A question from a reader.

Father, that was a lovely sermon, but I feel like there's something missing. Your own illustrations suggest that the first place most of us learn love is from our parents. What are we to make then, of a spousal relationship that is, of its nature, unable to produce children?

I know that there are infertile heterosexual couples whose love is also unable to produce children.

And I know that adoptive parents love their children every bit as much as biological parents love theirs.

But I don't think that's enough of a response. I think there's a real theological question to grapple with here--namely, what is the purpose of marriage and sex? And I don't think that we can, of our own accord, forcibly divorce the procreative purpose from the unitive purpose. We would as well remove our souls from our bodies--as if those were two different things.

I don't hate gay people. My aunt and godmother is gay and I love her. And I love the child -- my cousin -- that her partner gave birth to and she adopted. He is as much my cousin as the biological children of any of my other aunts.

But I just can't see how a relationship that cannot produce children, and is not even of the sort that produces children, is a marriage. Please help me to understand your reasoning.

God bless you -- you are in my prayers.

Ben asks a very sincere and authentic question. I believe one which deserves a considered answer. First, if you were to enter the sacristy of your local parish church and access the Rite of Marriage book which is authorized by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, you would discover something interesting in the marriage rite. All references to children are contained in red parenthesis. Why? So that the bishop, priest or deacon officiating at the wedding may easily omit such references in the case of a couple which is past "child bearing years". Obviously, it would appear absurd to include such references for a couple, say in their mid sixties. The Church marries people who cannot reproduce and has done so for centuries.

Why? The answer to this is rather obvious. Not all married couples will produce children. Are their marriages any less valid? The practice of the Church clearly suggest that the answer is that their marriages are equally valid. That some couples will not reproduce does not spell the end of the human race. Don't worry, God will bless many marriages with children.

The other question which is raised here is the purpose of sex. This is a great question. Obviously, one of the purposes of sex is reproduction; however, if marriage is permitted for couples who are incapable of reproduction and the Church currently does permit such marriages then, the Church also tacitly admits that there must be some other reason for sex other than reproduction. If this were not the case then, sex for females past the age of menopause would be considered "sinful." This "other" reason is called unitive by theologians.

The unitive end of sex, as the name suggests is a bonding. A tender union of the two people. Incidentally, this gives us a new insight into sex. It is good. It is not to be feared. It is not shameful. It was designed by the Creator. Whether the sex produces physical life or not, it may contribute to a union of love and life, which is the very definition of marriage. Heterosexual couples in their "golden years" understand this so too, do same sex couples.

So, if this is all true for heterosexual couples incapable of physical reproduction then, why would it be untrue of same sex couples who are equally incapable of physical reproduction?

I want to thank Ben for his question. Remember, the traditional definition of theology, is faith seeking understanding. Since theology is the study of God, we will never fully know God but, asking honest questions is a way of coming to know God better.

What about the children!?!?

To anyone who grew up in the 1960's, we remember the violent convulsions of that period in our national history. The riots after the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The water canons and the dogs loosed on people fighting for equal treatment under the law and in society. The image of Governor Wallace standing at the entrance of a school, attempting to physically block an African American from entering. To anyone who lived through that period the words: "What about the children?" are a chilling through back, the last attempt by those who want to deny equal treatment under the law.

Then, it was a cynical or, ignorant attempt to create a sense of guilt in those asking for equal treatment under the law. After all, what would the prospects be for a child of mixed race? Think of the discrimination they would have to suffer. Stop being so selfish, you should sacrifice your own personal happiness "for the children." Of course, when we think back to those days now, we see through these "arguments" as simply a last refuge for bigots or, individuals so blinded by the bigotry of their day that they fail to see the inherent injustice in such claims. We know that there are many children raised by single parents, grandparents, same sex couples. We know that what is truly important is that a child be raised with love and care. The Proponents of Prop 8 know this too, but, they choose to focus on the genitalia rather than on the hearts of parents/guardians.

Today, the proponents of Proposition 8 are guilty of the same tactics employed by bigots forty years ago. Ironically, it is they themselves who continually claim that Proposition 8 is about "marriage". No where in the wording of Prop 8 are children mentioned at all. Yet, proponents have seized upon this issue in an attempt to generate fear in voters. They try to accomplish this in two ways.

First, as my own bishop wrote in his "pastoral" letter for July "they will brainwash your children". The idea here is that somehow, gay and lesbian persons 1) can change some one's orientation and, 2) that gay and lesbian persons will be able to use the public education system to accomplish this mass "conversion".

The first point is, of course, ludicrous. Psychology informs us that orientation is not "a choice." For more detailed information on this, please visit: www.LAtherapist.homestead.com/gaypage Most of us discover our orientation at the time we go through puberty. One of the greatest fears that young gay and lesbian adolescents have at that point in their lives is that, their orientation will cause them to be rejected by the people that they love most--their family. So, most of these adolescents try to "pass" as straight, in effect to lie. This in turn, leads to self hatred which is why 33% of adolescents with same sex orientation will seriously consider suicide. The idea that an adolescent would "choose" this is a contradiction of both science and common sense.

The second point, is simply untrue. The State Superintendent of Schools has attested to this and the California Teacher's Association has endorsed voting for NO on Prop 8. Marriage is not required to be taught by the State of California. Local school boards decide what the content of Health classes will be in California. Any parent or, legal guardian can opt to remove their child from Health class if, they object to the content of the class based on either religious or, moral grounds. Proposition 8 proponents have deliberately spread inaccurate information, citing examples from Massachusetts. They know that California's laws are not the same as Massachusetts but, they're interested in winning not in the truth. They point to a primary grade field trip, where the students attended a same sex couple's wedding ceremony. They fail to mention that EVERY student at that event had to produce a signed permission slip from their parent/legal guardian to attend that ceremony. They know the law, it is merely inconvenient for them to state the full truth so, they don't.

So, why have the proponents of Prop 8 made this such an issue? Because, fear works in elections. No matter that it is irrational, no matter that it is deceptive, no matter that it is unethical. It works. Considering that Proponents of Prop 8 claim to be acting in the name of God and morality, one has to ask: How does violating one of the ten commandments of God accomplish that? How does using children as a prop to deceive people advance morality? I guess they've decided that the end justifies the means.

A wedding sermon.

Since Proposition 8 is intended to take away the right of same sex couples to marriage, it is important to consider exactly what marriage involves. I've decided to post a typical wedding homily which contains the matrimonial instruction required by the Church.

Francis and Lee, you've come here this afternoon in the company of your family, your relatives and friends to say what are arguably the most solemn and important words which you will ever speak. They are among the most solemn because, in a few moments, you will make vows to God. When such vows are made in true freedom and with full knowledge and consent, they touch our very souls and affect our eternal destiny. You are also about to exchange a series of promises with each other which will place your two lives on a parallel trajectory throughout the remainder of your lives.

Now, all of these people who know you, some of them from the time you were small children, could scratch their heads in wonder and ask: Why would anyone do that?!? Why would anyone make such vows to God or, make such life changing promises to another person?!? The answer that comes immediately to mind is, of course, love. The reason why someone would be so willing to make such a life commitment is love. But, what exactly is love? You find that word in the lyrics of almost every song, in great works of literature and popular novels. It is found in every culture, language and in every age of history. But, exactly what is love?

In our society, the most common understanding of love, is that it is a very deep and powerful feeling. The difficulty of this understanding of love, is that no one chooses their feelings. No one wakes up in the morning and decides: Today I'll be sad. Feelings are like the tide, that enters and recedes without any one's permission. And so, to predicate one's whole life based on a "feeling" would be crazy. Who is to say I'll feel that way in four months or five years?

It is true, there are very powerful feelings deeply intertwined with love; however, love is far more than merely a "feeling". Love is a choice. A choice made in freedom. To place another human being and his/her needs on par with your own and perhaps, even above your own. A beautiful example of this can be found in the persons of your parents who are here with you today. There were many times, during your infancy, when one of them got up out of a warm bed in the middle of the night to take care of your needs. There were countless times, when the alarm clock sounded and they got up out of bed and went to work so, that you'd have a plate at the table, a roof over your head and clothes on your back. That's love. Nothing fancy. Just ordinary people who chose to be there with and for each other. To help shoulder the burdens of life and, to share its joys and laughter. In the first letter of John (4:16) it states: God is love and those who abide in love abide in God and God in them. In the book of Genesis (1:26) it states that God made us in his image. When we chose to love, it is at precisely that moment, that we most perfectly reflect the image of God in our world. It is at that very moment when we are at our best, our most noble. It is no small thing that causes you to speak these words here today and to enter into marriage.

Just as there exist misconceptions regarding the nature of love in our society, so too, there exist misconceptions regarding the nature of marriage. One of the most common is that marriage is a partnership, a fifty/fifty deal. The absurdity of this concept can be seen when it is applied to other human relationships. Friendships, for example, are rarely a 50/50 relationship. There are times in a friendship when our friend needs our help. Sometimes that means an understanding ear. Sometimes it means a pickup truck and a day's work to move them. Sometimes it means money. The beauty of a friendship is, that when we are in need, our friends are there for us as well. If this is true of friendship, then how could it not be untrue of marriage, which is the most intimate relationship that two people enjoy in this life?

Your marriage will seldom, if ever be a 50/50 deal. There will be times and periods in your life where it may be 70/30. There may be a time when it is 100/0 if, you doubt that take a drive to a nearby hospital and realize that for every patient in that hospital, their other half is at home holding down the fort and paying the bills. There may come a time in your marriage, when you believe that more is being demanded of you than you can possibly deliver. If that moment should come, pause and take some time in prayer to God, to the one to whom you make these vows this day. In that time of spiritual communion, God will remind you of the words that Our Lord said in the Gospel (John 15:16): "It was not you who chose me, it was I who chose you to go forth and bear fruit." As people of faith we believe that about marriage. That God has called you Francis for Lee and you Lee for Francis. That as spouses you have a responsibility to each other and to God. To help each other achieve their potential in this life and in eternity. This means building each other up. It also will mean, at times, challenging each other with love and prudence. So that 25 or 50 years from now, when you look back at all of the trials and hardships of the years, they will evaporate like the dew before the glory of the morning sun and you will realize that you enjoy the greatest happiness that Divine mercy has bestowed upon us in this lifetime.

The courts and protection of minority rights.

In a public comment, bishop Steinbock stated: “Proposition 8 is not about homosexuals and their rights.” I had to read that twice, that is EXACTLY what Proposition 8 is about. Proposition 8 if approved by California voters would take away the civil right to marry from same sex couples. In his actual “pastoral” letter for July, the bishop referenced the State Supreme Court decision and compared the court to the Nazi and Communist regimes. We have also heard the courts derided by others in our society. “Activist Judges” is a derisive term often employed by people in positions of power who are displeased the courts act as a curb to their power. Ironically, when our own State Assembly passed a bill authorizing same sex marriage, the governor refused to sign it and stated that it was an issue best resolved by the courts. Our own bishop, in his “pastoral” stated that it was by a slim margin that the court made this decision. I don’t recall him once complaining when the courts ruled in favor of the Church in civil cases, even if it was by a slim margin.

The judicial branch of government is there to protect everyone's rights. An independent judiciary is essential to safe guard minority rights from the tyranny of majority power. If it were not for our judiciary, African Americans and Hispanics would not enjoy employment protection laws, equal housing laws and other rights which were non-existent and would have been thought impossible just two generations ago. Inter-racial marriage would still be illegal in California. In the 1960’s had these issues been decided by popular vote instead of by the courts, these minority groups would not have been given their civil rights and the human dignity that was denied them by society at the time.

The bishop stated, in his letter of suspension: “Your statement contradicted the teaching of the Catholic Church and has brought scandal to your parish community as well as the whole Church.” A scandal is not created by speaking the truth. The real "scandal" is placing impossibly heavy burdens on the faithful, faulting them for an act of the Creator in having created them with same sex orientation and then, not lifting a finger to help them. The traditional definition of theology is: “faith seeking understanding.” The idea that theology is a “done deal” is absurd. In the area of bioethics alone, theologians and the Church can’t even keep up with new developments in science. Psychology and neurology also have offered us considerable new insights into same sex orientation in the last generation. The Church itself has officially stated, that there are “homosexuals who are such because of some kind of innate instinct.” This begs additional commentary by the Church and ultimately these new understandings should be translated into pastoral practices. We are required to teach and guide those entrusted to our care by God. Jesus himself stated: I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth (John 16:12-13).

My “sin” was not to hold the position, which I hold, nor, was it even to voice it. What I stated represents current thought on this issue by many theologians, pastors and some bishops. My sin was to voice it publicly. Why is that such a big deal? Because, it represents a “crack in the dam” if, one lowly pastor in Fresno can state something contrary to the official party line today then, tomorrow it could be several priests or, God forbid, even a bishop or, two. Privately, in the ballot box on Election Day, most priests, most nuns and several bishops will vote NO on Proposition 8. Most of these people involved in pastoral ministry will do this because, like me, they know it is the right thing to do. Perhaps, fifty years from now, the “official” churchmen will.

Someday, people will disbelieve that we had to fight for simple human rights!

Well, I must admit its been a busy week.

On Tuesday, as you may know, I had the privilege of attending the Woman's Empowerment Conference. I still smile as I think of the moment when I had the privilege of meeting our Governor, who incidentally is opposed to Prop 8. along with a host of notable persons who, I never in my wildest dreams thought that I'd ever be introduced to. Why is this important? Well, because all of them are in our corner, all of them understand that Prop 8 is essentially about bigotry. They know that Prop 8 is wrong and that we should vote NO on Prop 8.

Forty years ago, the people who were opposed to white people marrying black people used the very same oppressive arguments that are being used today by the "yes" on Prop 8 side: "What about the children?". The irony, of course, is that the child of a mixed race marriage, Barack Obama, will probably be the next President of the United States! The "yes" on 8 people, like their racist predecessors, realize that their arguments are both morally and intellectually bankrupt and so, they resort to emotionalism and an irrational fear which represent the most base within each of us. These very same people who invoke morality are not above deception in order to secure an immoral victory. They themselves offend God by manipulating children in advertisements to violate one of the 10 Commandments of God to not bear false witness against your neighbor.

On Friday night, I took part in a live debate on Fox 11.

You can watch it here:

And on Sunday, I was interviewed by Steve Lopez of the LA Times.

You can check it out here

And Please, Donate to No on Prop 8 if you can. Large amounts of money are being poured into California from all over the United States of America. Fundamentalists, the leaderships of the LDS (Mormons), the Knights of Columbus (a Catholic Organization) and millions of others, are using funds. Funds which should be used to help feed the hungry, house the homeless and give a future to orphans. These funds have been appropriated to perpetuate bigotry and oppress a minority in the name of an all compassionate God. In this, they add insult to injury. They Blaspheme the very God who they falsely claim to serve. They become servants of evil in the name of good. They drive people away from God and preach hatred in the name of God, who is love.

A cell phone call before breakfast.

On Wednesday morning, as I was driving to the Woman's Empowerment Conference in Long Beach, California; my cell phone rang. I didn't recognize the telephone number which was displayed but, that's not all that unusual for me these days. So, I answered the phone and to my surprise, it was Bishop Gene Robinson.

Bishop Robinson for those of you who may be unfamiliar with his story, enjoys the singular distinction of being the first openly gay man to be consecrated a bishop in the Episcopal Church. Not unlike the story of the first violinist at the New York Philharmonic Orchestra who took ill and the post was given to a guest violinist. The guest violinist was apprehensive about her new responsibility. Turning to the second violinist she asked, "When do I start playing?" The second violinist answered reassuringly, "Don't worry, just don't be the first."

 

Being first, is always disconcerting, if not outright frightening, because there is no precedent. You are breaking new ground; you are breaking the established norms and rules. Many people will take exception to what you've done, and will throw everything at you to discredit you. They will vilify you and make an example of you to serve as a warning to others. If you manage to pull it off, to break through, to open a new door; you will be a trail blazer, a pioneer, and a visionary. 

Bishop Gene took all of those risks. His family and his partner stood with him in the sanctuary on the day of his consecration. They heard the hurtful, hateful things said by some during his consecration liturgy. Bishop Gene opened a brave new door for gay and lesbian people that day. He continues to weather attacks and insults from members of his world wide communion. With the sustaining love of his family and his partner he continues to serve both God, the Church and humanity in the face of bigotry, opposition and hatred. Through his courage, fifty years from now, others will not have to suffer what he has suffered. The Church will have healed and grown because of Bishop Gene's self-sacrifice. Bishop Gene is a hero for me and a living testament of the human spirit's strength to overcome fear, and the hatred it generates, through the power of love. 

My wristwatch informed me that it was a long conversation with Gene Robinson; but to me, it brief . We spoke of the difficulties facing both the world-wide Anglican communion and the Roman Catholic Church. Both faiths, are international in character and both have the majority of their membership residing in the Third World. While these Third World societies are culturally vibrant, they suffer economic poverty. Sub-Saharan Africa has been socially and economically devastated by the AIDS epidemic. Inter-tribal wars have claimed countless lives and economic colonialism has kept many of these newly created nations impoverished. In addition, these societies tend to lack basic social infrastructures such as adequate health care, social services, and education. As a result of their exploitation, they are suspicious of any new social insights introduced by foreign sources. 

When fighting to survive, innovation is a gamble you cannot afford to lose. The fruit of this colonial legacy is that the indigenous bishops are resistant to any new ideas that come from these former colonial powers, which have a history of subjugating them.  It is the Anglican bishops of these nations that have so vociferously protested Bishop Gene's consecration. The "idea" of an openly gay bishop with a partner is unacceptable because it adds another stress to a society that already finds itself at the breaking point. Of course, these same bishops take exception to women being ordained as deacons and priests (let alone consecrated bishops) for the very same reason. 

This presents a moral quandary for the universal Church. Which course do you take?  Do you risk losing members from more developed societies, or from developing societies? Do you ask for continued, perhaps lifetime, sacrifices from some to calm the fears and apprehensions of others? What is just, what is sensible, what is the best way to proceed?

What does begin to emerge from all of these questions is that the argument against both the ordination of women and the acceptance of those with same sex orientation is far more sociological than theological in its nature. Perhaps, this why the late Pope John Paul II forbade the subject of the ordination of women from being discussed in universities. While such repression may temporarily delay discussion and debate, it does not resolve the underlying issues and simply contributes to a future cataclysmic confrontation and possible schism. 

All of this took place on a cell phone conversation on a drive to an event before breakfast with a most extraordinary person who is a personal hero and inspiration to me: Bishop Gene Robinson. 

We are not alone! We are fighting for our rights and those of future generations.

I had the pleasure today of attending the Women's Empowerment Conference in Long Beach, California. I found myself munching on some food, looked up and saw Madeleine Albright at the table next to me. I stood next to an environmental vehicle display and found myself shaking hands with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is opposed to a constitutional ban on same sex marriage. I walked with Bobby Shriver, heard about his wonderful work with Red, a product line that helps AIDS patients. He was also very supportive of NO on Prop. 8. I had the honor of sitting next to Maria Shriver, our State's First Lady and hearing of her personal support for NO on Proposition 8. I met with the Benedictine Nun, Sr. Joan Chittister and heard of her support for NO on Proposition 8. I met with the famous feminist, Gloria Steinem and heard of her support of NO on Proposition 8. I was interviewed by the Washington Post.com and then, appeared on the Peter B. Collins Radio show with Rev. Susan Russell of All Saints Episcopal Church to discuss NO on Proposition 8. 

Had any ONE of these things happened today, I would have considered today exceptional. However, all of these things happened in one day and it seemed totally unreal. The fact that so many remarkable and extraordinary individuals are supportive of Equality, Fairness, and Human Rights is both uplifting and hope inspiring. As Melissa Etheridge said at a concert last night which raised nearly 4 million dollars for NO on Prop. 8, one day in the future people will look back at this time and find it hard to believe that some groups attempted to deny same sex couples the right to marry.