The following is an article I wrote a few years ago that I would like to reprint here:
Recently, I was asked to give an interview on a public listener sponsored radio station that largely has as its audience rather politically progressive people, most of whom can be expected to have an understandable disdain for anything "Christian."
Given the fact that most of the organized Church has been so enmeshed with the interests of the State, tenaciously adhering to the status quo, and has embarrassingly been in the vanguard of historically providing "justification" for the oppression of all sorts of minority groups, such as women and, in the not too distant past, Afro-Americans, I very much welcomed this invitation, and sought to show how Christianity has been perverted by its all too frequent identification with Americanism, militarism, and capitalism; how there was absolutely nothing in the Bible that condemns same-sex love and, in fact, the Bible actually affirms same-sex love. I clearly wanted to dispel the false notion held by many that Christians are a bunch of harsh, censorious, judgmental people, and sought to credibly present the Gospel, both in and of itself, as well as present it in the context of the lives of LGBT people and same-sex love.
I made the distinction, first suggested to me by my friend Bishop Leland Somers, between the Christian Church and the Constantinian Church, the latter initiated when Constantine, in the fourth Century, made Christianity a State religion. We have yet to recover from that debacle.
The Christian Church extols the only Gospel to be found in Christianity: the Gospel of grace, and those who are Christians indeed seek to be agents of God's grace in this world to try to make the earth, in the words of St. Augustine, "a colony of heaven." The Constantinian Church, on the other hand, has historically aligned itself with Empire and the oppression of others for assorted psychological and/or social and/or political and/or material gain.
The Christian Church, comprised of the world wide body of believers who seek to live out the Gospel, should have no affinity with the Constantinian Church; to the degree that Christians who belong to Christ find themselves within its clutches, I strongly urge that they flee those churches and/or denominations, and either find a Christian church that reinforces our need and Godly mandate to live out the only Gospel to be found in Christianity: the Gospel of grace (God's unmerited favor to us), faith (trusting God over and above seen circumstances), love, peace, reconciliation, and inclusiveness or, absent that option, form their own worship communities, or even, if necessary, worship God alone "in spirit and in truth," thereby avoiding the toxic, soul-destroying, churches that have aligned themselves with Empire and oppression that are diametrically opposed to Jesus' Commandments for us to love God and to love others, including our enemies, as much as we love ourselves.
The following, although not a literal rendering of my responses to the questions asked of me, which followed a conversational style, reflect what I said on that program, and I thought you might find them of interest, and might want to adopt some or all of them in your interaction with others who feel that God can't possibly love LGBT people, and who have a distorted view of Christianity, tragically given how it has been portrayed in the mainstream media, and how much, if not most, of the organized Church has been "infiltrated" by the influence of those who really belong, and are best consigned, to the Constantinian Church.
How do you define Christianity?
The Gospel means: Good News! The good news is that we are God's children by God's grace alone (unmerited favor) and we appropriate that grace through our abiding faith (implacable trust) in God (i.e. trusting God over and above seen circumstances), love, peace, reconciliation, and inclusiveness! That's the only Gospel to be found in Christianity.
Unfortunately, we are primarily exposed to the false gospel of legalism, perfectionism, and exclusion, a false gospel that is diametrically opposed to the good news, to Christianity itself. Far too many propound the gospel of genital placement, rather than the Gospel of Christ; ignore such egregious sins as unjust war, poverty, and disease.
That's undoubtedly why so many intelligent, sensitive, and decent people want nothing to do with Christianity, and even resent it (and who can blame them?), because so many have never been exposed to it, either by word or by deed, and relate it to a harsh, censorious religion which is diametrically opposed to what Christianity really is. In Christianity, all of the Commandments are fulfilled by loving God and by loving others! These are the only Commandments Jesus gives us! We are to never judge or condemn others! (Mt. 7:1; Romans 2:1)
What are some of the basic Bible quotes you've heard used by religious leaders to demonize LGBT people?
First of all, a tribal society, living on the edge, and surrounded by enemies must be "fruitful and multiply" if it is going to survive! Therefore, under those conditions, there is no premium placed on homosexual activity! However, we are no longer a tribal society living on the edge; it's inappropriate to blindly translate the cultural practices of ancient societies to contemporary society as to do so cheapens the Bible; is intellectually and spiritually dishonest; the Bible never makes such a claim for itself. Biblical principle of freedom from yokes of bondage must always trump biblical practice!
Gen. 19-The Sin of Sodom: It has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. It has to do with attempted gang rape! One would have to assume that all the men of Sodom were gay, which is foolish on its face; if the 2 angels that visited Lot had been women, I doubt that the homophobic religious leaders would be condemning heterosexuality. Whenever Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned in the Bible, homosexuality is never mentioned as its sin. Inhospitality and not taking care of the poor were its major sins! In Jude, in the NT, in referring to Sodom and Gomorrah, "giving themselves over to fornication" and going after "strange flesh" are mentioned, but "strange flesh" probably meant the men seeking to gang rape angels and not human beings.
Lev. 18:22-"Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman. It is an abomination." If homosexuality were being condemned here, beyond the fact that women would have also likely been included in the prohibition, all that the writer would have had to write is, "Thou shalt not lie with a man. It's an abomination." Everyone knows what "to lie with" means, and they certainly knew its meaning.
To add, "as with a woman," only makes sense if we understand the inferior status of women in that society, so that it was viewed as shameful, an abomination, for a man to act like a woman. Also, these laws in Leviticus are part of the purity laws in the OT that don't apply to Christians. If we really want to follow the OT law, we couldn't play football, as we couldn't touch the skin of a dead pig; we couldn't wear mixed fibers in our clothes; we couldn't be near a menstruating woman; we couldn't eat shell fish; we would stone adulterers to death; we would stone to death those who work on the Sabbath etc. I don't hear homophobic religious leaders seeking to impose these laws on others! At least, not yet!
Romans 1:27-32--- But they never read Romans 2:1 that provides the context for the above passages. Also, in Rom. 1:26-27, "against nature" (para physin in the Greek) is also used when God brought the Gentiles into the fold (Romans 11:21-24). This term is probably best translated as "unexpected," or "something not done in the usual way."
Also, you'll notice that the men and women spoken of here "gave up" the natural use of the member of the opposite sex. They "gave up" what was natural for them and then engaged in sexual behavior that was unnatural for them. Paul is not talking here of homosexuals, but of heterosexuals who gave it up and acted in ways that were not natural to them so as to worship pagan deities, after they had first turned their backs on God.
1 Corinthians 6:9-'Malakoi" is frequently mistranslated "effeminate," as it means "soft," and is used elsewhere in the Bible (in Luke) to denote soft clothing. In this context it probably means "people with soft morals" or "people who lack courage." There is no warrant to translate it as effeminate.
It's important in this context to point out that the word, "homosexual," never appears in any biblical manuscript, as it is a term coined in the late 19th Century. The first time it appeared in an English translation of the Bible was in the 1946 RSV. It is translated from the Greek word, "arsenokoitai," which is an obscure word that does not seem to be found in other Ancient literature, and that seems to only have been used by the Apostle Paul. It literally means, "male beds."
In the context Paul uses that term it seems to be where male cult prostitution is practiced-e.g. heterosexual and homosexual sex in homage to assorted pagan deities, such as those related to fertility, to have the crops grow. Paul undoubtedly wrote the Book of Romans from Corinth where there were many pagan religions, such as the fertility cult of Aphrodite, where such pagan deities were worshipped in this fashion, so it's most likely that it is to that practice that he's referring, and is not in any way condemning same-sex love, or even dealing with sexual orientation.
Nowhere is same-sex love condemned in the Bible! In fact, it is affirmed, most notably in the case of King David (called "a man after God's own heart") and Jonathan. Even a cursory reading of their relationship in 1Samuel shows David to have been either bisexual or a gay man!
Moreover, if homosexuality was so important, why is it not mentioned in the Ten Commandments; why did the prophets never write about it; why didn't Jesus ever condemn it? If it were that important, don't you think that it would have been mentioned in at least one of these contexts?
Why are most organized Christian church members not accepting LGBT people at their services, while other organized Christian church members are leaving when their church does accept LGBT people?
Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister said something that is, unfortunately, all too true. He said that no matter how big the lie, if it's repeated often enough, people will come to believe it!
Most professing Christians, and others, have been sold a bill of goods by most clergy and their followers in most of the organized Church. The lie that same-sex love is condemned by God because it's in the Bible has been repeated so often, that it has become a virtual axiom that has erroneously come to determine in the minds of many one's standing with God, and has also come to be defined as "immoral," and people have come to believe that lie.
All too many clergy use their pulpits to distort the Bible to be in accord with their own prejudices, and neither they nor their followers seem to see any contradiction between their demonizing Gay people, and presenting and living the Gospel of Jesus, which is diametrically opposed to their hateful and discriminatory rhetoric and/or actions.
Moreover, many fail to realize that even if the Bible condemned LGBT people and same-sex love, which it most definitely does not, civil society in America lives under the U.S. Constitution and not the Bible! Since when do we let others' interpretation of selected biblical passages determine what civil rights accrue to others? There is absolutely no justification for denial of full and equal civil rights, including the right to be civilly (and sacramentally) married, to LGBT people, either constitutionally or even biblically!
In addition, black and white thinking, having an "us against them" mentality, gives many people certain psychological, social, and material benefits. Creating out-groups helps bring members of the in-group together; it gives many people who are uncomfortable with ambiguity and the many grey areas of life "the illusion of certainty" in life; homophobic rhetoric is likely to make members of the in-group feel morally superior at others' expense; such rhetoric may well garner more money in the collection plates. (I would really love to know how much money is garnered each time a mailer is sent out by religious homophobic leaders to their constituents soliciting contributions to "fight against the homosexual agenda." I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's in the millions of dollars.)
Since it's no longer politically correct or socially acceptable to any longer publicly discriminate against women, or Afro-Americans as occurred by many clergy and other professing Christians in the not too distant past, LGBT people have become the enemy de jour, and are blamed by certain professing Christians for everything from "the breakdown of the family" to Hurricane Katrina.
It's very important for professing Christians and all others to realize that just because one attends church, or just because one is called "Reverend," and has his or her collar turned around, doesn't necessarily make that person a Christian! Just because I go into a garage doesn't make me a car!
I truly hope that some or all of these points, although perhaps familiar to many of us, can be of use to you as you witness to others the truth of the Christian life as it relates to the living out of the Gospel, and as it relates to the fact that God makes LGBT people whom, like His other children, He chose before the worlds were formed (Ephesians 1:4-5) to be His own possession, and whom He loves like crazy!
Friday, August 27, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
CHURCHES MUST FORFEIT TAX-EXEMPT STATUS
I firmly believe that no church or religious institution, homophobic or not, should enjoy tax-exempt status for a variety of reasons; I see no reason why civil society should directly or indirectly financially support the practices of religion and worship. If churches truly had faith in God to provide for their needs, tax-exemption would be neither necessary nor desired!
Regarding homophobic clergy and churches, by enjoying tax-exempt status, the public is helping to support hateful and exclusionary rhetoric and discrimination, and affirming the second-class status of LGBT people that often results in the sufferings, suicides, assaults, and even murders of LGBT people.
About six months ago, I wrote a post entitled, Churches Must Forfeit Tax-Exempt Status that I want to reprint here:
As I’ve often contended, there are two venues in which civil and sacramental rights for LGBT people must be fought: the courts, and homophobic churches the influence of which cannot be underestimated. In the latter venue, peaceful and continual picketing during services of selected homophobic churches in each city or jurisdiction, showing how their false gospel of exclusion is antithetical to the Gospel of grace, faith, peace, reconciliation, and inclusiveness, should be undertaken.
When you hit, or threaten to hit, discriminatory institutions in the pocketbook, we might reasonably expect them to tone down their hateful rhetoric and discriminatory actions; withholding funds, such as removing churches’ tax-exempt status, can be a major way of gutting the homophobic rhetoric and actions that exists in many, if not most, denominations and churches, because those churches would then lack sufficient funds to bankroll the prevention of equal civil rights as has hitherto existed. For the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, to give just two examples, to enjoy tax exempt status is, in my opinion, a profound injustice!
I am a Christian who is quite theologically conservative, and not only don’t I see any warrant to prevent same-sex marriage, or justify any type of homophobia, in the Bible, I am also adamant about the need for the separation of Church and State.
Currently, the Church and the State have become so enmeshed with each other that most “conservative” churches extol as virtues Americanism, patriotism, militarism, and capitalism. Indeed, most of the institutional Church is a handmaiden of the State, and often parrots the ideology of the power elite in secular society, and does so by calling it “biblical.”
Of course, nothing could be further from the truth! If anything, the Bible, particularly in the New Testament, subscribes to anything but capitalism, as can be easily seen when reading Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:32-37.
In any case, it’s a profound tragedy that it’s quite likely that if you ask the average person to say the first word that comes to his/her mind when the word “Christian” is said, “Love” is not likely to be that word! We’re far more likely to hear words such as “sin” and “discrimination,” thanks to the perversion of the Gospel of grace (the only Gospel to be found in Christianity) that exists in most of the institutional Church.
It is crucial that discrimination, be it in the religious or secular arena, be taken to the judiciary, and not pathetically taken to the public to win their votes on this or any civil rights matter! And, we must do our best to remove public funding of church and para-church organizations.
After all, if clergy within denominations and churches really have faith in God to provide for their needs, they don’t need tax-exemption to help fund their operation!
Regarding homophobic clergy and churches, by enjoying tax-exempt status, the public is helping to support hateful and exclusionary rhetoric and discrimination, and affirming the second-class status of LGBT people that often results in the sufferings, suicides, assaults, and even murders of LGBT people.
About six months ago, I wrote a post entitled, Churches Must Forfeit Tax-Exempt Status that I want to reprint here:
As I’ve often contended, there are two venues in which civil and sacramental rights for LGBT people must be fought: the courts, and homophobic churches the influence of which cannot be underestimated. In the latter venue, peaceful and continual picketing during services of selected homophobic churches in each city or jurisdiction, showing how their false gospel of exclusion is antithetical to the Gospel of grace, faith, peace, reconciliation, and inclusiveness, should be undertaken.
When you hit, or threaten to hit, discriminatory institutions in the pocketbook, we might reasonably expect them to tone down their hateful rhetoric and discriminatory actions; withholding funds, such as removing churches’ tax-exempt status, can be a major way of gutting the homophobic rhetoric and actions that exists in many, if not most, denominations and churches, because those churches would then lack sufficient funds to bankroll the prevention of equal civil rights as has hitherto existed. For the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, to give just two examples, to enjoy tax exempt status is, in my opinion, a profound injustice!
I am a Christian who is quite theologically conservative, and not only don’t I see any warrant to prevent same-sex marriage, or justify any type of homophobia, in the Bible, I am also adamant about the need for the separation of Church and State.
Currently, the Church and the State have become so enmeshed with each other that most “conservative” churches extol as virtues Americanism, patriotism, militarism, and capitalism. Indeed, most of the institutional Church is a handmaiden of the State, and often parrots the ideology of the power elite in secular society, and does so by calling it “biblical.”
Of course, nothing could be further from the truth! If anything, the Bible, particularly in the New Testament, subscribes to anything but capitalism, as can be easily seen when reading Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:32-37.
In any case, it’s a profound tragedy that it’s quite likely that if you ask the average person to say the first word that comes to his/her mind when the word “Christian” is said, “Love” is not likely to be that word! We’re far more likely to hear words such as “sin” and “discrimination,” thanks to the perversion of the Gospel of grace (the only Gospel to be found in Christianity) that exists in most of the institutional Church.
It is crucial that discrimination, be it in the religious or secular arena, be taken to the judiciary, and not pathetically taken to the public to win their votes on this or any civil rights matter! And, we must do our best to remove public funding of church and para-church organizations.
After all, if clergy within denominations and churches really have faith in God to provide for their needs, they don’t need tax-exemption to help fund their operation!
Thursday, August 19, 2010
RELIGIOUS HOMOPHOBIA AND MARRIAGE RIGHTS IN MEXICO CITY
As I wrote a long time ago, almost always, whenever I've contended with professing "Christian" homophobes, once each of their points seeking to justify discrimination against LGBT people was successfully refuted, and they had no further rationalizations for their homophobia to present, their gloves came off and their vitriol was anything but "Christian."
Notice Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iniguez' hatred in the cited article when he calls Gay men "faggots!" And there are professing "Christians," clergy, and even someone like him who was elevated to the rank of Cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church, who seem to feel no compunction against using such hateful epithets and in advocating discrimination against Gay people; in this Cardinal's case, even going so far as to assert bribery as contributing to the Court's righteous decision.
Whether it's in Mexico City, California, most of the United States, many parts of Africa, or anywhere else in the world where LGBT people are demonized, discriminated against, viewed as second-class citizens, and even imprisoned and executed, it must be asked why so many professing Christians and clergy are not loudly speaking out against the bearing of false witness and downright discrimination against Gay people done "in the name of God" or for any other reason.
How is it possible for anyone who calls him/herself a disciple of Christ, a disciple of the One Who commanded us to love and not judge others, to call him/herself a "Christian" and yet affirm prejudice and discrimination that leads to the untold suffering of countless LGBT people?
The fact is that there are thugs who call themselves Christians, and are given tacit, if not explicit, permission to manifest that thuggery by all too many denominations and congregations, all the while falsely appealing to the Bible and to God to justify their hateful prejudices.
Indeed, what has gone a long way in having many intelligent, decent, and sensitive people not even consider Christianity as a viable way in which to navigate their lives, have been the thugs, as well as the silent, cowardly, people within most of the institutional Church, who have been in the vanguard of denigrating LGBT people by seeking to deprive them of the dignity and civil rights that heterosexuals enjoy both within the institutional Church as well as in civil society.
And it has been the thugs who profess to be "Christians" who have the temerity to seek to impose their own prejudices and flawed biblical interpretations upon civil society, and who rail against those who demand equal rights for all of God's children!
It must be hammered home in any and every venue possible that no disciple of Christ can explicitly or tacitly countenance discrimination against LGBT people for to do so disqualifies them from calling themselves "Christians!"
In this connection, the following is an excerpt from an article that appeared yesterday regarding same-sex marriage rights in Mexico City, an article that I hope you read in its entirety:
Reporting from Mexico City — Gays in Mexico's capital today can marry and adopt children, broad rights that go beyond anything offered in much of the world and enshrined now by a remarkable series of rulings by the nation's Supreme Court....
As gay marriage languishes in California, the state's law in limbo, the Mexican Supreme Court voted overwhelmingly this month to uphold the capital's same-sex marriage statute as constitutional; to require such unions to be recognized across the nation; and to permit gay and lesbian couples to adopt children.
The court hewed to Mexico's strict separation of church and state and said the constitution did not indicate that marriage had to be defined as the union of a man and woman. To deny gay couples the right to adopt, the court said, would amount to discrimination....
The fiercest resistance to same-sex marriage has come from the influential Catholic Church.
Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iniguez, archbishop of Guadalajara and one of the most senior prelates in the nation, in recent days made especially harsh comments widely seen here as offensive. His statement set off a firestorm in a country where, by law, the church is not supposed to get involved in politics.
Calling same-sex unions an "aberration," he said, "Would you want to be adopted by a pair of faggots or lesbians?"
He went on to accuse Mexico City Mayor Marcelo Ebrard, of the leftist Democratic Revolution Party, of bribing the justices to force them to go along with gay marriage.
[For the full article, see here.]
Notice Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iniguez' hatred in the cited article when he calls Gay men "faggots!" And there are professing "Christians," clergy, and even someone like him who was elevated to the rank of Cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church, who seem to feel no compunction against using such hateful epithets and in advocating discrimination against Gay people; in this Cardinal's case, even going so far as to assert bribery as contributing to the Court's righteous decision.
Whether it's in Mexico City, California, most of the United States, many parts of Africa, or anywhere else in the world where LGBT people are demonized, discriminated against, viewed as second-class citizens, and even imprisoned and executed, it must be asked why so many professing Christians and clergy are not loudly speaking out against the bearing of false witness and downright discrimination against Gay people done "in the name of God" or for any other reason.
How is it possible for anyone who calls him/herself a disciple of Christ, a disciple of the One Who commanded us to love and not judge others, to call him/herself a "Christian" and yet affirm prejudice and discrimination that leads to the untold suffering of countless LGBT people?
The fact is that there are thugs who call themselves Christians, and are given tacit, if not explicit, permission to manifest that thuggery by all too many denominations and congregations, all the while falsely appealing to the Bible and to God to justify their hateful prejudices.
Indeed, what has gone a long way in having many intelligent, decent, and sensitive people not even consider Christianity as a viable way in which to navigate their lives, have been the thugs, as well as the silent, cowardly, people within most of the institutional Church, who have been in the vanguard of denigrating LGBT people by seeking to deprive them of the dignity and civil rights that heterosexuals enjoy both within the institutional Church as well as in civil society.
And it has been the thugs who profess to be "Christians" who have the temerity to seek to impose their own prejudices and flawed biblical interpretations upon civil society, and who rail against those who demand equal rights for all of God's children!
It must be hammered home in any and every venue possible that no disciple of Christ can explicitly or tacitly countenance discrimination against LGBT people for to do so disqualifies them from calling themselves "Christians!"
In this connection, the following is an excerpt from an article that appeared yesterday regarding same-sex marriage rights in Mexico City, an article that I hope you read in its entirety:
Reporting from Mexico City — Gays in Mexico's capital today can marry and adopt children, broad rights that go beyond anything offered in much of the world and enshrined now by a remarkable series of rulings by the nation's Supreme Court....
As gay marriage languishes in California, the state's law in limbo, the Mexican Supreme Court voted overwhelmingly this month to uphold the capital's same-sex marriage statute as constitutional; to require such unions to be recognized across the nation; and to permit gay and lesbian couples to adopt children.
The court hewed to Mexico's strict separation of church and state and said the constitution did not indicate that marriage had to be defined as the union of a man and woman. To deny gay couples the right to adopt, the court said, would amount to discrimination....
The fiercest resistance to same-sex marriage has come from the influential Catholic Church.
Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iniguez, archbishop of Guadalajara and one of the most senior prelates in the nation, in recent days made especially harsh comments widely seen here as offensive. His statement set off a firestorm in a country where, by law, the church is not supposed to get involved in politics.
Calling same-sex unions an "aberration," he said, "Would you want to be adopted by a pair of faggots or lesbians?"
He went on to accuse Mexico City Mayor Marcelo Ebrard, of the leftist Democratic Revolution Party, of bribing the justices to force them to go along with gay marriage.
[For the full article, see here.]
Monday, August 16, 2010
THE LACK OF STANDING TO APPEAL THE OVERTURNING OF PROP. 8
UPDATE, 8/18/2010
Enter tiny Imperial County, the state's poorest, where voters overwhelmingly supported Proposition 8 and where officials say they will be harmed if same-sex marriages resume. Because the county issues marriage licenses, county officials say, it has standing other Proposition 8 proponents might lack.
The county tried unsuccessfully to intervene in district court, but is still trying. It is joining Proposition 8's main proponents in appealing Walker's ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
UPDATE, 8/17/2010.
Gay couples who had been gearing up to get married in California this week had to put their wedding plans on hold once again after a federal appeals court said it first wanted to consider the constitutionality of the state's same-sex marriage ban.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals imposed an emergency stay Monday on a trial court judge's ruling overturning the ban, known as Proposition 8. Chief U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker had ordered state officials to stop enforcing the measure starting Wednesday, clearing the way for county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
ALSO SEE Here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a very heartening article entitled, Who has standing to appeal Prop. 8 ruling?
Please read this article in its entirety, but part of it reads as follows:
Ironically, it is a legal doctrine fashioned by conservatives that may provide a decisive victory to the supporters of marriage equality for gays and lesbians and end the litigation over California's Proposition 8.
For decades, conservative justices on the Supreme Court have ruled to limit who has standing to bring a claim in federal court. In cases involving civil rights, environmental protection and the separation of church and state, the court has ordered that cases be dismissed because the party pursuing the case had no legal standing to do so....
The result of all this is likely to be that gays and lesbians will be able to marry beginning Wednesday, when Walker's temporary stay expires. There then will be consideration of the case, over the next couple of years, by the 9th Circuit and ultimately by the Supreme Court.
But if those courts follow well-established law, they will need to dismiss the appeal on grounds that those who filed it have no standing. The outcome, then, will be that marriage equality will exist in California, at least unless and until in some other case, some day, the Supreme Court comes to a different conclusion.
If the higher courts adhere to established practices, based on conservative and long-held principles, the appeal of Judge Walker's decision may well not even be accepted by those courts, let alone sustained by those courts should those courts agree to hear the appeal of his decision.
Moreover, by the time that the appeal reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, same-sex marriage will be firmly established in California, and it then becomes very unlikely that that court will invalidate the many same-sex marriages that will occur in the interim.
Enter tiny Imperial County, the state's poorest, where voters overwhelmingly supported Proposition 8 and where officials say they will be harmed if same-sex marriages resume. Because the county issues marriage licenses, county officials say, it has standing other Proposition 8 proponents might lack.
The county tried unsuccessfully to intervene in district court, but is still trying. It is joining Proposition 8's main proponents in appealing Walker's ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
UPDATE, 8/17/2010.
Gay couples who had been gearing up to get married in California this week had to put their wedding plans on hold once again after a federal appeals court said it first wanted to consider the constitutionality of the state's same-sex marriage ban.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals imposed an emergency stay Monday on a trial court judge's ruling overturning the ban, known as Proposition 8. Chief U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker had ordered state officials to stop enforcing the measure starting Wednesday, clearing the way for county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
ALSO SEE Here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a very heartening article entitled, Who has standing to appeal Prop. 8 ruling?
Please read this article in its entirety, but part of it reads as follows:
Ironically, it is a legal doctrine fashioned by conservatives that may provide a decisive victory to the supporters of marriage equality for gays and lesbians and end the litigation over California's Proposition 8.
For decades, conservative justices on the Supreme Court have ruled to limit who has standing to bring a claim in federal court. In cases involving civil rights, environmental protection and the separation of church and state, the court has ordered that cases be dismissed because the party pursuing the case had no legal standing to do so....
The result of all this is likely to be that gays and lesbians will be able to marry beginning Wednesday, when Walker's temporary stay expires. There then will be consideration of the case, over the next couple of years, by the 9th Circuit and ultimately by the Supreme Court.
But if those courts follow well-established law, they will need to dismiss the appeal on grounds that those who filed it have no standing. The outcome, then, will be that marriage equality will exist in California, at least unless and until in some other case, some day, the Supreme Court comes to a different conclusion.
If the higher courts adhere to established practices, based on conservative and long-held principles, the appeal of Judge Walker's decision may well not even be accepted by those courts, let alone sustained by those courts should those courts agree to hear the appeal of his decision.
Moreover, by the time that the appeal reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, same-sex marriage will be firmly established in California, and it then becomes very unlikely that that court will invalidate the many same-sex marriages that will occur in the interim.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
DON CHARLES: THE GENDER MONOLOGUES: FRANKENGENDER
Check out: The Gender Monologues: Frankengender by my good friend, Don Charles.
Here's an excerpt from his incisive and liberating post, a post that I strongly urge you to read in its entirety:
A lot of people say that "gender reassignment" effects a 100% cure for the Transsexual person. A cure for what, I'd like to know? Induced inferiority? What benefit does a target of bigotry derive from conforming to the twisted values of a bigoted society? And how does society benefit from having its corrupt value system affirmed?
No cure has been effected! On the contrary, the disease (transphobia) has been rendered more virulent. People of blended gender keep falling into its predatory grasp. Transfolk are still being driven to mutilate perfectly good human bodies because the world they live in rejects the gender God has attached to them. Worse, they're still being driven to commit suicide for the same reason. Either way, violence is being done to the Transgender body! Either way, Transfolk are following the urge to act on socially-imposed self-hatred.
Whenever I make pointed observations like this, I get emails. Nasty, vituperative emails! Acid-tongued individuals claiming to represent "the Transgender community" keep trying to sell me bottles of snake oil. Their wares are odious enough, but their sales technique is even more objectionable! After they're done cursing me out, labeling me an oppressor and fictionalizing my personal life . . .
Trying to fit into a binary gender world is severely traumatic for them; they run to psychologists and physicians, pleading for peace of mind. In much the same way their predecessors pathologized LesBiGay status in years past, these opportunistic and narrow-minded health professionals slap a disordered label on transsexuality. Convinced that they must be freaks of nature, their patients readily accept this diagnosis; but that's hardly relevant when the diagnosis is wrong!
I submit that "gender dysphoria" is nothing but a convenient way to avoid challenging transphobic social norms. Patients find it easier to change their transsexual anatomy than do battle with a world (and a self-concept) that recoils from it. Doctors find it easier (not to mention far more lucrative) to recommend expensive and painful "sexual reassignment" than to confront their own binary gender bias.
The message all should hear and take to heart is that transgender people are not "mistakes," not "deviants," not "freaks," and are not only normal, but are made in God's image!
Here's an excerpt from his incisive and liberating post, a post that I strongly urge you to read in its entirety:
A lot of people say that "gender reassignment" effects a 100% cure for the Transsexual person. A cure for what, I'd like to know? Induced inferiority? What benefit does a target of bigotry derive from conforming to the twisted values of a bigoted society? And how does society benefit from having its corrupt value system affirmed?
No cure has been effected! On the contrary, the disease (transphobia) has been rendered more virulent. People of blended gender keep falling into its predatory grasp. Transfolk are still being driven to mutilate perfectly good human bodies because the world they live in rejects the gender God has attached to them. Worse, they're still being driven to commit suicide for the same reason. Either way, violence is being done to the Transgender body! Either way, Transfolk are following the urge to act on socially-imposed self-hatred.
Whenever I make pointed observations like this, I get emails. Nasty, vituperative emails! Acid-tongued individuals claiming to represent "the Transgender community" keep trying to sell me bottles of snake oil. Their wares are odious enough, but their sales technique is even more objectionable! After they're done cursing me out, labeling me an oppressor and fictionalizing my personal life . . .
Trying to fit into a binary gender world is severely traumatic for them; they run to psychologists and physicians, pleading for peace of mind. In much the same way their predecessors pathologized LesBiGay status in years past, these opportunistic and narrow-minded health professionals slap a disordered label on transsexuality. Convinced that they must be freaks of nature, their patients readily accept this diagnosis; but that's hardly relevant when the diagnosis is wrong!
I submit that "gender dysphoria" is nothing but a convenient way to avoid challenging transphobic social norms. Patients find it easier to change their transsexual anatomy than do battle with a world (and a self-concept) that recoils from it. Doctors find it easier (not to mention far more lucrative) to recommend expensive and painful "sexual reassignment" than to confront their own binary gender bias.
The message all should hear and take to heart is that transgender people are not "mistakes," not "deviants," not "freaks," and are not only normal, but are made in God's image!
Friday, August 13, 2010
DON CHARLES: PULLING DOWN THE PANTIES OF SEX AND GENDER OPPRESSION: MY TRANSGENDER IDENTITY MANIFESTO
I received the following comment castigating my post regarding my firm belief in the God-given normality of Transgender people! The title of my post was Transgender People Are Not "Mistakes. I urge you to read that post and the ensuing comments.
A commentator, radicalbitch, wrote the following in response to that post:
Frankly, Jerry and Don are idiots.
I'm beyond fed up with gay men and crossdressers pontificating about things they have absolutely no knowledge about..it's same patriarchal bullcrap that arrogant men always engage in.
If you lack all knowledge of actual, transsexed people who are BORN neurologically intersexed and REQIURE maximum body correction to bring mind and body into congruence then STFU.
I was born a hermaphrodite, Pope Ratzie says I was born an abomination, a violation of god's will. Good thing I'm not and never have been a christian and know better. No, was I not born a mistake but rather a special daughter of the Magna Mater. You, on the other hand, can stay the hell out of my identities, my life and cease and desist spreading misinformation and out and out freakin lies about women such as myself.
Crossdressers suffer a mental disorder, people born transsexed have a neurological intersexed condition, a medical condition. The treatment for that condition reaches close to 100% cure and that is surgical and hormonal correction. It is not an option, it is not a choice and the medical condition has absolutely nothing in common with the mental disease of transvestism which is what Don has.
The following was my response to her:
Hi radicalbitch: Why you resent it when I say that transgender people are not mistakes is a mystery to me. Moreover, you assume that I am gay, which I'm not; you assume that Don is a transvestite, which he's not. You are wrong on these counts, as you are wrong on the other issues you mention, such as I don't doubt that you are a woman. Moreover, being a hermaphrodite is one thing; being transgender is usually quite another, as the latter deals with gender expression regardless of genitalia. Although I'm not a particular fan of Ratzinger, even he doesn't say that you were "born an abomination, a violation of God's will." I do understand your anger, but it seems to me to be misplaced. Best wishes, Jerry.
Don Charles beautifully addressed the likely motivations and nature of this comment, and with his kind permission I am posting his insights here:
When did you or I ever write about intersex people, Jerry? When did we discuss individuals born with indeterminate genitalia (the rare condition incorrectly identified as "hermaphroditism")? We explored transsexual identity in our essays. We talked about the normalcy of having gender identity and biological gender that don't match. If you have intersex genitalia, there's at least a partial match! When I refer to transsexual anatomy, I mean men with vaginas and women with penises, not people with combined male and female sex organs. Most transsexual folk do not have indeterminate genitalia! Most intersex folk do not have a gender identity conflict! Those are two different states of being, and we didn't confuse them. "Radicalb*tch" does confuse them, and she's probably doing it deliberately so she can justify attacking you. If she's having some kind of functional problem with her intersex genitalia, that's completely unrelated to our discussions of gender identity. Don't get drawn into an argument about a subject you never even addressed!
It's an old debate trick, for an adversary to lure you into discussions of an irrelevant topic you're not well versed in, and try to make you look stupid. I don't know much about intersex people and their issues, but I do know that many of them resent having their genitals "corrected" during infancy. That practice, which was widespread until very recently, resulted in children being raised as girls when they actually were boys, and vice-versa. In other words, there's usually no dire health concern that justifies surgically altering intersex genitalia. I would argue that such surgery is an option open the intersex adult, just like it's an option for the transsexual adult. However, I don't presume to advocate for intersex folk, and I'm not going to be sidetracked.
I'm going to post this Manifesto on my blog sidebar today:
PULLING DOWN THE PANTIES OF SEX AND GENDER OPPRESSION: MY TRANSGENDER IDENTITY MANIFESTO
I refuse to perpetuate the ABSURD FICTION that human gender is only binary. Transgender status is real! I refuse to perpetuate the BLASPHEMOUS LIE that human beings are "born into the wrong body". There are no wrong bodies. I refuse to PATHOLOGIZE transsexual anatomy. It is not a deformity. I refuse to validate the PREPOSTEROUS IDEA of people having "the wrong genitals." There is no wrong genitalia. I reject the BOGUS NOTION of "gender reassignment." When God blends male with female, human beings cannot separate the two. I reject the BASELESS NOTION that human gender should ever need be "transitioned" into. Gender need only be acknowledged. I reject the IGNORANT BELIEF that female and male gender cannot co-exist in one body. They can, and they do. I reject the BIGOTRY that condemns female and male gender existing in the same body. How dare mortals condemn what God has made? I denounce the use of TRANSPHOBIC slurs like "gender queer". Verbal genocide is just as lethal as the physical kind. I decry the PITIABLE VICTIM MENTALITY which encourages transfolk to pathologize themselves. A gift must not be mistaken for a curse.
I believe that transgender life is both NATURAL and NECESSARY. I believe transgender status is the raison d'etre of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual identity. It is NOT a disorder. It must NEVER be classified as such! People of blended gender are not to be DEMONIZED, DENIGRATED or PITIED. Those who promote a transgender victim mentality will find in me a DOGGED adversary! I shall CHASTISE them for encouraging transfolk to feel deformed and inferior. I shall CHALLENGE them to embrace the normalcy of blended gender. If they persist in peddling TRANSSEXUAL VICTIMHOOD, I shall EXPOSE them as the messengers of ignorance that they are.
A commentator, radicalbitch, wrote the following in response to that post:
Frankly, Jerry and Don are idiots.
I'm beyond fed up with gay men and crossdressers pontificating about things they have absolutely no knowledge about..it's same patriarchal bullcrap that arrogant men always engage in.
If you lack all knowledge of actual, transsexed people who are BORN neurologically intersexed and REQIURE maximum body correction to bring mind and body into congruence then STFU.
I was born a hermaphrodite, Pope Ratzie says I was born an abomination, a violation of god's will. Good thing I'm not and never have been a christian and know better. No, was I not born a mistake but rather a special daughter of the Magna Mater. You, on the other hand, can stay the hell out of my identities, my life and cease and desist spreading misinformation and out and out freakin lies about women such as myself.
Crossdressers suffer a mental disorder, people born transsexed have a neurological intersexed condition, a medical condition. The treatment for that condition reaches close to 100% cure and that is surgical and hormonal correction. It is not an option, it is not a choice and the medical condition has absolutely nothing in common with the mental disease of transvestism which is what Don has.
The following was my response to her:
Hi radicalbitch: Why you resent it when I say that transgender people are not mistakes is a mystery to me. Moreover, you assume that I am gay, which I'm not; you assume that Don is a transvestite, which he's not. You are wrong on these counts, as you are wrong on the other issues you mention, such as I don't doubt that you are a woman. Moreover, being a hermaphrodite is one thing; being transgender is usually quite another, as the latter deals with gender expression regardless of genitalia. Although I'm not a particular fan of Ratzinger, even he doesn't say that you were "born an abomination, a violation of God's will." I do understand your anger, but it seems to me to be misplaced. Best wishes, Jerry.
Don Charles beautifully addressed the likely motivations and nature of this comment, and with his kind permission I am posting his insights here:
When did you or I ever write about intersex people, Jerry? When did we discuss individuals born with indeterminate genitalia (the rare condition incorrectly identified as "hermaphroditism")? We explored transsexual identity in our essays. We talked about the normalcy of having gender identity and biological gender that don't match. If you have intersex genitalia, there's at least a partial match! When I refer to transsexual anatomy, I mean men with vaginas and women with penises, not people with combined male and female sex organs. Most transsexual folk do not have indeterminate genitalia! Most intersex folk do not have a gender identity conflict! Those are two different states of being, and we didn't confuse them. "Radicalb*tch" does confuse them, and she's probably doing it deliberately so she can justify attacking you. If she's having some kind of functional problem with her intersex genitalia, that's completely unrelated to our discussions of gender identity. Don't get drawn into an argument about a subject you never even addressed!
It's an old debate trick, for an adversary to lure you into discussions of an irrelevant topic you're not well versed in, and try to make you look stupid. I don't know much about intersex people and their issues, but I do know that many of them resent having their genitals "corrected" during infancy. That practice, which was widespread until very recently, resulted in children being raised as girls when they actually were boys, and vice-versa. In other words, there's usually no dire health concern that justifies surgically altering intersex genitalia. I would argue that such surgery is an option open the intersex adult, just like it's an option for the transsexual adult. However, I don't presume to advocate for intersex folk, and I'm not going to be sidetracked.
I'm going to post this Manifesto on my blog sidebar today:
PULLING DOWN THE PANTIES OF SEX AND GENDER OPPRESSION: MY TRANSGENDER IDENTITY MANIFESTO
I refuse to perpetuate the ABSURD FICTION that human gender is only binary. Transgender status is real! I refuse to perpetuate the BLASPHEMOUS LIE that human beings are "born into the wrong body". There are no wrong bodies. I refuse to PATHOLOGIZE transsexual anatomy. It is not a deformity. I refuse to validate the PREPOSTEROUS IDEA of people having "the wrong genitals." There is no wrong genitalia. I reject the BOGUS NOTION of "gender reassignment." When God blends male with female, human beings cannot separate the two. I reject the BASELESS NOTION that human gender should ever need be "transitioned" into. Gender need only be acknowledged. I reject the IGNORANT BELIEF that female and male gender cannot co-exist in one body. They can, and they do. I reject the BIGOTRY that condemns female and male gender existing in the same body. How dare mortals condemn what God has made? I denounce the use of TRANSPHOBIC slurs like "gender queer". Verbal genocide is just as lethal as the physical kind. I decry the PITIABLE VICTIM MENTALITY which encourages transfolk to pathologize themselves. A gift must not be mistaken for a curse.
I believe that transgender life is both NATURAL and NECESSARY. I believe transgender status is the raison d'etre of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual identity. It is NOT a disorder. It must NEVER be classified as such! People of blended gender are not to be DEMONIZED, DENIGRATED or PITIED. Those who promote a transgender victim mentality will find in me a DOGGED adversary! I shall CHASTISE them for encouraging transfolk to feel deformed and inferior. I shall CHALLENGE them to embrace the normalcy of blended gender. If they persist in peddling TRANSSEXUAL VICTIMHOOD, I shall EXPOSE them as the messengers of ignorance that they are.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
WHAT LANDMARK PROPOSITION 8 RULING MEANS FOR THE FUTURE PLUS THE FULL RULING
In his superb 136 page ruling, Judge Vaughn Walker detailed each of the arguments presented by the proponents of Prop. 8 and judiciously shot each of their arguments down, making it very difficult for the U.S. Supreme Court to find in favor of those proponents.
The following is an excellent article that deserves to be read in its entirety, part of which reads as follows:
This is how the judge shot down each one of the rationales the proponents set forth for denying gays the right to marry:
Reserve marriage as only a union between a man and a woman.
- Judge: Tradition alone cannot form a rational basis for a law.
Proceed with caution when implementing social changes.
- Judge: "Because the evidence showed that same-sex marriage has and will have no adverse effects on society or the institution of marriage, California has no interest in waiting and no practical need to wait to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples."
Promote opposite-sex parenting over same-sex parenting.
- Judge: The evidence shows "beyond any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant to children's developmental outcomes." Proposition 8 has nothing to do with children; it simply prevents same-sex couples from marrying.
Protect the freedom of those who oppose marriage for same-sex couples.
- Judge: Proposition 8 does not affect any First Amendment right or responsibility of parents to educate their children, or the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or to same-sex marriage.
Treat same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples.
- Judge: Proposition 8 creates an administrative burden on California because it must maintain a parallel institution for same-sex couples.
Any other conceivable interest.
- Judge: Proponents have not identified any rational basis that Proposition 8 could conceivably further.
A private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples is not a proper basis for legislation, the judge said. Thus, he held, "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license."
To the proponents' arguments that the purpose of marriage is procreation, Walker retorted, "Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license." Moreover, the fact that a majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, according to Walker, who wrote that "fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE CLICK ON THIS LINK TO READ JUDGE WALKER'S COMPLETE RULING ON PROP. 8.
The following is an excellent article that deserves to be read in its entirety, part of which reads as follows:
This is how the judge shot down each one of the rationales the proponents set forth for denying gays the right to marry:
Reserve marriage as only a union between a man and a woman.
- Judge: Tradition alone cannot form a rational basis for a law.
Proceed with caution when implementing social changes.
- Judge: "Because the evidence showed that same-sex marriage has and will have no adverse effects on society or the institution of marriage, California has no interest in waiting and no practical need to wait to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples."
Promote opposite-sex parenting over same-sex parenting.
- Judge: The evidence shows "beyond any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant to children's developmental outcomes." Proposition 8 has nothing to do with children; it simply prevents same-sex couples from marrying.
Protect the freedom of those who oppose marriage for same-sex couples.
- Judge: Proposition 8 does not affect any First Amendment right or responsibility of parents to educate their children, or the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or to same-sex marriage.
Treat same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples.
- Judge: Proposition 8 creates an administrative burden on California because it must maintain a parallel institution for same-sex couples.
Any other conceivable interest.
- Judge: Proponents have not identified any rational basis that Proposition 8 could conceivably further.
A private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples is not a proper basis for legislation, the judge said. Thus, he held, "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license."
To the proponents' arguments that the purpose of marriage is procreation, Walker retorted, "Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license." Moreover, the fact that a majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, according to Walker, who wrote that "fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE CLICK ON THIS LINK TO READ JUDGE WALKER'S COMPLETE RULING ON PROP. 8.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
TED OLSON ON CHRIS WALLACE'S FOX PROGRAM
This is an excellent presentation by Ted Olson concerning the need to overturn Prop. 8 by the Judiciary:
[Thanks to David Mixner.]
[Thanks to David Mixner.]
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
SOME INCONGRUITIES AND DANGERS OF RELIGIOUS-BASED HOMOPHOBIA
A Lutheran pastor in Minneapolis who opposes homosexuals being allowed to lead congregations said Monday he is attracted to men, but that he's not a hypocrite because he never acted on his urges.
The Rev. Tom Brock told The Associated Press he has known for years he is sexually attracted to men, but doesn't consider himself gay because he never acted on it....
"You can have this struggle with same-sex attraction, say no to it, and still follow Christ."
...Brock said he does not believe people are born gay. "I think we're all born heterosexual actually, and then stuff goes wrong," he said.
He said he can't conclusively identify the origin of his own attraction to men, but said he believes it's related to a distant relationship with his father, who is now deceased, as well as having an older brother who was more athletic and, Brock felt, got more affection from other family members.
Brock said even if scientists were to establish definitive proof that homosexuality is genetic, that wouldn't deter his views. He said he believes people who engage in homosexual acts will go to hell, but he doesn't believe that makes him a bigot.
"My message doesn't change at all. I still think homosexual behavior is a sin," Brock said. "Because I struggle with it doesn't make it right."
[For the full article, see here.]
Deeply ingrained prejudice can often lead to tremendous self-loathing and suppression of the truth about one's very sexual/emotional nature once one comes to realize that he/she is Gay.
Indeed, even the status of being Gay that has not come to consciousness can, through prejudicial belief, rhetoric, and actions, wreak untold havoc upon one's emotions and emotional/sexual makeup, as well as wreak havoc in the lives of others who give that person credibility in informing the religious and moral dimensions of one's life.
Rev. Brock even goes far enough to say, "I think we're all born heterosexual actually, and then stuff goes wrong." Where does he get that notion from; where is his data to back up his dogmatic assertion that we are all born heterosexual? A lot of "stuff goes wrong" in people's lives and they are heterosexual!
Regarding his "analysis" as to the reasons for his same-sex attraction being due "to a distant relationship with his father...as well as having an older brother who was more athletic and...got more affection from other family members," which, if true, would have most people in any society turn out to be Gay.
What's even more remarkable is that Rev. Brock's prejudices extend so far as to encompass the belief that "even if scientists were to establish definitive proof that homosexuality is genetic, that wouldn't deter his views. He said he believes people who engage in homosexual acts will go to hell, but he doesn't believe that makes him a bigot."
He believes that engaging in same-sex activity will send people to hell, but "he doesn't believe that this view makes him a bigot."
Then what else does this view make him?
All too many professing Christians, even those Christians who are self-loathing Gay people, impose their bigotry and hateful rhetoric onto others, just as they impose their views on themselves. They very often create a living hell for themselves and, thereby, seek to impose that hell onto others, many of whom, unfortunately, believe that they will go to hell if they act on the very urges that God gave them.
Rev. Brock, and others like him, seem to think that God makes mistakes when God creates Gay people; they commit the sin of idolatry by worshipping their own prejudices, and their "justifications" for those prejudices, over and above their worship of God and the yielding to God's sovereignty.
And they cap their idolatry by claiming not to be bigots when they have the temerity to consign people who engage in same-sex activity to hell, thereby usurping the role of God Who has chosen those who belong to God before the worlds were formed; before we were even born; before any of us ever had a chance to act one way or the other. (e.g., Ephesians 1:4)
And notice, "The Rev. Tom Brock told The Associated Press he has known for years he is sexually attracted to men, but doesn't consider himself gay because he never acted on it...." The fact is that one is Gay whether or not he/she engages in same-sex activity!
Like most all homophobes, Rev. Brock seems to merely equate Gay with Sex, and doesn't see (or doesn't want to see) that being Gay comprises an emotional component which, along with sexual activity, fulfills the person every bit as much as the emotional/sexual components of heterosexuals fulfills their lives.
Despite his rhetoric to the contrary, Rev. Brock is a gay man, whether or not he acts on his God-given sexual desires!
Rev. Brock speaks from ignorance, a prisoner of his preconceived prejudices that even contradict his own inclinations that he has willfully (or not) denied himself so as to feel "comfortable" in not defining himself as a gay man, for to do so would undoubtedly violate his notion of what a "Christian" is supposed to be and do.
Hence, his record of homophobia that could be reconciled in his mind with his same-sex attractions, as he does not view himself as a gay man since, by his own account, he is presumably a virgin.
One can be out, be he/she outed or not, and still be closeted at the same time: closeted by prejudice; closeted by self-loathing; closeted by ignorant biblical exegeses; closeted by the desire to be accepted; closeted by fear of rejection; closeted by career aspirations; closeted by fear of one's deepest and hitherto repressed and suppressed feelings of which one may or may not be conscious.
I have pity for Rev. Brock and the internal struggles he is undoubtedly facing after having been outed.
However, I have even more pity for people who take seriously what the Rev. Brocks of the religious world say about Gay people, and who take seriously those who presume to usurp the role of God and pronounce with oracular authority the eternal destiny of anyone's soul!
As my friend, Rev. Troy Perry has said on more than one occasion: "God didn't create people whom He could sit around and hate."
God creates Gay people just as God creates Straight people! God specializes in diversity!
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. (Joshua 24:15)
The Rev. Tom Brock told The Associated Press he has known for years he is sexually attracted to men, but doesn't consider himself gay because he never acted on it....
"You can have this struggle with same-sex attraction, say no to it, and still follow Christ."
...Brock said he does not believe people are born gay. "I think we're all born heterosexual actually, and then stuff goes wrong," he said.
He said he can't conclusively identify the origin of his own attraction to men, but said he believes it's related to a distant relationship with his father, who is now deceased, as well as having an older brother who was more athletic and, Brock felt, got more affection from other family members.
Brock said even if scientists were to establish definitive proof that homosexuality is genetic, that wouldn't deter his views. He said he believes people who engage in homosexual acts will go to hell, but he doesn't believe that makes him a bigot.
"My message doesn't change at all. I still think homosexual behavior is a sin," Brock said. "Because I struggle with it doesn't make it right."
[For the full article, see here.]
Deeply ingrained prejudice can often lead to tremendous self-loathing and suppression of the truth about one's very sexual/emotional nature once one comes to realize that he/she is Gay.
Indeed, even the status of being Gay that has not come to consciousness can, through prejudicial belief, rhetoric, and actions, wreak untold havoc upon one's emotions and emotional/sexual makeup, as well as wreak havoc in the lives of others who give that person credibility in informing the religious and moral dimensions of one's life.
Rev. Brock even goes far enough to say, "I think we're all born heterosexual actually, and then stuff goes wrong." Where does he get that notion from; where is his data to back up his dogmatic assertion that we are all born heterosexual? A lot of "stuff goes wrong" in people's lives and they are heterosexual!
Regarding his "analysis" as to the reasons for his same-sex attraction being due "to a distant relationship with his father...as well as having an older brother who was more athletic and...got more affection from other family members," which, if true, would have most people in any society turn out to be Gay.
What's even more remarkable is that Rev. Brock's prejudices extend so far as to encompass the belief that "even if scientists were to establish definitive proof that homosexuality is genetic, that wouldn't deter his views. He said he believes people who engage in homosexual acts will go to hell, but he doesn't believe that makes him a bigot."
He believes that engaging in same-sex activity will send people to hell, but "he doesn't believe that this view makes him a bigot."
Then what else does this view make him?
All too many professing Christians, even those Christians who are self-loathing Gay people, impose their bigotry and hateful rhetoric onto others, just as they impose their views on themselves. They very often create a living hell for themselves and, thereby, seek to impose that hell onto others, many of whom, unfortunately, believe that they will go to hell if they act on the very urges that God gave them.
Rev. Brock, and others like him, seem to think that God makes mistakes when God creates Gay people; they commit the sin of idolatry by worshipping their own prejudices, and their "justifications" for those prejudices, over and above their worship of God and the yielding to God's sovereignty.
And they cap their idolatry by claiming not to be bigots when they have the temerity to consign people who engage in same-sex activity to hell, thereby usurping the role of God Who has chosen those who belong to God before the worlds were formed; before we were even born; before any of us ever had a chance to act one way or the other. (e.g., Ephesians 1:4)
And notice, "The Rev. Tom Brock told The Associated Press he has known for years he is sexually attracted to men, but doesn't consider himself gay because he never acted on it...." The fact is that one is Gay whether or not he/she engages in same-sex activity!
Like most all homophobes, Rev. Brock seems to merely equate Gay with Sex, and doesn't see (or doesn't want to see) that being Gay comprises an emotional component which, along with sexual activity, fulfills the person every bit as much as the emotional/sexual components of heterosexuals fulfills their lives.
Despite his rhetoric to the contrary, Rev. Brock is a gay man, whether or not he acts on his God-given sexual desires!
Rev. Brock speaks from ignorance, a prisoner of his preconceived prejudices that even contradict his own inclinations that he has willfully (or not) denied himself so as to feel "comfortable" in not defining himself as a gay man, for to do so would undoubtedly violate his notion of what a "Christian" is supposed to be and do.
Hence, his record of homophobia that could be reconciled in his mind with his same-sex attractions, as he does not view himself as a gay man since, by his own account, he is presumably a virgin.
One can be out, be he/she outed or not, and still be closeted at the same time: closeted by prejudice; closeted by self-loathing; closeted by ignorant biblical exegeses; closeted by the desire to be accepted; closeted by fear of rejection; closeted by career aspirations; closeted by fear of one's deepest and hitherto repressed and suppressed feelings of which one may or may not be conscious.
I have pity for Rev. Brock and the internal struggles he is undoubtedly facing after having been outed.
However, I have even more pity for people who take seriously what the Rev. Brocks of the religious world say about Gay people, and who take seriously those who presume to usurp the role of God and pronounce with oracular authority the eternal destiny of anyone's soul!
As my friend, Rev. Troy Perry has said on more than one occasion: "God didn't create people whom He could sit around and hate."
God creates Gay people just as God creates Straight people! God specializes in diversity!
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. (Joshua 24:15)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)