The Anti-gay Industry, Part 4: It's Use of Fear to Create Enemies

In a casual Google search for "gay threat to America" (try it yourself), this is the first item on the list, found here: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705285940/Gays-greatest-threat-to-America-Buttars-says.html?pg=all

Sen. Chris Buttars believes gays and lesbians are "the greatest threat to America going down," comparing members of the LGBT community to radical Muslims.

"I believe they will destroy the foundation of the American society," the West Jordan Republican said in a recent interview with documentary filmmaker Reed Cowan. "In my mind, it's the beginning of the end. … Sodom and Gomorrah was localized. This is worldwide."

Buttars is a Utah state senator, and a Mormon, so it's not unusual that he would be anti-gay. What is unusual is his over-the-top rhetoric. "The greatest threat to America," and comparing LGBTs to radical Muslims would make Joseph McCarthy proud of such overreach. Combing through the article, I could not find anything to back up his comments except the notion that the destruction of the family will lead to the destruction of America. So far, there is no evidence that gay marriage will do anything of the kind, and in fact, seems only to be a strengthening force for marriage overall. 

Note, too, his use of Sodom and Gomorrah. Of all the Bible passages used to denounce gays, this is the most used and least applicable. Biblical scholars long ago removed any association with homosexuality from this story. Some of the most vigorous opponents of gays no longer consider Sodom and Gomorrah relevant. I attended a lecture by Joe Dallas, a leading proponent of Reparative Therapy (gays can change their sexual orientation). In going over the biblical passages that he said supported homosexualty as sinful, he didn't mention Sodom and Gomorrah at all. I check his handouts and not even there was any mention made. So I asked him, "Have you lost the battle on Sodom and Gomorrah?" To which he replied, "Yes." Nevertheless, some people will continue to abuse this scripture regardless of its inapplicability.

Then there's the "gay recruitment" scare tactic, designed to alarm parents and set them against their children's schools. Scott Lively's, "Seven Steps to Recruit-proof Your Child," purports to document the recruiting activities of gay activists, and it set off a spate of similar approaches to impede gay acceptance. Here's a typical version of how this works (from Wind Commentary http://www.wnd.com/1998/10/526/):

A training video called “It’s Elementary” teaches elementary school teachers how to get the “gay” message into primary grade classrooms. Books like “Daddy’s Roommate” and “Heather Has Two Mommies” are all too commonplace. The National Education Association, the nation’s largest teacher’s union, has openly adopted guidelines for promoting homosexuality in public education and many private schools already have yielded to the pressure to present homosexuality as a normal.

Imagine what goes through the minds of 12-year-old boys and girls when a gay activist tells them that 10 percent of the population is gay, and that 10 percent of their class has this “sexual orientation.” At this tender age, classrooms of teenagers and pre-teenagers, with their hormones raging, are being encouraged to follow their urges and experiment. If a child voices a question about the possibility of being gay to a teacher or other school officials, the parent most likely never will hear about it. These children often are referred to an outside “gay” counseling center run by active homosexuals.

This kind of scare works because it's built on the fallacy that gays can change their orientation. They can't, and neither can straights. Whenever someone suggests to me that sexual orientation is a choice (I can't believe we're still having these conversations...ugh!), I ask them how easy it would be for them to change. Another ugh! So if a 12 year-old is introduced to the gay orientation in a school class, there is nothing in that experience that can change his or her already set orientation. Here's a summary from the American Academy of Pediatrics:

The mechanisms for the development of a particular sexual orientation remain unclear, but the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one's sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual. A variety of theories about the influences on sexual orientation have been proposed. Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood.

The one thing that all these hate and fear-mongers have in common is the lack of evidence to support their claims. Note the appeal in the Wind Commentary to "imagine what goes through the minds of 12-year-old boys and girls." Yes, imagine. Imagine, because that's all that's left to you after the experts have spoken. 

The Anti-gay Industry, Part 3: Their Use of the Bible

Here are a few things to bear in mind when the discussion of homosexuality and the Bible arises. First, there is no word in either Greek or Hebrew for homosexual and the like. More importantly, there is no concept of sexual orientation, either. In the Greco-Roman world, there was only appropriate and inappropriate sex. Dio Chrysostom (a contemporary of the apostle Paul) famously said that the same passion that drove a man to a female prostitute would drive the same man to a male prostitute. 

Since there is no word for homosexuality, no Bible translation should have "homosexual" or its synonyms in it. Some, using the Dynamic Equivalent translation process, think they have found a modern equivalent in homosexual or "sodomy." Yet, what we know of homosexuality today is far removed from that of the ancient past. There is no apples-to-apples correspondence. Quite to the contrary, the differences in sexual behaviors are striking and most are not replicated in our day. Given what Chrysostom said, which is typical of his day, even heterosexuality cannot be thought of as a concept then, or considered anything like what we know of it today. As regards the term "sodomy," it was not coined until 1000 years after the New Testament was written. Any Bible translation that uses it is anachronistic. 

So, when people say, "My Bible says that homosexuality, sodomy, etc., is a sin," they are not quoting the Bible, they are quoting a mistranslation purporting to be Scripture but isn't. 

As for "my Bible says," here's how I begin the discussion of interpreting the Bible in my book, Marriage Equality:

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 hearing 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 can’t 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 people say the Bible says something; people speak on behalf of  the Bible. The Bible is deaf and mute.

Unfortunately, people too often make what “the Bible says” what they want it to say. You see, there is no such thing as an uninterpreted reading of anything, from the daily newspaper to the Bible. All of us 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 straightforward 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'”? He got my point.

I could fill this post with any number of quotes from religious leaders, politicians and pundits of all kinds who repeat how the Bible condemns gays. This is unnecessary because you, my reader, have first-hand experience in hearing/reading such and in voluminous quantity. Finding an informed commentator who actually has studied the issue and isn't merely passing on unreflected upon, second-hand opinion is rare. Such is the success of the Anti-gay Industry. It has convinced people that the Bible condemns homosexuality when it doesn't even know what that is!

The success of convincing the public that homosexuality is evil spills over into the nonreligious as well. A question was posed in Yahoo Answers, "Are there any anti-gay nonreligious out there?" Here's the answer voted "best" by the readers:

Yes there are, I have no religious affiliations and I think being homosexual is an abomination to mankind, the anus is not a pleasure organ, if everyone was homosexual then the world would end, there would be no reproduction. Homosexuals will end us all, but they are good for spreading diseases, but if being homosexual is acceptable so should having sexual intercourse with animals, it's about the same thing, think about that.

Note the use of "abomination." Where do you suppose that came from ? And all the reasons given for being anti-gay are right out of the Industry's playbook, and they are all twisted from biblical sources.  One has to wonder about the critical thinking skills of the voters who made this response the best. It just shows how much work is left to do. 

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.

"They also serve who only stand and wait"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

"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.

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 intense loneliness of not having a life companion openly at one's side

Part 5 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. 

For most of us, our families are the center of our lives.  We live in constant awareness of and with high purpose for those we call family.  We hardly do anything outside of work that doesn't involve them, directly or indirectly.  Few decisions we make are made without reference to their well-being.  And if we are happily married, our spouse is the most significant person in our life.

But for those who live their lives in the closet, who marry for the sake of self-protection, or who chose to remain single, life lived without the most satisfying relationship a human may enjoy, loving and being loved by a deeply devoted life partner, is denied them.

For Christian LGBTs, this is a heightened problem, for the church, almost universally, condemns any effort they might take to relieve the loneliness that constantly dogs them. Nonreligious out LGBTs have found satisfying life partners and live lives not much different from straight couples, enjoying the ebb and flow that accompanies all relationships.  But closeted LGBTs, Christian or not, are denied such a life.

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

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

Gay Christians, according to Hays, are essentially no different from would-be married heterosexuals.  Both of them are asked to hold their natural sexual impulses at bay.  This ability to be chaste for life is considered a gift from God, not a natural condition, and is rarely granted.  Even when it is, it is not without its challenges. Even so, straights and gays are far from being on an equal footing, because the heterosexual— let’s call him Greg— has the hope, even the strong possibility of some day being married.  Greg can hope, and hope makes all the difference for him.  But Norman, a gay man, has no hope.  He is denied the possibility of ever having his greatest longing fulfilled—that of a marriage partner.  Let us be clear about this.  We are not asking Norman to deny himself sex.  We are demanding that Norman deny his humanity.  In effect, we are asking Norman to commit suicide of his spirit. This I find to be profoundly unchristian and unworthy of a compassionate God.

More and more congregations and denominations are finding this situation needlessly burdensome for their LGBT members and are holding marriage ceremonies for them.  In many cases, these are marriages "in the sight of God" only, as the state has yet to legalize them.  But they are, nevertheless, just as fulfilling to the gay couples as any straight marriage can be.

But the closet is still the enemy of those it continues to house.  As long as they remain safely inside, the possibility of a complete life is beyond their grasp.  They will languish, continuing to seek furtive, incomplete alliances which will only remind them of what they will never have.  Their human longing for the one who can make all the difference in their lives will go unabated.  They shrivel and die.  As one who left the closet for good told me, "The oxygen in there grew thin and I could hardly take a breath."

The sooner we, as a nation and church, make marriage available for nonheterosexuals, the sooner will the loneliness of the closet and its consequent inhumanity be eliminated.  After all, doesn't the Golden Rule, "Do to others that which you would want done to you," demand that?  Imagine for a moment, if you are straight, life without your significant other.  Why would we want anyone else to be forced to live that way?

In this video, five gay couples talk about their anticipated marriage ceremonies

TOMORROW: The self-destruction that accompanies closet life

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.

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 

The Purpose of This Blog

Although this post can be accessed above, it mostly gets ignored, as unless you look for it you will miss it.  So I will lead with it every now and then to catch new readers up with why I write this blog.

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

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

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

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

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

See also, www.clergyunited.org for more information.

The Gay Agenda, Pt. 6

Prelude to the Series

The fact that there is a gay agenda, at least on the part of the leaders of the Gay Rights Movement, should not be understood as anything out of the ordinary.  All movements have agendas, including political parties, religious organizations and nonprofit enterprises like the Red Cross.  So simply having goals they want accomplished should not be off-putting.  It is a normal function of modern movements that want to advance their causes.  

However, many opponents of the gay agenda are trying to make it look like there is something underfoot akin to the subversive activities of the communists of the 1950s, along with a corresponding witch hunt.  When I finish with this series which focuses on the publicly declared and commonly held items of this agenda, I will list some of the more outrageous charges that act more as red herrings than actual concerns.   I hope to show that, regardless of the hysteria surrounding the reality of a gay agenda, these are reasonable, responsible and valuable contributions to the public square.  (Not withstanding the outlandish charges masquerading as part of the agenda, but are only made up by the opposition.)  This is why I chose an opponent of the gay rights movement's (John Rankin) list of what he sees as the gay agenda, as it is, except for the last two, a fair assessment of it.

 See the full list here.

The last in this series, Pt. 6

Is the Gay Agenda really trying to "remove the First Amendment liberties of anyone who disagrees, including those of ministers, rabbis and priests who refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies; and at the extreme, remove the protection of unalienable rights for dissenters to this 'new orthodoxy'"?

This assertion purporting to be a universally held item of the gay agenda has all the earmarks of a red herring (a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue). Here is how a politically conservative blog presents the issue:

Gay marriage will end up infringing on religious freedom. The moment gay marriage becomes the law of the land, all sorts of First Amendment freedoms involving the free exercise of people's religion will likely be infringed upon as a consequence. No pastor should be forced to marry a gay couple. No wedding photographer, cake maker, caterer, or wedding planner should be forced to be involved in these weddings. No church or any other location should be forced to be the site of a gay wedding. Children will be taught in schools that gay marriage is normal, legal, and moral -- and it directly contradicts the teachings of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. To create this special privilege for gay Americans would mean impinging on the First Amendment rights of more than 200 million Americans.

Nowhere in this post is there any referencing as to how these rights will be infringed upon. The weasel phrase "likely be infringed upon" is not only weak, it is an admission that there is really no basis for the fear. As for no "pastor should be forced to marry a gay couple." No pastor will be.  Anyone familiar at all with the doctrine of Separation of Church and State in the US Constitution should know that there is nothing to fear here.  Some appeal to the experience in Canada following the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2005.

Teachers are particularly at risk for disciplinary action, for even if they only make public statements criticizing same-sex marriage outside the classroom, they are still deemed to create a hostile environment for gay and lesbian students. Other workplaces and voluntary associations have adopted similar policies as a result of their having internalized this new orthodoxy that disagreement with same-sex marriage is illegal discrimination that must not be tolerated. 

Two things of note. One, this is about CANADA, not the United States. They have very different laws and traditions concerning freedom of speech and religion than we.  And, their decade long experience shows that earlier agressive actions to enforce their law have abated and the law is in great favor throughout the country.   To date, 68% favor the law and only 18% oppose it. 

However, as to "No wedding photographer, cake maker, caterer, or wedding planner should be forced to be involved in these weddings," we shall have to wait and see.  Do recall that restaurants, theaters, hotels and the like which serve the public were compelled to integrate following the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is only right that we protect all minorities from the oppression of the majority whenever and wherever it is found.  As much as opponents want to characterize this as "special privileges," it is merely granting another group facing profound discrimination equal protection under the law. We will not only learn to live with this imposition of the state, but who would want to turn back to the days of Jim Crow and legal segregation? (Oh, yes, they are around, but they've turned their hate to other things.)

And, yes, children will be instructed in schools about things LGBT. Just as their parents were taught as children about the whys and wherefores of integration, the equality of the races, the harm of discrimination, and the need to accept differences for the sake of all. The churches may, if they wish, continue to teach that homosexuality is an abomination, and others will counter that God did make Adam and Steve. Funny, just as the news from the conservative right is full of horror stories about the coming ill effects of gay acceptance, and especially of same-sex marriage, so the pulpits and airwaves of the 1950s and '60s warned that this would be the end of America as we know it, and the end of the freedom to practice Christianity as we see it. Well, it was the end of America as we knew it.  Thank God.

The Weekend: I'll take your questions and comments. 

Just submit them below in the "Post a Comment" box.

The Gay Agenda, Pt. 5

Prelude to the Series

The fact that there is a gay agenda, at least on the part of the leaders of the Gay Rights Movement, should not be understood as anything out of the ordinary.  All movements have agendas, including political parties, religious organizations and nonprofit enterprises like the Red Cross.  So simply having goals they want accomplished should not be off-putting.  It is a normal function of modern movements that want to advance their causes.  

However, many opponents of the gay agenda are trying to make it look like there is something underfoot akin to the subversive activities of the communists of the 1950s, along with a corresponding witch hunt.  When I finish with this series which focuses on the publicly declared and commonly held items of this agenda, I will list some of the more outrageous charges that act more as red herrings than actual concerns.   I hope to show that, regardless of the hysteria surrounding the reality of a gay agenda, these are reasonable, responsible and valuable contributions to the public square.  (Not withstanding the outlandish charges masquerading as part of the agenda, but are only made up by the opposition.)  This is why I chose an opponent of the gay rights movement's (John Rankin) list of what he sees as the gay agenda, as it is, except for the last two, a fair assessment of it.

 See the full list here.

Pt. 5

"Elevate 'gay' relationships to a place of moral superiority for the wider culture to honor and emulate."

So far, each of what Rankin identifies as the gay agenda I uphold as not only true, but welcome in a free society.  However, this item goes beyond anything that the mainstream gay leadership has proposed.  Rather than "elevating 'gay' relationships to a place of moral superiority," they merely want to level the playing field; they are after simple equality with heterosexual rights and privileges.  

Here is a representative sampling of such goals:

In a 1987 speech to the National Press Club in Washington, homosexual spokesperson Jeff Levi remarked, "We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right — as heterosexual Americans already have — to see government and society affirm our lives." 

In an article entitled "Gays on the March" in 1975, Time magazine quoted gay activist Barbara Gittings who stated: "What the homosexual wants, and here he is neither willing to compromise nor morally required to compromise — is acceptance of homosexuality as a way of life fully on a par with heterosexuality."

The only way the gay rights agenda can be expanded to include more than simple equality is to parade the fringe elements that don't speak for the majority. It's like saying the Republican Party is for killing abortion doctors because those killers have been conservative Republicans.  Or that Democrats are soft on defense because some peaceniks are Democrats.  Any representation that goes beyond wanting homosexuality to be considered anything other than as normal as heterosexuality is a straw man that easily draws the uninformed to the side of the dissenters.

So far I have not used the word homophobia in this blog.  I have avoided it, not because it doesn't exist, but because it too easily reduces the opposition to an easy target, which is what straw men are for.  Yet, it is true that those who are viscerally opposed to homosexuality will use any means whatsoever to bolster their prejudice.  They will look for the most absurd or extreme form of an argument to hang their hat on. I am afraid that much of the hysteria surrounding the gay agenda amounts to that.  The ideas that gays want to turn all children into homosexuals, that all child molesters are gay, that gay teachers are a threat to our children, that free speech is opposed by gay leaders, that gays are out to destroy the traditional family, and the like, have their supporters, but they are not supported by the experts who have given their lives to the study of these issues, nor are they a part of the broad consensus of gay rights leaders.  They are lies that are packaged with seemingly good  evidence, yet lack factuality.

Conspiracy theories abound. The "gay threat" is the perfect combination of atmospherics that lend themselves to conspiratorial thinking.  When you don't like gays, don't know many gays, don't trust gays, are afraid of gays, and think they tend to congregate together in dark places, you can imagine most anything is possible.  They are labeled abominations, deviants, psychologically disturbed, intrinsically disordered.  They allegedly hate themselves, hate the Bible, distrust Christians, and mostly meet in bars. What are they up to? What's going on when they are secreted away?

There are those who still believe that the moon landing is a hoax and that Elvis is alive, and that the gay threat is the most urgent concern for Americans. There is nothing we can do for these folk. As more and more LGBTs "come out," we discover that they are much more like us than not, wanting no more than what any respectable human wants, and deserves to be treated like the rest of us. The day is coming, and very quickly, when the rest of this foolishness will be as silly to us as having ever thought that races shouldn't intermarry.

Here's a video that shows a debate between someone who believes in the radical gay agenda, and those who don't. It's dated, and about 10 minutes long, but just over half is devoted to our subject.

TOMORROW: The last in this series, Pt. 6 

Is the Gay Agenda really trying to "remove the First Amendment liberties of anyone who disagrees, including those of ministers, rabbis and priests who refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies; and at the extreme, remove the protection of unalienable rights for dissenters to this 'new orthodoxy'"?

The Gay Agenda, Pt. 4 Legitimize Same-sex Marriage

Prelude to the Series

The fact that there is a gay agenda, at least on the part of the leaders of the Gay Rights Movement, should not be understood as anything out of the ordinary.  All movements have agendas, including political parties, religious organizations and nonprofit enterprises like the Red Cross.  So simply having goals they want accomplished should not be off-putting.  It is a normal function of modern movements that want to advance their causes.  

However, many opponents of the gay agenda are trying to make it look like there is something underfoot akin to the subversive activities of the communists of the 1950s, along with a corresponding witch hunt.  When I finish with this series which focuses on the publicly declared and commonly held items of this agenda, I will list some of the more outrageous charges that act more as red herrings than actual concerns.   I hope to show that, regardless of the hysteria surrounding the reality of a gay agenda, these are reasonable, responsible and valuable contributions to the public square.  (Not withstanding the outlandish charges masquerading as part of the agenda, but are only made up by the opposition.)  This is why I chose an opponent of the gay rights movement's (John Rankin) list of what he sees as the gay agenda, as it is, except for the last two, a fair assessment of it.

 See the full list here.

The following quote is another of critic John Rankin's notions of the gay agenda: 
"Redefine 'marriage' to include 'same-sex' relationships."

As I indicated in a previous post, the redefinition of marriage has been a continuous pursuit over many millennia.  Marriage has never always been between one man and one woman, as many critics of same-sex marriage would have us believe. They have recently modified it to say that it has always been a matter of opposite sexes marrying, and even that is false.  True, same-sex marriages are rare among Western societies, but they are found even today.  Their bottom line position has become that, well, Jesus was in favor of only one man and one woman marrying, so we should be too.  That is a far cry from their original position that it has always been that way.

But we are not talking about what the church should believe and how it should act in matters of marriage. I will only summarize the argument here, but not all biblical scholars agree that Christian marriage can be only between one man and one woman.  (You'd be surprised how many Christian missionaries allow converts in polygamous marriages to continue in them.)  

It's one thing to say there is a norm and quite another to say that that norm is universal.  It is the norm that most humans are right handed, but it is not universal. It is a norm that most Mexican speak Spanish, but not a universal. It is the norm that Christian heterosexuals are expected to marry in the opposite sex, have children, and not divorce.  As I say, this is the heterosexual norm.  But what of nonheterosexuals?  How can we expect them to conform to a norm that is not possible for them. See a fuller treatment of this reasoning here. 

As much as the critics of the gay agenda would like to believe that America is a Christian nation, it isn't.  Israel is a Jewish nation, Saudi Arabia is a Muslim nation, but the USA is a democratic republic, presided over by the Constitution.  So whatever Christianity may say or not say, its rules for itself are confined to itself and are prohibited from being forced on an unwilling public (insofar as it is unwilling). Therefore, to insist, rightly or wrongly that the Bible says marriage can only be between one man and one woman, we respectfully say, you have no standing in this decision.  It is not for you to decide.

What the Supreme Court of the US is wrestling with is not what does the Bible say about marriage, but what does the US Constitution tell us we must do with respect to same-sex marriage and DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act).  Children entering high school are astonished to learn from their history of the United States, that marriage between separate races was once illegal in many parts of our nation.  It's virtually unthinkable that as late as 1964, states could prohibit two people in love, but of different races, to marry. Interestingly, these same students are on record as overwhelmingly in favor of same-sex marriage.  Do you suppose there is a connection?  Known injustices have a way of translating outrage against other injustices.  

The Mexican Supreme Court today (February 19,2013) produced an opinion that make same-sex marriage legal there.  Interestingly, they cited the logic of the US Supreme Court in its striking down of laws banning interracial marriage.  Here's the part of the Mexican courts opinion that bears on our point:

The historical disadvantages that homosexuals have suffered have been well recognized and documented: public harassment, verbal abuse, discrimination in their employment and in access to certain services, in addition to their exclusion to some aspects of public life. In this sense … when they are denied access to marriage it creates an analogy with the discrimination that interracial couples suffered in another era. In the celebrated case Loving v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court argued that “restricting marriage rights as belonging to one race or another is incompatible with the equal protection clause” under the US constitution. In connection with this analogy, it can be said that the normative power of marriage is worth little if it does not grant the possibility to marry the person one chooses.

It may be that SCOTUS returns to its own logic in the Loving case and ends one more inequitable slice of American life and makes same-sex marriage legal across the nation.

I have to believe (the evidence is just too obvious) that the reason so many people fight against this inequality is that they really don't believe that LGBTs deserve equal standing with heterosexuals.  That they are somehow less than human, even, and to grant them this right would be to dignify the undignifiable.  The Roman Catholic Church considers LGBTs "intrinsically disordered." Those who are Christians and feel this way justify themselves, often, with the belief that anyone who is destined to hell should not be afforded any heaven on earth. What a pity; and not just for LGBTs, but for those miserable Christians who must detest life here on earth.  No wonder they can't wait for Jesus to return and destroy it all.

But for others of us Christians who fight daily for the realized dignity of LGBTs, we look to the day when no one is denied their rightful place in that great community called humanity. Even in the church as well as in the nation and world.  

TOMORROW: The Gay Agenda, Pt.5 

Here's where I part company with Rankin's listing of the gay agenda: "Elevate 'gay' relationships to a place of moral superiority for the wider culture to honor and emulate."

The Gay Agenda, Pt. 3

Prelude to the Series

The fact that there is a gay agenda, at least on the part of the leaders of the Gay Rights Movement, should not be understood as anything out of the ordinary.  All movements have agendas, including political parties, religious organizations and nonprofit enterprises like the Red Cross.  So simply having goals they want accomplished should not be off-putting.  It is a normal function of modern movements that want to advance their causes.  

However, many opponents of the gay agenda are trying to make it look like there is something underfoot akin to the subversive activities of the communists of the 1950s, along with a corresponding witch hunt.  When I finish with this series which focuses on the publicly declared and commonly held items of this agenda, I will list some of the more outrageous charges that act more as red herrings than actual concerns.   I hope to show that, regardless of the hysteria surrounding the reality of a gay agenda, these are reasonable, responsible and valuable contributions to the public square.  (Not withstanding the outlandish charges masquerading as part of the agenda, but are only made up by the opposition.)  This is why I chose an opponent of the gay rights movement's (John Rankin) list of what he sees as the gay agenda, as it is, except for the last two, a fair assessment of it.

 See the full list here.

The following quote is another of critic John Rankin's notions of the gay agenda: He is (mostly) right

"Gain ecclesiastical, legal and social 'approval' of the personal and social 'goodness' of homosexuality, and call it 'gay'."  And, "Translate this 'approval' into leadership positions – especially ordination status in the church and political office in the culture."

Again, this is a perfectly legitimate pursuit.  It only seems strange to those who react negatively to the arrival of LGBTs in their places of worship.  But there is little we can do for such as these.  They will continue to accept the pronouncements from their pulpits and tightly run synods and denominations that the only possible reason a Christian would associate with gays is to have the opportunity to "save" them.  They will continue to close their ears to the volume of biblical scholarship amassed over the last century that clearly shows that, for those who wish to, LGBTs rightfully hold their claim as Christians.  

I will also hasten to add that those Christians who oppose LGBT acceptance have their right to do so, as well.  I would not want them disbarred from the conversation, or jettisoned from our churches, any more than I want them to continue disassociating with LGBTs.  Perhaps if we are longsuffering enough, we might even "save" some of them!

The removal of the Sodomy laws was a major step in advancing this agenda item. On June 26, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision in Lawrence v. Texas struck down the Texas same-sex sodomy law, ruling that this private sexual conduct is protected by the liberty rights implicit in the due process clause of the United States Constitution. Ironically, many of those crimes defined as sodomy were widely practiced by heterosexual couples, and continue to be.  How people consensually choose to express their sexuality is deemed not a matter of governmental concern and increasingly is not seen as anyone else's, either.

Also ironically, the uneven enforcement against LGBTs, overlooking the widespread breaking of sodomy laws by straights, was a major reason for striking down the law.  So the striking down of this law had as much to do with gay opponents overzealous abuse of the law as the proponents of gay rights fighting these laws in court.  No matter.  This aspect of the agenda is accomplished. Still to come are legalizing same-marriage, gay adoption, and the removal of all laws allowing discrimination against gays on the job.

The fact that many openly gay clergy have been ordained, even promoted to high office, signifies the success that the movement enjoys in promoting this part of their agenda.  The election of Gene Robinson as Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire and Mary Glaspool as Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles are just two of many LGBTs who have ascended to high office of late.  Also, the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America have recently voted to end their longstanding prohibitions on openly gay clergy members. The United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist church have ordained openly gay clergy for decades.  Add to that the many congregations that will ordain and call openly gay pastors, the success of mainstreaming LGBTs in the church and society is apparent.  Give this agenda item its rightful due: it has succeeded and succeeded well.

Social approval was accomplished due to the widening acceptance of homosexuality as a normal part of the human experience.  Part of this was due to the research by the profession organizations that clearly shows that LGBTs are as normal as the next person.  But, the overwhelming verdict in favor of gay acceptance came when our sons and daughters, parents, uncles and aunts, cousins, friends and coworkers, and the person in the next pew, revealed their sexual orientation to us in large numbers.  When we came face to face with the true face of homosexuality, our fears vanished, our love for them continued, and our desire for their full access to all the rights any other human is afforded became our cause, too.  They are no longer strangers to be feared, but the very person we've always loved and admired.

I say to you who see only Gay Pride Parade exhibitionists, and think pedophiles are gay (they are not!), and hear only from homophobic ranters, get a life!  You are surrounded by gays who you actually admire and don't even know it.  That's how normal they are.  Imagine if heterosexuals were all thought to be like the Mardi Gras revelers or the nightly visitors to the singles bars, and the people displayed on porn sites. But we know there is a wide world of straights and gays who far outnumber these and act more like you do every day.  That's why the agenda is working.

TOMORROW: We'll examine Rankin's item: "Redefine 'marriage' to include 'same-sex' relationships."

The Gay Agenda, Pt. 2

Prelude to the Gay Agenda Series

The fact that there is a gay agenda, at least on the part of the leaders of the Gay Rights Movement, should not be understood as anything out of the ordinary.  All movements have agendas, including political parties, religious organizations and nonprofit enterprises like the Red Cross.  So simply having goals they want accomplished should not be off-putting.  It is a normal function of modern movements that want to advance their causes.  

However, many opponents of the gay agenda are trying to make it look like there is something underfoot akin to the subversive activities of the communists of the 1950s, along with a corresponding witch hunt.  When I finish with this series which focuses on the publicly declared and commonly held items of this agenda, I will list some of the more outrageous charges that act more as red herrings than actual concerns.   I hope to show that, regardless of the hysteria surrounding the reality of a gay agenda, these are reasonable, responsible and valuable contributions to the public square.  (Not withstanding the outlandish charges masquerading as part of the agenda, but are only made up by the opposition.)  This is why I chose an opponent of the gay rights movement's (John Rankin) list of what he sees as the gay agenda, as it is, except for the last two, a fair assessment of it.

This quote combines the second and third items in John Rankin's list of the gay agenda.  See the full list here.  

"Define homosexual identity and behavior as a 'normal' and healthy 'variant' within the plurality of the human community, and call for 'toleration' of it."  And "Move from “toleration” of it as a “normal variant,” to a full “acceptance” of its intrinsic nature as being equal with that of heterosexuality."

If homosexuality were, indeed, an unhealthy aberration of the human condition, we should not tolerate it.  We should do all we can to alleviate the condition and bring its victims as much relief as possible.  If the above agenda items were pursued by means of propaganda and false science with the goal of making something aberrant seem justified, then we would be acting responsibly to oppose it. But this is far from the case.

There have been many in very responsible positions who championed the gay rights cause in and out of the scientific community.  Over the last 50 years, all the major psychological and psychiatric professional organizations have investigated the subject of homosexuality from every possible angle and determined that homosexuality is a normal and healthy variant within the plurality of the human community. Here is a representative statement from the American Psychological Association:

Is homosexuality a mental disorder:
No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

The APA goes on to state that the only real problem associated with homosexuality is the unwarranted stigma that some in society wish to perpetuate, and the deleterious effects this can have on individuals.

Given the overwhelming documented results of the research, it can be affirmed that homosexuality is a normal, albeit, minority sexual orientation, and that it, in itself, engenders no mental health risks to homosexuals. By virtue of this, it must be considered a respectable orientation along with heterosexuality, and bisexuality, and toleration of gays and lesbians is the least we can do as a society. Ultimately, LGBTs deserve full acceptance and integration into all aspects of life. To do any less is to perpetuate what Byrne Fone of Harvard calls the last respectable bigotry in America.

As an agenda of the LGBT community, it is a legitimate and hugely successful agenda item. Because it is true.

So we are now left to wonder why it is that some do wish to perpetuate the now outdated and ill informed notions that gays and lesbians should be shunned, reprogrammed,  even persecuted.  Gay bashing is still done across America, and violence continues to be directed at them.

One statistic jumps out at those of us who wonder: It's the most religious Christians who are the most hostile to gay rights. That is, the most conservatively religious. Is it any wonder when Sunday after Sunday they get inundated with anti gay messages?  Just as with the global warming deniers, who deny it in the face of overwhelming evidence to support it, and with 98% of all climate scientists agreeing, churches continue to pedal anti gay "scholarship" that no respectable seminary or university would tolerate. And they have a professional organization, one, which tries, vainly, to uphold the anti gay end of the debate. There is no harbor safe for them; they are all occupied by people of good will who are armed with first rate evidence and no longer sit on the sidelines.

Yes, we've moved well past tolerance and are now accepting LGBTs as rightfully a part of our world and working diligently to get the proper information out.  Keep reading this blog; I hope to provide you with the most up to date and meaningful information I can.

TOMORROW: The Gay Agenda, Pt. 3 Gain ecclesiastical, legal and social “approval” of the personal and social “goodness” of homosexuality, and call it “gay.  And, Translate this “approval” into leadership positions – especially ordination status in the church and political office in the culture. 

What Are Opponents of Same-sex Marriage Afraid of? Pt. 1 "The (so called) Homosexual Agenda"

This is a Monday through Friday blog. New posts will resume on Monday.  How about reviewing past posts?

Prelude to the Gay Agenda Series

The fact that there is a gay agenda, at least on the part of the leaders of the Gay Rights Movement, should not be understood as anything out of the ordinary.  All movements have agendas, including political parties, religious organizations and nonprofit enterprises like the Red Cross.  So simply having goals they want accomplished should not be off-putting.  It is a normal function of modern movements that want to advance their causes.  

However, many opponents of the gay agenda are trying to make it look like there is something underfoot akin to the subversive activities of the communists of the 1950s, along with a corresponding witch hunt.  When I finish with this series which focuses on the publicly declared and commonly held items of this agenda, I will list some of the more outrageous charges that act more as red herrings than actual concerns.   I hope to show that, regardless of the hysteria surrounding the reality of a gay agenda, these are reasonable, responsible and valuable contributions to the public square.  (Not withstanding the outlandish charges masquerading as part of the agenda, but are only made up by the opposition.)  This is why I chose an opponent of the gay rights movement's (John Rankin) list of what he sees as the gay agenda, as it is, except for the last two, a fair assessment of it.

For some opponents of same-sex marriage, actually all things gay, the very survival of Western Civilization is at stake; at the least, their notion of what Western Civilization should be. Others fear for the sanctity of the church. Still others worry about their families and the survival of the basic family structure that they understand to be the biblical model, (but isn't). Their reactions to the forward progress that the gay rights movement has lately achieved range from hysterical (National Organization for Marriage) to measured (if you know of one, put it here).

There are two kinds of lists that purport to be the "homosexual agenda."  One is totally bonkers.  It claims that the bottom line of gay rights activists is to turn all our children into gays and lesbians.  Some even go so far as to claim that they want all children to be their sexual objects and would if they could get away with it, as Scott Lively suggests in "Why and How to Defeat the 'Gay' Movement."  Here's an excellent cautionary word from the Senior Pastor of Moody Bible Church, Erwin Lutzer.

So we have to remember that the radical gay community does not speak for all gays.  When we read that NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, wants to lower the age of sexual consent to thirteen, and when a book is published that advocates sex with children, we must remember that the authors do not speak for all of the homosexual community.  Indeed, such writers might speak only for a small fraction of it.  If we don't like it when others paint us with a big brush, let's not do the same with the gay community.

Thank you, Dr. Lutzer.

I would have put John Rankin of the Liberty Education Forum in the latter category (measured), since the agenda as he sees it is mostly correct and evenhandedly stated.  He is generally amiable and professes to love LGBTs, of which I have no doubt, yet he goes off the deep end with the final two. Here's his accounting of the (so called) homosexual agenda:

1. Remove the concept of homosexuality as “sinful,” and remove the concept that homosexual behavior is intrinsically unhealthy. 

2. Define homosexual identity and behavior as a “normal” and healthy “variant” within the plurality of the human community, and call for “toleration” of it. 

3. Move from “toleration” of it as a “normal variant,” to a full “acceptance” of its intrinsic nature as being equal with that of heterosexuality. 

4. Gain ecclesiastical, legal and social “approval” of the personal and social “goodness” of homosexuality, and call it “gay.” 

5. Translate this “approval” into leadership positions – especially ordination status in the church and political office in the culture. 

6. Redefine “marriage” to include “same-sex” relationships. 

7. Elevate “gay” relationships to a place of moral superiority for the wider culture to honor and emulate. 

8. Define “homophobia,” “hate speech” and/or “hate crimes” as the cardinal theological and political “sins,” and remove the First Amendment liberties of anyone who disagrees, including those of ministers, rabbis and priests who refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies; and at the extreme, remove the protection of unalienable rights for dissenters to this “new orthodoxy.

Let's look at each in their turn.

1. Remove the concept of homosexuality as “sinful,” and remove the concept that homosexual behavior is intrinsically unhealthy.

I don't know why he chose to keep "sinful" and "unhealthy" as one category, unless he is equating the two.  Otherwise, they should be separate.  Regardless, there is a considerable body of scholarship defended by world-class biblical scholars that would not understand homosexuality as sinful.  Several denominations are now affirming same-sex unions and marriages as wholesome activities of the church, as well as portions of others.  So I would affirm that leaders of the gay rights movement should have this item as part of their agenda. It is based on the recognition that homosexuality is a natural part of the human experience, indeed, of the animal kingdom, and need not be characterized as aberrant any longer.

Think of it like this: There are those who believe that increasing the minimum wage is detrimental to businesses and those who don't.  There are good arguments on both sides. So the Democrats have increasing it on their agenda and the Republicans are opposed to it. Each is entrenched in their position.  But who would say that either side should not be allowed to present its case?  We argue this out in the marketplace of ideas where we hope the best side wins.

Similarly, to say that because one side has a strong commitment to a position that homosexual behavior is sinful does not mean that the other side should not be heard. Therefore, it is a suitable topic, and having it on an "agenda" is perfectly in order.

As for homosexual behavior being "intrinsically unhealthy," I offer a response that includes both male and female homoerotic acts from medical neurobiologist Jeramy Townsley:

From a biological perspective, the idea that God clearly created male and female genitalia to be complementary is based on pseudoscience and not on an understanding of human anatomy and sexual physiology. The common argument from traditionalists is twofold: 1) God had one purpose in mind for sex--procreation; and 2) the male-female genital anatomy attests to the complementarity of God's intent for sex as solely for male-female/penile-vaginal sex (see Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 2001).

The most obvious argument opposed to the proposition of singular usage is that the penis was clearly designed to serve several purposes: procreation (depositing sperm), pleasure (has nerves associated with pleasure, the pudendal nerve) and for excrement of waste. One of Gagnon's primary claims to the "obviousness" of the misuse of the rectum for sex is that the rectum is a transport for excrement, however he fails to explain the distinction for the penis which clearly has both sex and exremental functions. 

Further, the ano-rectal area also appear to be created for uses other than singularly for waste excretement

It may or may not be merely coincidence that this area is the appropriate size and expandibility to accomodate a penis (similar to the vagina). Despite Gagnon's claims, the medical evidence shows that ano-rectal sex does not produce muscule or pathological tissue damage to the area. 

Just inside the male rectal canal is the prostate gland, stimulation of which heightens the sexual experience due to innervation with the pudendal nerve, the same nerve that innervates the penis. Stimulation of the ano-rectal area and the prostate gland can alone produce orgasm in the male.

The vagina is obviously designed for multiple purposes--procreation and pleasure (innervation by the pudendal nerve). Contrary to traditionalist theologies and patriarchal cultures (including many cultures that practice female circumcision) that have ignored the sexuality of women as irrelevant, non-existent or evil, the biological fact that the vaginal area is innervated with nerves associated with pleasure, it would seem clear that God intended the vagina to be used not just for men, but primarily for women. 

While vaginal penetration is important to many women for sex, current research on the female orgasm is turning away from penetration as the primary stimulant for sexual arousal and satisfaction, to the clitoris, laying on the surface of the vagina, therefore not requiring penetration, indicating that God may have created women (by design) to be able to experience sexual satisfaction outside of penetrative sex. 

Most of the authors who oppose the various forms of gay sex based on biological issues fail to address similar types of sexuality between heterosexuals, including married couples. Many actively support oral sex between heterosexuals, quite common among both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Gagnon, for instance, quotes a Rabbinical text allowing for oral sex between heterosexuals (p. 299). Further, many of these authors fail to condemn heterosexual anal sex, which many studies have shown is not an uncommon form of sexual intimacy between heterosexuals. The question then becomes why issues of "nature" and biology can be used to condemn homosexuality based on anatomical issues while not subsequently limiting heterosexual sex to penile-vaginal sex. [End Townsley http://www.jeramyt.org/gay.html#add5]

I don't expect those whose minds are made up to immediately change their minds with exposure to the evidence and logic of this data.  I do expect that they will find room, at least in this instance (so far), that there is another side to this debate which can no longer be characterized as totally without merit.

MONDAY: Rankin's second item on the gay agenda--

"Define homosexual identity and behavior as a 'normal' and healthy 'variant' within the plurality of the human community, and call for 'toleration' of it."