...and they lived happily ever after.

Dan said...
I don't believe in gay marriage. Every married person I know is miserable!


Dear Dan,

I have given much thought to your comment regarding marriage. It really deserves a response on a personal level and on a universal level.

On a personal level, my heart goes out to you. It sounds like you have experienced a great personal hurt, possibly a betrayal by someone who you sincerely loved. Intimacy entails risk. Consider the process of dating. On the first date, people usually take great care in their appearance. They usually, are very deliberate in how they speak. We tend to try to put our best foot forward. When we feel more comfortable with the other person, we (or a friend/relative GRRR) will reveal a vulnerability. How that other person reacts to that revelation will determine what further revelations (if any) we dare to make.

Entering into a relationship with another person is literally placing your heart in their hands. Frankly, the question of sexual orientation here is moot. One need only pick up a great work of literature, a current novel, or a copy of the DSM (a reference book used by psychologists and therapists) to see that this is a reality that transcends time, culture, education, etc.

There is a danger inherent in all intimate human relationships. Sexual orientation does not trump the human condition. There is a great passage in the Book of Sirach 6:7-17 that catalogues the various types of “friends” one encounters in this life. When speaking of a potential mate, you can expand Sirach to the tenth power. As regards the issue of marital fidelity, I can assure you (having heard confessions for 23 years) that heterosexuals (male & female) are not immune from infidelity. As in all other areas of life, we learn from our failures, these can lead to personal depth, growth and new opportunities.

Evangelicals and other literalists love to speak of “the homosexual lifestyle.” The obvious response is to speak of “the heterosexual lifestyle.” Are Hugh Hefner and Marilyn Monroe exemplars of the “heterosexual lifestyle?” Are Laura & George W Bush exemplars of the “heterosexual lifestyle?” Are your Mom & Dad exemplars of “the heterosexual lifestyle?” A person’s sexual orientation does not determine the character of that person. One needs to consider the individual’s psychological, emotional and spiritual development., not to mention the interplay of those realities with one’s own and a host of other variables.

Obviously, to reduce a relationship to its mechanical sexual components is violence to both that particular relationship and to relationships in general. Yes, there exists a physical component to relationships, because we are physical beings; however, the physical is given meaning by the affective component of relationships. On a physiological level, there is no difference between rape and making love. On an affective level, although the physical act may be identical, there is a huge emotional, psychological and spiritual difference!

The California Supreme Court cited and quoted an amicus brief filed by the APA in the Court’s opinion issued on May 15, 2008 that struck down California’s ban on same sex marriage. Specifically, the court relied on the American Psychological Association’s brief in concluding that the very nature of sexual orientation is related to the gender of partners to whom one is attracted, so that prohibiting same sex marriage discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, rather than just imposing disparate burdens on gay people.

Essentially the court stated that denying individuals with same sex orientation the civil rights of marriage is unjust discrimination. No one is required to marry anyone. Some chose to remain single for their entire life. That is their right. However, for society to say to a person or a group of people “you may never marry” simply because of a person’s sexual orientation constitutes both an injustice to that individual and to that minority. The false and hollow argument offered by religious zealots that homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex is both offensive and ignorant. The California Supreme Court, in its ruling, cited the APA’s amicus brief that corrects the ignorance and thereby explains the injustice.

As far as every married person being miserable. Mr. Lyles, a high school teacher of mine, once advised us regarding taking True/False tests. He said: If you ever have a True/False question that states, every, all, always or never and you are unsure of the answer mark it “False.” Aside from God, there are very few absolutes.Your statement is comprehensible only when understood from the depth of pain you suffer when someone betrays your love.

When it comes to marriage, we grew up hearing fairy tales end with the phrase “and they lived happily ever after.” We tend to think of marriage in idealized terms, we seek perfection and guarantees. The reality is that these are non-existent. What two people do when they exchange marriage promises is to say to their beloved, as long as I have the use of my mind, you can count on me. I will be there with you and for you, to share the joys and to help shoulder the difficulties we encounter together.

The two people, regardless of sexual orientation, are imperfect. They will falter and perhaps fail themselves and their spouse. Encouraging and challenging each other towards self-actualization is both the act of and the gift of love. The future is unknown. Arguably, that is the beauty, strength and value of marriage, which is a union of love and of life. Will it always be happy? Probably not, because regardless of one’s marital status life is not always happy. However being married means that at the end of a long hard day you do not return to a house, but to a home. In my experience, love is worth it and to deny that to an individual or a group is both an injustice and a moral evil. Paradoxically religious zealots promote the very promiscuity they denounce as “the homosexual lifestyle” by denying same sex couples civil marriage.

The Pope's investigation

Pope Benedict XVI on Monday appointed nine prelates, including the archbishops of Boston and New York, to investigate child abuse in Ireland's Catholic institutions. (Full story)

What’s wrong with that?

The scope of the investigation, for starters, is what is wrong here. It is limited to the Catholic Church in Ireland. The Cover-Up Scandal has plagued the Catholic Church in the United States of America, Ireland, Germany, Austria, Italy, Chile, Brazil, etc. Limiting an “investigation” only to Ireland implies that this is a problem only in that local church. It most certainly is not.

Secondly, who/what is being investigated and specifically why? Pedophilia, like murder and rape will always occur, despite law enforcement’s and legislators’ best efforts to stop these horrible crimes. Civil governments can implement intelligent laws and police procedures in an honest attempt to protect innocent people. The hierarchy may implement pro-active policies and re-write Canon (church) law, they may mandate cooperation with civil authorities, but this would need to occur on a universal (international) level. It is not.

Who could possibly object to such an investigation?

As the article clearly states:

But U.S. victims of clerical abuse were not impressed by Benedict's selections, saying some of the bishops themselves had "troubling" records on confronting abuse.

"We must look outside a largely complicit church hierarchy for real solutions to this devastating ongoing crisis," said Barbara Dorris, outreach director for the U.S. victims' group Survivors Network for those Abused by Priests.

"For an apostolic visitation to have any chance of success, the participating bishops cannot be guilty of the same offenses they are investigating," said BishopAccountability.org, which conducts research into the abuse crisis.

The problem here is not only pedophilia, it is the Cover-Up of pedophile priests and religious by their superiors (i.e. the hierarchy). Asking the hierarchy to self-investigate this Cover-Up, at the very least calls into question the legitimacy of the investigation and its findings. At worst, it invalidates them. Investigators would have to include lay persons (Catholic and non-Catholic). Preferably with backgrounds in psychology and law.

Sadly, this investigation strikes me as an exercise in containment and public relations damage control. The widespread international nature of the Cover-Up scandal indicates a systemic problem within the universal church and not merely a problem with the church in Ireland. Such an international systemic problem would require a reform of the whole church. The scope of this investigation will not be able to address the needs of the universal church, or reform it to help it heal from this systemic problem.

When I was in seminary, a professor told our class a joke about the anti-Christ. A Dominican Friar approached the pope and said “Holy Father, the anti-Christ is alive and here in Rome!” The pope paused and asked “How old is he?” Three years old, responded the friar. The pope thought for a moment and said “Leave it to my successor.” Benedict knows that systemic reform is the effective cure to the Cover-Up scandal and the mentality which facilitated it. However, such reform would compromise the hierarchy’s power, specifically its autonomy from lay oversight. This “investigation” is a way of appearing to act, while not acting at all.

DADT: It ain't over till the fat lady sings

Politico made these comments today regarding the passage of repeal legislation by Congress:

The White House and the Pentagon both approved the compromise in the amendments that allows Congress to act while granting the President, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff the ultimate authority to implement repeal only when they are satisfied that the military’s readiness, recruiting, retention and morale would not be adversely impacted by it.


And because the House defied President Obama's veto threat to hang onto funding for two Joint Strike Fighter engines, the situation is even stickier. With the engine money and don't ask don't tell, Obama is situated between a promise he's made to his most powerful Cabinet member and his liberal base of support on a landmark civil rights issue.
The Pentagon is aggressively pushing for a veto.

"We don't want nor need the extra engine, but this is just one step in a long journey and Secretary Gates is committed to staying engaged in this process the whole way, including if necessary ultimately recommending President Obama veto this legislation," said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell after the vote.

So too is Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), who supports don’t ask don’t tell repeal but who fought to strip funding for the General Electric engine but who said he was encouraged by a strong vote on the amendment and the fact that the Senate Armed Services Committee did not include funding for the engine in its bill.

“I fully expect the President to follow through with his threatened veto of the Defense Authorization Act if the F-35 Extra Engine Program is in the final legislation,” Larson said.

Gay-rights groups, which have been assured by the White House that repeal will work out in the end, immediately hailed the Senate panel’s vote as historic.(FULL STORY)

So, what does this all mean? It means we have taken an important and positive step forward towards the repeal of DADT; however, repeal has not happened yet. The Congress has done what it can and now the ball is in the President’s court. Hopefully, he will follow through and sign this into law and then, meet the demands of signing off on it with his Secretary of Defense and the Head of the Joint Chiefs.

May 22, 2010 the first Harvey Milk Day

Michigan Avenue in Chicago, Illinois is known as “The Magnificent Mile.” Close to the Art Institute, if memory serves me, a street connects Michigan Avenue to Lake Shore Drive. There are two bronze sculptures of Native Americans mounted on horses. It is a beautiful scene, the two bronze sculptures framing Lake Michigan.

I stood on that spot as a boy looking up at the statues, my grandfather stood at my side. He retained his Spanish passport and citizenship. He said to me in Spanish, look at that and learn grandson. First, the Americans kill them off and then, they erect a statue in their honor

I thought about the “Trail of Tears” that President Andrew Jackson unjustly imposed on Native Americans. About our own nations’ “Death March” that claimed countless Native American’s lives. Jackson wanted all Native peoples forcibly relocated west of the Mississippi river. To this day, there are many Native Americans who refuse to use twenty dollar bills, because they bear Andrew Jackson’s portrait. We have a somewhat “secret history” in our country. In that same city of Chicago, that I loved so much as a boy, Mayor Richard Daily boarded up the blighted part of the city during the 1968 Democratic Party’s Convention out of sight, out of mind.

I thought about my boyhood memories of Chicago today on the eve of the first Harvey Milk Day. I thought about the promises made to our community by Presidents Bill Clinton and now Barack Obama. I thought about how easily those promises were violated. In the case of Clinton, because he wanted to push through a national Health Care Plan, he failed. Instead, he gave us Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. In the case of Obama, he sent his Secretary of Defense to the U.S. Senate. Secretary Gates asked the Senators NOT to repeal DADT, until yet another study can be completed on December 1, 2010.

To those more literate in politics, Secretary Gates (and his boss, President Obama) gave “cover” (i.e. Permission) to Democratic Senators to not vote for the repeal of DADT. His thinking is that Mid-term elections are in November and we do not want to do something that might be unpopular with Middle American voters so close to an election. This inaction and apparent weakness was seen in the recent Health Care debates. Those saw the administration withdraw from a National Health Care Plan (Public Option) to a possible lowering of the eligibility age for Medicare to 55. That was then also abandoned and FINALLY, Obama pushed at the eleventh hour for Health Insurance Reform. Thankfully, that reform became law; however, it is a ghost of what was initially sought.

Read now this piece about the Oil Spill disaster in the Gulf and the attitude of the Administration towards that disaster:

Democratic strategist James Carville and MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews, two reliable supporters of President Barack Obama, have issued withering critiques of the administration's handling of the Gulf oil spill.

Carville, the famously outspoken Louisianian who was a chief political aide to Bill and Hillary Clinton, told CNN's Anderson Cooper on Thursday that the administration's response to the spill has been "lackadaisical" and that Obama was "naive" to trust BP to manage the massive clean-up effort.

Likewise, Chris Matthews argued during a "Tonight Show" appearance that the President was to "acting a little like a Vatican Observer."

"The President scares me," he said. "When is he actually going to do something? And I worry; I know he doesn't want to take ownership of it. I know politics. He said the minute he says, 'I'm in charge,' he takes the blame, but somebody has to. It's in our interest."

The Obama administration has thus far avoided the political backlash that President George W. Bush faced in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, in part by comprehensively documenting its actions in the Gulf and staying on message ("Fully engaged since Day One...").

But crude oil has now been erupting into the Gulf of Mexico for over a month, and the sense that the Obama administration is treating the spill as an urgent national emergency has diminished even as the impact of the disaster has magnified. Not until yesterday, critics note, a full 30 days after the oil rig explosion, did federal officials establish a technical team to measure the full extent of the spill. (FULL STORY)

When is he actually going to do something, indeed? I wonder if Barack Obama would ever have been elected a U.S. Senator or President of the United States, if President Lyndon Johnson assumed such a pragmatic and “bi-partisan” approach towards Civil Rights legislation. Most probably not and Mrs. Parks would still be riding in the back of the bus. The most disappointing thing about Obama’s failure to support the Civil Rights of another minority group is that he himself has suffered discrimination and abuse. He knows what it means to be the victim of slurs, threats, discrimination, injustice and bigotry.

There is a ray of hope these days and of all places; it is to be found in Arkansas. In the Tuesday night Primary Elections in that state, the “blue dog Democrat” Senator Blanche Lincoln failed to win. This silver lining is far more than a mere consolation, it is a sign of one thing LGBTQ people must now do, if they want to secure Civil Rights. DO NOT VOTE FOR ANYONE WHO FAILED TO VOTE FOR OUR RIGHTS. As in the case of Arkansas, that will mean voting for a progressive (i.e. Real Democrat) in the primary elections. Don’t stop there, write to the incumbent and tell him/her why you did not vote for them. Enclose a copy of a generous check you wrote to their opponent.

The Blue Dog Democrat will undermine us anyway and if enough LGBTQ people become a swing vote, perhaps the Democratic incumbent and Party itself will think twice in the future before selling us out. Think about it from the perspective of a Democrat up for reelection. If I do not support Equality Laws, I will not only lose LGBTQ votes, but my opponent will gain those votes and yes, all that wonderful LGBTQ money too.

Harvey Milk famously said, “You’ve got to give them hope.” President Obama promised us many things, including hope. Sadly, it now seems that his were empty promises and a false hope. We need to look elsewhere. We need to become less accommodating and more belligerent when it comes to our rights. We need to be more like Act-Up/Get Equal; and less like Log Cabin Republicans, or their Democratic “establishment” counterparts.

Progress has been made since Harvey Milk was murdered. Seven nations in Europe, Canada, South Africa are being joined by Latin American governments in recognizing same sex marriage. Israel, Great Britain, the Dutch and many other nations allow gay and lesbians to serve openly in their Armed Forces. What would Harvey Milk say to us today? I think he would ask us to be encourage by that progress, and to remember that it was achieve through great sacrifices. The baton has been handed to us.

BE STRONG, for those who are not.

BE VISIBLE, for those who cannot.

BE, for yourself and for us all.

Repeal DADT, NOW!

I was asked to speak at a Repeal DADT rally last evening. This is a subject close to my heart since I have both served in the USAF as a Chaplain and I have counseled many LGBTQ people who serve in the Armed Forces. I thought of those people and their painful experiences as I stood at the podium last evening.

I was an officer in the USAF when candidate Bill Clinton promised that he would lift the ban on gay and lesbians serving in the US Armed Forces. After he was elected, Clinton made a national Health Care Plan the primary focus of his administration. We were told that we had to wait. Ironically, we did not get a national Health Care Plan and we got DADT (Don’t Ask Don’t Tell).

When candidate Barack Obama ran for the office of President, he promised our community that he would repeal DADT and permit gays and lesbians to serve openly in our Armed Forces. Next week the Senate’s Armed Services Committee will decide if the Repeal of DADT is added to the language of an appropriation bill. Like many in our community, I felt a sense of betrayal when Defense Secretary Gates recommended to the US Senate that they wait until an additional report is completed on December 1, 2010. This would effectively postpone the repeal of DADT until 201l, or later. Why? To avoid this as a political issue at the mid-term elections. Once more, we are asked to wait.

Can you imagine Rahm Emanuel asking Dr. Martin Luther King to wait for Civil Rights Laws to be passed, because of political expediency? Can you imagine Rahm Emanuel asking Gloria Steinem to wait for laws granting equality and legal protection to women and their rights? We have waited 18 years for Civil Rights. We have waited far too long. Justice delayed is justice denied.

What is the cost of this denial of Civil Rights and legal protection to LGBTQ people? In 1999 the Center for Disease Control issued the results of a study entitled “Youth at Risk.” That study found that one third of gay adolescents attempt suicide. ONE THIRD!!! I ask you, the next time you are at a gathering of LGBTQ people to look at the crowd and envision an additional one-third the number of people. Those people are in graves instead of with us today.

To understand why, I ask you to recall that time in your life when you discovered that you were “different.” Remember those feelings of fear that seized you in your youth. Fear that you would be rejected by the people you loved the most in the world, your parents, your family and your friends. The vast majority of LGBTQ people learn how to “pass” in effect to lie about who they are. That deception is a survival skill. It is imposed upon us by society, a society that would punish us not only with verbal and physical abuse, but also with rejection if we were to reveal our true self.

The price of lying about yourself is self-hatred. Not reflected in the CDC’s Youth at Risk Study results are the vast number of LGBTQ people who suffer from alcohol and substance abuse, or those who exist in a chronic state of depression as a result of societal and self-hatred. As an official from the City was speaking yesterday, a silver BMW drove by and the passenger yelled “FAGGOTS.”

Do you want to know what the “Gay Agenda “is? Here it is, Equal Rights and all the protections extended to every other minority group by our government. The Civil Rights legislation of the early 1960’s granted full Civil Rights and legal protection to racial minority groups in our society. Those laws did not end racism; however, they protected racial minorities from housing and employment discrimination. They protected their Civil Rights under law. Today this means the Repeal of DADT and the passage of ENDA.

Last night voters in the Primary Elections sent a message to Washington DC. If you do not vote for us, we will not vote for you! If you do not support us, we will not support you! Malcolm X said, “Civil Rights have never been granted to anyone, you have to take them!”

President Obama, Keep Your Promises! Use the power we gave you to secure justice and Civil Rights, while you still have it!

Pope Benedict XVI: Gay Marriage Is 'Insidious And Dangerous'

Benedict himself admitted to the "sins within the church" on the first day of the trip, his most explicit admission of Church culpability in the scandal. By Thursday, however, he had moved on to stressing core church teachings in the largely Roman Catholic country, where abortion on demand has been available since 2007 and where Parliament in January passed a bill allowing same-sex marriage. In addition, a judge in 2008 made it easier to obtain divorce even when one spouse objects.

Benedict told the gathering of lay Catholics that he appreciated their efforts fighting abortion and promoting the family based on the "indissoluble marriage between a man and woman" – the Vatican's way of expressing its opposition to divorce and same-sex unions.
Such initiatives "help respond to some of the most insidious and dangerous threats to the common good today," he said. "Alongside numerous other forms of commitment, such initiatives represent essential elements in the building of the civilization of love." Full story

Please note the three issues the pope touches upon, abortion, same sex marriage and divorce. In each case, the pope laments that civil government has made these actions legal. In other words, law no longer prohibits them. Now, a woman may decide for herself regarding reproduction. Persons with same sex orientation may enter into a union of love and life (marriage). People are no longer forced to remain in abusive or loveless marriages.

Christendom was a stage in European history when the Church and the State were in an active partnership. Realize that it was only about 45 years ago that Pope John XXIII removed the papal tiara from his head at the Second Vatican Council. One of the three crowns in the papal tiara symbolized temporal power, power over the secular order. The high point for papal influence and power was the pontificate of Innocent III in the twelfth century.

The teachings of the Church effectively informed, if not constituted the State’s laws. Christendom began to fade with the Renaissance.The Non-Establishment Clause in the US Constitution created the world’s first secular nation. This process was further accelerated by the French Revolution and its famous document “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen”

By the end of the Twentieth century the idea of secular states, in which citizens dictated laws through the democratic process, has become normative in Europe, North America and much of South America and Africa. Images of suicide bombers, theocratic dictatorships in the Middle East and fatwa against authors and journalists cause justifiable concern in the minds of contemporary people. These concerns are underscored when religious leaders attempt to force their teachings on society as a whole.

Yes, faith is an important part of most people’s lives; however, it is understood that this is a personal decision. It is voluntary. To take a page from human development, the relationship between parent and child is different when the child is 8, 16, 26, 46, 65, etc. If a parent attempted to exercise, the same form and level of control over a 45- year-old as over a 5-year-old, one would immediately recognize a problem. If the child at 45 agreed to being treated like a 5 year old, one would have serious concerns about the maturity/psychological health of that 45-year-old person.

Perhaps it is time for the pope to speak to believers and to the world at large, as adults. Perhaps it is time to move beyond prohibition and condemnation and to employ reason and dialogue. Jesus did not employ force of arms or the power of the state to force discipleship. He moved people by the power and beauty of the truth he proclaimed. Perhaps, I know this is a tad radical; but it is time for the Church to imitate its founder on this point.

Two Closets

If the name George Allen Rekers is unfamiliar to you, then you've probably been in a coma for one week or off hiking in the wilderness. Lucky you! In brief, Rekers is a closeted gay man who has spent the better part of his adult life bashing LGBTQ people. Pam's House Blend will fill you in on all the details. It seems that Rekers is now attempting to claim that he is not "a homosexual." How could he possibly hope to be able to get away with such a ludicrous claim in the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

If Liberachi could publicly claim that he is not a homosexual and be believed, then why can’t George Rekers? Yes, that was many decades ago and society has evolved “somewhat.” However, people will always prefer a palatable lie to a challenging truth. The pathetic tragedy, both for George Rekers and for our society, is that some of the most homophobic people are repressed/self-loathing homosexuals. This tragedy is further compounded by the fact that even within the openly LGBTQ community there is yet another internal division.

In the movie “Milk”, the gay Opera elite of San Francisco have an exchange with Harvey Milk. They are displeased at his activism. They have been “accepted” and found a respectable niche in society and they do not want Milk’s brash activism upsetting the apple cart. I have found a huge rift within our community between “establishment” gays and activist LGBTQ folks. Just mention Lt. Dan Choi or Robin McGhee at a black tie fundraiser and wait for the flood of verbal vitriol that will follow.

You would think you were speaking with someone from NOM, NARTH, an evangelical or Republican. Nope, it is someone from our community. A “good little boy/girl” who, like Log Cabin Republicans believes that if you dress up, smile and ask very, very politely; then eventually you will be granted civil rights. I think that there exist two closets. The first closet in which many, like George Rekers, are trapped, and the second in which many LGBTQ people patiently wait for society to accept them. The Book of Revelation states: “So, because you are lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.” [Rev 3:16]

Malcolm X said, “No one ever gave anyone civil rights, you have to take them!” Yes, self-loathing homosexuals, like Rekers, do great harm to our community. However, organizations and individuals in our community, who are willing to barter away justice for respectability arguably do as much, or worse damage. Whose hypocrisy is more damaging? Repressed people, like Rekers, who lash out at their own kind are at least psychologically understandable. Those in the well-healed, black tie set who settle can make no such defense. They are either naïve, or opportunists.

Why is one closet so vehemently condemned by our community and the other so blindly overlooked? Perhaps it is because most of us have moved beyond the first poisonous stage of coming out, but less of us have moved beyond the second stage. Like the Log Cabin Republicans, many in our community desperately want acceptance from “Society” and they want that acceptance at any price. That price is the repeal of DADT--next year. The passage of ENDA--when it is more opportune. The repeal of DOMA--maybe in three or four years.