93. sisyphus

Quick aside here from NaNoWriMo.

My friend Jenny just posted a link to an article on Ye Olde Facebook that was posted by Rachel Held Evans entitled “A Non-Zero-Sum Conversation Between the Traditional Church and the Gay Community“, which I guess is a re-post of an article written by a guy named Richard Beck. I thought about commenting but then decided to write my own quick rebuttal before plunging back into the writing fray.

For those who don’t care to read or explore either of these authors or their articles, let me sum up briefly. The thrust of the piece is that the gay community and the trad Christian community have mutually compatible interests in promoting acceptance, even in the face of fundamental differences in belief. “Both groups share a mutual concern in treating others with respect, love and dignity,” Beck writes. “We share an interest in the Golden Rule. We both want to be treated well.” He also rightly observes that trad Christians have an obligation as Christians to display kindness, hospitality and generosity – three things that the church lacks in spades.

He continues:

“The game isn’t zero-sum; it’s non-zero-sum. Fighting doesn’t have to be the only thing we have in common. There are significant areas of mutual concern, locations where we can drop our fists and partner together on important Kingdom work . . . Imagine how the conversation would change between the traditional Christian and gay communities if traditional Christian communities became, say, known for their guardian angel and anti-bullying programs and initiatives, often partnering with local gay advocacy groups to get this work done.”

This is a lovely, Utopian image where everyone gets along and is able to put aside their differences and work together to build a world based on peace and love. It’s a sentiment that many of my Christian friends express (including my two best friends, Mark and Emily) in their continuing work in building a church that fosters such a worldview, and is open to discussion and bridging that conversation with the trad Christian church in bringing about real and tangible change in how Christians and gay (and really anyone who is of a non-believing persuasion–Jews, Muslims, atheists, Hindus, etc.).

Well, forgive me for not jumping on the hippie bandwagon (to be sarcastic for just a moment) but I have experienced first-hand the “openness” of the fundamentalist church. And I can say that without hesitation that my friends will be fighting an uphill battle both ways to start that conversation; and maybe that says something of their love for people, and their willingness to not give up.

The problem with the trad Christian community and why I think this Utopian world will never come about is that their beliefs about the Bible and about this world will always prevent this. It’s why Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, James Dobson, Peter LaBarbera and the rest of the anti-gay crowd can say the things they do and still sleep at night. They honestly believe that they are doing homosexuals a favor by “proclaiming the Truth” (and yes, I am using the capital T there purposefully) in order to free them from their “lifestyle of sexual bondage,” which I think was something like the phrase Bachmann used once.

Underlying their actions is the fundamental Christian belief that this world is not all there is, and that a better world awaits those who love and follow Jesus after death. Amongst the Evangelicals is the additional caveat that you have to “proclaim him as your Lord and Savior.” Just try doing a search for “how to become a Christian.”

“If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” – Romans 10:9 (NASB)

It’s this eschatology that allows them to believe that the only thing that matters is getting to the right side in the afterlife. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS EXCEPT FOR JESUS. That “nothing else” includes sexual orientation, because obviously God created us all with a heterosexual orientation–right? So what does it matter if you have to live 70 years in total misery or loneliness if at the end of all that you have an eternity with Jesus?

[hold for laughs]

It’s this view that will not allow any sort of conversation between gays and trad Christians, and I don’t know that Richard Beck or Rachel Held Evans really understand that. I have the sense that they grew up in much more generous Christian denominations that were more life-affirming and dignity-affording. Then again, maybe they do and like the pacifist protesters getting beaten down in the film Gandhi they know what they’re in for.

All I know is that until trad Christians back down from their position of biblical literalism and inerrancy, there can be no conversation, for to even back down would be to waver in devotion to the Word and to God, which means jeopardizing their eternal security. My own parents would rather hold to that notion: that if I continue to “live as a homosexual” that I will one day suffer an eternity in hell while they enjoy a blessed eternity with Je-sus. (No, my parents are not Southern televangelists, but it’s fun to make them sound like they are.

It was partly because of this that I became an atheist in the first place (and I’ll be devoting my 100th blog entry to the reasons why I am an atheist). Jesus supposedly stood for love, affording dignity to all persons and speaking out against hypocrisy. And yet his followers resemble more the men who allegedly put him to death, and are putting gays to death every day in one form or another. They will continue to fight against gay marriage and equal rights for gays. They will oppose anti-bullying measures because it “encourages the proliferation and tolerance of homosexuality in schools.” They will rail against the teaching of evolution, ignoring all evidence that contradicts and disproves creationism.

Because the bible told them so.

81. mandy

… or why I, as a gay American man, do not support same-sex marriage. Call it whatever else you want, but marriage it is not. And, personally, I want nothing to do with it.

What’s that? “Blasphemy!” someone is shouting? “Call the gay thought police?”

Hear me out.

Yesterday, an Op-Ed piece ran in the New York Times about Judge James Ware’s decision to release the California Proposition 8 trial tapes. As we all know, Prop 8 supporters are attempting to block the release, while (not surprisingly) equality proponents are eager for the public to see what actually went on during the trial. As Chad Griffin, board president of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, was quoted as saying (also in the New York Times), Americans would be able “to see the case they put on and the case we put on, and they can decide whether the case was properly decided.”

Which is a clever way of asking, “What have you got to hide?”

Personally, I’m opposed to calling same-sex marriage “marriage” at all, for several reasons. For one, I actually agree with conservatives (and my parents) that marriage refers to a specific relationship that is somewhat exclusive to heterosexuals — and that this isn’t necessarily something for them to brag about. I’ve written about this before, but it’s not bad to have another go at explaining myself.

My own position begins and ends with the history of marriage and sexual politics, basically since the beginning of civilization. What it comes down to is that marriage is essentially a legal contract, not a basic human right, and we must keep that in mind. Without getting too deep into it, we can largely thank the Victorian era and the Cult of Domesticity for changing and romanticizing our ideas about marriage.

Historically speaking, marriage has always been a contract, and a deeply anti-feminist one at that. The most beautiful and moving aspect of a wedding (namely, a father walking his beloved daughter down the aisle) is a reflection of its original intent: that a woman was viewed as property, without rights of her own, and therefore a transferable commodity. A woman wore a ring as a mark of belonging to her husband’s household. Even the practice of a woman adopting her husband’s surname is an ancient holdover, one that couples do every day without question.

An even more ancient leftover is the custom of having a best man, and this too is tied into its anti-feminist history. In olden times, a man would often simply abduct his bride, and (as you might expect) her father and other close male relations would take offense. Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, anyone? (Yes, I am a gay man.) So a groom would enlist a trusted friend to act as his second, as backup and as defense. After all, nothing says romance like raping your bride — and I’m using that term in both the sense of “an act of plunder, violent seizure or carrying off by force” as well as likely sexual. Most women probably dream of being swept off their feet, but I doubt it would be in the literal sense.

Aside from the misogynistic, chauvinistic roots of “traditional” marriage, there is also the inescapable connection of the institution to the Church — an institution that itself has not been the friendliest to anyone who was not capable of breeding more Christians to do the bidding of sky-father God to spread the mind virus of faith throughout the world. I can see the argument being made that this is where change needs to start, from within; but until the Pope Benedicts and the John Pipers of Christendom see differently, there will never be a true place at the table for gays, lesbians, or anyone under the “alternative” umbrella.

Don’t get me wrong. A marriage ceremony is an expression of love and commitment, and it’s easy to see how the GLBT community wants in on that. But at what cost? In seeking marriage equality, aren’t we selling out to the heterosexual majority in exchange for acceptance? Yes, extend the same legal rights and benefits to gay unions; but don’t merely swap out a bride for another groom on the wedding cake (or groom for bride).

The mere notion of “swapping out” a bride for a groom (and vice versa) is telling of how artificial “gay marriage” is, which is why I’m largely opposed to it and all for coming up with something new, a ceremony that reflects our unique relationships. The symbolic language of the traditional marriage ceremony is ultimately that of transaction, subjugation and bondage (not to mention fertility—you think flowers are there just for aesthetic appeal?). So why would we want to be a part of that?

What I think gays and lesbians are deeply wanting is the sense of collective celebration surrounding our unions. Weddings are massive events that bring together family and friends from all over. That’s really what’s going on — not a contract, not a legal binding. Attendants are no longer even considered witnesses in the sense that they once were. Actually, a fascinating piece of wedding arcana is that at one time the Church was so obsessed with a marriage being properly consummated that they required witnesses to attest that the deed was, in fact, done. (That’d certainly put a different twist on being the best man! The most we have to worry about now is not screwing up the speech.)

Lobbying for gay marriage provides an emotional locus, yes—far more effective and unifying than lobbying for, say, the legal rights and benefits of marriage. However, in the fight to achieve equal legal and societal standing, I think it’s important that we know what exactly it is that we’re fighting for. Most would probably say that I’m splitting hairs here, and that what really matters is gaining marriage equality; that we can talk definitions later.

But I think it’s precisely that lack of definition here that’s to blame for so much of the rancor surrounding this issue, and why it seems so costly to both sides.

Conservatives are fighting against the perceived threat of the “homosexual agenda,” which is code for “normalizing” and thereby recruiting (again, that’s code for “turning”) young people to the “gay lifestyle.” What we have here is a whole lot of inflammatory language and very little in the way of substance. It’s an effective use of apocalyptic imagery though. When in doubt, stress that our children are in danger!

So here is where the war needs to be waged, on the front of public education and clarifying definitions. And I suspect that there are many conservatives who, if you were to sit down with them in their living room and lay out what exactly we’re after (instead of on opposite sides of a picket line), they might say, “Oh, that’s what you wanted? Why didn’t you say so!” (When that day arrives, let’s resist the collective urge to be sarcastic. It’ll be a big step for conservatives to even admit that.)

This is another discussion entirely, but why that isn’t happening right now is that this is the last important social issue for religious conservatives and they want to keep it going as long as they can, or until they win. Once all unions, gay and straight, are recognized as being fundamentally equal, they will lose what little credibility and moral authority they have left. And they know it. Their entire argument that homosexuality is wrong (and therefore undeserving of legal or societal recognition) hinges on the validity and inerrancy of the Bible, and that God said that it’s wrong. That’s the sum and essence of it, right there. Take all that away and what’s left is a small, ugly voice whining, “You can’t be gay because I don’t like it and it makes me uncomfortable!”

Sorry, I meandered slightly.

As I said earlier, I think what we’re largely after in the fight for same-sex marriage is the deep sense of affirmation and celebration that surrounds the institution. It’s not about getting a piece of paper, or whatever else opponents may say, though an essential piece is certainly gaining the same rights, protections and privileges as heterosexual couples. But that doesn’t make same-sex marriage “marriage,” at least in the definitive sense, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Again, why would a gay couple want to participate in an institution that 1) has discriminated against them for centuries; and 2) is deeply chauvinist and misogynist?

Besides, the last thing I want anyone asking me is, “So who’s walking you/your partner down the aisle?” Because I can just see that conversation happening, and some bitch getting a martini to the face.

At the same time, I can see the point being made at how having “our own ceremony” still leaves us second-class citizens. In reply, I think the best solution of all is follow the lead of many European countries and totally separate Church and State. In places like the Netherlands, marriage is a contract, nothing more. You go and sign the license, which is the legally binding part; and then you have the church ceremony, which is about family, friends, etc. But the pastor or priest is not the officiant. The “By The Power Vested In Me” part is performed at City Hall (or wherever). The two are separate, but legally, as long as it’s between two consenting adults (which I think should be part of any definition), the two are indistinguishable. Granted, we’re talking about a radical cultural shift in thinking, and that’s never easy to bring about; but I don’t think it’s that outrageous.

And as I’ve said about religion, I think that definitions are important. And defining what exactly we want out of a “marriage” might take considerable wind out of religious and conservative arguments against it. At the very least, let’s know what we’re talking about before we go to war over it.

As they say, truth will out.

66. surprise

This morning on Twitter I saw a story from the Advocate about a church sign in North Carolina that was smashed and vandalized because of its anti-gay message:

GOD LOVES GAYS
BUT HE HATES A
PERVERTED LIFE
STYLE (sic) ROM.1-26-27
TURN OR BURN

The woman from the church, Anna Benson, who put up the sign in the first place, seems genuinely surprised that anyone would have found that message offensive. “I love the gays,” she said. “I love everybody.” The pastor of the church supports the message too, stating that it’s based on “biblical truth.”

Yesterday I came across an interview with Michelle Bachmann responding to questions from David Gregory on Meet the Press about her stated positions on homosexuality and her support for a same-sex marriage, amongst other things (the entire interview was about twenty-five minutes altogether).

At one point in the conversation, the following exchange took place:

“That is the view that President Bachmann would have of gay Americans?” Gregory asks (after playing an excerpt of her speech at the 2004 National Education Conference).

Bachmann responds, “I am running for the presidency of the United States. I am not running to be anyone’s judge.”

“But you have judged them,” Gregory continues.

She looks a little taken aback. “I don’t judge them,” she replies, and then later adds, “My view on marriage is that I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that’s what I stand for; but I ascribe honor and dignity to every person, no matter what their background.”

There’s a tragic, profound disconnect here between word and action. Both Bachmann and Benson are either unable or unwilling to see the implications of their positions. They see homosexuality and the person as two different entities: a natural playing-out of the “love the sinner, hate the sin” mentality that I grew up with. That’s an appropriate approach to take with, say, a five-year-old hogging the bricks in the playroom or Wynona Ryder shoplifting; but a propensity towards selfishness or a willful breaking of the law is a world away from a sexual orientation. Psychology and science are finally affirming what so many of us have known our whole lives: that, as Lady Gaga sings, we were born this way. Or if we weren’t that our sexuality was shaped in the same way that a heterosexual person’s is.

Yet this is precisely what my parents and most everyone else in the Evangelical camp continue to assert: that homosexuality is a choice, blindly in the face of mounting evidence from all sides, and that it is something that can be “cured” (or “prayed away”). And for them it absolutely has to be, or else their theological house of cards falls to pieces. Because if the Church is wrong on this issue, what else are they wrong about?

What this view allows the conservative Christian Right to do is dehumanize the GLBT community. Without a face there’s no human collateral. Rather, it’s an impersonal “agenda” that’s threatening your family, your children, your home and your way of life. An agenda can’t be hurt. It can be legislated and discriminated against without impunity. It can be vilified and demonized.

I wonder if Michelle Bachmann or Anna Benson could continue to believe what they do if they sat in a hospital room with a couple being separated because the law didn’t recognize either partner as next of kin. Or an afternoon with Bradford Wells and Anthony Makk, who is being deported back to Australia, even though they have been together nineteen years and were legally married in Massachusetts seven years ago (DOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing their status under the law as a state-approved married couple)–and Makk is Wells’ primary care-giver (Wells has AIDS). Were they a married couple, Makk could not be deported. Heterosexual couples do not face this scenario.

With the mobilizing machine of the Tea Party, there’s a strong likelihood that in the next presidential election a Republican could sit in the Oval Office (most likely Rick Perry, if my reading of the GOP is accurate), wielding influence and power and armed with a deliberate religious and extreme right-wing ideology to craft public policy that could have very real implications for the GLBT community in particular. It’s this dual-mindedness that allows their indifference and bigotry to thrive in conservative corners of politics and mainstream America, fueled by the voices of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and the denizens of Fox News and other conservative pundits.

It wouldn’t bother me so much either if it were just the pundits, the Glenn Becks, or the Rush Limabughs doing the ranting. They have a constitutionally guaranteed right to do so. However, We the People of the United States–e pluribus unum–are not sending elected officials to state and federal office to promote their personal or religious ideology. We elect and appoint judges who are studied in law and we expect them to apply that law fairly and without prejudice or bias. (That’s how it’s supposed to work, anyway.) Similarly, we elect public officials in our representative democracy to uphold the Constitution and to be the voice of their constituents. How often do judges have to make rulings that conflict with their personal beliefs? They will often say so in their dissenting opinions, but must abide by stare decisis, whether or not they agree.

Perhaps I’m being idealistic here, but I rather think politicians should be held to the same standard of upholding constitutional law rather than their religious or personal moral beliefs. They are elected to represent the People as fairly as possible, not “their” segment of the population. Will Michelle Bachmann stand up for gay Americans? Likely not.

The scales of public opinion are shifting ever-so-gradually towards a positive attitude of same-sex and other “non-traditional” relationships. But if the religious Right has their way, all of that could be undone with a few well-worded speeches and the stroke of a pen.

011b. corrected

Had an enligtening conversation with one of the teachers today about some of my thoughts on He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named’s stance on same-sex marriage, and he made some very good points.

To legalise same-sex marriage is to open up a legal can of worms. It’s not a matter of everyone just getting along. If you legalise it, it becomes discrimination under law for churches (who are government-protected, tax-exempt entities) to not perform same-sex marriages. The same goes for any business, non-profit organisation, clinic or hospital for whom doing so would violate their beliefs.

It then becomes a matter of reverse discrimination, where the agenda of the minority becomes forced on everyone. So while I personally do not wish to be the agent of social change in America or force my will on the populace, to desire the legalisation of same-sex marriage would be a disaster, and I see that now.

However, if and when I marry, civil union or not, I will call him my husband.

That’s really all I want.