Are We in a Post "Open and Affirming" Church Age?

A new approach to being a congregation welcoming of LGBTs is being embraced by many churches today. But first, a little background.

The major mainline denominations in America have organizations within them to encourage gay acceptance and affirmation. In my Disciples of Christ denomination, it's GLAD, Gay and Lesbian Affirming Disciples. Each organization has its procedures for becoming officially Open and Affirming.  Most of them include a rigorous study and discernment process that should include the whole congregation.  This normally takes many months to complete.  It's comprehensive, well thought out and works. The process ends with a vote.  If the congregation votes to become "Open and Affirming," it is listed as such in denominational records and can begin to advertise itself as such.  The idea is to insure that congregations understand the issues fully and enter the gay community with no reservations.

My experience with congregations that have completed the process and became O & A is that they begin by being open while wanting to (eventually) become affirming.  Some make the transition successfully, others never do.  Here's the question that I put to these church's leaders: "Have you had any gay weddings? And if not, why not?" This question identifies the truly affirming congregations.

When I was actively engaged in consulting with congregations on O & A issues, I often ran across congregations which believed they were open and affirming without having to go through the process. Not one of them would allow gay weddings.  Why did I insist that this is the defining act of O & A? Because if you don't offer gays the very things you offer straights, you are not affirming. This extends to church leadership, including calling gay pastors.  Therefore these churches were simply fooling themselves.  The harm in this comes when LGBTs hear that one of these churches is safe, so they visit and soon learn it is not.

Lately, I've noticed a remarkable change. In my hometown there are two congregations that are not officially Open and Affirming, yet hold gay weddings. Having visited them on several occasions, I know they have made the transition to affirming without the benefit of the official process.  This phenomenon can be observed in cities across the USA.  What's going on here?  Are we in a post O&A age?

America, by osmosis, has become a majority Open and Affirming nation. Most of this was accomplished by two forces, the coming out of LGBTs in large numbers and the effective gay rights campaign. In 2004, just 36 percent of Catholics favored gay marriage, along with 34 percent of mainline Protestants. Now it's 57 percent of Catholics and 55 percent of mainline Protestants. Even among white evangelical Protestants support has risen from 11 percent in 2004 to 24 percent in 2013.  The more we've gotten to know LGBTs, the more we have taken their side.  Naturally, this spills over into our congregations who find themselves moving steadily into an affirming mode.

So, do I think there is no longer a need for O&A study and discernment as advocated by our denominations? Certainly not.  It would be tragic to use this as an excuse to subvert the process. This will still be useful for many a church, especially where there is overt opposition or remaining reluctance.  But I will now be willing to admit, as I haven't been until recently, that some churches have arrived there without the benefit of the process. Or, perhaps, better, became truly affirming by participating in the ongoing drama of justice-seeking in America.

The Anti-gay Industry, Part 2: Sources of Deception

The Anti-gay Industry is just that, an industry. It is an admixture of various parachurch ministries, churches, academics, and psychological practitioners that are organized around one mission: to stop the advancement of gay rights in America. It has enormous power in the Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christian world, and its spokespeople are the most evident in the mainstream media. They are "the voice and face" of what purports to be Christianity in America. (Remember how Jerry Falwell seemed to be on every channel at once?) They occupy high offices in Congress, fill various federal and state legislatures and agencies, and are found on school boards in every district. And, yes, they are mostly Republicans, a condition that worries not only the more moderate Republicans, but Democrats who understand the need for a two-party political system that actually works for the good of the whole.

Their ant-gay bias is a combination of many factors, chief among them being a literal understanding of the Bible. It's important to state at the outset that EVEN A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE does not support the notion that homosexuality is a sin or that God despises LGBTs. (For a complete analysis of all the Bible passages that are used to support anti-gay bias, see the chapter "But My Bible Says..." in my book, Marriage Equality. Clicking on the icon book cover on the left of this page will take you to Amazon.) That said, many people are led to believe the worst, and they do. Most of them are genuinely sincere and their motivations are pure; they simply are convinced that homosexuals are a menace to America by the Anti-gay Industry, which exploits their biblical naivety, and feeds them propaganda on a daily basis through their radio and TV shows, websites, emails and fundraising letters.

Another factor that supports the Industry in its subtrafuge is the exploitation of human's natural fear of "the other." Differences can be exploited to pit people against people as we have seen in race-baiting politics, the "Huns" of World War I, the "atheistic communists" of the Cold War, and LGBTs of today. If you are continually subjected to messages from your pastor, legislators, and people you trust that the greatest menace to your family and your children is gay rights, you naturally will be inclined to believe it without access to evidence to the contrary. How easily some people were convinced of this is in how many actually believe that same-sex marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage. No credible evidence of any kind has been submitted to substantiate this. It's simply taken as a given. Good grief!

Pseudoscience and pseudopsychology supply the intellectual backdrop for the Industry. The technical name for the theory that gays can change their orientation is Reparative Therapy. It is repudiated by every substantial psychological and medical professional group across the board in America. In order for there to be such a therapy, it first must be established that there is a strong need for such.  Here is where the onslaught of propaganda enters the picture that creates the impression that gays are abnormal, deviant, psychologically disturbed, pedophiles, disease ridden, short lived, promiscuous and (you fill in the blank). 

Then there are the "studies" that purport to show a very dark side to life in the gay community. Whenever they are peer reviewed—which is seldom, because they know they can't withstand that kind of scrutiny—they are universally shown to be fallacious, if not wholly made up. 

Over the next several postings we will examine these and other sources that the Industry draws upon to shape their arguments and mislead their constituents. We will look at the journals, associations,  ministries,  institutions, and leaders that subvert the truth and make life miserable for millions of LGBTs who otherwise would be free to live their lives as unencumbered as the rest of us.   

In the meantime, I leave you with this apology that John Paulke, a longtime advocate against gay rights, recently gave to the gay community at large. He was once the chairman of Exodus International and the organizer of Focus on the Family's, Love One Out program.

For the better part of ten years, I was an advocate and spokesman for what's known as the "ex-gay movement," where we declared that sexual orientation could be changed through a close-knit relationship with God, intensive therapy and strong determination. At the time, I truly believed that it would happen. And while many things in my life did change as a Christian, my sexual orientation did not….Please allow me to be clear: I do not believe that reparative therapy changes sexual orientation; in fact, it does great harm to many people.

 Finally, I know there are still accounts of my "ex-gay" testimony out there being publicized by various groups, including two books that I wrote about my journey. I don't get any royalties from these publications, and haven't since I left the ministry nearly ten years ago. I discourage anyone from purchasing and selling these books or promoting my "ex-gay" story because they do not reflect who I am now or what I believe today.

The full text of the apology can be found here: http://www.advocate.com/politics/religion/2013/04/24/john-paulk-formally-renounces-apologizes-harmful-ex-gay-movement

One final thought. Although for many months Mr. Paulk has repudiated his books, repeatedly requested they be ignored, and called on his former allies to stop using his now rejected testimony, the Anti-gay Industry continues to use them. Such is the nature of the forces we are up against.

The Anti-Gay Industry: Fear-Baiters for Profit and Power, Part 1

 "A political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat.  If no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured." - Leo Strauss, 20th century political philosopher

One of the oldest frauds in the world is to manufacture an enemy and then exploit the fear engendered for all the money/votes/power possible. The classic American example is the notorious Sen. Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, whose Red-baiting and hysterical claims of a communist under every government bed during the Cold War era of the 1950s, gave us the sobriquet, "McCarthyism," the modern equivalent of "crying wolf."

A present day McCarthy wannabe is former Rep. Allen West, R-Fla. At a town hall meeting, West said he thinks as many as 81 House Democrats "are members of the Communist Party." He was referring to the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Fortunately, no one took him seriously, at least no one with critical thinking skills.

I remember as a child listening to the radio broadcasts of Rev. Billy James Hargis and the Christian Crusade. Hargis was crusading against the Red menace that was about to take over America, and its sly maneuver to corrupt our youth through teaching sex education in schools. It turns out that Hargis was doing his own corrupting with the boys of his church, college and camp, and was forced to resign from all his ministries and organizations. (Hargis denied the charges, but left nonetheless.) Since then there have been a spate of people who decry this and that who have been found involved intimately in the things they (publically) abhor. Ted Haggard, and Sens. Larry Craig and David Vitter come to mind.

This is not to say that all who indulge in enemy-baiting are insincere hypocrites. Not at all. There are many who find threats to their prefered view of things that are not only sincere, but consistent in their words and work. I am concerned here with 1) the reality that "enemies" make for good politics as well as personal gain, and 2) there are those who regularly exploit fear of enemies and even create enemies out of whole cloth. Today, with communism largely confined to Cuba, exploiters needed to find a new "enemy."

I am reminded of an incident Mel White relates when he was ghost writing Rev. Jerry Falwell's "autobiography." They were together in San Francisco where Falwell spoke to a large audience in a downtown hotel. After the speech, they had to muscle their way into their limo because a local gay protest had managed to block their way and, once in the car, impeded their progress. Amid the shouting, jostling of the car, and general hoopla, Falwell turned to Mel and said, "If I didn't have these gays, I'd have to invent them."

Yes, some "enemies" to exploit are readily at hand. And the Anti-gay Industry is alive and well today doing just that. I will be posting a series on the more destructive of these neo-McCarthyites over the next few days. We will begin by examining the pool of accumulated data that purports to be scientific studies that all the major players draw from, yet turn out to be as bogus and helpful as the latest fad diet. Stay tuned!

Will 2013 Go Down as the Annus Mirabilis of the Gay Rights Struggle?

Rev. Steve Kindle
Ex. Dir. Clergy United
www.clergyunited.org

Just as Martin Luther King Jr. either prophesied or intuited, the arc of history, at least here in the USA, continues to bend toward justice.  Just a year ago, few had in mind the rapid fire changes that resulted in now 13 states offering same-sex marriage, and what looks like an irresistible march toward fifty state compliance.  I admit that I am giddy over the prospects.

Then there's the almost impossible-to-call reversal of the stance held by Exodus International, the first and largest ex-gay movement in the world, that gays could change their sexual orientation by either good counseling provided by the reparative therapy crowd, or getting right with God. The bodies that are littering the paths of all who held out such hope are staggeringly high.  Not only has EI repudiated their mission, they have called it quits! We would be celebrating this amazing turn of events were it not for so much carnage wrought getting there.

You may (I hope) have noticed my absence on this blog this past month.  Well, I've learned that when you self-publish a book, it takes as much energy after the publication to get it noticed as it did to write it. That includes writing about it as much as writing it!  So, silly me, I actually have another book on the way.  Some people can put out volumes (check out my friend, Bob Cornwall's blog and book output, for example:http://www.bobcornwall.com/).  But I'm a "bleeder," as they say in the guild.  I suffer over every word and much prefer seeing what I have written than writing it.

I bring this up because of the serendipitous moments that arrive just when you need one. Such a moment happened yesterday. My new book is for parents of gay children, If Your Child Is Gay: What every parent of a gay child needs to know to insure a positive outcome in an often negative world. It should be out next week. (Watch this space!)  I had written what I know is an obvious critique of the leaders of the "Anti-gay Industry." Here's a bit of it:

Not everyone in America is of the same mind on the subject of homosexuality, as I am sure you know. This is not to say that reasonable minds can disagree and we can leave it at that. You see, the opposition, for the most part, is unreasonable to the point of obstinacy. Why? They are most often driven by ideology, not the search for reliable facts or even interested at all in you or your children’s well-being. 

What I wrote is absolutely true, and those of us who are close to the ins and outs of the daily struggle with the Anti-gay Industry are well aware of this.  However, for a parent who is just being introduced to things gay, it is not apparent; it's even counter intuitive to believe that. They come off so sincere and righteous.  So, I knew I had to find a way to make this point and one was not easily at hand.  Until yesterday, that is. So here is how I was able to finish the thought:

A recent apology to the entire gay community from a long-time lobbyist for the largest anti-gay ministry in the world, Randy Thomas, underscores this. Here is part of what he admitted to on July 22, 2013, in a posting on his personal blog http://randythomas.co/2013/07/23/apology/ : 

"I participated in the hurtful echo chamber of condemnation. I gave lip service to the gay community, but really did not exemplify compassion for them. I placed the battle over policy [read: ideology] above my concern for real people. I sometimes valued the shoulder pats I was given by religious leaders more than Jesus' commandment to love and serve. That was wrong and I'm disappointed in myself. Please forgive me."

As could be predicted, the Industry was out in force jamming his blog with so much hateful commenting about his apology that Randy had to install a comment review program before posting any more comments. Such is the behaviour of those who supposedly do their work out of love for humanity.

The huge increase in gay marriage rights and the decline of Exodus International in 2013 may very well mean that this year will be looked upon as the Annus Mirabilis of the Gay Rights Movement, even as 1963 is for the Civil Rights Movement.  Martin Luther King would be proud. 

It's Not Over--by a Longshot

Rev. Steve Kindle, Ex. Dir
Clergy United, Inc.
www.clergyunited.org

My friend and writer for the Ex-Gay Watch, Michael Airhart, visited Judson Memorial Church in NYC on Pride Sunday. The sermon  found here from Community Minister Micah Bucey reminded the congregation that the struggle for gay dignity is far from over. Here's a salient quote from the sermon

We, as a queer community, even as we celebrate immense progress, are in danger of inactively disappearing our own people. Our Marriage Equality campaigns have embraced the institution and ignored the less easily assimilated members of our queer community. Our visibility is helping kids to come out at younger ages, but some are being kicked out of their homes, coming to New York City to find community and, in a terrible twist, being booted off of the piers by the very residents of the Village who came here decades ago to find their own safely queer space.

There's a general impression that with the right to marry, LGBTs have achieved full equality. Setting aside for the moment that full equality means 50 state participation, and employment protection, as well as myriad other goals not yet achieved, this victory is only for those who are easily assimilated into the wider culture.  There are many others not yet the focus of concern and, as Bucey points out, are becoming rarer even on the  radar screens of the gay community.  These include the young, poor, and queerer, especially the "I's and Ts."   Intersexuals, transsexuals, transvestites, transgender, and transitioning still have miles to go before they can rest in the security of public acceptance and equal rights.

Only recently have the "Is and Ts" been welcome in the movement, an ironic situation, since the historic moment of Stonewall was largely accomplished by transvestites refusing to be abused by NYC police. They have been on the outside looking in for most of the decades of the rise of the gay rights movement. Casual observers of social change aren't aware of the animosities that existed, and still do in some areas, between gays and lesbians, and LGBs and Ts.

I was attending a cocktail party hosted by a prominent gay organization where a transexual was a featured speaker.  She was mingling in the crowd when a gay man approached me with a question. "Is she (formerly a man, now a woman) straight or gay?"  "I don't know," I said. "But she definitely is queer!"  Thus the acronym is expanded to include Qs, people who don't normally fit into neat categories.  And because they don't easily fit into nicely received gender roles, they struggle for acceptance, even among those who should know better.

Another story will help illustrate my point. When I was a pastor of a church in Honolulu, our church president was a pre-op transsexual.  Formerly, Jane was a Marine who fought in Vietnam and still was a hulking, imposing figure. My wife was not as familiar with Ts as I, and her comfort level was low.  She was full of anxiety as to what to say to her, how to say it, and didn't want to embarrass Jane or herself. But she made the effort. One day she confessed to me that she no longer had any anxieties. She discovered, in the midst of a conversation about fingernail care with Jane, that the "otherness" completely disappeared and she was simply talking with another woman.  My point? Until we as a society can get as comfortable with those less like ourselves, as we have with gays in general, the Is and Ts and Qs will remain on the edges of society, even on the edges of gay society.

So, let's not rest on our victory laurels just yet. In fact, we need to double down on our support of Is, Ts, and Qs. Martin Luther King's standard is still true that "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly." LGBTIQ is not just an acronym.  It represents a people who deserve the dignity inherent in all yet still denied to some. The cause continues.

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=)

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.

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 

"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.

Here NOM Goes Again!

I've devoted several posts to prior statements from the National Organization for Marriage, NOM, that more than require a scratching of the head. This time, however, they have outdone themselves.  Their peculiar brand of logic can only be described as solely at the service of their cramped ideology.  For it makes no sense except to them and to those who subscribe to their patriarchal notions of family.  To wit:

In an article yesterday from the Associated Press, the writer surveyed the Justices' family situations and discovered that they are divorced, remarried, never married with no children, and married once with children. In other words, the Justices' family lives look a lot like American families. This got John Cherlin, a Johns Hopkins sociologist thinking about the upcoming gay marriage cases, and mused, if "Justices consider their own family lives in these cases, it may change the way they rule."  Chief Justice Roberts and his wife are the parents of two adopted children.  The chairman of NOM, John Eastman, commented on the value of Justice Roberts' decision to adopt:

"You're looking at what is the best course society wide to get you the optimal result in the widest variety of cases. That often is not open to people in individual cases. Certainly adoption in families headed, like Chief Roberts' family is, by a heterosexual couple, is by far the second-best option." 

The "second best option."  Adoption could never be considered anything but second best. Why?  Because only a family of the birth mother and birth father raising their own birth children qualifies as "the best."  

There is no room in NOM's world for anything but mom, dad and their child as the best, and if they had their way, the ONLY way to raise a family.  I wonder how Justice Roberts and his wife feel about being second best?  I wonder how his children when they look back upon their lives will feel about being raised "second best"?  Or adopted children and their parents everywhere?

I told you this would only make sense if you must defend at all costs NOM's view of the ideal home.  No wonder then that yesterday Brian Brown, NOM's president, released the following statement regarding the selection of Pope Francis I:

Pope Francis has also said: "At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts."

You see, the issue isn't that NOM really cares that adoption is second best.  What they really are after is a way of prioritizing the hierarchy of family configurations from best to worst so they can make gay families with adopted children the worst.

The stakes are so high with NOM that they will insult the Chief Justice of the United States, his children, all adoptive parents and their children, and all who will ever open their homes to orphaned children.  This is what happens when ideology blinds: anything goes.

The New Pope and Our Cause

I celebrate along with the 1.2 billion Roman Catholics and innumerable other religious and nonreligious people around the world the election of Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina to the church's highest office.  Even thought I am a Protestant, I hold the Catholic Church in high esteem and recognize its importance to the world.  

All the earmarks are pointing in the right direction: Pope Francis I, is a product of the struggle in Latin America for justice for the poor, and is known as a critic of the business interests who continuously exploit their people.  He is a humble man, eschewing the perks of his high office, preferring public transportation to chauffeured limousines, and lives in a small flat, not a palace.  "Cardinal Bergoglio had a special place in his heart and his ministry for the poor, for the disenfranchised, for those living on the fringes and facing injustice," said Vatican spokesperson Thomas Rosica.  Even the choice of his papal name bespeaks of a man who cares deeply for human injustices. That is, for all but one:

The above quote occurred during the campaign in Argentina that resulted in legalization of same-sex marriage in 2010.  He also warned that adoption by gay parents would result in depriving children "of the human growth that God wanted [for] them given by a father and a mother."  

This makes me wonder how people of good will, and I believe most assuredly that our new pope is one, can isolate out certain injustices as not worthy of their attention.  Or in this case is seen as anything but an injustice, but an evil that must be eradicated.  

Sometimes it's simply a matter of theology or ideology trumping otherwise good judgment. It's seen in some Black Americans condemning LGBTs "because the Bible says they are an abomination," using as their source authority the same Bible that condemned them to slavery and segregation.  It's seen in Pro Life people who will sacrifice their lives to save the unborn, but won't support legislation to provide them a safety net after they are born.  It's seen in those who are against birth control, yet won't allow condoms to halt the spread of AIDS.  We could go on and on, couldn't we.  

The Catholic Sun says of Pope Francis I,

His role often forces him to speak publicly about the economic, social and political problems facing his country. His homilies and speeches are filled with references to the fact that all people are brothers and sisters and that the church and the country need to do what they can to make sure that everyone feels welcome, respected and cared for.  

How often have we seen signs on churches that advertise, "All are welcome here," only to find that this welcome is not universal, not for all.  Such statements from the pope are hypocritical at worst and blithely naive at best. As for "respected and cared for", how can we take him seriously when he supports the view, as stated in a letter to the Bishops (drafted by then Cardinal Ratzinger) from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, that homosexuals are "intrinsically disordered"? (This is from the same Congregation that ran the infamous Inquisition.)

Many believe that the Roman Catholic Church has lost its standing to tell anyone how to conduct sexually moral lives.  Perhaps this is partially why 58% of American Catholics support same-sex marriage, while only 38% oppose it.  And many of the most Catholic of countries, Spain, Portugal and even Argentina have legalized it.  People have a way of seeing through inconsistencies and rank injustices.

I am not a "one issue" voter.  I will not disregard the pope, or the Catholic Church for that matter, simply because they are on the opposite side of this issue from me.  I will support them for the many, many good things they do in the world for the poor and marginalized.  I will pray for the pope for the wisdom and support he needs to guide his church in the coming days and years.  But I will also speak out against this outrageous omission, this blind spot in the pope and his church, with the hope that maybe some day the leaders of the church will catch up to the wisdom of their members.

The Closet and Clandestine, Anonymous Sex

Part 4 of The Harmful Effects of the Closet

Preamble to each post: There is no doubt that "the closet" is the most harmful result of continuing to deny LGBTs a legitimate and equal place in society. By not acknowledging them, heterosexuals force them into hiding. The results are often catastrophic. What is also not in doubt is that the closet is of heterosexual making. Rather than wag our fingers and preach our condemning sermons, we should be doing all we can to eliminate this despicable situation. For a simple fact remains: if we eliminate the closet, we eliminate all those things that we negatively associate with gayness. Even better, LGBTs are freed from the inhumanity of closet life.

Way back in 1965, in a CBS documentary, viewers heard Mike Wallace say,

"The average homosexual, if there be such, is promiscuous. He is not interested or capable of a lasting relationship like that of a heterosexual marriage. His sex life, his love life, consists of a series of one–chance encounters at the clubs and bars he inhabits. And even on the streets of the city — the pick-up, the one night stand, these are characteristics of the homosexual relationship. And the homosexual prostitute has become a fixture in the downtown streets at night."

One thing we have learned since then is that this is not the picture of the "average homosexual."  Not then or ever.  It is, however, a slice of gay life that is also not all that uncommon among straight singles.  But typical, no; not of either sexual orientation.

But people back in that era were unfamiliar with the "average homosexual" because most lived deep in the closet.  There was no way of knowing the totality of the community as it was hidden from view; at least, from straight view.  All we thought we knew was based on rumor, innuendo and stereotypes passed from generation to generation.  The "average homosexual" was as unreal as the Cleaver family's depiction of the "average family" on "Leave It to Beaver."  Even in our time, when the closet is beginning to empty out, it is impossible to estimate the true percentage of the homosexual population, because so many remain unnoticed.

Today we know that the broad outlines suggested in the CBS documentary are decidedly false.  There are many thousands of documented life-long gay relationships, many of which became officially recognized in marriage ceremonies in states when they became legal. There are also innumerable Christian LGBTs who have persevered in their churches, even rising to high office as pastors, elders, deacons, teachers, choir directors, organists, as well as faithfully active members.  Many of us who were raised in homophobic environments became supporters, even advocates of gay equality, when we got to know many LGBTs and discovered the stereotypes we were taught are manifestly wrong.

Yet, the opposition likes to trot out so-called "scientific studies" which would keep in force these malicious stereotypes. One notable study is from Holland and is summarized in this way:

Homosexual Unions Last Only 1.5 Years, Says New Study

BY LIFESITENEWS.COM

• Mon Jul 14, 2003 11:15 EST

• 
  

AMSTERDAM, July 14, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - As Canada and several U.S. states move toward the legalization of so-called homosexual “marriage,” a new study has found that homosexual partnerships last, on average, only one-and-a-half years.  The study is based on the health records of young Dutch homosexuals by Dr. Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service and published in the May issue of the journal AIDS. It also found that men in homosexual relationships have an average of eight partners a year outside their main partnership, adding more evidence to the “stereotype” that homosexuals tend to be promiscuous.  The findings are “proof positive that these relationships ... will never be as stable as a normal heterosexual relationship regardless of what institutions or laws are changed,” said Pete LaBarbara, senior policy analyst at Concerned Women for America’s Culture and Family Institute, who predicts that homosexual promiscuity will remain “rampant.”

If this is all you had to go on, you might be inclined to take this at face value.  However, what LifeSiteNews does not tell you is that this study was confined only to those who were treated at STD clinics, were 30 years and younger, may not have been in an actual relationship, excluded monogamous men, was confined to the city of Amsterdam, and open mostly to HIV/AIDS patients.  In other words, this doesn't even begin to represent the gay community nor was it intended to.  This study was limited to the promiscuous for the purpose of determining how AIDS spread in a community.  And guess what they found?  Non-monogamous gays are not monogamous.  I'm shocked, shocked!  And, as far as lending itself to conclusions about the "average homosexual," it totally left out lesbians.

According to an analysis in the Box Turtle Bulletin:

This turns out to be a very common tactic among anti-gay extremists. Because they’re eager to portray their positions as being backed by scientific research, they often turn to medical studies to support their arguments. And they are especially fond of studies of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases (STD’s), which they can count on to provide especially juicy statistics to describe “what homosexuals do”. But of course, all you really learn from these studies is what some homosexuals do — the ones who go to STD clinics because they’ve picked up a disease. By turning to Dr. Xiridou’s study, these activists are following a well-worn path. Click here for a full review of the misleading interpretations of the Dutch Report.

Now, to turn to the issue of promiscuity among gay men, let's not kid ourselves.  Men, per se, are promiscuous.  It is well-known among sociologists that women are the moderating factor in controlling male sexual urges.  It is also true that the libido in men is stronger than in women.  The following analogy is overly simplistic, yet to the point: Think of the libido as a light switch.  For men, it is mostly on, for women it is mostly off.  (Or, men are turned on and women need to be turned on.)  Naturally, when men are attracted to each other, it doesn't take much for the libidos to take over.  (I said this is overly simplistic, but not altogether unrealistic.)  When women are available to straight men for sexual purposes, they are no less promiscuous than gay men.  So let's not single out gay men as overly promiscuous.

But as to clandestine, anonymous sex, there may be a slight difference between gay and straight men. (Let's not overlook the fact that sex with prostitutes, phone sex, and one-night stands on the part of straight men, constitute clandestine, anonymous sex.)  But why is it that gay men populate the bath houses, parks, and backrooms in bars, and cruise the streets looking for a willing partner?  BECAUSE WHEN THEY ARE IN THE CLOSET, ANONYMOUS SEX IS ALL THAT IS AVAILABLE TO THEM.  Yes, I am shouting.  I am shouting because this reality needs to be clearly heard.  It is not because of moral laxity, or a character flaw, or an inherently deviant psychological disposition, but because as long as we force people into the closet, we give them no other choice.  At least it seems that way to them.  For to live one's gay sexuality in the open is not an option for those who live in the closet.

So, let's ease up on the rhetoric and give people a break.  Let's also do what we can to eliminate the need for the closet and most of the things straights abhor that go on there will disappear.

TOMORROW: Part 5: The intense loneliness of not having a life companion openly at one's side

The Closet and Inappropriate Marriages

Part 3 of The Harmful Effects of the Closet

Preamble to each post: There is no doubt that "the closet" is the most harmful result of continuing to deny LGBTs a legitimate and equal place in society. By not acknowledging them, heterosexuals force them into hiding. The results are often catastrophic. What is also not in doubt is that the closet is of heterosexual making. Rather than wag our fingers and preach our condemning sermons, we should be doing all we can to eliminate this despicable situation. For a simple fact remains: if we eliminate the closet, we eliminate all those things that we negatively associate with gayness. Even better, LGBTs are freed from the inhumanity of closet life.

By making life miserable for LGBTs, many resort to the secrecy of the closet in order to protect themselves.  To do so, they must appear as normal sexually as everyone else seems to be.  Often, this involves getting married.  Often, at least two lives are ruined in the process.  If children are involved, the body count continues.  People being forced into unnatural marriages is one of the most horrific aspects of the closet.

You don't have to look too far to know of such marriages.  I know of many.  A dear friend of mine had his wife come to him in tears, sobbing out, "God made me wrong."  They ended up divorcing.  Thankfully, no children were involved.  

Another friend and pastoral colleague learned of his wife's lesbianism when an affair was uncovered.  This time, children were involved.

An elder in a church I served married and had a child.  He couldn't live what he termed "a lie," and eventually   ended his marriage.

These stories could be continued indefinitely because they are all around us.  Just reading them on the page doesn't come close to the heart wrenching trauma suffered by all involved. Broken hearts, ended dreams, lives turned upside down, and children bewildered.  These are but a few of the consequences of forcing people to live contrary to their nature.  If you want to get a real sense of the anguish that comes with this, watch the documentary, For the Bible Tells Me So. It's available on Netflix.

The truly stultifying aspect of this is that it is totally unnecessary.  If there were no closet, there would be no need for these marriages in the first place.  And if same-sex marriage were available and acceptable, first marriages would be starting out as they should.  More and more people are seeing the logic of this and are now supporting efforts for gay normalization.

Recall that the first "not good" following all that was good in the creation stories of Genesis, was that the creature was alone.  God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone."  It is also not good for a man or woman to be forced into a marriage that maintains this loneliness. For only that partner who truly is suitable can do this.  For nonheterosexuals, only a same-sex partner will do.  (For a more complete explanation, see http://clergyunited.blogspot.com/2013/01/loneliness-first-not-good-of-creation.html)

I don't want to indict the motives or the character of those who make the choice to try to live their lives as best they can by trying to conform to society's expectations.  Many actually start out believing that they will somehow change by getting married, only to realize, too late, that they cannot change.  Others feel they are in love with their marriage partner, but discover that it is the love of a friend, not a spouse.  Still others discover their true sexuality after marriage.  Many who are still married but unhappy (lonely) persevere because of religious scruples and live lives of quiet desperation. I don't wish to disparage any of them for the choices they make, for it is a situation forced upon them by a heterocentric society that offers no good alternatives.  If we truly regret this situation, we need to do all we can to make the closet no longer necessary.

In the video below, hear from husbands and wives of gay partners who moved on from their marriages and how it affects all parties involved.  Courageous men and women, heartbroken, yet supportive of their loved one.  True humanity observed.

MONDAY: Clandestine and anonymous sexual practices

Why the Closet?

The Harmful Effects of the Closet, Part 2: 
"Heterosexism, the Begetter of the Closet"


Preamble to each post: There is no doubt that "the closet" is the most harmful result of continuing to deny LGBTs a legitimate and equal place in society. By not acknowledging them, heterosexuals force them into hiding. The results are often catastrophic. What is also not in doubt is that the closet is of heterosexual making. Rather than wag our fingers and preach our condemning sermons, we should be doing all we can to eliminate this despicable situation. For a simple fact remains: if we eliminate the closet, we eliminate all those things that we negatively associate with gayness. Even better, LGBTs are freed from the inhumanity of closet life.

I ask you, if you are a heterosexual, do you (ever)…

...fear holding hands with your lover in public?
...fear your sexuality will be held against you at work?
...reject thoughts of having children and grandchildren out of hand?
...get apprehensive upon leaving a straight bar?
...hide your sexual identity from your family and friends?
...send out false signal regarding your sexual identity to appear otherwise?
...think that your heterosexuality is a burden in any way?

Or do you...

...remember fighting against your initial fears you may be heterosexual?
...loathe yourself for being “unnatural”?
...resent your feelings of attraction to the opposite sex?
...keep your sexual identity from your friends and family for fear of rejection or condemnation?
...often wish you were not heterosexual?
...ever consider entering therapy to try to reverse your heterosexuality?
...hope that your sexuality might rise to the level of acceptability, but never imagine it would be held in high esteem?
...live deep in the closet because you are afraid to live openly as a heterosexual? 

Of course, Mr. and Ms. Heterosexual, you never were confronted by any of these situations. You have lived your life free from the burden of orientation pretense and openly pursued your life. How very different from our LGBT friends and family members. In order to keep their jobs, their standing in social circles (including churches), even their sanity, they must keep their true sexual orientation from us.  For if they don't, the personal and economic consequences are often very harsh, even life-threatening.  It's no wonder many choose to live a closeted existence.

So, just what is it that set up such conditions that LGBTs feel it necessary to hide from us? It's called heterosexism.

Heterosexism is an acculturated system of bias regarding sexual orientation. It encourages values in favor of heterosexual people and enforces prejudiced actions against LGBTs.

In other words, heterosexism is a means by which heterosexuals maintain their power. It is not unlike White racism in that regard.

Gregory Herek, professor of psychology at the University of California, distinguishes between two manifestations of heterosexism:

Cultural:  The stigmatization, denial, or denigration of nonheterosexuality in cultural institutions ranging from the church to the courthouse.
Psychological:  A person’s internalization of this worldview which erupts in antigay prejudice and homophobia.

Virtually every society has in-groups and out-groups. For keeping minorities subjugated to the dominant culture, two operations are used:  prejudice and discrimination. This results in the singling out of individuals or groups of people as targets of hostility even though they may have little or nothing to do with the evils for which they stand accused. Scapegoating is the result, with the closet as the only defense against heterosexism and homophobia.

This is why heterosexuals are responsible for creating and maintaining the closet. We like it this way. We maintain our power and keep opposition at bay.

How do heterosexuals further the heterosexist agenda? In ways both overt and covert. "That's so gay!" "You throw like a girl." "Marriage should be restricted to one man and one woman." "The Bible condemns homosexuality." "If you must have a same-sex relationship, keep it in private."

I once referred to myself as an "avowed heterosexual." The idea is silly on the face of it! I said it in response to someone who referred to another as an avowed homosexual, as though that was too horrifying to contemplate. We went on to discuss heterosexual privilege. I asked him why it was okay for him to show affection to his wife in public, but not for gays.  I asked him why we aren't allowed to discriminate in job hiring and housing against racial minorities, but it's perfectly fine to discriminate against gays.  I asked him why we keep straights in the military, but give gays bad conduct discharges. I asked him why straight couples are allowed to adopt children, but in most states, gays cannot.  I asked him why sodomy between straight couples was fine, but not with gay couples.  You get the picture; that's heterosexism doing its work.

My coming postings will feature aspects of the closet that no one appreciates.  Our tendency as straights is to  blame the situation on gays and attribute these offenses to their moral inferiority. However, the stark reality is that, by virtue of heterosexism, straights created each and every condition that we so easily condemn, when the accusing finger should be pointing at us. People of good will throughout the world are realizing the harm the closet perpetuates and are working diligently to dismantle it. Why not; we made it in the first place.

This video elaborates on heterosexism and explains it better than I can:

TOMORROW: The Closet and Inappropriate Marriages

New Series: The Harmful Effects of the Closet

There is no doubt that "the closet" is the most harmful result of continuing to deny LGBTs a legitimate and equal place in society. By not acknowledging them, heterosexuals force them into hiding. The results are often catastrophic. What is also not in doubt is that the closet is of heterosexual making. Rather than wag our fingers and preach our condemning sermons, we should be doing all we can to eliminate this despicable situation. For a simple fact remains: if we eliminate the closet, we eliminate all those things that we negatively associate with gayness.

Here are just a few of the negative results:

     Clandestine and anonymous sexual practices
     Inappropriate marriages
     Self-loathing (internalized homophobia)
     Magnet for disease (STD and otherwise)
     Truncated sense of wholeness (disempowerment)
     Superficial relationships with straights and gays
     Imposed hypocrisy
     Sheer pain of not being oneself
     Intense loneliness of not having a life companion openly at one's side

Let me be perfectly clear: the closet is created, welcomed, and maintained by straight people solely for our benefit. Because we make life miserable for nonheterosexuals, we drive them into secrecy, into the closet. We make them live lives that hide their true identity from us. There, they are forced to live lives of such bewildering complications that it's amazing that any can pass as straight.  This "out of sight, out of mind" mentality doesn't make it go away, it exacerbates our problems and theirs.

Over the next couple of weeks, I will be taking a look at the devastating consequences of closeted living. My hope is that I will be able to convince people of good will that whatever problems we may have with the so-called "gay lifestyle," we are the cause and we must assist in the cure.  

It is true that the population of the closet is getting smaller and smaller, due in large part to LGBTs coming out in large numbers. As strides are made in all aspects of society that bring the unsubstantiated charges against LGBTs to light, and  the misinformation peddled by ignorant people is replaced by solid research, the pressure to hide is lessened. Yet the closet is by no means a thing of the past. Therefore, much work still needs to be done to make it possible for our closeted citizens to feel that they can live as free to be themselves as anyone else can. That's why I do this blog, and why I hope you read it.

The following is a press release by the American Sociological Association sent yesterday. It should put to bed any remaining doubt that the academic community, the only body qualified to speak authoritatively on issues regarding scientific inquiry, is solidly behind same-sex marriage and gay normalcy in general. It speaks clearly for itself; I have no need to comment. Those who continue to foster contrary arguments do so from a position contrary to the facts. We will have to look to other motives to determine why.

_______________________________________________________

ASA Files Amicus Brief with U.S. Supreme Court in Same-Sex Marriage Cases

Research Shows Parents’ Sexual Orientation Has No Bearing on Children’s Well-Being

WASHINGTON, DC, February 28, 2013 — The American Sociological Association (ASA) weighed in on the gay marriage cases before the U.S. Supreme Court today, filing an amicus brief outlining social science research that shows “children fare just as well” when raised by same-sex or heterosexual parents.

“The results of our review are clear,” said ASA President Cecilia Ridgeway. “There is no evidence that children with parents in stable same-sex or opposite-sex relationships differ in terms of well-being. Indeed, the greater stability offered by marriage for same-sex as well as opposite-sex parents may be an asset for child well-being.”

Founded in 1905, the ASA has more than 14,000 members and a long history of presenting the consensus research findings of sociologists to American courts for their use in evaluating evidence and legal issues. In March, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear cases on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages already legalized under the law of several states, and Proposition 8, which revoked the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.

“An issue at the heart of these cases is whether family composition, per se, affects the well-being of children and thus, provides a justification for limiting the right to marry,” said Ridgeway, the Lucie Stern Professor of Social Sciences in the Sociology Department at Stanford University. “This core question is an empirical one and is the subject of a broad range of social science research. As a scientific body, ASA has a duty to provide the court with a systematic and balanced review of the evidence to assess what the consensus of scholarly research has shown.”

In their briefs to the court, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives, which is defending DOMA, the Hollingsworth Petitioners, which are defending Proposition 8, and their respective supporters assert that children fare better with opposite-sex parents than with same-sex parents.

“When the social science evidence is exhaustively examined—which the ASA has done—the facts demonstrate that children fare just as well when raised by same-sex parents,” states the ASA amicus brief. “Unsubstantiated fears regarding same-sex child rearing do not overcome these facts and do not justify upholding DOMA and Proposition 8.”

Wendy Diane Manning, Professor of Sociology, Director of the Center for Family & Demographic Research, and Co-Director of the National Center for Family and Marriage Research at Bowling Green State University, led ASA’s examination of the social science evidence. Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP of New York City served as counsel to the ASA on the brief.

____________________________________________

The American Sociological Association (www.asanet.org), founded in 1905, is a non-profit membership association dedicated to serving sociologists in their work, advancing sociology as a science and profession, and promoting the contributions to and use of sociology by society.

To Come Out or Not to Come Out; That Is the Question

Hide and Seek is a child's game; one that I used to play with relish. I much preferred hiding. It was so much more fun than wandering aimlessly looking, often in vain, for my brother or other friends.  One of my tactics was to follow behind the seeker and hide where he had already looked! Now that I am older (much), I, in the words of the apostle Paul, have put away childish things.

But for today's LGBT, hiding is not so much fun.  In fact, the "closet" is a miserable place to hide. I will devote a series to this later, but for now, I want to encourage my gay friends to consider "coming out."

One question I get asked these days is how do I account for the rapid change in America's attitude toward approving same-sex marriage and things gay in general?  The answer is not complicated. When the gay rights movement took off in the last half of the 20th century, it was of necessity led by the more militant, strident and ostentatious protesters. "We're here, we're queer. Get used to it," was their rallying cry. Gay pride parades featuring drag queens, nudity, Dykes on Bikes, and my personal favorite, Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence,  were forcing themselves and their cause into the public discourse. Naturally, they made as many enemies as friends, as these remain the stereotypical gays in the minds of the opposition.

But something happened.  As we are now well into the 21st century, LGBTs have a new face. They are represented by such as gay New York Fire Department Catholic chaplain Father Mychal Judge. Judge, 68, was killed while ministering to a fallen firefighter at Ground Zero. Or, Mark Bingham, 31, a gay passenger on United Airlines Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania, helping to thwart the plane's hijackers. Father Judge is being considered for sainthood, and September 16th is officially designated Mark Bingham Day in San Francisco.

The murder and torturing of sweet-faced Matthew Shepard made us sorrow.  He could have been our brother or son.  Then when the Phelps family picketed his funeral displaying "Matthew Shepard is in hell" signs, we became indignant. We were startled when Ellen DeGeneres came out, but we continued to love her and tune into her TV show by the millions. We adored Liberace, and when we found out the truth of his sexuality, it only disturbed us that he was forced to hide it all his life. We became aware, person by person, from the famous to the unknown, that so many people we thought we knew turned out to have a secret.

Some of them were our brothers and sisters, our aunts and uncles, even our parents. Each one, dear to us.  They taught us a valuable lesson: their sexuality ultimately made no difference to us. They were the same person before and after. We found them to be as normal as the next person. Then when we saw gay characters portrayed on TV or in the movies, they seemed like everyone else, well...perhaps funnier, and maybe better looking, but not that different.

I can't tell you the percentage increase over other periods, but the 21st century has seen a huge increase of out of the closet, or never in the closet LGBTs, who are as normal as the next Joe or Jane, José or Maria. We no longer (in the main) distrust their motives, or are nervous among them, or see them as different. We elect them to public office, ordain them as our pastors, work for them or hire them, even hang out with them.  We listen to their music (Leonard Bernstein), watch their movies (Jodie Foster) and TV shows (Jim Parsons, "The Big Bang Theory"), listen to their news shows (Anderson Cooper), read their books (Truman Capote), recite their poetry (Emily Dickinson), marvel at their art (Michelangelo), watch their plays (Tennessee Williams), and engage them in countless ways and not even know it.

It slowly but surely dawned on us: these people we formerly didn't know are now as welcome in our lives as anyone else. All because they came out in sufficient numbers that a tipping point arrived.

I have no standing to urge any LGBT who is still in the closet to come out.  I understand, somewhat, the toll it can take on someone ill prepared.  I know that there are good reasons for some to stay closet-bound, and I hope you can be safe there.  But for the many others who are contemplating coming out, I only wish to say to you that your brother and sister LGBTs who have come out have made all the difference in general acceptance across our country.  So, if you do come out, it will mean a further deepening of that acceptance. All those who knew you before will now know that you are one like themselves, a normal American living a useful life, complete with the trials and rewards life brings to us all.

But in one way, if you chose to come out, you will be something most of us will never be: a hero.

"A hero is an ordinary individual who finds the strength to persevere and endure in spite of overwhelming obstacles." ~Christopher Reeve