist on limiting myself to "traditional" thinking. The very existence of Jesus and the way he was treated in his time on earth because he did not fit the "traditional" image of the conquering savior shows just how wrong that can be.
February 18, 2006
February 16, 2006
Hate Radio Syndicated
The next time you hear the American Family Association ranting about something they don't like on television and want to dismiss them as a harmless nuisance, think again.
MediaMatters.org, a media watchdog organization, posted this recent report about one of American Family Radio's programs, "Today's Issues." One of their recent guests, American Vision president Gary DeMar, has previously advocated the execution of homosexuals, adulterers, abortion doctors and, I suppose, anyone else he doesn't like.
The host of the program, Tim Wildmon, praised DeMar as, "one of the best writers out there in the Christian community and thinkers," according to the Media Matters report. Some other amazingly bigoted quotes from Wildmon, the president of the AFE, were referenced in this report.
AFA Radio-waaaaay over to the right
I post this because I had regarded the AFA as a nuisance, possibly with some good intentions but misguided priorities. I have reconsidered that position and now realize these people are dangerous. GLBT people are one of their main targets, but hardly their only one.
I will make a point to not support ANYTHING they are involved with, and I encourage you to do the same. I believe we need to identify those false prophets who spread hate by twisting God's word and counter their message with truth and love.
MediaMatters.org, a media watchdog organization, posted this recent report about one of American Family Radio's programs, "Today's Issues." One of their recent guests, American Vision president Gary DeMar, has previously advocated the execution of homosexuals, adulterers, abortion doctors and, I suppose, anyone else he doesn't like.
The host of the program, Tim Wildmon, praised DeMar as, "one of the best writers out there in the Christian community and thinkers," according to the Media Matters report. Some other amazingly bigoted quotes from Wildmon, the president of the AFE, were referenced in this report.
AFA Radio-waaaaay over to the right
I post this because I had regarded the AFA as a nuisance, possibly with some good intentions but misguided priorities. I have reconsidered that position and now realize these people are dangerous. GLBT people are one of their main targets, but hardly their only one.
I will make a point to not support ANYTHING they are involved with, and I encourage you to do the same. I believe we need to identify those false prophets who spread hate by twisting God's word and counter their message with truth and love.
February 14, 2006
Homosexuality: Try Mulling Over Some Age-Old Questions
I am linking to the follow up column by Bill Sanford, a retired Methodist minister who writes for the Merced, CA Sun-Star.
Here are a couple of examples:
o How do persons who hold the view that the whole of the Bible was virtually dictated by God, manage as a practical matter to affirm some verses and ignore or reject others?
o Think of some gays and lesbians with whom you are personally acquainted. How are they better or worse Christians than some heterosexuals with whom you are personally acquainted?
This is good stuff, I hope you enjoy reading it.
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/opinion/story/11795283p-12512793c.html
Here are a couple of examples:
o How do persons who hold the view that the whole of the Bible was virtually dictated by God, manage as a practical matter to affirm some verses and ignore or reject others?
o Think of some gays and lesbians with whom you are personally acquainted. How are they better or worse Christians than some heterosexuals with whom you are personally acquainted?
This is good stuff, I hope you enjoy reading it.
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/opinion/story/11795283p-12512793c.html
February 13, 2006
A Retired Pastor's Pilgrimage; Views on Homosexuality
My fellow blogger Peterson Tuscano was kind enough to forward me links to two exceptional columns written by Bill Sanford, a retired Methodist minister. He has written a column for the Merced (CA) Sun-Star and finally got around to addressing the issue of homosexuality as it related to the church. Here is a link to the first one below:
Views On Homosexuality
I thought it was outstanding the way he wrote about not dealing with homosexuality one way or the other, but then he came to a gradual understanding of how God loves GLBT people the same way he loves hetrosexuals. He write this in direct opposition to the formal doctrine of his church which I'm sure was a difficult thing to do. Here are a couple of my favorite quotes from his column:
o "Meanwhile, I couldn't help but notice a lot of heterosexual people doing a range of things that could only discredit heterosexuality. I came to the view that it was not one's sexual orientation that was at issue. It was how a person lived his or her life. I concluded that some in both "camps" lived exemplary values and some in both "camps" did not.
o I confess that there stirs within me the thought that even Biblical literalists do a lot of picking and choosing. If they can find a verse they can use to buttress something they believe, they will invoke it with fervor. Meanwhile, many other verses they quietly ignore or tacitly reject. That's how it looks to me from the outside.
Great stuff here. I'll link his follow-up column later this week. If you support Mr. Sanford's views, please take a moment and send him an e-mail telling him so. I'm sure those who disagree have already been in touch with him.
Views On Homosexuality
I thought it was outstanding the way he wrote about not dealing with homosexuality one way or the other, but then he came to a gradual understanding of how God loves GLBT people the same way he loves hetrosexuals. He write this in direct opposition to the formal doctrine of his church which I'm sure was a difficult thing to do. Here are a couple of my favorite quotes from his column:
o "Meanwhile, I couldn't help but notice a lot of heterosexual people doing a range of things that could only discredit heterosexuality. I came to the view that it was not one's sexual orientation that was at issue. It was how a person lived his or her life. I concluded that some in both "camps" lived exemplary values and some in both "camps" did not.
o I confess that there stirs within me the thought that even Biblical literalists do a lot of picking and choosing. If they can find a verse they can use to buttress something they believe, they will invoke it with fervor. Meanwhile, many other verses they quietly ignore or tacitly reject. That's how it looks to me from the outside.
Great stuff here. I'll link his follow-up column later this week. If you support Mr. Sanford's views, please take a moment and send him an e-mail telling him so. I'm sure those who disagree have already been in touch with him.
February 11, 2006
"Traditions of Man"
One of the most common arguements offered by those who oppose the idea of same-sex marriages is the need to uphold "traditional marriage," that between only a man and a woman.
Here is a passage of scripture to consider the next time you hear that arguement:
Mark 7:8-9 (NIV)-Jesus speaking: "You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions."
This response to Jesus was in response to the Pharisees asking Him why he ate food with "unclean hands." I think it is applicable to the issue of same-sex marriage. Certainly, it is traditional for a man and woman to marry, and I'm all in favor of that. After all, I've done that myself and it's work well for me. However, when tradition gets in the way of God's message, it needs to be ammended or abolished.
Traditions can be a good thing, a way of keeping continuity in society, but they can also be an obstacle to growth.
No one I know of is suggesting men and women no longer be allowed to marry. There is a battle being fought by GLBT people to make that tradition more inclusive, and I'm trying to help in any small way I can. The laws and policies of marriage are not clearly defined in black and white, other than the part about not getting divorced (and we know how that's worked out).
God will honor any relationship that He is a part of. If two GLBT christians want to spend the rest of their lives together serving God, how will He not bless that? How can we expect those who place restrictions on them to fulfill their own agenda and not His to not be held accountable by Him?
Think about that the next time you hear someone talking about defending "traditional marriage."
Here is a passage of scripture to consider the next time you hear that arguement:
Mark 7:8-9 (NIV)-Jesus speaking: "You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions."
This response to Jesus was in response to the Pharisees asking Him why he ate food with "unclean hands." I think it is applicable to the issue of same-sex marriage. Certainly, it is traditional for a man and woman to marry, and I'm all in favor of that. After all, I've done that myself and it's work well for me. However, when tradition gets in the way of God's message, it needs to be ammended or abolished.
Traditions can be a good thing, a way of keeping continuity in society, but they can also be an obstacle to growth.
No one I know of is suggesting men and women no longer be allowed to marry. There is a battle being fought by GLBT people to make that tradition more inclusive, and I'm trying to help in any small way I can. The laws and policies of marriage are not clearly defined in black and white, other than the part about not getting divorced (and we know how that's worked out).
God will honor any relationship that He is a part of. If two GLBT christians want to spend the rest of their lives together serving God, how will He not bless that? How can we expect those who place restrictions on them to fulfill their own agenda and not His to not be held accountable by Him?
Think about that the next time you hear someone talking about defending "traditional marriage."
February 09, 2006
"The People Want It"
That's one of the frequent justifications those who are pushing for laws and constitutional amendments that would prohibit same-sex marriage use. They're not anti-gay, they're merely trying to enfore the "will of the people." Here's a biblical case where the will of the people was carried out despite the better judgement of the political leader, Pontius Pilate.
Luke 23:13-24 (NIV) Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, and said to them, "You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. Therefore, I will punish him and then release him." With one voice they cried out, "Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us!" (Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.)
Wanting to release Jesus, Pilate appealed to them again. But they kept shouting, "Crucify him! Crucify him!" For the third time he spoke to them: "Why? What crime has this man committed? I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty. Therefore I will have him punished and then release him." But with loud shouts they insistently demanded that he be crucified, and their shouts prevailed. So Pilate decided to grant their demand. He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, the one they asked for, and surrendered Jesus to their will.
That's right, our Lord and Savior was crucified because Pilate was afraid of the people of Isreal complaining to his superiors in Rome and hurting his career. How many politicians are making decisions on the important modern-day issue of same-sex marriage based on fear of losing votes and going against their own conscience and thoughts on what is right.
I'm not trying to condemn anyone who votes differently than I would regarding same-sex marriage. I am, however, calling out anyone who is in a position of leadership yet lacks the courage to lead. I don't feel anyone who falls into that category deserves my vote or yours.
Luke 23:13-24 (NIV) Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, and said to them, "You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. Therefore, I will punish him and then release him." With one voice they cried out, "Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us!" (Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.)
Wanting to release Jesus, Pilate appealed to them again. But they kept shouting, "Crucify him! Crucify him!" For the third time he spoke to them: "Why? What crime has this man committed? I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty. Therefore I will have him punished and then release him." But with loud shouts they insistently demanded that he be crucified, and their shouts prevailed. So Pilate decided to grant their demand. He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, the one they asked for, and surrendered Jesus to their will.
That's right, our Lord and Savior was crucified because Pilate was afraid of the people of Isreal complaining to his superiors in Rome and hurting his career. How many politicians are making decisions on the important modern-day issue of same-sex marriage based on fear of losing votes and going against their own conscience and thoughts on what is right.
I'm not trying to condemn anyone who votes differently than I would regarding same-sex marriage. I am, however, calling out anyone who is in a position of leadership yet lacks the courage to lead. I don't feel anyone who falls into that category deserves my vote or yours.
February 07, 2006
"Fighting The Holy War" - An Opinion
My friend Sharone made me aware of this exceptional essay written for the "Metro Weekly," a gay-focused magazine distributed in the Washington DC area.
http://www.metroweekly.com/gauge/commentary.php?ak=1969
The writer, Richard J. Rosendall, takes the religious right to task for, among other things "bearing false witness," and also takes the democrats to task for not having the courage to stand up to them.
Rosenthal states, "The religious fanatics cannot be defeated as long as we allow them to frame the public debate without serious challenge."
Along with other allies, that's what I'm trying to do in my little corner of the blogosphere. The Christ I worship is nothing like the Christ the religious right puts out there. I want to tell you, especially those in the GLBT community, that my Christ loves you as you are. He doesn't hate you like the false prophets of the religious right want you to think.
http://www.metroweekly.com/gauge/commentary.php?ak=1969
The writer, Richard J. Rosendall, takes the religious right to task for, among other things "bearing false witness," and also takes the democrats to task for not having the courage to stand up to them.
Rosenthal states, "The religious fanatics cannot be defeated as long as we allow them to frame the public debate without serious challenge."
Along with other allies, that's what I'm trying to do in my little corner of the blogosphere. The Christ I worship is nothing like the Christ the religious right puts out there. I want to tell you, especially those in the GLBT community, that my Christ loves you as you are. He doesn't hate you like the false prophets of the religious right want you to think.
February 05, 2006
God Will Deal with the Messengers of Hate
One of the more frequent themes I have written about and readers have contacted me about is their anger at what we feel is a gross distotion of God's message by "fundamentalists" preaching hatred against GLBT people and those who don't vote Republican. In my bible study over the weekend, I ran across some scripture that addresses how God will handle that when the time for reckoning arrives.
Luke 20:45-47 (NIV) While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, "Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be published most severely."
Luke 11:52 (NIV) "Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering."
Matthew 7:22-24 (NIV) Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
If, as I so strongly feel in my heart, they are wrong, those preachers will be punished severely on judgement day. It it difficult but critically important for us to remember that no one on either side of any issue has the right to judge others--that is God's right and His alone. In these and other scriptures, he clearly promises that he will deal with those who have misrepresented His word and led others down that path.
What if I'm wrong? What if I have misinterpreted the leading of the Holy Spirit and I'm wrong about what I write here? I would face that same type of punishment detailed in the scripture above. Unlike many of the followers of the "fundamentalist" leaders, however, I have taken responsibility for the couse I am charting with my life and my writing.
I have, with guidance from my wife Brenda, my Pastor Dale, and other leaders at my church, worked very hard on developing my individual relationship with Jesus Christ. I have put the effort into bible study, prayer, and studying various teachings on important issues to educate myself and, more importantly, discern God's will for my life without it going through anyone else's filter.
If we have been influenced by a leader who has gone astray, we still have the responsibility to figure out God's will for our lives, not our leader's will. It does take some effort and committment. It's not easy. The bible is not easy to figure out. It can be difficult making ourselves be still and pray. That is where the nourishment of the spirit comes from, though. Without it, our spirit starves just like our body without food.
I went through a spell of my life where I starved my spirit, and it caused me to be less than I could be. I know many people are currently doing the same, especially GLBT people who have just had the living crap kicked out of them by the church.
Please remember, if you've experienced that type of rejection, that is is coming from man, not God. He loves you and is reaching out to you right now, right this very minute! If you reach back and open yourself up to His love, your life will never be the same. Leave the hatred behind, God will deal with those who inflicted it upon you. Just focus on His love and let the Holy Spirit into your soul.
No man, regardless of how much political power he amasses or how loudly he screams, can EVER take that away from you.
Luke 20:45-47 (NIV) While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, "Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be published most severely."
Luke 11:52 (NIV) "Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering."
Matthew 7:22-24 (NIV) Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
If, as I so strongly feel in my heart, they are wrong, those preachers will be punished severely on judgement day. It it difficult but critically important for us to remember that no one on either side of any issue has the right to judge others--that is God's right and His alone. In these and other scriptures, he clearly promises that he will deal with those who have misrepresented His word and led others down that path.
What if I'm wrong? What if I have misinterpreted the leading of the Holy Spirit and I'm wrong about what I write here? I would face that same type of punishment detailed in the scripture above. Unlike many of the followers of the "fundamentalist" leaders, however, I have taken responsibility for the couse I am charting with my life and my writing.
I have, with guidance from my wife Brenda, my Pastor Dale, and other leaders at my church, worked very hard on developing my individual relationship with Jesus Christ. I have put the effort into bible study, prayer, and studying various teachings on important issues to educate myself and, more importantly, discern God's will for my life without it going through anyone else's filter.
If we have been influenced by a leader who has gone astray, we still have the responsibility to figure out God's will for our lives, not our leader's will. It does take some effort and committment. It's not easy. The bible is not easy to figure out. It can be difficult making ourselves be still and pray. That is where the nourishment of the spirit comes from, though. Without it, our spirit starves just like our body without food.
I went through a spell of my life where I starved my spirit, and it caused me to be less than I could be. I know many people are currently doing the same, especially GLBT people who have just had the living crap kicked out of them by the church.
Please remember, if you've experienced that type of rejection, that is is coming from man, not God. He loves you and is reaching out to you right now, right this very minute! If you reach back and open yourself up to His love, your life will never be the same. Leave the hatred behind, God will deal with those who inflicted it upon you. Just focus on His love and let the Holy Spirit into your soul.
No man, regardless of how much political power he amasses or how loudly he screams, can EVER take that away from you.
February 03, 2006
Acceptance is a Two-Way Street
I've really been spoiled by positive experiences with the GLBT community. I was made painfully aware of that fact this past week when my attempted interaction with a local GLBT organization took a nasty and disappointing turn.
One of the avenues I have used to draw new readers to Straight, Not Narrow, has been to join Yahoo groups that have a somewhat similar focus. Since I write about both GLBT policital issues and the relationship of christianity to the GLBT community, I requested and received membership in groups that focused on one or both of those areas.
Last week, I posted messages in my groups linking to my SNN post "Don't Trust the System, Trust The Lord." The content of the message was "I just added a post to my blog about how I feel we need Christ to guide us through our involvement in the political process. I would appreciate any feedback you would care to give." As I hoped, people from several groups visited this site, read the post, and left interesting comments here and back in the groups.
I have stated several times since starting this blog that one of my main goals was to stimulate dialogue. I'm inviting people to respectfully disagree with what I write because it's that exchange of ideas that can foster learning on both sides of an issue.
There was one group, however, that reacted much differently. A local orgainzation that claims to be "dedicated to promoting equality and full participation for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered people..... through advocacy, education, community outreach and partnership."
When I checked e-mail the next morning after I has posted my message, I had a note from the moderator of this group telling me how inappropriate my message was, how many members were offended, threatening to ban me from the group, and asking me to apologize for posting something that "was obviously not related to GLBT issues" in their area.
I remain unclear how anything discussing ideas of how to approach politics is not related to GLBT issues. I don't understand how I could have offended anyone by expressing an opinion based on my beliefs without condemning anyone else or belittling their value system.
There were probably Jewish or Muslim members that read my message, and I wouldn't expect them to be offended, just like I wouldn't take offense if they had written about taking an Old Testament approach or how Allah would address issues. I wouldn't agree with those points any more than either one would agree with mine, but I would not demand they be banned from the group either.
One thing I do not intend to do here is to anger people who clearly are not interested in this message. While I declined to offer an apology, I also immediately removed myself from their group. In Luke 9:5 (NIV), Jesus told His disciples, "If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave their town."
I am not naming this group because I don't want their cause, if they ever actually do anything to advance it, to be damaged in any way. I do have to ask, however, how is the way they rejected me, most of them without even reading the content of my post here, any different from the rejection that they are supposed to be uniting to work against? I also wonder, if they are so concerned about anyone being offended, just how they plan on effecting change, which by it's very nature offends people. Good luck with that approach.
I said at the beginning that I have been spoiled because that is the first blatant rejection I have received from a GLBT group. My church, comprised of a clear majority of GLBT members, has accepted me just as I am from day one, and this experience reminded me that I should not take that for granted.
For GLBT people who want and deserve to be treated with respect by people who aren't like tham, I suggest they remember to give what they hope to receive.
Acceptance does work BOTH ways.
One of the avenues I have used to draw new readers to Straight, Not Narrow, has been to join Yahoo groups that have a somewhat similar focus. Since I write about both GLBT policital issues and the relationship of christianity to the GLBT community, I requested and received membership in groups that focused on one or both of those areas.
Last week, I posted messages in my groups linking to my SNN post "Don't Trust the System, Trust The Lord." The content of the message was "I just added a post to my blog about how I feel we need Christ to guide us through our involvement in the political process. I would appreciate any feedback you would care to give." As I hoped, people from several groups visited this site, read the post, and left interesting comments here and back in the groups.
I have stated several times since starting this blog that one of my main goals was to stimulate dialogue. I'm inviting people to respectfully disagree with what I write because it's that exchange of ideas that can foster learning on both sides of an issue.
There was one group, however, that reacted much differently. A local orgainzation that claims to be "dedicated to promoting equality and full participation for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered people..... through advocacy, education, community outreach and partnership."
When I checked e-mail the next morning after I has posted my message, I had a note from the moderator of this group telling me how inappropriate my message was, how many members were offended, threatening to ban me from the group, and asking me to apologize for posting something that "was obviously not related to GLBT issues" in their area.
I remain unclear how anything discussing ideas of how to approach politics is not related to GLBT issues. I don't understand how I could have offended anyone by expressing an opinion based on my beliefs without condemning anyone else or belittling their value system.
There were probably Jewish or Muslim members that read my message, and I wouldn't expect them to be offended, just like I wouldn't take offense if they had written about taking an Old Testament approach or how Allah would address issues. I wouldn't agree with those points any more than either one would agree with mine, but I would not demand they be banned from the group either.
One thing I do not intend to do here is to anger people who clearly are not interested in this message. While I declined to offer an apology, I also immediately removed myself from their group. In Luke 9:5 (NIV), Jesus told His disciples, "If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave their town."
I am not naming this group because I don't want their cause, if they ever actually do anything to advance it, to be damaged in any way. I do have to ask, however, how is the way they rejected me, most of them without even reading the content of my post here, any different from the rejection that they are supposed to be uniting to work against? I also wonder, if they are so concerned about anyone being offended, just how they plan on effecting change, which by it's very nature offends people. Good luck with that approach.
I said at the beginning that I have been spoiled because that is the first blatant rejection I have received from a GLBT group. My church, comprised of a clear majority of GLBT members, has accepted me just as I am from day one, and this experience reminded me that I should not take that for granted.
For GLBT people who want and deserve to be treated with respect by people who aren't like tham, I suggest they remember to give what they hope to receive.
Acceptance does work BOTH ways.
February 01, 2006
The Level of Debate
An online chat at WashingtonPost.com today featured two members of the Maryland state legislature who took questions regarding the constitutional amendment up for consideration that would make same-sex marriage against the law.
Favoring the amendment was Republican delegate Adelaide C. Eckardt. Opposing it was Democratic delegate Richard S. Madaleno Jr. The difference in the depth these two delegates brought to this issue was striking. I'll link to both chats below, but here are some of what I consider the most interesting comments.
Delegate Eckardt:
Q: One of the primary justifications I have heard for this amendment is the maintenance of the traditional institution of marriage. Slavery and women being unable to vote, both also historic examples of rights being denied to a section of our population, were also tradition at one time. What makes this issue different? (that question was my contribution)
A: Marriage between a man and a woman has been at the very foundation of our society - and essentially was for procreation.
Q: I want to know what Del. Eckardt recommends gay couples do to protect themselves in retirement. My partner and I are approaching retirement, and I am worried that if my partner dies before I do (he is 10 years my senior and has been the breadwinner in our family the past couple of years) that I will be in big trouble due to the lack of Social Security and health benefits that I can't enjoy because I am unable to marry. What would Del. Eckardt do if he were in my situation?
A: When individuals choose their lifestyle there may be implications.
Q: You state that there has been an "erosion" to our society by the courts. What is that erosion? Can you please explain? This a much-used talking point, but no one explains what the erosion is. Your thoughts?
A: A gradual chipping away of this country's most basic institutions.
Delegate Madaleno:
He had an opening statement, unlike his colleague
Thank you for allowing me to answer your questions concerning legislation to amend the Maryland constitution, House Bill 48. I do not support the call for a referendum on the issue of marriage equality. A constitution provides a blueprint for the structure of government and guarantees certain rights to protect its citizens from government interference. The Maryland Constitution provides its citizens the right to turn to both their elected representatives and to the judiciary to secure their liberties. This bill, if adopted, would deny this fundamental American right to all those who support marriage equality. I will not support this assault on our fundamental liberties. In my opinion, our country's great innovation was to develop a system of governance that checks majority rule with certain guaranteed rights for the minority no matter how despised. To deny a group of citizens access to their courts and to their legislature due to the decision of a single trail court judge is unwarranted.
I would encourage the readers to review carefully the language of HB 48. Section (B) of the amendment would prohibit the legal recognition of any relationship between two people of the same gender. Not only would it prohibit civil unions, it is so broad that it would prohibit any public agency from providing health care benefits to domestic partners. It is so vague that we cannot begin to know all of its consequences. For example, the language could prohibit a mother from designating a daughter in a power of attorney since they are both of the same gender and medical decision making is a benefit of marriage. Others say it could prohibit divorce. Therefore, I believe that this proposal is unworkable and unwieldy.
Again, the difference in the level of dialogue between these two legislators was very striking. From debates I have heard and comments I have read, it is representative of how each side approaches this issue. Opponents of same-sex marriage that I have seen tend to rely on tradition, religion, and fear of change, while proponents often approach it as a civil rights issue.
In my last post, I said I felt it was important for someone to be educated on the issues. I fear that a substantial portion of the majority of people same-sex marriage opponents often point to are not terribly well versed on the implications of these issues. In the Washington Post debate, delegate Eckardt clearly was not sure of the far reaching implications of the Maryland amendment. Conversely, Delegate Madaleno has clearly done his homework.
Tradition is no basis for deciding this issue. Over time in the bible, traditions changed. God's will for mankind has been a gradual revealation. The days of concubines are long gone. The procreation agruement also falls short, since there are plenty of hetrosexual couples that can't have children.
Since I've taken away the easy answers for the opponents of same-sex marriage, maybe THEY need to do some homework. I'm confident if they do, some opinions will change.
Links for the Washington Post chat:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/01/31/DI2006013101199.html (Rep. Eckardt)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/01/31/DI2006013101209.html (Rep. Madaleno)
Favoring the amendment was Republican delegate Adelaide C. Eckardt. Opposing it was Democratic delegate Richard S. Madaleno Jr. The difference in the depth these two delegates brought to this issue was striking. I'll link to both chats below, but here are some of what I consider the most interesting comments.
Delegate Eckardt:
Q: One of the primary justifications I have heard for this amendment is the maintenance of the traditional institution of marriage. Slavery and women being unable to vote, both also historic examples of rights being denied to a section of our population, were also tradition at one time. What makes this issue different? (that question was my contribution)
A: Marriage between a man and a woman has been at the very foundation of our society - and essentially was for procreation.
Q: I want to know what Del. Eckardt recommends gay couples do to protect themselves in retirement. My partner and I are approaching retirement, and I am worried that if my partner dies before I do (he is 10 years my senior and has been the breadwinner in our family the past couple of years) that I will be in big trouble due to the lack of Social Security and health benefits that I can't enjoy because I am unable to marry. What would Del. Eckardt do if he were in my situation?
A: When individuals choose their lifestyle there may be implications.
Q: You state that there has been an "erosion" to our society by the courts. What is that erosion? Can you please explain? This a much-used talking point, but no one explains what the erosion is. Your thoughts?
A: A gradual chipping away of this country's most basic institutions.
Delegate Madaleno:
He had an opening statement, unlike his colleague
Thank you for allowing me to answer your questions concerning legislation to amend the Maryland constitution, House Bill 48. I do not support the call for a referendum on the issue of marriage equality. A constitution provides a blueprint for the structure of government and guarantees certain rights to protect its citizens from government interference. The Maryland Constitution provides its citizens the right to turn to both their elected representatives and to the judiciary to secure their liberties. This bill, if adopted, would deny this fundamental American right to all those who support marriage equality. I will not support this assault on our fundamental liberties. In my opinion, our country's great innovation was to develop a system of governance that checks majority rule with certain guaranteed rights for the minority no matter how despised. To deny a group of citizens access to their courts and to their legislature due to the decision of a single trail court judge is unwarranted.
I would encourage the readers to review carefully the language of HB 48. Section (B) of the amendment would prohibit the legal recognition of any relationship between two people of the same gender. Not only would it prohibit civil unions, it is so broad that it would prohibit any public agency from providing health care benefits to domestic partners. It is so vague that we cannot begin to know all of its consequences. For example, the language could prohibit a mother from designating a daughter in a power of attorney since they are both of the same gender and medical decision making is a benefit of marriage. Others say it could prohibit divorce. Therefore, I believe that this proposal is unworkable and unwieldy.
Again, the difference in the level of dialogue between these two legislators was very striking. From debates I have heard and comments I have read, it is representative of how each side approaches this issue. Opponents of same-sex marriage that I have seen tend to rely on tradition, religion, and fear of change, while proponents often approach it as a civil rights issue.
In my last post, I said I felt it was important for someone to be educated on the issues. I fear that a substantial portion of the majority of people same-sex marriage opponents often point to are not terribly well versed on the implications of these issues. In the Washington Post debate, delegate Eckardt clearly was not sure of the far reaching implications of the Maryland amendment. Conversely, Delegate Madaleno has clearly done his homework.
Tradition is no basis for deciding this issue. Over time in the bible, traditions changed. God's will for mankind has been a gradual revealation. The days of concubines are long gone. The procreation agruement also falls short, since there are plenty of hetrosexual couples that can't have children.
Since I've taken away the easy answers for the opponents of same-sex marriage, maybe THEY need to do some homework. I'm confident if they do, some opinions will change.
Links for the Washington Post chat:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/01/31/DI2006013101199.html (Rep. Eckardt)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/01/31/DI2006013101209.html (Rep. Madaleno)
January 30, 2006
Don't Trust the System, Trust the Lord
After today's vote in the U. S. senate, it is all but a certainty that Samuel Alito will be confirmed tomorrow as the next Supreme Court justice. I'm not knowledgeable enough to say conclusively if that is a good thing or a bad thing. I do know most GLBT rights groups feel strongly that his confirmation will move the Supreme Court further to the right and be a blow to their fight for equal rights.
It is a frustrating time in our nation for anyone who believes in the rights of individuals. There is little dialogue anymore. People are neatly distributed in red states and blue states. You're either for the government or against them. We're in a very black and white society that doesn't deal well with the infinite shades of grey that exist beyond the very rigid doctrine conservative leaders are pushing to make the law of our land.
The frustration of those of us working against that doctrine can be debilitating, if we allow it to be.
Education about issues is a critical, and I believe a frequently missing, part of making decisions and forming policy. There is something much more important, however, that I feel is even more sadly lacking in leaders and voters alike--the education that can only be provided by The Holy Spirit of God.
People need to work to influence our political system to effect change in our laws because it the only process available to Americans to do so. What leads us to choose a side on an important issue? Is it the loving spirit of God, or is it a personal agenda working toward protecting a person's perceived standing in society at the expense of everyone else who is not like them.
So much right wing policy has "traditional family values" wrapped around it. One of the leading religious organizations pushing the move to the right is Focus on the Family. "Preserve traditional family values," conservatives say. "Marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman," they cry.
It is absolutely true that the traditional family has a man, wife, and children. It is also true that tradition used to be that women were treated like property. In Jesus' time, if a woman's husband and sons died, she had no recourse but to beg for mercy from others. It used to be a tradition that familes had slaves--actually OWNED people.
Thankfully, our society has grown beyond those dehumanizing practices. Proponents of keeping those traditions in place often used scriptures to defend their positions, but enough people saw through that to slowly, sometimes painfully, effect positive social change.
In the United States today, scripture is again being used to slow, if not stop dead in its tracks, social change that would give GLBT individuals the rights that others in our society take for granted. God's own word is twisted to treat homosexuals as lesser beings, subject to hate crimes and denied the right to enter into the holy union of marriage.
If you remember, the devil used scripture to tempt Jesus when he spent 40 days in the desert. The bible is the greatest single source of wisdom in the history of mankind, but even that can used to promote the agenda of people ahead of the agenda of God.
As individuals, we need to seek God's will for our lives, and His plan for how we should affect the lives of others. We then need to ACT on those plans, inside our churches and within our political system, two seperate and distinct venues to improve the quality of our lives and those we come in contact with.
I am confident that His plans never include hatred toward our fellow man, committing unprovoked acts of violence, or denying rights to people based on what gender God made them natrually attracted to. If anybody tells you differently, no matter how many millions of dollars he may have at his disposal or how many books he has written, I feel with all my heart and everything the Holy Spirit has blessed me with, that you must seriously question that person's motives. Are they trying to lead you to follow God, or themselves.
YOU are responsible for seeking God's guidance for your life. If you yield that power to any other person, then you will see their filtered version of God and literally put your eternal future in their hands.
There's only one person I trust with that, and His name is Jesus Christ. If you don't look for Him to guide your decisions every day of your life, I urge you to get connected to Him and yield control to Him. You will never, ever make a smarter or more important decision than that.
It is a frustrating time in our nation for anyone who believes in the rights of individuals. There is little dialogue anymore. People are neatly distributed in red states and blue states. You're either for the government or against them. We're in a very black and white society that doesn't deal well with the infinite shades of grey that exist beyond the very rigid doctrine conservative leaders are pushing to make the law of our land.
The frustration of those of us working against that doctrine can be debilitating, if we allow it to be.
Education about issues is a critical, and I believe a frequently missing, part of making decisions and forming policy. There is something much more important, however, that I feel is even more sadly lacking in leaders and voters alike--the education that can only be provided by The Holy Spirit of God.
People need to work to influence our political system to effect change in our laws because it the only process available to Americans to do so. What leads us to choose a side on an important issue? Is it the loving spirit of God, or is it a personal agenda working toward protecting a person's perceived standing in society at the expense of everyone else who is not like them.
So much right wing policy has "traditional family values" wrapped around it. One of the leading religious organizations pushing the move to the right is Focus on the Family. "Preserve traditional family values," conservatives say. "Marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman," they cry.
It is absolutely true that the traditional family has a man, wife, and children. It is also true that tradition used to be that women were treated like property. In Jesus' time, if a woman's husband and sons died, she had no recourse but to beg for mercy from others. It used to be a tradition that familes had slaves--actually OWNED people.
Thankfully, our society has grown beyond those dehumanizing practices. Proponents of keeping those traditions in place often used scriptures to defend their positions, but enough people saw through that to slowly, sometimes painfully, effect positive social change.
In the United States today, scripture is again being used to slow, if not stop dead in its tracks, social change that would give GLBT individuals the rights that others in our society take for granted. God's own word is twisted to treat homosexuals as lesser beings, subject to hate crimes and denied the right to enter into the holy union of marriage.
If you remember, the devil used scripture to tempt Jesus when he spent 40 days in the desert. The bible is the greatest single source of wisdom in the history of mankind, but even that can used to promote the agenda of people ahead of the agenda of God.
As individuals, we need to seek God's will for our lives, and His plan for how we should affect the lives of others. We then need to ACT on those plans, inside our churches and within our political system, two seperate and distinct venues to improve the quality of our lives and those we come in contact with.
I am confident that His plans never include hatred toward our fellow man, committing unprovoked acts of violence, or denying rights to people based on what gender God made them natrually attracted to. If anybody tells you differently, no matter how many millions of dollars he may have at his disposal or how many books he has written, I feel with all my heart and everything the Holy Spirit has blessed me with, that you must seriously question that person's motives. Are they trying to lead you to follow God, or themselves.
YOU are responsible for seeking God's guidance for your life. If you yield that power to any other person, then you will see their filtered version of God and literally put your eternal future in their hands.
There's only one person I trust with that, and His name is Jesus Christ. If you don't look for Him to guide your decisions every day of your life, I urge you to get connected to Him and yield control to Him. You will never, ever make a smarter or more important decision than that.
January 28, 2006
Leaders Need to Lead, Not Follow
As the battle gears up in Maryland regarding the proposed amendment to the state constitution that would ban same-sex marriage, opinions of politicians are being sought out. With many of the state's "leaders", particularly on the Democratic side, you would have an easier time finding a Jerry Falwell fan at a gay bar than find out where they stand on this issue. Instead of standing up for what they believe, many Democrats are diving for cover.
Many deomcrats in the state do not want to face the political implications of this amendment being on the state's ballot in November. They fear it will mobilize Republicans to turn out to the polls and possibly push the balance of power in Annapolis more toward the GOP.
A painfully clear example of this, according to the Washington Post article posted on the Equality Maryland website, is State Senator James Brochin. He represents what is considered a fairly conservative portion of Baltimore County. When asked his position on the same-sex marriage ban amendment, Brochin said he would do "what my district tells me to do." He then added, "Would you mind if that's all I say on this?"
This is leadership? No, this is leadership:
Titus 1:9 (NIV) "He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it."
Republican Delegate Donald H. Dwyer is the sponsor of the amendment, and he says that 44 signiatures have already been obtained on a petition to bring it directly to the House floor for a vote. I strongly disagree with Rep. Dwyer but respect his clarity on this issue. At least he has put himself out there, win or lose, and shown leadership that is much less prevalent on the other side of the isle.
Jesus did not seek a consensus during his time on earth. He had a message, a clear purpose, and He pursued that at the cost of great pain and suffering before He ascended back to heaven.
Today's "leaders" in America do not run the risk of being nailed to a cross, but many of them act like it. Our country deserves leaders in office, not pollsters or puppets of special interests with deep pockets. I encourage you to keep that in mind the next time you cast a ballot.
Many deomcrats in the state do not want to face the political implications of this amendment being on the state's ballot in November. They fear it will mobilize Republicans to turn out to the polls and possibly push the balance of power in Annapolis more toward the GOP.
A painfully clear example of this, according to the Washington Post article posted on the Equality Maryland website, is State Senator James Brochin. He represents what is considered a fairly conservative portion of Baltimore County. When asked his position on the same-sex marriage ban amendment, Brochin said he would do "what my district tells me to do." He then added, "Would you mind if that's all I say on this?"
This is leadership? No, this is leadership:
Titus 1:9 (NIV) "He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it."
Republican Delegate Donald H. Dwyer is the sponsor of the amendment, and he says that 44 signiatures have already been obtained on a petition to bring it directly to the House floor for a vote. I strongly disagree with Rep. Dwyer but respect his clarity on this issue. At least he has put himself out there, win or lose, and shown leadership that is much less prevalent on the other side of the isle.
Jesus did not seek a consensus during his time on earth. He had a message, a clear purpose, and He pursued that at the cost of great pain and suffering before He ascended back to heaven.
Today's "leaders" in America do not run the risk of being nailed to a cross, but many of them act like it. Our country deserves leaders in office, not pollsters or puppets of special interests with deep pockets. I encourage you to keep that in mind the next time you cast a ballot.
January 25, 2006
A Wonderful Response
Justin Dean, who writes the interesting blog “Tales from the Convent,” recently received an e-mail from someone who wrote that they were praying for the empty lifestyle he had chosen and that Justin would find Christ.
Justin, a gay Christian, took time to respond to that writer with love and patience, and I thought my readers would appreciate seeing his response. Justin explained how he did not chose the gay lifestyle and offered his prayers for the individual who e-mailed him, asking for the Lord to open his heart and mind.
Here’s the e-mail and Justin’s thoughtful response.
Gay or God?
Justin, a gay Christian, took time to respond to that writer with love and patience, and I thought my readers would appreciate seeing his response. Justin explained how he did not chose the gay lifestyle and offered his prayers for the individual who e-mailed him, asking for the Lord to open his heart and mind.
Here’s the e-mail and Justin’s thoughtful response.
Gay or God?
January 24, 2006
Spend on Saving Souls, Not Buying Votes
A report came out today that $13 million was spent in a total of 13 states during the 2004 elections on both sides of campaigns involving the issue of same-sex marriage. The report states that nearly $2 million came directly from churches. Most of those funds were to support initiatives banning same-sex marriage, but that's not the issue I'm raising here.
Why are churches helping to finance political campaigns?
Churches are funded almost entirely on contributions from their members. In any church I have belonged to, I understood that my donations were to be used in the funding of ministry work. After all, isn't that supposed to be its primary function?
I wonder anymore. Churches and religious orgainzations put a lot of money and other resources into political causes these days trying to make the laws of the United States adhere to their religious convictions.
Here's an idea--take that money and devote those resources toward leading people to Jesus. The politically active "fundamentalists" want to make this a christian nation, and what better way to accomplish that goal than to have a nation full of christians?
Because then the "fundamentalists" can't control people's actions as they seek to do through legislative and judicial means. If people develop their own relationship with Jesus Christ, there is no guarantee they will subscribe to the"fundamentalist" political policies.
If churches and religious leaders are truly worried about the souls of America, they are preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and following his example. Do you know how many times the word "politics" is in my NIV New Testament? The same as the word "abortion," none. That's only one fewer than the frequency of the word "homosexual."
Churches that are active in the political arena and promoting their views on abortion, homosexuality, and other important social issues may be doing many things, but they are NOT following the example Jesus Christ set during his time on earth.
How can the body of Christ be effective winning souls for Jesus when their priority is winning elections?
They can't, and it makes the jobs of other congregations that DO follow Jesus' example more difficult because all of the attention these political churches draw to themselves has the effect of drawing all bodies of Christ under the same umbrella.
This row has been plowed before. The Pharisees added law upon law upon law before the birth of Christ, and that worked out so well that God had to send His son down to earth to be crucified to clean up the mess.
Please, let's work in our churches to stop modern-day Pharisees from further corrupting the body of Christ in our time.
Why are churches helping to finance political campaigns?
Churches are funded almost entirely on contributions from their members. In any church I have belonged to, I understood that my donations were to be used in the funding of ministry work. After all, isn't that supposed to be its primary function?
I wonder anymore. Churches and religious orgainzations put a lot of money and other resources into political causes these days trying to make the laws of the United States adhere to their religious convictions.
Here's an idea--take that money and devote those resources toward leading people to Jesus. The politically active "fundamentalists" want to make this a christian nation, and what better way to accomplish that goal than to have a nation full of christians?
Because then the "fundamentalists" can't control people's actions as they seek to do through legislative and judicial means. If people develop their own relationship with Jesus Christ, there is no guarantee they will subscribe to the"fundamentalist" political policies.
If churches and religious leaders are truly worried about the souls of America, they are preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and following his example. Do you know how many times the word "politics" is in my NIV New Testament? The same as the word "abortion," none. That's only one fewer than the frequency of the word "homosexual."
Churches that are active in the political arena and promoting their views on abortion, homosexuality, and other important social issues may be doing many things, but they are NOT following the example Jesus Christ set during his time on earth.
How can the body of Christ be effective winning souls for Jesus when their priority is winning elections?
They can't, and it makes the jobs of other congregations that DO follow Jesus' example more difficult because all of the attention these political churches draw to themselves has the effect of drawing all bodies of Christ under the same umbrella.
This row has been plowed before. The Pharisees added law upon law upon law before the birth of Christ, and that worked out so well that God had to send His son down to earth to be crucified to clean up the mess.
Please, let's work in our churches to stop modern-day Pharisees from further corrupting the body of Christ in our time.
January 22, 2006
Open Minded Youth
My friend Sharone sent me a link to this letter to the editor that appeared in the Culpeper (Virginia) Citizen newspaper recently. It was written by someone who is already very involved in equality issues despite, according to Sharone, not even being 18 years old.
Letter to the editor
It struck me that my generation (I'm 47 years old) will fight and claw for advances in equality for GLBT people, but it will probably take the next generation like the letter writer to effect complete, long-lasting change.
I dare say most of the people growing up in my generation were indoctinated with the teaching of the evils of homosexuality. As a result of this prevailing value, it was rare that I encountered a GLBT person that was out of the closet, and I was not able to connect the idea of homosexuality with real people.
Someone growing up in the last 15-20 years, however, is much more likely to have met openly GLBT people. This has afforded them the opportunity to know these people and push homosexuality beyond a concept and into reality. Knowledge and understanding breed acceptance, and there is much more of that among people in their teens and twenties than older folks like me.
Their is great reason to hope that the up and coming generation of leaders will bring a much greater attitude of acceptance and promotion of equality among everyone, but let's not wait for them to get in place. Let's blaze the trail now so people can benefit sooner rather than later.
Letter to the editor
It struck me that my generation (I'm 47 years old) will fight and claw for advances in equality for GLBT people, but it will probably take the next generation like the letter writer to effect complete, long-lasting change.
I dare say most of the people growing up in my generation were indoctinated with the teaching of the evils of homosexuality. As a result of this prevailing value, it was rare that I encountered a GLBT person that was out of the closet, and I was not able to connect the idea of homosexuality with real people.
Someone growing up in the last 15-20 years, however, is much more likely to have met openly GLBT people. This has afforded them the opportunity to know these people and push homosexuality beyond a concept and into reality. Knowledge and understanding breed acceptance, and there is much more of that among people in their teens and twenties than older folks like me.
Their is great reason to hope that the up and coming generation of leaders will bring a much greater attitude of acceptance and promotion of equality among everyone, but let's not wait for them to get in place. Let's blaze the trail now so people can benefit sooner rather than later.
January 20, 2006
A Step Forward in Maryland
A Baltimore Circuit Court judge today struck down Maryland's law against same-sex marriage, offering the opinion that it "cannot withstand this constitutional challenge." The state attorney quickly filed an appeal, meaning that the case will go before the Maryland Court of Appeals. This is essentially the state's supreme court and, one way or the other, is the final stop for this case. A decision from that court is not expected until 2007.
The court also opined, "Indeed, this court is unable to even find that the prohibition of same-sex marriage rationally relates to a legitimate state interest." Apparently this judge agrees with Equality Maryland, an organization I belong to, and other groups that civilization will not be destroyed if gay and lesbian couples can legally marry.
This court decision comes as the Maryland Lesiglature is early in its 2006 session and may consider a state constitutional amendment that would prohibit same-sex marriage. I will join my fellow members of Equality Maryland for a rally at the State House in Annapolis on February 13 calling for the defeat of that measure. For more information, you can check out the Equality Maryland website.
Interestingly, a group of Maryland religious leaders will come together next week to hold their own rally opposing that same amendment. I would be hypocritical if I did not share my discomfort with that. I'm glad they are on the same side of this issue as I am, but their demonstration regarding a political issue while representing their churches is no different than if a group of right-wing clergy coming out to support it.
I've already written at some length about how strongly I oppose the political activism of churches and the leaders that represent them. I would be a lot happier if these clergy members joined the rally on February 13, counting as one person/one voice just like me.
Maryland goverernor Robert Ehrlich, a republican, is on record as believing marriage is meant to be only between a man and a woman. I certainly respect Mr. Ehrlich's right to believe that and teach that value to his children, but it's time to allow grown-ups to chart their own paths and make their own choices, even if they conflict with the governor's value system.
Ultimately, we all have to answer to God about these choices, and I believe we should not be restricted by any state or federal government's definition of who should be allowed to love each other and have legal rights consistent with our commitment to one another.
The court also opined, "Indeed, this court is unable to even find that the prohibition of same-sex marriage rationally relates to a legitimate state interest." Apparently this judge agrees with Equality Maryland, an organization I belong to, and other groups that civilization will not be destroyed if gay and lesbian couples can legally marry.
This court decision comes as the Maryland Lesiglature is early in its 2006 session and may consider a state constitutional amendment that would prohibit same-sex marriage. I will join my fellow members of Equality Maryland for a rally at the State House in Annapolis on February 13 calling for the defeat of that measure. For more information, you can check out the Equality Maryland website.
Interestingly, a group of Maryland religious leaders will come together next week to hold their own rally opposing that same amendment. I would be hypocritical if I did not share my discomfort with that. I'm glad they are on the same side of this issue as I am, but their demonstration regarding a political issue while representing their churches is no different than if a group of right-wing clergy coming out to support it.
I've already written at some length about how strongly I oppose the political activism of churches and the leaders that represent them. I would be a lot happier if these clergy members joined the rally on February 13, counting as one person/one voice just like me.
Maryland goverernor Robert Ehrlich, a republican, is on record as believing marriage is meant to be only between a man and a woman. I certainly respect Mr. Ehrlich's right to believe that and teach that value to his children, but it's time to allow grown-ups to chart their own paths and make their own choices, even if they conflict with the governor's value system.
Ultimately, we all have to answer to God about these choices, and I believe we should not be restricted by any state or federal government's definition of who should be allowed to love each other and have legal rights consistent with our commitment to one another.
January 18, 2006
Disconnected
A recent survey by the Barna Research Group asked church pastors what members of their congregations are most passionate about. The leaders surveyed responses, averaged out, showed that they felt 70% of the adults in their churches consider their faith in God the top priority in their lives.
If this were a version of the "Family Fued" gameshow, that answer would draw a loud buzzer noise and an X on the tv screen.
Survey says...only about 15% of adults felt God was their top priority. This was the result of a second survey done concurrently by Barna.
That, folks, is a HUGE disconnect.
The president of the survey company, George Barna, feels that pastors guage passion by looking at numbers such as church attendance. That's quite a dispassionate way of measuring passion, isn't it.
It's easy to paint a story like this in broad strokes and I'll resist that temptation, but it does at least raise questions.
Perhaps in some of these situations, the church membership is taking the lead from thier pastor. In churches where politics are preached and resources are spent to influence judicial nominations and public policy, I can understand where members would wonder if God is their pastor's top priority. If it isn't, and ostensibly that's the basis for him receiving a salary from the church, then why should God be that important to everyone else?
There is no more effective style of leadership than leading by example. Unfortunately, a bad example can lead people in the wrong direction.
I encourage readers to ask this question of their church pastor; is winning souls for Chirst his top priority, above ALL other functions he performs? If it is not, then I emplore you to do one of two things, either try to get a new pastor or seek out a new church where the leader is focused on winning souls for Christ.
If pews and collection plates stop filling up, maybe some pastors will get the message and refocus. Hopefully, the ones who don't get the message will just go away and let someone with a true passion for Christ's agenda instead of their own fill the leadership void.
If this were a version of the "Family Fued" gameshow, that answer would draw a loud buzzer noise and an X on the tv screen.
Survey says...only about 15% of adults felt God was their top priority. This was the result of a second survey done concurrently by Barna.
That, folks, is a HUGE disconnect.
The president of the survey company, George Barna, feels that pastors guage passion by looking at numbers such as church attendance. That's quite a dispassionate way of measuring passion, isn't it.
It's easy to paint a story like this in broad strokes and I'll resist that temptation, but it does at least raise questions.
Perhaps in some of these situations, the church membership is taking the lead from thier pastor. In churches where politics are preached and resources are spent to influence judicial nominations and public policy, I can understand where members would wonder if God is their pastor's top priority. If it isn't, and ostensibly that's the basis for him receiving a salary from the church, then why should God be that important to everyone else?
There is no more effective style of leadership than leading by example. Unfortunately, a bad example can lead people in the wrong direction.
I encourage readers to ask this question of their church pastor; is winning souls for Chirst his top priority, above ALL other functions he performs? If it is not, then I emplore you to do one of two things, either try to get a new pastor or seek out a new church where the leader is focused on winning souls for Christ.
If pews and collection plates stop filling up, maybe some pastors will get the message and refocus. Hopefully, the ones who don't get the message will just go away and let someone with a true passion for Christ's agenda instead of their own fill the leadership void.
January 16, 2006
Again With the Homosexual Agenda
CBN continues to hammer away at the movie "Brokeback Mountain", using it as an example of Hollywood's efforts to "gain sympathy, if not outright support, for those practicing the homosexual lifestyle."
The article goes on at great length to negate any positive impression this movie might give people of homosexuals by referring to it as propaganda, and even tries to discredit the success it is enjoying at the box office.
This from the network who is led by Pat Robertson, who in recent months has wanted the president of Venezuela whacked and claimed God was whacking the Prime Minister of Isreal.
This article goes on to detail what it implies is an evil conspiracy to "brainwash" people into thinking homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle. They quote the author of a book about this subject that was actually titled, "The Marketing of Evil."
Apparently it's okay for "fundamentalists" to work together in conspiracies, like the Justice Sunday event I recently wrote about. Once again, different rules are applied to organizations or groups of people that do not subscribe to the narrow, closed-minded message of right-wing religious leaders like Pat Robertson.
Remember, this is the man who wanted the president of Venezuela whacked and claimed God was whacking the Prime Minister of Isreal. That's okay, but a movie sending a message that two gay men might possibly have some redeeming qualities must be stopped!
This mentality has even seeped into the sports world. Larry Miller, the owner of the Utah Jazz pro basketball team, also owns a complex of 17 movie theaters in Sandy, Utah. He apparently did not know about the content of Brokeback Mountain until asked about it in a radio interview the day it was set to open. According to the ESPN report, less than two hours after the interview was finished, the movie was pulled from his theater.
This is yet another clear example of "fundamentalists" not following the example of Jesus even while they try to jam their version of him down our nation's throat. God operates by one set of rules. Even when Jesus was on earth, while He did not observe all of the laws established at the time, laws which were eventually used as the excuse to crucity Him, He obeyed all of God's rules.
If Jesus is not exempt from God's one, unchanging set of rules, NO ONE IS! That, folks, is fundamental christianity.
As people seek spiritual guidance, they need to carefully consider the agenda of any leader they choose to receive it from. If their agenda is not compatible with the teachings and example of Jesus, run, do not walk, to the nearest exit.
The article goes on at great length to negate any positive impression this movie might give people of homosexuals by referring to it as propaganda, and even tries to discredit the success it is enjoying at the box office.
This from the network who is led by Pat Robertson, who in recent months has wanted the president of Venezuela whacked and claimed God was whacking the Prime Minister of Isreal.
This article goes on to detail what it implies is an evil conspiracy to "brainwash" people into thinking homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle. They quote the author of a book about this subject that was actually titled, "The Marketing of Evil."
Apparently it's okay for "fundamentalists" to work together in conspiracies, like the Justice Sunday event I recently wrote about. Once again, different rules are applied to organizations or groups of people that do not subscribe to the narrow, closed-minded message of right-wing religious leaders like Pat Robertson.
Remember, this is the man who wanted the president of Venezuela whacked and claimed God was whacking the Prime Minister of Isreal. That's okay, but a movie sending a message that two gay men might possibly have some redeeming qualities must be stopped!
This mentality has even seeped into the sports world. Larry Miller, the owner of the Utah Jazz pro basketball team, also owns a complex of 17 movie theaters in Sandy, Utah. He apparently did not know about the content of Brokeback Mountain until asked about it in a radio interview the day it was set to open. According to the ESPN report, less than two hours after the interview was finished, the movie was pulled from his theater.
This is yet another clear example of "fundamentalists" not following the example of Jesus even while they try to jam their version of him down our nation's throat. God operates by one set of rules. Even when Jesus was on earth, while He did not observe all of the laws established at the time, laws which were eventually used as the excuse to crucity Him, He obeyed all of God's rules.
If Jesus is not exempt from God's one, unchanging set of rules, NO ONE IS! That, folks, is fundamental christianity.
As people seek spiritual guidance, they need to carefully consider the agenda of any leader they choose to receive it from. If their agenda is not compatible with the teachings and example of Jesus, run, do not walk, to the nearest exit.
January 14, 2006
Not In My Church!
Last Sunday, a large group of religious "fundamentalists" held "Justice Sunday III." This event, featuring religious leaders like Dr. James Dobson and Dr. Jerry Falwell, was held for the third consecutive year in one of the Southern Baptist "mega churches." It was essentially a pep rally for Supreme Court nominee Joseph Alito.
Messages were given from the pulpit, by ordained ministers, pointing out the absolute necessity of Alito's confirmation. According to the article I linked, Dr. Dobson went so far to say at the first Justice Sunday, "My goodness, I just cannot imagine anything more significant that what we are about to do."
In my opinion, any man who could say that influencing judicial appointments is more significant than winning souls for Jesus Christ has no business behind the pulpit of a church!. How can any religious leader with a heart and soul for Christ possibly feel that way! I offer the theory that anyone who could say that is focusing on THEIR agenda, not God's, and isn't much better than the Pharisees who had Jesus put to death.
There is only one thing that should be preached in God's house and that is His word! Men like Dr. Dobson and Dr. Falwell have every right to be politically active and support any policy they so choose. In their roles as pastors and heads of religious organizations, however, they have a responsiblity to follow the example of Jesus.
Check out the gospels one time and see how politically active Jesus was during his time on earth. I'll save you the trouble--he wasn't. There are several examples where people tried to trap Him into making a political statement that would have angered either the ruling Romans or the people of Israel. He never took the bait. That is worth emphasizing. Not only did Jesus not initiate any political activity as part of his ministry, he took great care to avoid even the perception of such.
My minister, Dale Jarrett follows that example very seriously. He is a member of Equality Maryland, a gay-rights group that I also belong to. Fortunately, Dale feels the same way I do--that it is not his place to preach about the activities of that or any organization. He will work with them, but he will not direct our membership to do so. BCF may rent its facility out to a political organization, but it will not be as part of a church service. Dale nor anyone else from the church leadership would not do anything remotely resembling preaching during any such activity.
There is only one gospel that should be preached in church. It has nothing to do with conservatives or liberals, republicans or deomcrats, gays or hetros. It needs to be about the love of God and the examples He set and the word that He inspired.
If it's about anything else, then step away from the pulpit and call it a political rally, because it's not church anymore.
Messages were given from the pulpit, by ordained ministers, pointing out the absolute necessity of Alito's confirmation. According to the article I linked, Dr. Dobson went so far to say at the first Justice Sunday, "My goodness, I just cannot imagine anything more significant that what we are about to do."
In my opinion, any man who could say that influencing judicial appointments is more significant than winning souls for Jesus Christ has no business behind the pulpit of a church!. How can any religious leader with a heart and soul for Christ possibly feel that way! I offer the theory that anyone who could say that is focusing on THEIR agenda, not God's, and isn't much better than the Pharisees who had Jesus put to death.
There is only one thing that should be preached in God's house and that is His word! Men like Dr. Dobson and Dr. Falwell have every right to be politically active and support any policy they so choose. In their roles as pastors and heads of religious organizations, however, they have a responsiblity to follow the example of Jesus.
Check out the gospels one time and see how politically active Jesus was during his time on earth. I'll save you the trouble--he wasn't. There are several examples where people tried to trap Him into making a political statement that would have angered either the ruling Romans or the people of Israel. He never took the bait. That is worth emphasizing. Not only did Jesus not initiate any political activity as part of his ministry, he took great care to avoid even the perception of such.
My minister, Dale Jarrett follows that example very seriously. He is a member of Equality Maryland, a gay-rights group that I also belong to. Fortunately, Dale feels the same way I do--that it is not his place to preach about the activities of that or any organization. He will work with them, but he will not direct our membership to do so. BCF may rent its facility out to a political organization, but it will not be as part of a church service. Dale nor anyone else from the church leadership would not do anything remotely resembling preaching during any such activity.
There is only one gospel that should be preached in church. It has nothing to do with conservatives or liberals, republicans or deomcrats, gays or hetros. It needs to be about the love of God and the examples He set and the word that He inspired.
If it's about anything else, then step away from the pulpit and call it a political rally, because it's not church anymore.
January 11, 2006
Follow Up-Oklahoma Pastor Resigns
I want to close the loop on a story I wrote about a few days ago. Lonnie Latham, a church pastor and member of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee, has resigned both positions. Latham admitted that the charges of him soliciting sex from an undercover policeman were true.
I don't want to pile on here. Instead, I ask you to join me in praying for Mr. Latham and his family. Specifically, let's pray that Mr. Latham opens his heart and mind to understand who he truly is. Also, ask that God helps him make any adjustments he needs to live a life that honestly represents how God made him.
I don't want to pile on here. Instead, I ask you to join me in praying for Mr. Latham and his family. Specifically, let's pray that Mr. Latham opens his heart and mind to understand who he truly is. Also, ask that God helps him make any adjustments he needs to live a life that honestly represents how God made him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
