Sunday, June 7, 2009
Anaheim reunion
Calling all friends of Jake going to Anaheim: it's looking like we will do something around the Integrity service on the middle Friday. We may convene ahead of time for a brief get-to-know you, then after the service re-convene somewhere TBD. Check in at Friends in Anaheim where we are still working out the details.
Friday, June 5, 2009
GLBT Episcopalians: Standing in a crucified place since 2006
It just cries for a logo, don't you think?
The revelation that yet another committee is "studying the issue" (this one so secretly, no one knows who is on it), with a report destined for, oh, 2011 or so, shouldn't be surprise. In fact it very much mirrors what's going on politically in the US.
President Obama was elected promising to be a "fierce advocate" for the GLBT community. However, there has been no movement on the issues of most concern: First, repealing DADT (Don't Ask Don't Tell), which is particularly high profile given the case of linguist Lt Dan Choi and pilot Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, both separated from the military for being gay. While this will have to be repealed by Congress, there are executive options available to stop the loss of these men, which the White House hasn't taken. But they have proposed a new study. Sound familiar?
Then, there's repealing DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), which is becoming particularly of concern given the rapid pace of marriage equality victories in the country. Six states now allow same sex marriages, and from the White House..... not a crumb, not a peep. Are those crickets I hear?
So the Double Secret Probation Bishop's Committee doesn't come as a surprise. I don't know what they are trying to delay, and in fact, the delay is a pastoral failure. After all, in 6 states faithful Episcopalians can get married by the state--but nothing from their church. One of our new Episcopal friends explained that he did not marry his long-time partner during the Interregnum in California specifically because of this. "I want a real marriage, in the church", he said. "We'll wait for that." At some level, just as I view Domestic Partnerships as "marriage lite", he views civil marriage as "marriage lite". More power to him. I hope he gets his wish (and I hope we are invited to the wedding.) It would help if the Star Chamber got a move on so TEC is not late to the equality party.
The revelation that yet another committee is "studying the issue" (this one so secretly, no one knows who is on it), with a report destined for, oh, 2011 or so, shouldn't be surprise. In fact it very much mirrors what's going on politically in the US.
President Obama was elected promising to be a "fierce advocate" for the GLBT community. However, there has been no movement on the issues of most concern: First, repealing DADT (Don't Ask Don't Tell), which is particularly high profile given the case of linguist Lt Dan Choi and pilot Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, both separated from the military for being gay. While this will have to be repealed by Congress, there are executive options available to stop the loss of these men, which the White House hasn't taken. But they have proposed a new study. Sound familiar?
Then, there's repealing DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), which is becoming particularly of concern given the rapid pace of marriage equality victories in the country. Six states now allow same sex marriages, and from the White House..... not a crumb, not a peep. Are those crickets I hear?
So the Double Secret Probation Bishop's Committee doesn't come as a surprise. I don't know what they are trying to delay, and in fact, the delay is a pastoral failure. After all, in 6 states faithful Episcopalians can get married by the state--but nothing from their church. One of our new Episcopal friends explained that he did not marry his long-time partner during the Interregnum in California specifically because of this. "I want a real marriage, in the church", he said. "We'll wait for that." At some level, just as I view Domestic Partnerships as "marriage lite", he views civil marriage as "marriage lite". More power to him. I hope he gets his wish (and I hope we are invited to the wedding.) It would help if the Star Chamber got a move on so TEC is not late to the equality party.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Religion v. Marriage Equality 3: Religious Values
I've been doing a series on religious arguments against gay marriage. In Part I, I challenged the idea that religious identity is necessarily opposed to gays by pointing out that there are many GLBT of faith, and many faithful who support their GLBT brothers and sisters. In part 2, I tackled the idea that "religious freedom" is challenged by marriage equality. In this part, I suggest that even religious values that are opposed to marriage equality can coexist in the public sphere. If you like what you read, please check out Gay Married Californian for more.
The opposition claims that their ability to teach their children religious values is abrogated by the presence of people who do not adhere to those values. They use this argument against marriage equality. It can be summed up as, "how can I teach my children homosexuality is wrong if their teacher has a same-sex marriage?"
The answer is, look to the Roman Catholics, who manage to teach a lot of things that are different from the culture to which their children are exposed.
On the subject of sex and sexuality, the Roman Catholic church is way out of step with the mainstream of America. The teachings of the church are not only against homosexuality (which isn't working so well, as it is widely accepted a large fraction of the RC priests at least in this country are gay), but against contraception, and against divorce.
Now, let's start with the strictures against contraception: the Church does not actively work in the political sphere to eliminate access to The Pill, condoms, diaphragms or other forms of pregnancy prevention. Although they disapprove, and are very clear on the subject within the church, those who are not RC are free to use whatever means they can to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
Of course, all you need to do is look around inside a Roman Catholic Church to see how well the People of the Church are adhering to that stricture. The days of the big Catholic families with 6 or 8 children are long behind us; I don't think anyone pretends that the majority of the faithful are using the rhythm method.
But here's the thing. Despite the failure of the contraception rule, they (the Institutional Church) are not trying to outlaw contraception.
What about divorce? This one is particularly helpful to consider. The Roman Catholic church is absolutely clear: you cannot divorce and remarry (unless you can afford an annulment, but we won't go there). For the vast majority of Catholics, that means that if they divorce in the civil sphere, they cannot remarry in the church. And that rule IS adhered to, very strongly.
Yet divorce in the civil sphere is legal, as is remarriage. As Andrew Sullivan writes in his excellent essay, Modernity, Faith and Marriage (a MUST READ):
We really must stress that we are discussing a separation of civil from religious marriage. Religious groups do not get to impose their definition of marriage onto society at large. The Catholics already accept that for divorce. This is no different.
The opposition claims that their ability to teach their children religious values is abrogated by the presence of people who do not adhere to those values. They use this argument against marriage equality. It can be summed up as, "how can I teach my children homosexuality is wrong if their teacher has a same-sex marriage?"
The answer is, look to the Roman Catholics, who manage to teach a lot of things that are different from the culture to which their children are exposed.
On the subject of sex and sexuality, the Roman Catholic church is way out of step with the mainstream of America. The teachings of the church are not only against homosexuality (which isn't working so well, as it is widely accepted a large fraction of the RC priests at least in this country are gay), but against contraception, and against divorce.
Now, let's start with the strictures against contraception: the Church does not actively work in the political sphere to eliminate access to The Pill, condoms, diaphragms or other forms of pregnancy prevention. Although they disapprove, and are very clear on the subject within the church, those who are not RC are free to use whatever means they can to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
Of course, all you need to do is look around inside a Roman Catholic Church to see how well the People of the Church are adhering to that stricture. The days of the big Catholic families with 6 or 8 children are long behind us; I don't think anyone pretends that the majority of the faithful are using the rhythm method.
But here's the thing. Despite the failure of the contraception rule, they (the Institutional Church) are not trying to outlaw contraception.
What about divorce? This one is particularly helpful to consider. The Roman Catholic church is absolutely clear: you cannot divorce and remarry (unless you can afford an annulment, but we won't go there). For the vast majority of Catholics, that means that if they divorce in the civil sphere, they cannot remarry in the church. And that rule IS adhered to, very strongly.
Yet divorce in the civil sphere is legal, as is remarriage. As Andrew Sullivan writes in his excellent essay, Modernity, Faith and Marriage (a MUST READ):
Catholics, for example, accept the word marriage to describe civil marriages that are second marriages, even though their own faith teaches them that those marriages don't actually exist as such. But most Catholics are able to set theological beliefs to one side and accept a theological untruth as a civil fact. ..... Catholics can tolerate fellow citizens who are not Catholic calling their non-marriages marriages - because Catholics have already accepted a civil-religious distinction. They can wear both hats in the public square.Thus, despite firmly teaching that divorce and remarriage are not allowed, the Roman Catholic church is able to co-exist with a society in which divorce and remarriage are available. They are not advocating for constitutional amendments to outlaw divorce or remarriage. They teach their own values, even if they conflict with the greater society. Because our nation is not a theocracy, and no single religious group gets to make the rules for all.
We really must stress that we are discussing a separation of civil from religious marriage. Religious groups do not get to impose their definition of marriage onto society at large. The Catholics already accept that for divorce. This is no different.
Radio station attacks transgender children
GLAAD is calling for action to stop abuse of transgender children by media:
You can listen to the segment here. Or read it here and take action.
In a lengthy May 28 tirade on the Rob, Arnie & Dawn in the Morning radio show heard in Sacramento, California on KRXQ 98.5 FM and Reno, Nevada on KDOT 104.5 FM, hosts Rob Williams and Arnie States verbally attacked transgender children. While discussing a recent story about a transgender child in Omaha, Nebraska and her parents’ decision to support her transition, the two hosts spent more than 30 minutes explicitly promoting child abuse of and making cruel, dehumanizing and defamatory comments toward transgender children.
You can listen to the segment here. Or read it here and take action.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Today, New Hampshire
New Hampshire's marriage equality legislation was threatened with veto unless they added some specific language to protect religions, which we discussed before. The NH legislature has passed it. From NY Times:
New Hampshire legislators have approved a measure that would make the state the sixth to allow gay marriage.
Gov. John Lynch is expected to sign the legislation Wednesday afternoon.
He had promised a veto if the law didn't clearly spell out that churches and religious groups would not be forced to officiate at gay marriages or provide other services.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Secret theology committee studies same sex relationships
UPDATE: Bishop Parsley responds. No names to be released now.
From Episcopal Cafe
Read it all here.
Integrity responds:
The Chicago Consultation press release is here.
From Episcopal Cafe
The House of Bishops Theology Committee is refusing to release the names of members of a sub-committee it has appointed to study same-sex relationships. The existence of the panel was first reported in the Blue Book, which contains information relevant to General Convention, 2009. However, the Rt. Rev. Henry Parsley of Alabama, chair of the Theology Committee has refused several requests to disclose the names of its members.
The anonymity of the panel raises serious concerns in the Church that prides itself on the transparency of its representative form of governance. In addition, the work of this secret panel has already been cited by some bishops as a reason to delay further legislative action on the issue of same-sex relationships until the panel finishes its work in 2011.
Read it all here.
Integrity responds:
“If this isn’t the height of absurdity and insult I don’t know what is,” said the Reverend Susan Russell, President of Integrity USA, the LGBT advocacy group within the Episcopal Church. “It sends a horrific message to gay and lesbian people – both inside and outside the church. The very concept of “secret studies” elicits painful memories of secret studies done on other minority groups in the past and is utterly contrary to our baptismal promise to respect the dignity of every human being. There is absolutely nothing dignified about a secret study of a group already being discriminated against. It is suspect, disingenuous and dishonest. ”
The Chicago Consultation press release is here.
Notes from Around
Just to remind you, I am putting most of my gay marriage posts over at the blog Gay Married Californian. I have started a series there on The Religion Question, since much of the argument against us is explicitly religious. Stop by and see what you think. The series will continue throughout this week. (I may cross post some of it over here, and it will also appear on DailyKos and Street Prophets). Later this summer, I am planning to do an extended series on the genetics of homosexuality, so if you want to learn some science, keep your eyes out for that one.
Since I will not be dominating the discourse here with one subject, that will leave Friends less crowded so we can discuss more of the issues coming up to General Convention, among other things. Reminder: we still need to sort out a blogger get-together during GC. Check out the Friends in Anaheim page if you are going--right now, there is a suggestion that we meet after the Integrity service Friday night, but someone brought up a question about a potential conflict. I'm not a delegate so I can't resolve it.
Speaking of GC, Integrity has released a video about the infamous resolution B033, which you can see at Susan Russell's blog.
Geek notes: On a normal weekday, FoJ receives between 150-200 unique visitors (not counting those who read us on a feed). On the Prop8 Day of Decision, this blog received 439 unique visitors, with 625 page loads (that means some people came by more than once). Wow!
Since I will not be dominating the discourse here with one subject, that will leave Friends less crowded so we can discuss more of the issues coming up to General Convention, among other things. Reminder: we still need to sort out a blogger get-together during GC. Check out the Friends in Anaheim page if you are going--right now, there is a suggestion that we meet after the Integrity service Friday night, but someone brought up a question about a potential conflict. I'm not a delegate so I can't resolve it.
Speaking of GC, Integrity has released a video about the infamous resolution B033, which you can see at Susan Russell's blog.
Geek notes: On a normal weekday, FoJ receives between 150-200 unique visitors (not counting those who read us on a feed). On the Prop8 Day of Decision, this blog received 439 unique visitors, with 625 page loads (that means some people came by more than once). Wow!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)