Open Hearts — Affirming Pages

"The Closet" takes a direct hit today

The California Supreme Court's opinion today included the following statement in declaring this state's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional:

"Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples."

Today, at least in California, a massive barrier to the granting of full humanity to GLBts has been removed. Now that they are free to marry, the closet, that invention of heterosexism to keep gays in their place, will be less tempting, less needed. One of the questions that people have is why do gays and lesbians marry heterosexuals and even have children by them? The answer is a simple as it is devastating. They are trying desperately to pass as straight, even by denying to themselves the sure knowledge of their sexuality, because the consequences of coming out can be brutal: families disown them, employers fire them, their churches disown them, bullies beat them, etc. So they resort to marriage to hide the truth. This has its brutal consequences as well: although they may love (have great affection for) their spouse, they are unfulfilled and often seek extramarital outlets; they have children who suffer the (almost) inevitable consequences of mom or dad coming out; marriages dissolve, children are displaced; whole networks of extended families and friends are often torn apart.

While there will always be those, in the short term, who will never be able to face up to their same-sex orientation, and will find themselves marrying heterosexuals, the closet is the big loser today. In the not so distant future, no spouse will have to endure the heartbreak of learning why their marriage is over, no children will be born to any but fully committed couples, no children will be victims of marriages that never should have taken place, and GLBTs will have open to them life's greatest pleasure: the loneliness abating life-partner of their choice sanctioned in a legal marriage.

Perhaps this will help the court place in its proper context the lawsuit filed by the spouse of the former governor of New Jersey, James McGreevey, who admitted he is gay and resigned over allegations of sexual impropriety with a male associate. The divorce trial is currently underway. His former wife is charging him with committing marriage fraud. Recognizing that many gay men are forced into marriage for self-protection should mitigate any claim his wife has on grounds of fraud. The only real fraud here is forcing people to live a life of duplicity and self-denunciation. Thank God those days may soon be over in California.

Guest Post of Note

Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite

President, Chicago Theological Seminary

Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite is president of Chicago Theological Seminary and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. She has been a professor of theology at the seminary for 20 years and director of its graduate degree center for five years. Her area of expertise is contextual theologies of liberation, specializing in issues of violence and violation. An ordained minister of the United Church of Christ since 1974, the “On Faith” panelist is the author or editor of thirteen books and has been a translator for two translations of the Bible. Her works include Casting Stones: Prostitution and Liberation in Asia and the United States (1996) and The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Translation (1995). Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Thistlethwaite has been working diligently to promote peace, including a presentation at the U.S. Institute of Peace, which appears in one of their special reports. Most recently she edited and contributed to Adam, Eve and the Genome: Theology in Dialogue with the Human Genome Project (2003). Close.

Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite

President, Chicago Theological Seminary

Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite is president of Chicago Theological Seminary and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. She has been a professor of theology at the seminary for 20 years and director of its graduate degree center for five years. Her area of expertise is contextual theologies of liberation, specializing in issues of violence and violation. more »

Main Page | Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite Archives | On Faith Archives

Benedict: Protect Children from Future Abuse

The Question: What can Pope Benedict XVI say and do to repair the growing rifts between the Vatican, the clergy and the laity in America?

A papal apology to those sexually abused by Catholic priests is certainly long overdue and it is good that Pope Benedict met with some of the victims of sexual abuse by priests on his U.S. trip.

But as Mother Jones was fond of saying, “Pray for the dead, and fight like hell for the living.” We need to know from Pope Benedict how future abuse will be stopped.

Bernie McDaid, one of the survivors of priestly sexual abuse who met with the Pope, rightly called attention to the fact that this abuse is still going on and will continue to go on unless something is done about it. He said in an interview with CNN that he told the pope he was an altar boy when he was abused and "it wasn't just sexual abuse, it was spiritual abuse. And I want you to know that. And then I told him that he has a cancer growing in his ministry, and needs to do something about it.”

This cancer has not been eradicated, and indeed, it may be getting worse because Benedict himself, as well as the Vatican leaders, do not seem to understand what are the root causes of priestly abuse of children, both boys and girls.

To date, in Benedict’s papacy, how has the Catholic Church shown it is planning to go about preventing more abuse by priests? Disturbingly, it seems that Pope Benedict believes that this problem of sexual abuse by priests lies with having gay men in the priesthood. Not many months after he was elected Pope, the Vatican issued the “Instruction Concerning the Criteria of Vocational Discernment Regarding Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to Seminaries and Holy Orders.”

Sadly enough, the impetus for that document seems to have been the child sexual abuse scandal in the American Catholic Church. Many psychologists and psychiatrists have responded to this teaching by noting that child sexual abuse by priests comes not from homosexuality per se, but from an immature sexual identity compounded by the frustrations of celibacy and the climate of secrecy in the church about sex.

American Catholic seminaries, a target of this teaching, have ironically been doing a really good job in recent decades of creating a seminary climate and curriculum that addresses human sexuality in a frank and open way. While I teach at a Protestant seminary, we have students in our graduate programs from Catholic seminaries and our faculties and administrators all go to many of the same meetings where we discuss curriculum, student formation and all other questions of how to do good theological education. Many American Catholic seminaries have created a teaching environment that addresses some of the root causes of pedophilia in priests, namely immature sexual identity and a negative attitude toward sexuality.

This 2005 document explicitly targets gay men who teach in seminaries and seminarians who are discovered to have this “profoundly deep-rooted homosexuality”. It was inevitable that a net result of this targeting has been a renewed climate of secrecy and hiding from one’s own sexual identity. This will again surely produce sexually immature candidates for the priesthood, just the kind of person who tends to abuse children.

I would like to acknowledge the good step that this 2005 Vatican teaching seems to take, i.e. the simple acknowledgment that being homosexual is a biological fact. In addition, the document includes a clear rejection of “every mark of unjust discrimination with respect to them [homosexuals]” is a very much-needed religious teaching today as state-by-state Americans try to pass legislation that will restrict or reject altogether equal civil rights for gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people. That it comes from the Catholic Church itself is very helpful in the struggle for equal human rights for all people in the United States and around the world. The Pope's speech today at the U.N. stressed the need to protect human rights.

But it is a tragedy that the apparent impetus for the teaching, the safe-guarding of Catholic children from abuse by their priests, has targeted gay men with no evidence. It is an even greater tragedy that if this teaching is enforced, the result will be to re-create the climate in Catholic seminaries that has produced so many pedophiles in the past.

It is no surprise that the Pope is addressing the issue of the sexual abuse by priests in his first U.S. visit. Well over 4,000 priests have been accused of molesting minors in the U.S. since 1950, and the church has paid out more than $2 billion, much of it in just the last six years. The Boston case of a priest who was a serial molester and failure of Cardinal Law to do anything about it gained national attention and inspired many victims to step forward. Six dioceses have been forced into bankruptcy because of abuse costs. The U.S. Catholic church has lost many members over not only the abuse by priests, but by the church’s failure to address the problem and sometimes even engaging in a cover-up.

It is a huge tragedy that even in recognizing the near-total failure of the Catholic Church to protect its children from sexual abuse by priests, the Church is still, because of deep-seated homophobia, going about dealing with the risk of future abuse in exactly the wrong way. And generations of children and their parents and their caring church communities will continue to pay for the mistake.

Please e-mail On Faith if you'd like to receive an email notification when On Faith sends out a new question.

Email Me | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Posted by Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite on April 18, 2008 12:07 PM  washingtonpost.com

The Question: What can Pope Benedict XVI say and do to repair the growing rifts between the Vatican, the clergy and the laity in America?

A papal apology to those sexually abused by Catholic priests is certainly long overdue and it is good that Pope Benedict met with some of the victims of sexual abuse by priests on his U.S. trip.

But as Mother Jones was fond of saying, “Pray for the dead, and fight like hell for the living.” We need to know from Pope Benedict how future abuse will be stopped.

Bernie McDaid, one of the survivors of priestly sexual abuse who met with the Pope, rightly called attention to the fact that this abuse is still going on and will continue to go on unless something is done about it. He said in an interview with CNN that he told the pope he was an altar boy when he was abused and "it wasn't just sexual abuse, it was spiritual abuse. And I want you to know that. And then I told him that he has a cancer growing in his ministry, and needs to do something about it.”

This cancer has not been eradicated, and indeed, it may be getting worse because Benedict himself, as well as the Vatican leaders, do not seem to understand what are the root causes of priestly abuse of children, both boys and girls.

To date, in Benedict’s papacy, how has the Catholic Church shown it is planning to go about preventing more abuse by priests? Disturbingly, it seems that Pope Benedict believes that this problem of sexual abuse by priests lies with having gay men in the priesthood. Not many months after he was elected Pope, the Vatican issued the “Instruction Concerning the Criteria of Vocational Discernment Regarding Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to Seminaries and Holy Orders.”

Sadly enough, the impetus for that document seems to have been the child sexual abuse scandal in the American Catholic Church. Many psychologists and psychiatrists have responded to this teaching by noting that child sexual abuse by priests comes not from homosexuality per se, but from an immature sexual identity compounded by the frustrations of celibacy and the climate of secrecy in the church about sex.

American Catholic seminaries, a target of this teaching, have ironically been doing a really good job in recent decades of creating a seminary climate and curriculum that addresses human sexuality in a frank and open way. While I teach at a Protestant seminary, we have students in our graduate programs from Catholic seminaries and our faculties and administrators all go to many of the same meetings where we discuss curriculum, student formation and all other questions of how to do good theological education. Many American Catholic seminaries have created a teaching environment that addresses some of the root causes of pedophilia in priests, namely immature sexual identity and a negative attitude toward sexuality.

This 2005 document explicitly targets gay men who teach in seminaries and seminarians who are discovered to have this “profoundly deep-rooted homosexuality”. It was inevitable that a net result of this targeting has been a renewed climate of secrecy and hiding from one’s own sexual identity. This will again surely produce sexually immature candidates for the priesthood, just the kind of person who tends to abuse children.

I would like to acknowledge the good step that this 2005 Vatican teaching seems to take, i.e. the simple acknowledgment that being homosexual is a biological fact. In addition, the document includes a clear rejection of “every mark of unjust discrimination with respect to them [homosexuals]” is a very much-needed religious teaching today as state-by-state Americans try to pass legislation that will restrict or reject altogether equal civil rights for gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people. That it comes from the Catholic Church itself is very helpful in the struggle for equal human rights for all people in the United States and around the world. The Pope's speech today at the U.N. stressed the need to protect human rights.

But it is a tragedy that the apparent impetus for the teaching, the safe-guarding of Catholic children from abuse by their priests, has targeted gay men with no evidence. It is an even greater tragedy that if this teaching is enforced, the result will be to re-create the climate in Catholic seminaries that has produced so many pedophiles in the past.

It is no surprise that the Pope is addressing the issue of the sexual abuse by priests in his first U.S. visit. Well over 4,000 priests have been accused of molesting minors in the U.S. since 1950, and the church has paid out more than $2 billion, much of it in just the last six years. The Boston case of a priest who was a serial molester and failure of Cardinal Law to do anything about it gained national attention and inspired many victims to step forward. Six dioceses have been forced into bankruptcy because of abuse costs. The U.S. Catholic church has lost many members over not only the abuse by priests, but by the church’s failure to address the problem and sometimes even engaging in a cover-up.

It is a huge tragedy that even in recognizing the near-total failure of the Catholic Church to protect its children from sexual abuse by priests, the Church is still, because of deep-seated homophobia, going about dealing with the risk of future abuse in exactly the wrong way. And generations of children and their parents and their caring church communities will continue to pay for the mistake.

The Question: What can Pope Benedict XVI say and do to repair the growing rifts between the Vatican, the clergy and the laity in America?

A papal apology to those sexually abused by Catholic priests is certainly long overdue and it is good that Pope Benedict met with some of the victims of sexual abuse by priests on his U.S. trip.

But as Mother Jones was fond of saying, “Pray for the dead, and fight like hell for the living.” We need to know from Pope Benedict how future abuse will be stopped.

Bernie McDaid, one of the survivors of priestly sexual abuse who met with the Pope, rightly called attention to the fact that this abuse is still going on and will continue to go on unless something is done about it. He said in an interview with CNN that he told the pope he was an altar boy when he was abused and "it wasn't just sexual abuse, it was spiritual abuse. And I want you to know that. And then I told him that he has a cancer growing in his ministry, and needs to do something about it.”

This cancer has not been eradicated, and indeed, it may be getting worse because Benedict himself, as well as the Vatican leaders, do not seem to understand what are the root causes of priestly abuse of children, both boys and girls.

To date, in Benedict’s papacy, how has the Catholic Church shown it is planning to go about preventing more abuse by priests? Disturbingly, it seems that Pope Benedict believes that this problem of sexual abuse by priests lies with having gay men in the priesthood. Not many months after he was elected Pope, the Vatican issued the “Instruction Concerning the Criteria of Vocational Discernment Regarding Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to Seminaries and Holy Orders.”

Sadly enough, the impetus for that document seems to have been the child sexual abuse scandal in the American Catholic Church. Many psychologists and psychiatrists have responded to this teaching by noting that child sexual abuse by priests comes not from homosexuality per se, but from an immature sexual identity compounded by the frustrations of celibacy and the climate of secrecy in the church about sex.

American Catholic seminaries, a target of this teaching, have ironically been doing a really good job in recent decades of creating a seminary climate and curriculum that addresses human sexuality in a frank and open way. While I teach at a Protestant seminary, we have students in our graduate programs from Catholic seminaries and our faculties and administrators all go to many of the same meetings where we discuss curriculum, student formation and all other questions of how to do good theological education. Many American Catholic seminaries have created a teaching environment that addresses some of the root causes of pedophilia in priests, namely immature sexual identity and a negative attitude toward sexuality.

This 2005 document explicitly targets gay men who teach in seminaries and seminarians who are discovered to have this “profoundly deep-rooted homosexuality”. It was inevitable that a net result of this targeting has been a renewed climate of secrecy and hiding from one’s own sexual identity. This will again surely produce sexually immature candidates for the priesthood, just the kind of person who tends to abuse children.

I would like to acknowledge the good step that this 2005 Vatican teaching seems to take, i.e. the simple acknowledgment that being homosexual is a biological fact. In addition, the document includes a clear rejection of “every mark of unjust discrimination with respect to them [homosexuals]” is a very much-needed religious teaching today as state-by-state Americans try to pass legislation that will restrict or reject altogether equal civil rights for gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people. That it comes from the Catholic Church itself is very helpful in the struggle for equal human rights for all people in the United States and around the world. The Pope's speech today at the U.N. stressed the need to protect human rights.

But it is a tragedy that the apparent impetus for the teaching, the safe-guarding of Catholic children from abuse by their priests, has targeted gay men with no evidence. It is an even greater tragedy that if this teaching is enforced, the result will be to re-create the climate in Catholic seminaries that has produced so many pedophiles in the past.

It is no surprise that the Pope is addressing the issue of the sexual abuse by priests in his first U.S. visit. Well over 4,000 priests have been accused of molesting minors in the U.S. since 1950, and the church has paid out more than $2 billion, much of it in just the last six years. The Boston case of a priest who was a serial molester and failure of Cardinal Law to do anything about it gained national attention and inspired many victims to step forward. Six dioceses have been forced into bankruptcy because of abuse costs. The U.S. Catholic church has lost many members over not only the abuse by priests, but by the church’s failure to address the problem and sometimes even engaging in a cover-up.

It is a huge tragedy that even in recognizing the near-total failure of the Catholic Church to protect its children from sexual abuse by priests, the Church is still, because of deep-seated homophobia, going about dealing with the risk of future abuse in exactly the wrong way. And generations of children and their parents and their caring church communities will continue to pay for the mistake.

The Harm of Words

Oklahoma Representative, Sally Kern, in a recent meeting
with some of her constituents, equated homosexuality with
terrorism and malignant cancer. She was recorded saying that
“Homosexuality is a bigger threat to our nation than
terrorism or Islam.” She continued that “According
to God’s word, it is not the right kind of lifestyle….Gays
are infiltrating city councils…. It’s deadly and its spreading,
and it will destroy our young people, and it will destroy
this nation.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPB7bTdz2xQ&feature=related

A letter to Sally Kern from a senior in high school in Oklahoma

Today my nephew attempted to deliver a letter to Sally Kern but was stopped
by a highway patrol man. With his permission I am distributing the letter to
all news stations and thought I would include it here.

Maybe we can all stand to learn a listen from this smart, loving, young man.
He more than most has a reason to hate. He lost his mother, my sister, in the
Murrah Building bombing.

Elizabeth


Rep Kern:
On April 19, 1995, in Oklahoma City a terrorist detonated a bomb that killed
my mother and 167 others. 19 children died that day. Had I not had the
chicken pox that day, the body count would've likely have included one more.
Over 800 other Oklahomans were injured that day and many of those still
suffer through their permanent wounds.

That terrorist was neither a homosexual or was he involved in Islam. He was
an extremist Christian forcing his views through a body count. He held his
beliefs and made those who didn't live up to them pay with their lives.

As you were not a resident of Oklahoma on that day, it could be explained
why you so carelessly chose words saying that the homosexual agenda is worst
than terrorism. I can most certainly tell you through my own experience that
is not true. I am sure there are many people in your voting district that
laid a loved one to death after the terrorist attack on Oklahoma City. I
kind of doubt you'll find one of them that will agree with you.

I was five years old when my mother died. I remember what a beautiful, wise,
and remarkable woman she was. I miss her. Your harsh words and misguided
beliefs brought me to tears, because you told me that my mother's killer was
a better person than a group of people that are seeking safety and tolerance
for themselves.

As someone left motherless and victimized by terrorists, I say to you very
clearly you are absolutely wrong.

You represent a district in Oklahoma City and you very coldly express a lack
of love, sympathy or understanding for what they've been through. Can I ask
if you might have chosen wiser words were you a real Oklahoman that was here
to share the suffering with Oklahoma City? Might your heart be a bit less
cold had you been around to see the small bodies of children being pulled
out of rubble and carried away by weeping firemen?

I've spent 12 years in Oklahoma public schools and never once have I had
anyone try to force a gay agenda on me. I have seen, however, many gay
students beat up and there's never a day in school that has went by when I
haven't heard the word **** slung at someone. I've been called gay slurs
many times and they hurt and I am not even gay so I can just imagine how a
real gay person feels. You were a school teacher and you have seen those
things too. How could you care so little about the suffering of some of your
students?

Let me tell you the result of your words in my school. Every openly gay and
suspected gay in the school were having to walk together Monday for
protection. They looked scared. They've already experienced enough hate and
now your words gave other students even more motivation to sneer at them and
call them names. After all, you are a teacher and a lawmaker, many young
people have taken your words to heart. That happens when you assume a role
of responsibility in your community. I seriously think before this week ends
that some kids here will be going home bruised and bloody because of what
you said.

I wish you could've met my mom. Maybe she could've guided you in how a real
Christian should be acting and speaking.

I have not had a mother for nearly 13 years now and wonder if there were
fewer people like you around, people with more love and tolerance in their
hearts instead of strife, if my mom would be here to watch me graduate from
high school this spring. Now she won't be there. So I'll be packing my
things and leaving Oklahoma to go to college elsewhere and one day be a
writer and I have no intentions to ever return here. I have no doubt that
people like you will incite crazy people to build more bombs and kill more
people again. I don't want to be here for that. I just can't go through that
again.

You may just see me as a kid, but let me try to teach you something. The old
saying is sticks and stones will break your bones, but words will never hurt
you. Well, your words hurt me. Your words disrespected the memory of my mom.
Your words can cause others to pick up sticks and stones and hurt others.

Sincerely

Tucker

New Hampshire and the Future of America (I hope)

2008 got off to an auspicious start with January 1st being the beginning date for civil unions in New Hampshire.  We can thank the Democratic governor and legislature for this act of courage and, hopefully, it will spark renewed interest in other states to do the same.  Critics cannot pass this off as the product of "judicial activism" so easily.  It is a product of representative democracy in action.

Naturally, many gay activists were hoping for marriage rights, but are willing to applaud this act, nevertheless.  I concede their point and join them in this wish.  Well, sort of.  You see, my view is that the state should not be in the marriage business at all.  What business of theirs is the regulation of a spiritual act?  All a state (whether state or federal) should do is grant civil unions and regulate them as contracts, and leave the marrying up to the religious and spiritual institutions. 

In the Christian tradition, a wedding is a covenant between a couple and Jesus Christ.  The government certainly cannot mediate such a relationship.  As a pastor, I long ago quit marrying strangers to the congregation.  So often, couples would come to me requesting me to perform a marriage ceremony who had no relation to a church and no interest in beginning one.  I would not turn them down flatly, but offered them this possibility:  Go get married at city hall (a civil union) and then we will talk about marrying you in the eyes of God.  "Why should we do that?" was the usual reaction.  "So you will know what marrying in the church is all about."   Not a single couple took me up on it.

This, to me, is the perfect solution.  Let the state offer civil union contracts to all couples wishing to be protected by contract law (gay and straight), and leave the marrying to the churches, mosques and synagogues.  This way, the state could legitimately say that offering civil unions to gay couples is not the same as marrying them (which it isn't), and those religious institutions may set about marrying whomever they please.

The Hypocritical Mitt Romney

By all accounts, including my own, Gov. Mitt Romney’s speech on the significance of his Mormon faith in his run for the presidency was brilliant.  The governor’s immediate challenge was to convince the Evangelical caucus members about to vote in Iowa (as well as Evangelical voters across America) that the exercise of his religion as president posed no threat to them.  He came off as sincere in his faith and nonthreatening to Evangelicals.  If Romney carries the Iowa caucus, it will be because of what he did today to mobilize the religious right.  One might even project the same for his election to the presidency.

That is not to say that his speech is not troubling to others who may not be Evangelicals.  The statement, "Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me," seems to cast doubt on Romney’s friendship and support of those who are not religious.  Without saying this directly, yet in so many words, Romney believes that the best Americans are religious Americans.  It’s not too much of a stretch to suggest that nonreligious Americans will be regarded as second-class citizens.  He could even be accused of declaring war on secularists (Oh how the religious right hates secularists) with, “They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.”

But most troubling to me is a statement he made that sounds as hollow as most Christian churches who advertise, “Everyone is welcome here.”  Romney said, "We believe that every single human being is a child of God – we are all part of the human family. The conviction of the inherent and inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary political proposition ever advanced. John Adams put it that we are 'thrown into the world all equal and alike.'

"The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God. It is an obligation which is fulfilled by Americans every day, here and across the globe, without regard to creed or race or nationality.”

What is missing from the last phrase of the last sentence is “or sexual orientation.”  When congregations advertise that “everyone is welcome here,” they mostly mean, “if you are straight.  Nonheterosexuals need not apply.”   Unfortunately, Romney’s appeal to equality and inclusiveness that he so desperately needs for himself and his personal ambitions is a one-way street.  After all, as Massachusetts governor, he actively promoted a state constitutional amendment to ban legal gay marriages, and supports a similar amending of the U.S. Constitution.  One could infer that he is actually being influenced in this belief by teachings of the Mormon Church which are decidedly anti-gay.

So the governor wishes to have his cake and eat it too.  People of good will, whether religious or not, who truly believe in the equality of ALL people, will immediately see the hypocrisy in the not so veiled plea of “freedom for me, but not for thee.”

Fred Phelps and Schadenfreud: Short-lived?

Most of our readers likely know of the shenanigans of the irreverent Rev. Fred Phelps of the notoriously antigay Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas.  In case you missed his venomous and insane ravings of the past two decades, here’s a visual demo for you taken from their web site www.godhatesfags.com. 

(Click on these images to enlarge them.)

The Phelps family, plus one other person, constitute the entire membership of this congregation.  They have sued and won hundreds of torts involving anyone who looked sideways at them.  Many of the Phelps children are lawyers, we suspect trained for exactly that.  But yesterday, a ruling in a suit went against them to the tune of 10.9 million dollars.

Albert Snyder of York, Pa., sued Phelps and his so-called church after the Phelpses protested near the funeral for his son, Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq. Today, a jury fired the first volley of what will likely be a hard-fought war by Phelps and his followers to have the award set aside. According to the Associated Press, "The jury first awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages. It returned in the afternoon with its decision to award $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for causing emotional distress."  Those damages, if upheld, will bankrupt Phelps and his church, and that is the cause of my personal schadenfreud (glee at the unfortunate events that befall another).

My glee at the moment is somewhat moderated, as there is concern that this suit’s success has sinister motives behind it.  (Could anything be more sinister than Phelps’ agenda?)   In the many years of public, venomous protesting against GLBTs, this is the first time Phelps has been held accountable.  Westboro’s dramatic protest at the funeral of Matthew Shepard, followed by dozens of others, went unpunished by the courts.  Now that their attention has been turned toward the veterans of the Iraq war, things have changed.  Some are suggesting that it is because many in the current Bush administration want to curtail protests that are aimed at them.  So how are they to do that?  Well, if a popular case can be made against public protest (Phelps), then there is a precedent for any public protest, ultimately.  We will have to watch and see; my money is on the cynics!

ENDA--Now the art of the impossible

Politicians as wimps: Where are those stalwarts who actually vote their principles and never stick their fingers in the wind?  With their eyes on the next election, that being their chief concern, only that which enhances victory is worth voting for or against.  When a representative cares more for self-preservation than their constituents, we've lost our representative government, and are being led by the unworthy.   Consider this (and remember it on election day):

Freshman Democrats Kill Transgender Amendment

By Jonathan E. Kaplan, The Hill

Reps. Tim Walz (Minn.) and Ron Klein (Fla.), leaders of the class of
freshman Democrats, carried a message to Speaker Nancy Pelosi
(D-Calif.) on Tuesday that their fellow first-term lawmakers did not
want to vote on an amendment extending civil rights to transgender
employees.

House Education and Labor panel Chairman George Miller (D-Calif.),
whose committee passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, said he
told the freshman lawmakers at their Wednesday breakfast with Pelosi
that the amendment did not have the votes to pass and would not be
brought to the House floor.

In addition, Miller told the freshmen he recognized that the
amendment exposed the first-term lawmakers to political attacks from
conservatives and liberals alike, said two sources who attended the
breakfast.

We can only hope that these freshman never become sophomores.

ENDA and the Art of the Possible

“Our movement is used to fighting to win our rights incrementally, often one at a time. We are not, however, used to — nor will we allow — having our people protected one at a time. No civil rights movement has ever left a part of its community behind, and we’re not about to be the first.” — Matt Foreman, Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Inc.

A version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), without protections for transgender workers will be considered next week, by the full House, after the measure was narrowly approved on Thursday by the House Committee on Education and Labor. The House also will vote on an amendment by out U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., to put transgender protections back in the bill.

What is at stake here is the fate of the protection of the most unprotected people in America: the Ts (transgenders, transsexuals, transvestites, cross-dressers and intersexuals).  As the bill is currently drawn, the Ts have been omitted, but were in the original draft.  When congress members caught up to the full language of the bill, many balked, even those who ordinarily are for gay rights.  Gay congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass) backed a reformulated bill minus the Ts.

This has caused a firestorm of protest from gay activist organizations, finger pointing, and even the questioning of loyalty to the community.  There are two camps, those who are committed to incremental progress who hope eventually to have the Ts included, and those who are not willing to compromise, who are in the majority.  Both have legitimate arguments.  The incrementalists look to the history of the civil rights movement and see slow but steady progress to full inclusion, and take their victories when they can get them.  The uncompromising call upon ethical and justice arguments and see backing down as a moral failure.

Unfortunately for the uncompromising, the Ts fate is bound up in the most compromising of institutions, the U. S. Congress.  There, politics is defined as the art of the possible, and bills are administered with a finger in the wind for the next election.  My heart is with the uncompromisers, but my head is with the incrementalists.  My hope is that the Ts will eventually, and soon, get their just protection.  Fortunately, many in America are being introduced for the first time to that vital and honored part of the glbT community.  We wish them well. But after all is said and done, will either of the versions of the bill survive the president’s veto?  This is just one more reason to deliver the house, senate and executive branch to the Democrats next November. 

A Reflection on the Unreflective Gen. Pace

In the interview directly below this entry, I commented that for many people, religious views are inherited, and not often formed by reflection.  Here’s a case in point.  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, said yesterday, in testimony before congress, that “We should respect those who want to serve the nation but not through the law of the land, condone activity that, in my upbringing, is counter to God's law."

General Pace, do you still have your baby teeth?  Are you constantly outgrowing your shoes?  Have you learned to tie them yet?  Does your voice occasionally crack?  Have you experienced acne as yet?  Does your mommy still potty train you?  In your upbringing…in your upbringing…, General Pace, when will you grow up and begin to think for yourself, little man in the big boots?  Still playing with guns?  Still taking orders from authority figures?  My God, our armed forces are in the hands of a presumed adult with delayed onset thinking-for-oneself maturity issues.

“God’s law,” to someone who takes the Bible literally (non-thinkers), says that acting on same-sex attraction is a capital offense; that they should be killed.  Unreflective people who are used to taking orders just might execute this one if called upon.  Pun intended. It’s the logical outcome of Voltaire’s horrifying observation that “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” 

I’m wondering how we can show respect to those who want to serve the nation “but not through the law of the land.”  Yes, that’s it; let’s keep gays as second class citizens.  Oh, sure, they are willing to lay their lives on the line for our country, but suggesting that they deserve equal treatment is going too far.  Many of the presidential candidates are willing to lower the drinking age to 18 under the reasoning that if you are willing to serve your country you should legally be served a beer.  To see the relationship of that argument to gays in the military requires reflection.  But, since the Bible says…well, you know what it says…why bother?

What Makes Me Tick?: An Interview by Bob Corwall

This interview originally appeared in the Faithfully Liberal blog at www.faithfullyliberal.com.

Q. You’re straight and happily married, so why this cause?

A. Yes, it’s true that I have no “hidden agenda” behind my interest in promoting gay equality in the churches. It comes, very simply, from my understanding of the gospel: We are to welcome one another as Christ has welcomed us—unqualifiedly, without exception.

Q. Since your background is fairly conservative, what was it that changed the way you looked at homosexuals?

A. I was raised in a very conservative home, both politically and religiously. My understanding of the gay community was formed by all the stereotypes that typically accompany such an upbringing: that they are in the main promiscuous, self-centered, lust filled, choose this “lifestyle,” and are not to be trusted around children. I happened to move from North Dakota to San Francisco and, in the course of getting to know the gay community, I discovered the startling reality that GLBTs are as normal as any other large segment of America. Also, working with many gay Christians challenged my view that “gay Christian” is an oxymoron. So, I began a lifelong pursuit of examining the scriptures used to support the antigay view and found the traditional interpretations wanting.

Q. What role does religion play in how we view homosexuality?

A: One’s religion is usually a received phenomenon. We accept what we are given with little reflection. Since most people are not familiar with gay people (at least knowingly), our religion provides us the context for understanding and relating to them. If one is raised in an environment where GLBTs are named as abominations and condemned to hell, it is difficult not to become homophobic.

Q. To take this to another level, since you teach a seminar on the Bible and Homosexuality, what is the role of biblical interpretation in forming our views?

A. Most Christians don’t form their views, they inherit them. In the case of Fundamentalist, those who teach them seldom interpret the Bible; they are content to “let the Bible speak for itself.” So the surface reading of the scriptures is left as the final meaning rather than as the starting point for understanding. It’s as though the Bible should be read the same way we read the morning paper, without taking into consideration that some 2,000-3,000 years separate us from the original documents. If you are going to take the Bible seriously, you can’t take it literally; what it says may not be what it means in the least.

Q. If religious communities have traditionally been inhospitable places for gays and lesbians, how might they become open and affirming?

A. Change can only come when people are given, or give themselves, the opportunity to meet gay Christians. That’s why “coming out” is so important. When people discover that the notions they have just don’t hold up, change can begin. That’s why I encourage gays to go back to their churches, even though they can be unwelcoming places, and be a living witness against the lies told about them. Most of the congregations I am familiar with which have become open and affirming did not make the change simply for reasons of justice (although it happens). Most discovered that the GLBTs among them deserved to be treated with gospel welcoming.

Q. Although ordination is a point of contention in most churches, it’s marriage that is the issue that seems to be a problem even for the most progressive among us. Why is this?

A. I’ve discovered that the refusal to marry same-sex couples comes more from polity than from belief. If the restriction were lifted, there would be immediate and wholesale gay marriages performed all over the country. In spite of the restrictions, many clergy do it anyway, and many others perform union blessings that are in reality marriage by another name. I find it very curious that we won’t allow gays and lesbians to marry, and then accuse them of not behaving as we straights (should) behave!

Q. With younger Americans seemingly more accepting of homosexuality, do you see a major sea change in both the church and in the broader culture occurring in the near future?

A. Projecting the effect of the Millennium Generation taking the power now held by the Baby Boomers is wonderful to contemplate. All the polls suggest that being gay is a non-issue for them. However, as in all the major sea changes in America, from slavery, segregation, women’s rights and now gay rights, the church always comes in last. The citizenry as a whole is much farther ahead of the church on gay rights. I’m not looking for much to change in this regard. We have much to answer for.

Q. Finally, Steve, is there anything we’ve not yet covered that you just have to get off your chest?

A. Yes, indeed, and thank you! Ultimately, the refusal of marriage to same-sex couples is a denial of their humanity. The first “not good” of creation was God’s discovery that “it is not good for the human to be alone.” When the church denies marriage to gay couples it is saying that you are not worthy of having your loneliness relieved in the only way it is possible. In other words, you are not worthy of being a human being. Imagine the anguish of a straight person not being able to marry, ever, unless he or she married someone of the same sex. God created us all in the image of God. Who are we to denigrate that which God has made?