"Loss of religious freedom" is the New Party Line

By Steve Kindle, CEO Clergy United

Although the Christian Right continues to find objections to same-sex marriage, the public at large continues to see through them. With a nearly 60% approval across the polls, Americans are embracing the reality that gay love is no different in substance from straight love. Here's how Justice Kennedy put it in his majority opinion.

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. It is so ordered.

Now that their battle to stop marriage equality from becoming the law of the land (as it is in seventeen other nations) is concluded here in the USA, an old tactic is reemerging. The Christian Right is casting itself as an abused minority whose religious freedoms are being attacked and abridged. Here are some representative quotes from Republican presidential candidates.  

Mike Huckabee: "The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature's God on marriage than it can the law of gravity. Under our Constitution, the court cannot write a law, even though some cowardly politicians will wave the white flag and accept it without realizing that they are failing their sworn duty to reject abuses from the court. If accepted by Congress and this President, this decision will be a serious blow to religious liberty, which is the heart of the First Amendment."

Rick Santorum: "It is an increasing view that if you are not with this new orthodoxy, the secularism that is now coming from the government, that these are the values that the government values. If you don't live up to those values, well then you can be persecuted and maybe even prosecuted for doing so."

Bobby Jindal: "This decision will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision. This ruling must not be used as pretext by Washington to erode our right to religious liberty."

The essential argument is that one's religious beliefs should be protected by the government. That any infringement on my ability to act in a manner my beliefs demand is religious persecution. Therefore, my deeply held belief that gay marriage is against the will of God protects me from having anything to do with its practice.

Of course, this seems like a perfectly legitimate concern. People should be able to practice their religion as they see it. Yet, when specific situations are given, the flaws in this reasoning become apparent.

Whenever minorities are granted rights long withheld from them, the majority loses some of theirs.  Because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 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 what the owners believe that "race mixing" is a sin.  Gone are the “Whites Only” counters, “restricted clubs” (no Jews allowed), and red-lined neighborhoods.  Most of us feel that whatever losses ensued are America's gain.

The Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage means 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. So, yes, those wedding cake bakers who serve the public whose religious belief would keep them from marrying someone of the same sex, does not protect them from not serving a gay couple.

The blogs on the Religious Right are warning America that churches will lose their tax-exempt status if they refuse to marry LGBTs. This is preposterous. This is generally held by constitutional scholars to be a red herring. The First Amendment of the US Constitution secures this as Justice Kennedy observed in his Majority opinion.

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.

So, be prepared to counter these often hysterical reactions to the so-called loss of religious liberty. People of any faith or no faith will always be able to believe whatever they choose. They just won't be able to use their faith to limit the rights of any American because of them.

Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson Is a Blessing

The controversy surrounding Phil Robertson's anti-gay remarks and his revisionist retelling of how African Americans loved their lives during the Jim Crow era found both supporters and detractors across America. I probably don't have to quote him here, so you can skip to the next paragraph if you're already sick of this coverage.  In an interview in the January issue of GQ, Robertson says homosexuality is a sin and equates it with bestiality and promiscuity. Here's the quote:

It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical. ...Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. 

 He also made comments regarding race and growing up in Louisiana during the Jim Crow era.

I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field. ... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people' -- not a word! ...Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.

Added to this is the most recent revelation that Robertson married his wife when she was only 16 years old and counsels other men to do the same, even to marry 15 year old girls.  Video here  

Recently his congregation's church secretary, Luanne Watts, told MailOnline they had been bombarded with calls and emails from Americans showing their support. She said: "What has happened is a blessing. Phil believes in the word of God and he will not shift from that." He is actually a very prominent elder and his fellow parishioners are solidly behind him.

Yes, Phil Robertson is a blessing. He is a portal into the mindset of homophobic America. As you know, nothing happens in a vacuum. His patriarchal views about women, his visceral reaction to same-sex love, his "Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare" notions of the Jim Crow South, all stem from his literalistic view of the Bible.

A clear distinction needs to be made here. Following World War II, America began to see the rise of so-called "Bible believing churches." Now they are found in every city and small town. I am asked all the time if my church preaches the Bible. This is code for "literal preaching of the Bible." Any church that doesn't read the Bible literally is, in their minds, considered heretical. But the issue really isn't belief or unbelief, it's literal belief, or as I like to call it, informed belief. I definitely believe the Bible; I just read it, and therefore, understand it differently than literalists.

The literal belief system is a "face value" understanding of words on a page, that leaves the meaning at the surface level. Literalists understand words in the Bible just like the words in their newspapers without reference to the changed worldview involved. "The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it!" You see, you can't take the Bible literally and seriously at the same time. Why? Because to take the Bible seriously you need to delve deep into the text.

The surface reading will more often than not lead you astray. Biblical hyperbole is a handy example. Proverbs 22.6 says, Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. I know from experience counseling mothers and fathers of children who departed from the faith, never to return, or ended up addicted to drugs, or incarcerated, who blame themselves and their parenting for the outcome based on this proverb. In their minds they didn't adhere to the way they should go well enough. They failed.

Literalism also accounts for the lingering doubts about racial equality. The "curse of Ham," reproducing only "after their kind," and certain Levitical instructions about keeping things separate (no planing of two kinds of crops in the same field, no wearing of garments composed of two kinds of cloth, etc.) are seen as mandates for segregation, And in case you think the issue of slavery has been decided, a world-class scholar in New Testament backgrounds told me that slavery would not be sinful today if conducted under biblical conditions. This notion is not uncommon in fundamentalist circles. We likely can't charge Robertson with endorsing slavery, but we can say he is comfortable with Jim Crow life.

Literalism is also why some fundamentalists believe that all LGBTs should be executed, based on the literal reading of Leviticus 20:13 while blithely ignoring all the other acts requiring the death penalty (including juvenile delinquency).  Roberson actually acknowledges this. "Do I call for homosexuals to be put to death? No, because if I did, I would have to include those that live in premarital sex, masturbation, adultery, violating the God given ability to divorce and re-marry..."1 In other words, he acknowledges that the Bible calls for all these and more to be put to death, but can't bring himself to go that far. But there are many who would.

Phil Robertson enables us to see the confusion, inhumanity, and twisted outlook that comes from a literal reading of the Bible. Yes, he is a blessing.

______________________________________________________________

1 http://patriotaction.net/profiles/blogs/phil-robertson-was-it-all-a-set-up-to-try-and-control-his-values

When Is the "The Will of the People" not the Will of the People? The Utah Experience

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Starting the first of the New Year, I will be resuming this blog with Monday through Friday comments. Selling our home, a move to a new city, and family health issues kept me away for much too long. I look forward to resuming these pages and hearing from you. In the meantime, I will comment on a few important issues.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

When Is the "The Will of the People" not the Will of the People? The Utah Experience

Here we go again!

It is said that the last refuge of scoundrels is patriotism.  Today, it is hiding behind the thin veil of sanctimony disguised as "the will of the people."  Whenever the majority votes to deny certain minorities the rights the majority enjoys, it's always "the will of the people." This solemnly uttered bit of piety is found in abundance whenever a state amendment against gay marriage is overturned by a court. It hit its highest decibel when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned California's Prop 8. Some people need to be informed that America is not a simple democracy; it is a Constitutional Republic.  That means that no matter what the majority wants, it cannot be granted if it oppresses the minority. That is, in large measure, what our constitution is for.

So, yesterday, when a federal judge struck down Utah's same-sex marriage ban, outraged local officials trotted out the canard that "the will of the people" had once again been overturned. It should be noted that when the 14th Amendment was passed, it became THE HIGHEST WILL OF THE PEOPLE, that the majority may not act to deny rights to the minority that they, themselves, enjoy. As state after state make same-sex marriage legal, largely on the basis of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, it is inevitable that the Justices of SCOTUS will eventually make marriage equality the law of the land, if the rest of the states don't beat them to it.

The federal judge overturning the Utah state ban made it effective immediately, so same-sex couples began lining up for marriage licenses and the mayor of Salt Lake City (no less) performed the first legal ceremony in the state. This will not be without opposition from the powers that be. Both Utah's governor and attorney general are pursuing whatever legal options they have, but their prospects are bleak.

Whenever an unjust law is overturned by a judge, we hear the accusation, "activist judges!" Yes, indeed. These judges are actively defending the highest will of the people as understood in the 14th Amendment.

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.