126. bandy

bandy, verb: 1. To pass from one to another or back and forth; give and take. 2. To throw or strike to and fro or from side to side, as a ball in tennis. 3. To circulate freely.

Some days I stare forever at a blank screen and wonder what to write about.

Some days social media just hands it to me in a neat little package with a bow.

I was tipped off to the fact that this weekend (on Friday around noon, to be precise), John Piper, the homophobic pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in downtown Minneapolis, went on the following homophobic rant:

I’m not really sure what set him off this time, aside from Maryland’s upcoming vote to approve same-sex marriage, but I love the fact that he started his rant with a self-fulfilling prophesy. And that all this translates to: “The sky is falling!”

To briefly address each of these tweets one-by-one, as I just said, by quoting 1 Corinthians 4:12, he’s giving himself license to throw up his hands later and say, “We told them they were going to hate us!” He’s refusing to take responsibility for the wrong-headed, offensive nature of his theology that prevents him from accepting anyone who doesn’t live up to his notion of what a decent human being is supposed to be.

As to his second tweet (which rings mildly treasonous), as the Fifth Doctor said of the Daleks, “However you respond them is seen as an act of provocation.” Conservative fundamentalism is and has been living in a wartime mindset for quite some time, convinced as they are that we are living in the End Times and that the return of Jesus is nigh. They are also convinced that the person of Satan is actively working in the world to pervert it and incite the human race into rebellion (deliberate or inadvertent) against god. This tweet won’t make make sense unless you understand that very important point.

To the third—well, I’ll get to that in a minute.

To the last one, his definition of marriage is so narrow and based on something that is itself a fiction that to tie it into something as insoluble as “the glory of god” would be laughable if it wasn’t tragic. If you aren’t familiar with that phrase, one of the central themes of Piper’s teaching is the primacy of the Glory of God, a concept that is found throughout the bible, but may be more familiar to Catholic and Anglican readers from the answer to the first question from the Westminster Shorter Catechism:

What is the chief end of man?
Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

Now, I may not be a deity, but if I handed you a list of ways I felt were acceptable for you to show your love for me, you’d be quite right to call me a narcissist. After all, that’s in the very DSM-IV criterion for narcissism.

I don’t have to tell you that I think Piper terribly wrong, or that he’s dangerous and a societal menace. But through his Pie In The Sky theology, he is directing everyone who listens to him (and there are a lot of them who literally hang on his every word) to be precisely the opposite of the qualities that the figurehead of his religion exemplified in the Gospels (if you leave out the crazy bits like cursing fig trees)—namely, showing love, acceptance, charity and generosity towards your fellow human beings.

And these are the people of my state who will be going out in November in droves to vote in the affirmative for the constitutional amendment defining marriage as only being between a man and a woman.

Tell me again that religion is harmless.

Now, to that pesky third tweet. The insanity of these reformed theology fundamentalists is how they pick and choose which parts of their bible they will apply to the rest of the world—as if the rest of the world was somehow supposed to recognize the authority of a 2,000 year-old book authored by a xenophobic Bronze Age tribe obsessed with blood and sexual purity. For instance, since they’re so hot for quoting Leviticus when they’re bashing gays:

“You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it. You shall not interpret omens or tell fortunes. You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard. You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord.”
— Leviticus 19:26-28 (English Standard Version)

How many Christians do you know who openly sport tattoos, trim their facial hair, read horoscopes and eat rare steaks?

“But that’s the Old Testament” the contemporary Christian whines. “Jesus came to fulfill the law and the prophets. We don’t have to follow those old laws anymore.”

Then it stands to reason that if he fulfilled the ones above, then he also fulfilled all the rest, including Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; and if those have been nullified, then the whole rest of the case for homosexuality being a “sin” falls apart. And what is John Piper and that third tweet of his left with at that point other than prejudice and bigotry? For that matter, what is the American Family Association, Peter LaBarbera, James Dobson, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann and the denizens of fear and ignorance left with?

The sad truth is that they, along with the rest of America that refuses to progress, will be dragged kicking and screaming into obsolescence, watching in a prison of self-imposed horror like Elizabeth Báthory as their influence withers and wanes before their little despotic eyes.

If gays are allowed to marry, will that endanger heterosexual marriages? Nope. As it’s been observed, the only people threatening heterosexual marriage are heterosexuals.

If teens are taught about safe sex or *gasp* the existence of homosexuals in school, will they turn gay? Nope, although apparently the American Life League would seem to disagree slightly.

121. depone

depone, verb: To testify under oath; depose.

‘Atheism’ is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a ‘non-astrologer’ or a ‘non-alchemist.’ We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.
— Sam Harris

A few days ago there was a story circulating in the news about a U.S. Army soldier who has been petitioning to be classified as “Humanist” instead of “Atheist” on his official records and dog tags. The Army’s rationale? It’s the same difference as putting “Catholic” instead of “Christian.” And I can kind of see their point from an administrative angle. If they start to recognize one group as being unique then they’ll have to start recognizing all as unique. Then it starts to become a free-for-all, with everyone focusing on their differences instead of working on building unity and cohesion.

However, Maj. Jay Bradley also has a valid point. It would be one thing if the term atheist had as concrete a definition as Christian. But it doesn’t. In a post-9/11 world (especially in the military, from the stories I’ve read), if you hold a belief other than Christian, you may as well be a terrorist—or a child molester, or a serial rapist. You run the risk of being seen as anti-American. If you don’t believe in god, you’re turning your back on tradition, on all moral values, and on everything that is good and decent.

“Smoked newborn baby, anyone?”

As Sam Harris said, it’s unfortunate that we still need labels to differentiate ourselves from theists, or that anybody still cares—just as it’s unfortunate that anyone still cares that some of us love someone of the same sex and want to share a life with that person. But that is not the world that we live in.

Atheism by itself is not a philosophy. It is simply a non-belief in god(s). It doesn’t tell you anything about what a person believes, and that leaves much open to being misconstrued or misinterpreted (per above). Atheism can be expressed in a number of different ways, of which humanism is one, though probably the most prevalent.

“Humanism is a philosophy that guides a person,” Bradley said in an AP article. “It’s more than just a stamp of what you’re not.”

So why should anybody care about this? Certainly, no one forced any of us to become atheists or agnostics. You could argue that we’re all actually born atheists; that belief in gods is forced on us as children before we have the ability to choose for ourselves. And some of us are fortunate enough to be born into secular homes. For most of us though, it became our choice to leave our churches and communities of faith. But is that reason enough to compel organizations like the Army to recognize Humanists? Do atheists and other nontheists deserve secular “chaplains” (or whatever the equivalent might be).

To the latter question, I think that yes, secular soldiers and other personnel need a point person to be able to go to regarding personal matters, without danger of being proselyted to or even judged. When you’re at your neediest and most vulnerable emotionally, it’s imperative to have a safe place to go for help and advice. When an atheist soldier has just lost a friend in combat, can a religious chaplain be relied and called upon to speak to that soldier’s beliefs—that that friend is truly gone?

It’s not that I think that a religious chaplain would unscrupulously take advantage of a moment like that to try and convert anyone. However, at his/her core, that chaplain truly believes that another life awaits us after death. They want to offer and share the peace and comfort that they find in that belief. An atheist “chaplain” will see it differently.

But lest we think this a military issue, many Christians are overall wondering what the big deal is, or wonder why atheists object to any forms of religion being expressed in society. (Well, many Whites didn’t understand what all those Negros were raising a fuss about, having to sit in the back of the bus.) Many even feel attacked (oh, the irony) by the presence of atheists, and can’t see that what we want is a society where everyone is free to practice their beliefs without imposing them on others. I wish soldiers didn’t have to declare their religious beliefs on their dog tags, or that they have to decline to participate in platoon prayers (and no doubt get some grief over doing so, or are eyed warily afterward).

A friend of mine works in an industry that draws and employs many conservative (=religious) people, and doesn’t feel secure being “out” as an atheist there. I wish she weren’t afraid of retaliation.

In some ways, this is similar to the debate that’s going on over same-sex marriage; over whether gays are made second-class citizens by denying them the legal right to marry while offering alternatives like domestic partnerships or civil unions. In some ways. In other ways that’s a whole other discussion.

However.

This is fundamentally a matter of affirming personhood, and of a rancorous and frightened majority desperate to hold onto the status quo attempting to silence a growingly vocal minority. It is about people standing up and declaring who they truly are and what they believe, without having to put up with the prejudice and proselyting of the “faithful,” or with radical Christians attempting to shove their fundamentalist religion down the throats of vulnerable children.

I wish we didn’t have to identify as atheists; but as long as we have powerful Christians like Pat Robertson, Rick Santorum, “Porno” Peter LaBarbera, Tony Perkins, the American Family Association, James Dobson, Rick Warren and David Barton, we have to.

And loudly.

118. filiopietistic

filiopietistic, adjective: Pertaining to reverence of forebears or tradition, especially if carried to excess.

So much for my 2012 pseudo-resolution of trying to disengage from the whole religion debate and foster more positive, constructive dialogues with Christians and other people of faith. (That lasted all of a couple of days.)

What this really more likely indicates is my growing need for serious psychological counseling to get over all of the various issues related to my religious upbringing.

And Seth, of course.

(Note to self: need to get over that…)

The other day I ended up embroiled in a rather tense verbal scuffle with a fundamentalist Christian on Facebook. A friend of mine posted that he felt it was odd that his Christian university “has portraits of Martin Luther King Jr. posted up on campus, celebrates black history month, considers itself a “Reconciliation” school [whatever the hell that means], and yet, still considers homosexuality a sin.”

One of his friends posted in reply:

I think the Bible is pretty clear that pursuing a homosexual lifestyle is a sin. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable for a Christian school to take that stance. “Why is God calling me to a life of celibacy?” is a very, very difficult question to answer. That’s probably why people don’t have good answers for things like that. But as God says, “My Grace is sufficient for you,” and Paul responds, “I will boast in my weaknesses, for in my weaknesses God is strong.”

Perhaps the reason why people “don’t have good answers for things like that” is because there aren’t any good reasons why a gay person should even have to choose a life of celibacy, or endure abuse for being gay in the first place.

The incredible thing is that these people don’t see themselves as hateful. In fact, they seem genuinely dismayed when accused of being such for saying things like this. Even when you attempt to explain how their speech may be perceived as disparaging, they still appear unable to grasp why gays might resent them for saying to a gay man or a lesbian that they can either turn straight or be alone for the rest of their lives. Yet millions of gay Christians have swallowed that toxic sludge and have obediently attempted just that.

“I’m not calling them sinners,” fundamentalists exclaim. “The bible calls them sinners!” My parents used a line like this when they found out I was gay. And I have to believe that they really believe that they think they’re loving gays by “proclaiming the Truth.”

However, the case for homosexuality being a “choice” is now rapidly falling to pieces—something even the other side is having to admit. Alan Chambers, the president of the floundering ex-gay group Exodus International (the group whose two founders left the organization, apologized for starting it in the first place, and got married to each other), said this at a meeting of Christian homosexuals:

“The majority of people I have met, and the majority meaning 99.9% of them, have not experienced a change in their sexual orientation or have gotten to a place where they can say they have never been tempted or are not tempted in some way or experience some level of same-sex attraction.”

Now, I highly doubt that 99.9% is a scientifically based estimate, but his statement is staggering. Chambers just admitted that “conversion therapy” doesn’t work!

So, if it apparently isn’t possible to successfully “cure” homosexuality, we’re left with two logical possibilities:

Jesus isn’t powerful enough to cure it.
There’s nothing there to cure.

Later on in the message thread, the guy on Facebook actually had the nerve to say this:

Our own sin distorts our perceptions of right and wrong. Our hearts are full of selfishness, lies, anger, and lust. We twist and abuse all the good things God gives us. God didn’t create alcoholics. He created the ability for us to make alcohol and we distorted its purpose.

Yes, he pulled out the old “Homosexuality is an addiction—just like alcoholism!” argument. However, many of us grew up in predominately heterosexual environments, with nothing to become addicted to. Most of us weren’t abused by an older male relative who twisted our perceptions of ourselves and our sexuality. The evidence is mounting in the scientific community that homosexuality is a natural variant of human sexuality.

But let’s be honest: Even if you present him/her with the evidence, a die-hard Evangelical Christian is still going to cling to the party line and insist that homosexuality is a sin.

For those of you lucky to not have been brought up in the fundamentalist church, you’re taught right away that you live in world hostile to Christians and the Christian message. “And you will be hated by all for my name’s sake,” says Mark 13:13. “But the one who endures to the end will be saved.” You’re going to suffer for doing good (see 1 Peter 3—this is textbook paradoxical thinking).

And that’s why they don’t see their speech as hateful. They’re just doing their god-given duty in speaking the Truth as it’s been revealed to them. Our anger, therefore, is evidence of the testimony of the Holy Spirit convicting us of our sin, and that’s why we get so upset at them—because we know deep down that what they’re saying is true. And that’s why they say, “Hey, don’t shoot the messenger!”

Here’s the other part of it: “Men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed” (John 3:19-20).

So evidence be damned—even though every reputable psychologist, neuroscientist, and even biologist is saying there’s nothing wrong with the GLBT community, gays are still living in sin. And need Jesus to “take away the gay.”

You cannot understand religious conservative rhetoric without understanding this. They know people are going to hate them for “speaking the Truth.”

Ahhh, but their reward lies in Heaven…

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.

032. consternation (or, wtf in the garden of eden)

Sorry it’s been so long in between posts (not that anybody really missed me, I’m sure). Work is changing and bringing more responsibility with it. I’m doing more writing, though at the moment more waiting to see if my submissions were accepted.

With the health care bill passing it feels like I’ve been playing catch-up on what’s been happening nationally. What disturbed me most was that Pilosi snuck and ramrodded her bill through Congress, giving Americans a mere seventy-two hours to respond, vote, or object to what was in the 1,999 page document. Now we wait to see what happens in the Senate and hope to God that true conservatives there stand up to the pressure from the left, and from Obama to give him a “positive outcome.”

One other thing that disheartened me last week was the repealing of same-sex marriage in Maine. It’s not so much that I’m a huge proponent of it (since I’m nowhere near being married and it isn’t an issue for me). It was the victory sound bytes from the opposition which bordered on vainglorious gloating from the conservative right that deeply bothered me (the following quotes are from an ABC news article):

“We’ve struggled, we’ve worked against tremendous odds, as we’ve all known. We prevailed because the people of Maine, the silent majority, the folks back home spoke with their vote tonight.” – Marc Mutty, campaign manager for Stand for Marriage Maine which opposed gay marriages.
“I believe that marriage is for a man and a woman… and I don’t believe that [gay marriage] should be taught in school, period.” – Mary Lou Narbus, a 51-year-old mother of three from Rockwood, Maine.
“I don’t feel anybody has the right to redefine marriage. I would have been heartbroken for our country if it did not pass… We had a prayer night last night for it to go the way it should.” – Ellen Sanford McDaniel, 35, of Fairfield, Maine.

In response, there are a few points I’d like to make.

These are supposedly “my people” saying these things, conservatives and Christians, and I’m not sure what angers me more—that these blatant misconceptions about same-sex marriage are still being circulated and promoted, or that ignorance and fear got the upper hand once again. Yes, there are gay activists out there who want to promote homosexuality in schools, and yes, they are a vociferous minority and they do have an agenda they want to force down people’s throats and make them accept it. I never thought I’d ever say this, but as Sean Hannity once said, “If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly enjoys his life. If a liberal is homosexual, he loudly demands legislated respect.”The intent of the majority of homosexuals is not to erode the American family unit or destroy family values. It’s to make up for years of imposed silence and shame from the status quo. It’s straight couples who have managed to erode family values by jumping from marriage to marriage, or bed to bed, leaving broken partners and children in their wake, all without the help of the gays (or the gay bandidos). There are homosexuals who have lived together, faithfully, for decades, who practice fidelity and monogamy more authentically than many heterosexual couples.(On a side note, I don’t think homosexuality needs to be “taught” in schools any more than heterosexuality should be promoted. It’s not the job of the schools to socialise students—but that’s another discussion.)
It upsets me that anyone would pray for things to go the way they want them to, and even more that they expect God to sanction their position. Whatever happened to “thy will be done”? And not that Christians shouldn’t get involved in politics, but awful things happen when religion is used as a sword. That’s why we left England in the first place.
Their reaction belies a fundamental misunderstanding of human sexuality, an adherence to rigid cultural and societal norms, and aversion to anything that threatens their comfortable notions of what American life is supposed to be. It’s the common impression that all gay men are lisping, promiscuous, flamboyant queens. In fact, many “gay” couples don’t even practice “gay” sex, and some are even celibate. Terms like “gay sex” or “gay love” imply that it’s different from any other kind of love or sexual activity—even aberrant (not that any and all activity that goes on between homosexual males is healthy—things like fisting, BDSM and fetishism can be dangerous and harmful to the body).
It also belies a fundamental misconception of sexuality in scripture. According to traditional arguments, the primary function of sex is procreation, and on those grounds many infertile couples shouldn’t be married either. And if you were to ask, I suspect that many Christians wouldn’t even be able to tell you why they believe homosexuality is wrong—only that “the Bible says so.” Mny blindly accept and parrot the views of their leaders without studying the issue for themselves, and yet these are the ones speaking with their votes.
Instead of “working against” same-sex marriage, why don’t Christians try to find out what it is that homosexuals really want? Yes, this would involve actually getting to know a few, and perhaps that’s what this is about. It’s easy to work to block someone’s rights when they’re a statistic or a scary figure on television, and you are a happily married, secluded family that enjoys society’s approval and privilege; but that often changes when it becomes about people.It’s about simple things, like enjoying the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples, without dirty looks or the danger of—at the very least—being savagely beaten; being able to publicly marry without fundamentalists protesting or children holding signs declaring eternal damnation for gays; and legal rights, such as hospital visitation and tax credits. It’s about the symbolic declaration of commitment that separates “living together” from “marriage.”

It’s not about upturning the apple cart. We just want fair treatment.

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.