Tag Archives: same-sex marriage

“First stop slamming doors…”

Posted on by

We don’t teach meditation to the young monks. They are not ready for it until they stop slamming doors.
~ Thich Nhat Hanh to Thomas Merton in 1966

“Charlotte Pastor Mark Harris and Cindy Marrelli of Raleigh celebrate the passage of the N.C. marriage amendment during an election night party at the North Raleigh Hilton.”

I began my morning by reading the daily meditation from Richard Rohr, which begins with the above. I then saw several pictures online and in print picturing so-called “pastors” jubilantly celebrating the passage of Amendment 1 in North Carolina, and it struck me that these are exactly the kind of people that Fr. Rohr is talking about when he comments:

First stop slamming doors, and then you can begin in the kindergarten of spirituality. Too many priests, bishops, and ministers are still slamming doors.

No one who supports the right of God’s LGBT children to live their lives honestly, openly, freely and without fear is surprised to hear that much (most?) of the bigotry that opposes such honesty and freedom is rooted in religion. Nonetheless, it never ceases to shock me in one way or another when the strong-arm of this bigotry exercises its might as it did yesterday in North Carolina.

The picture of a “pastor” raising his clenched-fist, smiling and expressing support for the fact that a majority of his fellow citizens have slammed the door on the faces of so many tens of thousands of their brothers and sisters — well, this just doesn’t seem very “pastoral,” now does it? This man — and too many other religious administrators (I won’t call them “leaders”) — would probably not yet be ready to begin to take the baby-steps that truly faithful people people take when they seek to know the path to God in humility and compassion.

Some may say this sounds judgmental, even a bit harsh. To that I plead guilty. But I think a little anger is justified when those whose actions seeking to deny the fundamental rights of others are temporarily successful. Thankfully, there’s that thing called the arc of history … and towards a better world characterized by Justice and Peace I hope and pray it will continue to bend!

Gay, by the Grace of God

Posted on by

The headline of today’s Washington Post was expected, though no less wonderful! It announces the approval of legislation in Maryland to recognize same-sex marriage (Gay marriage bill approved by Md. Senate). What’s not so wonderful is the accompanying story, For black clergy, issue is not a civil rights one.

As I read the article and its direct quotations from the story’s central character, Rev. Nathaniel Thomas, I couldn’t help but be reminded of something I had read just an hour earlier. In his daily mediation, Rev. Richard Rohr writes this:

I would like to say that the goal in general is to be serious about the word of God, serious about the scriptures. We have often substituted being literal with being serious and they are not the same! (Read that a second time, please.) I would like to make the point that in fact literalism is to not take the text seriously at all! Pure literalism in fact avoids the real impact, the real message. Literalism is the lowest and least level of meaning in a spiritual text.

The problem with Rev. Thomas’s position, and the position of so many other religious leaders — including Catholic bishops and other clergy — who oppose same-sex marriage and other civil (and religious!!!) rights for gay people on religious or biblical grounds is that they are reading the Scriptures at the lowest and least level of meaning. Notwithstanding the fact that even at this lowest level of literal meaning they misunderstand what the text is saying, they fail to see the issue of homosexuality within the context of the entire Christian message, instead of the very few scriptural passages which they repeatedly cite and take out of context.

According to the Post,

Not long ago, Thomas says, a young gay man came to him and said, “Look, I can’t help being how I am.” The minister embraced the man.

“We are all sinners,” Thomas says. “Christ never turned anyone away. People come to us all the time with issues, some with a stealing demon, some with urges and desires. But love doesn’t mean you go along to get along. I counsel them by showing them God’s word; some receive the word, and some reject it.”

Despite his attempts to “soften” his rhetoric and appear less condemning that many fellow preachers, Thomas’s words are no less offensive and off the mark. I suspect that back in 1865, many white preachers said this or something similar in response to the desires of enslaved people to be free: “But the Word of God (see Ephesians 6:5) clearly says that slaves should obey their earthy masters. So while I embrace you for who you are, I must reject your sin of wanting freedom in direct contradiction to God’s Word.” Even today’s biblical literalist would see that such a position is not only morally untenable, but that it is an abuse of Scripture to claim it supports maintaining an institution which subjugates one group of people to another and which denies them their fundamental human dignity.

I’m thankful that my own Church recognizes that one does not choose one’s sexuality. The Church teaches that homosexuality is not a choice, but is indeed part of the spectrum of human experience. (Yes, I know that recent decades have seen a shift to the righ’ on this, but declarations that homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered” are on theologically shaky ground when seen from a more complete Christian anthropology). This teaching is supported by theology, the life sciences, social science, and most especially the lived experience of LGBT people.

Put simply, those whom God has created gay — or straight, or blue-eyed, or left-handed, or black, or [insert any immutable human quality or trait] — are such by the Grace of God. For societies and churches and religious bodies to deny this and its implications is to put themselves above God and the wonder of His creation — a creation revealed in the beauty and mystery of every human person, even gay ones.

Where are the kids?

Posted on by

Today’s Ask Amy column gives five tips distilled from a project at Cornell University (The Legacy Project) about what makes a successful, long, and happy marriage.  Despite the fact that opponents of same-sex marriage always mention that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because they don’t procreate (at least in the same way opposite-sex couple do), I find it curious that not one these tips mentions children at all!

Here’s my favorite tip (which, those who know me, will completely understand):

4. Talk to each other: Marriage to the strong, silent type can be deadly to a relationship. Long-term married partners are talkers (at least to one another, and about things that count).

Happy Valentines Day!

“It’s not about you!”

Posted on by

That’s what I want to scream whenever I read about or see news coverage of opponents of same-sex marriage speaking about “protecting” and “defending” marriage “as it’s always been”!

Dusk on a Winter's Eve - Washington, DC

For over a decade I have worked for national mental health organizations, currently in an area affecting millions of people on a daily basis. The issue we deal with affects millions of adults, but typically its “age of onset” is in childhood, often as a child is getting ready to attend school for the first time.  Fortunately, there are federal laws which guarantee that every child in this country — regardless of ability or disability — receive a free and appropriate public education (FAPE), and that such education be provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE). Implementation of these laws is a never-ending challenge for parents, teachers and school systems. Yet I wonder if, at the time of their introduction and passage, these laws were met with opposing arguments saying that public education should be limited only to children without any physical or mental impairment? I wonder if opponents argued that in order to receive that education paid for by taxpayer dollars, every child had to walk through the door on his own and couldn’t come in if she were in a wheelchair or otherwise physically challenged? I wonder if opponents tried to derail the legislation by taking the focus off children with disabilities (i.e. what the law is about) and putting it on the non-disabled children (i.e. what the law is not about)?

I pose that question because that’s exactly what opponents of same-sex marriage continually do. They attempt to frame this issue not in terms of what it is about, but in terms of what it’s not about.  When they argue their side, they don’t talk about gay people, and in fact do everything they can to frame it in terms of of everyone except gay people. So, instead of betraying either the ignorance or ugliness (or both) of what they really believe (“being gay is a choice,” “homosexuality is evil,” “gays and lesbians are sinners,” “they should just go back into those closets and not expose ‘our’ children to their unhealthy lifestyle,” etc. etc. etc.), they frame the issue of same-sex marriage and the civil rights of LGBT people almost entirely in terms straight people and children.

If you’ve any doubt, here are the talking points the so-called National Organization for Marriage suggests its supporters put on a 3×5 card, always ready at hand:

  • Marriage is between a husband and wife. The people of [this state] do not want marriage to be anything but that. We do not want government or judges changing that definition for us today or our children tomorrow.
  • We need a marriage amendment to settle the gay marriage issue once and for all, so we don’t have it in our face every day for the next ten years.
  • Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers.
  • Do we want to teach the next generation that one-half of humanity—either mothers or fathers—are dispensable, unimportant? Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Let’s not confuse them further.
  • Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose; they don’t have a right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.

Notice that every point except the last one has nothing whatsoever to do with gay people. They all have to do with husbands and wives, (straight) mothers and (straight) fathers, and children (of heterosexual parents). And even the point that does mention “gays and lesbians” tries to start off positively, though it does so by perpetuating the lie that one’s sexual orientation is a choice.

Each of these points is easily be rebutted one by one; and for those actively engaged in the debate, it’s important to be able to do that.  From my perspective, however, it’s equally if not more important not merely to rebut these talking points, but to reframe the issue in terms of what it’s really about.  Previously, I’ve written about how those who oppose same-sex marriage get the answer wrong, because they have the question wrong.  “The issue isn’t about you!”  It’s about gays and lesbians.  It’s about those whom God created and gifted with same-sex attraction and whether or not society will recognize the full humanity of gay people, providing the full respect our humanity demands. Is that so hard to understand?

So, instead of playing their game and simply rebutting their talking points, here are a few of my own:

  • Sexual orientation, in all its diversity, is part of our God-given human nature. In every age and in every culture, God has created a certain percentage of people with same-sex attraction.
  • Marriage is an important civil and religious institution by which societies publicly sanction and support the loving, committed relationship of two people.
  • For gay men and women, establishing stable, loving, and committed relationships is good for themselves and good for society as a whole.
  • Just like a straight couple who either choose not to have children or marry later in life yet still enjoy the rights, benefits, and privileges of marriage, so too should gay and lesbian couples enjoy these same rights, benefits and privileges.

Now what, Mr. Mutty?

Posted on by

New Ways Ministry’s blog, Bondings 2.0, has an interesting post today about the leader of the Maine Catholic Conference. Apparently Marc Mutty has had some second thoughts about the ways in which he characterized the impact legalization of same-sex marriage might have in The Pine Tree State. In Catholicism, of course, we’re all about changing hearts and moving more and more toward the greater good.

My comment to the post is below:

Yes, Frank, thank you for sharing this story. And while I share the respect expressed by others who are able to admire someone who now sees the “error of his ways,” the question then becomes, Now what?

At the time of the Maine initiative against same-sex marriage, I took the time to write to Mr. Mutty’s boss, Portland Bishop Richard Malone. Bishop (then Father) Malone had been a professor and advisor of mine at St. John’s Seminary College in Boston. “Dick” Malone — whose doctorate came from a secular, not Catholic, institution, Boston University — was well-like and admired as a careful thinker, a good teacher, and someone who challenged students with high academic standards. I reminded Bishop Malone of this in my letter, challenging him to see that from the perspective of reason, opposition to same-sex marriage (especially in the civil context) is on very flimsy footing. Needless to say, I never heard back from him.

So, I come back to my initial point, which I hope Mr. Mutty would consider. In our theology of Reconciliation, when we recognize we have done wrong, we are called upon to embrace a firm “purpose of amendment” through which we commit to changing past ways. So, Mr. Mutty …. Now what??

The [Real] Meaning of Marriage

Posted on by

This touching video describes the love and shared lives of two men, clearly married “later in life.” It’s worth a few minutes of your time.

  • “Why would anyone not want to foster love? It’s as simple as that.” 
  • “As my brother went down the path of advanced AIDS…. I saw his trust in Dave… and the care Dave gave him….My husband said, I don’t think I could do for you what Dave is doing for Carl… I’ve never seen greater love than that.” — Carl’s sister.
  • “I thought it was awesome, I thought it was great! — Carl’s son on his father’s relationship and marriage to Dave,
  • “The way Davey would take care of my father….that was remarkable to me.”
  • “I was given an opportunity to care. ”  —  On caring for his husband Dave as he was dying with AIDS.
  • “I saw in their relationship the fruits of the Spirit.” — The couple’s pastor in Arkansas.

Australian Gay Marriage Video

Posted on by

Guess I am a bit of a romantic, but I admit it … I did tear up when I saw this! How can anyone watch this video, produced by the Australian advocacy group, “GetUp! Action for Australia,” and not be moved?

To all  Catholic bishops around the world (including the Pope); all the Republican presidential candidates who have signed pledges in support of DOMA; Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown, and other intellectually challenged supporters of NOM … how can you possibly watch this and fail to understand that support for civil (and yes, sacramental … but that’s another story) marriage will in no way harm either the marriages of heterosexuals or children?

This is about:

  1. accepting the fact that being gay is not a choice;
  2. recognizing that being gay is a natural part of the diversity with which humanity is so blessed; and
  3. deciding how to live faithfully and responsibly in light of the God-given realities of #1 # 2.

Archbishop Dolan’s Letter Recognizes US Bishops Don’t Speak for US Catholics

Posted on by

I just re-read the letter which Archbishop Timothy Dolan, current president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, sent to President Obama last month expressing concerns that the Obama Administration is no longer defending legal challenges to the constitutionality of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act).

Dolan repeatedly notes that he is writing on behalf of the “Catholic Bishops of the United States,” and that the views he is expressing are shared by “millions of citizens who stand with us on this issue.”

What the good archbishop does not say, however, is that these citizens are necessarily Catholic; nor that he is writing on behalf of Catholics in the United States.  Perhaps this is because, given whatever limitations the logic of his arguments might have, Archbishop Dolan at least is able to read opinion polls and he knows that the views he and his brother bishops are espousing are not the views of most American Catholics when it comes to recognizing that even gays and lesbians are God’s children, with all the rights and responsibilities this brings.

Archbisop’s Argument Supports Gay Marriage Argument

Posted on by

He doesn’t seem to know it, but Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York is actually expressing public support for the basic values and arguments in support of same-sex marriage. In a blog entry entry entitled The True Meaning of Marriage, here’s what Dolan wrote just the other day:

NY Archbishop Timothy Dolan“Last time I consulted an atlas, it is clear we are living in New York, in the United States of America – not in China or North Korea.  In those countries, government presumes daily to “redefine” rights, relationships, values, and natural law.  There, communiqués from the government can dictate the size of families, who lives and who dies, and what the very definition of “family” and “marriage” means.”

Gay Wedding CakeHis point seems straightforward and simple enough — governments have little business involving themselves in defining or limiting the most basic and fundamental of human relationships. Isn’t this what the supporters of same-sex marriage are seeking to do, namely to have existing state laws updated to reflect this “less government intrusion in the lives of individuals” approach?

Except in those situations where there is potential harm to individual or to society (as in the case of children, or close relatives, or those already married), what interest does government have in placing limitations on which two adults — male, female, gay, straight, young, old, black, white, citizen, non-citizen, etc. — may or may not enter into that most fundamental of human relationships in which spouses commit to one another to share their lives, their resources, and their very selves?

Archbishop Dolan, I’m with you!  Those government communiqués dictating limits on fundamental human rights need to stop. How best to do this?  By telling the government it can’t limit these rights and by supporting marriage equality for all in New York State!