Incredibly stupid man speaks about Hawai'i

By now you have heard that the twice-divorced governor of Hawai'i vetoed the legislatively passed civil unions bill because she opposes marriage for gay people, and "the people should vote". (Yeah, and how do you think a vote would have turned out in Selma?)

Never mind this was not "marriage" but civil unions. It is not and never was about marriage, but about any recognition of gay people.

Anyway, from the Honolulu Star-Advertiser's coverage

Opponents of civil unions celebrated Lingle's veto but recognized that the community appears divided.

"We feel the stress in this community, and that's not our objective at all," said Francis Oda, chairman of the Hawaii Family Forum. "What we want to do is create unity in this community."

That is the single most stupid comment any of the anti-gay side has ever uttered.

How can there be unity with someone who denies my essential humanity and civil rights, who wants my family to be second class, my relationship permanently illegal and unprotected?

Seriously, what can this man be thinking? He has reached into the homes of his fellow citizens and done his best to rent them asunder and thinks there is a possibility for "unity"?

Good news for LGBTs seeking asylum in UK

From the BBC

Gay asylum seekers from Iran and Cameroon win appeal

Wednesday, 7 July 2010 12:07 UK

Two gay men who said they faced persecution in their home countries have the right to asylum in the UK, the Supreme Court has ruled. The panel of judges said it had agreed "unanimously" to allow the appeals from the men, from Cameroon and Iran.
They had earlier been refused asylum on the grounds they could hide their sexuality by behaving discreetly. Home Secretary Theresa May said the judgement vindicated the coalition government's stance. Under the previous government the Home Office had contested the case, saying it had taken sexuality into account when making its decisions.

*Fundamental right*
The five Supreme Court justices were asked to decide whether a gay applicant could be refused asylum on the grounds that he could avoid ill treatment by concealing his sexuality. Previous attempts by the men to stay in the UK had been rejected by judges at the Court of Appeal who ruled that if the men could conceal their sexuality, their situation could have been regarded as "reasonably tolerable". But the applicants said this tolerability test was contrary to the Refugee Convention, to which the UK is a party. The Supreme Court agreed and ruled that the men's cases could be reconsidered. Lord Hope, who read out the judgement, said: "To compel a homosexual person to pretend that his sexuality does not exist or suppress the behaviour by which to manifest itself is to deny his fundamental right to be who he is. "Homosexuals are as much entitled to freedom of association with others who are of the same sexual orientation as people who are straight."

The court said it would be passing detailed guidance to the lower courts about how to treat such cases in the future.
The applicant from Cameroon, who is only identified as HT, had been told he should relocate elsewhere in his country and be "more discreet" in future. He had been attacked by an angry mob at home after being seen kissing his partner. He has been fighting removal from the UK for the past four years. "Some people stopped me and said 'we know you are a gay man'," HT earlier told the BBC. "I cannot go back and hide who I am or lie about my sexuality."

The other application was from a 31-year-old Iranian gay man, who was attacked and expelled from school when his homosexuality was discovered. Like HT, he had been told he could be "reasonably expected to tolerate" conditions back home that would require him to be discreet and avoid persecution. Punishment for homosexual acts ranges from public flogging to execution in Iran, and in Cameroon jail sentences for homosexuality range from six months to five years.

= = = = Analysis from the BBC = = =

Analysis

Clive Coleman, / BBC News

Today's decision marks a complete change in the approach that will be taken by tribunals and courts to applications for asylum by gay people. The Supreme Court has unanimously and unequivocally demolished the previous approach, whereby it was acceptable to return gay asylum seekers if it was considered that by being discreet about their sexuality, they could lead a life that was "reasonably tolerable".

The Supreme Court has made clear that to compel a homosexual person to pretend that their sexuality does not exist, or to require them to suppress the manifestation of it, is to deny them their fundamental identity. Gay people should be entitled to the same rights of freedom of association and expression as straight people.

All future applications in the UK, which relate to countries that sponsor or condone the persecution of homosexuals, will have to apply the Supreme Court's guidance.

Dante's Golden Tail

My parents got their first giant breed dog when I was 16 and their last when I was 35. I mark to you the passing of their beloved Dante, who was a rescue Newfoundland. A wild-eyed yearling when they got him, he aged into the calm elegance of the breed, a true gentle giant with nothing but love in his great heart which finally stopped last night at the venerable age of 12.

Newfoundlands were bred as rescue swimmers, and their love of water and concern for people is a deep instinct. A Newfoundland was part of the Lewis and Clark expedition, and Lord Byron famously wrote of his Newf,

one who possessed Beauty without Vanity, Strength without Insolence, Courage without Ferocity, and all the Virtues of Man, without his Vices.

This community knows the "golden tail" reference, which was Martin Luther's promise of resurrection to his little dog. But I found another golden tail, in Pablo Neruda's poem "A dog has died",

Ai, how many times have I envied his tail
as we walked together on the shores of the sea
in the lonely winter of Isla Negra
where the wintering birds
filled the sky
and my hairy dog was jumping about
full of the voltage of the sea's movement:
my wandering dog, sniffing away
with his golden tail held high,
face to face with the ocean's spray.

Joyful, joyful, joyful,
as only dogs know how to be happy

And that is how I will remember Dante, who in his prime, loved to swim in San Francisco Bay or Lake Anza in the Berkeley hills. Once I went to the beach near Bodega Bay with my parents and their dogs, and Dante plunged into the surf, his massive head fording the waves, his immense tail stretched behind as a rudder, his webbed feet sturdily propelling him, as he set sail for Japan (and was only enticed back with some effort).

Swim strong, dear boy.

Listening to Bishop Gene Robinson: (1) the church in the world: preaching or meddling?

I promised to tell you about the lectures that Bishop Gene Robinson presented at his recent visit to St Paul's Cathedral, San Diego. He spoke twice, once on Saturday night, and once on Sunday morning during the weekly "Forum" prior to preaching (I already discussed his sermon). We went to both talks, which I'll tell you about separately.

His first lecture was Saturday night, addressing the role of the church in the public square. Appropriately this was held in the church, where he began by observing "we could stick to religious issues if it weren't for Jesus." He's not a big man, but he's mobile and lively. He has a quick wit, clearly very intelligent and a thinker, but also a man very much "of the people", not hiding behind cautious, elaborate constructions but speaking with a directness and a wry sense of self-deprecating humor. This is not a man who is a calculating politician, but a passionate preacher.

Bp Gene began by considering what he called "isms" and defined as the combination of prejudice with power: racism, sexism, and heterosexism (which he considers a more accurate term than homophobia for those opposed to GLBT equality). He pointed out that there were "isms"--that is, prejudice against people buttressed by majority power--in Christ's time as well: think of the lepers, the Samaritans, and the awful treatment of widows. He said, not for the first time,

"It's not enough to pull drowning people from the river. We have to go upstream to stop them from being thrown in."

It wasn't just GLBT people he identified as in the water, but immigrants, the disabled, the elderly, the ill, and of course, the poor.

So, how do you stop the fall into the water? Bp Gene noted that in a world suspicious of religion and institutions, liberal Christians must show a different way. But he admitted there is lot of bad press to overcome. He distinguished his sort of activism from the religious right, for whom "their way is THE way", and instead recommended that his listeners personalize the argument, and explain how their beliefs lead to their conclusion, rather than forcing their conclusion on everyone. Begin with

"My faith tells me....."

Too often the Christian right's influence is used as an excuse for Christians not to BE Christians in public life, he said.

He also noted the tension between two views of creation: either people are sinners in the hands of a loving God, for whom religion calls them to "liberation, hope, and the best of themselves", or religion is about holding it together to death (what he called "white knuckling it") with new things and discovery being dangerous and frightening. A redemptive view, as opposed to a punitive view. To him, God is at the door asking to be let in, and the "living God" is the message to share.

"The church exists to facilitate a relationship with God", he said. Too much time and effort are spent on property and sex, and it's time to get back into the business of spirituality. The Bible should be a guide, not an idol. "I'm not interested in a God who was 'done' after the Bible was 'complete,'" he said. And during the questions, he added,

"this idea that the Church is a peaceful happy place with no conflict....when was THAT?"

And he finished with the idea that if you aren't in trouble, is it the Gospel you are preaching?

It was a stimulating talk, advocating an involvement in the world but at the same time doing so with humility and respect. And very much driven by inclusion, and bringing all people of all stations and beliefs together in a common humanity. The audience replied with lusty applause.

But there was a measure of pain, too. In the questions, a young man we couldn't see asked in a taut, hurt voice, "What will it take to bring the Catholic church to your view?" (I leaned over to BP and muttered, "about 400 years.") Bp Gene answered gently, pointing out the difference in a church polity that has to have one rule for all cultures, and the Anglican way, where different churches can move at different rates for their cultures. He talked about meeting with gay Roman Catholic priests, and concluded by stating his admiration for people who stay within and fight for inclusion. He was adamant that "inclusion" had to begin with women, drawing explicitly the connection between bias against women and against gays. "But", he cautioned the young man, "If by staying, you find you can no longer believe that you are a precious child of God as you are, being gay, then perhaps you need to find a healthier place for now."

We went to a reception afterwards. A lot of people bought Bp Gene's book and asked him to sign it, and there were many pictures (yes, BP and I got our picture taken with him). The next morning, we went to his next talk, which I'll tell you about shortly.

Happy 2nd Birthday, Friends of Jake!

The Friends blog is 2 years old today! FoJ is brought to you by a diverse group of net-friends (IT, Ann, DavidH, Wormwood's Doxy, Eileen the Episcopalfem, and Padre Mickey) who met over at Jake's blog before his "sabbatical". We've had over 90,000 separate visits and over 100,000 page loads. We provide a lively contrast of views and writing about religion, faith, the Episcopal church, politics, and whatever strikes our fancy.

Thank you for joining us on this journey as we enter Year Three of our Big Blog Adventure.

Happy birthday, FoJ, and Happy Birthday, USoA! and Hello, world.... ;-)

Hugging a guy in his underwear (Updated)

This blogpost is rocketing around the email lists and blogs. A guy named Nathan, who works for the Marin Foundation, has blogged about what happened when a group of Evangelicals went to the Chicago Pride Parade with T-shirts saying they are sorry at how Christians treat GLBT people. And a young man dancing on a float jumped off and ran to hug him in thanks. The story has gone viral, and I think speaks as ever to the great spiritual hurt felt by the GLBT community. (Nathan is still dealing with the aftermath).

We talked about the Marin Foundation last year, with what I will describe as skeptical encouragement. This is a group formed by Evangelicals to try to build bridges between the GLBT community and Evangelicals. Andrew Marin dropped in to comment and then dipped out again. On his blog and on the Foundation website, they prevaricate around the questions: are they pro or con? Do they really believe that GLBT people are, in the words of Bishop Gene Robinson, "beloved children of God" as gays, or do they see this as a way to promote "change"? Is this just a kinder, gentler "love the sinner, hate the sin"? Some of the concerns about the Marin group were their apparent misconceptions about what it is to be gay, reducing us to a sex act, and assuming we have little understanding of Christian faith.

For example, there is a lot more to the GLBT community than Pride parades, and handsome young men dancing in their underwear are a definite minority overall. But Tristan makes a much better publicity shot than, say, chatting with a pair of young dads pushing a stroller, or even meeting a lesbian couple at the PTA. Pride parades and gayborhood bars are representative of a very small slice of GLBT America, but the press and the public--and perhaps the Marin Foundation-- seem to think that's the whole pie.

My wife BP was moved by the story, as were several of her work friends (gay and straight). She calls me a cynic that I have doubts about the motivation here. I admit, I AM a cynic. I'm a victim of the Prop H8 propaganda. I'm a knee-jerk partisan on this topic. Remember I'm an anti-religion, ex-Roman Catholic only modestly tamed by my Episcopalian wife and my Episcopalian friends :-).

So, what do you think about Nathan's outreach? Is this a good new thing, a way of breaking down walls and building bridges? Or is it something cynical to lure hurting gay folks with the goal to "cure" them? And, even if it IS something cynical, can good still come out of it?

Picture from Nathan's blog.

Update: For another view of Christians at Pride, see this article in the Guardian: Queer, Christian, and Proud

Update 2: There is a spirited conversation going on in the comments to Marin's post on his blog (Marin is Nathan's boss). I wrote

there are authentic Christian communities who do welcome GLBT people, and call them to be people of integrity within their gay identity. I’m thinking of the UCC, or the Episcopalians. These communities are activists for GLBT civil rights. They march with GLBT folks in Pride, or in protest events. The work within their own churches for equal rights. Their clergy include have faithfully partnered gay folks and women as well as men. They aren’t just talking the talk. They are walking with us too.

Marin did not like that.

Another poster called Eugene wrote,

More importantly, there is no conflict between “gay” identity and “Christian” identity. A “gay” person is a homosexual person who is comfortable with his sexual orientation. This identity certainly doesn’t imply promiscuity or atheism, so it doesn’t negate the “Christian” identity in any way – unless you believe that Christianity is inherently homophobic.

Eugene also points us to a recording of Marin's talk to the Christian side about GLBT people, here (download it).

It’s a mix of Andrew’s good intentions, bad intentions, knowledge and cluelessness. In my opinion it’s pretty harmful, and surely isn’t pro-gay. It’s long, so here are the the most interesting parts:
03:30-05:30 “Their identity becomes wrapped up in being gay”
15:00-23:00 “Best friend Dan”
45:00-51:30 “I have what I call the continuum of change”
01:25:00-01:28:00 “There is a ton of hope for a person like that”

so go hear what Marin says with his own tongue.