The importance of the clergy in the fight for equality

From the New York Times:  (my emphases)

The conventional — and erroneous — perception of the gay-marriage issue is that it pits secular forces against religious ones. From New York to California, wherever and whenever the battle has flared, news coverage has focused almost entirely on the religious groups who uniformly denounce it: Mormons, Roman Catholics, evangelical Christians and many Hispanic Pentecostals and African-American Protestants.

Yet the passage of same-sex marriage in New York last month, just two years after its defeat here, attests to the concerted, sustained efforts by liberal Christian and Jewish clergy to advocate for it in the language of faith, to counter the language of morality voiced by foes. In so doing, they provided a kind of political and theological cover to the moderate and conservative state senators who cast the vital swing votes for a 33-to-29 margin.

....

“If religious support is fractured, and supporters of the legislation can point to clergy who are on their side,” [history professor Julian E. Zelizer] wrote in an e-mail, “then it’s easier to counteract the claim of religious conservatives who say there is only one answer to this question. As in previous examples, politicians draw on clergy to give themselves moral authority when taking on these kinds of social and cultural issues. We know more about how the right has done it, but liberals can do the same.”

Yesterday, in San Diego's gay pride parade, St Paul's Cathedral marched: clergy and parishioners, gay and straight, young and old, to raucous cheers from the crowd, and the occasional spectator running over to grab the hand of one of the clergy to thank them, or asking where the church is.

As the Dean's sermon today concluded, quoting the words of theologian Walter Brueggemann: "Martin Luther King, Jr., famously said that the arc of history is bent toward justice. And the parallel statement that I want to make is that the arc of the Gospel is bent toward inclusiveness."

Let those with ears, hear!

Voices of Faith Speak Out: new series at GMC

On Saturdays I am starting a new series at Gay Married Californian that specifically highlights voices of faith speaking out against bullying and in support of LGBT youth. My goal is to show that the anti-gay bigotry of the Christianist right does NOT define Christianity's response to LGBT people. I am starting with Christian denominations, because in the peculiar marriage of religion and politics in the US, Christianity is the Big Kahuna. However, I will be happy to highlight positive statements from non-Christian faith groups as well. Coming up in the next few weeks, I will have examples from Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists, to name a few.

Why am I doing this? Because I know there are straight, religious allies who walk the walk with us. Too often their voices are drowned out by the strident shouts of the haters--I'm hoping to amp them up. LGBT adults and youth of faith, who have been deeply injured by churches need to know that the haters don't speak for everyone or all faith groups. There are many churches that offer radical welcome.

And as a practical matter, whether we are individuals of faith or not, the LGBT community needs to build alliances with religious allies to defeat the opposition. Religion isn't our enemy.

This came to me this weekend, appropriately enough at church. We celebrated our second wedding anniversary last week, in honor of which we donated the Sunday flowers. Our anniversary was further recognized and celebrated by the congregation as we were asked to be the Oblation Bearers and carry the bread and wine to the altar for the choral Eucharist. Numbers of people came up to us afterwards to congratulate us. And it occurred to me (not for the first time) that too many LGBT people are unaware of the explicit support of many communities of faith. I mean, we attend a church that not only welcomes us as a married lesbian couple, but as a mixed marriage of atheist and Christian! Whoa. Pretty radical stuff. Time to get those voices of welcome out there, don't you think?

In any event, I'm going to try to educate everyone and hope to build bridges. If you run across relevant statements or citations that can be identified with particular faith groups, send 'em along and if they are appropriate, I'll queue them up.

+Gene: it gets better

The Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson speaks out in the It Gets Better campaign on youtube:

Children will listen: the NY gubernatorial candidate, and another youth suicide

A story from New York, and one from Oklahoma.

Carl Paladino, gubernatorial candidate in New York (tea-party Republican), doesn't much like gay people:

Paladino[,] told a gathering in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Sunday that children should not be “brainwashed” into thinking that homosexuality was acceptable, and criticized his opponent, Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, for marching in a gay pride parade earlier this year.

Addressing Orthodox Jewish leaders, Mr. Paladino described his opposition to same-sex marriage.

“I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don’t want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option — it isn’t,” he said, reading from a prepared address, according to a video of the event......Newsday.com reported that Mr. Paladino’s prepared text had included the sentence: “There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual.” But Mr. Paladino omitted the sentence in his speech.

He's a good Catholic. With an illegitimate child. Well, i guess since Sarah Palin, illegitimate children in stalwart Republican families are nothing to be ashamed of. (Call me old-fashioned in my "family values", but I don't believe in bearing children outside of legal commitments. )

The Times goes on,

Brian Ellner, head of the marriage initiative for the gay advocacy group Human Rights Campaign, said that the Republican’s remarks were insensitive given a recent swirl of news about suicide in the gay community and antigay violence.

The New York City Police Department announced on Friday that nine men in the Bronx had lured three men they believed were gay and then tortured them. Last month, a student at Rutgers University jumped off the George Washington Bridge after two classmates broadcast his sexual encounter with a man over the Internet.

Mr Paladino of course claims he has no animus to GLBT people, even while they are being tortured and bullied to death.

Meanwhile, in Norman, Oklahoma, 19 year old Zach Harrington sat in the audience listening to a city council meeting where the locals weighed in about whether the city should acknowledge LGBT History month. A week later, he killed himself, and his family see a clear line linking the two events.

Support for and opposition to the proclamation were fairly even and the public comment portion of the agenda item lasted for three hours — the entire time allotted.

...One man said he moved to Norman because he thought it was the kind of place that would never accept the GLBT community with open arms....Some of those who opposed the proclamation claimed that members of the GLBT community would use it to infiltrate the public school system, essentially allowing the “gay lifestyle” to become a part of the curriculum....Numerous residents also claimed the Bible was their guiding light, citing the ancient text as their primary reason for opposing the proclamation and the GLBT community in general.

And for those in attendance, it was hard to ignore the intolerant grumblings, the exasperated sighs and cold, hard stares that followed comments from supporters of the GLBT proclamation....

Harrington’s family, who described him as a private young man who internalized his feelings and emotions, said it was this “toxic” environment at the Sept. 28 council meeting that may have pushed their gay son and brother over the edge.....

“When we talk about our feelings in a hypothetical way and we send our toxic thoughts out in a public setting that way, they will affect people in a negative way,” Nikki [Harrington, Zach's sister] said. “People need to think about the things they are saying and ask themselves, ‘Is this right?’”

Well, Mr Paladino?

Dan Savage calls out Right wing "Christians" who hate the sin(ner)

Dan Savage was rebuked for his "anti-Christian" language by an anti-gay "Christian" who loves the sinner, hates the sin, but never, ever would hurt anyone.

Dan responded this way:

Being told that they're sinful and that their love offends God, and being told that their relationships are unworthy of the civil right that is marriage (not the religious rite that some people use to solemnize their civil marriages), can eat away at the souls of gay kids. It makes them feel like they're not valued, that their lives are not worth living. And if one of your children is unlucky enough to be gay, the anti-gay bigotry you espouse makes them doubt that their parents truly love them—to say nothing of the gentle "savior" they've heard so much about, a gentle and loving father who will condemn them to hell for the sin of falling in love with the wrong person.

The children of people who see gay people as sinful or damaged or disordered and unworthy of full civil equality—even if those people strive to express their bigotry in the politest possible way (at least when they happen to be addressing a gay person)—learn to see gay people as sinful, damaged, disordered, and unworthy. And while there may not be any gay adults or couples where you live, or at your church, or at your workplace, I promise you that there are gay and lesbian children in your schools. You may only attack gays and lesbians at the ballot box, nice and impersonally, but your children have the option of attacking actual real gays and lesbians, in person, in real time.

....Oh, and those same dehumanizing bigotries that fill your straight children with hate? They fill your gay children with suicidal despair. And you have the nerve to ask me to be more careful with my words....

The religious right points to the suicide rate among gay teenagers—which the religious right works so hard to drive up (see above)—as evidence that the gay lifestyle is destructive. It's like intentionally running someone down with your car and then claiming that it isn't safe to walk the streets.

Which is why I argued that every gay teen suicide is a victory for the religious right. Because, you see, your side does use those suicides to "perpetuate [your] agenda."

Several of our regulars went over to Dan's site, and while agreeing with many of his sentiments, reminded him that there are many Christians who work for justice. Dan's readers mostly responded with the anger of the disenfranchised, which isn't very helpful, but is understandable. As we've discussed many times, the right wing's success in defining the word "Christian", as well as the rejection felt by many gay or gay-friendly people at the hands of right-wing churches, continues to provoke a backlash in the community.

And more generally, the injection of right-wing Christianity and the anti-intellectual, anti-science policy it engenders, into our public life (in clear contravention of our supposed Constitutional values) continues to be a thorn in the side of the non-believers. It is hard to avoid the outrage sometimes that the Roman Catholics and the Mormons and right-wingers are forcing me to live by their religious beliefs. The progressive Episcopal voices that I hear in our community here, while very welcome, seem too faint to hear on the national stage.

While I do try to make peace and defend the progressive Christians against my fellow non-believers (I am a Libra, after all ;-) I also have to agree with a certain frustration that was expressed in our discussion last year. The response to "Christians" behaving badly and being called out by the left, is not just to tell the left that "not all Christians are like that!" It's to call out the so-called Christians who are mis-behaving. Straight Christian allies can be our most powerful voice to those who are attacking us.

Still, I was proud to see our JCF and our Doxy lead the charge into the fray at Dan's to make the necessary comments. I encourage you all to keep it up, let your voices be prophetic, and agents for change and healing--and don't let the so called "Christians" get away with it.

Update: Here's gay activist and radio host Mike Signorile not putting up with it when another "Christian" calls him. The caller "would never hurt anyone's feelings" but thinks gays are going to hell. Signorile lets him have it--brutally.

Dan and Mike are both outraged. ARe they entitled? What do you think is the "proper response" --from them, or others, to the "love the sinner/hate the sin" protests?

Catholic school fires lesbian for marrying her partner

Same sex marriage may be legal in Massachusetts but it's a problem for the Roman Catholic church.

Christine M. Judd, who served as athletic director and dean of students, said she is no longer an employee of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield school system after a meeting Wednesday with administrators of the Catholic high school.

The diocese listed her departure as a resignation, but Judd said she is still exploring her legal options.

“I was given a choice of termination or resignation,” Judd said. “I’m hurt, but I wish nothing but the best for Cathedral, its students, the parents, the athletic teams, administration and faculty. I bleed purple (the school’s color).”...

“I married my partner this summer,” Judd said. “I was hoping that my loyalty, my professionalism the last 12 years would supersede the current hypocrisy that has already been shown with the Diocese of Springfield.”

Asked to elaborate on her claim of hypocrisy, Judd said she questions if there are lay persons who work for the Catholic diocese who divorce and remarry without an annulment, or employees who use birth control, or men who have had vasectomies, or individuals who are pro-choice on abortion.

A private school is entitled to employ who it wants. So I suspect that Ms Judd is out of luck on this one. But I applaud her for pointing out the hypocrisy and selective enforcement of matters of doctrine. And I applaud her for making it public.

Apparently she did not flaunt her marriage, but someone got a picture and sent it to the diocese. She has since decided that she will not try to sue the diocese, but may try to find some way to challenge the person who turned her in.

So, when will the Diocese ask how all those families have only 1 or 2 children? When will they fire a woman teacher for picking up The Pill at the pharmacy? When will they comb the files for re-married parents and employees so they can fire them? After all, if it's just a matter of doctrine, then being gay should be no different than any other act of sexual immorality, right?

Right?

Religious freedom in CA: SB 906 restates the obvious

Following up on Ann's post, below: The first amendment protects religious speech. And any clergy person may legally refuse to marry any couple, for any reason. These are simple facts.

Despite this, however, the Prop8 campaign and the liars of the anti-equality movement have inflamed fears that they will be forced to marry gays, or that they will have to stop preaching against gays. This has allowed them to frame the argument as an issue of religious freedom: as though denying OTHERS' religious freedom somehow benefits them.

In a recent poll released by the Public Religion Research Institute, specifically about Prop 8, the pollsters found that support for marriage equality in the Golden State is around 51%. If, however, civil unions are an option, 42% support marriage, with another 31% for unions.

However, support for marriage increases with specific reassurances:

A significant number of Californians who initially say they support civil unions but not same- sex marriage are willing to support marriage equality if the law addresses either of two basic concerns about religious marriages. When presented with an assurance that the law would guarantee that “no church or congregation would be required to perform marriages for gay couples,” nearly one-third of Californians who initially only supported civil unions are willing to support marriage equality. With this religious liberty reassurance, support for same-sex marriage increases 12 points, from initial support of 42% to a solid majority at 54%. Similarly, when Californians are presented with an assurance that the law “only provided for civil marriages like you get at city hall,” more than half of Californians who initially supported only civil unions are willing to support marriage equality. This civil marriage reassurance results in a 19-point increase in support for same-sex marriage, from 42% to more than 6-in-10.

To make this freedom explicit, CA State Sen Mark Leno introduced Senate Bill 906, which has now passed the Assembly. THis bill

reaffirms the separation of church and state and clarifies under state law that no member of clergy will be required to perform a civil marriage that is contrary to his or her faith. The Assembly approved Senate Bill 906 with a 46-25 vote. The bill will return to the Senate for a routine concurrence vote before going to the governor’s desk.

“This bill simply affirms that California is a diverse state, and that we can all co-exist and make space for each others’ beliefs without compromising the tenets of any religious group or individual,” said Senator Leno. “With the recent federal court ruling, we know that marriage for same-sex couples in California is on the horizon. Under the Civil Marriage Religious Freedom Act, churches and clergy members who fear their religious views are threatened by marriage equality will have clear and solid protections under state law. In addition, churches that welcome same-sex couples will continue to fully recognize those families within their faith.”

Of course, the right wing opposes this bill, with lunatic arguments like this one from a Roman Catholic opponent of SSM:

"SB 906 seeks to cause confusion by creating a new 'civil' class of marriage, implying it is different from religious marriage.

Of course, there has always been a separate civil marriage, given that couples can be married by the county clerk with no religious expression at all.

" It also creates the illusion of new protections for 'religious' marriage by essentially saying that religions can't be forced to change their doctrine on marriage (which is already prohibited by the 1st Amendment).

Yup, it does simply restate the 1st Amendment. It does this because the opponents to SSM apparently don't understand what religious freedom really means.

"It is clear this bill will be used to fool the voters into thinking that same-sex 'marriage' will have no impact on churches and people of faith."

Umm, is that because it WON'T have any impact--except on those churches who WANT to marry same sex couples.

They are panicked out of their mind to lose this favored talking point and spinning their wheels violently. Because if protections are explicitly stated, support for equality goes up.

Of course, none of this should be necessary. But the right wing has MADE it necessary, since they try to use this non-issue as a wedge.

Catholic kids with gay parents

There have been a number of cases where Roman Catholic schools have to figure out how to deal with gay parents who want to send their kids to Catholic school. The RC church disapproves of gay couples, we know that. But then, it also disapproves of remarriage following divorce, and contraceptive use in the marriage bed. As with other things, though, only the gay couples are worth punishing. Remarried or by-choice-childless couples using the pill, not so much. One might ask who are the "cafeteria" Catholics.

Let's review, shall we? There was a case in Costa Mesa, CA in 2005:

An Orange County Catholic school that angered some parents by allowing a gay couple to enroll their two boys last year has drafted a policy that would forbid the men to appear as a couple at school functions, according to a memo distributed to teachers.

Then there was the case in Colorado earlier this year, in which the children of a lesbian couple were dismissed from a Boulder Catholic school despite being enrolled for 3 years.

The archdiocese posted a statement on its Web site that read in part, "Parents living in open discord with Catholic teaching in areas of faith and morals unfortunately choose by their actions to disqualify their children from enrollment."

So, that would mean that any parents using contraception, any divorced/remarried parents, anyone having an affair, right?

Again, earlier this yeast, there was another case in Massachusetts, although in contrast to the Archidiocese in Denver, Cardinal Sean O'Malley had a different response:

After a Hingham Catholic school revoked its acceptance of an 8-year-old because his parents are lesbians, the Catholic Schools Foundation, chaired by Cardinal Sean O’Malley, sent out a gorgeous letter making it clear that that kind of cruelty is not what the church is about.

“We believe a policy that denies admission to students in such a manner . . . is at odds.... ultimately with Gospel teaching,’’ it read. The archdiocese will formalize an inclusive policy in coming weeks.

Alas, some people in The Hub didn't get the message. In a June op/ed in the Boston Archdiocese's own newspaper, author Michael Pakaluk wrote,

The question arises of whether children in the custody of (one cannot say, “children of”) same-sex couples should be admitted to Catholic parochial schools.

(Note that snide "custody" remark). The answer, he says, is a resounding "no", based on his observations of his son's school.

There were three basic reasons. The first involves the inevitability of scandal. It was inevitable that either the teacher, or some parent, would deal with the two men in such a way as implicitly to teach my son, or other children in the class, that there is nothing wrong with same-sex relationships. ....I saw this beginning to happen in my son’s school: not wishing to offend, teacher and parents would refer to the two men as the “parents” of that boy, even though only one was the father.

The second reason is that parents are rightly given access to a child’s classroom, and yet I could not trust the designs of the same-sex couple. A mother or father may volunteer to read to the class or chaperone for a class trip. If the homosexual parent does so, what guarantee would I have that he would not be an advocate for his lifestyle, implicitly if not explicitly? One would expect him to be: he says he takes “pride” in his life; the school, it seems, has implicitly endorsed his role; and so why wouldn’t he speak unabashedly about his lifestyle?....

The third reason is that it seemed a real danger that the boy being raised by the same-sex couple would bring to school something obscene or pornographic, or refer to such things in conversation, as they go along with the same-sex lifestyle, which--as not being related to procreation-- is inherently eroticized and pornographic. He might expose other children to such things, as he might easily have encountered them in his household.

NOt that this ever happened to his son, of course. But it MIGHT, he said, simply because the parents are gay.

Of course, the idea that same sex couples eroticize their children, in a way that straight couples do not, is profoundly profoundly insulting and outrageous. It is one more example of the Right Wing's inability to recognize that we are not driven by, or defined by, a sexual act any more than they are. It is another example of bigotry trying to reduce us to the level of rutting animals (see my discussion of this in my recent essay, Talking about Sex

The pushback against this has been predictable, and Pakulak retracted his third point. But the fact that he made it in the first place tells you what he really thinks.

As for why GLBT couples would WANT to send their children to a Catholic school, an essay here.

Meanwhile, perhaps Mr Pakaluk might want to read those studies about how kids raised by gay parents are doing great--despite the small minded bigotry and fear of people like him. But the real fear here is the old, familiar one: that by learning about Teh Gay, his son, or other people's sons, might actually "become" gay. Better to Mr Pakaluk is that any boy growing up gay should become a self-loathing closet case rather than a healthy out man living a life of faithful same-sex monogamy.

Pathetic little man.

Marin Foundation Survey

The Marin Foundation, which we discussed recently with some skepticism, tries to bridge GLBT and Evangelical communities. It is doing a survey about GLBT views towards religion. It might be good if they heard from progressives.

Go here to check it out.

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"?

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.

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.

Closing arguments in Prop8 federal trial: what's it all about?

Closing arguments in the Prop8 Federal Trial in San Francisco will be presented tomorrow (Wednesday), with the final decision expected some time this summer.

To re-cap, this is a federal trial that challenges Prop8 on equal protection basis in Federal law. The bad guys had two, almost laughably incompetent witnesses. The good guys had an impressive set of experts and an equally impressive odd couple of lead attorneys: conservative Ted Olson, stalwart of the Bush Administration, and liberal David Boies. (Unexpectedly on the same side here, these two are best known for advocating against each other in Bush v. Gore).

Whatever District Judge Vaughn Walker decides, the case can be (and almost certainly will be) appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and from thence to the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS). Walker is a libertarian-Republican, appointed by ReaganBush the First, with a generally conservative record. The bad guys liked him, until they found out that he's also gay. (How Fate loves a jest....!)

It's important to distinguish this from the previous trial which was in the California State Supreme Court. Since the issues there were limited to the STATE constitution, they allowed for no further appeal. To remind you, the SCoCal found regretfully that under California's dysfunctional constitution, a simple majority can take away rights from a minority. This led to the new challenge under the Federal Constitution, which is completely separate from the CA case.

You can see all my previous posts on the prop8 Federal case here.

The Judge has released a list of questions for both plaintiffs (the good guys) and defendents (the bad guys, pro-H8) that they are to address in closing.

The LA Times reports,

Attorneys in the case suspect that Walker has by now produced a draft opinion that touches on issues he has raised in his questions.

Among the questions asked of attorneys for the Proposition 8 opponents is how much importance should be placed on the motivation of voters who approved the marriage ban. ....

He also expressed interest in testimony that suggested women were more flexible in their sexual orientation than men....

Turning to the supporters of Proposition 8, Walker asked them how same-sex marriage would have negative social consequences and to describe how it would drastically change marriage as an institution.

"Why is legislating based on moral disapproval of homosexuality not tantamount to discrimination?" Walker asked both sides. "What evidence in the record shows that a belief based in morality cannot also be discriminatory?".

What are the possible outcomes?

First, Walker finds against Prop8, broadly finds that GLBT people are a protected class federally, and finds that anti-gay marriage laws are all unconstitutional. A sweeping decision that would challenge anti-gay laws nation wide and cause a complete uproar. Outcome: Appeal, and an immediate stay preventing any change in the status quo till that appeal is heard.

Second, Walker finds against Prop8 on narrow grounds, limited to California's unusual circumstance where there are currently two classes of gay people: those legally married in 2008, and all the others who can't marry. Uproar more local. Outcome: Appeal, and an immediate stay preventing any change in the status quo till that appeal is heard.

Last, and least likely, Walker finds in favor of Prop8 and legitimizes the right of a majority to vote on a minority's rights. Irate GLBT take to the streets and uproar continues. Outcome: Appeal. (No change in status quo.)

So, on the ground, nothing will change in the foreseeable future. The wheels of justice grind slow..... Regardless, this is a landmark civil rights case. I for one will be riveted to the liveblogs and twitter feeds, and hoping for justice.

More info from

• Prop8TrialTracker (includes liveblogging)
• LGBT POV
• Hunter for Justice
• The Advocate
• Gay Married Californian

Update Good overview on the law issues, including "rational basis" by Brian Leubitz here and LGBT-POV here. Read Olson and Boies et al response to the judge's questions.

A visit from Gene Robinson

I have long felt, as I'm sure have many of you, that the log jam broke with the election of Bishop Gene Robinson in 2003. Not just breaking a logjam of exclusion of GLBT people from the Episcopal Church, but also a reaffirmation, a challenge against the shrill voices of the right wing who claimed to define or to own the concept of "Christian". I think Bishop Gene helped voices of inclusive faith coalesce and reclaim "Christianity" from a narrow political movement on the right. And I think history will see his election as a hugely important moment in GLBT equality in this country, well beyond one denomination.

A modest, unassuming, loving man with a hint of the South in his voice, he was the perfect choice. He symbolized so much to so many far beyond the Episcopal Church. You may not quite appreciate how much this choice meant Outside. Despite its small size, the Episcopal Church continues to have an outsize influence on the Establishment. When you do something, people notice. One of my friends, who is Jewish, even wrote him a letter expressing what he meant to people far outside the faith, with his simple, and joyous, message of love and acceptance (and she got an answer, too!)

I know that Bishop Gene's election stimulated me to explore the Episcopal Church as a possible home for my wife (and me, as a sort of distaff member) and probably marks my real entry into the Episcoblogosphere.

Last summer, we drove up to Anaheim for the Integrity Eucharist. Bishop Gene presided, and I still remember his absolutely impish grin during the service as he walked around that big hotel space, flinging holy water at the joyful congregants. I also remember being able to speak briefly to him as he was coming through the reception area, on his way to vest, and saying inarticulately how much he meant to us as GLBT people. He paused, generously (he was late) and thanked me.

So I am really looking forward to hearing Bishop Gene Robinson speak, during his upcoming visit to St Paul's Cathedral, San Diego on June 12 and 13. On Saturday, June 12 he will speak from 5:30 to 7 pm on The Church in Public Life: Preachin' or Meddlin'? He will also preach at both Sunday services (8 and 10.30) and present the Forum at 9am. If you are in the vicinity and plan to attend, I suggest you get there early. Bishop Gene belongs to more than TEC.

On closets and the academy

We've talked a little here about Elena Kagan, and the is-she-or-isn't-she speculation in the media. Over at Telling Secrets, Elizabeth Kaeton has mused further over closets, and what it means that our culture assumes that any accomplished unmarried woman of a Certain Age is (shhhh!) a lesbian!

In my internet perambulations on the subject, I also came across an article on Religion Dispatches about "Lesbian Panic":

And yet, the terrifying-to-many ménage a trois of religion, sexuality, and education continues to serve as a condensed metaphor for all manner of cultural fears and anxieties; and prompts Armageddon-ish warnings about how values and morality have been thinned out.....

The author considers disparate cases: the music teacher in Canada furloughed from a Catholic school (could it be because she and her female partner had a baby? or for other reasons?) the ever-present concern about lesbians in women's college sports (particularly basketball and softball). And then, she linked to an article by Louie Crew in 1974 in the Chronicle of Higher Education:

For centuries the academy in the West has made quite clear the only terms on which gay persons could be accepted professionally at any level:  complete invisibility.  Gay men and women have been forced to pass as straights.  Our unique sexual orientation has been shoved into a closet.

    Many of us have learned thus to survive, even to prevail, some of us even to forget, except for very frantic moments, that we really are gay.  By playing the game of invisibility we have held every possible position of leadership; we have been major forces in the arts, in literature, in science, in technology, in every discipline.  ....

    Some gays argue that we have never had it so good, that we now even have power.  Many straights concur, even saying that gays have too much power, that too many bosses are gay an d that straights often learn too late the sexual politics of the game of invisibility.  The one constant is the game itself, invisibility, passing, closeting, wearing the heterosexual mask, reassuring straights that all is really right with the world.

Written in 1974. Which makes me awed by the courage of Louie Crew in coming out THEN, because those words are still so true today.

Although people think of the academy as a far-left liberal place, it's really not, especially outside of the humanities. Many faculty are still closeted, 35 years after Louie Crew's article. Indeed, I think it's inculcated into professionals of A Certain Age, that it's safer that way. Especially those of us who discover our sexuality, or come to terms with it, later in life, the professional closet seems like a prudent decision. Why discuss it? We so often internalize our own "don't ask don't tell"---and we don't realize how suffocating it is until we escape it. I am so lucky in my current institution, where I have never been anything but out, and where my colleagues are supportive. But I know many who aren't so lucky.

Our success in the academy is incredibly dependent on individuals -- fellow professors, the external reviewers who write letters for the tenure file. And review papers and grants. Some of those powerful, older men are not at all gay-friendly (nor woman-friendly). It can still cost at tenure time--especially at private institutions, or those in hostile parts of the country. Tenure, which is supposed to give us freedom and protection, actually denies us those things until we achieve it. (But that's a subject for a different post).

And, it's inevitably tangled up with gender as well. Women, gay folk, people of color all challenging that comfortable power structure of older, largely white men: Pale, Stale, and Male, as one colleague describes it. Calling a woman a lesbian is a way to try to keep her down, because it's still "acceptable" to consider it an insult. Damned upstart women.

As the Religion Dispatches piece puts it,

[S]omeday, soon...
We will not confuse competency in one’s chosen field with lesbianism—not a soccer field, not a religious pulpit, not a bench behind which legal decisions are propounded. Nor will being called a lesbian be a charge, or an accusation, defamatory, or a slur.

Well, we can hope.

Today's youth won't have this problem. They are out and proud at a young age, able to embrace the fullness of their identity. In a meeting with GLBT scientists at one of my professional societies, I was struck by the difference in their experience. The young ones never have been, and would not dream of being, anything but out. It's hard to convey to them the caution that their elders still have about coming out. They really don't "get" the closet.

One young postdoc said to me, "oh, you're gay too!" in some surprise. He was happy. I had become a role model. A woman graduate student thanked me, saying "you show me that I can be out as a lesbian, and still be a professor!" The choice for them is not in or out of the closet. They wouldn't dream of being in the closet. The choice is whether or not they try for academic positions. Some of them will have problems, with the pale stale faculty. But more of them will not.

And then there's the surprised recognition some of us older ones find at these meetings at seeing some of our own age cohort, who have finally come out themselves. Oh, you are too?

Making Christianity relevant

Our friend Counterlight is on fire (ha!) today, with this:

If Christians are not willing to stand up for the rights and dignity of gays and lesbians, then are they willing to stand up for the rights and dignity of anyone? Is our concern for human dignity and welfare limited to embryos and fetuses, and ends with birth? How authentic is the universal call of Pentecost with its babel of languages coming together if we must add an asterisk with a footnote listing exceptions and preconditions? Does the Great Commission mean anything other than a license for imperial conquest without the Great Commandment? Did the Savior who forgave His murderers from the Cross without their asking limit His Love and Mercy to those who meet membership requirements, or to those who could pass a catechism exam?

Go read the whole thing.

Happy Birthday, Harvey

Hope will never be silent.

--Harvey Milk

Homophobes, Hypocrites, and Redemption

"If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us." - Hermann Hesse

In 1996, a research team recruited a group of straight men and used a questionnaire to determine how gay-friendly they were. They divided them into two groups: homophobic, and non-homophobic. Then they showed them straight and gay porn videos, while monitoring their sexual response. Remarkably, the firecely straight, homophobic men were sexually stimulated by gay porn, while the gay-friendly men were not. Adams HE, et al, J Abnorm Psychol. 1996 Aug;105(3):440-5

Lots of writers are wondering if that study explains the spectacular crash-n-burn of fulminating anti-gay activists, preachers, and politicians: people like George "Rentboy" Rekers, Ted "Meth-n-Sex" Haggard, Larry "wide stance" Craig, and Roy "gay clubber" Ashburn. These men make careers out of attacking GLBT individuals and families while at the same time seeking gay sex. (In fact, Rekers may have found this particularly lucrative; I'll tell you about that soon, over at GMC). Ashburn at least now admits he's gay, which could put him on a path to recovery (think the former Governor of NJ, Jim McGreevey, who also came out and is now studying theology).

Writing in the Daily Beast, Michelle Goldberg says,

Rekers deserves a measure of pity as well as scorn. If he portrayed homosexuality as a life-destroying temptation that only the strictest of measures could contain, that’s because, for him, it was.

I think this is the kernal of truth in the matter. These men all have internalized homophobia. They have denied who they are, and made that denial at the root of their being. How much they must resent the healthy gay men who are open and happy, while they have deeply invested in the worst type of self-loathing closet.

Moreover, it is probably significant that these men were all engaged in the most soulless sexual encounters. That's all they know, so of course, that's what they think describes all gay relationships. The absolute bile and bigotry they spew makes some twisted sense if you realize that to them, pickups and prostitutes and anonymous sex are all there is to it. They don't experience healthy sexuality, faithfulness in relationships, or family life. Homosexuality to them really is only about furtive, hidden, and dirty sex. Of course that's counter to what any of our goals are for healthy lives. Sadly, their own secret desires lead them to attack those who disprove their own experience.

For many of us in our middle years, the dawning awareness of our sexuality came late. And for a variety of professional reasons, many of us lived in the closet for some period of time. It seemed safer in there, though absolutely suffocating. Coming out in mid-life is therefore nothing new, though it can be painful and messy. Yet the serenity that comes from the freedom to live honestly cannot be overstated. No career is worth the lies of the closet.

Let's compare the difference in two preachers. Longtime Jerry Falwell associate Mel White was an active participant in Falwell's anti-gay evangelical movement. But he acknowledged his sexuality, was cast out of Falwell's sphere, and now lives as an openly gay man. White founded the progay religious group Soulforce. Redemption, new life, happy ending.

In contrast, Rekers, who is also a Baptist minister, is still twisting in the breeze as his name is erased from all the gay-phobic right wing groups that he helped found, while bleating unconvincingly that he is not, and never has been, a homosexual. This story is pretty dark right now. Any bets on whether he'll find the light?

Prop8, the lesbian bishop, and marriage

There's an interesting Newsweek story on Mary Glasspool, and the relative calm (comparatively speaking) surrounding her election. It concludes,

The defiant moment may be yet to come. For if California reverses Proposition 8 and relegalizes gay marriage, then Glasspool faces a decision: does she marry Becki Sander, her partner of 22 years, and become a living symbol of a controversial debate? Or does she continue to duck the news glare and remain as she is, contentedly cohabitating? I'd like to think her father, were he alive, would assert the Traditional (capital T, please) importance of marriage—and uncomfortably, but proudly, walk his middle-aged daughter down the aisle.

To me, this is a no-brainer, because this is the decision BP and I faced. It in no way slights the years of our relationship and the commitment we felt prior to 2008 to say that we married when it became legal. To me, if marriage is legal, not marrying would be an active choice. To CHOOSE not to be married, knowing what meaning marriage carries, is to CHOOSE a different kind of relationship . I have no problem with people cohabiting, but if you want your relationship to be viewed as a marriage, then you have to marry when it becomes possible: when it becomes a choice.

A friend of a friend was exploring whether or not he had a calling to enter seminary to study for the rabbinate. He was told that he should have married in the California Interregnum. That his partner of many years was (and is) another man made no difference to the seminary: the expectation is that clergy should be married! I don't think TEC would approve of a straight clergy person cohabiting sans marriage.

When Prop8 is repealed (as it will be sooner or later), I would have no problem with the expectation that long term GLBT couples are expected to marry. And as same sex blessings become legal in the Episcopal church, it makes sense to me that there is an expectation that the couple will be civilly "legalized" as soon as that becomes a possibility in their home jurisdiction. If we want true equality, that means equality of responsbilities and expectations as well as benefits.

Glasspool receives consent from bishops

Canon Mary Glasspool, bishop suffragan-elect of Los Angeles has received enough consents to her election for Glasspool and Diane Bruce to be consecrated on May 15 in the Long Beach Arena. The Presiding Bishop will be preside and it is Pride Weekend in Long Beach!

read more at Episcopal Café.

Photo from Episcopal Life Online