The Neanderthals Are Still Among Us

Rev. Steve Kindle

Exec. Dir. of Clergy United

www.clergyunited.org

With my apologies to Neanderthals!

One of the reasons I wrote my book is that the chief reason obtaining gay rights has been slow is because it has taken time for the American (and world) public to recognize that they are as normal as any other form of humanity. So I took pains to show just how normal nonheterosexuals are. Due to the many LGBTs who have come out over the years, with the attendant discovery that they are our brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles, sons and daughters, and yes, our mothers and fathers, we have learned just how normal they are. In fact, their absolute commonality with everyone is seen in the fact that they are among us, have been among us and we didn't even know it! We owe a huge debt of gratitude to out LGBTs for making this huge leap in our consciousness possible, and welcome.

But there continues to be a small but noisy segment of our population that refuses to accept the facts. Every professional organization that has studied homosexuality for decades has given LGBTs a clean bill of health, psychologically, religiously, sociologically, medically and even as parents. There is no place to go anymore to support gay unacceptability; all the harbors are filled with positive voices. In such a dilemma, what do the negative voices do? They resort to the last refuge of scoundrels: name calling and outright lying. If you don't have the facts to back you up, sling mud. In a tweet following the SCOTUS decisions, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association wrote, “The DOMA ruling has now made the normalization of polygamy, pedophilia, incest and bestiality inevitable. Matter of time." It should also be noted that the "slippery slope" argument, is resorted to when all other arguments fail.

Interestingly, "polygamy, pedophilia, incest and bestiality" are largely heterosexual deviances. The notion that gays were pedophiles was put to bed decades ago, but it's a handy argument for the uninformed to keep gays from teaching school and out of leadership roles in the Boy Scouts. But it's a lie. Gays are as upset with pedophelia as everyone else with a clear morality.

On CNN, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told Wolf Blitzer,“You’re going to see a loss of parental rights, as children are taught in school morals that are contradictory to their parents’, religious liberty loss from business owners: bakers, florists, and others who will be forced to comply with a different view of marriage as well as even churches in some places, religious organizations losing their tax exemptions because they fail to comply with the force of the state in terms of redefining marriage.” Now that's a nightmare situation, for sure.  But is it true?  Permit me to quote from my book (as I'm against reinventing the wheel).

[These charges are] generally held by constitutional scholars to be a red herring.  When New York legalized same-sex marriage, for example, they included broad protections for religious and charitable organizations that were actually found unnecessary, as the protections are inherent in the U.S. Constitution.   

On the other hand, whenever minorities are granted rights long withheld from them, this means that the majority loses some of theirs.  Hotels, restaurants and other businesses that serve the public are no longer able to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, or religion, regardless of how the owners feel.  Gone are the “Whites Only” counters, “restricted clubs” (no Jews allowed), and red-lined neighborhoods.  Most of us feel that whatever losses ensued is America's gain.  Should the Supreme Court uphold same-sex marriage, life in America will go on pretty much as usual, with the exception that LGBTs will no longer be denied equal rights with the rest of us. 

Just as schools had to begin to recognize the equality of the races, yes, equality of same-sex relationships with heterosexual relationships, including in the raising of children will be taught.  Because it's true.  The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, and the Academy of Pediatrics all are on record as approving homosexuality as perfectly normal and as capable of entering any human relationship as any heterosexual.  This includes child rearing. 

It seems that we will have to put up with this uninformed nonsense for a while. In the meantime, more and more gays and lesbians will come out, more and more people will find gays as normal as the next person, more and more will we find the excessive complaints of this stubborn subculture irrelevant. Gay equality will win the day, but we must always bear in mind Martin Luther King, Jr.'s observation that "Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right."

Yes, there is much work left to do. Let's get going!

Today We Celebrate

America, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, made a giant step today in fulfilling the vision of our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, that all people are equal under the law. The federal Defense of Marriage Act's section 3 is found "unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment." By striking down DOMA, same-sex couples who are legally married are entitled to equal treatment under federal law.

The Court also issued its ruling on Hollingsworth v. Perry, ruling that the originators of Proposition 8 did not have the constitutional authority, or standing, to defend the law in federal courts since the state refused to appeal its loss in circuit court. This returns the right of all citizens of California to marry the person of their choosing.

Now 13 states and the District of Columbia have equal marriage rights coupled with federal protections and benefits. We achieved this, not through armed uprising, but by vigorous, relentless voicing of this indignity and revealing to the world that ours is a just cause. We have every right to rejoice in our good fortune. We also need to remember that others will be devastated.  Even though some in the opposition lied, cheated and bullied their way through the contentious decades of this struggle, many hold to such opposition out of sincerely held beliefs. All we have to do is recall our own feelings when things didn't go our way to understand how others may feel. This demonstrates what we have been saying all along: we share a common humanity. Gloating is reserved for those who don’t appreciate this. I am happy to say I have not observed anything but glee.

With marriage bans still in place outside of California, the struggle is far from over. We will continue the struggle in states without marriage equality until it’s achieved, with a great advantage. The example of California and the twelve other states with marriage equality will be enormous. The contrast of those states where all marriages enjoy all the federal and state rights and benefits will be stark. Pressure will mount as one state, then another, grants marriage equality. It will be hard to maintain old prejudices and the rigid confines of traditional marriage over time. People will see there really is no good reason to object any longer. 

So, today, we proponents of equality under the law, celebrate. These are huge victories, forecasting the future of America when all 50 states will have equal marriage rights.  This is inevitable.  There is no turning back.  But it will not be automatic; it will be won the same way we won today: person by person, state by state, ballot by ballot and legislature by legislature.

I'm off to San Francisco to join with The Religious Leader's Press Conference sponsored by the Coalition of Welcoming Congregations. As I said, today we celebrate!

Preparing for the Supreme Court’s Decisions on Prop 8 and DOMA

If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct…what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising 'the liberty protected by the Constitution?

~ Justice Antonin Scalia (This quote is taken from his minority dissent to Lawrence v. Texas when the court struck down sodomy laws)

First, America needs a civics lesson
Contrary to the National Organization for Marriage’s wishes and all others who were disappointed when California’s Proposition 8 was struck down, and feel abused, the people DO NOT get to decide what’s constitutional and what’s not. Fortunately, we live in a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy.  For in a pure democracy, if 51% of the people want to cut off the heads of the other 49%, for whatever reason, it would happen.  Our Constitution forbids majority coercion of the minority and in fact was created, in no small part, to protect the rights of the minority. So if, say, California passes a proposition that provides that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” the fact that the majority of voters voted yes does not mean it passes constitutional muster.  The same holds true for DOMA. That’s why, for those who are opposed to marriage equality, DOMA is not enough and only a Constitutional amendment will do.

Ironically, if we were to let the people decide, as NOM would have it, the tide has turned and the majority of Californians and Americans are now in favor of same-sex marriage.  Given their favorable attitude toward LGBTs, when the Millennial generation assumes power, this will be a long forgotten era of American history.  Just as today when young people are told of Jim Crow and the struggle for Civil Rights, and they are mystified as how this could ever have been, so too will generations from now find it hard to believe that gay people couldn’t get married.

How DOMA and Prop 9 control the lives of LGBTs up to now
The federal Defense of Marriage Act effectively does two things. First, it defines marriage for federal purposes as between one man and one woman as husband and wife; and “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is either husband or wife.  Second, it allows states the right to decline to recognize same-sex marriages that are legal in other states.

The federal General Accounting Office identified “1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor”. This shuts out LGBTs from all federal benefits accorded to opposite-sex couples, including income tax breaks, Social Security survivor’s benefits, and health care. The GAO upgraded the number of benefits to 1,139 in 2003.

In California, Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment, passed in 2008, which said marriage defined as “only between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” It overturned the California Supreme Court’s ruling that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. There was a window from June 16 to November 5, 2009 when same-sex marriage was legal and these marriages continue to be legal and likely will not be affected by SCOTUS’s ruling.

Possible Supreme Court outcomes

Most court watchers count the possible outcomes as four or five, reducing the likely outcomes to three. They range in scope from total victory for marriage equality across the board, to the status quo remaining in place. We will look at each outcome from best to worst, at least in the eyes of supporters of same-sex marriage.

DOMA and Proposition 8 are both struck down
Marriage would become the legal right of every couple, regardless of sexual orientation. Although this is the least likely outcome, it is possible. It is, of course, the most desirable outcome for those of us working for marriage equality. The reality that no couple in America could be denied the full dignity and rights presently accorded only to opposite-sex couples would mean that LGBTs are no longer second-class citizens.
A narrow interpretation would restore same-sex marriage rights to California and confer federal marriage benefits to all legally married same-sex couples throughout America. It would not affect marriage bans in other states; they would remain intact.

DOMA struck down, but Prop 8 upheld
Legally married same-sex couples in California and elsewhere will begin receiving the 1,139 federal marriage benefits. However, same-sex marriage will not be legal in California as well as the other states with similar bans. Those Californians legally married in 2009 will most likely not have their marriages made null and void.

Prop 8 struck down, but DOMA upheld
With the demise of Prop 8, marriage equality will be reinstated in California, and may overturn similar bans in place in other states. However, legally married same-sex couples will be denied all federal rights and benefits related to marriage. Second-class citizenship will continue.

We may know the outcomes as soon as tomorrow.  When the decisions are made public, I will post a column on where we go from here.

(This post was adapted from my book, Marriage Equality: Why same-sex marriage is good for the church and nation found here: http://www.amazon.com/Marriage-Equality-Same-sex-marriage-church/dp/1484967127/ref=)

The Slow Demise of Exodus International and the Rise of Gay Acceptance

When Exodus International started 37 years ago, it had the wind at its back. In 1976, the Gay Rights Movement was just beginning to be heard from, most Americans didn't give homosexuality a second thought except perhaps to condemn it, and the professional organizations, which soon would reevaluate their opinions, were treating gayness as a psychological disorder. So when Exodus International announced its program of helping LGBTs "return to normal" (heterosexuality), many were prepared to endorse it and thousands of gays submitted to reparative therapy. So what went wrong, so wrong in fact that Exodus International had to shut it doors forever?

Several factors are involved, of course. The primary one is the failure of reparative therapy to produce the results they advertised. No combination of aversion therapy, shock treatments (yes!), prayer, peer pressure or even self-loathing could make the miracle of change happen. It became clear early on that what was actually happening was gays who were horrified at the thought of spending eternity in hell were sublimating at best and ignoring at worst their same-sex desires that never went away.  In fact, Alan Chambers, the departing executive director of Exodus International confessed that 99.9% of all the gays he knew in the program did not change. So they were counseled on how to defend against these unwanted desires with spiritual practices that also did not work. This prompted a former Exodus International board member to actually suggest that Exodus International change its motto from "Change is possible through Jesus Christ," to "Come suffer with us."  And suffer they did.

Reparative therapy, itself, is based on a false theory of homosexual origination.  The repair aspect is devoted to repairing the poor relationship a gay man has with his father, which is seen as the primary reason that gays seek out other men: their fathers failed to provide proper emotional support while they were growing up. Distant fathers AND mothers are to blame. This theory is wholly unsupported by all the major professional organizations that are charged with researching and supporting psychological health. I actually heard Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, the major proponent of reparative therapy in America today, tell parents of gay children that they should not blame themselves. Not because they failed in their childrearing, but because society failed them by making it so difficult to raise children.  Somehow, I don't think this was comforting.

Over time, the accumulating body of ex-ex-gays could not be ignored and their message began to overwhelm the "change" message of Exodus International  In fact, Exodus International actually changed its motto not too long before it closed to "Reaching the world in grace and truth." That is quite a departure from their original intention and may foreshadow the new direction of this ministry, albeit, under a different name and institutional configuration.

Then in 1973 the wind left their back: the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. The American Psychological Association followed in 1975. Other major mental health organizations followed and eventually the World Health Organization declassified it in 1990. Exodus International and its reparative therapy allies no longer had a leg to stand on.  All they could do was help the deeply religious  to cope with their situation.

Yesterday's post details those people and organizations that confronted Exodus International over the years with their abysmal failure to achieve their goal of transformation. No longer could Exodus International trot out their "success stories" because too many of them denounced the program and admitted they did not change.  There was no place for them to go except to close.

Although I am ecstatic over this news, I also feel a sense of honor is due to Chambers and his board.  Yes, Chambers engaged in hyperbole (if not outright lying) in leading his organization, and yes, many lives were destroyed in the process. In the end, Chambers admitted all this, asked for forgiveness and called a stop to the program. This is so much more than Nicolosi of NARTH, Joe Dallas of Genesis Counseling, Andrew Comiskey of Desert Stream Ministries, and dozens of fellow-travelers are willing to do--and should. Only the future activities of Chambers will confirm his sincerity. One thing is for sure: he is off to a good start.

So it turns out that the most important reason Exodus International closed its doors is that its most celebrated  example of "change through the power of Jesus Christ" hasn't changed, can't change, and finally admits it. With that truth staring Chambers in his own face, how could he, with any integrity, continue the deception? He details his apology in the video below. I hope that it will be taken to heart by the many, many others in the false hope of change business so that countless lives will be spared this evil delusion.

Exodus Head Alan Chambers' Full Apology to the LGBT Community

In an unprecedented admission, Alan Chambers, president of the so-called "ex-gay" organization Exodus International, apologizes to survivors of "reparative therapy" who feel they were harmed by the organization. Watch the full, uncut apology here. More videos and information can be found here, thanks to Lisa Ling and oprah.com http://www.oprah.com/own-our-america-lisa-ling/Sneak-Peak-Lisa-Lings-Special-Report-God-and-Gays-Video

"Pray away the gay" has gone away (well, almost)

Exodus International, the original and largest organization to endorse the notion that gays can change has closed its doors.  Its president, Alan Chambers, who served for eleven years, announced today that their board of directors voted to end its 38 year ministry.  

It all materialized with a conversation Chambers had with several of the victims of reparative therapy and Exodus International's outreach who characterize themselves as ex-ex gay on Lisa Ling's television show, "Our America With Lisa Ling."  In other words, people who were lulled into the belief that although they considered themselves gay, they could be "returned to normal" through prayer and therapy.  Reparative therapy has been denounced by all accredited psychological and psychiatric organizations in the USA and even the courts have censured their practitioners.

Several organizations have put unrelenting pressure on Exodus International over the years and did much to create this change of heart in Exodus International.  One is Truth Wins Out, and its crusading director, Wayne Besen.  Besen has been critical of EI and reparative therapy since before Chambers came aboard. His 2003 book, Anything but Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth, is THE authoritative explanation and exposure of the ex-gay movement.  TWO's website, http://www.truthwinsout.org/, is a daily chronicle of ex-gay abuses, idocies, and counter-attacks that amazes with its breadth and clarity.  Their stable of writers will keep you in touch with the latest news and analysis of things ex-gay.  Besen certainly is due credit for helping in the downfall of EI.

Another significant factor in EI's change of heart is the Ex-gay Survivors Network sponsored by Beyond Ex-Gay http://www.beyondexgay.com/.  It was founded by Christine Bakke-O’Neill and Peterson Toscano in 2206, two survivors of the ex-gay movement, as a way to connect others who were struggling with the failure of reparative therapy and other attempts to "pray away the gay."  Over the years, Beyond Ex-Gay reached out to Exodus International and other so-called ex-gay groups sharing their stories of abuse and failure and even suicide.  Although not acknowledged by name, Chambers admits that hearing such stories was a big factor in his decision to change the direction of EI, which soon led to its demise.

A chink in EI's armor occurred during 2008-2009 when Soulforce contacted Billy Hybels, pastor of the large and highly influential Evangelical church, Willow Creek.  They poured significant money into EI, hosted their events, and supplied volunteers for their programs. The upshot of these visits with Soulforce and other contacts Willow Creek made was to sever all ties with EI.

So what's to become of Chambers, et al?  It's not like they will disappear.  The Board announced the formation of a new organization with many of EIs board and staff that has as its goal the reducing of fear, and working alongside churches to become safe, welcoming, and mutually transforming communities.  Whatever that means (to them).  We shall have to wait and see.  They have a lot of reparative work to do with ex-gay survivors and they note the harm they have done and I believe their remorse is genuine.  However, remorse will not undone the harm.  I can only hope that their new organization will devote themselves to cleaning up the mess they made along the way.

As a bit of self promotion, you can learn much more about the harm of ex-gay movements and therapies in my new book: http://www.amazon.com/Marriage-Equality-Same-sex-marriage church/dp/1484967127/ref=la_B00DBIZDKA_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1371776563&sr=1-1  Plus a whole lot more.  I hope you check it out.

It's Done and Available on Amazon!

For more information:

http://www.amazon.com/Marriage-Equality-Same-sex-marriage-church/dp/1484967127/ref=pd_rhf_se_p_t_1_HWMG

178 pages

I'm very pleased to announce that my book, Marriage Equality: Why same-sex marriage is good for the church and nation, is now #9 on the Amazon best seller list for its category after only three days on sale. My thanks to all the people who helped make that happen. How about we make it number 1! I think the country is ready to look at gay rights like never before and this book will help them understand the need for gay equality across the board. 

As promised, I wanted to get this book into your hands about the time the U.S. Supreme Court rules on California's Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  Both of these are discussed, and the possible rulings analysed.  But the bulk of the book is devoted to a strong defense of gay marriage from a biblical, psychological and scientific perspective.

I know that many of you who read this blog are very well acquainted with the issues.  I do believe you will discover new insights and strategies as well as have a virtual library of helpful resources at your fingertips.

One of the best uses of this book is for group study. Each chapter ends with possible discussion questions.

Here's the Table of contents:

Foreword.. vii

Introduction.. 11

Chapter 1 – A Snapshot of Gay Americans. 17

Chapter 2 – The Gay Agenda: Why It’s Needed and Appropriate. 28

Chapter 3 – The Closet: Prisoners of Heterosexism... 47

Chapter 4 – The (Evolving) History of Marriage. 57

Chapter 5 – The Case for Marriage Equality

Chapter 6 – False Claims Regarding Gays and Same-sex Marriage

Chapter 7 – But, My Bible Says…. 93

Chapter 8 – The Gifts Gays Bring

Chapter 9 – After the Supreme Court Decision: Where to Go from Here?

Chapter 10 – How to Get Involved.. 145

A Word to Pastors. 152

Afterword.. 158

A Select Bibliography of Resources. 163

Index of Subjects. 171

End Notes. 175

In order for this book to have maximum impact, I will need your help. 

1.  If you buy the book, please consider writing a review for Amazon.  

2.  Put the Amazon information on your Facebook page and encourage your friends to check it out.
3.  Tweet it!

4.  See if you can put a study group together at your place of worship or with a group of friends.

5.  Invite me for a talk and book signing.  I can be reached at info@clergyunited.org.

Thanks for checking this out!

You're the first to know (and I hope the first to buy)

One of my favorite cartoons when I was pounding the pavement in a sales job was of two buzzards sitting together on a tree limb in a forest, watching a lost man slowly starve to death.  One buzzard turned to the other and said, "Patience, hell! I'm going to kill something."

The time from now to the SCOTUS decisions is too precious to just watch and wait. I've decided to put all my energy into writing a book to spell out the case for same-sex marriage.  It will first be published as an e-book in July 2013, then as a paperback soon after.

My intended audience is twofold. One is those in the "movable middle," who can be persuaded with the right information.  The other is for the many who are already convinced but need help articulating the cause.

Here's how the chapters look at this stage:

 Gay Americans: What You Need to Know (and possibly don’t)
History of Marriage in the West
Evolved and evolving Will Same-sex Marriage Change America?
Yes Common Objections to Same-sex Marriage
What Does the Bible Say?
A Journey into the Heart of God
Theology of inclusion The Legal and Constitutional Issues
Now That the Supreme Court Has Spoken
I will plot the future course following the SCOTUS outcome 

I don't have a title as yet.  If you have a suggestion, I'd like to hear from you.  I'll give you credit in the acknowledgments.  The working title is Same-sex Marriage: Why It's Good for America.  See, I told you I needed help!

I will post updates from time to time, so keep watching the blog site.  Better yet, subscribe to the email service for daily postings, should there be one.  A little prayer for me would be appreciated, too.

"They also serve who only stand and wait"

After today, all that can be done, at least in the courts, will be over.  The arguments will have been made, the justices will retire to their chambers and by the end of June we will know the fate of our LGBT family, friends, coworkers and fellow Americans.  For many of us it will be an excruciatingly long time.  As I listen to my body's reaction too all of this, I find myself feeling much as I did as a child anticipating the arrival of Santa Claus, or the first summer day in the swimming pool.  It was almost unbearable; yet Santa did come and go, and the summers dragged on.  But much more is a stake than getting that nice new bike or meeting with friends for a dunking contest.  Not knowing, when we know only too well how necessary the defeat of Prop 8 and DOMA are, added to the mystifying awareness that America is now only beginning to wake up to LGBT injustice, makes one grieve.  

I don't even want to think about what to do should the Court not rule in our favor.  It will be like how WWII was waged in the Pacific, beach head by beach head, atoll by atoll, island by island.  But in this case it will be State by State.  This will be enormously expensive both in money and effort.  The good news is that DOMA likely will fall.  Should Prop 8 only be limited to California, then when each State approves gay marriage, the 1011 Federal benefits now denied will be extended to all in same-sex marriages.  This is to be celebrated.

Americans are getting a world-class education in gay rights.  America will never be the same, and will eventually, say, 20 years from now, find its way to make LGBTs full citizens. It's this unnecessary interim that's so devastating.  How many couple's hopes will be dashed?  How many more children will be subject to ridicule? How many more families will have to live without the protections that heterosexual couples enjoy every day?  

I'm still holding out for a complete sweep of victory.  The signs are impossible to read with any assurance, but nothing has been ruled out as yet.  As David Boies put it, "The most remarkable thing that happened in there was there was no attempt to defend the ban on gay marriage."  I remember the day in 1954 when the decision in Brown v. Board of Education was announced that ended segregation.  This was not a popular decision, yet it was made. When Loving v. Virginia (IN 1967!)  struck down miscegenation laws allowing interracial marriage, the vast majority of the country was appalled.  So especially when the majority of Americans now favor same-sex marriage and gay rights over all, the Court is perfectly situated to do the right thing.  So I remain hopeful.

To really appreciate the title of this blog, we need to recall John Milton's poem, "On His Blindness."  

When I consider how my light is spent
Ere half my days in this dark world and wide,
And that one talent which is death to hide
Lodg'd with me useless, though my soul more bent
To serve therewith my Maker, and present
My true account, lest he returning chide,
"Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?"
I fondly ask. But Patience, to prevent
That murmur, soon replies: "God doth not need
Either man's work or his own gifts: who best
Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state
Is kingly; thousands at his bidding speed
And post o'er land and ocean without rest:
They also serve who only stand and wait." 

Wait we must; yet let us listen to Patience who counsels against those thousands who "post o'er land and ocean without rest."  Why is this Patience's work to counsel us to stand and wait? I think it's to remind us that, as Martin Luther King, put it, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”  In other words, not everything depends upon us; let us pause for the moment and let the universe do its thing.  It just may be that we will need to get going soon enough as it it.  

Here's a great summary of the events of yesterday from David Boies and Ted Olson

22 Reasons Why DOMA and Prop 8 Need to Be Declared Unconstitutional

And Same-sex Marriage Be Made Available Nationwide

1.   It's the right thing to do
2.   It will strengthen marriage all around
3.   LGBT families need the protection of legal marriage 
4.   LGBT partners need the protection of legal marriage
5.   LGBTs deserve the status of normal and worthy citizens that marriage bestows
6.   It will diminish the need for sham marriages and resultant divorces
7.   SCOTUS will be on the right side of history
8.   It’s inevitable; if not now it will happen eventually, so why wait?
9.   More orphaned children will find happy families
10. It resolves one more remaining justice issue in favor of equality
11. America can move on to other issues
12. We can retire right wing hypocrites who lecture us on morality
13. Maybe Maggie Galagher will go away?
14. Marriage is much more than about procreation, or, often, not about it at all
15. Republicans are even determined to make this a non-issue
16. I honors the Golden Rule
17. It in no way harms heterosexual marriage
18. Same-Sex Marriage Provides a More Stable Environment for Children of LGBT Couples
19. Love matters
20. "Separate but equal" was tried and failed
21. Did I say it’s the right thing to do?

And finally, so Associate Justice Antonin Scallia has to eat these words:

"If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct…what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising 'the liberty protected by the Constitution'”. [This quote is taken from his minority dissent to Lawrence v Texas when the court struck down sodomy laws.]

Yes, just "what justification could there possibly be", indeed?

Here's a little bit of what SCOTUS will hear today (from 

David Boies on "Meet the Press")

Okay, I cribbed this next list from StopGeek.com.  It's hilarious, and give us pause at our own shortsightedness.

Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

DOMA and Prop 8: A Lesson in Civics

With America's, and perhaps most of the world's, attention on the United States Supreme court this week, we will get an answer to a question that most Americans only vaguely understand:  "How can the vote of the majority be set aside?  The people have spoken, how can an unelected court go against public opinion, one enshrined in a majority vote?"  That, in a nutshell, is the basis of the frustration for those who conceived of and fought for California's Proposition 8.

Here's a recap of how the amendment  has fared.

Proposition 8 - which, for California only, defines marriage as between one man and one woman  - passed by 53% of California voters in 2008.  The United States District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010, ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. On February 7, 2012, in a 2–1 decision, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed Walker's decision declaring the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court granted the proponents' petition for certiorari, which will be heard on Tuesday March 26, 2013. The Supreme Court Justices are expected to issue their ruling pertaining to the constitutionality of Proposition 8 by late June 2013. The ruling by the US Supreme Court may set precedent not only in California, but nationally.

Prop 8 passed by a 4% majority only to have the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals put it on hold.  The eventuality is strong that the US Supreme Court may make it null and void with the attendant possibility that prohibiting same-sex marriage may become unconstitutional in every state in the USA.

A blogger voiced his profound anger not long after its passing.  Here is a comment to it:

"Those are some mighty strong words and accusations you're tossing around based on the CA government (and law) following it's defined process for letting people participate in a democratic republic. What do you prefer - the CA supreme court tossing out the results of a vote presented to the entire state? That borders dangerously close to very non-democratic governmental ideas."

So, it's "non-democratic" for a court to toss out the majority's vote.  As a Californian of long standing, I bear witness to many conversations that suggest that this notion is wide spread. This commentator got one thing right, we are a democratic republic.  In a pure democracy, as the saying goes, 51% of the people could vote to cut off the heads of the 49% and it would be legal (and done!). This notion became encapsulated as "the tyranny of the majority."  Great thinkers from Plato to John Stuart Mill and Tocqueville warned us of this and provided several ways to insure that governments would not be capable of such mendacity. Two are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution: separation of powers and representative government.

This was not lost on the plaintiffs bringing the case to the Supreme Court. “If we've learned anything through this journey, it's that when the minority rights are being oppressed by a majority the court is supposed to step in, and some times it's not always popular for them to do so,” Jeff Zarrillo said. “We would expect the court to step in and right these wrongs." Exactly.  This is the proper recourse when minorities are pushed around by the majority.

The fact that we have a constitution at all is the most important defense against tyranny. The cry we hear so often, widely credited to John Adams, “We are a nation of laws and not of men,” is another way of saying, we are a constitutional republic.  Men and women don't tell us what to do, our Constitution does.  What is going on this week at SCOTUS is nothing more or less than laws deciding our fate.  (I am not so naive as to believe that the Court can be so objective as to rule out sentiment, prejudice, and other human considerations, but trust that they do their best to hold them at bay.)

This basic American value was clearly illustrated this weekend on "Meet the Press." Here's a snippet of host David Gregory's interview with David Boies, who is arguing the case against Prop 8 tomorrow.  Gregory  pointed out all the states that currently have bans on same-sex marriage and asked , "Aren't you effectively asking the Court to say, with one stroke of the pen, we're going to invalidate what those states have done?"

Replied Boies: "Every time the Supreme Court makes a constitutional decision, it’s making a decision that certain fundamental rights are too important to be left to the ballot box. We've done that with race, we've done that with women; we've done that with every discriminated class."

So the next time you hear someone say that "the courts have usurped the people's will" one more time, gently remind them that the very fact they do this is precisely because of "the will of the people."  It's called the Constitution of the United States.

Analysis of Supreme Court Hearings on Same-sex Marriage Issues

The Supreme Court is about to hear arguments on California's Prop 8 and DOMA.  Here is the breakdown on the current situation from The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

High Court to Hear Same-Sex Marriage Cases
LEGAL REPORT March 20, 2013

The U.S. Supreme Court is about to hear oral arguments in a pair of potentially groundbreaking same-sex marriage cases. On March 26, the court will hear a challenge to California’s Proposition 8, a ballot measure approved by California voters in 2008 that amended the state’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage. On March 27, the court will hear a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the 1996 law that bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage.

People have been fighting over same-sex marriage in courtrooms around the country for more than 20 years. Until recently, however, most of the action has taken place in state courts. The Supreme Court’s decision to take the DOMA case (United States v. Windsor) and the Proposition 8 case (Hollingsworth v. Perry) shifts the judicial focus from state to federal courts. It also raises the stakes: While state court rulings impact a particular state, federal cases involve federal constitutional principles that could apply nationwide, as discussed in a recent Pew Research Center legal analysis of the two cases.

While the Supreme Court has an opportunity in these cases to rule on core constitutional questions, that doesn’t mean it necessarily will. Indeed, the court could decide that the parties opposing same-sex marriage lack the right to defend Proposition 8 and DOMA in court (a legal concept known as “standing”). If standing is granted, it still is possible that the court will not address the broad constitutional question of whether same-sex couples have a right to marry under the U.S. Constitution and will choose instead to rule more narrowly in both cases.

The DOMA case (Windsor) does not directly address the question of whether the U.S. Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to wed. The case involves a different constitutional question: Does the federal government’s treatment of gays and lesbians under DOMA discriminate against them in such a way as to violate their constitutional rights?

The Proposition 8 case (Perry) might offer a better vehicle for the court to address the core question of whether the U.S. Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. That’s because it involves a decision by a state, California, to prohibit gays and lesbians from marrying. But even in this case, the court could strike down California’s ban on same-sex marriage without ruling on the broader constitutional question. Indeed, even if the court were to strike down Proposition 8 in Perry, some legal scholars believe it still might not use the case as a vehicle to rule broadly on the constitutionality of restrictions on same-sex marriage and instead might craft a narrower decision that allows most states to decide their own marriage policies.

The Perry Case  
How could the court strike down Proposition 8 and still give other states a free hand to set their own marriage policies? The answer lies in Proposition 8’s unique history. Proposition 8 was approved by California voters six months after the state’s highest court had ruled that gays and lesbians had the right to marry – and after thousands of same-sex couples took advantage of this ruling and got married. In an earlier lower court decision in this case, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled (PDF) that California cannot single out a minority group and remove an existing right (in this case, the pre-Proposition 8 right of same sex couples to marry) without the government first showing that it had a rational or legitimate basis for this discriminatory action – something the state of California failed to do, according to the court of appeals. 

If the Supreme Court upholds the 9th Circuit’s ruling, and uses the same legal rationale to do so, it would not undermine other states’ bans on same-sex marriage. A narrow decision of this sort would prevent only states that have already granted marital rights to gays and lesbians from subsequently taking them away. Of course, if the high court upholds Proposition 8, it will, by definition, have effectively ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not protect same-sex couples against state laws prohibiting them from marrying.

The Windsor Case  
While the Supreme Court could use Windsor to decide whether the U.S. Constitution grants same-sex couples the right to marry, many legal scholars believe the high court is more likely to focus on whether DOMA unconstitutionally discriminates against gays and lesbians, rather than on whether there is a right to same-sex marriage. Indeed, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (PDF), in its earlier decision in Windsor striking down DOMA, ruled that the statute is unconstitutionally discriminatory.

The Big Picture  
Because same-sex marriage involves a contentious social issue, the arguments to the high court and its rulings in Perry and Windsor are expected to receive a tremendous amount of attention. Indeed, taken together, these decisions are almost certain to become the most important same-sex marriage rulings to date. Until now, the most significant same-sex marriage ruling occurred in 2003, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the state’s highest court) said that the state’s constitution granted gays and lesbians the right to marry. As a result of this decision, Massachusetts became the first state in the country to legalize same-sex marriage.

Since 2003, eight other states – Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and Washington State – as well as the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage. Bills to legalize same-sex marriage currently are being considered in three additional states – Illinois,Rhode Island and Minnesota. By contrast, over the last two decades 30 states have added language to their constitutions banning same-sex marriage.

According to polling from the Pew Research Center, public attitudes toward same-sex marriage haveshifted markedly over the past decade. Polling conducted in 2003 found that most Americans (58%) were opposed to allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, and just a third (33%) were in favor. A new survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted March 13-17, 2013, among 1,501 adults nationwide, confirms that these figures have flipped, with 49% supporting same-sex marriage and 44% opposed.

In recent years, many political leaders have voiced support for letting gays and lesbians marry legally. In May 2012, for instance, President Barack Obama declared that he supports same-sex marriage.Former President Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA into law in 1996, recently wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post urging the Supreme Court to overturn the law. And in a video released on March 18,former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced she supports same-sex marriage, both “personally and as a matter of policy and law.” 

Some Republicans also recently have come out in favor of same-sex marriage. In February, for example, a group of prominent Republicans (PDF), including former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, signed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down Proposition 8. And Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who had co-sponsored the original DOMA bill when he served in the U.S. House of Representatives, also recently announced that he now supports same-sex marriage. In a March 15 op-ed in The Columbus Dispatch, Portman said he made his decision because one of his sons is gay and he “wants all three of his kids to lead happy, meaningful lives with the people they love.”  

This report was written by David Masci, Senior Researcher, Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. 

Photo credit: iStockPhoto

The Last Respectable Prejudice, Part 2

The Moral Implications That Follow from This Equivalency 

In yesterday's post, I compared the Civil Rights struggle of the 20th century with the gay rights struggle of today.  My purpose was to show how they are morally equivalent struggles. If this is the case, and I believe it is, then certain conclusions can be drawn for how we engage today's moral issue of gay rights.

The Civil Rights struggle took people willing to commit their lives to the cause, and many lives were sacrificed to make it happen.  Many more were beaten and jailed.  Other than for a few organizations like Soulforce, few seem to be willing to lay down their lives for this cause. And there are occasions that call for such sacrifices.  Whenever gays are physically attacked, or otherwise abused, we need people to intervene on their behalf.  If you are part of the gay community, or an ally, are you willing to put your body in harms way for the sake of another?  (We are only recommending nonviolent intervention. This is a good training site.)

The Civil Rights Movement had lunch counter sit-ins, marches, civil disobedience actions, and individual protests to call attention to the brutality and legal discrimination in their daily lives.  One of the least understood aspects of the gay rights movement is public protesting on the order of Gay Pride parades and other demonstrations.  "We're here, we're queer; get used to it," made straight America uneasy and sometimes disgusted with our cause, but the point was made.  These public protests were as necessary for the gay struggle to succeed as for the racial struggle.  Continuing the public witness to gay life and love continues to be an important aspect of the movement.  

The involvement of churches and synagogues, their White pastors and rabbis, was a key element in the Civil Rights struggle.  The moral pressure through common suffering with African Americans, preaching from the pulpit, marching shoulder to shoulder, sitting in jail side by side, writing books and pamphlets, all gave America a picture of injustice and what to do about it that may have turned the tide.  Allies are not just important to the gay rights struggle, but critical.  Nothing is more persuasive than someone without ulterior motives being willing to side with the oppressed.  It raises questions in other's minds about why, which can lead to greater understanding all around.  Allies bring a moral weight that cannot be denied.

That’s why we straight people are your allies.  As part of the shared but frayed fabric of humanity we recognize that your injustice is our injustice, your suffering is our suffering, and your joys are our joys.

 

As a pastor from one of our nation’s mainline denominations, I call upon like-minded clergy from all denominations to “come out!”  Come out of your cloistered closets and become one more straight for the Beloved Community.  Come out of your isolation where you mourn injustices in solitude, and join with the multitude of the Beloved Community.  Come out from your tepid preaching on love that says God loves all people without distinction, ending there, and, instead, teach your congregations the real truth: that God loves and affirms and nurtures LGBTs and desires their companionship as longingly as God pursues the holiest saint.

Teach them that God created Adam and Steve and loves them as much as Adam and Eve. Teach them to love all their neighbors with agape love, and lead the way by your own example.

 

What will save us from ourselves? Nothing less that recognizing that I am you and you are I. As you fair, so do I.  And until we all sit together around the table of equality, none should take a seat there.  

It is the recognition that all human life is interrelated, all men and women are brothers and sisters, all humanity is a single orientation, the human orientation.  That’s why we straight people are your allies.  As part of the shared but frayed fabric of humanity, we recognize that your injustice is our injustice, your suffering is our suffering, and your joys are our joys.

As Gandhi put it, "All oppression is of the same fabric."  If you understand what Dr. King meant by, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," you are on the way to helpful service in the most just cause of our time.

The Last Respectable Prejudice

In a future post I will share the many great resources for following the latest news and commentary on same-sex marriage and related issues that are available online.  My hope is that they will inform your day as they do mine.  This blog, however, is not so much devoted to current events as it is to think about them.  So my posts are more like "think pieces" than news stories.  We need both and I have chosen to present commentary.

The Gay Rights Struggle Is the Moral Equivalent of the Civil Rights Struggle of the Last Century

Part 1

As for today's subject, I do not want to leave the impression that LGBTs have suffered and continue to suffer to the same degree as African Americans have.  There was no refuge in the safety of the closet for Blacks in America; they had no place to hide. Nor have LGBTs had to endure centuries of slavery.  On the whole, life in America has been relatively good for gays as compared to many other countries around the world, and certainly when compared to America's racial minorities.

Nevertheless, in the words of Byrne Fone, in Homophobia: A History: 

"Indeed, in modern Western society, where racism is disapproved, anti-Semitism is condemned, and misogyny has lost its legitimacy, homophobia remains, perhaps the last acceptable prejudice.”  

The fight for African American equality began in slavery, is embedded in the Declaration of Independence, ushered in the Civil War, was enshrined in the 14th Amendment, endured through Jim Crow, made huge gains in the 1950s and 60s, and finally was legally secured with the passing of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 and the Voting Rights Bill of 1965.  A host of other legislation, both in Congress and in the states, dealt with issues from school bussing, interracial marriage, and other discriminatory practices.  Although prejudice endures, legal discrimination is markedly on the decline in America.

The fight for LGBT equality is more recent and follows a much less ascendant trajectory. Gays still can be fired for their sexual orientation without recourse in 29 states; transgenders, in 34.  Lynchings have all but ended in the South, but LGBT's lives are taken almost every day.  According to the Leadership Conference, in a report issued in 2010,

Reported hate crimes committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation increased in 2007 to 1,265, the highest level in five years. Of all hate crimes reported in 2007, the proportion committed against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals rose to 16.6 percent, also the highest level in five years. According to the FBI's HCSA reports, gay men and lesbians have consistently been the third most frequent target of hate violence over the past decade.

As early as the founding of Virginia, gay sex was a capital offence.  It wasn't until 2003 that sodomy laws were rendered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas. The years in between made gay love go underground to survive, and many are still living in the closet to protect themselves.  

Racial slurs are not uttered in polite company these days, but gay slurs still are. You don't hear racist jokes much any more, but gay jokes are still fair game.  Where conservative Christians used to denigrate African Americans by teaching that God desires segregation and approves of slavery, they have largely repudiated those teachings.  But they are free to claim that "God hates homosexuality," and LGBTs are hell bound.  

In 1964, the Supreme Court struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriage, allowing African Americans the right to marry anyone they love.  Same-sex marriage is only legal in nine states, but Federal benefits are denied them with the passing of the Defense of Marriage Act.  If the Supreme Court does not make same-sex marriage a universal right in America, it will have to be won state by state and DOMA will have to be overturned.  

So the fight for gay rights parallels in many ways the fight for racial equality: legal restrictions that bar them from full access to rights given to others, societal contempt that often leads to violence, and laws that keep them from marrying, to name just a few.  These struggles are moral equivalents because of this one fact: LGBTs are as fully human and as entitled to live as equals with all Americans, just as we have finally realized about racial minorities.  More and more Americans are convinced that this is the case, with 58% now favoring equality across the board. If the Supreme Court feels the same way, all that will be left will be the same as when  racial minorities received full rights: we will have to discover that there should never have been such a fuss in the first place.

TOMORROW: Part 2, The Moral Implications That Follow from This Equivalency 

Accidental Ally:

How a homophobic pastor found his way into affirming the gay rights movement

Few of us end up where we thought we would.  Our youthful ambitions give way to changing interests and demands of time and place.  Not many of us become the person we said we would be when we grow up.  For many years in my preteen and adolescent years I wanted to be a doctor.  However, my insufficient chemistry skills kept me from that ambition.  My three year stint in the U. S. Marine Corps convinced me that a military career was not for me, either.  In fact, I resisted declaring a major in college until the last moment beyond which I would have had to spend an extra semester.  Many of us find that “life happens” and more often than not, it happens while we are making other plans.  If someone would have told me, even upon entering middle age, that the last few decades of my life would have turned out as they have, I wouldn't have believed it.  Worse, I wouldn't have wanted it that way.

How can a straight pastor, born to Fundamentalist parents and into a Fundamentalist church, raised with the concomitant prejudices of his time, educated in a Fundamentalist college and converted to an antigay denomination, find his way into the gay rights movement and become an ardent spokesperson and ally?  The short answer is, by the grace of God. The longer one follows (but not too long).

Recently one Sunday, my wife and I visited a congregation of my denomination in North Hollywood, California.  We were early, so I pulled into a nearby Starbucks and we had a cup of coffee inside.  There I noticed an actor who I recognized as one always typecast as a heavy. Actually, not just a heavy, but with an evil, even demonic side.  What was remarkable about this encounter is that he was utterly charming, had a most welcoming smile, and his friends with him adored him.  I saw him not long after that on a TV show and I just couldn’t see him the same way again.

I mention this because we all have had similar experiences with people or situations that make us change our minds about something, even about things long held.  So when I found myself living in San Francisco on the mid-1970s, I was prepared for what I expected would be an encounter with stereotypical gays: sex obsessed, drug ridden, and out to get me.  I knew I could spot them easily and thereby protect myself, because of their flamboyant ways. Much to my surprise, not only could I not identify the people who were gay where I worked, none of them fit the stereotype.  On Halloween and Gay Pride days, the activists were out in number along with others who just wanted to let off steam, but for the most part they were as normal as anyone else I knew.  Many of them lived with partners for years, even were raising children, were good employees, and lived life much as I did.  The façade in the stereotype had a huge crack in it.  I learned that the gay stereotypes are decidedly false.  When people try to tell me otherwise, I just say, “You don’t know enough gays!”

Then, when a couple we knew and loved divorced, we found out that the wife was a lesbian. My wife, after I began wondering how we should relate to her now that we knew, said, “Rene’ is still the same person we loved before we knew this.  How can we not continue to love her and keep her close?”  As much as I wanted to concur, I had other baggage.  It’s summed up with all that I thought the Bible taught about the sinfulness of LGBTs.  So that began my serious, deeply serious look into the biblical and theological evidence that both supports and denies the proposition that LGBTs are hell bound unless they change their ways.

So, over the past twenty years I have acquainted myself with the scholarly literature in biblical studies as well as in sociological and psychological areas.  My motivation was solely to go where the results led me.  I had no horse in this race; I have no gay children, no gay parent or any relative that I know of.  I was not defending a point of view; I was trying to gain one, and I eventually did. I learned that virtually all professional studies and academic groups support LGBT normalcy and advocate for their full inclusion into mainstream America.  I learned that most biblical scholars support LGBTs and welcome them into Christian churches without need to change.  I learned that the arguments against gay inclusion are based on biblical literalism which is not a helpful way to read the Bible.  I learned that although the Bible is misused to condemn LGBTs, it's actually is one of their best friends.

Best of all, I have been welcomed into their community, lived with them for almost three decades, and count my association there among the highlights of my life.  That’s the long and the short of it.  So, keep reading this blog.  If you have an open mind, you might discover a few things that may change how you look at things, too.

"But My Bible Says"

“You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”   ~ Anne Lamott

The ultimate recourse for those who want to keep homosexuality on the sins list is, "My Bible says...."  The sentence generally ends with "...homosexuals are an abomination," or, "...gays are going to hell," or "God hates gays."  This is intended to be the final word on the matter; the Bible has spoken, the issue is clear, we can move on to other things.  How so? Because the Bible has spoken.

The Bible, of course says no such thing.  I will prove it to you.  Go get your Bible.  Now, take it in your hands and bring it up to your eyes.  Say to it very clearly, "Bible, tell me, what do you have to say about homosexuality?"  If you don't hear anything, repeat your question; maybe louder this time.  If there is still no answer, shake it; it may be taking a nap.  Still nothing?  Well, that's all right, because if you do hear the Bible answering, you may be on your way to a psychiatric hospital.

The Bible "says" nothing.  It is an inert object, words on paper.  It cannot utter a sound.  Of course, you knew that all along, yet you may still want to repeat that the Bible says something.  What is really going on is that YOU say the Bible says something; you speak for the Bible.  The Bible is deaf and dumb.

Unfortunately, we too often make what "the Bible says" what we want it to say.  You see, there is no such thing as an uninterpreted reading of anything, from the daily newspaper to the Bible.  We read (or "hear what it says") though a filter or a lens.  No one can read without one.  Your filter/lens is everything that you have learned through your culture, ethnicity, gender, nationality, education...you get the point...that shapes how you perceive meaning.  Every word you read or hear is processed through this filtering system.  Everyone reads or hears the same word or words differently. Depending on how far apart our systems are, we can basically understand each other or totally misunderstand.  In explaining this to an adult Sunday School class, one member said, "I can think of something we both read that needs no filtering, that is straightforwardly and immediately understood."  "Okay," I said. "Let's have it." He responded, "God is love."  I replied with, "What do you mean by 'God' and what do you mean by 'love'"? (No need to go into what "is" is!)  He got my point.

When it comes to reading the Bible, we have a two to three thousand year old bridge to cross.  We need to be able to "hear" as though we were an immediate member of the culture of those who created those biblical words.  This is virtually impossible.  The best we can do is approximate this; we will never actually achieve this.  And even for those who were contemporaries, they had their own problems.  Here's Peter commenting on Paul's letters: "There are some things in them hard to understand."  Indeed.

So the next time you are tempted to tell someone what the Bible says, why not be honest and tell them that you think this is what the Bible, properly interpreted, means.  You will have achieved two things.  First, you will have admitted that your interpretation is open to opinion (and that it is your opinion), and that you might be, dare I say it...wrong.

Weekends (at least for the time being) will be devoted to sharing some of the better articles I came across during the week.  In this post, I'm featuring two articles that may connect the dots between bizarre and violent behavior and its underlying cause.  It's the scientifically verified notion that homophobic people are often gay themselves and acting out through what psychologists call projection.

Here's a summary statement from the first article, Science Daily:

The findings provide new empirical evidence to support the psychoanalytic theory that the fear, anxiety, and aversion that some seemingly heterosexual people hold toward gays and lesbians can grow out of their own repressed same-sex desires.

This may explain the antics of one notable homophobe, Fred Phelps, as written about by one of his former devoted followers, Lauren Drain, in this Huff Post article.  Here's Ms. Drain,

"I never understood why, when [the media asked him], “Why are you so against the homosexuals? Did you have a homosexual experience? Do you have homosexual tendencies?” And he would get so mad, he would shut down. And he’d be like, “I can’t talk to this person anymore, they’re stupid.” His reaction to that was stronger than any other question you can ask him. So I always wondered that — why does he get so mad? If I’m not gay, I’ll just say I’m not gay. And I’m not going to freak out, like, “Why are you calling me gay?” I always thought that was super strange."

Check these articles out.  It should be pointed out that the studies do NOT say that all homophobes are themselves gay.  But one is left to wonder who might not be.