Open Hearts — Affirming Pages

VOX POPULI: What America Might Look Like If....

Prop 8 Decision: The Minority Report

Justice Carlos Moreno put the decision in a foreboding context: 

“The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized in the Marriage Cases, it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities. It weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority.”

It just became possible for 50.1% of California's voters to lop off the heads of any whom they disfavor.  Rachael continues to weep for her children.

Were I not hopeful that marriage rights for same-sex couples is inevitable, I would be quite morose today.  However, Californians will soon see this injustice and ultimately will recitfy it. 

This is not to say that its inevitablility is to be taken for granted.  We learned necessary lessons from the Prop 8 campaign and need to redouble our efforts.  This has already begun.  It must not stop until justice is restored to California.

Kerry Chaplin of California Faith for Equality Says It Best

Even in the Absence of Justice 26 May 2009

 

The verdict is in: this morning, the California Supreme Court ruled that the 18,000 marriages are upheld, but so is Proposition 8.  Our hearts are full for those 18,000 couples who are still married in the eyes of the law, but our hearts are breaking because even in our own country we are not free. Some of us will seek comfort and community in our congregations, some of us in private meditation, and some in the crowds gathering in the streets. As a Jew, I am reminded of the words spoken by Jacob when he awoke from his sleep: "Surely God is in this place and I, I did not know" (Genesis 28:16). Having dreamt of God, Jacob realized that even in the vast desert, with only a rock for a pillow, he was not alone. Even in the absence of justice, the Divine is with us. Though today our comfort might feel insufficient like a stone, know that more than ever, as our allies pour into the streets, we are not alone. As our congregations become more welcoming, we are not alone. As state after state recognizes the legal and moral necessity for marriage for same-sex couples, we are not alone. The presence of the Divine is with us - everywhere.

In Anticipation of California's Supreme Court Prop 8 Decision Tomorrow

If the court takes only the constitution into consideration, it will decide that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.  Under the 14th Amendment, equality under the law was established for everyone.  This was the basis for declaring anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional.  In the famous case, Loving Vs. Virginia, the court declared that depriving marriage between people of different races violated the equal protection clause.

The parallels between this and same-sex marriage are obvious if you've been paying attention.  Listen to what Mildred Loving, the wife in the case, has to say about the gay marriage issue:

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone, they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about. (Mildred and Richard Loving, Wikipedia)

Here's another voice that may sound familiar. The trial judge in the Loving case, Leon Bazile, proclaimed that

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Those who oppose same-sex marriage also believe that God is on their side and claim that since God made natural procreation impossible with people of the same sex, and that the "plumbing" isn't made for it, it's obvious that it is wrong.  This is why I began by saying that "if" the constitution decides the case, Prop 8 will fall.  But the justices are human beings who are subject to a variety of influences and may let other, extraneous, yet powerful voices influence their decision.  Such influences were demonstrably present in Loving V. Virginia, yet dismissed.  My prayer is that our justices will have the same integrity and stick solely to their constitutional duties.

So Much for Another Red Herring

United Methodist clergy forbidden to perform gay unions

 

"United Methodist clergy cannot perform same-sex unions—even in states where gay marriage is legal—the denomination’s Judicial Council ruled April 27 during its spring meeting in Denver, Colo. The ruling overturned resolutions from the California-Nevada and California-Pacific conferences that supported clergy who perform the ceremonies. In a separate decision, the council reversed Los Angeles Area Bishop Mary Ann Swenson’s decision to support the California-Pacific resolution."  Faithwatch, May 3, 2009.

 

So much for the over-hyped red herring trotted out by anti-gay marriage forces every time some state or other entity suggests legalizing gay marriage.  In this announcement, two things stand out as particularly noteworthy.

 

1.  Even though where it is legalfor same-sex couples to marry, religious organizations may opt out of solemnizing such marriages.   Contrary to the hysterical cries of the religious right, in America, the First Amendment guarantees the opt out privilege.  No religious group will be forced into doing something that betrays its own beliefs or conscience.

 

2.  As much as I regret this ruling of the Judicial Council, I applaud the U. S. Constitution for making the right to same-sex marriage possible and the right to deny it both available.   Whichever outcome takes priority in any locality will be determined by the judgment of the people in the marketplace of ideas.  Fortunately for those of us who are ardent supporters of same-sex marriage, the tide is running in our direction.  Nevertheless, it is the open-ended future of possibilities in America that is freedom's reward.  May it ever be so!

The Purpose of This Blog Site

This was my first blog for this site.  I think a reminder is in order.

Why would a straight, married, father of two heterosexual children, and Christian pastor want to get mixed up in the most controversial, hate-filled and career ending ministry in support of LGBTs? Especially when there is absolutely no pressure on me to enter this fray. No, I don't have a death wish, or have a gay lover secreted away somewhere. I'm basically a normal guy. I shy away from confrontation and go out of my way to find mutually satisfying outcomes in disputes.

So, what am I doing here? Very simply, I've learned that the gospel of Jesus Christ compels me to come to the side of the oppressed wherever and whenever they are found. Harvard’s Byrne Fone calls homophobia “the last respectable bigotry in America.” Christians may not be responsible for creating homophobia, but we sure are responsible for maintaining it. Victims of spiritual abuse (not to mention, for now, physical abuse) abound. We have literally driven these “other than ourselves” from our churches. They have been demonized, scapegoated and condemned for so long and so often that to find one out of the closet in a congregation beats the odds of winning the lottery. We should be ashamed, but we are not; we should repent, but we do not. And the most amazing thing of all is that we need, for our own sakes, the presence of nonheterosexual Christians in our congregations and don’t have a clue as to why.

I do not come to this struggle as their savior; I come as a repentant homophobe who has received much from the gay community and has more to learn about being a Christian from them. In future blogs, I intend to delve into the gifts gays bring to a congregation, gifts that are desperately needed, yet entirely absent from most congregations. Suffice it to say for now that the straight church has much to learn. In fact, if we don’t learn these lessons, we are at risk of losing our own way. No, I am no savior. I am a grateful recipient of their unmerited grace.

LGBT Christians (yes, there is such a thing), do not need us, at least not in our present state of hostility. They have managed to carve out an existence at the edge of the church at great expense to themselves which has ennobled them in ways that we cannot approach. When, at last, the straight congregations find their way to welcoming and affirming them, it will not be because we finally understand the issue. No, it will be because we finally understand our own desperate need for them in our midst.

This blog, then, is an effort to bring the straight church to its senses. It is an effort to bring the message of the inclusive gospel that will confront us with our sins and bring us to our knees. It is a plea to those we’ve textually abused not to abandon us, but to nurture us and witness to the life changing power of Jesus. This is why I am in this struggle, and hope to convince you to join it yourself. I can guarantee you two things: your life will never be the same, and you’ll be thankful for that. On the other hand, if you don’t need convincing, welcome aboard. I hope to hear from you, as well as those who disagree. Maybe we can come together on at least this: what we share in Christ is more valuable than our disagreements. And I ask you, would you be willing to extend that grace to those “other than ourselves?”

Why would a straight, married, father of two heterosexual children, and Christian pastor want to get mixed up in the most controversial, hate-filled and career ending ministry in support of LGBTs? Especially when there is absolutely no pressure on me to enter this fray. No, I don't have a death wish, or have a gay lover secreted away somewhere. I'm basically a normal guy. I shy away from confrontation and go out of my way to find mutually satisfying outcomes in disputes.

So, what am I doing here? Very simply, I've learned that the gospel of Jesus Christ compels me to come to the side of the oppressed wherever and whenever they are found. Harvard’s Byrne Fone calls homophobia “the last respectable bigotry in America.” Christians may not be responsible for creating homophobia, but we sure are responsible for maintaining it. Victims of spiritual abuse (not to mention, for now, physical abuse) abound. We have literally driven these “other than ourselves” from our churches. They have been demonized, scapegoated and condemned for so long and so often that to find one out of the closet in a congregation beats the odds of winning the lottery. We should be ashamed, but we are not; we should repent, but we do not. And the most amazing thing of all is that we need, for our own sakes, the presence of nonheterosexual Christians in our congregations and don’t have a clue as to why.

I do not come to this struggle as their savior; I come as a repentant homophobe who has received much from the gay community and has more to learn about being a Christian from them. In future blogs, I intend to delve into the gifts gays bring to a congregation, gifts that are desperately needed, yet entirely absent from most congregations. Suffice it to say for now that the straight church has much to learn. In fact, if we don’t learn these lessons, we are at risk of losing our own way. No, I am no savior. I am a grateful recipient of their unmerited grace.

LGBT Christians (yes, there is such a thing), do not need us, at least not in our present state of hostility. They have managed to carve out an existence at the edge of the church at great expense to themselves which has ennobled them in ways that we cannot approach. When, at last, the straight congregations find their way to welcoming and affirming them, it will not be because we finally understand the issue. No, it will be because we finally understand our own desperate need for them in our midst.

This blog, then, is an effort to bring the straight church to its senses. It is an effort to bring the message of the inclusive gospel that will confront us with our sins and bring us to our knees. It is a plea to those we’ve textually abused not to abandon us, but to nurture us and witness to the life changing power of Jesus. This is why I am in this struggle, and hope to convince you to join it yourself. I can guarantee you two things: your life will never be the same, and you’ll be thankful for that. On the other hand, if you don’t need convincing, welcome aboard. I hope to hear from you, as well as those who disagree. Maybe we can come together on at least this: what we share in Christ is more valuable than our disagreements. And I ask you, would you be willing to extend that grace to those “other than ourselves?”

Loneliness: The First "Not Good" of Creation

Maggie Gallagher quotes Norval Glenn in her The Case for Marriage (p.77)

Most social scientists who have studied the data believe that marriage itself accounts for a great deal of the difference in average well-being between married and unmarried persons.  Indeed, loneliness is probably the negative feeling most likely to be alleviated simply by being married.

 

Gallagher and Glenn are on to something here.  Loneliness is a universal condition which the Bible addresses from the very beginning.  Human loneliness is at the heart of the marriage issue, although not well understood or articulated by either side.  This blog will attempt to explain how important ending loneliness is, not simply because it is an onerous human condition that no one unwillingly should be made to bear, but because it is the fundamental human predicament that first surfaced in the Genesis story of creation that caused God to reevaluate the human being.

 

From Genesis, chapter 2, it is clear that God=s first intention for the human being, ha’ adam’ was not heterosexuality or even sexuality, for ha>adam= was created as a Astand alone@ being.  Don=t be confused by chapter 1 where in verse 27 we read, So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.  This is, of course, true (and obviates the overt patriarchalism of the story).  However, it is a summary statement that concludes the events of chapter 2, a much earlier story of creation than chapter 1.  So we need to read chapter 2 before the summary of chapter 1 makes sense.

 

The story begins with God creating ha >adam= as someone who would be placed in charge of the garden, to care for and tend it with God as partner.  For reasons not disclosed, God observes that it is not good for the ha>adam= to be alone, and goes about making a suitable helper for him.

 

What happens next is unexpected and likely a surprise to some of you:  the first thing God does to provide a suitable helper for the man is to create animals and bring them to the man for his approval.  Ch. 2:20 says, The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner.  We must take this seriously as an authentic search for a partner.

 

Consistent with what we have seen in God=s actions, God=s first experiment to find a suitable helper for the man ended unsuccessfully.  It is only after the man turns down every creature presented to him that God created the woman. Verse 23 is very telling here:  Then the man said, >This at last (after all the foregoing effort) is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.=

Among the many details of this story, I find three appropriate for this discussion:

 

1.  God=s first intention was to limit humanity to Athe man.@  The man=s loneliness precluded this.

 

2.  God=s first choice for a companion to the lonely man was not a woman, it was a creature.

 

3.  No matter what the man=s choice was, it was the man=s choice.  God did not force the woman on the man; the man told God, this, at last, is the one for him.

 

God trusted the man to make the appropriate choice. The decision was always the man=s.  God=s role here is facilitator to end the man=s loneliness, not the dictator of how to fix the man=s loneliness.

 

There is no way that a doctrine of the priority of heterosexuality can be adduced from this story.  If anything, the woman, and sex, are afterthoughts, contingencies required of the changing situation.   This is consistent with in other texts regarding the experimental nature of God with humanity (Genesis 6:5-6; Genesis 22:7-12; Exodus 32:7-14).  Perhaps better put, God is willing to adapt to realities that present themselves owing to the nature of free will and its, often, unexpected consequences.

 

 From these realities, I ask these questions:

1.  Since heterosexuality is a contingency, why cannot nonheterosexuals be considered a contingency?

 

2.  Since God allowed the man to make his own choice, why is it not consistent for today=s homosexual to make his or her own choice?

 

3.  Since overcoming loneliness is the objective, and since a nonheterosexual=s loneliness cannot be overcome in a heterosexual relationship, is it not proper for a nonheterosexual to find a companion suitable for him or her?

 

Let=s be clear about what we are asking of Christian nonheterosexuals.  Richard B. Hays, in his The Moral Vision of the New Testament, writes,

Heterosexual persons are also called to abstinence from sex unless they marry (1 Cor. 7:8-9).  The only difference--admittedly a salient on-- in the case of homosexually oriented persons is that they do not have the option of homosexual >marriage=.  So where does that leave them?  It leaves them in precisely the same situation as the heterosexual who would like to marry but cannot find an appropriate partner (and there are many such): summoned to a difficult, costly obedience, while >groaning= for the >redemption of our bodies= (Rom. 8:23)

 

The flaw in Hays= reasoning is clear:  the heterosexual has hope; the nonheterosexual has no hope.  The heterosexual=s loneliness is capable of being overcome, while the church is unwilling to allow the same for nonheterosexuals.  This is far from being in a similar situation.  Our nonheterosexual brothers and sisters are forever denied the way out of what God called the first Anot good@ reality of God=s creation:  loneliness.

 

 In effect, we are not asking nonheterosexuals to deny themselves a loving, fulfilling companionship.  We are asking them to deny their humanity, to commit suicide of their souls and consigning them to a lifetime of unabated loneliness. This I find to be profoundly unchristian and unworthy of a compassionate Lord.

 

So we need to listen carefully to the stories of creation in Genesis.  Since heterosexuality is merely a contingency of creation, what can be adduced from Genesis is heterosexuality, expressed as the procreative ability, is the norm, but certainly not the sole sexuality.  Yes, the couple is now told to Abe fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it@; but reproductive (heterosexual) capability has never been a mandatory criterion for being a full human being who bears the image of God, or for being married.

 

So, Maggie, I thank you for pointing out to us that one of the great benefits of marriage is that it enables us to overcome our loneliness.  Given that God literally moved heaven and earth to accomplish this, shouldn’t we have the same God-like attitude on behalf of all God’s children?

The Case for Gay Marriage

Ironically, the case for gay marriage is made best by one of its harshest opponents, the founder of the National Organization for Marriage, Maggie Gallagher.

It is from a book entitled, The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially. It is co-written by Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher. They sum up the case for marriage in this way:

New marriage partners together create a shared sense of social reality and meaning—their own little separate world, populated by only the two of them. This shared sense of meaning can be an important foundation for emotional health.

Ordinary, good-enough marriages provide the partners with a sense that what they do matters, that someone cares for, esteems, needs, loves, and values them as a person. No matter what else happens in life, this knowledge makes problems easier to bear….

Marriage and family provide [a] sense of belonging . . . the sense of loving and being loved, of being absolutely essential to the life and happiness of others. Believing that one has a purpose in life and a reason for continued existence, (that life is worth the effort because one’s activities and challenges are worthy), come from having other people depending on you, caring about you. Married people have a starring role in the lives of their spouses; their shared universe would cease to exist if something happened to one of them. When the shared universe includes children, the sense of being essential, of having a purpose and a full life expands as well. Marriage improves emotional well-being in part by giving people a sense that their life has meaning and purpose….

As Professor Normal Glenn stated in a critique of textbooks, "Most social scientists who have studied the data believe that marriage itself accounts for a great deal of the difference in average well-being between married and unmarried persons. Indeed, loneliness is probably the negative feeling most likely to be alleviated simply by being married…."

The key [to well-being] seems to be the marriage bond itself: Having a partner who is committed for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, makes people happier and healthier. The knowledge that someone cares for you and that you have someone who depends on you helps give life meaning and provides a buffer against the inevitable troubles of life.

It astonishes me that anyone who has such a high regard for the multitudinous benefits that marriage brings to a relationship would want to keep such a wonderful way of life solely for oneself and those like oneself, for heterosexuals only.  There is every reason to believe that marriage would be good for non-heterosexuals for the same reasons it is good for heterosexuals.   After all, people are people.  Non-heterosexuals want to be married for the same reasons heterosexuals do.  If the Christian Right’s stereotypical view of non-heterosexuals is true —that they are lust driven, orgy seeking, diseased in mind and body, incapable of monogamy— why on earth would they be interested in marriage?  The fact is, they have every normal person’s desire for the state of matrimony and for all the right reasons.  Typically, all they want is the recognition that they are human beings.  Therefore, the withholding of marriage to them is the equivalent of withholding their humanity. 

TOMORROW: Lonliness--A universal human condition that needs a universal solution

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS from the website of the National Organization for Marriage, (ANSWERED)

http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.4475595/k.566A/Marriage_Talking_Points.htm

 

Number 7. Isn’t divorce the real threat to marriage?

A: “High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it.”

=====================================================================

 

It is a very peculiar thing that those opposed to same-sex marriage see it as a greater threat to opposite-sex marriage than divorce.  In the first place, less than 5% of the population is likely to take advantage of gay marriage; it’s just a blip on the radar screen of threats.   Yet 50% of all marriages end in divorce.  It becomes less peculiar when we recognize that this tactic is really a subterfuge for promoting their real agenda, ending the hope for same-sex marriage.  They actually show by their own behavior strong contempt for the marriage vows.

 

Take, for example, some of the most outspoken people against same-sex marriage, Bob Barr, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich, just to name a few.  They all have been divorced multiple times and, with the exception of Limbaugh, admitted to adulterous affairs.  And all are strong supporters of DOMA.

 

DOMA, of course, is the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by congress in 1996.  During a particularly stirring call for its passage by its sponsor, Congressman Bob Barr, (R-Georgia) he was asked by an opponent of the bill, “Mr. Barr, which of your three marriages are you defending?”

 

Most defenders of traditional marriage are nowhere close to these bad examples.  Yet none has been able to explain just how it is that allowing same-sex marriage will hurt straight marriages in any way.  But it is abundantly clear that divorce is a huge problem for traditional families. Yet, very little is offered in the way of workable solutions to diminish its impact on families.

 

A broad consensus of social researchers concludes that an intact family provides the largest measure of support for the future success of its children.  By keeping same-sex families from the legal benefits of marriage and not according them the common respect due any loving family, we are contributing to the continuation of family failure.  But to correct this we’d actually have to be concerned more about all children…not just children from traditional families.

 

This concludes my series on the National Organization for Marriage.

 

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS from the website of the National Organization for Marriage, (ANSWERED)

 http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.4475595/k.566A/Marriage_Talking_Points.htm

Number  6. What about benefits? Don’t gay couples and their kids need the benefits and protections of marriage?”

A: “If medical proxies aren’t working, let’s fix that problem. If people need health care, let’s get them health care. Don’t mess with marriage.”

A: “The issue isn’t benefits, it is marriage. Local folks can decide benefits. This is about the meaning of marriage, our most basic social institution for protecting children.”

=====================================================================

 

There are 1,138 benefits that accrue to legally married heterosexuals that are currently withheld from same-sex unions, even those who are entitled to domestic partnerships.  Those benefits, according to the General Accounting Office, range from Social Security and veteran's payments to housing and survivor’s rights.  Thanks for suggesting these two fixes, but you have a long way to go to establish parity.  Especially since most of these protections are federal; your “local folks” can’t do anything about that.

 

While a few of these benefits can be attained, in part at least, through drawing up legal papers, it's an expensive, complicated process that often has to be upheld by the courts which incurs even more expense.  These benefits are automatically granted to heterosexual married couples who simply take them for granted.

 

In America, we give tax breaks and other financial and legal incentives in order to encourage certain worthy goals.  The goal of strengthening families and their ability to survive is behind most of the legal benefits that come with marriage.  What makes same-sex couples and their families less in need of these benefits, as though they can do just as well without them?  We would never say to families of color that they are so different they don’t need them; neither should we be saying this to same-sex families.

 

So, yes, I agree with you, “This is about the meaning of marriage, our most basic social institution for protecting children.”  You goal of wanting to protect children is admirable, but your limiting of this protection to straight families only is deplorable.  What we need is full protection of all children regardless of the sexual orientation of their parents.  One way to do this is to allow same-sex couples to marry so that their children can be the recipients of some of those 1,138 benefits now denied to them.

 

I wonder, are you more interested in protecting children or denying marriage to same-sex couples?

 

Tomorrow’s FAQ

Number 7.  Isn’t divorce the real threat to marriage?

A: “High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it.”