Author Wayne Besen has a column up on his site about U. S. Senator Russ Feingold, who is the first potentially viable presidential candidate to come out in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage.
Besen writes that this is somewhat of a watershed moment in GLBT politics and feels that because of his support, Feingold deserves the strong support of the GLBT community. He compares Feingold to other political "friends":
As the right wing beat the stuffing out of our beleaguered families, our "friends" whispered from the sidelines, "don't take it personally, we still love you." And, of course, they do love us, which is the problem. We are adored like the terminally uncool, but loyal, buddy who unfailingly helps move our furniture or fixes our computers, but never asks us why we haven't invited him to swanky A-List parties.
Since Feingold has invited the GLBT community to the party, Besen feels that they should make every effort to attend.
I agree with this to some extent. When I begin considering who will receive my vote in the 2008 Democratic primary election, their position on GLBT equality will obviously be an important factor, but not the only one. Besen does not make the "one issue" case for Feingold either, pointing out the Senator's strong stance on campaign finance reform and his measure to censure President Bush and hold him accountable for illegally wiretapping Americans as other strong points on his political resume.
I just want to caution the GLBT community and their allies to not fall into the trap the religious right has sucked millions of voters into. They have convinced people that it is wrong to vote for someone who wants to keep abortion legal or doesn't want prayer in schools. These are important issues, but do they really rank up there with decisions like whether or not to invade another nation?
When it comes down to it, there are issues that have more far-reaching impact that same-sex marriage. However, if your favorite candidates agree on everything else and disagree on that issue, it would be a good tie-breaker.
Feingold might very well be worthy of supporting for president. Let's just make sure we consider his and any other candidate's entire political platform and not be overly influenced by any single issue no matter how passionately we care about it.
April 11, 2006
April 10, 2006
Update on the Christian Coalition
Once a powerhouse political lobbying organization, the Christian Coalition is experiencing some very troubling times these days. This is the group co-founded by Ralph Reed, the subject of my post yesterday, and the now infamous Pat Robertson.
According to this Washington Post article via MSNBC, the "once-mighty" Christian Coalition is now $2 million in debt and dealing with lawsuits from creditors. I guess the current leadership didn't go to all of those Christain seminars about how the Godly way of financial management is not to dig a deep hole of debt.
Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that some of the local chapters, the true grass-roots strength of the Christian Coalition in previous years, are distancing themselves from the organization. The Iowa chapter has completely cut its ties and renamed itself the "Iowa Christian Alliance."
Stephen L. Scheffler, The Iowa affiliate president since 2000, told the Post "The credibility is just not there like it once was.....There's a trail of debt....our board believes any Christian organization has an obligation to pay its debts in a timely fashion."
I don't recall reading about Jesus running up a large Visa card bill during His time on earth, which, since he knew when he was going to ascend to heaven, would have made sense--enjoy the benefits then let somebody else pick up the tab. If anybody could have pulled that off, it would have been Him.
Fortunately, the examples of His ministry show the complete opposite approach as being acceptable. If the Christain Coalition is going to linger and not have the decency to just go away, couldn't they at least change the name and take Christ out of it--at least that would be more representative of the orgainzation's actions.
According to this Washington Post article via MSNBC, the "once-mighty" Christian Coalition is now $2 million in debt and dealing with lawsuits from creditors. I guess the current leadership didn't go to all of those Christain seminars about how the Godly way of financial management is not to dig a deep hole of debt.
Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that some of the local chapters, the true grass-roots strength of the Christian Coalition in previous years, are distancing themselves from the organization. The Iowa chapter has completely cut its ties and renamed itself the "Iowa Christian Alliance."
Stephen L. Scheffler, The Iowa affiliate president since 2000, told the Post "The credibility is just not there like it once was.....There's a trail of debt....our board believes any Christian organization has an obligation to pay its debts in a timely fashion."
I don't recall reading about Jesus running up a large Visa card bill during His time on earth, which, since he knew when he was going to ascend to heaven, would have made sense--enjoy the benefits then let somebody else pick up the tab. If anybody could have pulled that off, it would have been Him.
Fortunately, the examples of His ministry show the complete opposite approach as being acceptable. If the Christain Coalition is going to linger and not have the decency to just go away, couldn't they at least change the name and take Christ out of it--at least that would be more representative of the orgainzation's actions.
April 09, 2006
Dragging Down the Religious Right
Apostle Dale at my church alerted me to this fascinating article in "The Nation" magazine about Christian Coalition co-founder Ralph Reed. The article talks about the trouble he has encountered in his campaign for Lieutenant Governor of Georgia.
Reed has been linked to the still mushrooming dirty-money scandal centered around provessional lobbyist Jack Abramoff. As you can read in the article, it is merely the latest question of impropriety and legality Reed has been faced with in his public life.
It is troubling that someone who help found and then lead an orgainzation with the name "Christian Coalition" has a documented history of deception, ruthlessness, and self-promotion. All of these characteristics go against the Christianity I know.
That leads me to touch on the bigger issue, the role of the church in American politics. Going back to the very founding of the United States, politics has been known as a dirty business. When religious organizations became prominent in the political arena in the 1980's, primarily as an operative for the Republican Party, something had to give. Either the Christian involvement would rase the standards of politics, or the principles of Christianity would be compromised as these groups wallowed in the mud with everyone else. It is with sadness and anger that I have watched the latter scenario play out.
When Christian leaders focus so much of their time, energy, and their follower's money on political issues, they are usually yielding the moral high ground they are claiming in their television ads and talk-show appearances. While people like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson are feeding on the wealth, celebrity, and influence their political activism has brought them, who is home feeding their sheep?
Jesus said in John 21:18, "Feed my sheep."
He didn't say to do so if you could work it in between political rallies or television appearances.
Reed has been linked to the still mushrooming dirty-money scandal centered around provessional lobbyist Jack Abramoff. As you can read in the article, it is merely the latest question of impropriety and legality Reed has been faced with in his public life.
It is troubling that someone who help found and then lead an orgainzation with the name "Christian Coalition" has a documented history of deception, ruthlessness, and self-promotion. All of these characteristics go against the Christianity I know.
That leads me to touch on the bigger issue, the role of the church in American politics. Going back to the very founding of the United States, politics has been known as a dirty business. When religious organizations became prominent in the political arena in the 1980's, primarily as an operative for the Republican Party, something had to give. Either the Christian involvement would rase the standards of politics, or the principles of Christianity would be compromised as these groups wallowed in the mud with everyone else. It is with sadness and anger that I have watched the latter scenario play out.
When Christian leaders focus so much of their time, energy, and their follower's money on political issues, they are usually yielding the moral high ground they are claiming in their television ads and talk-show appearances. While people like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson are feeding on the wealth, celebrity, and influence their political activism has brought them, who is home feeding their sheep?
Jesus said in John 21:18, "Feed my sheep."
He didn't say to do so if you could work it in between political rallies or television appearances.
April 08, 2006
The Truth Is Out There
I was struggling a bit trying to come up with a good post this morning. Being called a heretic and "a hell born child of Satan himself" as I was over on the Charisma message board I posted about on Wednesday had something to do with that. I reject their labeling, but it also doesn't give one a warm fuzzy either.
I then found a post while visiting Wes Ellis' wonderful blog "Living In the Kingdom" that I needed to see, titled "the truth is out there." After getting beat up because I didn't agree with the "absolute truth" subscribed to by the Charisma posters, Wes' words were very refreshing. Here's the part that really spoke to my heart:
"The problems don’t come when we’re uncertain of our faith. Real problems come when we are so certain that we start to think that our faith is the only faith that has any access to truth. We really enter the danger zone when we begin to think we have the market on truth. What was once faith becomes dogma, and not the good kind of dogma, but the kind that we feel must be protected at all costs. This dogma now becomes the center of our faith. Only by a subscription to this dogma, we believe, can someone really hold truth. This is a gravely dangerous thing. "
Wes is currently a theology student at Asuza Pacific University. We've corresponded before and he is still undecided about the place of homosexuals in God's kingdom. He has written about that on his blog and invited me to share ideas regarding that and other issues. Wes is a seeker searching God's ultimate truth. I believe I am also, and hope that something you read on either of our blogs encourages you to take that path yourself.
I then found a post while visiting Wes Ellis' wonderful blog "Living In the Kingdom" that I needed to see, titled "the truth is out there." After getting beat up because I didn't agree with the "absolute truth" subscribed to by the Charisma posters, Wes' words were very refreshing. Here's the part that really spoke to my heart:
"The problems don’t come when we’re uncertain of our faith. Real problems come when we are so certain that we start to think that our faith is the only faith that has any access to truth. We really enter the danger zone when we begin to think we have the market on truth. What was once faith becomes dogma, and not the good kind of dogma, but the kind that we feel must be protected at all costs. This dogma now becomes the center of our faith. Only by a subscription to this dogma, we believe, can someone really hold truth. This is a gravely dangerous thing. "
Wes is currently a theology student at Asuza Pacific University. We've corresponded before and he is still undecided about the place of homosexuals in God's kingdom. He has written about that on his blog and invited me to share ideas regarding that and other issues. Wes is a seeker searching God's ultimate truth. I believe I am also, and hope that something you read on either of our blogs encourages you to take that path yourself.
April 06, 2006
Racial Separation in the GLBT Community?
I've pondered that quesiton since I patricipated in Equality Maryland's lobby day rally earlier this year and noticed the only African-American faces I saw were invited speakers. I wondered if that was a fluke, then I heard that Julian Bond, one of the more respected African-American leaders, would not attend Coretta King's funeral because she had come out in support of gay rights. I then knew there was a deep seeded issue at work here.
This article from the Southern Voice delves into the issue of racial division in Atlanta, a city with one of the largest concentrated groups of African-Americans, GLBT people, and one could presume African-American GLBTs. While this piece does not come up with any firm conclusions, it is at least a good exploration of the issue.
I have heard two theories, neither of them scientifically researched. The first one, especially among Christian African-Americans, focuses on the strong "fundamentalist" teaching they receive in primarily African-American churches. The idea is that even as many fall away from the church as adults, they remember some of the basics drilled into them by the sermons they heard as children. We all know how "fundamentalists" feel about GLBTs.
The second theory deals with resentment. At the rally I attended, one of the primary themes put forth by the speakers, especially the African-American ones, was a push for civil rights. There was even a point where we were led in a couple of songs from the civil rights marches in the 1960's, which I thought was a bit over the top.
Anyway, the theory I have heard is that there is resentment among some of the prominent African-American leaders who could really help push for issues like same-sex marriage. Resentment derived from a feeling that the GLBT community is not entitled to ride on the coattails of civil rights icons like Martin Luther King. I can't help but find some merit in that. I believe those who are leading the fight for GLBT rights need to set their own tone and not try to hitch their wagon to civil rights battles fought long ago.
I am very interested in your thoughts here. It is an issue I will continue to study and post on from time to time when I have something of substance to share.
This article from the Southern Voice delves into the issue of racial division in Atlanta, a city with one of the largest concentrated groups of African-Americans, GLBT people, and one could presume African-American GLBTs. While this piece does not come up with any firm conclusions, it is at least a good exploration of the issue.
I have heard two theories, neither of them scientifically researched. The first one, especially among Christian African-Americans, focuses on the strong "fundamentalist" teaching they receive in primarily African-American churches. The idea is that even as many fall away from the church as adults, they remember some of the basics drilled into them by the sermons they heard as children. We all know how "fundamentalists" feel about GLBTs.
The second theory deals with resentment. At the rally I attended, one of the primary themes put forth by the speakers, especially the African-American ones, was a push for civil rights. There was even a point where we were led in a couple of songs from the civil rights marches in the 1960's, which I thought was a bit over the top.
Anyway, the theory I have heard is that there is resentment among some of the prominent African-American leaders who could really help push for issues like same-sex marriage. Resentment derived from a feeling that the GLBT community is not entitled to ride on the coattails of civil rights icons like Martin Luther King. I can't help but find some merit in that. I believe those who are leading the fight for GLBT rights need to set their own tone and not try to hitch their wagon to civil rights battles fought long ago.
I am very interested in your thoughts here. It is an issue I will continue to study and post on from time to time when I have something of substance to share.
April 05, 2006
Visiting the "Other Side"
I mentioned in a recent post that I had visited a message board tied in with "Charisma Magazine" after they had published a strongly anti-gay column. After six days, 159 replies, and almost 2,000 views (some of whom then visited this blog), the discussion finally seems to be winding down. The experience has been illuminating and I think worth sharing some thoughts here.
Fellow blogger Bill Ware jumped in and helped me carry the debate about the place of homosexuality in Christianity. Bill and I both believe a person can be both homosexual and a christian who can have an active fellowship with God. We both feel the bible speaks very strongly about the sinfullness of promiscuity and that some of those scriptures have been interpreted in a way that makes many Christians believe the practice of homosexuality is an abomination (among other things) under any and all circumstances.
As you can imagine, Bill and I got beat up pretty badly over there. Bill shares some of his posts on his blog if you are curious, but not enough so to plow through that entire thread. I believe we had the same intent about participating, and that's what I want to share here.
When I posted my objections to the key points in the Charisma Magazine column, I did so with no realistic hope of changing minds of the hard-core members of that message board. Several of them, while staying civil for the most part, still hammered at their points to prove the sinfullness of homosexuality, and rejected out of hand the mere consideration that there could be another vaild interpretation of scripture. Bill and I have several of the regulars over there praying our salvation, since we obviously can't be saved in their eyes with our beliefs, so at least we've got that going for us.
I suspect that many Internet sites and message boards that lean to the left or the right, as most of them I've seen do, also attract vistors who have not put a stake in the ground on either side. If this issue was polled, they would be undecided. That's the group every politician campaigns to, and those are the people I was taking a verbal lashing for.
I am not a preacher, nor do I play one on TV. I only hope with my writing here and the work I do through my church to reach someone enough to get them to say "hmmm, that is worth considering." Whether I help them consider the ideas I have put out there, which I believe with my heart and mind are inspired by God, or they hear them and go off on their own to ponder and investigate them doesn't matter to me.
If I can help people just stop and think, I'm already shaking the "fundamentalists" up because it is painfully obvious to me they don't want anyone to do that.
Instead of wanting people to follow me like sheep, I want to direct them to the love of Jesus so they can follow him and be fed by the Holy Spirit. If I can help get them pointed in that directions, the next step is between them and Jesus.
I would encourage any of you who can stomach it to participate in forums that may be hostile to your viewpoints, and even to you personally. In order to spread the enlightenment that can only come from opening your heart and mind to the love of Jesus, sometimes we need to go and meet people where they are, then see if they will follow us back to where we are.
Fellow blogger Bill Ware jumped in and helped me carry the debate about the place of homosexuality in Christianity. Bill and I both believe a person can be both homosexual and a christian who can have an active fellowship with God. We both feel the bible speaks very strongly about the sinfullness of promiscuity and that some of those scriptures have been interpreted in a way that makes many Christians believe the practice of homosexuality is an abomination (among other things) under any and all circumstances.
As you can imagine, Bill and I got beat up pretty badly over there. Bill shares some of his posts on his blog if you are curious, but not enough so to plow through that entire thread. I believe we had the same intent about participating, and that's what I want to share here.
When I posted my objections to the key points in the Charisma Magazine column, I did so with no realistic hope of changing minds of the hard-core members of that message board. Several of them, while staying civil for the most part, still hammered at their points to prove the sinfullness of homosexuality, and rejected out of hand the mere consideration that there could be another vaild interpretation of scripture. Bill and I have several of the regulars over there praying our salvation, since we obviously can't be saved in their eyes with our beliefs, so at least we've got that going for us.
I suspect that many Internet sites and message boards that lean to the left or the right, as most of them I've seen do, also attract vistors who have not put a stake in the ground on either side. If this issue was polled, they would be undecided. That's the group every politician campaigns to, and those are the people I was taking a verbal lashing for.
I am not a preacher, nor do I play one on TV. I only hope with my writing here and the work I do through my church to reach someone enough to get them to say "hmmm, that is worth considering." Whether I help them consider the ideas I have put out there, which I believe with my heart and mind are inspired by God, or they hear them and go off on their own to ponder and investigate them doesn't matter to me.
If I can help people just stop and think, I'm already shaking the "fundamentalists" up because it is painfully obvious to me they don't want anyone to do that.
Instead of wanting people to follow me like sheep, I want to direct them to the love of Jesus so they can follow him and be fed by the Holy Spirit. If I can help get them pointed in that directions, the next step is between them and Jesus.
I would encourage any of you who can stomach it to participate in forums that may be hostile to your viewpoints, and even to you personally. In order to spread the enlightenment that can only come from opening your heart and mind to the love of Jesus, sometimes we need to go and meet people where they are, then see if they will follow us back to where we are.
April 04, 2006
World War on Gays
I am extremely pleased that this blog has an international readership, having been visited by people in 66 nations since I began it a few months ago. I usually keep my commentary on news events to those in the United States because I stick to what I know.
Given the international flavor of my visitors, I thought it was well worth linking this column by Andrew Sullivan in The Advocate magazine. He writes about discrimination and persecution against GLBTs running rampant across the globe. From refusal to allow a gay pride parade in Moscow to a prohibition of public speaking in favor of gay equality in Nigeria to gay teens being hanged in Iran, Sullivan brings home the point that GLBT equality, even safety, is not an issue restricted to the borders of the United States.
The saying goes "Think globally, act locally," but GLBT individuals and their allies need to make sure to both think and act beyond our own borders whenever possible.
Given the international flavor of my visitors, I thought it was well worth linking this column by Andrew Sullivan in The Advocate magazine. He writes about discrimination and persecution against GLBTs running rampant across the globe. From refusal to allow a gay pride parade in Moscow to a prohibition of public speaking in favor of gay equality in Nigeria to gay teens being hanged in Iran, Sullivan brings home the point that GLBT equality, even safety, is not an issue restricted to the borders of the United States.
The saying goes "Think globally, act locally," but GLBT individuals and their allies need to make sure to both think and act beyond our own borders whenever possible.
April 02, 2006
What Has Happened to America's Jesus?
I recently ran across a piece that speaks to a lot of concerns I have about Jesus' position in American society.
The columnist, Rob Borsellino, went to Sicily, Italy to visit family. His piece was based on how he would tell his family about how Jesus is viewed in this country. This excerpt in particular struck me:
"Several times during the week, I thought about telling my family what's happened to Jesus in the United States — how he's been kidnapped by politicians and preachers who decide what he does and doesn't think. They speak for him, and it doesn't always make sense.
They say Jesus is "pro life," but he doesn't seem to have a problem with the death penalty. And he thinks stem cell research — something that would save lives — is no different from murdering babies. They say he's the embodiment of kindness, love, decency and compassion. But he hates gays, lesbians and Muslims. And he's not too crazy about Buddhists, Hindus and the rest. Jews? He can put up with them if he has to.
The Rev. Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka claims to speak for Jesus and goes around the country talking about how "AIDS cures fags." Pat Robertson says it would be a good idea if the United States killed the president of Venezuela. It would be a lot cheaper than starting another war.
All week I went over that stuff in my head and decided not to mention any of it to the family.
It would make America look ridiculous."
It sure would. Too bad it's true.
The columnist, Rob Borsellino, went to Sicily, Italy to visit family. His piece was based on how he would tell his family about how Jesus is viewed in this country. This excerpt in particular struck me:
"Several times during the week, I thought about telling my family what's happened to Jesus in the United States — how he's been kidnapped by politicians and preachers who decide what he does and doesn't think. They speak for him, and it doesn't always make sense.
They say Jesus is "pro life," but he doesn't seem to have a problem with the death penalty. And he thinks stem cell research — something that would save lives — is no different from murdering babies. They say he's the embodiment of kindness, love, decency and compassion. But he hates gays, lesbians and Muslims. And he's not too crazy about Buddhists, Hindus and the rest. Jews? He can put up with them if he has to.
The Rev. Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka claims to speak for Jesus and goes around the country talking about how "AIDS cures fags." Pat Robertson says it would be a good idea if the United States killed the president of Venezuela. It would be a lot cheaper than starting another war.
All week I went over that stuff in my head and decided not to mention any of it to the family.
It would make America look ridiculous."
It sure would. Too bad it's true.
April 01, 2006
Debunking Stereotypes
I was reviewing some of my previous posts to this blog and noticed a trend. A lot of what I write is meant to point out examples of bigotry and/or hatred toward the GLBT community by supposed Christians. I only hope I do not come across as too negative. I don’t want this blog to become merely a forum to bash the religious right. I also want to offer affirmations of how GLBTs can be in harmony with Christ while not feeling forced to hide or renounce their homosexuality.
When I began writing “Straight, Not Narrow” in June, it served primarily as an outlet for me to vent frustration and anger about the way GLBT people, including some who are now among my dearest friends, are treated. I continue to be amazed how age-old stereotypes are put out there and used against the GLBT community. For example:
“They have a very transient lifestyle. They don’t commit, they just sleep around.” If that was the case, why is there such a push for same-sex marriage? If this stereotype was actually true, wouldn’t the GLBT community be happy with the status quo? Sure, some gays and lesbians bed-hop. So do some straight men and women, but there is a small fraction of the outrage over that than the perceived “homosexual lifestyle.”
“They have serious emotional issues.” Let me ask this question; if you had been taught since you were a child that your natural sexual orientation made you a sinner and that you would not be allowed in God’s kingdom unless you renounced it, wouldn’t that cause YOU some emotional issues? If you were taught that it was evil to express yourself in the way God made you, wouldn’t that knock you a tad off center? I know it would work that way with me, anyway.
“Homosexuality is a choice.” Since science can not prove with 100% infallibility that this is a genetic condition, the “fundamentalists” insist that it must not be. If it was genetic, that would be troubling because they would have to answer why God would make someone a certain way and not want them to follow their nature. It’s like backing into the logic—the religious right wants to consider homosexuality sinful, so they claim that it is a conscious choice. Of course, many gays who have been “cured” soon relapse. This situation, which you can read more about on Ex-Gay Watch, has made the leadership at Love In Action somewhat unstable.
“The Bible Clearly Says Homosexuality is Sinful.” I would recommend reading two books that helped me understand why that statement is not true; “The Children are Free” by Rev. Jeff Miner and John Tyler Connoley and “The New Testament and Homosexuality” by Robin Scroggs. Briefly, I learned from these and other sources how the focus of many scriptures “fundamentalists” use to support this statement applied to promiscuity, not specifically homosexuality.
I believe with all my heart and have had the feeling validated by the Holy Spirit that the GLBT community is welcome in the kingdom of God as long as they accept Jesus Christ as their savior. Every person ever born of a human mother and father has sinned, and every single one has the opportunity to receive eternal life through Christ, even if they are a practicing homosexual. God did not give us a gift, and I have learned how homosexuality can be a gift, for us not to be able to use it for His glory.
I got fired up about things today because I have been involved in a message board debate over a column written in Charisma Magazine titled “To Be Gay…..And Christian?” This column, and most of the posts on this message board thread, leaves no possibility open that GLBTs (and me for accepting them) are anything but deeply troubled sinners.
It turns out I’ve received a few visitors from that web site. While no one has posted about anything in this blog, I hope at least one of them read something that made them stop, think, and consider that there are two sides to the debate about the place of GLBT’s in Christ’s church.
Jesus wants us to think and he wants us to understand. Most importantly, he wants to guide us in that process. Without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we just won’t get it.
If we allow our prejudices and prior teaching get in the way, we won’t get it either. It’s those people that are adamant they DO get it who are among the biggest roadblocks to the GLBT community being a fully respected, accepted part of our society and the church.
I don’t want bigotry and ignorance to win out. That’s why I’m here, and I’m glad you are visiting.
When I began writing “Straight, Not Narrow” in June, it served primarily as an outlet for me to vent frustration and anger about the way GLBT people, including some who are now among my dearest friends, are treated. I continue to be amazed how age-old stereotypes are put out there and used against the GLBT community. For example:
“They have a very transient lifestyle. They don’t commit, they just sleep around.” If that was the case, why is there such a push for same-sex marriage? If this stereotype was actually true, wouldn’t the GLBT community be happy with the status quo? Sure, some gays and lesbians bed-hop. So do some straight men and women, but there is a small fraction of the outrage over that than the perceived “homosexual lifestyle.”
“They have serious emotional issues.” Let me ask this question; if you had been taught since you were a child that your natural sexual orientation made you a sinner and that you would not be allowed in God’s kingdom unless you renounced it, wouldn’t that cause YOU some emotional issues? If you were taught that it was evil to express yourself in the way God made you, wouldn’t that knock you a tad off center? I know it would work that way with me, anyway.
“Homosexuality is a choice.” Since science can not prove with 100% infallibility that this is a genetic condition, the “fundamentalists” insist that it must not be. If it was genetic, that would be troubling because they would have to answer why God would make someone a certain way and not want them to follow their nature. It’s like backing into the logic—the religious right wants to consider homosexuality sinful, so they claim that it is a conscious choice. Of course, many gays who have been “cured” soon relapse. This situation, which you can read more about on Ex-Gay Watch, has made the leadership at Love In Action somewhat unstable.
“The Bible Clearly Says Homosexuality is Sinful.” I would recommend reading two books that helped me understand why that statement is not true; “The Children are Free” by Rev. Jeff Miner and John Tyler Connoley and “The New Testament and Homosexuality” by Robin Scroggs. Briefly, I learned from these and other sources how the focus of many scriptures “fundamentalists” use to support this statement applied to promiscuity, not specifically homosexuality.
I believe with all my heart and have had the feeling validated by the Holy Spirit that the GLBT community is welcome in the kingdom of God as long as they accept Jesus Christ as their savior. Every person ever born of a human mother and father has sinned, and every single one has the opportunity to receive eternal life through Christ, even if they are a practicing homosexual. God did not give us a gift, and I have learned how homosexuality can be a gift, for us not to be able to use it for His glory.
I got fired up about things today because I have been involved in a message board debate over a column written in Charisma Magazine titled “To Be Gay…..And Christian?” This column, and most of the posts on this message board thread, leaves no possibility open that GLBTs (and me for accepting them) are anything but deeply troubled sinners.
It turns out I’ve received a few visitors from that web site. While no one has posted about anything in this blog, I hope at least one of them read something that made them stop, think, and consider that there are two sides to the debate about the place of GLBT’s in Christ’s church.
Jesus wants us to think and he wants us to understand. Most importantly, he wants to guide us in that process. Without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we just won’t get it.
If we allow our prejudices and prior teaching get in the way, we won’t get it either. It’s those people that are adamant they DO get it who are among the biggest roadblocks to the GLBT community being a fully respected, accepted part of our society and the church.
I don’t want bigotry and ignorance to win out. That’s why I’m here, and I’m glad you are visiting.
March 31, 2006
Practicing What They Preach
A post on author Wayne Besen's website by Chris Lamparello points out the difficulties that christians have living by their own rules.
As an example, Lamparello cites a study conducted at Baylor University, a school that is affiliated with the very conservative Southern Baptist Convention. The results of the study showed that 62% of the males and 65% of the females had premarital sex.
Lamparello quotes another study that reports the highest divorce rate in America belongs to born again Christians.
When people hear "fundamentalists" scream about "maintaining the sanctity of marriage," it can be pretty tough to swallow when you realize that trend. It makes non-christians look at christians like hypocrites.
You may have heared the phrase "clean up your own back yard." That certainly applies here. Could the right-wing be using the tactic of "the best defense is a good offense?" Could they be trying to take attention off the failures of "fundamentalits" to live by their own fundamentals by pointing out the preceived flaws of others, expecially homosexuals?
It's effective politics but not very effective godly living.
As an example, Lamparello cites a study conducted at Baylor University, a school that is affiliated with the very conservative Southern Baptist Convention. The results of the study showed that 62% of the males and 65% of the females had premarital sex.
Lamparello quotes another study that reports the highest divorce rate in America belongs to born again Christians.
When people hear "fundamentalists" scream about "maintaining the sanctity of marriage," it can be pretty tough to swallow when you realize that trend. It makes non-christians look at christians like hypocrites.
You may have heared the phrase "clean up your own back yard." That certainly applies here. Could the right-wing be using the tactic of "the best defense is a good offense?" Could they be trying to take attention off the failures of "fundamentalits" to live by their own fundamentals by pointing out the preceived flaws of others, expecially homosexuals?
It's effective politics but not very effective godly living.
March 30, 2006
More on the Infamous Rep. Maggart
I recently wrote about Tennessee State Representative Debra Maggart's comments regarding her views on homosexuals as potential adoptive parents. To briefly summarize, she is opposed because of all the issues she feels GLBT people have, making them unfit in her view to adopt and raise a child.
Just in case there was any question about Rep. Maggart's statements being taken out of context or misunderstood, this article in Nashville's Tennessean newspaper should clear that up. She told the paper, "I don't wish to discriminate against anyone.....but (gays) have issues."
Yeah, and so do some legislators. In this case, ignorance and bigotry are two of them.
I address this issue again because I wanted to link a letter that fellow blogger Bill Ware, a Tennessee resident, wrote to Rep. Maggart. He makes some excellent points and it is well worth reading.
Hopefully Rep. Maggart can gain some understanding from Bill's words.
Just in case there was any question about Rep. Maggart's statements being taken out of context or misunderstood, this article in Nashville's Tennessean newspaper should clear that up. She told the paper, "I don't wish to discriminate against anyone.....but (gays) have issues."
Yeah, and so do some legislators. In this case, ignorance and bigotry are two of them.
I address this issue again because I wanted to link a letter that fellow blogger Bill Ware, a Tennessee resident, wrote to Rep. Maggart. He makes some excellent points and it is well worth reading.
Hopefully Rep. Maggart can gain some understanding from Bill's words.
March 29, 2006
It's Cool To Be Oppressed
That was the theme as I saw it coming from the conference "The War on Christians and the Values Voters in 2006." That title just stops me in my tracks, implying that voters who don't agree with this group's political positions do not have appropriate values.
Have you noticed how cool it is these days to be a victim and for your group to be oppressed? Everyone seems to be trying to position themselves or their group to be viewed in that light. I suppose it ties in with the old "everyone loves an underdog" axiom.
A pertinent quote in this piece was from Peter Sprigg from the Family Research Council:
'We believe what makes a family is one man and one woman uniting in marriage for a lifetime and bearing children from that union," Sprigg stated. "We are against anything that threatens the traditional family or undermines that idea," including pre-marital sex, pornography, adultery and prostitution." And yes, we are also against the practice of homosexuality," he added.
I'm sure glad he cleared up where they stood on homosexuality. Sprigg also ranted about the "gay agenda," which he said "demands full acceptance of the practice of homosexuality -- morally, socially, legally, religiously, politically and financially. Indeed, it calls for not only acceptance, but affirmation and celebration of this behavior as normal and even desirable."
Can you imagine the nerve of those homosexuals! Actually wanting to be treated like full-fledged members of the human race! Certainly Jesus wouldn't tolerate that, would he?
Actually, what he wouldn't tolerate is the hatred and demeaning organizations like the FRC propigate toward the GLBT community.
Sprigg added, "We believe what makes a family is one man and one woman uniting in marriage for a lifetime and bearing children from that union. We are against anything that threatens the traditional family or undermines that idea."
Okay, so to be consistent, they are also outraged at the rampant divorce and adultery among the hetrosexual community, right?
No, because that doesn't draw headlines and, more importantly, have people donating money to combat it. Slap the gays around for awhile, though, and the money rolls in.
Not quite a higher calling is it?
Have you noticed how cool it is these days to be a victim and for your group to be oppressed? Everyone seems to be trying to position themselves or their group to be viewed in that light. I suppose it ties in with the old "everyone loves an underdog" axiom.
A pertinent quote in this piece was from Peter Sprigg from the Family Research Council:
'We believe what makes a family is one man and one woman uniting in marriage for a lifetime and bearing children from that union," Sprigg stated. "We are against anything that threatens the traditional family or undermines that idea," including pre-marital sex, pornography, adultery and prostitution." And yes, we are also against the practice of homosexuality," he added.
I'm sure glad he cleared up where they stood on homosexuality. Sprigg also ranted about the "gay agenda," which he said "demands full acceptance of the practice of homosexuality -- morally, socially, legally, religiously, politically and financially. Indeed, it calls for not only acceptance, but affirmation and celebration of this behavior as normal and even desirable."
Can you imagine the nerve of those homosexuals! Actually wanting to be treated like full-fledged members of the human race! Certainly Jesus wouldn't tolerate that, would he?
Actually, what he wouldn't tolerate is the hatred and demeaning organizations like the FRC propigate toward the GLBT community.
Sprigg added, "We believe what makes a family is one man and one woman uniting in marriage for a lifetime and bearing children from that union. We are against anything that threatens the traditional family or undermines that idea."
Okay, so to be consistent, they are also outraged at the rampant divorce and adultery among the hetrosexual community, right?
No, because that doesn't draw headlines and, more importantly, have people donating money to combat it. Slap the gays around for awhile, though, and the money rolls in.
Not quite a higher calling is it?
March 28, 2006
GLBT People and Their Straight Spouses
I understand that one of the more difficult and painful situations a GLBT individual can find themselves is coming out to their straight spouse.
For my straight readers, just think about how you would feel if your spouse sat you down one day and told you their were gay or lesbian. It would have to be difficult knowing what to feel, but there would most certainly be a great deal of pain and confusion in the mix.
BOTH people in this situation would be paying the price for the GLBT spouse either not addressing their sexuality over many years or denying it and trying to live what they have been told is a "normal" life. Many of us have been through a divorce and there is never a good way to do it, but this has to be one of the tougher paths.
Essentially, the GLBT spouse is telling their straight spouse that the person who entered into the marriage was not an accurate reflection of who they truly are. This could have been self-deception, lack of self-awareness, or outright deception for reasons far too involved to address in this forum.
This is a lose-lose situation. True, the GLBT spouse might wind up with children that they love and find a true blessing out of this relationship. Ultimately, though, any individual can not maximize the gifts God gives them and fully realize His plan for their lives if they are not true to how He made them. It is also unfair to the straight spouse because it stands to reason there has to be something missing in this type of relationship. Of course there can be love and committment, but if one person in a couple is not being true to who they really are, I can't imagine their partner is receiving all they could out of a relationship either.
When the GLBT spouse becomes aware of who they truly are, or already knows it and summons the courage to move down that path, it is a difficult situation for everyone involved. There is an organization I ran across through a note in one of the Yahoo groups I belong to that can help. It is called the Straight Spouse Network. They offer information and support across the United States and beyond to help people work through these situations. If you or someone you know is facing this, I suggest checking out their website.
Just as importantly, we need to encourage anyone we know; friend, family, church member, whoever, to allow the Holy Spirit to work in their lives to lead them toward the path God wants them to take. With GLBT people, that doesn't mean acting straight or trying to "change" and become straight. However God made us, that's how He wanted it and he can use us AS WE ARE to serve him and bring glory to Him and a life of fulfillment and peace to ourselves.
For my straight readers, just think about how you would feel if your spouse sat you down one day and told you their were gay or lesbian. It would have to be difficult knowing what to feel, but there would most certainly be a great deal of pain and confusion in the mix.
BOTH people in this situation would be paying the price for the GLBT spouse either not addressing their sexuality over many years or denying it and trying to live what they have been told is a "normal" life. Many of us have been through a divorce and there is never a good way to do it, but this has to be one of the tougher paths.
Essentially, the GLBT spouse is telling their straight spouse that the person who entered into the marriage was not an accurate reflection of who they truly are. This could have been self-deception, lack of self-awareness, or outright deception for reasons far too involved to address in this forum.
This is a lose-lose situation. True, the GLBT spouse might wind up with children that they love and find a true blessing out of this relationship. Ultimately, though, any individual can not maximize the gifts God gives them and fully realize His plan for their lives if they are not true to how He made them. It is also unfair to the straight spouse because it stands to reason there has to be something missing in this type of relationship. Of course there can be love and committment, but if one person in a couple is not being true to who they really are, I can't imagine their partner is receiving all they could out of a relationship either.
When the GLBT spouse becomes aware of who they truly are, or already knows it and summons the courage to move down that path, it is a difficult situation for everyone involved. There is an organization I ran across through a note in one of the Yahoo groups I belong to that can help. It is called the Straight Spouse Network. They offer information and support across the United States and beyond to help people work through these situations. If you or someone you know is facing this, I suggest checking out their website.
Just as importantly, we need to encourage anyone we know; friend, family, church member, whoever, to allow the Holy Spirit to work in their lives to lead them toward the path God wants them to take. With GLBT people, that doesn't mean acting straight or trying to "change" and become straight. However God made us, that's how He wanted it and he can use us AS WE ARE to serve him and bring glory to Him and a life of fulfillment and peace to ourselves.
March 24, 2006
Unfit to Parent?
It is obvious that same-sex adoption is moving alongside same-sex marriage as hot-button issues in today's society which is why I visit that again with this post.
This particular story started when a straight GLBT ally in Tennessee emailed one of her state representatives regarding the debate in that state's legislature regarding same-sex adoption. As reported by Out & About, a newspaper serving the gay community in Tennessee, the response she received was mind-boggling.
Sara Dykstra shared the e-mail reply she received from state Rep. Debra Maggart. In stating her skepticism about the wisdom of allowing same-sex adoption, she wrote Ms. Dkystra:
“I am not convinced that just because our foster children desperately need loving homes that we should just place them in homes that are available when research also shows that most homosexual couples have numerous emotional dysfunctions and psychological issues that may not be healthy for children.”
Wait a minute, did she meet my parents? My birth mommy and daddy raised me, yet I grew up with the "traditional family values" of alcoholism, infidelity, codependency, dishonesty and, worst of all, old-school hillbilly music constantly on the car radio.
To imply that gays and lesbians are the only ones with "numerous emotional dysfunctions and psychological issues" is indefensibly ignorant. Perhaps narrow-minded thought like that contributes to dysfunction within the GLBT community.
Ms. Dykstra shared her reaction to Rep. Maggert's response; "My initial reaction when I read that was both shock and anger. I was surprised to hear such one-sided, ignorant and false logic coming from someone who is elected for the common good."
I wish I had been as surprised as her when I read this story. Ignorance is a tough nut to crack, but we need to keep chipping away.
This particular story started when a straight GLBT ally in Tennessee emailed one of her state representatives regarding the debate in that state's legislature regarding same-sex adoption. As reported by Out & About, a newspaper serving the gay community in Tennessee, the response she received was mind-boggling.
Sara Dykstra shared the e-mail reply she received from state Rep. Debra Maggart. In stating her skepticism about the wisdom of allowing same-sex adoption, she wrote Ms. Dkystra:
“I am not convinced that just because our foster children desperately need loving homes that we should just place them in homes that are available when research also shows that most homosexual couples have numerous emotional dysfunctions and psychological issues that may not be healthy for children.”
Wait a minute, did she meet my parents? My birth mommy and daddy raised me, yet I grew up with the "traditional family values" of alcoholism, infidelity, codependency, dishonesty and, worst of all, old-school hillbilly music constantly on the car radio.
To imply that gays and lesbians are the only ones with "numerous emotional dysfunctions and psychological issues" is indefensibly ignorant. Perhaps narrow-minded thought like that contributes to dysfunction within the GLBT community.
Ms. Dykstra shared her reaction to Rep. Maggert's response; "My initial reaction when I read that was both shock and anger. I was surprised to hear such one-sided, ignorant and false logic coming from someone who is elected for the common good."
I wish I had been as surprised as her when I read this story. Ignorance is a tough nut to crack, but we need to keep chipping away.
It's About Equal Treatment, Not Special Rights
Invariably when legislation is introduced in any legislative body proposing protections for GLBT invididuals, opponents point to the "homosexual agenda" promoting "special rights."
Since when is equal protection under the law a special right?
According to a report from Amnesty International, the GLBT community is still being plagued by unresponsive police and hostility from officers. The report offers the opinion that even when there are legal protections in place, attitudes of law enforcement personnel is a major issue that is frequently resulting in poor treatment of GLBT people.
There is still much work to be done toward insuring the gay and lesbian community has its rightful place as a full-fledged member of the human race, not some sub-species. A lot of that work needs to be done in the church. In fact, many of the loudest voices screaming out against basic human rights for GLBT people are church leaders.
I wonder what part of the gospel detailing Jesus' ministry inculdes discriminating against, well, anyone? I can't find it in my bible.
Since when is equal protection under the law a special right?
According to a report from Amnesty International, the GLBT community is still being plagued by unresponsive police and hostility from officers. The report offers the opinion that even when there are legal protections in place, attitudes of law enforcement personnel is a major issue that is frequently resulting in poor treatment of GLBT people.
There is still much work to be done toward insuring the gay and lesbian community has its rightful place as a full-fledged member of the human race, not some sub-species. A lot of that work needs to be done in the church. In fact, many of the loudest voices screaming out against basic human rights for GLBT people are church leaders.
I wonder what part of the gospel detailing Jesus' ministry inculdes discriminating against, well, anyone? I can't find it in my bible.
Adoption Institute Supports Gay Parents
Sometimes you hear something that makes so much sense, you just know that it will be an uphill struggle to get people to buy into it.
This Associated Press story is an example of that. A report issued by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute features this quote:
"Laws and policies that preclude adoption by gay or lesbian parents disadvantage the tens of thousands of children mired in the foster care system who need permanent, loving homes."
This clearly makes too much sense to be easily assimilated into public policy.
Those who campaign for "traditional family values" would rather see those kids wait instead of letting the homos get ahold of them. They claim to be protecting innocent children, but what they are really defending is their own narrow-minded bigotry.
Now THAT doesn't make much sense, does it?
This Associated Press story is an example of that. A report issued by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute features this quote:
"Laws and policies that preclude adoption by gay or lesbian parents disadvantage the tens of thousands of children mired in the foster care system who need permanent, loving homes."
This clearly makes too much sense to be easily assimilated into public policy.
Those who campaign for "traditional family values" would rather see those kids wait instead of letting the homos get ahold of them. They claim to be protecting innocent children, but what they are really defending is their own narrow-minded bigotry.
Now THAT doesn't make much sense, does it?
Shia Death Squads Target Iraqi Gays
According to this piece in the Gay City News, gay Iraqis are being targeted for persecution and execution. Making the situation even nastier, the report quotes a source about the death squads receiving advice fom Iran on how to target gay people. Who said those folks couldn't agree on anything?
Since the United States is over there with a rather large presence, you would think they're working on stopping the Badr Corps death squads. According to this repot, you should think again. These sources say that U. S. officials are meeting these concerns with indifference and derision.
Let me see if I've got this right. The United States leads an invasion of a sovereign nation to liberate the people from a brutal dictator (although we were told it was to protect us from terrorists). Our nation spends billions upon billions to fund this war and has been over there for three years now (despite assurances that would not happen). Over 2,000 American soldiers have lost their lives emancipating a nation that is trying to systematically exterminate part of its own population. Knowing that, this report says our military is not engaged in activity to stop it.
Can someone please tell me what part of that makes sense?
Since the United States is over there with a rather large presence, you would think they're working on stopping the Badr Corps death squads. According to this repot, you should think again. These sources say that U. S. officials are meeting these concerns with indifference and derision.
Let me see if I've got this right. The United States leads an invasion of a sovereign nation to liberate the people from a brutal dictator (although we were told it was to protect us from terrorists). Our nation spends billions upon billions to fund this war and has been over there for three years now (despite assurances that would not happen). Over 2,000 American soldiers have lost their lives emancipating a nation that is trying to systematically exterminate part of its own population. Knowing that, this report says our military is not engaged in activity to stop it.
Can someone please tell me what part of that makes sense?
March 23, 2006
Ignorance Is a Weapon, But It Can Be Defeated
In a recent "Bring It On" segment on CBN.com, Pat Robertson answered questions from youth regarding various issues. Two of them pertained to homosexuality and the answers reeked of ignorance.
To one teenager asking about attending events with a gay classmate, Robertson replied "If you go to these places, the next thing you know, you will be enticed into their lifestyle instead of him being enticed to yours."
To another youth asking about how to relate to a friend with two gay parents, Robertson responded, "It’s wrong for homosexuals to adopt. I think that they will lead children into the lifestyle they have."
I'm not saying Pat Robertson is an ignorant man. He has many published books to his credit and has built a media empire with CBN. That's why his statements really bother me. In his guise as a schollarly christian counselor, he is pushing his own agenda and propigating ignorance.
People don't get turned into homosexuals by hanging out with them or having gay parents. In the later example, the child may never learn how to throw a football, but he won't be physically attrected to people of the same sex unless he was born with that instinct.
Pat Robertson and his ilk don't want people to know that. He wants us to think homosexuals are evil, deviant beings who don't deserve some basic human rights.
I am happy to present evidence that there are a lot of people tuning him out. Results of a survey just released by The Pew Research Center shows that support for same-sex marriage and gay adoption is growing. According to the survey, 51% of the respondants were opposed to same-sex marriage, down from 63% in February 2004. Those who favor it are up from 30% to 39% during the same time period. Over a longer period of time, the survey shows support for gay adoption up from 38% in 1999 to 46% now.
Despite all the money and resources the "fundamentalists" have devoted to convincing people to discriminate or even hate homosexuals, it appears there are more people seeking the truth for themselves and arriving at a point of acceptance.
There is still a lot of work to be done here, though, and the efforts of our opponents will only intensify with results such as these. Those who are open-minded and accepting of people the way God made them will need to match the intensity of the narrow-minded to advance the cause of acceptance and rights for all.
To one teenager asking about attending events with a gay classmate, Robertson replied "If you go to these places, the next thing you know, you will be enticed into their lifestyle instead of him being enticed to yours."
To another youth asking about how to relate to a friend with two gay parents, Robertson responded, "It’s wrong for homosexuals to adopt. I think that they will lead children into the lifestyle they have."
I'm not saying Pat Robertson is an ignorant man. He has many published books to his credit and has built a media empire with CBN. That's why his statements really bother me. In his guise as a schollarly christian counselor, he is pushing his own agenda and propigating ignorance.
People don't get turned into homosexuals by hanging out with them or having gay parents. In the later example, the child may never learn how to throw a football, but he won't be physically attrected to people of the same sex unless he was born with that instinct.
Pat Robertson and his ilk don't want people to know that. He wants us to think homosexuals are evil, deviant beings who don't deserve some basic human rights.
I am happy to present evidence that there are a lot of people tuning him out. Results of a survey just released by The Pew Research Center shows that support for same-sex marriage and gay adoption is growing. According to the survey, 51% of the respondants were opposed to same-sex marriage, down from 63% in February 2004. Those who favor it are up from 30% to 39% during the same time period. Over a longer period of time, the survey shows support for gay adoption up from 38% in 1999 to 46% now.
Despite all the money and resources the "fundamentalists" have devoted to convincing people to discriminate or even hate homosexuals, it appears there are more people seeking the truth for themselves and arriving at a point of acceptance.
There is still a lot of work to be done here, though, and the efforts of our opponents will only intensify with results such as these. Those who are open-minded and accepting of people the way God made them will need to match the intensity of the narrow-minded to advance the cause of acceptance and rights for all.
March 22, 2006
It's Okay to be a Doubting Thomas
John 20:24-29 (NIV)
Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it." A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
This scripture directly ties in with one of the themes I like to write about on this blog. The notes included in my bible referring to these verses say:
"Some people need to doubt before they believe. If doubt leads to questions, questions lead to answers, and the answers are accepted, then doubt has done good work. It is when doubt becomes stubbornness and stubbornness becomes a life-style that doubt harms faith. When you doubt, don't stop there. Let your doubt deepen your faith as you continue to search for the answer."
If Jesus had not accepted Thomas' doubt as an attempt to grow in his faith, do you think He would have appeared to him? There are plenty of examples in both the Old and New Testaments where people question God. If they do it with faith and are seeking answers, He supplied them.
When I came to Believers Covenant Fellowship over a year ago, I had not resolved the issue of how God viewed homosexuals. I listened to what my future wife Brenda, Apostle Dale, and other members of the church told me, but I still had questions. I did some studying on my own and I prayed a lot. After some work on my part, I was at peace with the understanding of how GLBT people had equal rights to God's kingdom and should enjoy equal rights in our society.
I asked questions, sought out information, opened my heart and my mind, and got answers.
God blessed Thomas for asking questions because he was listening for the answers and accepting when they were presented to him. That is a great example for all of us to follow and one that is become tragically rare in today's soceity.
Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it." A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
This scripture directly ties in with one of the themes I like to write about on this blog. The notes included in my bible referring to these verses say:
"Some people need to doubt before they believe. If doubt leads to questions, questions lead to answers, and the answers are accepted, then doubt has done good work. It is when doubt becomes stubbornness and stubbornness becomes a life-style that doubt harms faith. When you doubt, don't stop there. Let your doubt deepen your faith as you continue to search for the answer."
If Jesus had not accepted Thomas' doubt as an attempt to grow in his faith, do you think He would have appeared to him? There are plenty of examples in both the Old and New Testaments where people question God. If they do it with faith and are seeking answers, He supplied them.
When I came to Believers Covenant Fellowship over a year ago, I had not resolved the issue of how God viewed homosexuals. I listened to what my future wife Brenda, Apostle Dale, and other members of the church told me, but I still had questions. I did some studying on my own and I prayed a lot. After some work on my part, I was at peace with the understanding of how GLBT people had equal rights to God's kingdom and should enjoy equal rights in our society.
I asked questions, sought out information, opened my heart and my mind, and got answers.
God blessed Thomas for asking questions because he was listening for the answers and accepting when they were presented to him. That is a great example for all of us to follow and one that is become tragically rare in today's soceity.
Training Program for LGBT Allies
I just ran across this because these folks found this blog and were kind enough to link to it:
There will be a program at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific in Berkeley, Californina for allies of LGBT people on Saturday, April 8.
The goal of the program is to "train allies for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender persons in the faith community context."
The session runs from 9AM-1PM and there is no cost to attend, but they do need people to register in advance.
You can read more about the training and the people involved at their website:
Beyond Good Intentions: Equipping the Ministries of LGBT Allies
You can also contact the organizers for more information. I would encourage anyone in the Berkely area to check it out.
There will be a program at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific in Berkeley, Californina for allies of LGBT people on Saturday, April 8.
The goal of the program is to "train allies for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender persons in the faith community context."
The session runs from 9AM-1PM and there is no cost to attend, but they do need people to register in advance.
You can read more about the training and the people involved at their website:
Beyond Good Intentions: Equipping the Ministries of LGBT Allies
You can also contact the organizers for more information. I would encourage anyone in the Berkely area to check it out.
March 21, 2006
Hate In God's Name In the Holy Land
Right-wing hate toward GLBT people in God's name is a popular pastime in the United States, but it is hardly an American phenomenon.
As if there wasn't enough going on in this part of the world to worry about, Rabbi David Basri in Jerusalem, a well known foe of gays, has lashed out again. Rabbi Basri is a prominent Kabbalah leader, the type of Jewish mysticism practiced by Madona and Roseanne among others.
The Rabbi, in his finite wisdom, has blamed gays for an outbreak of bird flu in Israel. Since there is, like in the U. S., an active political campaign promoting same-sex marriage, Rabbi Basri has said the appearance of bird flu is God's punishment. I guess He didn't have time to whip up a hurricane to comdemn everyone so He just dropped in some bird flu.
If you read the entire story, you'll see some of the hateful comments attributed to the Rabbi. If you take time to pray for the safety of people in this dangerous area of the world, may I suggest that you also pray for the wisdom of their leadership and that they may discern God's will for how GLBT people should be treated.
Regardless of if they are christians in America or jews in Israel, our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters are people too, not abominations.
As if there wasn't enough going on in this part of the world to worry about, Rabbi David Basri in Jerusalem, a well known foe of gays, has lashed out again. Rabbi Basri is a prominent Kabbalah leader, the type of Jewish mysticism practiced by Madona and Roseanne among others.
The Rabbi, in his finite wisdom, has blamed gays for an outbreak of bird flu in Israel. Since there is, like in the U. S., an active political campaign promoting same-sex marriage, Rabbi Basri has said the appearance of bird flu is God's punishment. I guess He didn't have time to whip up a hurricane to comdemn everyone so He just dropped in some bird flu.
If you read the entire story, you'll see some of the hateful comments attributed to the Rabbi. If you take time to pray for the safety of people in this dangerous area of the world, may I suggest that you also pray for the wisdom of their leadership and that they may discern God's will for how GLBT people should be treated.
Regardless of if they are christians in America or jews in Israel, our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters are people too, not abominations.
March 19, 2006
"Literalism of Convenience"
I'm linking to what I feel is an outstanding letter written by a columnist for the Miami Herald. He writes it regarding an incident in a Miami high school, but his column goes much beyond that. The writer, Leonard Pitts Jr., gets to the very crux of much of the biblical arguement that is often used to preach hate toward homosexuals in our churches.
Regarding recent activities by organizations like the American Family Association, he eloquently states,
".....people are ignorant in Appalachia, strung out in Miami, starving in Niger, sex slaves in India, mass murdered in Darfur. Where is the Christian outrage about that? Just once, I’d like to read a headline that said a Christian group was boycotting to feed the hungry. Or marching to house the homeless. Or pushing Congress to provide the poor with health care worthy of the name.
Instead, they fixate on keeping the gay in their place. Which makes me question their priorities. And their compassion. And their faith."
I feel very strongly these priorities need to be questioned, and it is up to us to ask these questions.
Regarding recent activities by organizations like the American Family Association, he eloquently states,
".....people are ignorant in Appalachia, strung out in Miami, starving in Niger, sex slaves in India, mass murdered in Darfur. Where is the Christian outrage about that? Just once, I’d like to read a headline that said a Christian group was boycotting to feed the hungry. Or marching to house the homeless. Or pushing Congress to provide the poor with health care worthy of the name.
Instead, they fixate on keeping the gay in their place. Which makes me question their priorities. And their compassion. And their faith."
I feel very strongly these priorities need to be questioned, and it is up to us to ask these questions.
March 17, 2006
The Boston Archdiocese and Gay Adoption
Catholic Charities of Boston has announced that it will stop placing children in adoptive homes altogether to avoid the issue of having to allow them to being adopted by a gay or lesbian couple. This report states that the organization, a big deal in heavily catholic Boston, has placed over 700 children over the last two decades, 13 of them with gay families.
This is one of those stories that I had to re-read a couple of times to make sure there wasn't something I was missing.
I think I understand it now. This organization has decided that it is better to leave children in foster homes or an orphanage than to place them with a potentially loving, stable, affluent gay or lesbian couple. Why?
Fear.
I don't think too many intelligent people think that being raised by GLBT adults makes a child become gay (note, I said intelligent people).
I believe religious organizations like the catholic church that condemn homosexuality do not want children influenced by GLBT people in any way. If they allow that to happen, the children might learn that there is nothing inherently wrong with homosexual people. GLBT couples function very much like hetrosexual couples. They're people who have made a committment to a person they love. The only major difference is that the other person is of the same gender, not a different one, something I've had an opportunity to observe myself.
Children growing up in these homes may come to think that the church's teaching are shallow and bigoted. They may place more value in what they see with their own eyes and the love and guidance they have received from their parents than the teaching of the church.
In the meantine, according to this report, there are 119,000 children awaiting adoption.
According to Catholic Charities of Boston, that's better than them winding up in the hands of gay or lesbian couples.
It never ceases to amaze me the lengths people and organizations will go to discriminate or just outright hate GLBT people, regardless of how it affects others, even innocent children.
This is one of those stories that I had to re-read a couple of times to make sure there wasn't something I was missing.
I think I understand it now. This organization has decided that it is better to leave children in foster homes or an orphanage than to place them with a potentially loving, stable, affluent gay or lesbian couple. Why?
Fear.
I don't think too many intelligent people think that being raised by GLBT adults makes a child become gay (note, I said intelligent people).
I believe religious organizations like the catholic church that condemn homosexuality do not want children influenced by GLBT people in any way. If they allow that to happen, the children might learn that there is nothing inherently wrong with homosexual people. GLBT couples function very much like hetrosexual couples. They're people who have made a committment to a person they love. The only major difference is that the other person is of the same gender, not a different one, something I've had an opportunity to observe myself.
Children growing up in these homes may come to think that the church's teaching are shallow and bigoted. They may place more value in what they see with their own eyes and the love and guidance they have received from their parents than the teaching of the church.
In the meantine, according to this report, there are 119,000 children awaiting adoption.
According to Catholic Charities of Boston, that's better than them winding up in the hands of gay or lesbian couples.
It never ceases to amaze me the lengths people and organizations will go to discriminate or just outright hate GLBT people, regardless of how it affects others, even innocent children.
March 16, 2006
Would You Take a Bullet for Christ?
In this fascinating example, one church was tested with that very question. Fortunately, no one was actually shot, but I found it intersesting to see how the congregation at that particular church. It really gives you pause for thought and, for those of you who are christians, hopefully helps you examine just how deep your committment to Christ REALLY is. I sure the members of that congregation did.
In the same post on the blog "A Christian Voice for LGBT Rights," there are examples of how there is a double standard of how we often evaluate our actions differently when they involve spreading the gospel of Christ. One of them is:
"Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says."
Things that make you go "hmmmm."
Happy pondering.
In the same post on the blog "A Christian Voice for LGBT Rights," there are examples of how there is a double standard of how we often evaluate our actions differently when they involve spreading the gospel of Christ. One of them is:
"Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says."
Things that make you go "hmmmm."
Happy pondering.
March 13, 2006
The Latest From Our Good Friends At the AFA
Yes, that open minded group called the American Family Association has a new company they want to ruin. They take credit for bringing NBC to it's knees and forcing the cancellation of the program "The Book of Daniel" because it did not portray christians as a cross between June Cleaver and Mother Theresa. Now, they are targeting the Ford Motor Company for another boycott effort.
Here are a few of the sinful acts (in their view) that Ford is guilty of.
o They were given a 100% score on this year's Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index, the largest corporation to earn that score. We can't have corporate America promoting human rights, now can we?
o Ford has been on the DiversityInc "Top 50 Companies for Diversity" all four years of its existence. Diversity in the workplace? What heathens.
o They recruited homosexuals by advertising on "gay job sites."
o Ford targeted some marketing to GLBT people. What nerve this company has. They actually want to employ gays and let them drive the cars that Ford makes.
I suppose the AFA wants GLBT people to take the bus to pick up their unemployment checks.
There are other terrible affronts to society that the Ford Motor Company has committed according to the AFA. It's a lengthy list, Ford has apparently been very busy trying to destroy the fabric of our country.
Of course, what Ford is really guilty of is supporting organizations that have values which differ from those expoused by the American Family Association.
We just can't have that kind of thing in the United States.
Here are a few of the sinful acts (in their view) that Ford is guilty of.
o They were given a 100% score on this year's Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index, the largest corporation to earn that score. We can't have corporate America promoting human rights, now can we?
o Ford has been on the DiversityInc "Top 50 Companies for Diversity" all four years of its existence. Diversity in the workplace? What heathens.
o They recruited homosexuals by advertising on "gay job sites."
o Ford targeted some marketing to GLBT people. What nerve this company has. They actually want to employ gays and let them drive the cars that Ford makes.
I suppose the AFA wants GLBT people to take the bus to pick up their unemployment checks.
There are other terrible affronts to society that the Ford Motor Company has committed according to the AFA. It's a lengthy list, Ford has apparently been very busy trying to destroy the fabric of our country.
Of course, what Ford is really guilty of is supporting organizations that have values which differ from those expoused by the American Family Association.
We just can't have that kind of thing in the United States.
Hammering a Point
I was channel surfing on my satellite radio on the way home (give a straight man a remote control, we surf, that's what we do) and ran across the Sean Hannity show on ABC Radio. Hannity is a right-wing conservative who appears nightly on Fox News (where else). I disagree with much of what he stands for, but I find it helpful to listen to opposing points of view from time to time.
Anyway, what really bothered me was not something he said but a statement from one of his callers. After proudly stating he was a republican, he told Hannity (I'm paraphrasing), "I'm a teacher, and there's five republicans and two democrats sitting at the lunch table every day. We hammer them pretty good but they still don't get it." Hannity applauded him for the effort he was putting into converting democrats and encouraged him to continue.
I wonder if that's how he teaches--hammers the lessons across to his students? Is that the only way people communicate anymore? Does anyone listen? Is a respectful exchange of ideas not cool anymore?
I'm not just talking about the right wing, either. When I listen to liberal talk programs, they are often calling President Bush a moron of idiot or a variety of other disrespectful names. All that kind of talk does is fire up people who agree with it and stiffen the resolve of those who disagree to force their point of view on everyone. There are ways to disagree with someone's actions or policies without stooping to name calling, but it's easier to take the cheap shot and maybe get a few laughs in the process.
It's hard to really understand both sides of an issue and have an educated debate. Who wants to make that kind of effort anyway?
If we're not careful, we might learn something.
Anyway, what really bothered me was not something he said but a statement from one of his callers. After proudly stating he was a republican, he told Hannity (I'm paraphrasing), "I'm a teacher, and there's five republicans and two democrats sitting at the lunch table every day. We hammer them pretty good but they still don't get it." Hannity applauded him for the effort he was putting into converting democrats and encouraged him to continue.
I wonder if that's how he teaches--hammers the lessons across to his students? Is that the only way people communicate anymore? Does anyone listen? Is a respectful exchange of ideas not cool anymore?
I'm not just talking about the right wing, either. When I listen to liberal talk programs, they are often calling President Bush a moron of idiot or a variety of other disrespectful names. All that kind of talk does is fire up people who agree with it and stiffen the resolve of those who disagree to force their point of view on everyone. There are ways to disagree with someone's actions or policies without stooping to name calling, but it's easier to take the cheap shot and maybe get a few laughs in the process.
It's hard to really understand both sides of an issue and have an educated debate. Who wants to make that kind of effort anyway?
If we're not careful, we might learn something.
March 12, 2006
Education.....What a Concept!
One of the major battlegrounds between gay rights activists and their opponents has been local school systems. The issue of how much to teach children about homosexuality and especially how it is to be presented are serious hot-button issues. This has often pushed emotions on both sides past the point of reason.
This recent AP story brings the concept of fair and reasoned debate back to the table. Groups on both sides agreed to set up a framework for this debate, one where everyone shares their views and listens to others.
It's a shame that this is so newsworthy, but at least it is good news. The battle will continue, but perhaps there can be less emotion, especially hate, and more understanding.
This recent AP story brings the concept of fair and reasoned debate back to the table. Groups on both sides agreed to set up a framework for this debate, one where everyone shares their views and listens to others.
It's a shame that this is so newsworthy, but at least it is good news. The battle will continue, but perhaps there can be less emotion, especially hate, and more understanding.
March 09, 2006
Who's Praise Do You Seek?
John 12:42-43 (NIV)
Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not confess their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved praise from men more than praise from God.
Do you sit in church listening to rhetoric condemning homosexuals and not speak up, afraid you will be shunned by your pastor and fellow church members?
Are you a GLBT person who wants to seek God, yet doesn't because your partner or friends in the community would ridicule you?
Are you a believer, gay or straight, who doesn't make time to worship or tithe off the wealth God has provided for you?
Do you want to share Christ with a friend but are afraid of the negative response you might receive from them?
All of the above situations are examples of man putting the approval of other men (or women) above the approval of God. On the surface that sounds absurd, but we've all done it at some point in our lives. The bible shows us that this is wrong. Jesus will forgive us, but we need to acknowledge the sin of not putting His approval and His will as our priority.
Time spent in His service seeking His will and approval will reap more rewards than anything else we can do on this earth. We just need to value those rewards over the short-term monetary and/or social benefits often associated with activites outside God's will.
Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not confess their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved praise from men more than praise from God.
Do you sit in church listening to rhetoric condemning homosexuals and not speak up, afraid you will be shunned by your pastor and fellow church members?
Are you a GLBT person who wants to seek God, yet doesn't because your partner or friends in the community would ridicule you?
Are you a believer, gay or straight, who doesn't make time to worship or tithe off the wealth God has provided for you?
Do you want to share Christ with a friend but are afraid of the negative response you might receive from them?
All of the above situations are examples of man putting the approval of other men (or women) above the approval of God. On the surface that sounds absurd, but we've all done it at some point in our lives. The bible shows us that this is wrong. Jesus will forgive us, but we need to acknowledge the sin of not putting His approval and His will as our priority.
Time spent in His service seeking His will and approval will reap more rewards than anything else we can do on this earth. We just need to value those rewards over the short-term monetary and/or social benefits often associated with activites outside God's will.
March 07, 2006
Pros Willing to Accept Gay Teammate
Sports Illustrated recently conducted a survey of the four major professional sports (baseball, football, basketball, and hockey) and asked the players if they would welcome an openly gay teammate. This survey was a follow-up to two recent books written by former National Football League players Esera Tuaol and Roy Simmons who have come out as gay since they retired.
Sports Illustrated survey
All sports had a majority of the responses saying yes, they would welcome an openly gay teammate. The NFL was the lowest at 56.9%, while 79.9% of the National Hockey League who replied were affirmative. I suspect this is a reflection of the different nature of the players--there is a much larger number of Europeans in the NHL than any other major sport.
Intrestingly, only 41% of NFL rookies and 48% of the National Basketball Association rookies were open to welcoming a gay teammate. I suspect this closed mindedness is at least partially a reflection of the sense of entitlement and superiority young players have developed, being coddled since they first began showing athletic prowess as youngsters. In this survey, players who had been around longer were more open toward a gay teammate.
This is clearly a step in the direction of acceptance of an openly gay player in one of the major sports. The downside, however, is that over 1/3 of the baseball, basketball, and football players said no. Understanding team sports like I do, I realize that is still a significant number, much too large for anyone to feel comfortable coming out. There is still much progress to be made toward acceptance in the world of major professional team sports.
If any athlete reading this, or if someone you know is an athlete struggling with hiding their sexual orientation, wants someone to write their story, please let me know. The first person to come out in one of the major sports will be a modern day Jackie Robinson and have to deal with a staggering amount of hatred. I would be proud to tell the story of that athlete.
Sports Illustrated survey
All sports had a majority of the responses saying yes, they would welcome an openly gay teammate. The NFL was the lowest at 56.9%, while 79.9% of the National Hockey League who replied were affirmative. I suspect this is a reflection of the different nature of the players--there is a much larger number of Europeans in the NHL than any other major sport.
Intrestingly, only 41% of NFL rookies and 48% of the National Basketball Association rookies were open to welcoming a gay teammate. I suspect this closed mindedness is at least partially a reflection of the sense of entitlement and superiority young players have developed, being coddled since they first began showing athletic prowess as youngsters. In this survey, players who had been around longer were more open toward a gay teammate.
This is clearly a step in the direction of acceptance of an openly gay player in one of the major sports. The downside, however, is that over 1/3 of the baseball, basketball, and football players said no. Understanding team sports like I do, I realize that is still a significant number, much too large for anyone to feel comfortable coming out. There is still much progress to be made toward acceptance in the world of major professional team sports.
If any athlete reading this, or if someone you know is an athlete struggling with hiding their sexual orientation, wants someone to write their story, please let me know. The first person to come out in one of the major sports will be a modern day Jackie Robinson and have to deal with a staggering amount of hatred. I would be proud to tell the story of that athlete.
"Arguement In Proper Perspective"
My pastor Dale forwarded me this e-mail. It is profound enough that I don't feel it requres additional comment:
Yesterday in Annapolis at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at American University, was requested to testify. He did so......
At the end of his testimony, a right-wing senator said: "Mr Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man & a woman. What do you have to say about that?"
Raskin: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
Considerable applause was reported.
Yesterday in Annapolis at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at American University, was requested to testify. He did so......
At the end of his testimony, a right-wing senator said: "Mr Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man & a woman. What do you have to say about that?"
Raskin: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
Considerable applause was reported.
Jesus vs. Jeezus
I ran across a fascinating graphical display of how a segment of christianity has gone away from obeying the teaching of Jesus.
Chart: Jesus vs. Jeezus
How true and how sad. Sometimes you can know something, but when it is laid out like this it really hits hard, and that's what this did.
I found this on the blog "The Republic of T." I actually had the pleasure of meeting him a few weeks ago, and he just posted that his father has been diagnosed with terminal cancer. Please join me in praying for T and his family during this difficult time.
Chart: Jesus vs. Jeezus
How true and how sad. Sometimes you can know something, but when it is laid out like this it really hits hard, and that's what this did.
I found this on the blog "The Republic of T." I actually had the pleasure of meeting him a few weeks ago, and he just posted that his father has been diagnosed with terminal cancer. Please join me in praying for T and his family during this difficult time.
March 04, 2006
One Person's Story--Repairative Therapy Does Anything But Repair
I'm linking to a deeply moving letter to the editor of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. This was timed to conincide with a "Love Won Out," event being held in the Gateway City, an event co-sponsored by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. This event promotes "repairative therapy" and "transformational ministry," both designed to "cure" homosexual desires in people.
This letter shares the experience of one individual who desperately wanted to believe in what these people were trying to do, but saw where it failed miserably and brought on deep depression and thoughts of suicide.
"It's Less About Change and More About Money"
This is another reminder that a person's only chance for true piece and happiness is to embrace and develop the gifts God gave us. Hetrosexuality and homosexuality are both gifts that we are born with, just like the ability to sing, do complex mathematics, etc. God gave those to us for a reason, and if we don't use them, we will never be within His will and His plan for our lives.
This letter shares the experience of one individual who desperately wanted to believe in what these people were trying to do, but saw where it failed miserably and brought on deep depression and thoughts of suicide.
"It's Less About Change and More About Money"
This is another reminder that a person's only chance for true piece and happiness is to embrace and develop the gifts God gave us. Hetrosexuality and homosexuality are both gifts that we are born with, just like the ability to sing, do complex mathematics, etc. God gave those to us for a reason, and if we don't use them, we will never be within His will and His plan for our lives.
March 03, 2006
Don't Speak for Me as a Christian
I was pointed to this piece on the CBN.com website. It is titled "Loving Your Gay Son." Here, their Dr. Linda makes a sincere attempt to offer advice to guide parents toward being loving and, at least to some extent, accepting. I don't have any major issues with the advice she offers. She seems to be seeking the path Jesus would take, and that's a great foundation for doing anything.
The second sentence of this piece, however, is deeply troubling. Dr. Linda states as fact regarding homosexuality that, "Christians still believe the lifestyle is spiritually and morally wrong. "
I beg your pardon.
Generalizing statements like this, which ignore the fact that there is a dissenting opinion among people like me who consider themselves card-carrying christians, is what puts forth the message of intolrerance.
All the helpful advice in the world will only go so far if it at least partly based on ignorance of the facts supporting it.
The second sentence of this piece, however, is deeply troubling. Dr. Linda states as fact regarding homosexuality that, "Christians still believe the lifestyle is spiritually and morally wrong. "
I beg your pardon.
Generalizing statements like this, which ignore the fact that there is a dissenting opinion among people like me who consider themselves card-carrying christians, is what puts forth the message of intolrerance.
All the helpful advice in the world will only go so far if it at least partly based on ignorance of the facts supporting it.
Church and Supreme Court--Not Very Seperate
This week, Dr. James Dobson acknowledged receiving a thank-you letter from recent Supreme Court appointment Justice Samuel Alito. Dobson has taken bows for his successful push to have Alito's nomination confirmed by the senate, and he appears to have made a friend in a very high place.
What's the big deal? If you are a sports fan, how would feel if an umpire had sent a thank-you note to Barry Bonds for supporting him through a political process. Would opposing pitchers think they would get an even shake on balls and strikes when they are pitching to Bonds with that umpire behind the plate?
How about an area of critical importance to a large portion of America-the judging on American Idol. If Simon Cowell had sent this type of letter to one of the contestants, wouldn't that give at least the appearance of impropriety?
In the situation with Justice Alito, we are talking about someone in a position that is supposed to be, dare I say, the supreme bastion of impartiality. The ultimate defenders and interpreters of the U. S. Constitution are supposed to be as unbiased as a human can be. There's only nine of them at any one time--the bar needs to be set exceptionally high.
How impartial do you think Justice Alitio will be on cases of great interest to Dr. Dobson and his ilk. Do you really think cases involving same-sex marriage, abortion, or anything Dr. Dobson doesn't like will get a fair shake from this justice? Will that title become an oxymoron?
Of course, I don't believe the "fundamentalists" want justice. They want their agenda to become the law of the land. Judges who don't agree with them are branded "activist judges." In Maryland, there is even a movement in the state legislature to impeach the judge who ruled that the prohibition of same-sex marriage was unconstitutional (the case is currently under appeal).
It's bad enough when politicians are beholding to someone who helped them get elected. It's much worse when the final line of defense in protecting citizens from those politicans, the Supreme Court, is tainted with the same agenda. And it was all done in the name of God.
Do you actually think Jesus wants money spent and arms twisted in His name to gain conformation for a Supreme Court justice?
I sure don't.
What's the big deal? If you are a sports fan, how would feel if an umpire had sent a thank-you note to Barry Bonds for supporting him through a political process. Would opposing pitchers think they would get an even shake on balls and strikes when they are pitching to Bonds with that umpire behind the plate?
How about an area of critical importance to a large portion of America-the judging on American Idol. If Simon Cowell had sent this type of letter to one of the contestants, wouldn't that give at least the appearance of impropriety?
In the situation with Justice Alito, we are talking about someone in a position that is supposed to be, dare I say, the supreme bastion of impartiality. The ultimate defenders and interpreters of the U. S. Constitution are supposed to be as unbiased as a human can be. There's only nine of them at any one time--the bar needs to be set exceptionally high.
How impartial do you think Justice Alitio will be on cases of great interest to Dr. Dobson and his ilk. Do you really think cases involving same-sex marriage, abortion, or anything Dr. Dobson doesn't like will get a fair shake from this justice? Will that title become an oxymoron?
Of course, I don't believe the "fundamentalists" want justice. They want their agenda to become the law of the land. Judges who don't agree with them are branded "activist judges." In Maryland, there is even a movement in the state legislature to impeach the judge who ruled that the prohibition of same-sex marriage was unconstitutional (the case is currently under appeal).
It's bad enough when politicians are beholding to someone who helped them get elected. It's much worse when the final line of defense in protecting citizens from those politicans, the Supreme Court, is tainted with the same agenda. And it was all done in the name of God.
Do you actually think Jesus wants money spent and arms twisted in His name to gain conformation for a Supreme Court justice?
I sure don't.
March 02, 2006
Who Can Throw Stones
I ran across this yesterday in my bible study and thought is was very appropriate for this forum.
John 8:1-11 (NIV)
But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
"No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
Jesus did not excuse the sin, but he made it clear who had the right to judge it.
I don't think I need to add anything else here.
John 8:1-11 (NIV)
But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
"No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
Jesus did not excuse the sin, but he made it clear who had the right to judge it.
I don't think I need to add anything else here.
February 28, 2006
Shelving Homosexuality
I came across a story today that just leaves me shaking my head in wonder at the effort people are willing to put into being homophobic. This post on the blog "My Quest" summarizes a year-long battle some parents in Oklahoma have waged to take age-appropriate books about homosexuality out of the mainstream library shelving among children's books and put them on a "parenting shelf."
These books are now safely tucked away with those regarding child molesters, alcoholics, drug users, and all those other nasty things people do. Nice subtely here, not labeling this information evil but very clearly categorizing it as such.
Ignorance is the primary weapon of bigots. If they can keep the kids ignorant and unaccepting toward GLBT people, they can grow up and hate just like mommy and daddy.
Discrimination is not genetically passed down from parents to their kids--it is taught. Even subtle messages like this can seep through young minds and help form their values.
That's why those of us who have a different set of values need to make our voices heard and teach children and adults alike that GLBT people are just that--PEOPLE. As card-carrying members in full standing of the human race, they are entitled to all the rights, opportunities, and respect that everyone else enjoys and expects.
These books are now safely tucked away with those regarding child molesters, alcoholics, drug users, and all those other nasty things people do. Nice subtely here, not labeling this information evil but very clearly categorizing it as such.
Ignorance is the primary weapon of bigots. If they can keep the kids ignorant and unaccepting toward GLBT people, they can grow up and hate just like mommy and daddy.
Discrimination is not genetically passed down from parents to their kids--it is taught. Even subtle messages like this can seep through young minds and help form their values.
That's why those of us who have a different set of values need to make our voices heard and teach children and adults alike that GLBT people are just that--PEOPLE. As card-carrying members in full standing of the human race, they are entitled to all the rights, opportunities, and respect that everyone else enjoys and expects.
February 26, 2006
Five Steps Toward Making Godly Decisions
These came to me during our worship service today, and I believe they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. There needs to be a process to deciding how we are going to walk with Jesus. He's not going to send you an e-mail or write a blog. We have to expend some effort to learn his will for our lives. Here is my approach.
1) Listen. As I've written before, this is becoming a lost art in American society. People are often too busy talking to hear what anyone has to say, especially if they believe the other person might disagree with them. We generally don't learn very much with our mouths open and our lips flapping, however. We learn when we listen to what information people are disceminating, be it one-on-one, through the media, or via the written word.
2) Ask. Once you have received information, you need to question it. This is something painfully lacking in many of our churches. If the preacher says it, many of the people sitting in the pews accept it as fact. I've learned, however, that the people talking the loudest are often the ones who either have not done their homework and are not well versed on their subject or, even worse, they are intentionally misrepresenting information and counting on people not questioning their facts. Ask the questions. This needs to be done respectfully without challenging anyone's position of authority. We all should be on the same journey seeking truth.
3) Research. If someone gives you an interpretation of scripture, go back and read it yourself. It's even better if you review more than one translation, and review the context of the scripture. If somebody tells you that there is absolutely only one way to interpret a particular section of the bible, there is an excellent chance they are wrong. The bible is not an easy book to understand. Otherwise very intelligent people studying it through the filter of their own prejudices can still get it very, very wrong. When we stand up on judgement day, WE are responsible for the choices we made. If we accepted someone else's word at face value and they were wrong, then we're wrong and WE have to suffer the consequences along with them.
4) Pray and discern. Now it gets tough. It's hard to get into the habit of praying, and even harder to discern answers. One thing you can know, however, is that Jesus is listening. Our words in prayer will NEVER fall on deaf ears or be ignored. When we ask for wisdom or courage in deciding how to follow God, he will provide it to us. We may have to look very hard for the answers, however, and the more we pray and get into His word (the bible), the more accurately we will be able to discern his will.
5) Decide! Okay, now you've heard teachings and opinions, you've questioned them, done your homework, and prayed about them. The Lord is showing you what path to take. The hardest part is often stepping out in faith and following that path. Sometimes God will want us to give up things, other times he'll lead us to do things we don't think we want to do. Count on this, though--something I've learned the hard way--His will is a lot better for us than our own. If left to our own devices, we will ultimately self-destruct because that's how Satan can keep us away from having a nourishing relationship with Jesus. It's up to us as individuals to follow the path that God lays out for us.
We only have everything to gain by doing so.
1) Listen. As I've written before, this is becoming a lost art in American society. People are often too busy talking to hear what anyone has to say, especially if they believe the other person might disagree with them. We generally don't learn very much with our mouths open and our lips flapping, however. We learn when we listen to what information people are disceminating, be it one-on-one, through the media, or via the written word.
2) Ask. Once you have received information, you need to question it. This is something painfully lacking in many of our churches. If the preacher says it, many of the people sitting in the pews accept it as fact. I've learned, however, that the people talking the loudest are often the ones who either have not done their homework and are not well versed on their subject or, even worse, they are intentionally misrepresenting information and counting on people not questioning their facts. Ask the questions. This needs to be done respectfully without challenging anyone's position of authority. We all should be on the same journey seeking truth.
3) Research. If someone gives you an interpretation of scripture, go back and read it yourself. It's even better if you review more than one translation, and review the context of the scripture. If somebody tells you that there is absolutely only one way to interpret a particular section of the bible, there is an excellent chance they are wrong. The bible is not an easy book to understand. Otherwise very intelligent people studying it through the filter of their own prejudices can still get it very, very wrong. When we stand up on judgement day, WE are responsible for the choices we made. If we accepted someone else's word at face value and they were wrong, then we're wrong and WE have to suffer the consequences along with them.
4) Pray and discern. Now it gets tough. It's hard to get into the habit of praying, and even harder to discern answers. One thing you can know, however, is that Jesus is listening. Our words in prayer will NEVER fall on deaf ears or be ignored. When we ask for wisdom or courage in deciding how to follow God, he will provide it to us. We may have to look very hard for the answers, however, and the more we pray and get into His word (the bible), the more accurately we will be able to discern his will.
5) Decide! Okay, now you've heard teachings and opinions, you've questioned them, done your homework, and prayed about them. The Lord is showing you what path to take. The hardest part is often stepping out in faith and following that path. Sometimes God will want us to give up things, other times he'll lead us to do things we don't think we want to do. Count on this, though--something I've learned the hard way--His will is a lot better for us than our own. If left to our own devices, we will ultimately self-destruct because that's how Satan can keep us away from having a nourishing relationship with Jesus. It's up to us as individuals to follow the path that God lays out for us.
We only have everything to gain by doing so.
February 24, 2006
"Faith-Based" Federal Funding
Fellow blogger "A Typical Joe" gave me a heads up on this post at Daily Kos regarding the Bush administration's policy of releasing funds, including a new $500 million pot, to "faith-based" organizations. This latest grant, according to the story, is target toward "strengthening marriages."
By marriages, of course, they mean "traditional marriage" between a man and a woman. Don't even think about using any of it to support same-sex marriage. Also, the history of previous "faith-based" grants has gone almost exclusively to Christian groups and excluded other non-christian religions.
Folks, this is another step toward a Federal theocracy, and GLBT people are NOT welcome to participate. This article suggests, and "A Typical Joe" concurrs, that other Christian groups should try to get a piece of this pie and attempt to level the playing field. There is certainly solid logic behind that approach, but I strongly disagree with it.
One of my recurring themes on this blog has been, "If it's wrong for the opposition to do something, it doesn't become right when my side does it." I feel the suggestion of going after this federal money would go against that philosophy. If you really believe in the separation of church and state, you need to carry that thought through regarding this issue.
I don't believe churches have ANY right to take taxpayer money for anyting. I could bend that rule to allow a church-sponsored operation, like a day-care center, to accept federal funding, but only if they were subject to the same anti-discriminatory policies that every other organization must follow.
Remember, churches already have an advantage in that they generally don't have to pay federal taxes. Given the political activism of some church organizations, that really grinds my cookies. There are laws limiting the level of political activism churches can have, but they are clearly not being stringently enforced. That's bad enough, but giving some "fundamentalist" group part of my tax money to spread the message of hate and exculsion--NO WAY!
Rather than try to put their hands in the till, I feel the better course of action is to lobby for the abolition of "faith-based" funding altogether. Let churches help people with money they generate, and let the federal government spend my tax money.
By marriages, of course, they mean "traditional marriage" between a man and a woman. Don't even think about using any of it to support same-sex marriage. Also, the history of previous "faith-based" grants has gone almost exclusively to Christian groups and excluded other non-christian religions.
Folks, this is another step toward a Federal theocracy, and GLBT people are NOT welcome to participate. This article suggests, and "A Typical Joe" concurrs, that other Christian groups should try to get a piece of this pie and attempt to level the playing field. There is certainly solid logic behind that approach, but I strongly disagree with it.
One of my recurring themes on this blog has been, "If it's wrong for the opposition to do something, it doesn't become right when my side does it." I feel the suggestion of going after this federal money would go against that philosophy. If you really believe in the separation of church and state, you need to carry that thought through regarding this issue.
I don't believe churches have ANY right to take taxpayer money for anyting. I could bend that rule to allow a church-sponsored operation, like a day-care center, to accept federal funding, but only if they were subject to the same anti-discriminatory policies that every other organization must follow.
Remember, churches already have an advantage in that they generally don't have to pay federal taxes. Given the political activism of some church organizations, that really grinds my cookies. There are laws limiting the level of political activism churches can have, but they are clearly not being stringently enforced. That's bad enough, but giving some "fundamentalist" group part of my tax money to spread the message of hate and exculsion--NO WAY!
Rather than try to put their hands in the till, I feel the better course of action is to lobby for the abolition of "faith-based" funding altogether. Let churches help people with money they generate, and let the federal government spend my tax money.
February 22, 2006
Bikers Stand Up to Funeral Protesters
I've had to restart this post several times, because it has been very difficult for me to express myself without appearing very judgemental. If it's not right for those I disagree with, then it's not right for me either.
I'm referring to "Rev." Fred Phelps and the members (mostly extended family members according to the AP) who are travelling around the nation acting out at funerals of servicemen killed in duty over in Iraq. They have been active since the 1990's, getting their start at funerals of people who died from aids. Their purpose is to spread their belief that American deaths in Iraq are devine punishment to the United States for harboring homosexuals. That's right, GLBT people, Rev. Phelps blames you for over 1,000 deaths in Iraq. Don't worry, it's not supposed to make sense.
Unfortunately, Phelps and his traveling troupe of protesters, aren't quiet about it. They like to shout out "God Hates Fags," and other messages of encouragement bereaved people just love to hear while mourning their loved one. Apparently their pain is acceptable collateral damage in the group's war against gays.
Another group called the Patriot Guard riders has banded together in an attempt to offset the pain Phelps' followers inflict on others, meeting them at funerals to shout patriotic chants and wave flags. That's still a lot of commotion at a funeral, but at least they're offering a balance.
Here's the thoughts of Phelps' daughter regarding their actions; "The scriptures are crystal clear that when God sets out to punish a nation, it is with the sword. An IED is just a broken-up sword," Phelps-Roper said. "Since that is his weapon of choice, our forum of choice has got to be a dead soldier's funeral."
Conversely, here are comments from Don Woodrick, the Kentucky captain of the Patriot Guard Riders; "The most important thing we can do is let families know that the nation cares."
Which one sounds more God-like to you?
I'm referring to "Rev." Fred Phelps and the members (mostly extended family members according to the AP) who are travelling around the nation acting out at funerals of servicemen killed in duty over in Iraq. They have been active since the 1990's, getting their start at funerals of people who died from aids. Their purpose is to spread their belief that American deaths in Iraq are devine punishment to the United States for harboring homosexuals. That's right, GLBT people, Rev. Phelps blames you for over 1,000 deaths in Iraq. Don't worry, it's not supposed to make sense.
Unfortunately, Phelps and his traveling troupe of protesters, aren't quiet about it. They like to shout out "God Hates Fags," and other messages of encouragement bereaved people just love to hear while mourning their loved one. Apparently their pain is acceptable collateral damage in the group's war against gays.
Another group called the Patriot Guard riders has banded together in an attempt to offset the pain Phelps' followers inflict on others, meeting them at funerals to shout patriotic chants and wave flags. That's still a lot of commotion at a funeral, but at least they're offering a balance.
Here's the thoughts of Phelps' daughter regarding their actions; "The scriptures are crystal clear that when God sets out to punish a nation, it is with the sword. An IED is just a broken-up sword," Phelps-Roper said. "Since that is his weapon of choice, our forum of choice has got to be a dead soldier's funeral."
Conversely, here are comments from Don Woodrick, the Kentucky captain of the Patriot Guard Riders; "The most important thing we can do is let families know that the nation cares."
Which one sounds more God-like to you?
February 20, 2006
Rally in Maryland Supporting Same-Sex Marriage
Last week, I participated in my first political rally at the Maryland State House in Annapolis. I was part of a group of at least several hundred people who rallied against the proposed state constitutional amendment that would make same-sex marriage illegal. Here is the summary from the Washington Blade:
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2006/2-17/news/national/nat2.cfm
It was a wonderful experience being part of this group. I benefited from the opportunity to join members of my district in discusbsing the issue with our delegates and state senator. It was a very cordial meeting since all of the representatives are strongly opposed to this amendment, but it was still good to be part of the process.
The most interesting part to me was afterwards while I was waiting for the shuttle to go back to my car. I struck up a conversation with several gay men who participated in my district meeting. We just stood outside and discussed our different perspectives on issues that affected the GLBT community.
We should do that more often. We all would learn something.
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2006/2-17/news/national/nat2.cfm
It was a wonderful experience being part of this group. I benefited from the opportunity to join members of my district in discusbsing the issue with our delegates and state senator. It was a very cordial meeting since all of the representatives are strongly opposed to this amendment, but it was still good to be part of the process.
The most interesting part to me was afterwards while I was waiting for the shuttle to go back to my car. I struck up a conversation with several gay men who participated in my district meeting. We just stood outside and discussed our different perspectives on issues that affected the GLBT community.
We should do that more often. We all would learn something.
February 18, 2006
What Is Family?
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
