"And Tango Makes Three" is a children's picture book that tells the story, a true story by the way, about two male penguins who raised a baby penguin as their own chick in New York's Central Park Zoo.
Of course, anything that exposes youngesters to a positive portrayal of homosexuals, even amongs penguins, will get some people's undies all bunched up. The lastest is in Shiloh, Illinois, where some parents have raised a stink. They are trying to get the book moved to a section containing "mature topics" which would require parental permission for a child to read it.
It's a sweet little book that you can buy on Amazon.com. Anything that can get our kids thinking outside the box the religious right so desperately wants to keep them in is a good thing.
November 18, 2006
November 17, 2006
LGBT Equality As a Competitive Advantage
Here is yet another example of how economic pressure is one avenue LGBT advocates can use to move forward the policies of equality. Wisconsin is one of the states that voted in favor of a constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage. As a result, gay and lesbian employees, seeing little chance of receiving domestic partner benefits, are considering leaving the state's flagship institution of higher learning, the University of Wisconsin.
According to The Advocate article, Wisconsin is the only Big Ten school that does not offer benefits for domestic partners. For those of you who don't know what the Big Ten is, it is a collegiate sports conference comprised of many of the largest universities in the Midwest. These schools, like Ohio State, Indiana, Northwestern, and Purdue for example, often compete for the same academic and leadership talent.
GLBT people and their allies need to be aware of what employers and industries support equal rights and support them whenever possible. Maybe those groups who aren't supportive will get the hint.
According to The Advocate article, Wisconsin is the only Big Ten school that does not offer benefits for domestic partners. For those of you who don't know what the Big Ten is, it is a collegiate sports conference comprised of many of the largest universities in the Midwest. These schools, like Ohio State, Indiana, Northwestern, and Purdue for example, often compete for the same academic and leadership talent.
GLBT people and their allies need to be aware of what employers and industries support equal rights and support them whenever possible. Maybe those groups who aren't supportive will get the hint.
November 14, 2006
"War, Religion, and Gay Rights"
Columnist James Carroll of the Boston Globe writes about the unity diverse groups can find in gay bashing and addresses a couple of the primary underlying reasons why GLBT rights are often so viciously attacked.
"Same-sex erotic love is not the issue. Humans, including Catholic bishops, have long accommodated it. But that accommodation assumes denial and shame. What brings demonstrators into streets across cultures, and what shows up in the United States as "values" politics, mobilizing bishops, is the movement to bring homosexuality out of the dark.
When gay people openly assert their identities as such, whether through parades or through the demand for full and equal social recognition, reactionaries cannot stand it. "
"The open affirmation of gay identity can pose a mortal threat to people whose own sexual identity is insecure. The Haggard story is a cautionary tale. As it happens, I was present last year to hear Pastor Ted preach a sermon at his mega-church, and it included a digressive attack on homosexuals that was as venomous and it was gratuitous. He equated gay sex with bestiality.
Even at the time, I wondered about the dark energy of his hatred. That it is revealed now as self-hatred comes as no surprise. One needn't draw a direct line from Haggard's behavior to the private morality of Catholic bishops to sense that the church's own deepening insecurity on all matters of sexuality, especially those surfaced by the still unresolved crisis of priestly sexual abuse of children, informs its exceptional opposition to gay rights."
That's right, since GLBT people have the nerve to assert their desire for equality, that has been seen as a declaration of war by people who are often focus on that while in denial or diverting attention from other issues.
Righteousness will ultimately prevail and more of these hypocrites and hidden agends will be exposed. The tide is turning in favor of equality, but it will be more of a steady flow rather than a tidal wave.
"Same-sex erotic love is not the issue. Humans, including Catholic bishops, have long accommodated it. But that accommodation assumes denial and shame. What brings demonstrators into streets across cultures, and what shows up in the United States as "values" politics, mobilizing bishops, is the movement to bring homosexuality out of the dark.
When gay people openly assert their identities as such, whether through parades or through the demand for full and equal social recognition, reactionaries cannot stand it. "
"The open affirmation of gay identity can pose a mortal threat to people whose own sexual identity is insecure. The Haggard story is a cautionary tale. As it happens, I was present last year to hear Pastor Ted preach a sermon at his mega-church, and it included a digressive attack on homosexuals that was as venomous and it was gratuitous. He equated gay sex with bestiality.
Even at the time, I wondered about the dark energy of his hatred. That it is revealed now as self-hatred comes as no surprise. One needn't draw a direct line from Haggard's behavior to the private morality of Catholic bishops to sense that the church's own deepening insecurity on all matters of sexuality, especially those surfaced by the still unresolved crisis of priestly sexual abuse of children, informs its exceptional opposition to gay rights."
That's right, since GLBT people have the nerve to assert their desire for equality, that has been seen as a declaration of war by people who are often focus on that while in denial or diverting attention from other issues.
Righteousness will ultimately prevail and more of these hypocrites and hidden agends will be exposed. The tide is turning in favor of equality, but it will be more of a steady flow rather than a tidal wave.
November 13, 2006
A State of Moral Confusion
Yes, here's another piece on Ted Haggard, but it's not really about him. This situation has brought a lot of people out of the woodwork with interesting opinions, some of them profound, some of them ludicrous. My last post reference one of the former, and this one shows one of the latter.
From the Rocky Mountain News:
As a practical matter David Frum's analysis of the situation is more disturbing, given that, at least for now, the David Frums of the world still have more political influence than the Mark Driscolls. A former speechwriter for President Bush, Frum now writes for America's leading conservative magazine, National Review. Here's his take on the Haggard scandal:
"Consider the hypothetical case of two men. Both are inclined toward homosexuality. Both from time to time hire the services of male prostitutes. Both have occasionally succumbed to drug abuse. One of them marries, raises a family, preaches Christian principles, and tries generally to encourage people to lead stable lives. The other publicly reveals his homosexuality, vilifies traditional moral principles, and urges the legalization of drugs and prostitution. Which man is leading the more moral life? It seems to me that the answer is the first one."
It seems to me that there's something about the topic of sex in America today that causes otherwise sane and intelligent persons to say crazy things.
On what conceivable moral scale is publicly acknowledging one's sexual orientation while taking a libertarian view on the criminalizing of drugs and prostitution (this is apparently what Frum considers vilifying "traditional moral principles") worse than spending a lifetime deceiving one's spouse for the sake of career advancement?
I never cease to be amazed by the ability of people to rationalize the sins of those who work with them to condemn what they perceive to be the sins of others.
Fortunately, their judgement carries no long-term consequences. We will all be equals on judgement day, when they only thing that matters is the forgiveness of Jesus--if we've asked for it.
From the Rocky Mountain News:
As a practical matter David Frum's analysis of the situation is more disturbing, given that, at least for now, the David Frums of the world still have more political influence than the Mark Driscolls. A former speechwriter for President Bush, Frum now writes for America's leading conservative magazine, National Review. Here's his take on the Haggard scandal:
"Consider the hypothetical case of two men. Both are inclined toward homosexuality. Both from time to time hire the services of male prostitutes. Both have occasionally succumbed to drug abuse. One of them marries, raises a family, preaches Christian principles, and tries generally to encourage people to lead stable lives. The other publicly reveals his homosexuality, vilifies traditional moral principles, and urges the legalization of drugs and prostitution. Which man is leading the more moral life? It seems to me that the answer is the first one."
It seems to me that there's something about the topic of sex in America today that causes otherwise sane and intelligent persons to say crazy things.
On what conceivable moral scale is publicly acknowledging one's sexual orientation while taking a libertarian view on the criminalizing of drugs and prostitution (this is apparently what Frum considers vilifying "traditional moral principles") worse than spending a lifetime deceiving one's spouse for the sake of career advancement?
I never cease to be amazed by the ability of people to rationalize the sins of those who work with them to condemn what they perceive to be the sins of others.
Fortunately, their judgement carries no long-term consequences. We will all be equals on judgement day, when they only thing that matters is the forgiveness of Jesus--if we've asked for it.
November 12, 2006
The Party of the Angry Closet
I found this post on the blog Proceed At Your Own Risk which took a different spin on what appears to be a crowded closet in the Republican Party.
"It may very well be that the GOP's abominable homophobic campaign and party rhetoric is primarily fueled by a long-standing core and tradition of pathologically self-hating closeted gay men in key positions."
"So, I'm posing an ugly and incredibly distasteful question that the gay community must ask itself. Would a national political campaign be so focused on homophobia if not for the presence and influence of so many self-loathing closeted gay Republicans? When we blame straights for Republican and Christian homophobia are we pointing the finger in the wrong direction?
And are we ourselves, in a gay community sense, at least partly responsible if not primarily responsible for fueling this nightmare?
If this theory is even partly correct, then it is critical and vital to our future that we hunt down and expose these men with urgency and even brutality."
"It's time to consider that our collective silence on this issue and with regard to these individuals may be one of the root causes of national homophobia institutionalized by one of our two political parties.
The gay community may be more responsible for homophobia than we care to admit. Furthermore, the gay community may have more control over its own future than we care to address. In some circumstances, outing may be as much of a civic duty as voting. Forgive the cliche, but growing pains are an inevitable part of life and maturation; and now may be the time for some pain."
The word brutality seems to cross a line, but overall his points seem to make a lot of sense to me. What do you think?
"It may very well be that the GOP's abominable homophobic campaign and party rhetoric is primarily fueled by a long-standing core and tradition of pathologically self-hating closeted gay men in key positions."
"So, I'm posing an ugly and incredibly distasteful question that the gay community must ask itself. Would a national political campaign be so focused on homophobia if not for the presence and influence of so many self-loathing closeted gay Republicans? When we blame straights for Republican and Christian homophobia are we pointing the finger in the wrong direction?
And are we ourselves, in a gay community sense, at least partly responsible if not primarily responsible for fueling this nightmare?
If this theory is even partly correct, then it is critical and vital to our future that we hunt down and expose these men with urgency and even brutality."
"It's time to consider that our collective silence on this issue and with regard to these individuals may be one of the root causes of national homophobia institutionalized by one of our two political parties.
The gay community may be more responsible for homophobia than we care to admit. Furthermore, the gay community may have more control over its own future than we care to address. In some circumstances, outing may be as much of a civic duty as voting. Forgive the cliche, but growing pains are an inevitable part of life and maturation; and now may be the time for some pain."
The word brutality seems to cross a line, but overall his points seem to make a lot of sense to me. What do you think?
November 11, 2006
"Ted Haggard-My Brother In Shame"
One of the things I find most appealing about bloggers and blogging in general is the opportunity for people to lay themselves bare for the world to see, sharing their experiences so others can learn from them.
This piece by fellow blogger Peterson Toscano is a great example of that. Ted Haggard's fall made Peterson reflect on a similar experience he went through in his own life, and the wisdom he gleaned from that kept him from gloating as Haggards demise, and he discourages others from falling into that trap.
Thanks to Peterson for opening up and sharing this experience with us.
This piece by fellow blogger Peterson Toscano is a great example of that. Ted Haggard's fall made Peterson reflect on a similar experience he went through in his own life, and the wisdom he gleaned from that kept him from gloating as Haggards demise, and he discourages others from falling into that trap.
Thanks to Peterson for opening up and sharing this experience with us.
November 10, 2006
Carol Channing On Gays
Entertainer Carol Channing, who I understand has a large gay following, is not a fan of their work.
In this interview with the Gay People's Chronicle, a publication based in Cleveland, Ohio, Ms. Channing had some surprising answers when asked about her large gay following:
Q: You seem to have a very large gay following. Have you ever thought about why?
A: I don’t think about them. I’m grateful that they seem to like me. They’re terribly loyal to me. But I’m knee-deep in the Bible and you know what it says about that.
Q: Alright.
A: Oh, dear. Is this for a gay publication? Have I offended you?
Q: Yes. For the Gay People’s Chronicle. Right now, it’s really not my job to be offended or not be offended. I am just asking questions and reporting answers. I read that you have fought for gay rights. Do you think that the things gay people are fighting for are important?
A: I don’t think about it. If they can’t take care of their own problems, why should I bother. It’s not my problem.
Lest any GLBT readers get too offended, here's an example of the mentality that produced those quotes:
Q: As revealed in your biography “Just Lucky I Guess,” you found out later in life that your father was of African-American origins. Did you ever feel betrayed that you weren’t told that right from the start?
A: No. I didn’t even know it would matter, that reporters would ask questions. [It did] not change my relationship with him at all. But I did finally realize why I sang so well, why I danced do well. Everyone’s race is something to be proud of. I’m terribly proud of it. I was very close to him and loved him dearly. He was the kindest, most spiritually minded person I knew.
So she can dance and sing because she has African-American blood?
I think she's a lot better off sticking with singing and dancing and should probably give fewer interviews.
Thanks to PageOneQ for the tip.
The blog Towleroad has a copy of the press release Channing's pr rep sent out trying to clean up the mess.
In this interview with the Gay People's Chronicle, a publication based in Cleveland, Ohio, Ms. Channing had some surprising answers when asked about her large gay following:
Q: You seem to have a very large gay following. Have you ever thought about why?
A: I don’t think about them. I’m grateful that they seem to like me. They’re terribly loyal to me. But I’m knee-deep in the Bible and you know what it says about that.
Q: Alright.
A: Oh, dear. Is this for a gay publication? Have I offended you?
Q: Yes. For the Gay People’s Chronicle. Right now, it’s really not my job to be offended or not be offended. I am just asking questions and reporting answers. I read that you have fought for gay rights. Do you think that the things gay people are fighting for are important?
A: I don’t think about it. If they can’t take care of their own problems, why should I bother. It’s not my problem.
Lest any GLBT readers get too offended, here's an example of the mentality that produced those quotes:
Q: As revealed in your biography “Just Lucky I Guess,” you found out later in life that your father was of African-American origins. Did you ever feel betrayed that you weren’t told that right from the start?
A: No. I didn’t even know it would matter, that reporters would ask questions. [It did] not change my relationship with him at all. But I did finally realize why I sang so well, why I danced do well. Everyone’s race is something to be proud of. I’m terribly proud of it. I was very close to him and loved him dearly. He was the kindest, most spiritually minded person I knew.
So she can dance and sing because she has African-American blood?
I think she's a lot better off sticking with singing and dancing and should probably give fewer interviews.
Thanks to PageOneQ for the tip.
The blog Towleroad has a copy of the press release Channing's pr rep sent out trying to clean up the mess.
Will Haggard's Fall Open Eyes and Minds?
I ran across this fascinating column in the San Francisco Chronicle that took a different approach on the Ted Haggard situation.
How about one overarching question: Will it make a difference? Will it be enough to effect any sort of ideological or spiritual change among the uptight and the sexually rigid? In short: Will God shake anyone awake?
In other words, will Haggard, one of the most high-profile and influential Christians in America, and his evident love of men be enough to flip some sort of switch in the rigid Christian fundamentalist mind-set and slap them out of their ideological coma and maybe begin to tip the scales back toward, oh, I don't know ... let's say open-mindedness, generosity of spirit, happy grinning homosexual acceptance and an understanding that God doesn't give a flying evangelical crap about gender? Do you already know the answer?
Because this is, in a way, what it comes down to. A massive, hurtful hypocrite of Haggard's stature and influence comes to light, and you can only hope for, well, something. A shift. A hint of awakening, of movement, of evolution. An increase of urgent calls to the gay-love hotline from the GOP. You know, something.
Here's the bad news: Keep on waiting.
It's as sad as it is obvious. You'll find no evangelical, no Christian leader anywhere coming out and saying: Let's do something different. Let's take this shocking Haggard scandal as a cosmic sign, as a big rainbow-colored warning flag that maybe, just maybe we need to look at this gay issue with a little more love and a little less nauseating pseudo-spiritual homophobic dogma. Maybe now is the time to rethink this hateful ideology that has kept us so deep in fear and mistrust and sexual agony for so long. Can I get a praise Jesus?
Unfortunately, the religious right is probably too busy licking their wounds after the trouncing their candidates took in this week's elections. After some time passes, though, we can only hope that as least some of their leaders can step back and take a long, hard look at what they're doing and, more importantly, what the Holy Spirit is really trying to tell them.
How about one overarching question: Will it make a difference? Will it be enough to effect any sort of ideological or spiritual change among the uptight and the sexually rigid? In short: Will God shake anyone awake?
In other words, will Haggard, one of the most high-profile and influential Christians in America, and his evident love of men be enough to flip some sort of switch in the rigid Christian fundamentalist mind-set and slap them out of their ideological coma and maybe begin to tip the scales back toward, oh, I don't know ... let's say open-mindedness, generosity of spirit, happy grinning homosexual acceptance and an understanding that God doesn't give a flying evangelical crap about gender? Do you already know the answer?
Because this is, in a way, what it comes down to. A massive, hurtful hypocrite of Haggard's stature and influence comes to light, and you can only hope for, well, something. A shift. A hint of awakening, of movement, of evolution. An increase of urgent calls to the gay-love hotline from the GOP. You know, something.
Here's the bad news: Keep on waiting.
It's as sad as it is obvious. You'll find no evangelical, no Christian leader anywhere coming out and saying: Let's do something different. Let's take this shocking Haggard scandal as a cosmic sign, as a big rainbow-colored warning flag that maybe, just maybe we need to look at this gay issue with a little more love and a little less nauseating pseudo-spiritual homophobic dogma. Maybe now is the time to rethink this hateful ideology that has kept us so deep in fear and mistrust and sexual agony for so long. Can I get a praise Jesus?
Unfortunately, the religious right is probably too busy licking their wounds after the trouncing their candidates took in this week's elections. After some time passes, though, we can only hope that as least some of their leaders can step back and take a long, hard look at what they're doing and, more importantly, what the Holy Spirit is really trying to tell them.
November 09, 2006
The U. S. Moves Toward the Middle
The Democrats sweeping victories in Tuesday's elections signalled a move from the right, sometimes the far right, back toward the middle in our nation's political slant. This is good, but not yet great, news for the GLBT from where I sit.
The good news is that it should limit further passing of state constitutional amendments that would ban same-sex marriage. Arizona became the first state to reject a proposed amendment at the ballot box, but seven more states passed a measure this week, increasing the number of states with a ban on the books to 27.
With Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, there is virtually no chance that a federal amendment will even reach the floor again. There is also an upswing in out GLBT candidates getting elected to office, offering a louder and more visible voice for equality.
This is all good, but not great news. Many democrats got elected by presenting a viable alternative to moderate voters from both parties. While those individuals did not run on platforms including discrimination toward gays, few of them engaged in issues of GLBT equality either.
In other words, the 2006 elections stopped the bleeding in the political arena for GLBT interests and began some slow healing that, over the long term, could begin paving the road toward full equality for GLBT citizens in the United States.
That is still a long, winding road, however, but the bus has at least turned around and is now heading, slowly, in the right direction.
The good news is that it should limit further passing of state constitutional amendments that would ban same-sex marriage. Arizona became the first state to reject a proposed amendment at the ballot box, but seven more states passed a measure this week, increasing the number of states with a ban on the books to 27.
With Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, there is virtually no chance that a federal amendment will even reach the floor again. There is also an upswing in out GLBT candidates getting elected to office, offering a louder and more visible voice for equality.
This is all good, but not great news. Many democrats got elected by presenting a viable alternative to moderate voters from both parties. While those individuals did not run on platforms including discrimination toward gays, few of them engaged in issues of GLBT equality either.
In other words, the 2006 elections stopped the bleeding in the political arena for GLBT interests and began some slow healing that, over the long term, could begin paving the road toward full equality for GLBT citizens in the United States.
That is still a long, winding road, however, but the bus has at least turned around and is now heading, slowly, in the right direction.
November 07, 2006
Taking Religion Away From Politicians
It's election day in the United States, and I found a piece that fit in with both the message here and the election theme.
An Episcopal priest named Tom Ehrich wrote an op-ed piece for the Indianapolis Star titled "Preachers much reclaim religion from politicians." I couldn't agree more. Here are some excerpts I thought were particularly profound.
"Now that the unloosed genie of religious intolerance has replaced racial hatred and anti-communist blather as the go-to guy of desperate politicians, it is time for religious leaders of all stripes to take back the night."
"Christianity has always served better on the margins than at the center of power. When we walk hand in hand with power-seekers, we lose touch with the Gospel. When we grasp public funds, tax benefits and prestige, we stray far from a savior who commanded exactly the opposite."
"We look stupid parading alongside the corrupt. The dais and dalliance of modern politics aren't our place. Crumbs falling from Republican and Democratic tables aren't the manna we seek. We have nobler ideals than staying in office for another two years. We have food that endures to eternal life.'
I am reminded of the old cliche "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." As religious leaders like James Dobson have gained more political power, it has grossly corrupted any message they might bring from the pulput of a church. Leaders like him wind up preaching more about politics and less about Jesus Christ.
Any preacher who thinks politics is a higher calling should go in that direction because they don't beling in a pulpit. Anyone who believes influencing votes is more important than saving souls should not try the latter because they are obviously not hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.
We need more people to influence souls for Christ, not votes for Republicans.
An Episcopal priest named Tom Ehrich wrote an op-ed piece for the Indianapolis Star titled "Preachers much reclaim religion from politicians." I couldn't agree more. Here are some excerpts I thought were particularly profound.
"Now that the unloosed genie of religious intolerance has replaced racial hatred and anti-communist blather as the go-to guy of desperate politicians, it is time for religious leaders of all stripes to take back the night."
"Christianity has always served better on the margins than at the center of power. When we walk hand in hand with power-seekers, we lose touch with the Gospel. When we grasp public funds, tax benefits and prestige, we stray far from a savior who commanded exactly the opposite."
"We look stupid parading alongside the corrupt. The dais and dalliance of modern politics aren't our place. Crumbs falling from Republican and Democratic tables aren't the manna we seek. We have nobler ideals than staying in office for another two years. We have food that endures to eternal life.'
I am reminded of the old cliche "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." As religious leaders like James Dobson have gained more political power, it has grossly corrupted any message they might bring from the pulput of a church. Leaders like him wind up preaching more about politics and less about Jesus Christ.
Any preacher who thinks politics is a higher calling should go in that direction because they don't beling in a pulpit. Anyone who believes influencing votes is more important than saving souls should not try the latter because they are obviously not hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.
We need more people to influence souls for Christ, not votes for Republicans.
November 06, 2006
More Haggard Fallout
Now the distancing begins from disgraced Rev. Ted Haggard.
A spokesman for President Bush, who Haggard was reported to have regular telephone contact with, said, ""He had been on a couple of calls, but was not a weekly participant in those calls," said Bush spokesman Tony Fratto. "I believe he's been to the White House one or two times. I don't want to confine it to a specific number because it would take a while to figure out how many times. But there have been a lot of people who come to the White House."
Dr. Jerry Falwell said, "He doesn't really lead the movement," Falwell said. "He's president of an association that's very loosely knit, and I have never been a member of it. Most of people that I know have not, and no one has looked to them for leadership."
Dr. James Dobson didn't let this little problem make him lose focus on what is really important to him, "Ted Haggard is a friend of mine, and it appears someone is trying to damage his reputation as a way of influencing the outcome of Tuesday's election--especially the vote on Colorado's marriage protection amendment--which Ted strongly supports."
This reminds me of a movie Pastor Brenda and I were watching just last night, "X-Men: The Last Stand." There was a lot of talk among the LGBT community when it first came out this spring because of the story line--a cure that had been produced for mutants to make them "normal."
During the film, one of the members of the mutant resistance, a character named "Mystique," was shot with a dart containing the cure drug and rapidly changed to a normal woman. The leader of the resistance, "Magneto," look at her when she lay naked and helpless, reaching out toward him, and sneered, "You're one of them now." He promptly turned his back and walked away, never associating with her again.
That's just what these members of the religious right are doing. Now that Haggard has admitted at least some indiscretions, he is one of them, the unwashed masses, the sinners, just like them homosexuals.
In this black and white world of evangelical fundamentalism, you're either with them or against them. Ted Haggard, one of their leaders, has now been kicked to the curb and is one of "them."
Does it bother you that these alleged men of Christ are acting very much against the example of Jesus when he walked the earth?
It bothers me...a lot.
A spokesman for President Bush, who Haggard was reported to have regular telephone contact with, said, ""He had been on a couple of calls, but was not a weekly participant in those calls," said Bush spokesman Tony Fratto. "I believe he's been to the White House one or two times. I don't want to confine it to a specific number because it would take a while to figure out how many times. But there have been a lot of people who come to the White House."
Dr. Jerry Falwell said, "He doesn't really lead the movement," Falwell said. "He's president of an association that's very loosely knit, and I have never been a member of it. Most of people that I know have not, and no one has looked to them for leadership."
Dr. James Dobson didn't let this little problem make him lose focus on what is really important to him, "Ted Haggard is a friend of mine, and it appears someone is trying to damage his reputation as a way of influencing the outcome of Tuesday's election--especially the vote on Colorado's marriage protection amendment--which Ted strongly supports."
This reminds me of a movie Pastor Brenda and I were watching just last night, "X-Men: The Last Stand." There was a lot of talk among the LGBT community when it first came out this spring because of the story line--a cure that had been produced for mutants to make them "normal."
During the film, one of the members of the mutant resistance, a character named "Mystique," was shot with a dart containing the cure drug and rapidly changed to a normal woman. The leader of the resistance, "Magneto," look at her when she lay naked and helpless, reaching out toward him, and sneered, "You're one of them now." He promptly turned his back and walked away, never associating with her again.
That's just what these members of the religious right are doing. Now that Haggard has admitted at least some indiscretions, he is one of them, the unwashed masses, the sinners, just like them homosexuals.
In this black and white world of evangelical fundamentalism, you're either with them or against them. Ted Haggard, one of their leaders, has now been kicked to the curb and is one of "them."
Does it bother you that these alleged men of Christ are acting very much against the example of Jesus when he walked the earth?
It bothers me...a lot.
November 05, 2006
Someone Who Didn't Stop Learning
One of the biggest problems I believe we have in Christian leadership at this time is that leaders get to a point where they spend too much time teaching and not enough time learning. It is the exceptional leader who stays focused on learning.
Here is a piece by someone who learned an important lesson about life after he move into a position of leadership. Miguel A. De La Torre, director of the Justice and Peace Institute and a published author, wrote this piece about what he learned from his friend "Tommy" after Tommy came out to him.
Here's an excerpt:
"I agreed to be his spiritual partner in the struggle. We covenanted to pray together. We fasted. We cast out the demon of homosexuality.
If anyone ever truly wanted to be a heterosexual, if anyone ever truly wanted to stop finding men attractive, if anyone ever truly humbled himself before God to faithfully live a Christian life, it was Tommy.
Years went by, andow you know what? Tommy was still gay. Tommy did not change, but I did.
In a very real sense, Tommy taught me something important about God: either God lacked the power to save a willing believer from his sin, or maybe--just maybe--I have been taught to read the Bible through the eyes of homophobics, regardless of how loving they appeared."
A person with an open mind and open heart can always be taught important lessons about how God works in our lives.
We just have to listen.
Here is a piece by someone who learned an important lesson about life after he move into a position of leadership. Miguel A. De La Torre, director of the Justice and Peace Institute and a published author, wrote this piece about what he learned from his friend "Tommy" after Tommy came out to him.
Here's an excerpt:
"I agreed to be his spiritual partner in the struggle. We covenanted to pray together. We fasted. We cast out the demon of homosexuality.
If anyone ever truly wanted to be a heterosexual, if anyone ever truly wanted to stop finding men attractive, if anyone ever truly humbled himself before God to faithfully live a Christian life, it was Tommy.
Years went by, andow you know what? Tommy was still gay. Tommy did not change, but I did.
In a very real sense, Tommy taught me something important about God: either God lacked the power to save a willing believer from his sin, or maybe--just maybe--I have been taught to read the Bible through the eyes of homophobics, regardless of how loving they appeared."
A person with an open mind and open heart can always be taught important lessons about how God works in our lives.
We just have to listen.
November 04, 2006
Evangelical Leader Steps Down, Admits "Some Indiscretion"
The religious right took another severe hit this week with the downfall of Rev. Ted Haggard, an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage.
On Thursday, Haggard resigned as the head of the National Association of Evangelicals, a group representing 45,000 churches with a combined total of over 30 million members after allegations that he paid for sex with a man from whom he also purchased drugs.
On Saturday, Haggard resigned at the pastor of the 14,000 member New Life Church in Colorado Springs that he founded over 20 years ago after an investigative board of the church determined he was guilty of "sexually immoral conduct."
The Advocate has an exclusive interview with Mike Jones, Haggard's accuser.
The facts in this case are not clear. Haggard has admitted to part of what Jones accused him of, and Jones failed a polygraph test during a live radio interview Friday morning.
What is clear, though, is yet another of the loudest voices on the religous right has come up short. One of the men who love pointing fingers at those they do not deem as worthy of God's love as they are has taken a hard, painful fall off the pedistal they placed themselves upon.
This is another reminder that we ALL fall short of God's will for our lives and that we only gain admittance to heaven through his grace, not through earning it by our actions. As a result, no man is in position to judge his fellow man.
Hopefully, this situation will help open some minds and hreats to that critcially important truth.
On Thursday, Haggard resigned as the head of the National Association of Evangelicals, a group representing 45,000 churches with a combined total of over 30 million members after allegations that he paid for sex with a man from whom he also purchased drugs.
On Saturday, Haggard resigned at the pastor of the 14,000 member New Life Church in Colorado Springs that he founded over 20 years ago after an investigative board of the church determined he was guilty of "sexually immoral conduct."
The Advocate has an exclusive interview with Mike Jones, Haggard's accuser.
The facts in this case are not clear. Haggard has admitted to part of what Jones accused him of, and Jones failed a polygraph test during a live radio interview Friday morning.
What is clear, though, is yet another of the loudest voices on the religous right has come up short. One of the men who love pointing fingers at those they do not deem as worthy of God's love as they are has taken a hard, painful fall off the pedistal they placed themselves upon.
This is another reminder that we ALL fall short of God's will for our lives and that we only gain admittance to heaven through his grace, not through earning it by our actions. As a result, no man is in position to judge his fellow man.
Hopefully, this situation will help open some minds and hreats to that critcially important truth.
November 03, 2006
Falwell: Clergy Sex-Abuse Case a "Bump In the Road"
Excerpted from an article on EthicsDaily.com:
Jerry Falwell called high-profile allegations that a former pastor of a prominent independent Baptist church molested and raped numerous children over the course of decades a "bump in the road."
"When you hit a bump in the road--the pastor has mentioned six months here of challenges--forget the bump in the road. That's all it is. You've got to move on," Falwell said in a keynote address of a three-day meeting of the Southwide Baptist Fellowship at Trinity Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Fla.
Robert Gray, the former 30-year pastor who led the church out of the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1960s, was arrested in May. He is scheduled to stand trial Nov. 27 on two counts of capital sexual battery, because two of his accusers say he molested them when they were 6 years old.
Twenty-two people, including one man, have come forward since May to accuse Gray of abusing them. The other allegations involve children older than 12, meaning they cannot be prosecuted due to a statute of limitations.
Twenty two people accuse a church pastor of sexual battery and it's a bump in the freakin' road?!
I'm willing to bet the victims approach it a tad differently.
Of course, if your main purpose in visting a church is to keep them aligned with your political goals rather than ministering to their souls with the Holy Spirit, I suppose it's easier to look past these "bumps in the road."
In this follow-up piece, Ethics Today tells how leaders of the church covered up Gray's pattern of abuse out of fear that public knowledge would harm the effectiveness of the ministry.
If their leadership truly felt that way, I have to question how it could have possibly been effective in the first place.
Jerry Falwell called high-profile allegations that a former pastor of a prominent independent Baptist church molested and raped numerous children over the course of decades a "bump in the road."
"When you hit a bump in the road--the pastor has mentioned six months here of challenges--forget the bump in the road. That's all it is. You've got to move on," Falwell said in a keynote address of a three-day meeting of the Southwide Baptist Fellowship at Trinity Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Fla.
Robert Gray, the former 30-year pastor who led the church out of the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1960s, was arrested in May. He is scheduled to stand trial Nov. 27 on two counts of capital sexual battery, because two of his accusers say he molested them when they were 6 years old.
Twenty-two people, including one man, have come forward since May to accuse Gray of abusing them. The other allegations involve children older than 12, meaning they cannot be prosecuted due to a statute of limitations.
Twenty two people accuse a church pastor of sexual battery and it's a bump in the freakin' road?!
I'm willing to bet the victims approach it a tad differently.
Of course, if your main purpose in visting a church is to keep them aligned with your political goals rather than ministering to their souls with the Holy Spirit, I suppose it's easier to look past these "bumps in the road."
In this follow-up piece, Ethics Today tells how leaders of the church covered up Gray's pattern of abuse out of fear that public knowledge would harm the effectiveness of the ministry.
If their leadership truly felt that way, I have to question how it could have possibly been effective in the first place.
November 01, 2006
Casting the First Stone
What was it that Jesus said, "He who is without sin cast the first stone."
There's a bunch of folks in Jerusalem who aren't following that guidance, using stones and bottles as part of their rioting against an upcoming gay pride parade. Religion plays a part in this--the rioters are apparently members of an ultra Orthodox Jewish sect.
This is scheduled to be the second annual such event in Jerusalem. Last year the organizers, a group called Open House, needed a court order to proceed. The parade featured over a dozen arrests and three stabbings.
Apparently people wanted to get an early jump on the violence in an attempt to get the parade cancelled to protect national security. Already, over 70 members of Parliment have signed a petition against holding the parade.
It just goes to show yet again that regardless of the struggles GLBT Americans have, there are others worse off.
Please join me in praying for the safety of those who participate in this event and the softening of the hearts of those who are using violence to protest.
There's a bunch of folks in Jerusalem who aren't following that guidance, using stones and bottles as part of their rioting against an upcoming gay pride parade. Religion plays a part in this--the rioters are apparently members of an ultra Orthodox Jewish sect.
This is scheduled to be the second annual such event in Jerusalem. Last year the organizers, a group called Open House, needed a court order to proceed. The parade featured over a dozen arrests and three stabbings.
Apparently people wanted to get an early jump on the violence in an attempt to get the parade cancelled to protect national security. Already, over 70 members of Parliment have signed a petition against holding the parade.
It just goes to show yet again that regardless of the struggles GLBT Americans have, there are others worse off.
Please join me in praying for the safety of those who participate in this event and the softening of the hearts of those who are using violence to protest.
October 31, 2006
Equality Maryland: "Preparing for a Bruising"
Dan Furmansky, the Executive Director of Equality Maryland, the LGBT advocacy group I belong to, issued a note to members regarding next week's elections. He is bracing supporters for more short term losses as several more states are expected to pass amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage, but remains optimistic for the long term:
"It may be little consolation on Nov. 8, but no matter what happens at the polls, eventually, we will win. No matter how many Americans stand against us, eventually we will win. The journey may be a long one, and we may bleed and bruise, but when it comes to basic fairness and justice, equality will always prevail."
Here is the entire note:
I wish it wasn’t necessary to write this, but it is. As an LGBT civil rights leader, I feel I must prepare our community for when voters go to the polls next week.
We were shocked and saddened when eleven states voted to change their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage in November 2004. Reading the gay press afterwards, it was as though we had no idea it was coming, and indeed, most of us hadn't prepared for it. We had hoped to win in Oregon, maybe even in Michigan...but we lost everywhere, in some cases to devastating margins.
Then, pundits and so-called progressives poured lemon juice into our wounds with their unscientific analysis that the marriage issue is what "cost us" the elections. Many LGBT Americans weren't feeling much of an "us" with John Kerry anyway, after he was the only MA member of Congress to speak out in favor of an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution, which the Legislature there thankfully rejected.
Those were dark days none of us want to relive, but we must steady ourselves once again. In a few weeks, media across the country will be reporting on all of the new states that have changed their constitutions. And we could lose in every one of the states with proposed amendments.
It might sting—badly—and right on the heels of New York and Washington high court marriage rulings against us.
I pray I’m wrong, and that instead we’ll be greeted with headlines like the one that appeared in the New York Times on October 14th: “Gay Marriage Losing Punch as Ballot Issue.” I want to see headlines announcing our victories in Wisconsin, South Dakota, Arizona, and everywhere.
But I'm here to urge us to be prepared for what we weren't last time. Most of what I read in the press these days contains hopeful pieces. A September Advocate article had the headline: "Poll: Opposition to Virginia same-sex marriage amendment grows." Several gay media outlets touted a poll from South Dakota that indicated only 48% of voters in that state support the amendment. The Blade reported two weeks ago: "fights in three other states – Arizona, South Dakota and Wisconsin – are competitive and too close to call."
Lord knows I couldn't do this work if an optimist didn't reside somewhere in this heart of mine. As someone who lived in Wisconsin for almost six years, I am hopeful that the first state to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation will be the first to reject these repulsive public gay bashings that are wrapped up in the guise of "defining" marriage.
Indeed, we could come incredibly close in a few states, which would tell us that attitudes are changing. But close or not, if we fail on a popular vote across the board, the media will point and yell "losers" faster than you can say Foley Scandal. And some in our community will cannibalize those who steadfastly fight for equal marriage rights.
If this doomsday scenario comes to pass, we'll wear dark sunglasses for a couple of days. We'll empathize with those in our community who must wonder which of their neighbors voted against their family. But we'll move on.
We'll continue to fight, just as people have done for years before us, and will do years after us. We fought for seventeen years until we overturned a Supreme Court ruling that allowed for the criminalization of consensual same-sex relations. We survived DOMA, and have gone on to see relationship recognition in MA with equal marriage rights, CT and VT with civil unions, NJ, CA, and ME with domestic partnership registries, and HI with a reciprocal beneficiary law.
We are a community of survivors. No matter how much dung the Pat Buchanans of the world hurl at us, we will wash ourselves off and continue to fight for basic dignity and respect.
After we lost the marriage cases in Washington and New York, Evan Wolfson, head of Freedom to Marry, told a crowd of Equality Maryland members that the courts sometimes take the easy way out. After all, he said...it took thirteen state supreme courts to reject the argument that interracial marriage bans were unconstitutional before California's Supreme Court had the courage to strike down its ban in 1948—flying in the face of public opinion. After that brave ruling, six states changed their constitutions to “define marriage” in a way that would prevent interracial unions.
No matter what the setbacks, we must continue to view our movement as part of a broader movement for social justice. We must continue to draw inspiration and lessons from those who pioneered social change in the past and continue to welcome the partnerships of those doing this important work today in all areas of rights and freedoms.
As Dr. King said, "All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us face to face with another problem." Our gains in Massachusetts, Canada, Spain, and other places have led to opposition and setbacks. Karl Rove and his cohorts are preying upon fear of change and "the other" to orchestrate a campaign that makes a constitutional amendment to limit rights socially acceptable and seemingly innocuous. The success of these amendments elsewhere makes our struggle here in Maryland increasingly important, especially with oral arguments to win marriage equality here scheduled before our high court for early December.
It may be little consolation on Nov. 8, but no matter what happens at the polls, eventually, we will win. No matter how many Americans stand against us, eventually we will win. The journey may be a long one, and we may bleed and bruise, but when it comes to basic fairness and justice, equality will always prevail.
"I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. That is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant."
Martin Luther King Jr., Accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, Dec. 10, 1964
"It may be little consolation on Nov. 8, but no matter what happens at the polls, eventually, we will win. No matter how many Americans stand against us, eventually we will win. The journey may be a long one, and we may bleed and bruise, but when it comes to basic fairness and justice, equality will always prevail."
Here is the entire note:
I wish it wasn’t necessary to write this, but it is. As an LGBT civil rights leader, I feel I must prepare our community for when voters go to the polls next week.
We were shocked and saddened when eleven states voted to change their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage in November 2004. Reading the gay press afterwards, it was as though we had no idea it was coming, and indeed, most of us hadn't prepared for it. We had hoped to win in Oregon, maybe even in Michigan...but we lost everywhere, in some cases to devastating margins.
Then, pundits and so-called progressives poured lemon juice into our wounds with their unscientific analysis that the marriage issue is what "cost us" the elections. Many LGBT Americans weren't feeling much of an "us" with John Kerry anyway, after he was the only MA member of Congress to speak out in favor of an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution, which the Legislature there thankfully rejected.
Those were dark days none of us want to relive, but we must steady ourselves once again. In a few weeks, media across the country will be reporting on all of the new states that have changed their constitutions. And we could lose in every one of the states with proposed amendments.
It might sting—badly—and right on the heels of New York and Washington high court marriage rulings against us.
I pray I’m wrong, and that instead we’ll be greeted with headlines like the one that appeared in the New York Times on October 14th: “Gay Marriage Losing Punch as Ballot Issue.” I want to see headlines announcing our victories in Wisconsin, South Dakota, Arizona, and everywhere.
But I'm here to urge us to be prepared for what we weren't last time. Most of what I read in the press these days contains hopeful pieces. A September Advocate article had the headline: "Poll: Opposition to Virginia same-sex marriage amendment grows." Several gay media outlets touted a poll from South Dakota that indicated only 48% of voters in that state support the amendment. The Blade reported two weeks ago: "fights in three other states – Arizona, South Dakota and Wisconsin – are competitive and too close to call."
Lord knows I couldn't do this work if an optimist didn't reside somewhere in this heart of mine. As someone who lived in Wisconsin for almost six years, I am hopeful that the first state to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation will be the first to reject these repulsive public gay bashings that are wrapped up in the guise of "defining" marriage.
Indeed, we could come incredibly close in a few states, which would tell us that attitudes are changing. But close or not, if we fail on a popular vote across the board, the media will point and yell "losers" faster than you can say Foley Scandal. And some in our community will cannibalize those who steadfastly fight for equal marriage rights.
If this doomsday scenario comes to pass, we'll wear dark sunglasses for a couple of days. We'll empathize with those in our community who must wonder which of their neighbors voted against their family. But we'll move on.
We'll continue to fight, just as people have done for years before us, and will do years after us. We fought for seventeen years until we overturned a Supreme Court ruling that allowed for the criminalization of consensual same-sex relations. We survived DOMA, and have gone on to see relationship recognition in MA with equal marriage rights, CT and VT with civil unions, NJ, CA, and ME with domestic partnership registries, and HI with a reciprocal beneficiary law.
We are a community of survivors. No matter how much dung the Pat Buchanans of the world hurl at us, we will wash ourselves off and continue to fight for basic dignity and respect.
After we lost the marriage cases in Washington and New York, Evan Wolfson, head of Freedom to Marry, told a crowd of Equality Maryland members that the courts sometimes take the easy way out. After all, he said...it took thirteen state supreme courts to reject the argument that interracial marriage bans were unconstitutional before California's Supreme Court had the courage to strike down its ban in 1948—flying in the face of public opinion. After that brave ruling, six states changed their constitutions to “define marriage” in a way that would prevent interracial unions.
No matter what the setbacks, we must continue to view our movement as part of a broader movement for social justice. We must continue to draw inspiration and lessons from those who pioneered social change in the past and continue to welcome the partnerships of those doing this important work today in all areas of rights and freedoms.
As Dr. King said, "All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us face to face with another problem." Our gains in Massachusetts, Canada, Spain, and other places have led to opposition and setbacks. Karl Rove and his cohorts are preying upon fear of change and "the other" to orchestrate a campaign that makes a constitutional amendment to limit rights socially acceptable and seemingly innocuous. The success of these amendments elsewhere makes our struggle here in Maryland increasingly important, especially with oral arguments to win marriage equality here scheduled before our high court for early December.
It may be little consolation on Nov. 8, but no matter what happens at the polls, eventually, we will win. No matter how many Americans stand against us, eventually we will win. The journey may be a long one, and we may bleed and bruise, but when it comes to basic fairness and justice, equality will always prevail.
"I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. That is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant."
Martin Luther King Jr., Accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, Dec. 10, 1964
October 30, 2006
Can You Judge a Man By the Company He Keeps?
I know that most of the readers here cringe at that word, "judge," but hopefully you are familiar with the cliche that question is based on.
Here is a case where we can certainly gain some disturbing insight into someone's character by who they are not only associating with but actively promoting. This article specifically refers to Dr. James Dobson and his two day love-fest with right wing sociopath Ann Coulter on the Focus on the Family radio program.
The article goes into plenty of detail about Ms. Coulter's background and how it made her a horribly inappropriate guest for any broadcast sponsored by a allegedly Christian organization. During one of the shows, Coulter referred to the title of her latest rant, Godless, the Church of Liberalism by saying, "they are the opposition party to God." Given her well documented public displays, some of which are listed in this article, it is not clear exactly what her credentials are to make that statement or offer any intelligent commentary regarding Christianity.
These appearances also further diminish Dr. Dobson's credentials as a minister while building them up as an operative of the Republican party.
Here is a case where we can certainly gain some disturbing insight into someone's character by who they are not only associating with but actively promoting. This article specifically refers to Dr. James Dobson and his two day love-fest with right wing sociopath Ann Coulter on the Focus on the Family radio program.
The article goes into plenty of detail about Ms. Coulter's background and how it made her a horribly inappropriate guest for any broadcast sponsored by a allegedly Christian organization. During one of the shows, Coulter referred to the title of her latest rant, Godless, the Church of Liberalism by saying, "they are the opposition party to God." Given her well documented public displays, some of which are listed in this article, it is not clear exactly what her credentials are to make that statement or offer any intelligent commentary regarding Christianity.
These appearances also further diminish Dr. Dobson's credentials as a minister while building them up as an operative of the Republican party.
October 29, 2006
An Example Of What We're Fighting
In the wake of last week's New Jersey court decision, a columnist named Kevin McCullough wrote a column on World Net Daily (a right-wing breeding ground) titled "Why Homosexuals Hate Marriage."
I mention this here to affirm how deeply rooted this bigotry is and the broad forum these people have to spew their hate. Here are some excerpts:
"Despite all that their angry-mob front groups argue in front of television cameras to the contrary, radical homosexual activists despise the institution, and more importantly the sanctity, of marriage. That is the fundamental reason why they are seeking to destroy the institution.
This week – dateline Trenton, N.J. – a unified panel of seven judges agreed that illegitimate sexual unions should be made equitable under law to that of monogamous married persons. Without the consent of the governed, these tyrants in black robes sat in judgment of healthy families across the universe and demanded that New Jersey residents accept immoral construction of sexual unions as the equal basis for families and family life in their recreated sexual, liberal utopia."
Of course, the judges wouldn't be "tyrants in black robes" if they had made the "acceptable" decison. How pathetic is that arguement? And what will the right wing say when they lose votes?
Want some more?
"But why? What's the real goal of the activists, the judges and the radicals who seek to subvert a moral worldview?
The answer is simple: No longer satisfied with practicing the unspeakable perverse sexual pleasures that their hearts seek in private bedrooms, they wish to be able to do so in public. They are also suffering from such immense guilt over their sexual behaviors, because they know inherently that the actions they perform are in fact unhealthy, that they will go to any means necessary to try and shut down the voices in their heads that tell them it is wrong.
Radical homosexual activists hate biblical marriage, because to achieve its benefits and blessings they must first conform to God's plan for sexuality, and the sinful nature in man is not willing to make such submission and conformity happen. The existence of joyful biblical marriage being practiced by "thumpers" in "Jesusland" infuriates them and thus the only action they can attempt is to destroy the institution that allows for such fundamental societal success.
Radical homosexual activists hate marriage because fundamentally they hate God, and the guilt of both drives them to extremes."
Sadly, this right-wing nut got a book published and is on the radio in the New York and Philadelphia areas. People full of this much hate, who have things so "simply" defined in their black-and-white world, who can so easily dismiss an entire group of people and lump them all in one, will not go away easily. Losing a court decision will only strengthen their resolve and have them coming back with more bigotry, more hatred, and more pronouncement's of God's judgement. They won't go away easily.
The God this hate monger speaks of is not the God I know, the God who sent Jesus down to earth to die for our sins. Thank God.
I mention this here to affirm how deeply rooted this bigotry is and the broad forum these people have to spew their hate. Here are some excerpts:
"Despite all that their angry-mob front groups argue in front of television cameras to the contrary, radical homosexual activists despise the institution, and more importantly the sanctity, of marriage. That is the fundamental reason why they are seeking to destroy the institution.
This week – dateline Trenton, N.J. – a unified panel of seven judges agreed that illegitimate sexual unions should be made equitable under law to that of monogamous married persons. Without the consent of the governed, these tyrants in black robes sat in judgment of healthy families across the universe and demanded that New Jersey residents accept immoral construction of sexual unions as the equal basis for families and family life in their recreated sexual, liberal utopia."
Of course, the judges wouldn't be "tyrants in black robes" if they had made the "acceptable" decison. How pathetic is that arguement? And what will the right wing say when they lose votes?
Want some more?
"But why? What's the real goal of the activists, the judges and the radicals who seek to subvert a moral worldview?
The answer is simple: No longer satisfied with practicing the unspeakable perverse sexual pleasures that their hearts seek in private bedrooms, they wish to be able to do so in public. They are also suffering from such immense guilt over their sexual behaviors, because they know inherently that the actions they perform are in fact unhealthy, that they will go to any means necessary to try and shut down the voices in their heads that tell them it is wrong.
Radical homosexual activists hate biblical marriage, because to achieve its benefits and blessings they must first conform to God's plan for sexuality, and the sinful nature in man is not willing to make such submission and conformity happen. The existence of joyful biblical marriage being practiced by "thumpers" in "Jesusland" infuriates them and thus the only action they can attempt is to destroy the institution that allows for such fundamental societal success.
Radical homosexual activists hate marriage because fundamentally they hate God, and the guilt of both drives them to extremes."
Sadly, this right-wing nut got a book published and is on the radio in the New York and Philadelphia areas. People full of this much hate, who have things so "simply" defined in their black-and-white world, who can so easily dismiss an entire group of people and lump them all in one, will not go away easily. Losing a court decision will only strengthen their resolve and have them coming back with more bigotry, more hatred, and more pronouncement's of God's judgement. They won't go away easily.
The God this hate monger speaks of is not the God I know, the God who sent Jesus down to earth to die for our sins. Thank God.
October 28, 2006
Will New Jersey Gay Marriage Ruling Energize Republicans?
This column on Time.com opines that it just might:
"What Republicans are hoping is that they can use the issue of gay marriage and the ruling to motivate conservatives in key states like Tennessee, Missouri and Virginia, where Republicans are in danger of losing Senate seats. Polls this year have shown small, but measurable drop-offs in enthusiasm from Christian conservatives and there's some worry about whether they will stay home on Election Day, particularly after the Foley scandal, which some conservative leaders blamed on congressional Republicans for being too afraid to take action against Foley earlier because it might be perceived as anti-gay.
Measures to ban gay marriage are on the ballot in nine states, including Virginia and Tennessee, and conservative activists will point to the New Jersey decision as a reason people in those states should go to the polls, even if they're dissatisfied with how the Republican majority has run the country. If that message resonates, the same people celebrating the New Jersey decision could be having mixed feelings about it come election day."
This column in the New Republic disagrees: (via the site Faith in Public Life):
But Democrats should relax. It's true that Rove and Co. will do their best to make this case a decisive electoral issue. But that won't be the cakewalk Democrats have nightmares about. America in 2004 is not America in 2006, Lewis is not Goodridge, and, no matter how much Rove might hope for an early Christmas, gay marriage fear-mongering isn't going to be the eleventh-hour savior that Republicans need.
For one big reason why, look no further than the substance of the opinion. Much like Goodridge, Lewis insists that the "unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples can no longer be tolerated under our State Constitution." But, unlike Goodridge, Lewis leaves an important question--what should we call this new bundle of rights?--to the state legislature, which has 180 days to provide an answer. The difference in substance will make a difference in the politics.....
And, because the court punts the definitional question to the legislature, Republicans will have difficulty deploying their favorite mythical creature--the crazed, power-thirsty liberal judge, brazenly sweeping aside the democratic will of a helpless public to pursue her own narrow vision of the good life......
The activist-judge trope will fail not just because the legislature is being kept in the picture, but because public consensus in the state is starting to favor gay marriage. A June poll by Rutger's Eagleton Institute for Politics found that "New Jerseyans, by a margin of 50 percent to 44 percent ... support allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally." And, when you drop the word marriage, as the court did, the support is even more robust: 65 percent of state residents support giving same-sex couples "many of the same rights and benefits as a married man and woman." Only 30 percent are opposed.
Support for the decision aside, there's also a serious question about how receptive the Republican base will be to the typical "homosexual agenda" scare tactics. This year's ballot initiatives raise that question better than anything else. When the Times did a roundup of the 2006 initiatives, it found, amazingly, that "supporters of same-sex marriage this year are likely to be as mobilized as the opponents." Whereas many of the 2004 ballot initiatives passed with popular support topping 70 percent, polling in Arizona, Colorado, Virginia and Wisconsin--four of the states with ballot initiatives up this November--show only narrow majorities in favor of them. In South Dakota, the ballot initiative might actually fail. The case might cause some polarization, but if the Times report is true, it should motivate both sides equally. This is not the stuff of 2004.
This is a desperate time for Republicans, and they will reach for anything that can stop their slide toward defeat. But there is little that indicates gay marriage is the right piece of underbrush to cling to: This case is not going to fire up that base. Call it homosexuality fatigue. Call it whatever you want. (Or leave it up to the legislature!) Just don't expect Republican demagogues to be able to change it.
The evangelical vote will probably be the largest undefinable wild card in the 2006 election, and the rights of same-sex couples to marry in several states is one of the main things hanging in the balance.
"What Republicans are hoping is that they can use the issue of gay marriage and the ruling to motivate conservatives in key states like Tennessee, Missouri and Virginia, where Republicans are in danger of losing Senate seats. Polls this year have shown small, but measurable drop-offs in enthusiasm from Christian conservatives and there's some worry about whether they will stay home on Election Day, particularly after the Foley scandal, which some conservative leaders blamed on congressional Republicans for being too afraid to take action against Foley earlier because it might be perceived as anti-gay.
Measures to ban gay marriage are on the ballot in nine states, including Virginia and Tennessee, and conservative activists will point to the New Jersey decision as a reason people in those states should go to the polls, even if they're dissatisfied with how the Republican majority has run the country. If that message resonates, the same people celebrating the New Jersey decision could be having mixed feelings about it come election day."
This column in the New Republic disagrees: (via the site Faith in Public Life):
But Democrats should relax. It's true that Rove and Co. will do their best to make this case a decisive electoral issue. But that won't be the cakewalk Democrats have nightmares about. America in 2004 is not America in 2006, Lewis is not Goodridge, and, no matter how much Rove might hope for an early Christmas, gay marriage fear-mongering isn't going to be the eleventh-hour savior that Republicans need.
For one big reason why, look no further than the substance of the opinion. Much like Goodridge, Lewis insists that the "unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex couples can no longer be tolerated under our State Constitution." But, unlike Goodridge, Lewis leaves an important question--what should we call this new bundle of rights?--to the state legislature, which has 180 days to provide an answer. The difference in substance will make a difference in the politics.....
And, because the court punts the definitional question to the legislature, Republicans will have difficulty deploying their favorite mythical creature--the crazed, power-thirsty liberal judge, brazenly sweeping aside the democratic will of a helpless public to pursue her own narrow vision of the good life......
The activist-judge trope will fail not just because the legislature is being kept in the picture, but because public consensus in the state is starting to favor gay marriage. A June poll by Rutger's Eagleton Institute for Politics found that "New Jerseyans, by a margin of 50 percent to 44 percent ... support allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally." And, when you drop the word marriage, as the court did, the support is even more robust: 65 percent of state residents support giving same-sex couples "many of the same rights and benefits as a married man and woman." Only 30 percent are opposed.
Support for the decision aside, there's also a serious question about how receptive the Republican base will be to the typical "homosexual agenda" scare tactics. This year's ballot initiatives raise that question better than anything else. When the Times did a roundup of the 2006 initiatives, it found, amazingly, that "supporters of same-sex marriage this year are likely to be as mobilized as the opponents." Whereas many of the 2004 ballot initiatives passed with popular support topping 70 percent, polling in Arizona, Colorado, Virginia and Wisconsin--four of the states with ballot initiatives up this November--show only narrow majorities in favor of them. In South Dakota, the ballot initiative might actually fail. The case might cause some polarization, but if the Times report is true, it should motivate both sides equally. This is not the stuff of 2004.
This is a desperate time for Republicans, and they will reach for anything that can stop their slide toward defeat. But there is little that indicates gay marriage is the right piece of underbrush to cling to: This case is not going to fire up that base. Call it homosexuality fatigue. Call it whatever you want. (Or leave it up to the legislature!) Just don't expect Republican demagogues to be able to change it.
The evangelical vote will probably be the largest undefinable wild card in the 2006 election, and the rights of same-sex couples to marry in several states is one of the main things hanging in the balance.
October 27, 2006
"It's Not Heaven, It's Not Hell, It's Purgatory"
That was the gist of the message from an e-mail distributed by Steven Goldstein, Chairman of the GLBT advocacy group Garden State Equality in regards to the New Jersey Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage.
Here is the text of the message:
Dear LGBTI New Jerseyans and our millions of straight allies across New Jersey:
I'd like to take a moment, if you'll allow, to have a frank discussion about one of the more unique phenomena that emerged from yesterday's decision on marriage equality. We can't recall seeing so many divergent reactions from our community and supporters to any single event. Many of the reactions were diametrically opposed: Some activists and organizations portrayed the decision as "a big win" or "total victory." Other activists and organizations portrayed the decision as all but a loss -- a bad day when we had expected a total win. Still others, most people actually, had a reaction in between.
We're all over the map as a community. It's understandable -- well, at least the opinions in the middle are understandable -- given the complex nature of the ruling. On the one hand, not a single justice said same-sex couples are unworthy of equal protection. On the other hand, we did not get marriage equality, though it's now up to us to make it happen in the legislature within 180 days.
It's not heaven, it's not hell, it's purgatory.
But here's the problem with telling anyone, whether your family, friends or even journalists, that the decision is a victory: It will hurt our efforts to win marriage equality in the next 180 days. It will, I swear to you, it will. But more on that in a moment.
Describing the decision as a victory at this premature juncture is wrong. If we don't win the label "marriage," we will NOT have equal protection under the law. You know this too well from following our e-mails on the late Lieutenant Laurel Hester. Without the label marriage, couples like Lt. Hester and her partner, and scores of others across New Jersey, have been told time and again, "we don't care with the law says, you're not married."
As we've said a million times and we'll say a million times more, marriage is the only currency of commitment the real world universally accepts. We're not fighting for the label marriage for some moral, ethereal right. We're fighting for the label marriage because it's the only way a gay civil rights law will work in the real world.
And that's what you have to tell everyone you know. Were you to tell folks "it's a win" -- and to be sure, 90 percent of our community and our supporters believe otherwise -- it would tie the hands of those of us at Garden State Equality working every day in Trenton to get a real win: Marriage equality.
Because then legislators would tell us, "You know, we're hearing people call the Supreme Court decision a win. Why are you pressing so hard for marriage then?"
I'll go beyond that point, and this I plead to you with all my heart. A nuanced statement, along the lines of "it's a win, it's not everything we wanted, but it's a win," will still hurt our efforts for marriage equality.
First, such statements would be a lifeline to legislators whom we have got to win over. People hear what they want to hear, particularly legislators looking for an excuse not to do the right thing. They'll grasp onto the clause in a nuanced sentence that gives them an out.
Second, the art of political communications tells us that both the general public and the power-elites, from the press to public officials to others who hold our fate in their hands, don't process nuanced statements well.
If you tell someone, "the decision is a win, but blah, blah, blah," you can bet the "blah, blah, blah" caveat won't be processed and/or reported. People will only hear the headline, i.e. "It's a win." And that would devastate our efforts.
It would lead to reactions like this: "Well, I just read that someone in your community called this a win, I don't understand why you're now saying it's not. Sounds like this civil unions idea is a sensible solution."
Friends, we have 180 days to win 100% marriage equality in the state legislature, as the Supreme Court ruled. I personally plead with you, with every bone and fiber in my body -- and I'm joined by thousands of others at Garden State Equality -- that even if part of you thinks it this was a win in the context of history, it's not what your message should be at this most sensitive, pressure-filled time.
The bottom line is this: Marriage is the only currency of commitment the real world universally accepts. Anything short of marriage equality deprives LGBTI families of the equal protection they so desperately need. Contraptions short of marriage, like civil unions and domestic partnerships, do not provide that protection, as we've learned through the New Jersey experience. Thus we do not have a win yet.
But we're going to work our hearts out to make that happen within 180 days. We're counting on you to be by our side.
Thanks for listening, as it were. All of us at Garden State Equality appreciate you from the heart.
Warmly, Steven Goldstein, Chair of Garden State Equality
From the other side, Matt Daniels, the president of "Alliance for (Straight) Marriage," continues to run his mouth in the mainstream media. This quote from the New York Times, which he was kind enough to distritute by e-mail:
New Jersey's highest court ruled on Wednesday that gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and financial benefits as heterosexual couples, but ordered the Legislature to decide whether their unions must be called marriage or could be known by another name. But conservative groups opposed to same-sex marriage blasted the ruling as an example of the justices essentially trading judicial robes for legislative pens. ''The court is holding a legal gun to the head of the State Legislature, and saying, 'Listen, there are two bullets, you get to pick the bullet: either gay marriage or civil unions,' '' said Matt Daniels president of Alliance for Marriage, an organization based in the Washington area that supports a federal Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. ''And that is not democracy. That is court-imposed policy-making that takes this out of the hands of the people.''
That's right, the courts took marriage away from being strictly in the hands of straight couples and allow same-sex couples, in some form, to share in it.
Here is the text of the message:
Dear LGBTI New Jerseyans and our millions of straight allies across New Jersey:
I'd like to take a moment, if you'll allow, to have a frank discussion about one of the more unique phenomena that emerged from yesterday's decision on marriage equality. We can't recall seeing so many divergent reactions from our community and supporters to any single event. Many of the reactions were diametrically opposed: Some activists and organizations portrayed the decision as "a big win" or "total victory." Other activists and organizations portrayed the decision as all but a loss -- a bad day when we had expected a total win. Still others, most people actually, had a reaction in between.
We're all over the map as a community. It's understandable -- well, at least the opinions in the middle are understandable -- given the complex nature of the ruling. On the one hand, not a single justice said same-sex couples are unworthy of equal protection. On the other hand, we did not get marriage equality, though it's now up to us to make it happen in the legislature within 180 days.
It's not heaven, it's not hell, it's purgatory.
But here's the problem with telling anyone, whether your family, friends or even journalists, that the decision is a victory: It will hurt our efforts to win marriage equality in the next 180 days. It will, I swear to you, it will. But more on that in a moment.
Describing the decision as a victory at this premature juncture is wrong. If we don't win the label "marriage," we will NOT have equal protection under the law. You know this too well from following our e-mails on the late Lieutenant Laurel Hester. Without the label marriage, couples like Lt. Hester and her partner, and scores of others across New Jersey, have been told time and again, "we don't care with the law says, you're not married."
As we've said a million times and we'll say a million times more, marriage is the only currency of commitment the real world universally accepts. We're not fighting for the label marriage for some moral, ethereal right. We're fighting for the label marriage because it's the only way a gay civil rights law will work in the real world.
And that's what you have to tell everyone you know. Were you to tell folks "it's a win" -- and to be sure, 90 percent of our community and our supporters believe otherwise -- it would tie the hands of those of us at Garden State Equality working every day in Trenton to get a real win: Marriage equality.
Because then legislators would tell us, "You know, we're hearing people call the Supreme Court decision a win. Why are you pressing so hard for marriage then?"
I'll go beyond that point, and this I plead to you with all my heart. A nuanced statement, along the lines of "it's a win, it's not everything we wanted, but it's a win," will still hurt our efforts for marriage equality.
First, such statements would be a lifeline to legislators whom we have got to win over. People hear what they want to hear, particularly legislators looking for an excuse not to do the right thing. They'll grasp onto the clause in a nuanced sentence that gives them an out.
Second, the art of political communications tells us that both the general public and the power-elites, from the press to public officials to others who hold our fate in their hands, don't process nuanced statements well.
If you tell someone, "the decision is a win, but blah, blah, blah," you can bet the "blah, blah, blah" caveat won't be processed and/or reported. People will only hear the headline, i.e. "It's a win." And that would devastate our efforts.
It would lead to reactions like this: "Well, I just read that someone in your community called this a win, I don't understand why you're now saying it's not. Sounds like this civil unions idea is a sensible solution."
Friends, we have 180 days to win 100% marriage equality in the state legislature, as the Supreme Court ruled. I personally plead with you, with every bone and fiber in my body -- and I'm joined by thousands of others at Garden State Equality -- that even if part of you thinks it this was a win in the context of history, it's not what your message should be at this most sensitive, pressure-filled time.
The bottom line is this: Marriage is the only currency of commitment the real world universally accepts. Anything short of marriage equality deprives LGBTI families of the equal protection they so desperately need. Contraptions short of marriage, like civil unions and domestic partnerships, do not provide that protection, as we've learned through the New Jersey experience. Thus we do not have a win yet.
But we're going to work our hearts out to make that happen within 180 days. We're counting on you to be by our side.
Thanks for listening, as it were. All of us at Garden State Equality appreciate you from the heart.
Warmly, Steven Goldstein, Chair of Garden State Equality
From the other side, Matt Daniels, the president of "Alliance for (Straight) Marriage," continues to run his mouth in the mainstream media. This quote from the New York Times, which he was kind enough to distritute by e-mail:
New Jersey's highest court ruled on Wednesday that gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and financial benefits as heterosexual couples, but ordered the Legislature to decide whether their unions must be called marriage or could be known by another name. But conservative groups opposed to same-sex marriage blasted the ruling as an example of the justices essentially trading judicial robes for legislative pens. ''The court is holding a legal gun to the head of the State Legislature, and saying, 'Listen, there are two bullets, you get to pick the bullet: either gay marriage or civil unions,' '' said Matt Daniels president of Alliance for Marriage, an organization based in the Washington area that supports a federal Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. ''And that is not democracy. That is court-imposed policy-making that takes this out of the hands of the people.''
That's right, the courts took marriage away from being strictly in the hands of straight couples and allow same-sex couples, in some form, to share in it.
October 26, 2006
AFA Gets After Wal-Mart
The American Family Association, often a well-deserved object of scorn here, recently sent out an e-mail blast titled "Wall-Mart Rolls Out Red Carpet For Homosexual Marriage."
Among what the AFA considers the company's heinous sins are:
o Joining the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce and being appointed to its board.
o Having the nerve to sell books that are supportive of same-sex marriage
Then this which really cracked me up:
"A quick search of Wal-Mart's website turned up the following number of items for sale: Gay - 1148 Lesbian - 468Transgender - 40 Bisexual - 38 Gay Marriage - 26 "
Personally, I think someone there has waaaaay too much time on their hands.
From my perspective, and I suspect that of most people who aren't aggressive homophobes like the AFA, Wal-Mart hardly comes across as a social activist. I have no doubt these measures were taken to promote business, and I applaud the company for that. It can only be a good thing, in my opinion, for large companies to be sensitive to the needs of GLBT consumers--a win-win for everyone involved.
Of course, the AFA just wants gay people to crawl back in the closet and it grinds their cookies when companies like Ford and Wal-Mart not only acknowledge the existence of the GLBT community but active engages it.
Good.
Among what the AFA considers the company's heinous sins are:
o Joining the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce and being appointed to its board.
o Having the nerve to sell books that are supportive of same-sex marriage
Then this which really cracked me up:
"A quick search of Wal-Mart's website turned up the following number of items for sale: Gay - 1148 Lesbian - 468Transgender - 40 Bisexual - 38 Gay Marriage - 26 "
Personally, I think someone there has waaaaay too much time on their hands.
From my perspective, and I suspect that of most people who aren't aggressive homophobes like the AFA, Wal-Mart hardly comes across as a social activist. I have no doubt these measures were taken to promote business, and I applaud the company for that. It can only be a good thing, in my opinion, for large companies to be sensitive to the needs of GLBT consumers--a win-win for everyone involved.
Of course, the AFA just wants gay people to crawl back in the closet and it grinds their cookies when companies like Ford and Wal-Mart not only acknowledge the existence of the GLBT community but active engages it.
Good.
October 25, 2006
New Jersey Rules on Same-Sex Marriage
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled today in favor of same-sex marriage--sort of. A decision seemingly designed to avoid making anyone unhappy left both sides unhappy, which is usually how that goes.
As CNN reported: In a decision likely to stoke the contentious election-year debate over same-sex marriage, the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that state lawmakers must provide the rights and benefits of marriage to gay and lesbian couples.
The high court on Wednesday gave legislators six months to either change state marriage laws to include same-sex couples, or come up with another mechanism, such as civil unions, that would provide the same protections and benefits.
The court's vote was 4-to-3. But the ruling was more strongly in favor of same-sex marriage than that split would indicate. The three dissenting justices argued the court should have extended full marriage rights to homosexuals, without kicking the issue back to legislators.
In a release titled "Radical Activists Prevail in New Jersey Marriage Decision," the right-wing Alliance for (Straight) Marriage was not happy:
"This marks the second state -- after Vermont -- where radical activist groups have convinced state court judges to hold a gun to the head of the legislature," said Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage. “The legislature will now be compelled to choose between two bullets -- all under court order. Either they create so-called ‘gay marriage’ or they create a civil union scheme that is identical. Either way, the people of New Jersey lose the right to decide -- freely and democratically -- to choose the course that is best for them, their families and their children.”
"Given the continuous attacks upon marriage in courts across the country, AFM's Marriage Protection Amendment is clearly the only hope for the American people to determine the future of marriage under our laws," Daniels added.
Daniels also added, "Most Americans believe that gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose. But they don't believe they have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society," said Daniels. "Americans want our laws to send a positive message to children about marriage, family and their future."
Let me insert a point here: Why shouldn't marriage be redefined? Doesn't the fact that the divorce rate hovers around 50% indicate that the institution, as now designed and practiced, falls WAY short of prefection?
Here's a positive message to kids about marriage: fall in love with whoever your heart leads you to, commit yourselves to that person, and stick with it. Just because it's always been done boy-girl and that's how it was in the bible doesn't mean boy-boy or girl-girl can't work and, more importantly, that God wouldn't bless it. Just because narrow minds don't understand something doesn't make it wrong, and it certainly doesn't mean that should be part of the U. S. Constitution.
Not all GLBT activists were completely happy with the New Jersey decision, however. This from Equality Maryland:
“If the true intent is to give all benefits to same-sex couples, then what is the point of calling it civil unions if not to caste a separate and negative class for LGBT couples,” said Executive Director Dan Furmansky. “This day will be remembered in history as one where a court of law granted some protections to same-sex headed families, but denied these families true equality and dignity under the law."
I tend to think that Dan is taking too much bloom off the rose today, but I also can't dispute his points. If I had invested as much of myself as he and other GLBT activists have to fight for the right to marry, I probably would not be satisfied with this incremental step either.
I still believe, however, that this was an important step forward for GLBT rights. People like Matt Daniels and his organization will insure that many, many more steps need to be taken before GLBT people will gain equality in marriage, but at least today there is one less obstacle to overcome.
As CNN reported: In a decision likely to stoke the contentious election-year debate over same-sex marriage, the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that state lawmakers must provide the rights and benefits of marriage to gay and lesbian couples.
The high court on Wednesday gave legislators six months to either change state marriage laws to include same-sex couples, or come up with another mechanism, such as civil unions, that would provide the same protections and benefits.
The court's vote was 4-to-3. But the ruling was more strongly in favor of same-sex marriage than that split would indicate. The three dissenting justices argued the court should have extended full marriage rights to homosexuals, without kicking the issue back to legislators.
In a release titled "Radical Activists Prevail in New Jersey Marriage Decision," the right-wing Alliance for (Straight) Marriage was not happy:
"This marks the second state -- after Vermont -- where radical activist groups have convinced state court judges to hold a gun to the head of the legislature," said Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage. “The legislature will now be compelled to choose between two bullets -- all under court order. Either they create so-called ‘gay marriage’ or they create a civil union scheme that is identical. Either way, the people of New Jersey lose the right to decide -- freely and democratically -- to choose the course that is best for them, their families and their children.”
"Given the continuous attacks upon marriage in courts across the country, AFM's Marriage Protection Amendment is clearly the only hope for the American people to determine the future of marriage under our laws," Daniels added.
Daniels also added, "Most Americans believe that gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose. But they don't believe they have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society," said Daniels. "Americans want our laws to send a positive message to children about marriage, family and their future."
Let me insert a point here: Why shouldn't marriage be redefined? Doesn't the fact that the divorce rate hovers around 50% indicate that the institution, as now designed and practiced, falls WAY short of prefection?
Here's a positive message to kids about marriage: fall in love with whoever your heart leads you to, commit yourselves to that person, and stick with it. Just because it's always been done boy-girl and that's how it was in the bible doesn't mean boy-boy or girl-girl can't work and, more importantly, that God wouldn't bless it. Just because narrow minds don't understand something doesn't make it wrong, and it certainly doesn't mean that should be part of the U. S. Constitution.
Not all GLBT activists were completely happy with the New Jersey decision, however. This from Equality Maryland:
“If the true intent is to give all benefits to same-sex couples, then what is the point of calling it civil unions if not to caste a separate and negative class for LGBT couples,” said Executive Director Dan Furmansky. “This day will be remembered in history as one where a court of law granted some protections to same-sex headed families, but denied these families true equality and dignity under the law."
I tend to think that Dan is taking too much bloom off the rose today, but I also can't dispute his points. If I had invested as much of myself as he and other GLBT activists have to fight for the right to marry, I probably would not be satisfied with this incremental step either.
I still believe, however, that this was an important step forward for GLBT rights. People like Matt Daniels and his organization will insure that many, many more steps need to be taken before GLBT people will gain equality in marriage, but at least today there is one less obstacle to overcome.
October 24, 2006
U. S. Catholic Bishops to Define Their Stance on Gays
According to this report in the Boston Globe, the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops will be voting on a proposal at their next gathering that would condemn "scorn and hatred" of homosexuals. The bishops are also expected to declare that gay couples should not be allowed to marry or adopt children.
In other words, Catholics won't outright condemn homosexuals, but they won't recognize some of the basic rights and needs of human life for gays and lesbians either.
The report says they will reaffirm that "homosexual acts are `always sinful' and `morally wrong."
No big surprise there.
Sam Sinnett , the president of Dignity USA, an organization of gay Catholics, said the document "will be discussed entirely by celibate males, and their viewpoint is more concerned with keeping their jobs than being pastoral leaders."
As usual, it comes down to politics.
In other words, Catholics won't outright condemn homosexuals, but they won't recognize some of the basic rights and needs of human life for gays and lesbians either.
The report says they will reaffirm that "homosexual acts are `always sinful' and `morally wrong."
No big surprise there.
Sam Sinnett , the president of Dignity USA, an organization of gay Catholics, said the document "will be discussed entirely by celibate males, and their viewpoint is more concerned with keeping their jobs than being pastoral leaders."
As usual, it comes down to politics.
October 23, 2006
Churches Thrust Into Marriage Debate in Virginia
This report in the Roanoke Times shows how much of the political battle over the issue of same-sex marriage in Virginia is being fought from pulpits of churches and amongst congregations.
VAMarriage.org, a coalition that supports the measure, has asked pastors to give Nov. 5 sermons for "Marriage Protection Sunday." The group has handed out "pastor packets" and other tools to galvanize voters. This is apparently legal since the churches are not endorsing a specific political candidate.
Here are a couple of excerpts:
"Marriage is something that cannot be tarnished," said the Family Foundation's Victoria Cobb at a recent pastors luncheon in Roanoke. "We believe the churches are key. The pastors must lead and remind people that this is a biblical issue."
"People of faith are not all on one side of the issue," said Claire Guthrie Gastanaga, campaign manager for the Commonwealth Coalition, which opposes the measure.
"People of Faith for Equality in Virginia was formed more than a year ago to help voters understand that there are people of faith who are 'no' voters and that is OK. The other side doesn't have any campaign except to scare, shame and goad some people of faith into voting yes."
It personally makes me ill that churches are a political battleground. That is clearly not what Jesus had in mind and it angers me that some Christians can try to get me to believe that it is.
VAMarriage.org, a coalition that supports the measure, has asked pastors to give Nov. 5 sermons for "Marriage Protection Sunday." The group has handed out "pastor packets" and other tools to galvanize voters. This is apparently legal since the churches are not endorsing a specific political candidate.
Here are a couple of excerpts:
"Marriage is something that cannot be tarnished," said the Family Foundation's Victoria Cobb at a recent pastors luncheon in Roanoke. "We believe the churches are key. The pastors must lead and remind people that this is a biblical issue."
"People of faith are not all on one side of the issue," said Claire Guthrie Gastanaga, campaign manager for the Commonwealth Coalition, which opposes the measure.
"People of Faith for Equality in Virginia was formed more than a year ago to help voters understand that there are people of faith who are 'no' voters and that is OK. The other side doesn't have any campaign except to scare, shame and goad some people of faith into voting yes."
It personally makes me ill that churches are a political battleground. That is clearly not what Jesus had in mind and it angers me that some Christians can try to get me to believe that it is.
October 22, 2006
Are Right-Wing Attacks Actually Opening Closet Doors?
That is the conclusion of this article, which analyzes two U. S. government surveys.
The number of same-sex couples that identified themselves as such has increased 30% in just five years, a period which saw the general population grow 6%. Interestingly, some of the larger jumps were in the Midwest, especially Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
The survey also suggests that the push to outlaw same-sex marriage is encouraging GLBT couples to emerge from the closet to stand up and be counted. Six of the eight states with an anti-gay marriage initiative on this year's ballot -- Arizona, Colorado, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin -- saw rate jumps higher than the 30 percent national average.
A New York Times poll cited in this article showed that the understanding of what homosexuality is truly about is increasing. The poll showed that 53% of respondents thought that people do NOT chose to be gay, up from 43% in 1993. Also, the percentage of those who believe homosexuality is morally wrong has plummeted to 37%, down from 55% in 1993.
My conclusion from this data is that, eventually, ignorance allways loses.
The number of same-sex couples that identified themselves as such has increased 30% in just five years, a period which saw the general population grow 6%. Interestingly, some of the larger jumps were in the Midwest, especially Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
The survey also suggests that the push to outlaw same-sex marriage is encouraging GLBT couples to emerge from the closet to stand up and be counted. Six of the eight states with an anti-gay marriage initiative on this year's ballot -- Arizona, Colorado, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin -- saw rate jumps higher than the 30 percent national average.
A New York Times poll cited in this article showed that the understanding of what homosexuality is truly about is increasing. The poll showed that 53% of respondents thought that people do NOT chose to be gay, up from 43% in 1993. Also, the percentage of those who believe homosexuality is morally wrong has plummeted to 37%, down from 55% in 1993.
My conclusion from this data is that, eventually, ignorance allways loses.
October 20, 2006
Should Gay Rand epublicans Be Outed?
In the wake of the Foley scandal, that has become one of the hot button questions in politics and the GLBT community these days.
Blogger Ann Althouse offers her opinion:
"Honestly, I think these creepy, gleeful efforts at outing will only make social conservatives more conservative, and they will continue to look to the Republican party to serve their needs."
These is also a spirited conversation on this topic in the comment section (270 comments at this posting).
Andrew Sullivan shares a similar opinion on the topic.
"Look: I loathe the closet. I despise the hypocrisy in the Republican party. But a witch-hunt is a witch-hunt. If the gay left thinks it will advance gay dignity by using tactics that depend on homophobia to work, that violate privacy, that demonizes gay people, then all I can say is: they are wrong."
Michael Reagan goes on the counter attack:
"Mike Rogers is a scandalmonger who calls himself a "Gay activist blogger" devoted to "outing" alleged closet-gay Republicans."
"He's outing all of these targets, not caring who he hurts, simply because they don't agree with the radical gay agenda. There is no outrage from the Democrats or the media that there is somebody out there punishing conservatives who don't agree with the liberal gay agenda. "
Here's my take:
As a rule, I'm not in favor of outing myself. I've learned how traumatic an experience it can be and don't think anyone else should make that decision for someone unless there are serious mitigating circumstances.
I do belive, however, that a closeted gay person actively working to restrict the rights of other GLBT people makes them fair game to being outed. It's one thing for a person to have their own issues with self-loathing and inability to accept themselves, it's quite another for them to direct that energy into harming others by working to shape public policy.
Since integrity and motivation are often questioned by people on different sides of an issue, in my view the notion of if any Republicans or their staffers in Congress (the party that has tried to make discrimination against GLBT people part of the U. S. Constitution) are closeted gay people belongs on the table.
If they are lying about that, what else are they lying about?
I'd appreciate your thoughts on an issue that is colored in shades of grey.
Blogger Ann Althouse offers her opinion:
"Honestly, I think these creepy, gleeful efforts at outing will only make social conservatives more conservative, and they will continue to look to the Republican party to serve their needs."
These is also a spirited conversation on this topic in the comment section (270 comments at this posting).
Andrew Sullivan shares a similar opinion on the topic.
"Look: I loathe the closet. I despise the hypocrisy in the Republican party. But a witch-hunt is a witch-hunt. If the gay left thinks it will advance gay dignity by using tactics that depend on homophobia to work, that violate privacy, that demonizes gay people, then all I can say is: they are wrong."
Michael Reagan goes on the counter attack:
"Mike Rogers is a scandalmonger who calls himself a "Gay activist blogger" devoted to "outing" alleged closet-gay Republicans."
"He's outing all of these targets, not caring who he hurts, simply because they don't agree with the radical gay agenda. There is no outrage from the Democrats or the media that there is somebody out there punishing conservatives who don't agree with the liberal gay agenda. "
Here's my take:
As a rule, I'm not in favor of outing myself. I've learned how traumatic an experience it can be and don't think anyone else should make that decision for someone unless there are serious mitigating circumstances.
I do belive, however, that a closeted gay person actively working to restrict the rights of other GLBT people makes them fair game to being outed. It's one thing for a person to have their own issues with self-loathing and inability to accept themselves, it's quite another for them to direct that energy into harming others by working to shape public policy.
Since integrity and motivation are often questioned by people on different sides of an issue, in my view the notion of if any Republicans or their staffers in Congress (the party that has tried to make discrimination against GLBT people part of the U. S. Constitution) are closeted gay people belongs on the table.
If they are lying about that, what else are they lying about?
I'd appreciate your thoughts on an issue that is colored in shades of grey.
October 19, 2006
James Dobson and his "Sheeple"
This column in the Denver Post starts out:
"There's a reason followers of the reactionary James Dobson are called "sheeple."
As chairman of the $145 million-a-year propaganda organization Focus on the Family, Dobson is the ultimate puppet master, giving conservative members of Congress marching orders in exchange for votes from his flock. "
This column goes on to show how Dobson's organization, now a Political Action Committee posing as a religious ministry, influences the votes of millions of people.
The columnist, Cindy Rodriguez, concludes:
"So wouldn't a person of strong moral values at least chide (Hastert for his inaction?
Nope. Not when you are a puppet master of members of Congress who use the name of God to pass laws that take away civil rights in exchange for campaign contributions and the promise of votes from the flock. A man of real moral values would urge Congress to increase college Pell grants, expand work training programs, and offer struggling working- class families subsidized day care.
Instead, he vilifies gay people as people who are destroying marriage. Dobson talks about having a pro-life agenda, but never speaks out against the deaths of more than 2,700 American troops in Iraq, or against capital punishment, which is really a euphemism for state-sponsored murder.
The sad part is the sheeple don't see the hypocrisy and don't realize they're being used."
Jesus didn't teach anything about selective morality. Dr. Dobson came up with that on his own.
"There's a reason followers of the reactionary James Dobson are called "sheeple."
As chairman of the $145 million-a-year propaganda organization Focus on the Family, Dobson is the ultimate puppet master, giving conservative members of Congress marching orders in exchange for votes from his flock. "
This column goes on to show how Dobson's organization, now a Political Action Committee posing as a religious ministry, influences the votes of millions of people.
The columnist, Cindy Rodriguez, concludes:
"So wouldn't a person of strong moral values at least chide (Hastert for his inaction?
Nope. Not when you are a puppet master of members of Congress who use the name of God to pass laws that take away civil rights in exchange for campaign contributions and the promise of votes from the flock. A man of real moral values would urge Congress to increase college Pell grants, expand work training programs, and offer struggling working- class families subsidized day care.
Instead, he vilifies gay people as people who are destroying marriage. Dobson talks about having a pro-life agenda, but never speaks out against the deaths of more than 2,700 American troops in Iraq, or against capital punishment, which is really a euphemism for state-sponsored murder.
The sad part is the sheeple don't see the hypocrisy and don't realize they're being used."
Jesus didn't teach anything about selective morality. Dr. Dobson came up with that on his own.
October 18, 2006
Condi Rice Swears In (gasp!) a Gay Guy!
Boy, does the religious right have their collective undies twisted in a knot after this. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice swore in Mark Dybul as the nation's new global AIDS coordinator, a position that ranks him as an ambassador. Dybul is openly gay and the bible at his swearing in ceremony was held by his partner Jason Claire. During the ceremony, Secretary Rice referred to Claire's mother as Dybul's "mother-in-law." Yep, you could practically hear right-winger's underwear getting twisted up as those words came out of Rice's mouth.
Of course, religious right leaders responded, well, about like you would expect them to.
Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, says the secretary's comments were "profoundly offensive" and fly in the face of the Bush administration's endorsement of a federal marriage protection amendment, though that backing be less than enthusiastic.
"We have to face the fact that putting a homosexual in charge of AIDS policy is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse," says Sprigg. "But even beyond that, the deferential treatment that was given not only to him but his partner and his partner's family by the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is very distressing."
Actually, I find his comments "profoundly offensive."
Of course, religious right leaders responded, well, about like you would expect them to.
Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, says the secretary's comments were "profoundly offensive" and fly in the face of the Bush administration's endorsement of a federal marriage protection amendment, though that backing be less than enthusiastic.
"We have to face the fact that putting a homosexual in charge of AIDS policy is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse," says Sprigg. "But even beyond that, the deferential treatment that was given not only to him but his partner and his partner's family by the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is very distressing."
Actually, I find his comments "profoundly offensive."
October 17, 2006
Info On GLBT History Month
The Equality Forum has put up an excellent web site in conjunction with GLBT History Month.
Found at http://www.glbthistorymonth.com/glbthistorymonth/, the site features the biography of an individual important to GLBT history every day for the month of October. The people covered range from Oscar Wilde to Sheryl Swoopes, Elton John to Barney Frank, etc.
I encourage you to check it out.
Found at http://www.glbthistorymonth.com/glbthistorymonth/, the site features the biography of an individual important to GLBT history every day for the month of October. The people covered range from Oscar Wilde to Sheryl Swoopes, Elton John to Barney Frank, etc.
I encourage you to check it out.
Research Shows Kids of Gay Parents Do Just Fine
To anyone with an open mind or who knows of any children raised by same-sex parents, this is a true DUH headline, but the fact that is was published in the mainstream press will hopefully make some people reconsider their position on adoption by gay parents.
The story in the Madison, Wisconsin State Journal, a state with gay marriage prohibition on the ballot this November, quotes NYU sociology professor Judith Stacey, who claims that anti-gay marriage groups have been dishonest in the way they used data from a study she conducted five years.
I'll give you a moment to get over the shock of that statement.
Moving forward, Stacey has updated her study with new research over the last five years.
"I have been surprised that the differences so far seem to be smaller than I would have guessed," Stacey said.
Stacey, who has always supported gay marriage, is co-authoring an update to the first article that looks at some 80 studies of gay and lesbian parents, single mothers and fathers and their children from several countries.
In the first article, Stacey's study examined potential limitations in the studies' samples of human subjects and methods. Today, there are still holes in what we know, she said, noting that many studies of same-sex parents have focused on well-to-do whites and have neglected minorities and the poor.
But she said a new wave of research is "much solider now," addressing more of those issues as well as children such as Hill, who were born into families of same-sex parents rather than to opposite-sex parents who later split up and took same-sex partners.
"The kids are fine. There's no evidence whatsoever that children of gay and lesbian parents have noticeably different outcomes on mental health," Stacey said of the findings. "They turn out at least as well.
These children may turn out somewhat better, she added. "It's not because of the sexuality but because of selection factors. It's because these are wanted children," Stacey said, noting that same-sex couples have to deliberately set out to conceive or adopt children. "When you're looking at heterosexual parenting, you have a lot of accidental" pregnancies.
There is a lot of interesting detail in the State Journal article, along with the obligatory dissenting opinion by a tool of Focus on the Family, that is worth reading.
The story in the Madison, Wisconsin State Journal, a state with gay marriage prohibition on the ballot this November, quotes NYU sociology professor Judith Stacey, who claims that anti-gay marriage groups have been dishonest in the way they used data from a study she conducted five years.
I'll give you a moment to get over the shock of that statement.
Moving forward, Stacey has updated her study with new research over the last five years.
"I have been surprised that the differences so far seem to be smaller than I would have guessed," Stacey said.
Stacey, who has always supported gay marriage, is co-authoring an update to the first article that looks at some 80 studies of gay and lesbian parents, single mothers and fathers and their children from several countries.
In the first article, Stacey's study examined potential limitations in the studies' samples of human subjects and methods. Today, there are still holes in what we know, she said, noting that many studies of same-sex parents have focused on well-to-do whites and have neglected minorities and the poor.
But she said a new wave of research is "much solider now," addressing more of those issues as well as children such as Hill, who were born into families of same-sex parents rather than to opposite-sex parents who later split up and took same-sex partners.
"The kids are fine. There's no evidence whatsoever that children of gay and lesbian parents have noticeably different outcomes on mental health," Stacey said of the findings. "They turn out at least as well.
These children may turn out somewhat better, she added. "It's not because of the sexuality but because of selection factors. It's because these are wanted children," Stacey said, noting that same-sex couples have to deliberately set out to conceive or adopt children. "When you're looking at heterosexual parenting, you have a lot of accidental" pregnancies.
There is a lot of interesting detail in the State Journal article, along with the obligatory dissenting opinion by a tool of Focus on the Family, that is worth reading.
Will There Be Success at the Polls for Same-Sex Marriage?
It could happen according to this USA Today article.
"It could be a watershed year," said Carrie Evans, state legislative director at the Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian advocacy group.
Heading into next month's elections, opponents have gone 19 for 19 in winning state ballot initiatives that banned same-sex marriage, winning an average 70% of the votes.
That could change this year, however. Colorado could be the first state to vote in favor of same-sex domestic partnerships, and polls in Arizona and South Dakota are both running against banning same-sex marriage.
If these numbers hold up, that will fly in the face of the religious right's two favorite arguements in opposition; the voice of the majority and the overreach of activist judges.
I wonder what they'll come up in those states? I instinctively cringe at the thought.
"It could be a watershed year," said Carrie Evans, state legislative director at the Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian advocacy group.
Heading into next month's elections, opponents have gone 19 for 19 in winning state ballot initiatives that banned same-sex marriage, winning an average 70% of the votes.
That could change this year, however. Colorado could be the first state to vote in favor of same-sex domestic partnerships, and polls in Arizona and South Dakota are both running against banning same-sex marriage.
If these numbers hold up, that will fly in the face of the religious right's two favorite arguements in opposition; the voice of the majority and the overreach of activist judges.
I wonder what they'll come up in those states? I instinctively cringe at the thought.
October 16, 2006
"Ex-Gay" Lies and God's Love
About a month ago, I linked to a piece in The Advocate by a young man named Kyle Rice, who wrote about why he hated being gay.
Today, I'm linking to a response in the same place by Timothy Kinkaid, who writes for the outstanding site "Ex-Gay Watch." Tim was, like Kyle, raised as a conservative Christian and wrote this piece because Kyle's "reminded me of where I came from."
As I would have expected, Tim's piece is well written with compassion and empathy, encouraging Kyle not to head down the "ex-gay" path. Here's an excerpt:
"But the most damaging and difficult lie of all is that you cannot be gay and Christian.
I don't say that because I think Christians should never try to change their orientation. I say that because the vast majority of people who do try will never experience such a change.
And when they finally give up their long, futile struggle, they often believe that this means they must also abandon their faith. I pray that when you discover you have not become straight you will not then believe that you must give up your relationship with God."
I continue my prayers for Kyle and also give thanks for gay men like Tim who have walked through the fire of condemnation and doubt and emerged stronger for it.
Today, I'm linking to a response in the same place by Timothy Kinkaid, who writes for the outstanding site "Ex-Gay Watch." Tim was, like Kyle, raised as a conservative Christian and wrote this piece because Kyle's "reminded me of where I came from."
As I would have expected, Tim's piece is well written with compassion and empathy, encouraging Kyle not to head down the "ex-gay" path. Here's an excerpt:
"But the most damaging and difficult lie of all is that you cannot be gay and Christian.
I don't say that because I think Christians should never try to change their orientation. I say that because the vast majority of people who do try will never experience such a change.
And when they finally give up their long, futile struggle, they often believe that this means they must also abandon their faith. I pray that when you discover you have not become straight you will not then believe that you must give up your relationship with God."
I continue my prayers for Kyle and also give thanks for gay men like Tim who have walked through the fire of condemnation and doubt and emerged stronger for it.
Gay Animals Are Part of Nature
I don't really go looking for this stuff, but when I find it I post it because it does support the message I try to get across here.
As reported in The Advocate, a museum exhibition in Oslo, Norway, funded in part by the nation's government, provides extensive evidence of wide-spread homosexuality in the animal domain.
In a statement by the exhibitors, they said "We may have opinions on a lot of things, but one thing is clear—homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom; it is not against nature."
Geir Soeli, the project leader of the exhibit, titled "Against Nature," told Reuters: "Homosexuality has been observed for more than 1,500 animal species and is well-documented for 500 of them."
There are more details in the article (some a tad lurid), including the obligatory "burn in hell" statement from a Christian group in Norway, and some theories about why homosexuality survives among animals.
There's that darned science again, screwing everybody up with their facts and research.
As reported in The Advocate, a museum exhibition in Oslo, Norway, funded in part by the nation's government, provides extensive evidence of wide-spread homosexuality in the animal domain.
In a statement by the exhibitors, they said "We may have opinions on a lot of things, but one thing is clear—homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom; it is not against nature."
Geir Soeli, the project leader of the exhibit, titled "Against Nature," told Reuters: "Homosexuality has been observed for more than 1,500 animal species and is well-documented for 500 of them."
There are more details in the article (some a tad lurid), including the obligatory "burn in hell" statement from a Christian group in Norway, and some theories about why homosexuality survives among animals.
There's that darned science again, screwing everybody up with their facts and research.
October 12, 2006
Back in a few days
I'm off for a desperately needed respite from lengthy crunch at work. I'll have some new material on Monday.
October 11, 2006
On National Coming Out Day, More People Are
In a recent survey, 83% of people who identified themselves as gay or lesbian said they are out. Also, 70% of straight adults said they know a GLBT person.
The Advocate report contains this quote:
“If seven out of 10 heterosexuals know someone who is GLBT, then many gays and lesbians are making their identity apparent as a natural part of their lives—just like their age, height, hair color, or personality,” said Mark Shields, director of the Human Rights Campaign’s National Coming Out Project. “For most people, coming out or opening up to someone starts with a conversation. And for those interested in fostering strong, deep relationships with their friends and family, living openly often allows for closer relationships with the people they care about most.”
Just another reminder that society is not weakened when gays and lesbians come out. Society is strengthened when people accept who they are and live they lives accordingly in an open manner.
The Advocate report contains this quote:
“If seven out of 10 heterosexuals know someone who is GLBT, then many gays and lesbians are making their identity apparent as a natural part of their lives—just like their age, height, hair color, or personality,” said Mark Shields, director of the Human Rights Campaign’s National Coming Out Project. “For most people, coming out or opening up to someone starts with a conversation. And for those interested in fostering strong, deep relationships with their friends and family, living openly often allows for closer relationships with the people they care about most.”
Just another reminder that society is not weakened when gays and lesbians come out. Society is strengthened when people accept who they are and live they lives accordingly in an open manner.
October 10, 2006
One More Day
It’s been two years since I lost my wife Bette on October 11, 2004. I still have the image burned in my mind of her lifeless body laying in our bed when I found her at home that day.
In some ways, it seems like just yesterday since we were sitting in the coffee shop at our favorite bookstore sharing articles we were reading from our different magazinzes or watching a Baltimore Ravens game together or just lying and holding each other in our bed. I can still feel her touch and see the look in her eyes, the one that told me she loved me with every fiber of her being and always would.
In other ways, though, it seems like a lifetime ago that we shared our lives with each other. A LOT has happened in my life over the last two years, and as this anniversary approached I wondered—what would I do if I had one more day with her and I could share what these last two years have been like without her. What if I could tell her what I’ve learned about myself, about our relationship, and the direction my life has gone without her.
I’d steer her away from the bookstore because there’s a lot that’s happened in the world that would really upset her. She felt at strongly as I did that our nation was heading in the wrong direction and that the Bush administration and the religious right was causing a deeper division among people, practicing exclusion instead of inclusion. We talked a lot about that during the 2004 political conventions and I was thankful she did not have to endure the reelection of President Bush.
I would bring Bette to my home where I could spend one-on-one time with her and really show her what my life is like now.
I would tell her how a day has not gone by without me missing her.
I would tell Bette how deeply I still love her and feel her love inside my heart and soul. As many of you know, I am happily remarried to Pastor Brenda and my love for her grows every time I see her, talk to her, or touch her. I don’t understand the dynamic of still loving Bette while giving myself completely to Brenda and I doubt I will ever be able to explain it, but I know it to be true.
I would show her some of my writing as evidence that I continue to pursue the dream we shared and spent so much time talking about. She would be pleased with my sportswriting and the progress I am making on my novel, and probably taken aback with my GLBT and political advocacy blogs. Since she spent a good chunk of her time before I met her advocating for disadvantaged people in Illinois and shared my perspectives regarding GLBT issues and politics, I think she would be proud that I have put myself out there to stand up for what I believe.
Bette would see a man much more at peace that he was two years ago. I had allowed myself to be beaten down by the world and had grown somewhat cynical and angry. I had lowered the bar for what I expected our of life beyond the quality time we had together. Most of that was because both of us, but especially me, had drifted away from fellowship with Jesus. I was trying to live a godly life without God’s help; a recipe for sure failure. I often felt I wasn’t as strong as I should have been in our marriage and in many ways not as good a man as she deserved. I’ve worked through a lot of that now, and I suspect she would pick up that vibe immediately—Bette always knew me better in many ways than I knew myself.
I would thank her for being the first person in my life to show me unconditional love and tell her how my life truly started the day I met her. Any happiness or success I have had since then or will have in the future has its genesis in that love and the way she showed her unwavering belief in me.
I would thank Bette for all the fun we had, often playing like little children. She was my baby girl and I was her baby boy, and we could be the happiest little orphans around. I would tell her how much I regret the time we could have had together but didn’t because I was too obsessed with work, sports, or just wanted to be by myself. The best times I had in our 12 years together were with her, not without her, and I wish I had made that a higher priority.
Bette often saw me struggle with balance in my life, and I’m doing a lot better with that these days. That is largely due to the influence of the Holy Spirit since I have embraced it as an active part of my day-to-day life. Part of that, however, is due to learning that I could withstand the worst possible thing that could happen in my life, losing her. Once that happened and I found out that I could still function, a lot of things bothered me a lot less than they used too. Surviving her passing left me with a giant dose of perspective I didn’t previously have.
I would tell her how glad I am that she experiences no more physical pain and has a peace that must surpass my understanding. She deserves to be at peace, and knowing she was made it possible for me to gradually accept her early departure from this world.
I would then introduce Bette to Brenda. I would tell Bette how much I love Brenda, and in many ways I can give and also receive Brenda’s love because of what I learned from Bette. At that point, I suspect Bette would look at Brenda and see something familiar. Bette had a way of looking at me, what she called “the Jimmy look,” that was full of passion and a totally committed, eternal love. She would probably notice Brenda gazing at me in that same way, and that look would say more than any words ever could. I expect that they would embrace and Bette would say that, as much as she wants to be with me, she will be at peace knowing I am being loved and taken care of.
As our time drew to a close, I would walk Bette to the door and pray with her, thanking God for bringing her into my life and giving her eternal life. I would then hold her like I used to, not wanting her to go but knowing she must. I would let her go, we would pledge eternal love to each other, and then her earthly body would fade away as she returns to heaven.
I would return to Brenda, hold her like I never want her to go, pledge my eternal love to her, then bury my head in her shoulders and cry like a baby; exhilarated from seeing Bette and showing her this wonderful life I have now and devastated by losing her again.
It would be then be time to look forward again, building upon the blessings that God has given me, none greater than my wonderful wife and partner Brenda who accepts and appreciates the role Bette played in my life and the love I will always have for her.
If you haven’t told the person you love how special they are to you and what makes that so, please get up from your computer right now and tell them or call them if they’re not with you.
Fortunately, I left very little unsaid with Bette. One of my best friends told me Bette’s sudden passing taught him to take more time to appreciate his wife and tell her he loves her. I know I do that with Brenda, and I hope you do also.
Don’t wait until your life is impacted by tragedy to jumpstart your life like I did. Do it now while your loved one is still here to share it. I won’t have this second chance I just wrote about, and neither will you.
In some ways, it seems like just yesterday since we were sitting in the coffee shop at our favorite bookstore sharing articles we were reading from our different magazinzes or watching a Baltimore Ravens game together or just lying and holding each other in our bed. I can still feel her touch and see the look in her eyes, the one that told me she loved me with every fiber of her being and always would.
In other ways, though, it seems like a lifetime ago that we shared our lives with each other. A LOT has happened in my life over the last two years, and as this anniversary approached I wondered—what would I do if I had one more day with her and I could share what these last two years have been like without her. What if I could tell her what I’ve learned about myself, about our relationship, and the direction my life has gone without her.
I’d steer her away from the bookstore because there’s a lot that’s happened in the world that would really upset her. She felt at strongly as I did that our nation was heading in the wrong direction and that the Bush administration and the religious right was causing a deeper division among people, practicing exclusion instead of inclusion. We talked a lot about that during the 2004 political conventions and I was thankful she did not have to endure the reelection of President Bush.
I would bring Bette to my home where I could spend one-on-one time with her and really show her what my life is like now.
I would tell her how a day has not gone by without me missing her.
I would tell Bette how deeply I still love her and feel her love inside my heart and soul. As many of you know, I am happily remarried to Pastor Brenda and my love for her grows every time I see her, talk to her, or touch her. I don’t understand the dynamic of still loving Bette while giving myself completely to Brenda and I doubt I will ever be able to explain it, but I know it to be true.
I would show her some of my writing as evidence that I continue to pursue the dream we shared and spent so much time talking about. She would be pleased with my sportswriting and the progress I am making on my novel, and probably taken aback with my GLBT and political advocacy blogs. Since she spent a good chunk of her time before I met her advocating for disadvantaged people in Illinois and shared my perspectives regarding GLBT issues and politics, I think she would be proud that I have put myself out there to stand up for what I believe.
Bette would see a man much more at peace that he was two years ago. I had allowed myself to be beaten down by the world and had grown somewhat cynical and angry. I had lowered the bar for what I expected our of life beyond the quality time we had together. Most of that was because both of us, but especially me, had drifted away from fellowship with Jesus. I was trying to live a godly life without God’s help; a recipe for sure failure. I often felt I wasn’t as strong as I should have been in our marriage and in many ways not as good a man as she deserved. I’ve worked through a lot of that now, and I suspect she would pick up that vibe immediately—Bette always knew me better in many ways than I knew myself.
I would thank her for being the first person in my life to show me unconditional love and tell her how my life truly started the day I met her. Any happiness or success I have had since then or will have in the future has its genesis in that love and the way she showed her unwavering belief in me.
I would thank Bette for all the fun we had, often playing like little children. She was my baby girl and I was her baby boy, and we could be the happiest little orphans around. I would tell her how much I regret the time we could have had together but didn’t because I was too obsessed with work, sports, or just wanted to be by myself. The best times I had in our 12 years together were with her, not without her, and I wish I had made that a higher priority.
Bette often saw me struggle with balance in my life, and I’m doing a lot better with that these days. That is largely due to the influence of the Holy Spirit since I have embraced it as an active part of my day-to-day life. Part of that, however, is due to learning that I could withstand the worst possible thing that could happen in my life, losing her. Once that happened and I found out that I could still function, a lot of things bothered me a lot less than they used too. Surviving her passing left me with a giant dose of perspective I didn’t previously have.
I would tell her how glad I am that she experiences no more physical pain and has a peace that must surpass my understanding. She deserves to be at peace, and knowing she was made it possible for me to gradually accept her early departure from this world.
I would then introduce Bette to Brenda. I would tell Bette how much I love Brenda, and in many ways I can give and also receive Brenda’s love because of what I learned from Bette. At that point, I suspect Bette would look at Brenda and see something familiar. Bette had a way of looking at me, what she called “the Jimmy look,” that was full of passion and a totally committed, eternal love. She would probably notice Brenda gazing at me in that same way, and that look would say more than any words ever could. I expect that they would embrace and Bette would say that, as much as she wants to be with me, she will be at peace knowing I am being loved and taken care of.
As our time drew to a close, I would walk Bette to the door and pray with her, thanking God for bringing her into my life and giving her eternal life. I would then hold her like I used to, not wanting her to go but knowing she must. I would let her go, we would pledge eternal love to each other, and then her earthly body would fade away as she returns to heaven.
I would return to Brenda, hold her like I never want her to go, pledge my eternal love to her, then bury my head in her shoulders and cry like a baby; exhilarated from seeing Bette and showing her this wonderful life I have now and devastated by losing her again.
It would be then be time to look forward again, building upon the blessings that God has given me, none greater than my wonderful wife and partner Brenda who accepts and appreciates the role Bette played in my life and the love I will always have for her.
If you haven’t told the person you love how special they are to you and what makes that so, please get up from your computer right now and tell them or call them if they’re not with you.
Fortunately, I left very little unsaid with Bette. One of my best friends told me Bette’s sudden passing taught him to take more time to appreciate his wife and tell her he loves her. I know I do that with Brenda, and I hope you do also.
Don’t wait until your life is impacted by tragedy to jumpstart your life like I did. Do it now while your loved one is still here to share it. I won’t have this second chance I just wrote about, and neither will you.
October 08, 2006
"Sin is Neither Republican or Democratic"
That would probably come as a shock to many of the Republican operatives we know as the religious right. Here is a piece by author Diana Butler Bass that makes this point and more. Here's an excerpt:
"Making sexuality a political issue, as much of the Religious Right has done, distracts from a host of other issues, such as poverty, war, and environmental concerns. But it also obscures the fact that Christians agree (as my friend and I do) on many things regarding this intimate part of our lives. We agree that sexuality is a gift from God, that love and commitment are foundational to sexual expression, that marriage is the best vessel for human sexuality, and that authenticity, honesty, fidelity, and mutual regard form the basis of Christian sexual relationships. Sex is, theologically, an ultimate expression of self-giving and surrender, qualities that resemble those in Christian spirituality. As the medieval mystics taught, humanity sexuality is a metaphor for our relationship with God."
"God is, as scripture tells us, the author of all goodness. God never rejoices in sin, and we know that sin is not the exclusive possession of any political party. The darkness that stalks us is neither Republican nor Democratic. It is part of the human condition, that which makes us all cry out for compassion—and that compassion is an apt starting point for a Christian politics of grace, not partisan vindictiveness."
Doesn't that put things in their proper, balanced perspective?
"Making sexuality a political issue, as much of the Religious Right has done, distracts from a host of other issues, such as poverty, war, and environmental concerns. But it also obscures the fact that Christians agree (as my friend and I do) on many things regarding this intimate part of our lives. We agree that sexuality is a gift from God, that love and commitment are foundational to sexual expression, that marriage is the best vessel for human sexuality, and that authenticity, honesty, fidelity, and mutual regard form the basis of Christian sexual relationships. Sex is, theologically, an ultimate expression of self-giving and surrender, qualities that resemble those in Christian spirituality. As the medieval mystics taught, humanity sexuality is a metaphor for our relationship with God."
"God is, as scripture tells us, the author of all goodness. God never rejoices in sin, and we know that sin is not the exclusive possession of any political party. The darkness that stalks us is neither Republican nor Democratic. It is part of the human condition, that which makes us all cry out for compassion—and that compassion is an apt starting point for a Christian politics of grace, not partisan vindictiveness."
Doesn't that put things in their proper, balanced perspective?
October 07, 2006
Conservatives Contradict Themselves in Foley Scandal
As this report from the San Francisco Chronicle states, there are conservatives who are trying to weasel out of responsibility for permitting sexual predator Rep. Foley to continue unpunished until he was recently outed.
There are conservatives who are saying they feared taking any action against Foley because they would then be labled as gay-bashers. Of course, they are saying that while people like Tony Perkins are gay bashing with the old, inaccurate, correlation between homosexuality and pediopheila.
From the Chronicle report:
"Patrick Sammon, executive vice president of the Log Cabin Republicans, a 20,000-member national group of gay and lesbian Republicans, scoffed at the notion that Hastert and other GOP House leaders dragged their feet on the Foley case because of the gay-bashing issue.
"These anti-gay groups should be ashamed. They're trying to use this horrible situation to advance their own agenda. It's despicable,'' said Sammon, who decried Foley's conduct. "This is a personal and political scandal. It should not be used to denigrate gay and lesbian Americans.''
Hopefully voters will remember that in November.
There are conservatives who are saying they feared taking any action against Foley because they would then be labled as gay-bashers. Of course, they are saying that while people like Tony Perkins are gay bashing with the old, inaccurate, correlation between homosexuality and pediopheila.
From the Chronicle report:
"Patrick Sammon, executive vice president of the Log Cabin Republicans, a 20,000-member national group of gay and lesbian Republicans, scoffed at the notion that Hastert and other GOP House leaders dragged their feet on the Foley case because of the gay-bashing issue.
"These anti-gay groups should be ashamed. They're trying to use this horrible situation to advance their own agenda. It's despicable,'' said Sammon, who decried Foley's conduct. "This is a personal and political scandal. It should not be used to denigrate gay and lesbian Americans.''
Hopefully voters will remember that in November.
Judge's Nomination Held Up Due to Committment Ceremony
Notoroius anti-gay senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) is holding up the nominaton of Janet T. Neff to the U. S. District Court in Michigan because she participated in a committment ceremony for a same-sex couple.
According to this report in The Adovacte:
Brownback cited recent instances in California and New York where local officials issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples contrary to existing laws. ''I don't know what she did,'' Brownback said. ''That's why there's a factual question.''
Brownback has asked the U.S. Justice Department for a formal legal opinion in addition to asking Neff specific questions. Joe Solmonese, president of the gay advocacy group Human Rights Campaign, said commitment ceremonies ''have nothing to do with the law. This was a symbolic expression of love between two people. This is nothing more than Sam Brownback looking for another opportunity to rear his bigoted head and find a way to attack gay people."
Brownback claimed about the judge's actions, "''It seems to speak about her view of judicial activism."
I believe this actually says a lot more about Senator Brownback's views on judicial activism than judge Neff's. After all, if the legislature filters out judicial appointments of people who don't agree with them, isn't that a passive-aggressive type of judicial activism in itself?
According to this report in The Adovacte:
Brownback cited recent instances in California and New York where local officials issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples contrary to existing laws. ''I don't know what she did,'' Brownback said. ''That's why there's a factual question.''
Brownback has asked the U.S. Justice Department for a formal legal opinion in addition to asking Neff specific questions. Joe Solmonese, president of the gay advocacy group Human Rights Campaign, said commitment ceremonies ''have nothing to do with the law. This was a symbolic expression of love between two people. This is nothing more than Sam Brownback looking for another opportunity to rear his bigoted head and find a way to attack gay people."
Brownback claimed about the judge's actions, "''It seems to speak about her view of judicial activism."
I believe this actually says a lot more about Senator Brownback's views on judicial activism than judge Neff's. After all, if the legislature filters out judicial appointments of people who don't agree with them, isn't that a passive-aggressive type of judicial activism in itself?
October 06, 2006
UCC Strikes Back at FRC's Latest Homophobic Smear
In my recent post about the scandal swirling around former congressman Mark Foley's e-mails to underage pages, I wrote about comments spewed by the head of the Family Research Council, Tony Perkins. He used this situation to claim that "the real issue was the link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse."
The leader of the United Church of Christ, their general minister and president Rev. John H. Thomas, has stepped up and taken a stand. "Perkins recent remarks are destructive to gay and lesbian persons and their families and distract the nation’s attention from the real issue at hand, which is protecting young people from sexual predators,” said Thomas."
“To suggest that gay and lesbian persons should be barred from public service, as Perkins has implied, is akin to suggesting that white, straight males should be kept out of politics because of Bill Clinton’s sexual misdeeds,” Thomas said. “To attach this debate to sexual orientation is not only ludicrous, it’s dangerous. Many gay and lesbian persons serve honorably in public office.”
“If anything, this nation’s culture of silence with respect to gay and lesbian people has taught us that hiding, shame and denial, as in Foley’s case, are not healthy ways to live as a gay or lesbian person — not for them as individuals and not for us as a society,” Thomas said.
“One of the tragic elements in the recent incident involving Mark Foley is the way the media give credence to those who make the unfortunate, salacious and inaccurate leap that Mr. Foley’s behavior is rooted in his sexual orientation.” Chase said. “Such characterization slanders an entire group of citizens and fuels the forces of suspicion and division that plague our country.”
Well said, Rev. Thomas. It's good to see a religious leader with perspective who is willing to take the initiative to speak out against ones who misrepresent facts in order to spread hatred and bigotry.
The leader of the United Church of Christ, their general minister and president Rev. John H. Thomas, has stepped up and taken a stand. "Perkins recent remarks are destructive to gay and lesbian persons and their families and distract the nation’s attention from the real issue at hand, which is protecting young people from sexual predators,” said Thomas."
“To suggest that gay and lesbian persons should be barred from public service, as Perkins has implied, is akin to suggesting that white, straight males should be kept out of politics because of Bill Clinton’s sexual misdeeds,” Thomas said. “To attach this debate to sexual orientation is not only ludicrous, it’s dangerous. Many gay and lesbian persons serve honorably in public office.”
“If anything, this nation’s culture of silence with respect to gay and lesbian people has taught us that hiding, shame and denial, as in Foley’s case, are not healthy ways to live as a gay or lesbian person — not for them as individuals and not for us as a society,” Thomas said.
“One of the tragic elements in the recent incident involving Mark Foley is the way the media give credence to those who make the unfortunate, salacious and inaccurate leap that Mr. Foley’s behavior is rooted in his sexual orientation.” Chase said. “Such characterization slanders an entire group of citizens and fuels the forces of suspicion and division that plague our country.”
Well said, Rev. Thomas. It's good to see a religious leader with perspective who is willing to take the initiative to speak out against ones who misrepresent facts in order to spread hatred and bigotry.
October 03, 2006
GOP Leaders Sell Out Principles to Protect Foley's Vote
When you hear Republicans talk ad nauseum about values, keep this in mind--they value nothing more than winning and don't care who gets hurt in the process.
I believe that was already fairly obvious, but information coming out regarding the Mark Foley situation makes that even more so.
Foley, of course, is the Republican congressman who resigned last week after the revelation of perverted e-mails he sent to underage congressional pages. More is coming out about how much the party's leadership, all the way up to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, knew about the situation and their failure to take any action besides informal warings to pages to stay away from him.
The Republicans valued Foley's party-line voting record more than protecting young volunteers from a sexual predator.
Meanwhile, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council used this situation to launch another right-wing attempt to tie in homosexuality and pedophilia. Classy move, but about what I would expect.
One of the functions of government is supposed to be the protection of it's citizens. Who, then, will protect us from the government and its alleged leaders?
I believe that was already fairly obvious, but information coming out regarding the Mark Foley situation makes that even more so.
Foley, of course, is the Republican congressman who resigned last week after the revelation of perverted e-mails he sent to underage congressional pages. More is coming out about how much the party's leadership, all the way up to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, knew about the situation and their failure to take any action besides informal warings to pages to stay away from him.
The Republicans valued Foley's party-line voting record more than protecting young volunteers from a sexual predator.
Meanwhile, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council used this situation to launch another right-wing attempt to tie in homosexuality and pedophilia. Classy move, but about what I would expect.
One of the functions of government is supposed to be the protection of it's citizens. Who, then, will protect us from the government and its alleged leaders?
October 02, 2006
"Religion Gone Bad"-Drifting Away From Jesus
I'm linking to a review over at the excellent site "The Prodigal Sheep" of Mel White's latest book, "Religion Gone Bad." Here are a couple of excerps:
"White traces the development of this movement and its growth in influence through the particular prism of its apalling and utterly inexcusable treatment of LGBT people. Drawing on sociological research into the roots of fascism, he explores the uncanny and extensive parallels between historical fascist movements and the spirit of fascism masquerading as 'Judeo-Christian' morality."
"White doesn't really ask this question outright, but it's hard not to: What is the difference today between moderate-to-extreme Islamic mullahs who preach death to Jews and Westerners in their mosques and whose words incite others to hateful violence, and 'Christian' fundamentalist clergy who preach death to gays and lesbians from their pulpits and whose words also incite others to acts of violence?
There is none."
"If the American Taliban have their way, LGBT people won't merely be pushed back into the closet but will be permanently made second or third class citizens, or worse."
There is some very thought provoking, and scary, stuff here. Check out the entire review, then I suspect you may want to read the book.
"White traces the development of this movement and its growth in influence through the particular prism of its apalling and utterly inexcusable treatment of LGBT people. Drawing on sociological research into the roots of fascism, he explores the uncanny and extensive parallels between historical fascist movements and the spirit of fascism masquerading as 'Judeo-Christian' morality."
"White doesn't really ask this question outright, but it's hard not to: What is the difference today between moderate-to-extreme Islamic mullahs who preach death to Jews and Westerners in their mosques and whose words incite others to hateful violence, and 'Christian' fundamentalist clergy who preach death to gays and lesbians from their pulpits and whose words also incite others to acts of violence?
There is none."
"If the American Taliban have their way, LGBT people won't merely be pushed back into the closet but will be permanently made second or third class citizens, or worse."
There is some very thought provoking, and scary, stuff here. Check out the entire review, then I suspect you may want to read the book.
October 01, 2006
"Healing, Feeding, and Loving, Not Nationalism"
This is a wonderful, heartfelt editorial written by a pastor in the Midwest and published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Here are the parts that jumped out at me:
"I want to celebrate my unity with sisters and brothers who seek to follow the God that I know in the healing, feeding and teaching ministries of Jesus, not the ones who use Jesus' name to bomb abortion clinics. I want to build on the unity that I share with others who recognize God's kingdom as one of justice, peace and inclusive love, not those who use Jesus' name to preach hate. I no longer trust that a container labeled "Christian" necessarily has contents that I'm willing to share"
"We would like to say that all Christians share the basic values of God's love, but it is in the name of Jesus that the Alliance Defense Fund trains attorneys "to battle the radical homosexual legal agenda." In the name of Jesus, American Vision's leader, Gary DeMar, writes that another "long-term goal" should be "the execution of abortionists and parents who hire them."
I think I would be really blessed if I ever have the opportunity to visit Pastor Hawker's church.
Here are the parts that jumped out at me:
"I want to celebrate my unity with sisters and brothers who seek to follow the God that I know in the healing, feeding and teaching ministries of Jesus, not the ones who use Jesus' name to bomb abortion clinics. I want to build on the unity that I share with others who recognize God's kingdom as one of justice, peace and inclusive love, not those who use Jesus' name to preach hate. I no longer trust that a container labeled "Christian" necessarily has contents that I'm willing to share"
"We would like to say that all Christians share the basic values of God's love, but it is in the name of Jesus that the Alliance Defense Fund trains attorneys "to battle the radical homosexual legal agenda." In the name of Jesus, American Vision's leader, Gary DeMar, writes that another "long-term goal" should be "the execution of abortionists and parents who hire them."
I think I would be really blessed if I ever have the opportunity to visit Pastor Hawker's church.
September 30, 2006
Not Exactly Civil Discourse on Civil Unions
Thanks to PageOneQ for this tip on this disturbing story.
An incident occurred in a restaurant in suburban Milwaukee recently that shows just how deep the irrational, visceral hatred of GLBT people and the opposition to them having basic rights like marriage can run.
A group of lesbian, gay and transgender friends were sitting in this restaurant discussing the proposed Wisconsin constitution amendment that would ban civil unions and gay marriage. During that private, peaceful conversation, an individua joined them and eventually started punching two of the people involved. Before he fled the scene, he threw chairs and other objects and threatened to shoot someone.
The local police have yet to make an arrest, and the Antiviolence Project of the Milwaukee LGBT Community Center is pushing for hate crime charges to be filed in the case.
I don't post this story to even remotely imply that this is typical of opposition to GLBT rights, but when is the last time you heard of a gay or lesbian person or a GLBT ally tearing up a restaurant or committing any similar act against people who oppose those rights.
While I am not comfortable with some comparisons I have heard to the civil rights battles of the 1960's and the struggle for GLBT equality, this incident does raise up one common thread in my mind. The hatred and bigotry that must be overcome to insure equality for GLBT people, just like it was for African-Americans, is deeply imbedded in a frigtheningly large portion of this nation's population. As anyone who pays attention knows, it has hardly disappeared regarding the African-American community and will be a constant presence through this generation and those who follow. Only continued advocacy and education can make that gradually diminish, and we can already see some evidence of that happening in today's society.
There is a long, long, long way to go, however, and it is incumbent upon GLBT people and their allies to keep pushing and advancing the cause. Equality won't happen by itself.
An incident occurred in a restaurant in suburban Milwaukee recently that shows just how deep the irrational, visceral hatred of GLBT people and the opposition to them having basic rights like marriage can run.
A group of lesbian, gay and transgender friends were sitting in this restaurant discussing the proposed Wisconsin constitution amendment that would ban civil unions and gay marriage. During that private, peaceful conversation, an individua joined them and eventually started punching two of the people involved. Before he fled the scene, he threw chairs and other objects and threatened to shoot someone.
The local police have yet to make an arrest, and the Antiviolence Project of the Milwaukee LGBT Community Center is pushing for hate crime charges to be filed in the case.
I don't post this story to even remotely imply that this is typical of opposition to GLBT rights, but when is the last time you heard of a gay or lesbian person or a GLBT ally tearing up a restaurant or committing any similar act against people who oppose those rights.
While I am not comfortable with some comparisons I have heard to the civil rights battles of the 1960's and the struggle for GLBT equality, this incident does raise up one common thread in my mind. The hatred and bigotry that must be overcome to insure equality for GLBT people, just like it was for African-Americans, is deeply imbedded in a frigtheningly large portion of this nation's population. As anyone who pays attention knows, it has hardly disappeared regarding the African-American community and will be a constant presence through this generation and those who follow. Only continued advocacy and education can make that gradually diminish, and we can already see some evidence of that happening in today's society.
There is a long, long, long way to go, however, and it is incumbent upon GLBT people and their allies to keep pushing and advancing the cause. Equality won't happen by itself.
September 29, 2006
Congressman Resigns Over Lewd E-Mails to Teenage Boys
Mark Foley, a powerful Republican congressman from Florida, resigned today as more information came out about e-mail and instant messaging exchanges he had with male teenage pages.
I don't post the story here as another example of how evil Republicans or politicians can be. This is another example of what appears to be a self-loathing gay man buried deep in his closet, something I find very sad.
What is even sadder and more harmful is that this man was the chairman of the House caucus on missing and exploited children. He crusaded against using the Internet to sexually exploit those who were under age, even calling those who were guilty of this "sick people; they need mental health counseling." He was also, of course, very outspoken against gay rights.
It's bad enough when a person can't look themselves in the mirror and accept who they are. It's even worse when they have the power to not only hurt themselves but others like them, punishing others for their self-loathing.
At least now there will be one less person in Congress with the power to do that.
I don't post the story here as another example of how evil Republicans or politicians can be. This is another example of what appears to be a self-loathing gay man buried deep in his closet, something I find very sad.
What is even sadder and more harmful is that this man was the chairman of the House caucus on missing and exploited children. He crusaded against using the Internet to sexually exploit those who were under age, even calling those who were guilty of this "sick people; they need mental health counseling." He was also, of course, very outspoken against gay rights.
It's bad enough when a person can't look themselves in the mirror and accept who they are. It's even worse when they have the power to not only hurt themselves but others like them, punishing others for their self-loathing.
At least now there will be one less person in Congress with the power to do that.
September 27, 2006
WHOSOEVER: Unhealthy Faith
10 Beliefs of an Unhealthy Faith
1. God's love and favor depends on my behavior.
2. All ministers are people of God and can be trusted.
3. Material blessings are a sign of spiritual strength.
4. I can work my way to heaven.
5. Problems in my life are a result of some kind of sin.
6. If it's not in the Bible it isn't relevant.
7. A strong enough faith will protect me from problems and pain.
8. God hates sinners, is angry with me, and wants to punish me.
9. Having true faith means waiting for God to help me; doing nothing until He does.
10. More than anything else God wants me to be happy.
1. God's love and favor depends on my behavior.
2. All ministers are people of God and can be trusted.
3. Material blessings are a sign of spiritual strength.
4. I can work my way to heaven.
5. Problems in my life are a result of some kind of sin.
6. If it's not in the Bible it isn't relevant.
7. A strong enough faith will protect me from problems and pain.
8. God hates sinners, is angry with me, and wants to punish me.
9. Having true faith means waiting for God to help me; doing nothing until He does.
10. More than anything else God wants me to be happy.
September 26, 2006
Hate Mongering at the "Values Voter Summit"
Yes, apparently hate was one of the values in great demand at the summit held in Washington, DC last weekend. The "Values Voter Summit," led by James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and the other religious right "standard" bearers, featured some tough talk directed to the LGBT community (that might be you) and its allies (people like me). Here are some of the lowlights:
Bishop Wellington Boone, founder of the Wellington Boone Ministries: "But I want to tell you something is, they (GLBT people) don’t know, we’re driven by God to deal with this stuff, and I want to say to you that, in this regard, I’m not playing with you. That when it comes to the matter of this gay stuff, I know that a family is not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. It’s a man and a woman. That’s the creative order, and I’m not backing down."
Rev. Dwight McKissic of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Texas: As reported by People For The American Way. "he said, the gay rights movement was inspired “from the pit of hell itself,” and has a “satanic anointment.” The gay rights movement was birthed and inspired by the anti-Christ. He suggested that the anti-Christ is himself gay, citing a verse from the book of Daniel saying the anti-Christ will have no desire for a woman."
I would not suggest you blow these off as just intolerant rantings. This conference attracted several potential Republican presidential candidates and the current U. S. Attorney General. These statements and other intolerant, hateful remarks were not made as some little backwards church gathering in the heat of the moment on a Sunday morning. This was a serious national convention attended by some of the leading policy makers in the United States!
I'm posting these remarks and writing about the "Values Voter Summit" to make you angry (not at me please, I'm only the messenger). Hopefully any thoughts you have about sitting out the 2006 elections are overcome by reading trash like this. None of those presidential candidates sniffing around trying to gain favor with the mighty religious right came out and said anything publicly opposing this hatred.
It's up to the GLBT community and its allies to come out and publicly oppose the right wing's policies of discrimination and condemnation, especially when it comes time to cast you ballots on November 7.
Bishop Wellington Boone, founder of the Wellington Boone Ministries: "But I want to tell you something is, they (GLBT people) don’t know, we’re driven by God to deal with this stuff, and I want to say to you that, in this regard, I’m not playing with you. That when it comes to the matter of this gay stuff, I know that a family is not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. It’s a man and a woman. That’s the creative order, and I’m not backing down."
Rev. Dwight McKissic of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Texas: As reported by People For The American Way. "he said, the gay rights movement was inspired “from the pit of hell itself,” and has a “satanic anointment.” The gay rights movement was birthed and inspired by the anti-Christ. He suggested that the anti-Christ is himself gay, citing a verse from the book of Daniel saying the anti-Christ will have no desire for a woman."
I would not suggest you blow these off as just intolerant rantings. This conference attracted several potential Republican presidential candidates and the current U. S. Attorney General. These statements and other intolerant, hateful remarks were not made as some little backwards church gathering in the heat of the moment on a Sunday morning. This was a serious national convention attended by some of the leading policy makers in the United States!
I'm posting these remarks and writing about the "Values Voter Summit" to make you angry (not at me please, I'm only the messenger). Hopefully any thoughts you have about sitting out the 2006 elections are overcome by reading trash like this. None of those presidential candidates sniffing around trying to gain favor with the mighty religious right came out and said anything publicly opposing this hatred.
It's up to the GLBT community and its allies to come out and publicly oppose the right wing's policies of discrimination and condemnation, especially when it comes time to cast you ballots on November 7.
September 25, 2006
IRS Targets A Church-A Pro-Gay Church
When you see the first part of that title, you may be thinking it is about time the IRS followed through on its threats to crack down on the legal restrictions of political activities by non-profit organizations. There would probably be widespread agreement about that point among the readership here, revoking the tax-exempt status of churches who preach politics rather than God's word.
You might be surprised, like me, to learn that their current target is a pro-gay, anti-war church in Pasadena, California. One would think that, with all of the right-wing, anti-gay political rhetoric being spewed from pulpits around the country the IRS might be putting the squeeze on one of them but noooooooooo, a liberal church is under investigation because of an anti-war sermon preached during the 2004 campaigns.
Maybe I'm getting a bit jaded, but I find the choice of this church quite odd. It couldn't have been politically motivated could it?
Of course, if any IRS representatives read this--I'm with you, you folks do a great job! Please don't audit me.
You might be surprised, like me, to learn that their current target is a pro-gay, anti-war church in Pasadena, California. One would think that, with all of the right-wing, anti-gay political rhetoric being spewed from pulpits around the country the IRS might be putting the squeeze on one of them but noooooooooo, a liberal church is under investigation because of an anti-war sermon preached during the 2004 campaigns.
Maybe I'm getting a bit jaded, but I find the choice of this church quite odd. It couldn't have been politically motivated could it?
Of course, if any IRS representatives read this--I'm with you, you folks do a great job! Please don't audit me.
September 24, 2006
Announcing a new project, "Disciples From the Left"
I am proud and excited to announce a new project that I believe is a natural outgrowth of this blog. I am now editing a blog titled, "Disciples From the Left." The viewpoint of that blog will be similar to Straight, Not Narrow except that I will be addressing a wider range of issues. Rather than focus on GLBT related issues, I will be discussing topics like the war in Iraq, the economy, terrorism, and anything I find significant in the political arena. As I do here, I will be relating events and policies back to the Bible and the will of God. I believe much of what has been done in the U. S. society in recent years with the name of God attached to it has little to do with Him. I hope to provide a clear view of what the Holy Spirit has led me to believe is the TRUE will of God, one that does not include this nation continuing to move toward a totalitarian state, where torture is actually something to be debated, where rights are being restricted and privacy invaded on a routine basis.
It is time for Christians to take a stand, and I want to be counted among those who do stand up for God's true word and will for our lives.
I hope you check it out at http://disciplesfromtheleft.blogspot.com
I am also seeking other like-minded individuals to participate in the project. Please notify me by e-mail at straight_notnarrow@yahoo.com if you have something you want to say and would like to do on "Disciples From the Left."
It is time for Christians to take a stand, and I want to be counted among those who do stand up for God's true word and will for our lives.
I hope you check it out at http://disciplesfromtheleft.blogspot.com
I am also seeking other like-minded individuals to participate in the project. Please notify me by e-mail at straight_notnarrow@yahoo.com if you have something you want to say and would like to do on "Disciples From the Left."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
