You Matter

On Election night in 2008 I stood at the Music Box in LA and watched the election counts come in. That night four years ago, I experienced two opposite emotions at the same time. The hope for substantive change promised by our newly elected President, Barack Obama; and the just anger at the bigotry manifested by the passage of Proposition 8. A hateful “law” that stripped LGBT people not only of their civil right to marriage, but of their human dignity.


I came to realize in the weeks and months following the passage of that hate inspired law, that its passage was a blessing in disguise. If we had won and defeated Prop 8 in November of 2008, the rest of the nation would have brushed it off: “Eh, that’s California, the land of fruits and nuts.” But because we lost here, in what is perceived to be the bastion of liberalism in the USA, it was a slap in the face to LGBT people across America. If our civil rights can be trampled in California, what chance do we have in the Deep South or the Midwest? Prop 8 was a painful but effective national wake-up call to LGBT people and their loved ones.


Harvey Milk said: "Burst down those closet doors once and for all, and stand up and start to fight." It is true that if every LGBT person came out to family, friends, coworkers and society that homophobia would collapse. Social change, social justice and social equality would ensue. But there is also another truth here that is equally important: This is a personal matter, either you do it or it doesn't get done.


Each of us is personally healed and made whole the day we speak the truth about ourselves. The joke is: The last person you come out to, is yourself. The Prop 8 crisis was for me personally a moment of truth. A moment in which I had to make a personal decision that would change my life.


Speaking the truth can exact a painful price. Speaking the truth cost me my parish, my career, my financial security, my health care insurance and my retirement. I had to file for bankruptcy in July of 2010. Everything was stripped away. As Alexandr Solzhenitsyn said: “Once you take everything away from a man, you have no power over him.” In America we call this the “golden handcuffs.” Incidentally if anyone reading this has any influence in legislation, please help repeal ERISA exemptions to religious organizations. Everyone’s retirement benefits should be protected.



Today I am free from the fear that grips many priests in active ministry. I have lost false friends and discovered who are my true friends. I discovered that my parents love me unconditionally and that my family is there with and for me. The Prophet Job wrote: “Naked we come into the world and naked we go forth from it.” The only thing we have is ourselves and the love we have given and received.

Tuesday night, four years after the passage of the infamously unjust Prop 8, Maine, Maryland and Washington state all passed Marriage Equality laws that extend the Civil Right of Marriage to all couples. Minnesota voters rejected an Anti-Equality amendment to their state’s constitution. This along with the reelection of Barack Obama, the first sitting President to support Marriage Equality, in his victory speech affirmed the civil rights of all Americans “gay or straight.”

This represents a cultural tipping point in American society towards full legal equality and eventual social acceptance. Because of America’s influence in the world, it also represents an acceleration of international legal and social equality for LGBT persons. That is my assessment, but I think it prudent to look at last night’s events through the eyes of others.

NOM:

Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), an organization that actively works against the Civil Rights of LGBT people, predicted that the President would lose reelection last night. She was wrong. She did however have the foresight to step down as the president of NOM and hand on the helm to Brian Brown, just before everything hit the fan.


Effectively leaving Brian Brown holding the bag of failure and defeat, while Maggie walks away unscathed. Last night’s defeat of NOM was its death knell. Major donors (Knights of Columbus & the Mormon Church) will connect the dots and realize that NOM is now a costly and ineffective tool in preventing Marriage Equality.

The U.S. Supreme Court:

There is a popular myth that the U.S. Supreme Court is insulated in a hermetically sealed bubble from social issues and partisan politics. That the Court is an institutional version of Mr. Spock from Star Trek, a few moments of reading Justice Scalia’s pontifications on various issues will disabuse you of this fantasy. However, the Court does attempt to foster and maintain a patina of disimpassioned objectivity.


The Court has to decide a series of cases that deal directly with Marriage Equality. These include the case of the infamous Prop 8, that has been invalidated by the Ninth Circuit Court and been appealed by Prop 8 backers to the Supreme Court. Additionally the Second Circuit Court has declared that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional.


Make no mistake; the Supreme Court Justices were all keenly watching the results of Tuesday night’s Election. It is clear that Marriage Equality is increasingly the will of the Electorate. It would serve the Supreme Court well, as an institution, to be on the winning side of history. More importantly it would erode the prestige and image of the Supreme Court to rule against Marriage Equality, especially in the wake of their highly contentious ruling in Citizens United.


The Republican Party:

If the Supreme Court rules that DOMA is unconstitutional, it will be granting a HUGE gift to the Republican Party. Republican political strategists have been warning for some time now that an Anti-Equality position on marriage will cost dearly in future elections and reduce the Republican Party to a permanent minority party, incapable of winning the Presidency. Read this memo from George W. Bush’s advisor Jan van Lohuizen, published in Politico:


1. A review of public polling shows that up to 2009 support for gay marriage increased at a rate of 1% a year. Starting in 2010 the change in the level of support accelerated to 5% a year. The most recent public polling shows supporters of gay marriage outnumber opponents by a margin of roughly 10% (for instance: NBC / WSJ poll in February / March: support 49%, oppose 40%).
2. The increase in support is taking place among all partisan groups.



The problem for the Republican Party is finding a way out of their doctrinaire Anti-Equality stance that does not alienate its political base, specifically white evangelicals in the former Confederacy and Great Plain states. A Supreme Court ruling such as Loving v. Virginia in favor of Marriage Equality would be an elegant solution for Republican leadership. They could simply blame “activist judges” and underscore the need for their base to vote Republican so that they could block the Democratic Party from appointing new liberal justices.


Essentially, they’d take a page from their handling of the abortion issue: use “repeal”, as a carrot to motivate the base where they are the majority (the Deep South & Great Plains states); and play it down where it is expedient to ignore the matter (e.g. the Northeast and West Coast).



U.S. Catholic Bishops/Vatican:


The French have a saying: “Nothing succeeds like success,” sadly for the Vatican and its hierarchy the opposite is also true nothing fails like failure. The hierarchy failed and they failed massively in this Election and on the issue of Marriage Equality. Archbishop Dolan’s anointing of Mitt Romney at the Republican National Convention in Tampa hoping for an ally to replace President Obama failed. Romney lost and so did Dolan, the USCCB, and the Vatican.



The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ abuse of “Religious Freedom” in this election cycle has been judged absurd. The bishops claimed that a mandate that Catholic institutions (e.g. universities, charitable agencies) provide insurance coverage (such coverage normatively includes reproductive services/procedures) to employees, students and their dependents violates Catholic’s Freedom of Religion/Conscience.



Voters saw through this attempt by the bishops to redefine Religious Freedom as belonging primarily to institutions and only secondarily to individuals. An employee, student, etc of a Catholic institution would have their conscience effectively overruled by the bishops; unless they could afford to pay for these services/medications/procedures out of pocket and many cannot. This would have had the practical effect of violating the Freedom of Religion/Conscience of employees, students and their dependents.


The good news for Dolan and American bishops is that this pope is very, very old and will probably not be around by the next national election. They simply have to lay low provide minimal lip service to the pontiff’s fanatical eccentricities, in order to protect their careers, and wait for his replacement. A practical example of this can be found in the inaction of Bishop Richard Malone of Portland, Maine. As the Seattlepi reports:


“The Catholic Church didn't play an active role in the referendum debate, focusing instead on education. But Malone did issue a statement saying Catholics who support same-sex marriage are "unfaithful to Catholic doctrine."



Election night 2008 made Election night 2012 possible. Much hard word and many painful sacrifices by LGBT folks across America and internationally have made this progress possible. But at the end of the day, it all comes down to you. When you speak the truth you change the minds and move the hearts of those who know you. You change their votes and in doing so, you change society for the better. As Harvey Milk said:
"Burst down those closet doors once and for all, and stand up and start to fight."

Every Biblical Argument Against Being Gay, Debunked Biblically

This election year the states of Washington, Maryland and Maine will vote on Marriage Equality. The state of Minnesota will vote to prohibit Marriage Equality in its constitution.


Some Christian church leaders will encourage members to vote against Marriage Equality citing the Bible as their reason. This presentation by Matthew Vines debunks their arguments and makes a compelling case for Marriage Equality. I urge you to watch it, take notes and incorporate these arguments when debating this issue.

A Day in Federal Court for White House 13

Yesterday the thirteen of us who handcuffed ourselves to the White House Fence on 15 November 2010 to protest DADT were arraigned in Federal Court. A short and accurate depiction of what occurred in Court can be found in an article at MetroWeekly. The action was both necessary, and subsequently proved important,in drawing attention to the policy of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Last fall it appeared that the repeal of DADT was going to be swept under the carpet by the administration and simply ignored. Our action made national headlines and helped put a much needed spotlight on the repeal of DADT. This much needed attention helped motivate members of the US Senate to take up the matter of repeal, that thankfully concluded with the Senate approving repeal legislation and delivering it to President Obama's desk for signature. The repeal process is still not a "done-deal" certification is required by the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense and the President. It appears that this process of certification will be completed sometime this summer, or fall. However, we have been let down before and pressure still needs to be kept up to make sure that we are not sold down the river in yet another "compromise."

Meanwhile, in Maryland we lost a battle for Marriage Equality. It is important to remember that we are engaged in a war for our human dignity and full Civil Rights. In any war, battles will be won and lost. Paris fell to the Nazis in May of 1940 and Hitler danced in delight. It was a battle lost, but the war continued on for many more years. Paris was liberated after the invasion of France by allied forces in 1944 and eventually the Nazis were defeated. We will ultimately triumph because both right and reason are on our side. However, many sacrifices will have to be made to secure our just victory.

One thing that we as a community must do after a defeat, such as the ones in California (with Prop 8) and most recently in Maryland, is to ask ourselves why we lost. A business CEO speaking on the BBC stated that in Corporate America no one wants to admit failure. He went on to say, we need to own our failures because, we do not learn from our successes but from our failures. We also have to look at what the forces of bigotry did and how/why they won.

Some brief observations, we need to work together. Sadly, many LGBTQ organizations view equality as their private proprietary property. We need to become focused on the mission of attaining full Civil Rights and less focused on organizational loyalty. I'm traveling at present, but will develop this more fully in another blog post.

A heartfelt thanks to all those who have worked so hard to secure our Civil Rights in Maryland, and other battle states. You have laid a foundation on which we will continue to build and together we shall overcome hate, bigotry and ignorance with love, decency and truth.

Bishops' Statements and the Erosion of the Family

Last night I had a long drive from a speaking engagement in Central California. As I drove I, thought again about the statement issued by Cardinal Wuerl, Archbishop O’Brien and Bishop Malooly to the voters of Maryland. Specifically the passage in their directive to voters that states, “We believe such a change would lead to the erosion of the family, our society’s most valued and important social unit.”

Aside from the fact that these religious leaders fail to offer any argument or, evidence whatsoever to support such an accusation, the reality is that their allegation actually inflicts the very harm they claim to oppose. Let me explain how:

The American Psychological Association states, “Human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologist do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.” What happens in a real family with a child who discovers that he/she is gay or lesbian?

If the parents ignore the research and findings of psychology and listen instead to the unsubstantiated claims of these three bishops, they will attempt to coerce their lesbian/gay child to becoming “straight.” Human beings want to love and be loved, and as a child, we especially prize and seek the love of our parents. Gay and lesbian children that are told they are morally disordered by their parents (who acting on bad pastoral advice) are apt to believe this and attempt to change, or at least repress their orientation. As the APA states, “Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings..”

Ultimately they will be unable to accomplish this “change” as the APA has stated based on their clinical research and findings. The results? We saw the consequence of such irresponsible “pastoral” advice last year with a series of teenage suicides. The Center for Disease Control stated in their “Youth at Risk” study of 1999 that one-third of gay adolescents will attempt suicide. Not reflected in that study are the vast numbers of LGBTQ youth who become alcoholics or addicted to drugs in an impossible attempt to change their sexual orientation.

Many parents are counseled by religious authorities to employ “tough-love” with their LGBTQ children. If you drive to one of America’s large cities, you will find some these young people selling themselves on the streets as prostitutes in an attempt to support themselves financially. “Friends are the new family” is an expression that finds wide usage among LGBTQ young people. They are not welcomed or loved by their families unless they change. A change that psychology informs us is impossible.

All of this done in the Name of God by religious authorities, calls to mind the words of Jesus speaking of the religious authorities of his day, “Their words are bold but their deeds are few. They bind up heavy loads, hard to carry, to lay on other men’s shoulders, while they themselves will not lift a finger to budge them.” [Matthew 23: 4].

If these bishops were ignorant of the findings of psychology that sexual orientation is not chosen, if they were ignorant of the Roman Catholic Church’s statement in the 1975 Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, that there are “homosexuals who are such because of some kind of innate instinct.” Then, these bishops might be acting in good faith; however, their words would still gravely contribute to the erosion of the family, that they themselves decry.

As one of our readers (Tal) commented, “The problem is a church hierarchy that has come to value conformity and obedience over conscience, and that fails to draw a distinction between a Supreme Pontiff's personal demons and prejudices and the objective reality of the Church as the People of God.”

Ever increasing numbers of lay Catholics are realizing this and correctly choosing to selectively disregard their bishops. In theology, this is called the sensus fidelium (sense of the faithful). This concept means that, if Catholic laity dissent from the Catholic hierarchy, it may be that the laity are in fact following the correct and "true" Catholic line while the Catholic leaders are in error. American Catholics increasingly call this common sense.

When bishops play politics.

Maryland is on the verge of joining a growing list of states that grant same-sex couples the right to a Civil Marriage license. The three Catholic bishops who have ecclesial jurisdiction in Maryland have issued a statement against allowing same-sex couples that civil right, “We urge Maryland Catholics throughout the state to act at once to make your voices heard.”

Let us consider the arguments the bishops posit against same-sex Civil Marriage. They state, “We believe such a change would lead to the erosion of the family, our society's most valued and important social unit.” The rejoinder to this “belief” is the question, “How?” The bishops fail to explain how same-sex marriage will “erode” the family.

They go on to state, “The measure would dismantle our state's legal recognition of the true procreative nature of marriage,” again, how? Not all heterosexual marriages result in procreation. No post-menopausal woman could legally marry, if the bishop's argument was taken to its logical conclusion.

In Catholic theology, there are TWO ends to marriage: 1) Unitive and 2) Procreative. The unitive end of marriage is simply a union of love and life. The Procreative end is, of course, to create new life. It is important to understand that the unitive end of marriage is sufficient for a valid marriage. The Church sanctions, and considers a sacrament, the marriage of elderly heterosexual couples that are biologically incapable of reproduction. So, if two people of different genders who are incapable of reproduction can enter into a valid marriage, then why can’t two people of the same gender?

The bishops go on to state, “As a result, the measure would jeopardize the religious freedom of all those who cannot in good conscience recognize marriages that conflict with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

This statement is false. Maryland, like all the fifty states recognizes a couple’s legal right to obtain a divorce and then to remarry. Legal divorce and remarriage is against the teaching of the Catholic Church. Divorced and remarried couples are believed to be living in adulterous relationships by the very bishops who make this statement. The fact that there is legal divorce in all fifty states, with a right to a second, third, fourth, etc Civil Marriage, is not viewed as an attack on religious freedom by Catholic bishops. Why then, are Same-sex marriages singled out as an “attack on religious freedom” while divorce and remarriage (i.e. adulterous marriages) are not?

The Governor of Maryland, Martin O’Malley, is a Catholic and has said that he will sign the bill into law when it reaches his desk. House Speaker Michael Busch, also a Catholic, is planning to vote for the bill and Senate President Thomas Miller a Catholic, held off a filibuster that would have effectively killed the bill.

The issue here is not morality; but rather, power. The bishops are attempting to flex their political muscle and intimidate politicians. The problem for the bishops is that according to Gallup Poll, 62% of Catholics recognize same-sex relationships as morally valid. Then again, the overwhelming majority of Catholics have no problem with using artificial birth control, despite the bishop’s prohibition of such practices. One can only hope that these Catholics heed their bishop’s advice and make their voices heard on this issue “at once.” Although I think the bishops may not like what they hear.

It is time for the bishops to move away from a model of Church focused on political, economic and social power. When the Vatican pressured the Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon, Portugal to oppose Same-sex Civil Marriage in that country, he answered that it was a matter of Civil Law and not Church Law.

This is the central point here. We live in a pluralistic society. Not everyone is required to share the same religious beliefs or, views. The Founders deliberately did not establish a State Religion for the United States of America. That does not endanger religious freedom it protects it.

When the Church married Same-Sex couples.

The following is a reprint of an article by Jim Duffy that appeared in 1998 in The Irish Times. The Yale history professor quoted in the article is Dr. John Boswell. For an extensive list of books by this noted historian on Same-Sex marriages in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, please follow this hyperlink to Fordham University. When Marriage Between Gays Was a Rite An article in the Irish Times that discusses same gender unions in the early church. by Jim Duffy Published in 1998

As the churches struggle with the issue of homosexuality, a long tradition of gay marriage indicates that the Christian attitude towards same sex unions may not always have been as "straight" as is now suggested, writes Jim Duffy.

A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.

Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea seems initially shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St. Serge and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St. Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus.

In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their "marriage".

The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet after a twelve year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century.

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved as a concept and as a ritual.

Professor Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th / early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.

Unions in Pre-Modern Europe lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union", having invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, called on God to "vouchsafe unto these Thy servants [N and N] grace to love another and to abide unhated and not cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Boswell found records of same sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, it was only from about the 14th century that antihomosexual feelings swept western Europe. Yet same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578 a many as 13 couples were "married" at Mass with the apparent cooperation of the local clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together", according to a contemporary report.

Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century. Many questionable historical claims about the church have been made by some recent writers in this newspaper.

Boswell's academic study however is so well researched and sourced as to pose fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their attitudes towards homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be a cowardly cop-out. The evidence shows convincingly that what the modern church claims has been its constant unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is in fact nothing of the sort.

It proves that for much of the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom from Ireland to Istanbul and in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given ability to love and commit to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honoured and blessed both in the name of, and through the Eucharist in the presence of Jesus Christ.