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

Accidental Ally:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Closet and Inappropriate Marriages

Part 3 of The Harmful Effects of the Closet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MONDAY: Clandestine and anonymous sexual practices

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

_______________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________________________

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

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. 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."

What to Say to Your Friends about Same-sex Marriage, Pt. 3 -- Jesus on Marriage

The first observation about Jesus and marriage that is often overlooked is Jesus never married.  This is significant for several reasons, the major one will be dealt with later.  But for now, let us just note that, for his time, to be a healthy man and single was considered loathsome.  On the face of it, such a person was willfully violating God's demand that humans procreate.  And Jesus would soon be at the age where peasant Palestinian men usually died, thus limiting his prospects for a family. He obviously opted out of the traditional family.  This could have something to do with the charge that he was a "drunk and glutton." Jesus as party animal.  He wouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt.

He even took up the habits of the similarly loathsome Cynics, well known throughout Galilee, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynicism_(philosophy) who had no visible means of support, lived off others, believed in "free love," and traveled in groups which included women.  I am not suggesting Jesus was a Cynic. I am saying that he easily could be accused of being one by his contemporaries.  Such was his disregard for the conventional way of living.

So, Jesus cannot be held up as the standard bearer for the Christian Right's notion that the ideal (Christian) man is married and the head of his household, with his subordinated wife and children trailing along behind. There is no place to go to for Jesus' example of a good husband.   And let's not appeal to the theological metaphor of Jesus as the bridegroom to the church-as-bride.  The marriage is not until after "the new heaven and new earth" is here, where "there will be no marriage or giving in marriage."  The most we can say is that Jesus had a very long engagement.  Marriage is a temporary, earthly institution in which Jesus did not participate.  Why that is the case is significant.

In an earlier post I mentioned that both Paul and Jesus thought marriage was not the ideal situation for Christians.  This passage from 1 Corinthians 7 sums up Paul's thoughts on the matter:

I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to put any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and unhindered devotion to the Lord.

If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly towards his fiancé, if his passions are strong, and so it has to be, let him marry as he wishes; it is no sin. Let them marry. But if someone stands firm in his resolve, being under no necessity but having his own desire under control, and has determined in his own mind to keep her as his fiancé, he will do well. So then, he who marries his fiancé does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better. [Emphasis mine]

Paul would prefer that everyone be single, or behave as single, as he, himself, is.  For him, not marrying is the ideal for both men and women.

Jesus has a similar view, and this is likely why Paul felt the way he did.  Here is how Matthew reports Jesus' thoughts on the matter:

They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?’ He said to them, ‘It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but at the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.’

His disciples said to him, ‘If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.’ But he said to them, ‘Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.’  [Emphasis mine] Matthew 19:7-12

Both Paul and Jesus recognize that being single is very difficult, even impossible for some who would sin sexually otherwise.  So marriage is actually a lessor state than being single. Paul urges everyone to consider staying single, and Jesus urges anyone capable of living single to do so.

It is clear that whatever purposes marriage used to serve, in the Christian age it is for the purpose of allaying sexual sin.  For both Jesus and Paul, procreation has been set aside as a lessor value and both marriage and children are an encumbrance on spreading the gospel. Marriage is decidedly not the be all and end all of life that needs to be protected at all costs. It is a contingency for the time being that will not be found in the afterlife.  This explains why marriage was not emphasized from the beginning in Genesis and allowed to be culturally derived for millennia.  God has no particular stake in it, other than it be proscribed by the Golden Rule, as all relationships are to be guided.

So, you can see that allowing same-sex couples to marry is not so consequential that marriage cannot be adjusted to accommodate it, as marriage customs have changed to accommodate human need down through the millennia.  And LGBTs need marriage for all the same reasons that straight people need marriage. There are very few Jesuses and Pauls in our world.  For the rest of us, marriage is the answer.

Here's a video to mull over:

TOMORROW:  New series begins: What are opponents of same-sex marriage
afraid of?

What to Say to Your Friends about Same-sex Marriage, Pt. 2 -- A Closer Look at the Bible and Same-sex Marriage

(The features of this article are about the history of marriage in the West; Eastern customs are another matter)

When was the last time you heard anyone actually ask the intended's father for her hand in marriage?  Even better, if asked and denied, did it really make any difference?  The wedding would surely have gone ahead without the father's permission.

This quaint courtesy is a holdover from the days when father's actually controlled the destiny of their daughters (and sons, for that matter).  Marriage only recently has become the business of the couple alone.  In the days of the Patriarchs, in and out of the Old Testament, the father arranged for husbands for his daughters, and unless there was a need for a special alliance outside the immediate family, the bride usually was a first cousin, even a half-sister. The purpose of marriage was to continue the name of the father through his sons, and provide assistance for the family business and protection in old age.

Another quaint custom not often heard of these days is the "hope chest."  Young women would store away items for their household, such as linens, trousseau, and other finery, for their new home with their (hoped for) husband.  This was the final remnant of the "dowry" that figured into ancient and early modern marriages.      Marriageable women would show their desirability as a marriage choice by the contents of their dowry.  Since most women were covered from head to toe, and little opportunities for getting to known them were available, the dowry served instead.  

A man could have several wives and concubines. (Jacob married two sisters, Leah and Rachel, and Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.)  Women were only permitted one husband at a time.  In the case where a young married woman became a widow, the brother of the dead husband was bound to marry his sister-in-law, or be humiliated by the community.  This is known as Levirate marriage.

Divorce was easy and only the husband's prerogative.  All the Old Testament husband had to do was find something "unclean" in his wife and he could write a bill of divorcement and she was kicked out of the house. What his unclean thing was, is not known.  In Jesus's day, the two central rabbis, had differing opinions. Hillel said that offering burnt toast was a sufficient cause for divorce;  Shammai said it must be a serious offence like adultery.

Even the marriage ceremony is a modern invention.  Several stories in the Old Testament emphasize that the husband simply takes the bride into his tent, verifies her virginity, has sexual intercourse, and she lives with his family from then on.  There was no religious ceremony involved.  

In the West, it was not until the reign of Caesar Justinian, A.D. 527-565, that laws regulating marriage were put in place.  Contracts were drawn up between families according to Roman law, and courts would decide the legality of certain marriages and divorces.  The lower classes basically practiced "common law" marriages, because they had little or no property to fight over.

Until the ninth century marriages did not involve the church. Up until the twelfth century there were blessings and prayers during a ceremony that may or may not have been related to a church. Then priests asked that an agreement be made in their presence. It was only then that religion was added to the ceremony.  It became a sacrament in the 16th century by action of the Council of Trent. 

Until the late 19th century and early 20th century, marriage was more of a necessity than it is today.  Men don't need women to run a household, or bear them children for labor on the farm, or to obtain a dowry.  Women don't need husbands to provide for their livelihood, or for bearing children, or for status in society. Marriage these days is for none of the reasons of yore.  

So marriage today is quite different from marriage in Bible times.  It has evolved from being strictly an agreement between family patriarchs, involving a man and one or more wives, to a free will decision between two consenting adults.  And in the case of several states, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington—as well as the District of Columbia, marriage is legal between two people of the same sex.

Although marriage has usually been between a man and one or more women, it has normally been an opposite sex institution.  There have been cultures where women were able to marry more than one man, and where people of the same sex were allowed to marry.  (For a cursory history of accepted same-sex unions, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions) It is not possible to say with authority, as many try to, that marriage has always been between one man and one woman, or even opposite sexes.  

All of this is to say that marriage is always evolving.  There was even a time when incest was considered appropriate, where sons and daughters were forced to marry even those who were strangers, where marriage was for the convenience of the father at the expense of the daughter, where love had nothing to do with it.  There is likely no period before our own in which any of us would have liked to live under their marriage laws or customs.  It took us centuries, even millennia, to arrive where men and women are free to choose their partners. Well, that is, if you are heterosexual.  If you are not you are still subjected to rules that no one else wants to live under.  For that reason alone, all people should be afforded the ability to marry the one of their own choosing.  

(For a biblical argument in favor of same-sex marriage, see http://clergyunited.blogspot.com/2013/01/loneliness-first-not-good-of-creation.html)

TOMORROW: Jesus on Marriage

(This is the third post in a series emphasizing resources on LGBTQ issues)

Here are the books I think are essential for the non-specialist. Certainly others could be added. These have shown themselves to be especially helpful to me.

What Is Homosexuality?

Calhoun, John B. “Population Density and Social Pathology.” Scientific American 206:139-148, 1962.
Definitive study of effects of overpopulation that produce homosexuality in animals.

Greenberg, David.  The Construction of Homosexuality.  The University of Chicago Press, 1988.
The definitive work attempting to show that homosexuality is socially constructed as opposed to essentialist (inherent within the individual). Scholarly, yet accessible.

Minor, Robert N.  Scared Straight: Why It's So Hard to Accept Gay people and Why It's so Hard to Be Human. Humanity Works!, 2001.
A thorough-going constructionist approach to gender issues.  Clearly shows how gender and sexual roles are created and reinforced and why deviance is punished.  Offers a way out of heterosexism into healthy sexuality for everyone.

Mondimore, Francis Mark.  A Natural History of Homosexuality.  The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996.
Essential! Provides a comprehensive yet highly accessible overview of all aspects of current scholarship on homosexuality (except biblical).  Eminently readable. This book is a must have, but you will have to get lucky with a used book seller.

Interpreting the Bible

Borg, Marcus J.  Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously But Not Literally.  HarperCollins, 2001.
An easy, yet powerful introduction to biblical interpretation that takes modern science, other faith traditions and biblical critiques seriously.  Helps the reader understand how to separate the words of the Bible from the Word of God.

Boswell, John.  Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. The University of Chicago Press, 1981.
Easily the most extensive and comprehensive study of the questions central to Christianity and homosexuality.  His work in exegeting scripture is groundbreaking. Everybody must deal with Boswell, and he=s not easily contradicted.  Although he is considered an "essentialist", he is sympathetic to the constructionists.

Brawley, Robert. L., Editor.  Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture. Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.
Noted biblical scholars deal with such issues in the sexuality debate as how to make ancient scripture accessible to modern readers, what scriptures to listen to and not to listen to, background information on the ancient Near East, and not all are written from the same point of view.  Fills in many of the holes left by others.

Countryman, L. William.  Dirt, Greed and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today.  Revised Edition,  Fortress Press, 2007.
Perhaps the finest exegesis of biblical passages relevant to homosexuality.  Although it is often heavy going, the payoff is well worth the effort. He presents a convincing case that Romans 1 has nothing to do with sin, along with a couple of hundred other compelling observations.

Furnish, Victor Paul.  The Moral Teachings of Paul.  Abingdon Press, 1985.
Provides good background material that sets the New Testament "clobber passages" in their social settings.  Undermines the common mistranslations and misinterpretations that lead to homophobic reading of the Bible.

Helminiak, Daniel A.  What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality (Millennium Edition). Alamo Square Press, 2000.
This is the book to begin with! (Since Mondimore did not cover the biblical material.) He explains in clear and readable fashion the latest scholarly research on the so-called "clobber passages" of the Bible.  Very useful as a refresher to the "Beyond the Bible and Homosexuality" seminar.

Jordan, Mark D.  The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology.  University of Chicago, 1997.
A scholarly investigation that explores the historical development of the "sin of Sodomy". Traces how the church in the Middle Ages invented a sin that did not exist prior to its invention, and shows its long-standing effects on same-sex relationships.  This is not easy reading, but very rewarding.

Nissinen, Marti.  Homoeroticism in the Biblical World.  Fortress Press, 1998
Surveys the ancient Near Eastern literature contemporaneous with the Bible and sheds light on how to understand biblical concepts of sexuality.  Demonstrates the erroneous procedure of confusing biblical and ancient concepts of sexuality with modern concepts.

Scroggs, Robin.  The New Testament and Homosexuality. Fortress Press, 1983.
A core volume that treats all the relevant New Testament texts in a scholarly but readable fashion.  Some say it's the best resource of its kind.

Biblical Theology

Alexander, Marilyn Bennett and James Preston.  We Were Baptized Too: Claiming God's Grace for Lesbians and Gays.  Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.
Challenges the church to take seriously its understanding of baptism and communion as means of grace, justice, and liberation. Charges the church with abandoning gays and lesbians who they baptized with the promise to accept, love, forgive and nurture, and calls the church to repentance.

Countryman, L. William and M. R. Ritley.  Gifted by Otherness: Gay and Lesbian Christians in the Church.  Moorehouse Publishing, 2001.
This proactive and self-affirming book provides new hope for the lesbigay community, their families, and their communities, confidently appropriating and re-telling the biblical story of this unique and gifted minority's spiritual journey.  In short, it's about being gay and Christian from the inside while not repudiating the larger church.

Johnson, William Stacy.  A Time to Embrace: Same-Gender Relationships in Religion, Law, and Politics.
William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2006
Straight lawyer-theologian ties gay affirmation to biblical theology by using the categories of creation, reconciliation in Christ, and redemption.  Also offers excellent reasons for gay marriage.

McNeill, John J.  Taking a Chance on God.  Beacon Press, 1996.
A former Roman Catholic priest speaks directly to gay and lesbian Christians about why it makes sense not to abandon the faith.  His writings reflect the anguish and despair many gays and lesbians feel and offers life-giving options that all can embrace and be made whole.

Scanzoni, Letha Dawson and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott.  Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? A Positive Response.  Harper & Row, 1994.
Groundbreaking work in 1978 that looks at homosexuality from scientific, psychological, and biblical perspectives. Completely revised in 1994.  A wide-ranging synthesis of a lot of material found throughout this bibliography.  If you only read one book on the subject, this is it!

Homophobia and Its Consequences

Blumenfeld, Warren J.  Homophobia: How We All Pay the Price.  Beacon Press, 1992.
Points out the hidden costs of homophobia in family relationships, religious institutions, social policy, and many other aspects of our lives.  Offers concrete suggestions for transforming attitudes, behaviors, and institutions.

Fone, Byrne.  Homophobia: A History.  Metropolitan Books, 2000.
Chronicles the evolution of homophobia through the centuries. Deals well with biblical texts, particularly on Sodom and Gomorrah.  Especially good at describing the sexual understandings of antiquity.

Jung, Patricia Beattie and Ralph F. Smith. Heterosexism: An Ethical Challenge.  State University of New York Press, 1993
Takes apart the sociological underpinnings of heterosexism and exposes their harmful effects on us all.  Particularly good at helping gays and straights alike see how we are all imprisoned in certain false assumptions about reality that we need to be freed from in order to be truly human.  Particularly useful in helping the church to understand the larger issues and offers a way to reform the church and society.

Gay Life in America

Bawer, Bruce.  A Place at the Table: The Gay Individual in American Society. Touchstone, 1993.
Refutes the arguments used by antigay activists to stir groundless fears and hostility, and also offers a frank critique of an unrepresentative gay subculture that falsely equates homosexuality with promiscuity, hedonism, and political correctness. Great book to share with your friends who believe homosexuality is only sex, sex, and more sex.

White, Mell.  Stranger at the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America. Simon and Schuster, 1994.
The founder of Soulforce and former ghost writer for Jerry Falwell, Pat Roberston and Billy Graham, shares his struggle to be gay and Christian.  The single best first-person look at how a God-fearing man tried every conceivable means to rid himself of his "abominating affliction" only to discover that God loves and accepts him just as he is.  More than any other book, this one is convincing evidence that the center of the homosexual life is truly no different than that of the heterosexual.

History of the Gay Rights Movement

Clendinen, Dudley and Adam Nagourney.  Out for Good: The Struggle to Build a Gay Rights Movement in America.  Simon and Schuster, 1999.
The best single volume of the history of the gay rights struggle in America. It answers some nagging questions such as why the movement is so diverse politically, why gays and lesbians originally couldn't get along, and why the movement can't settle on a unified vision.

In Defense of the Traditional Interpretations

Balch, David L., Editor.  Homosexuality, Science, and the "Plain Sense" of Scripture. William B. Eerdmnas Publishing Company, 2000.
Ten scholars, progressive and conservative square off in debating the issues.  Gives a good overview of the different ways of doing biblical interpretation.

Gagnon, Robert A. J.  The Bible and Homosexual Practice.  Abingdon Press, 2001.
The most current defense of the traditional understanding of homosexuality and the Bible. Most traditionalists view this as the best defense to date.

Hays, Richard B.  The Moral Vision of the New Testament.  HarperSanFarncisco, 1996.
Chapter 16, on Homosexuality, offers a highly nuanced interpretation of the relevant passages in the New Testament.  Some consider this superior to Gagnon's.

Schmidt, Thomas E.  Straight & Narrow? InterVarsity Press, 1995.
Attempts to answer the nontraditional arguments for acceptance of homosexuals. Offers scriptural exegesis, deals with whether or not people are born with homosexual orientations, and takes on John Boswell.  Wants to "hate the sin but love the sinner".  Fails.

Reparative Therapy

Besen, Wayne R.  Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth.  Harrington Park Press, 2003
An expose' of the ex-gay and reparative therapy movements from the inside.  Shows the connections between them and the radical right, and the damage they do.

Same-sex Marriage

See: http://clergyunited.blogspot.com/2013/02/series-essential-resources-for-struggle.html

Bibles

Peterson, Eugene H.  The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language. NavPress, 2002.
This is the only Bible that even comes close to dealing with the "clobber passages" with integrity.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible. Third Edition. Michael Coogan, Editor. Oxford University Press, 2001.
The notes in this Bible deal well with the "clobber passages."

MONDAY: 
What to say to your friends about the Bible and homosexuality

Next to immigration reform, same-sex marriage is on the minds of people all across the US.  With the majority of Americans now in favor of it, it behooves those of us who are called upon to express our opinions to make sure we are properly informed so that we can properly inform others.

Two books in particular should be your reading list.  One is very scholarly, yet eminently readable.  The other is written in a more popular style, but also grounded in fact.  Together they offer much in the way of solid argumentation and avoid denigrating their opposition.

The first is unique.  In fact, it could easily have been two separate books, one dealing with philosophical, theological and sociological aspects of the issue and the other with the legal aspects.  It is Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry, by Evan Wolfson.  All the critics agree that not only does this book inform, it is a great read, as well.  Wolfson places this issue as 

"one of the first important civil rights campaigns of the 21st century" and grounds support for it within the logic of the long-established protest traditions in U.S. history: abolition, the women's suffrage movement and the racial equality movements of the 1950s and '60s. (Publisher's Weekly)

I believe I have a well-informed body of knowledge in regard to these issues, but Wolfson upgraded my understanding in more than a few points.  Especially impressive is his expanded view of procreation and how it can never be used against gay marriage again.  What is it?  Well, I don't want to spoil it for you.

Here are the topics covered, chapter by chapter:

• What is marriage?
• Why now?
• Will allowing gay couples to marry harm society?
• Isn't marriage for procreation?
• What about the children?
• Isn't marriage a religious matter?
• Why not use another word?
• Will marriage in one state be honored in others?
• Is marriage equality a question of civil rights?
• Why does the freedom to marry matter to me?

If you only get one book on the subject, this should be it.  

The other book I recommend is Jonathan Rouch's, Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America.  Rouch, who is gay and a conservative, writes from a much different perspective than Wolfson (who also is gay).  If find it quite interesting that the American Enterprise Institute approves of his work, likely because it promotes a state by state implementation rather than a Federal, top down approach.  

I recommend this book for one major reason:  He underscores two areas that Wolfson treats with less or no interest: The value it represents to society and the value it represents to (especially) gay men.  For the former, he shares what he believes will benefit "straight" society, and for the latter, along with Andrew Sullivan and others, argues that gays will adopt a less casual attitude toward sex as they ready themselves for marriage.  

If you keep an open mind, this book will provide you with solid information, especially his chapter on how straights will benefit.  It will also provide you with insight into the conservative mindset that is open to change.  Something very valuable, indeed.

Series: Essential Resources for the Struggle Pt. 1

In this new series, I will share with you many of the sources that I have found most helpful in learning about and helping others to learn about the issues surrounding LGBT and same-sex marriage  issues.  Scholars in the field are very familiar with the literature, but the average person is often bewildered, not only with the questions, but by how to go about getting the right answers.  So, I share these resources with you and hope that you will share them with others.

I know Margaret Mead spoke the truth when she said, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”  It's happening before our eyes as the march for LGBT equality is growing larger every day.  False stereotypes are being exposed, pseudo-scientific efforts to distort gay normalcy are being discredited, and people with no agenda except good will toward all are joining this struggle every day.

Mel White is fond of saying that the enemy is not homophobia, it is misinformation. So I offer these resources to aid you in your journey of self-discovery.

One of the most common questions I get is, "Can you recommend a good book that explains how the biblical evidence is misused to condemn LGBTs?"  There are many of them, ranging from scholarly (Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century, by John Boswell) to basic (Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? by Virginia Mollenkott).  I have read almost all the pertinent books and highly recommend one that does a fine job for most people not trained in biblical studies.  It's The Children are Free, by Jeff Miner and John Tyler Connoley.  

This slim volume (91 pages) covers all the usual passages and one in particular that most ignore, but shouldn't.  And it does so with easy to follow explanations and good biblical support.  Most importantly, it offers a solid theology of inclusion that goes beyond mere biblical exposition.  This is a book you can learn from and then share with anyone without hesitation.

The authors’ goal is to offer an intermediate sized book that is a comprehensive and well-documented analysis of current biblical scholarship on the Bible and homosexuality, treating both the negative and positive passages. They especially wanted it to be accessible to the general reader.

I believe they succeeded in both efforts. This book was so fresh and inviting that l read it in one sitting. What impressed me most is the original and vivid manner in which they reproduced the best scholarly conclusions. Perhaps it is because of Minor’s training as an attorney that accounts for such fresh angles of inquiry, as the book has a knack for turning arguments on their heads, as in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. They provide a very helpful way of understanding how important context is to proper biblical interpretation, and offer a very helpful way to understand the role of contextualization based on an analogy to case law.

They are not afraid of controversy, as they examine the biblical stories of Ruth and Naomi, Jonathan and David, the centurion and his “boy”, and the queerness of eunuchs. lt may very well be that there is not enough evidence to claim "proof" of same-sex erotic love involved here, but the leap from evidence to conviction is reduced to a mere hop.

The finest part of the book is the chapter on how Jesus interpreted scripture.  lt begins by positing the very real situation that one may remain unconvinced by arguments intended to neutralize the negative passages.  ls there nowhere else to turn? Well, yes; that is, if one is willing to take Jesus’ attitude toward scripture as one's own.  That attitude is summarized as, “Human need is more important than rules - even rules found in the Bible.” How the authors make this clear is worth the price of the book.

The entire focus of the book is to answer this single question: “Can two people of the same sex live in a committed, loving relationship with the blessing of God?”  Thanks to Miner and Connolley, many more people will be compelled to say “Yes!”

The next is a booklet published by the Liberty Education Forum.  It asks and answers what they and I believe to be the single most important question in the struggle for gay rights: "Do people choose their sexual orientation?"

In In The Only Question That Matters, Chandler Burr, a contributing journalist to the NY Times and The Atlantic, summarizes the results of his research in his book, A Separate Creation: The Search for the Biological Origins of Sexual Orientation.  He offers 14 summary results that point to the conclusion that one does not choose one's sexual orientation; that it is imposed upon a person biologically, not environmentally. The "nature or nurture" question falls decidedly on nature.

When people are convinced that it is not a choice, their support for gay rights increases dramatically.  Fair-minded people, when exposed to this information, will come to the side of LGBTs.  Having these resources on hand will impact for good everyone you share them with.

This is a free book if downloaded from the LEF at www.libertyeducationforum.org.  Or you can get a bound copy from me for a $2.00 donation (free shipping).  The Children Are Free can be ordered from me for $12.95 (free shipping).  Make checks payable to Clergy United and mail to PO Box 7461, Stockton, CA 95267.  Or you can place an order online at www.clergyunited.org through the Contact page and pay through the Donate button.

TOMORROW: Resources for understanding the need for and benefits of same-sex marriage