Sunday, August 31, 2008


This article that appeared today resonates with an email I sent to a friend of mine yesterday regarding the selection of Sarah Palin as McCain's choice for Vice President, and I wanted to share a slightly edited part of that email with you.

By McCain's choosing Palin, can anyone in his or her right mind think it was for any other reason than to put the finishing touches on his victory? It was SOLELY because she is a woman, period, end of story!

She'll get far more than a few thousand votes. She'll get hundreds of thousands of votes from the idiots who "want a woman in the White House." Most Americans are political idiots, and vote for Obama because he's handsome and/or Black
and/or has a winning smile and/or.... They'll vote for McCain because he's white and/or they want a woman in the White House and/or they hate Blacks. It's a simple as that!

It's image, not substance or issues that matter!

Too much exposure to Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage and the like, plus lack of critical thinking skills honed to a fine edge in most of our institutions of "higher education," have made it impossible for most Americans to have critical thinking skills sufficient to see that we are being played like a fiddle.

Moreover, Palin is WHITE! Why not choose Condoleezza Rice if he wanted a woman to run on his ticket? She has far more domestic and foreign policy experience, to put it mildly, than the WHITE woman he picked. He didn't want a Black woman because he wouldn't garner enough of a net gain of votes.

Now, many women who are angry that Clinton lost the nomination; many women who just want to see a woman in the White House; some "liberals" who want to see a woman in the White House to "break the glass ceiling," "conservatives" who want to make sure that the next President (be it by succession or likely successor) votes their "values," will see to it that homophobic reactionaries will occupy the White House for at least 8 and, perhaps, 16 more years.

And even more reactionaries than we expected will flock to the polls and vote, also dooming California's Prop. 8, that seeks to overturn the California Supreme Court's decision [that mandated the allowance of same-sex marriage within California] by restricting marriage to one man and one woman.

And the reactionaries will achieve the victory that justifies those expectations, and they'll achieve it because of the idiocy of Obama [Please see my August 25th post.] and the superficiality of most of the American electorate.

And you are absolutely right! Obama is a closet homophobe, as his opposition to same-sex marriage partly indicates!
Share |

Friday, August 29, 2008


"'I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination." [Barack Obama at his speech at the Democratic Convention, August 29th. For the full article, see here.]

We are to make no mistake: It might be better in the long-run for the advancement of Gay rights if McCain wins the Presidential election than if Obama wins it!

Obama is against same-sex marriage, tacitly affirming that "separate is equal," and also tacitly affirming that same-sex love lacks the dignity sufficient to equate it with heterosexual love!

As long as same-sex couples are denied marriage equality, there is no equality! "Equality" doesn't come in increments! People have it or they don't!

In the unlikely event that Obama wins the election (See my August 25th post), and he, like Clinton, defects from pursuing Gay rights (Remember, it was under Clinton that DOMA was instituted, and DADT was also instituted as a politically expedient compromise to the more draconian policy in the military that previously existed.), liberals might well make excuses for his defection from pursuing full and equal rights, and thereby give him a pass on that defection.

However, should McCain win the election, his clear and upfront discriminatory attitudes toward Gay people and same-sex marriage, may well help to set a tone where more homophobia will be given permission to surface to the point where what LGBT rights now exist might well be even further threatened or removed, and thereby be more likely inflame even further outrage among LGBT people and allies to the point that far more motivation for meaningful political activism will be evidenced in pursuing full and equal rights.

I'm not a fan of Obama's, and certainly not a fan of McCain's! I'm going to vote for Obama because of the likely types of Supreme Court appointments he'll make, although I'm not even sure about the fact that they'd be all that different from McCain's appointments.

I see Obama as being merely a charming, charismatic, shell, a chameleon who lacks much substance! I don't see McCain in any better light at all, save for his greater consistency in articulating and making known his "values."

The choice of candidates between the two parties is pathetic, and one day there might be a viable third party that transcends the seeming collusion between the Democrats and Republicans in pursuing virtually the same agenda, despite rhetoric to the contrary.

For merely one example, in 1947, Harry Truman said we should have universal health care. Since that time, the Democrats have controlled Congress more often than not, and we still don't have such health care. Don't you think that if the Democrats really wanted universal health care, we'd have had it within the last 60 years?

We must also remember that most all Democrats in Congress affirmed the Iraq war; Congress, not the President, passes laws and affirms U.S. Supreme Court judicial appointments.

My point is that I think that the Democrats and the Republicans are engaging in one big shell game, where the rhetoric seems to significantly differ, but the outcomes are virtually the same! I see no reason to believe that the same will not hold true regarding Gay rights!

Should Obama win and continue to withhold full equality from Gay people, LGBT people and "liberals" are likely to make excuses for him; should McCain win and help set a tone where homophobia is given permission to accelerate, there will be no likelihood of such mystification or rationalization concerning the lack of equality!

As long as Obama doesn't speak out in favor of marriage equality, I have no reason to believe that LGBT rights will improve one iota under an Obama Administration!

"Equality" is like pregnancy! You either are or you aint!
Share |

Wednesday, August 27, 2008


Del Martin just died!
Also, see here.
Please also see here and here.

Del Martin was a pioneering Gay rights activist, who, along with her spouse, Phyllis Lyon, was the founder of the Daughters of Bilitis, the first lesbian rights organization in the U.S., in San Francisco in 1955; they founded "The Ladder," the first magazine that was a vehicle for lesbians to share their voices, in 1956.

"Their editorials, beginning with a series of rhetorical questions in the debut issue in 1956, consistently prodded lesbians to galvanize into a collective political force: 'What will be the lot of the future Lesbian? Fear? Scorn? This need not be — if lethargy is supplanted by an energized constructive program, if cowardice gives way to the solidarity of a cooperative front.'" [See here.]

Our prayers go out to her beloved wife, Phyllis! May God grant her peace in this very traumatic time!

Please watch this video of this wonderful, courageous, woman who, along with her spouse, lived and taught a lesson from which many LGBT people and allies can profit:
Share |


[Emmett Till]

Please read this whole article.

I'm under no illusion that Obama is another Martin Luther King! He's definitely not that!

However, regardless of who becomes President, there must be grassroots organizing and a more aggressive organizational representative that the Human Rights Campaign agitating for LGBT rights that doesn't sell out, or that doesn't engage in the practice of political expediency.

Only when the hearts and minds of decent people are changed to see the basic equality of all people, will there be full and equal civil rights, and the origin of that change of heart must come from organizational and political leaders and their constituents aggressively expressing those values that reflect that need and requirement for change; those values can and will only be influenced by political education and agitation from meaningful and effective civil rights organizations, and from LGBT people themselves.

And it shouldn't take any more Emmett Tills [pictured] among LGBT people to see this movement fully initiated.

We saw this phenomenon played out in the African American civil rights movement, and it must also be played out in regard to the movement for equal rights for LGBT people!

And no less coordinated activism and organizational effectiveness that was exhibited in that era will suffice to achieve full equality for LGBT people!

Share |

Monday, August 25, 2008


"The literature that volunteers distributed was intended to reinforce the campaign's message that the amendment is pro-marriage and children instead of anti-gay.

"'California should do more to encourage families to stay together,' reads the pamphlets illustrated with close-ups of heterosexual couples posed cheek-to-cheek.

"Frank Schubert, who is co-managing the Yes on 8 campaign, said the outreach effort is designed to counter the principle message of gay rights advocates, who are portraying the upcoming vote as a matter of fairness and equality.

"They want people to feel like you are a bad person if you support what has been the definition of marriage since the dawn of time,' Schubert said. By having face-to-face conversations about why the amendment is necessary, organizers hope to reach potential supporters who may worry that voting for the measure would get them labeled as 'bigots or homophobes,' he said.

[For the full article, see here.]

A couple of months ago, I wrote that I was cautiously optimistic about the defeat of Proposition 8 in California, the Proposition that seeks to limit marriage in California to one man and one woman. I am now not at all optimistic about its defeat!

With Obama moving ever more to the Right, directly or indirectly backtracking on promises he made earlier on in his campaign, such as the issues of off-shore drilling, faith based initiatives, and troop withdrawals from Iraq, increasing numbers of liberals are likely to have become disaffected with him and his candidacy and might well stay home on election day, as it looks like it will be "politics as usual" in an Obama presidency. It can be said of Obama, as Truman once said about another politician, "He takes his friends for granted and tries to buy his enemies."

Those who like McCain for President are usually the ones who are white, middle class, and older, and they are the ones that are not only most likely to vote, but are those most likely to be in agreement with the message of Proposition 8.

It may be expected that many young people who were energized by the "early Obama," have lost their fervor for his candidacy, and may well not show up at the polls, and will thereby yield more votes to McCain; this is the demographic that would have most likely voted against Proposition 8 that seeks to write discrimination into California's Constitution, despite the spin put on that Proposition by its supporters, as seen in the quote above.

Therefore, I am more than a little pessimistic that Proposition 8 may well pass, and that would spell doom for at least a decade or more to not only same-sex marriage in California, but same-sex marriage in many other states as well. Moreover, as a possible spinoff should Proposition 8 pass, is that both California and other state officials might well become emboldened to rescind what civil rights protections are now afforded to their LGBT citizens. (For example, what is currently happening in Louisiana.)

Moreover, should McCain become President, his Supreme Court appointments would virtually guarantee a Court that would be heavily "conservative," and not be as likely to affirm same-sex marriage, or any other Gay rights legislation for that matter, should such cases be brought before it in the future.

All things considered, it doesn't look good! And, with Clinton supporters angry with Obama, many of them may not only not vote for him on election day, but some might vote for McCain just out of their frustration from their perceptions that the media favored Obama in its coverage of the nomination pricess to the exclusion of Clinton, thus helping to doom her candidacy.

Unless Clinton manages to take over the convention, something not very likely, there will likely be a McCain presidency, with all the expected priorities and Supreme Court appointments that we have seen in the last 8 years of the Bush presidency.

Moreover, in addition to Obama's moving much further to the Right, by choosing a Washington insider Joe Biden as his running mate (who also has potential discrediting baggage) may also have helped alienate Obama from much of his younger constituency, who thought that Obama, the candidate of "change," and who didn't want "politics as usual," would really and readily capitulate to "the establishment" after all.

And, of course, Obama has always come out against same-sex marriage, so it might well be that many Gay people might not vote for him and will stay away from the polls as well!
Share |

Saturday, August 23, 2008


This article is both encouraging and revealing at the same time.

Notice the line: "In an e-mail, site managers at lds4gaymarriage declined to be identified for this story, saying no one was willing to give their names 'because of the fear of retribution by the church.'"

"Religion" breeds fear! The Spirit breeds freedom!

Christianity is of the Spirit of the Lord, if it's Christianity in fact! Freedom of thought, freedom to disagree, freedom to hear, obey, and share the voice of God in one's daily life, relationships, and ministry are what characterize the "ecclesia," the "called out ones" who comprise the Church of Jesus Christ! The rest are impostors!

Christianity knows nothing of fear; gives no quarter to wolves in sheep's clothing; knows nothing about discrimination or advocacy of discrimination against any of God's children; knows nothing about any mere human mediator between the Christian and God!

Jesus is our only Mediator! Jesus defines the call on each of our lives, and no mere human being dare interfere with that call!

You wouldn't know it from most of the assorted professing Christians and clergy who monopolize the airwaves, and who inhabit most of the leadership positions within the institutional Church and the Mormon Church, and who preach their false gospel of exclusion from assorted pulpits throughout the world, but Jesus brings freedom from yokes of bondage.

Moreover, is these very types of legalistic and oppressive religious leaders and clergy who were roundly condemned by Jesus!
I urge you to open your Bibles and read the following verses: Matthew 23:13-15; 23; 25; 27; 29.

It is by no means any accident that the very first recorded words taught by Jesus as he began His public ministry were the following: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised. To preach the acceptable year of the Lord." (Luke 4:18-19)

Echoing this pronouncement by Jesus, the Apostle Paul wrote the following: "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." (2Corinthians 3:17)

Why would anyone voluntarily want to be part of any religion that placed such yokes of bondage upon him or her that he or she was afraid to speak his or her mind; was afraid to disagree with that church's leaders; was afraid of being ostracized by others due to his or her beliefs; fear church "discipline?"

Kim Farah, spokesperson for the 13 million member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, based in Salt Lake City, Utah, was quoted as saying the following, that speaks volumes:

"'The Church, of course, recognizes and accepts that some among its very large membership may view the issue differently,' Farah said in a statement. But members who engage in clear opposition to church doctrine may cause local leaders to consider church disciplinary action, Farah said."

What an indictment of the LDS Church! When people are afraid to speak Jesus' message of freedom from yokes of bondage; are repulsed by discrimination against any of God's children; are offended by a church's advocacy of constitutionally mandating removal of civil rights from same-sex couples who want to marry; are afraid of being "disciplined" by those who claim to represent Jesus' church, something has gone horribly wrong!

You might want to check out the site: Latter Day Saint Doctrine And The Case For Civil Same-Sex Marriage.
Share |

Thursday, August 21, 2008


Many of those who intend to vote in favor of the discriminatory Proposition 8 in California, designed to overturn the California Supreme Court's decision affirming the right of same-sex couples to marry, are likely operating under certain false assumptions concerning both the nature of same-sex love as well as the nature of traditional religious prohibitions against any sexual activity outside the bounds of heterosexual marriage. These assumptions largely emanate from misguided views of the nature of being Gay as well as the misguided and unjustified credibility given to assorted clergy who, be it from the pulpit or from any other venue, seek to have others, in the name of God no less, feel that they would be opposing "Christian values" if they voted against this hateful and discriminatory Proposition.

It should be recognized that in addition to misogyny (having a contempt for women) and Reaction Formation being at the heart of much homophobia, it seems to me that the other major impetus driving homophobia is the false belief held by many people is that Gay people are merely perverted heterosexuals. Many people fail to see that being Gay is every bit as normal as is being Straight!

Statistical frequency doesn't necessarily justify any imputations of moral superiority, exclusive normality, or any religious injunctions affirming that behavior, and condemnation of any deviation from that behavior. For example, it was "normal" in ancient Israel, a tribal society living on the edge, threatened with extinction from all sorts of enemies with which it was surrounded, to condemn anything other than heterosexual marriage (also including polygyny and concubinage if the man could afford it) and a great deal of procreation, so that the numbers in that meager population could grow and be sufficient to sustain that society over time.

That ancient societal need demanded the normalizing of heterosexuality, and the devaluation of homosexual relations, just as it normalized procreation and devalued celibacy and childless marriages. Clearly, what was deemed culturally appropriate for survival needs was normalized by cultural and even religious mandates and practices due to those needs, and is not to be extrapolated to any modern society where population numbers are adequate, if not excessive, to maintain that society's continuity. Just because a cultural practice was needed at one point in time doesn't necessarily justify its need or its exclusive normality in later times!

What seems to have happened is that the religious imprimatur was imposed on that ancient societal need to help insure conformity to meet the survival needs of that society, and that religious imprimatur has been carried forward to the point that it is no longer relevant, either to societal continuation (as there are sufficient numbers of people to insure most modern societies' continuance), or to any intrinsic "abnormality" of same-sex relationships. In other words, any cultural and religious injunctions against same-sex relationships, celibacy, and childless marriages to help insure U.S. society's survival are clearly not needed to insure its survival!

Religion as a control mechanism might have been necessary regarding same-sex relations in ancient times (and that's a debatable issue), but any religious demands for heterosexual marriage and much fertility have clearly outlived their usefulness. However, self-styled arbiters of "morality," those who mistake statistical normality in emotional/sexual relationships for being "moral," and mistake statistical abnormality in emotional/sexual relationships for being "immoral," have managed to define the reality in the minds of many people to falsely believe that Gay people are merely perverted heterosexuals, and if they just "stopped doing that" and became "just like us," "normal," they would be acting according to God's will.

So, an ancient societal need, determined a cultural practice, that became affirmed by religion to be defined as "truth" for all times; defined as both "normal" and "moral" for all times! And the way to help insure the continuation of that "truth," that "normality," that "morality" is to punish and discriminate against those who are acting contrary to God's will as defined by the often self-serving interests of self-styled arbiters of morality!

So many otherwise intelligent and decent people have allowed those arbiters of morality to define their views of Gay people as being "the other" and as "immoral," and as being merely perverts who, if they were "normal," would be heterosexuals! However, for reasons such as mere ignorance and/or materialistic needs and/or psychological needs and/or social needs and/or political needs these arbiters of morality have duped a good deal of the population into accepting their false definitions of reality.

They have misled countless people into injuring their fellow human beings who are every bit as normal as they are! Homosexuality is every bit as normal as is heterosexuality!

Just as most Christians don't now condemn childless heterosexuals, there is no justification to condemn Gay people! And Christianity is cheapened to the degree that it in any way aligns itself with condemnation of Gay people, just like it was cheapened by its alignment with, and justification of, slavery and segregation!

In the minds of all too many people, Christianity is associated with condemnation and judgment! I doubt that if you ask the average person on the street who is not a Christian what word comes to mind when he/she hears the word "Christian," that he/she would respond: "Love." Most likely, the first word that would occur to that person would be "sin!" Of course, I could be wrong, but I doubt it, given what purports to be "Christianity" emanating from all too many pulpits and airwaves throughout the U.S.!

The fact is that all too many people, including well-meaning Christians, have been sold a bill of goods, and have bought into a terrible and destructive lie! Moreover, just as with the subordination of women and its treatment of African Americans, Christianity has been terribly demeaned and has lost untold credibility in the minds of many intelligent, decent, and sensitive people, due to its demonizing of Gay people.

And that demonizing has been fabricated from applying an unneeded tribal and societal injunction from a time that is no longer relevant to any modern society; has been derived from all sorts of nefarious motives of those who presume upon themselves the mantel of moral arbiters, complete with sanctimonious and unctuous rhetoric and, in many cases, manner of dress, with titles to boot, to both justify their disdain (in the name of God, of course), and to justify their undeserved credibility that they in no small measure receive from their distorted interpretations of selected verses of the Bible that justify their preconceived prejudices, and that are often further "justified" by the appeal to "tradition."

Don't be fooled! Being Gay is a sexual orientation that is just as viable, just as normal, just as valid as is the sexual orientation of being Straight!

To believe otherwise is to believe that God makes mistakes; that God creates people whom He can sit around and hate (as my friend Rev. Troy Perry famously said); that Christians are to express their faith by advocacy of discrimination against others; that the self-styled arbiters of morality from the pulpit or elsewhere who condemn same-sex love are exhibiting the love of God toward all of His children. To in any way believe these lies, and to in any way discriminate against any of God's children either rhetorically, at the ballot box, or by any direct or indirect action, is to show oneself as being both intellectually dishonest and as anything but a Christian!

In the context of voting on Proposition 8 in California in November, it is important to recognize that a Christian worthy of the name can do nothing but vote against this hateful and discriminatory Proposition that hateful and/or misguided people seek to add to California's Constitution.

To in any way affirm discrimination against same-sex couples who wish to make a lifetime commitment of love to each other, and who want and deserve the dignity and civil rights that the designation of "Married" affords, a designation enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts, is to condone hate and discrimination: something that no Christian worthy of the name (or any decent person, for that matter) could or would ever do!
Share |

Wednesday, August 20, 2008


This brief video speaks for itself!
Share |

Monday, August 18, 2008


This article unwittingly highlights a problem that all of us who oppose Proposition 8 in California will find disquieting.

"...there are signs McCain is winning over a group that has regarded him with suspicion on grounds including his past criticism of Religious Right leaders and his support for stem cell research.

"A nationwide poll of registered voters by the Pew Research Center from July 31 to August 10 found McCain had the support of 68 percent of the white evangelical Protestants surveyed, up from 61 percent in June.

"Obama's support was almost unchanged at 24 percent -- an indication McCain is making headway with undecided voters in the group."

The fact is that McCain would have gotten most all of the "evangelical" vote anyway, given the reactionary mind-set of most all of them! That he's increasingly "appealing" to them indicates that increasing numbers of self-professed "evangelicals" will likely be motivated to come to the polls and vote in November.

The major danger to McCain was always, not that "evangelicals" would not vote for him, but that many, if not most of them, would stay away from the polls and not vote at all, given his history of thumbing his nose at them. But at that time, he wasn't running for President! So, then came his subsequent realization that he would now have to court their support if he was to have a reasonable chance of winning the upcoming election. And this pragmatic strategy has worked!

Even James Dobson, who once said that he'd never endorse McCain for President, has recently said that he is reconsidering his position:

''Barack Obama contradicts and threatens everything I believe about the institution of the family and what is best for the nation," Dr. Dobson said in a statement to The Associated Press. 'His radical positions on life, marriage and national security force me to re-evaluate the candidacy of our only other choice, John McCain. I have not endorsed him, but … I have concluded for the first time that I might. If that is a flip-flop, then so be it.'" [See here.]

The fact is that by McCain further appealing to "evangelicals," and thereby motivating many of them to vote for him in November, the fate of Proposition 8 that is designed to overturn the California Supreme Court decision legalizing the right of same-sex couples to marry is now in much further jeopardy, as virtually all of these "evangelicals" who do go to the polls will certainly vote in favor of Proposition 8.

To the degree that these people with a reactionary mind-set will more likely go to the polls to vote for McCain, it's to that degree that more people will vote in favor of Proposition 8! The unfortunate fact is that the "evangelicals" and reactionaries who would vote for McCain are not only likely to vote in favor of Proposition 8, but have shown themselves to be far more organized and mobilized than are "liberals," as we saw in the 2004 Presidential election. [For example, see here.]

That is why more aggressive education and activism on all fronts in this civil rights struggle is needed so that people of good will in California will increasingly come to see the need to affirm "equality under the law" for all citizens, and will do the right thing by becoming motivated to go to the polls in November and vote against the mean-spirited and discriminatory Proposition 8.

I'm afraid that without more aggressive education and activism to counteract the effects of increasing numbers of "evangelicals" who are likely to go to the polls in November in California, the consequences may well spell doom for the future of same-sex marriage both in California and in most all of the other states in the U.S. as well.

Given the very strong "conservative" current in the U.S., reinforced in the secular world by such popular TV personalities as Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, and by many, if not, most radio talk show hosts (Michael Savage, for example, has about 8 to 10 million listeners a week throughout the U.S. and Rush Limbaugh has a minimum of 13.5 million listeners a week), it is my opinion that far more "conservatives" will be motivated to go to the polls to vote for McCain (and, hence, in California, vote for Proposition 8), than "liberals" will be motivated to go to the polls and vote for Obama (and, in California, vote against Proposition 8).

Should Proposition 8 be affirmed, it can be expected that same-sex marriage will be held back for generations to come both in California and in other states as well, more homophobic people being further emboldened by its passage!
Share |

Saturday, August 16, 2008


"The [Mormon] Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of matrimony. The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members' Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people.

"As Church members decide their own appropriate level of involvement in protecting marriage between a man and a woman, they should approach this issue with respect for others, understanding, honesty, and civility."

[For the full article, see here.]

So, "intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of matrimony," but the LDS Church is seeking to deprive same-sex couples of the right to marry. Therefore, if we follow this logic, the LDS Church, beyond discriminating against Gay people, is encouraging and facilitating fornication by actively encouraging its members to both speak out against same-sex marriage and to vote against Proposition 8 in California (and similar propositions in other states), that seek to end discrimination against same-sex couples.

"The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women." What does that mean? If consigning Gay people to second class citizenship, denying them basic civil rights that heterosexuals enjoy, and demeaning their relationships doesn't constitute and endorse hostility, what does? If such a stance isn't the epitome of "hostility," then that term ceases to have any meaning!

"Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members' Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people." How is it possible to maintain this disconnect, this "cognitive dissonance," by both advocating discrimination against same-sex couples who wish to make a lifetime commitment to each other on the one hand and at the same time maintaining that they are encouraging and exhibiting "Christian obligations of love, kindness, and humanity toward all people?" Aren't Gay people considered "people" by these false prophets of exclusion? If this is their stance concerning "love, kindness, and humanity," then they can keep this perversion of both Christianity and logic to themselves! Especially given the LDS Church's history of marital and sexual relations, they are the last group to lecture anyone on the virtues of "traditional marriage."

"Church members should approach this issue with respect for others, understanding, honesty, and civility." Give me a break! This sanctimonious drivel, and downright distortion of the truth, and the willful ignorance of the damaging consequences of their rhetoric and current and historical advocacy of discrimination, consigns the stance of the LDS Church regarding same-sex marriage to the dung heap of cynicism and manipulation, that is also inhabited by all professing Christians and clergy who advocate discrimination and the oppression of Gay people.
Share |

Friday, August 15, 2008


When well-known personalities like Ellen De Generes get married, it both further legitimizes same-sex marriage; serves as a role model, thereby giving permission, to other same-sex couples who wish to spend their lives together; normalizes same-sex marriage in the eyes of increasing numbers of Straight people; makes it far more likely that such hateful and discriminatory propositions as Proposition 8 in California will be defeated.
Share |

Thursday, August 14, 2008


This is a tragic, heartbreaking, article. It shows how a family can be irrevocably fractured by homophobia. And, to add insult to injury, many of those who reject their Gay children claim to be proponents of "family values," and even profess to be "Christians!"

"David Knight's wish to reconcile with his father [Pete, who was the author of Proposition 22, referred to as the Knight Initiative in California, which stated: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."] initially made him reluctant to enter the same-sex marriage debate, but he eventually agreed to write an op-ed piece in late 1999 for the Times . He was critical of his father's defense of 'family values,' noting that the elder Knight effectively ended his relationship with him after he had come out several years earlier, something the younger Knight felt negated his father's claim that he was "pro-family."

Moreover, "...the 75-year-old senator [Pete Knight] also severed ties with his own gay brother, who died of AIDS-related complications in 1996."

Pete Knight is just one example!

There have been countless parents who have even kicked their young Gay children out of the house, forcing them to live on the streets, because their own Gay children, falsely thinking that they could confide in, and trust, their parents, came out to them and were betrayed by those whom they felt they could feel safe.

Disowning or condemning one's own Gay children is about the worst form of betrayal one can imagine!

And the cause of such betrayal in often done in the name of "God" and of "Christianity!"

As I've written before: "Make no mistake, every drop of blood shed by GLBT people either through suicide, bashing, or murder, are on the hands of all those religious leaders, their followers, and their allies who spew forth their ignorance, prejudice, and hate against GLBT people and their relationships! These wolves in sheep’s clothing take the Bible, God’s love letter to His children, and selectively and perversely use it as a club to condemn others, and deny GLBT people full inclusion in the Church and in society." [For the full article, see here.]

Now, when Proposition 8, that seeks to prevent same-sex marriage in California, will appear on the November ballot, it is more important than ever to educate voters, and confront the lies, to confront the haters and hate-mongers, to confront many clergy's and their blind followers' views concerning their adherence to the false gospel of legalism and exclusion, and show all Christians who are Christians in fact, as well as all decent, civilized people, that civility in any society declines in direct proportion to the prejudice, discrimination, and denial of civil rights visited upon any non-predatory minority group!

The story of David Knight, and all the David Knights of the world, just highlights the need for such education and confrontation, and there is no better time than now to ratchet up that education and confrontation, particularly at this time in California, before Proposition 8 is brought before the voters!
Share |

Wednesday, August 13, 2008


This is a superb article by Andrew Sullivan that you'll want to read.

Notice, in regard to the California Supreme Court decision: "The individual citizen posited by the court is defined as prior to his or her sexual orientation. He or she exists as a person before he or she exists as straight or gay. And the right under discussion is defined as 'the opportunity of an individual' to choose another 'person' to 'establish a family' in which reproduction and children are not necessary. And so the distinction between gay and straight is essentially abolished."

The rights of an individual are inalienable, and all other characteristics are incidental to the acquisition of those rights, including the right to marry!

Hammering home this insight to voters prior to their voting on Proposition 8 should go a long way to reinforcing the inherent dignity of all people and, to deny Gay people the fundamental right to marry, puts all of our rights in jeopardy, and diminishes the value of each and every human being!
Share |


Check these out! If these limited human beings are trying to portray Christians as a pack of freaks, they couldn't be doing a better job! To cheapen God in this way, asking Him to bless a political party and to give "rain" of "biblical proportions on Obama's speech at the convention, is bizarre and surreal, and is offensive to every Christian worthy of the name, and is offensive to all intelligent, sensitive, and decent human beings!

Watch this brief video.

Now comes the freakish "theology," haughtiness, and the false goals of materialistic acquisitions of the "name it and claim it" crowd who also cheapen God's name in the eyes of every Christian worthy of the name as well as in the eyes of all intelligent, sensitive, and decent human beings. There is a lot of money to be made by preaching a false gospel, be it couched in hate or in materialism. Regardless, they worship the false gods of mammon, of materialism, of "what sells," to those who view God as some kind of cosmic bellhop! To say all this is a profound embarrassment is a gross understatement!

[See here.]

"For heartsick former supporters of John Edwards, this week offers an edifying tabloid alternative: the civil trial of Victoria Osteen, wife of megachurch minister and televangelist Joel Osteen, for assaulting a flight attendant. The issue was what is sometimes described as a "spill" and sometimes as a 'stain' on the armrest of Mrs. Osteen's first-class seat, which the flight attendant refused to clean up with sufficient alacrity because she was busy assisting others aboard."

UPDATE, 8/14/08:

"The wife of televangelist Joel Osteen thanked and praised God after a jury unanimously decided Thursday that she did not assault a flight attendant during an alleged tirade over a stain on her first-class seat.

"Jurors rejected Continental Airlines flight attendant Sharon Brown's claims that Victoria Osteen threw her against a bathroom door and elbowed her in the left breast while attempting to rush the cockpit because she was angry that a stain on her seat's armrest was not quickly cleaned up." [For the full article regarding this Update, please see here.]
Share |

Tuesday, August 12, 2008


This is the latest update on the subject of the August 9th post.

I guess the proponents of the exclusionary, discriminatory Proposition 8 in California, that seeks to prevent same-sex marriages from continuing to be California law as decided by the California Supreme Court, are going to cut their losses, and not rock the boat. They tried to change the wording of that Proposition so it would mystify it into its appearing to be something other than explicitly advocating discrimination against same-sex couples who seek the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples; cynically trying to bury the fact that by voting for it people would be explicitly advocating for discrimination against same-sex couples who seek to make a lifetime commitment to each other.

The truth of the matter is that Proposition 8 is patently exclusionary and discriminatory, and anyone who votes for that Proposition is advocating discrimination against a minority group of citizens, and the current wording of Proposition 8 makes that fact abundantly clear!

As I wrote in my August 9th post, anyone who votes in favor of that Proposition is no different than those who favored segregation and advocated Jim Crow laws before the civil rights era for African Americans!

Now, anyone who votes for that mean-spirited Proposition 8 cannot say that he or she didn't understand its full ramifications!
Share |

Sunday, August 10, 2008


"Harold Miller, a leading Irish bishop in the Anglican church, says the church can't accept gays even if homosexuality is proven to have a genetic or biological origin.

"Said Miller: 'If you say that because you are born with a certain inclination then it is God-given and you should be free to follow that through in your life, it doesn't make any logical sense whatever. You would then have to say that there are many different inclinations with which people are born — even if it is true that this is an inherent thing — and which people spend their lifetime trying to subdue. The fact that you are born with it doesn't make any moral judgement on the inclination.... [Proving that homosexuality is natural] makes no difference at all.'" [Taken from Towleroad; thanks to Don Charles for alerting me to this post.]

These rigid, narrow minded haters will have their way no matter what the evidence shows! There is no amount of evidence that will convince them to change their minds, and that is why to try to appease them in any way, to in any way seek accommodation with them, or to try to use "sweet reason" to appeal to them, or to try to get evidence about the inherent nature of homosexuality, falsely thinking that by so doing Gay people will be more likely to be embraced by people such as this, is done in vain.

Smug, self-righteous, and sanctimonious people who appeal to their own flawed and warped understanding of certain selected verses of Scripture, and of Christianity itself, have absolutely NO understanding of the Gospel of prevenient grace (John 6:37; Romans 8:29; Ephesians 1:4), and they have the temerity to elevate their own feeble understandings and biblical interpretations, and their appeal to "tradition," over and above the love of God for all His children, and they have the temerity to teach others to think likewise.

These wolves in sheep's clothing, with their sanctimonious rhetoric and smug beliefs that they have regarded, and would have others regard, as "the Truth," are not only a danger to LGBT people and to other Christians, but by elevating their own discriminatory prejudices, and their false gospel of legalism and exclusion, over and above any possible forthcoming empirical evidence and, more importantly, the love of God, spit in the very face of God Himself!

They miss the message of Jesus and the living of the Christian life, and would have others do the same!

Jesus speaks directly to such people: "Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me." (Mark 7:6)
Share |

Saturday, August 9, 2008


The reactionary proponents of hateful and exclusionary Proposition 8, that was specifically designed to overthrow the California Supreme Court's decision affirming the right of same-sex couples to marry within the state of California, are now unhappy with the wording used to describe that Proposition. Click this link for the full article.

"Proposition 8 supporters had argued that Brown's title, 'Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry,' is a prejudicial attempt to sway voters against the measure."

"'The language in the ballot title and summary for Proposition 8 is argumentative and seeks to negatively affect voters,' Andrew Pugno, legal counsel for Prop 8, said in a prepared statement. 'Since the superior court would not exercise its authority to protect voters against misleading language, we will ask the appellate court to do so.'"

Really? What else did they initiate and support with multi-millions of dollars other than to try to have this "argumentative" and "negative" Proposition pass on the November Ballot in California? Why else did they initiate and support this Proposition in the first place, other than to prevent same-sex couples from marrying?

If this Proposition isn't favoring prejudice, for what other reason was it initiated? And these reactionaries have the gall to suggest that the wording of the description of the Proposition "is a prejudicial attempt to sway voters against the measure."? "Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" is precisely what Proposition 8 was initiated and designed to accomplish!

The proponents of Proposition 8 show themselves to be not only hateful reactionaries, people who favor exclusion of Gay people from enjoying the same rights that they enjoy, but also show themselves to be cynical opportunists who want to mystify the experience for voters by making them think that they are really not voting against a clearly discriminatory Proposition that was specifically designed to be discriminatory against same-sex couples who want to make a lifetime commitment to each other, and who want the same rights afforded to them that have been afforded to heterosexuals who marry.

If Proposition 8 manifests anything, it manifests itself as being both "argumentative" and "negative," and seeks to exclude Gay California citizens from the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of marriage!

To vote for this Proposition is not only to vote for discrimination, but to show oneself as being no different than those who voted in favor of the political proponents of segregation and Jim Crow in the not too recent past in the United States!
Share |

Thursday, August 7, 2008


My friend, Bishop Leland Somers, sent out this video clip that I couldn't watch until the end, because I was profoundly embarrassed. This is that clip that shows so many warped features of what passes for "Christianity" that I don't have the words to express them:

When I wrote him back and said that I was embarrassed to watch the whole clip, and that it was patently offensive to me, he wrote me the following reply that I reproduce with his permission:

"That is one way to see it. I see it as child exploitation. This sort of
thing is part and parcel of Christian history. In the middle ages people put
their unwanted daughters in nunneries and paid handsomely in order to get
rid of them. Others with an excess of sons paid monasteries to take them off
their hands and make them monks. This is one of the reasons that medieval
monasticism became so corrupt. It was the dumping ground for unwanted
children; children who had no calling to religious life but had to have
something to do when there wasn't enough family resources to go around.

"It goes back to the time, especially after Constantine, when whole tribes
and territories were baptized wholesale with absolutely no knowledge of what
baptism is supposed to represent - commitment to the Way of Jesus. The same
thing is true of infant baptism, it became a travesty because it is supposed
to represent commitment - and since when can a 6 month old child make a
commitment to anything.

"Christianity ceased to be about Faith in the God revealed in the life and
teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and a series of magical
rites and rituals. It became about religion - rules, regulations, cults and
rites and not about trust in God.

"I just finished reading 'Living Faith: Belief and Doubt in a Perilous World'
by Jacques Ellul and in reference to this he writes:

"'This is why, when a religion undergoes rapid expansion and acquires great
bodies of adherents, since the masses cannot by definition enter the world
of faith, they turn to belief, which is rapidly transformed into passwords,
rites, and orthodoxy.'

"He goes on to write:

'Faith is a terribly caustic substance, a burning acid. It puts to the test
every element of my life and society; it spares nothing. It leads me
ineluctably to question all my certitudes, all my moralities, beliefs, and
policies. It forbids me to attach ultimate significance to any expression of
human activity.'

"And further:

'And so the only thing that faith can bring me to recognize is my impotence,
my incapacity, my inadequacy, my incompleteness, and consequently my
incredulity (naturally faith is the most unerring and lethal weapon against
all beliefs). But that's precisely what makes it faith: that's how it exists
and how it shapes me.'... Belief is reassuring. People who live in the world
of belief feel safe; God is their protector. On the contrary, faith is
forever placing us on the razor's edge.'

"And more:

'Hence this faith, which continually incorporates doubt as part of itself,
which grows out of the rich humus of doubt, is necessarily open and
forgiving. Whom should It condemn? The moment the just men who were
preparing to stone the adulterous woman drop their stones and walk pensively
away, THEN they enter the realm of faith, THEN they fulfill the living law.'

"This is a really good book. One of the best that I've read on the difference
between faith and belief, between faith and religion - which as Ellul says
is always the product of human efforts and not the fruit of Faith. One of
the statements he made that made me really think was that religion never
produces faith but faith often degenerates into religion.

"Genuine faith, I think, is the sort of thing that allows you to look out
from the ruins of life as Job did from the ashes of his dreams, the misery
of his suffering and in the face of his accusers say: ' Naked came I out of
my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the
LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.'

"Religion is easy - we can make it anything we like. Faith is hard because we
must look to the face of God and know that God tells us:

'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith
the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than
your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.' Isaiah 55: 8 & 9

"Faith stands before the fire and when it tries to make statements (doctrines
and dogmas) is confronted with the only real answer that God ever gives:
'And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say
unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.' Exodus Chapter 3
verse 14.

"Any definition beyond this is human activity and human beings trying to
comprehend the incomprehensible and understand the irrational, and define
that which cannot be defined because it [God] cannot be held in the human

"But I ramble.

"Blessings and Peace."

Leland Somers NEVER rambles! Check out his blog, Musings of a Progressive Bishop when you get a chance, and see for yourself! He's one of the genuine articles!
Share |


This article shows Archbishop Rowan Williams to be a typical "liberal."

He does believe that the spiritual legitimacy of same-sex faithful relationships is akin to heterosexual marriage, but will not have his rhetoric and beliefs prevail when the rubber hits the road! He rolls over for the bullies in the Anglican communion, seeks to accommodate to those who use Godless reasoning to exclude Gay men and women from ordination to the pastoral ministry,as well as many of whom also seek to deprive women of the right to ordination as Bishops within the Anglican communion.

"The newspaper [The Times of London] reported that Williams outlined his views on the controversial subject in letters written between 2000 and 2001 to Deborah Pitt, a psychiatrist and evangelical Christian who asked for his opinion.

'''I concluded that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might therefore reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness,' the newspaper quoted Williams as writing."

We can only imagine the many stresses placed upon him at this crucial time regarding this hot button issue for Anglicans, and most other denominations within the institutional Church. However, as I wrote previously, to sacrifice "justice" for the sake of "unity" will guarantee the lack of both! One can't accommodate to those who advocate injustice to any of God's children, regardless of what appears to be at stake!

Better any denomination fracture or splinter or be obliterated than to seek to accommodate to the seeming earthly realities that such a fracture or splintering would seem to produce.

It may not have occurred to Williams and many other denominational leaders, or to many other clergy for that matter, that God may be using such a time as this to separate the wolves from the sheep; separate the wheat from the weeds; to hone His Church to be what He wants it to be; He is currently using His LGBT children as vehicles and catalysts to help achieve those goals.

I really believe that this is precisely what God is doing!
Share |

Tuesday, August 5, 2008


Mike Signorile has part of an interview that he held with "Carla Lewis, who was inside the Tennessee Valley Universalist Unitarian Church when a gunman opened fire little over a week ago." This is that video clip:

In this vein, there is an excellent commentary entitled, "Blood on Their Hands," by my friend, Rev. Chellew-Hodge, on her blog, The Christian Agnostic.

Please read her whole brief article that deals with the unhinged man who open fired at people inside a church, because of his hatred of the liberal movement. This is part of Rev. Chellew-Hodges' article:

"It is their [Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage and Sean Hannity] continued language of violence against so-called liberals that put this man over the edge. He could not find a job and he blamed that on liberals - a group of people that has been effectively out of power for the last 8 years. It's not liberals who have shipped off jobs overseas and sought to destroy the middle class. It has not been liberals who cut off this man's food stamps. Liberals came up with this excellent ideas, and the Republicans who are now in charge, cut him off."

Hate speech, be it under the guise of First Amendment rights or not, not only affects people's attitudes, but can also affect their behaviors. And the unhinged among us, or those who feel the need to scapegoat others in order to blame them for their unhappiness (even if the targets of their hate are completely innocent for what they are being blamed), or because of the rage that is built up due to inundation of hateful messages so that a perceived convenient and helpless minority group can be seen to be "appropriate" targets for that rage, has created a climate of fear and terror among some of the most vulnerable people in society.

As I wrote in my weekly column entitled, "Christianity and Society," that appears in the newspaper, "The Sacramento Valley Mirror," it seems that no vulnerable minority group is safe for rhetorical attacks and condemnation. As I wrote in an article for that column, "Incivility and the Death of a Nation":

Probably the most recent issue to be highlighted as to the devolution of civility and decency in our society is the reported story of Michael Savage, a radio talk show host, who said concerning autistic children the following:

"'…in 99 percent of the cases, it’s a brat who hasn’t been told to cut the act out.” Savage then asserted that all these “brat[s]” need as a father to tell them to ‘stop acting like a putz’:

'That’s what autism is. What do you mean they scream and they’re silent? They don’t have a father around to tell them, “Don’t act like a moron. You’ll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don’t sit there crying and screaming, idiot.”’ Savage concluded, ‘[I]f I behaved like a fool, my father called me a fool. And he said to me, “Don’t behave like a fool.” The worst thing he said — “Don’t behave like a fool. Don’t be anybody’s dummy. Don’t sound like an idiot. Don’t act like a girl. Don’t cry.” That’s what I was raised with. That’s what you should raise your children with. Stop with the sensitivity training. You’re turning your son into a girl, and you’re turning your nation into a nation of losers and beaten men. That’s why we have the politicians we have.’” (, July 17, 2008)

It doesn’t get much lower than this! To both misrepresent and castigate autistic children, and heap even more suffering upon their parents and other loved ones, and to help reinforce a climate of hate even against these helpless victims, is an outrage that is beyond description. If demonizing autistic children is fair game for the airwaves to tolerate in the name of the god of mammon, what other suffering minority groups can fall under the rubric of showing people’s incivility to each other, and the desire to heap suffering upon suffering on them for material and/or psychological and/or social and/or political gain?

And, yes, hate speech can lead to abuse and murder of those perceived to be vulnerable, and "ripe for punishing," for those who take seriously the hate-mongers among us, be they radio talk show hosts or clergy who spew hateful and hate-mongering rhetoric from their pulpits, whether they use sanctimonious rhetoric or not.

There are many limited human beings who love to hate, and feel the need to construct an enemy, any enemy, upon which to vent their rhetorical and/or physical rage.

None of these hate-mongers, and the people who take them seriously, can be seen to have clean hands in the abuse and murders of the constructed enemies that they, themselves, created, or whose creation they more than willingly facilitated!

If a well-known, very highly paid, radio talk show host can create an autistic child as a ripe enemy for condemnation, one shouldn't be at all surprised that LGBT people are the enemy du jour of assorted religious and secular haters that keeps both the cash and the hate flowing in abundance!

As I wrote in the previous post (August 1st), one must not seek accommodation with haters and bullies! Rather, we must expose them for the haters they are and the damage they directly or indirectly cause others!

When a professing Christian clergy person, and other professing Christians, seek to discriminate against LGBT people, and seek to deny them full and equal civil and sacramental rights, they are traitors to Christ and all that He stands for and all that He instructed us to do in his Great Commandments to love God and to love and not judge others!

The Michael Savages of the world, as dangerous as they are, are not nearly as dangerous as the hate-mongering clergy who spew their hateful rhetoric, and encourage discriminatory actions against LGBT people, or any other group for that matter, because these clergy appeal to the Bible and to God to "justify" their hate and discrimination. And, such an appeal is not only factually incorrect, but spits in the very face of God, as any Christian worthy of the name fully knows!
Share |

Friday, August 1, 2008


UPDATE, AUGUST 5, 2008: This recent article again shows that one can't seek to accommodate bullies, as to do so costs individual and organizational credibility, and bespeaks the bankruptcy of any Christian denomination or organization when it seeks to sacrifice the cause of "justice" for the desire for "unity" with reactionary or any other kind of bullies. Unless "grace" trumps "legalism," any church, denomination, or professing Christian misses the mark of the Christian life to its own earthly and spiritual detriment!

UPDATE, AUGUST 3, 2008: Archbishop Rowan Williams has capitulated to the bullies among the Anglican Bishops, not realizing that "unity" at the expense of "justice" will gain neither, as one can never satisfy a bully by either seeking to mollify him/her or by capitulation to unGodly principles and forces.

This is an article worth reading for a number of reasons.

"[Rev. Peter] Beckwith, who also attended last month's Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) in the Holy Land, said that he had doubts about whether to attend the Lambeth Conference. Not only was it expensive, but he asked, 'Is it appropriate to sit and talk with folks who seem to be on a totally different page -- but not simply a different page, or a different book, a different library?'

"Beckwith said that going to GAFCON [that was held in Jerusalem last month among Anglican bishops, most of whom are against the ordination of Gay people and the ordination of women] was worth the trouble. 'It's refreshing to get together with people who believe in a creedal faith, the faith once delivered to the saints,' he said. As for Lambeth, 'My situation is that I'm dealing with what I consider interfaith relations within The Episcopal Church. We've heard talk that there are at least two gospels being preached in the Anglican Communion.' Indeed, the nasty rumors are true, Beckwith said.

"Beckwith spoke much about grace, too. He said that he was born again in 1940, that he has devoted his career to The Episcopal Church and his life to the cause of Jesus Christ. 'I'm to give up everything for Christ,' he said."

"Pressed by a reporter for a gay and lesbian publication to explain his opposition to homosexuality, Beckwith posed another question: 'Is there any chance that homosexuals -- and heterosexuals -- use sex for a purpose instead of God's?' The problem with homosexuality is 'that it divides people,' he said. 'It divides people from God and one another.'"

This is a very revealing article on a number of levels regarding the homophobia that exists among most clergy in the Anglican communion and even among many clergy within its American affiliate, the Episcopal Church and, in fact, exists in most all of the denominations within the institutional Church.

I'd like to enumerate some irrationalities that jump out at me just from reading this article:

1. Rev. Beckwith is quoted as rhetorically asking, "Is it appropriate to sit and talk with folks who seem to be on a totally different page -- but not simply a different page, or a different book, a different library?" First of all, it is incumbent upon all Anglican Bishops to attend the Lambeth Conference that is held every ten years in the Anglican communion. To do otherwise, is not only a slap in the face to the other Bishops and the Archbishop, but offends the existence of the basic structure of Anglicanism, as I understand it. It is to Rev. Beckwith's credit that he did attend that conference! However, he says that some of those who did attend are on "a different page," as it were. However, it must be understood that the Spirit of God transcends "pages," and assorted Scriptural interpretations, and doctrines and creeds made by mere fallible human beings. Many homophobic clergy and other professing Christians elevate their own feeble understandings of certain selected passages of the Bible over and above the worship of God, and that is the epitome of idolatry, the major sin that is listed in the first two Ten Commandments! They set up as an idol, not Jesus' Great Commandments that we love God and love and not judge others but, rather, their idol is their own human interpretations of their selective reading of selected parts of Scripture that they interpret according to their own prejudices. [And, in all fairness, it must be stated that Rev. Beckwith is not the most strident homophobe in the Anglican communion or in the institutional Church by a long shot. ]

2. Rev. Beckwith is quoted as saying, "It's refreshing to get together with people who believe in a creedal faith, the faith once delivered to the saints." Jesus makes it crystal clear that we are to have unity among all Christians (John 17:21-23), and to in any way disdain communion, be it at the Lambeth Conference or anywhere else, with Gay Christians, or Gay-affirming Christians, clergy or otherwise, grossly violates that part of the prayer of Jesus! Those Bishops within the Anglican communion who refused such communion at Lambeth, or any Christians who show disdain for any of God's children, show not only great disrespect to others, but violate Jesus' High Priestly Prayer for believers. To avoid Christian unity, or approve of discrimination against anyone for the sake of one's own prejudices, and to seek to link those prejudices with the will of God, is nothing short of blasphemy, given the Great Commandments Jesus has given us to love and not judge others; given the Gospel message of grace; Jesus' prayer to God the Father for those who are His disciples; given the the Godly plea of the prophet Micah: "He hath shown thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"! (Micah 6:8)

3. The article states that "Beckwith spoke much about grace, too." "Grace" means unmerited favor! How is Rev. Beckwith and his allies in the institutional Church defining or showing grace by seeking to exclude any of God's children from full fellowship and association? Since when does one have to do anything to merit a freely given gift by God? Many, if not most, of those within the institutional Church worship their own god of legalism over and above the God of grace, and thereby deny the very essence of the Gospel message! The Gospel is solely about grace! And the only way we appropriate God's free gift of his unmerited favor is by having unwavering trust in Him to keep and deliver us now and throughout eternity, and there's not a damn thing we have to do, or can do, to merit this free gift that God has given to us! (See, for example, Ephesians 1:4; Romans 8:29; Romans 9:10-16.) The very Personification of the Gospel is that of Jesus, and He not only saved His harshest words for the religious legalists and perfectionists of His time, but for all times! He told us to manifest "love" and not to judge others; He told us to show mercy and compassion to others, and to not in any way hurt other human beings; He told us to seek the things of God and not fall under the spell of mere fallible and sometimes malevolent human beings; He hung around with the "misfits" and the outcasts according to the "good, decent, religious (and other) folk" in the society of His time. The Bible teaches us, "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." (Proverbs 3:5) You ask yourself if the homophobes of the religious world manifest these Commandments of Jesus, and do they manifest the "Fruit of the Spirit" as explicated by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 5:22-23?

4. Rev. Beckwith is quoted as saying, "I'm to give up everything for Christ." Is it possible that He's willing to give up everything but his homophobia and contravention of the very Gospel of grace itself?

5. The article states, "Beckwith posed another question: 'Is there any chance that homosexuals -- and heterosexuals -- use sex for a purpose instead of God's?' The problem with homosexuality is 'that it divides people,' he said. 'It divides people from God and one another.'" This last quotation is the epitome of the irrationality that defines virtually all homophobia, particularly when it comes from professing Christians. How does homosexuality divide people? Who is doing the "dividing?" It's the Bishops who refused to attend a significant ten year meeting with other Bishops in the Anglican communion; it's the clergy and professing Christians who refuse to have fellowship or communion with out and proud Gay people; it's the clergy who seek schism within the Anglican communion; it's the clergy who poison the minds of their followers and all who will listen concerning their own ignorant and/or warped views of love and sex; it's the clergy and professing Christians who believe in the false gospel of Genital Theology; it's the clergy and professing Christians who seek to limit or prevent the acquisition of full and equal civil and sacramental rights for LGBT people; it's the clergy and professing Christians who cause, through their rhetoric and/or actions or silence and inactions, untold psychological damage to LGBT people and their families; it's the clergy and professing Christians who help create and reinforce the climate, indeed the culture, of hate that gives tacit approval for the untold numbers of Gay people's suicides, as well as the indignities and brutalities suffered by LGBT people, and even the killings of LGBT people. And these homophobic clergy and professing Christians contribute to these atrocities and sins that cry out to God for retribution? And Rev. Beckwith has the temerity to say, regarding homosexuality, "It divides people from God and one another"? Now, that statement is irrational, if not bizarre, to say the least!

The very essence of the above cited article is just one example that highlights some of the irrationality of religiously "justified" homophobia, and the bankrupt nature of homophobia that can never in any way be tolerated by any Christian worthy of the name, or by anyone who considers him/herself to be a "decent" and "civilized" human being!
Share |