What I got out of reading the Prop. 8 ruling, part 3 of 7

The witnesses gave their testimonies and now we encounter the "Findings of Fact" section that lists the evidence presented to the court, but not just randomly. The evidence is organized under three main headings:

1. Whether any evidence supports California's refusal to recognize marriage between two people because of their sex.

2. Whether any evidence shows California has an interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions.

3. Whether the evidence shows that Proposition 8 enacted a private moral view without advancing a legitimate government interest.

These three headings encompass sixty-two separate findings, quite a lot. Instead of throwing a list of facts at you, I will attempt to synthesize the most significant findings under each heading into a coherent train of thought, connect the dots if you will. To do this I will be jumping ahead and consulting the "Conclusions of Law" section to help me understand the judge's rationale.

* * * *

I. Whether any evidence supports California's refusal to recognize marriage between two people because of their sex.

This section starts out acknowledging basic facts about civil marriage in the United States: religious leaders don't dictate who may enter or leave a civil marriage; only those who have the legal capacity to consent can marry; and you don't have to be able or willing to procreate to enter into marriage. When California became a state in 1850, marriage laws originally required a husband and a wife. At that time whites and non-whites weren't allowed to marry each other, but later racial restrictions were deemed unconstitutional in California in 1948 (and nationwide in 1967).

In 1850 when California first defined marriage as requiring a husband and a wife, the doctrine of coverture was part of the legal marital bargain. Coverture meant that women, once they were married, "lost their independent legal identity and became the property of their husbands. [This was] once viewed as a central component of the civil institution of marriage." In other words, the woman became absorbed into her husband's legal identity. "She lost her independent legal and economic individuality." The reason for this mutual bargain, into which both parties entered by consent, was that the husband took on the legal responsibility of supporting and providing for his wife, and the wife's part was to serve and obey her husband. She gave him charge of all her earnings and property so he could represent her in court or in any other legal transactions. The basis for this understanding of civil marriage was the assumption of a division of labor along gender lines. The men were seen as suited for being the providers and the women for being the dependents and raising children.

Notice that we're not talking about simply a cultural understanding of marriage, but about State law dictating and enforcing the roles of the spouses along gender lines. To fail in your responsibility as a husband or as a wife would be to violate the legal agreement you made before the State. "In nineteenth century America, marriage was permanent, spousal roles were non-negotiable and divorce 'punished the guilty for criminal conduct' and 'provided a form of public punishment for a spouse who had knowingly and criminally violated his or her public vows of marriage.'"

Starting around the late 19th century, states began to evolve toward recognizing the equality of the sexes, and laws and practices such as coverture were eliminated over time. The shift from the State defining marriage as a male-dominated institution to being an institution that recognizes men and women as equals culminated in the 1970's with no-fault divorce. No-fault divorce epitomized the transformation of the institution of civil marriage because it meant that couples were allowed to define their own roles in the marriage relationship. It meant the State had relinquished its former practice of assigning roles to the spouses and would now allow the couple to divide the marriage responsibilities between themselves as they saw fit.

Now I'm going to do some dot-connecting. Here's my take on what the judge drew from these facts. Because the State no longer assigns gender roles according to the sex of the parties entering into marriage, from the standpoint of the law it no longer matters whether it is the man or the woman who acts as the provider or the dependent (or a little of both) in the marriage relationship, since the law no longer has the job of regulating those roles through threat of punishment. So when a couple comes before the civil authorities to marry or to obtain a divorce, the State no longer "sees" a man or a woman, because it no longer has the obligation to say, "You over here, you're the man and it's your role to do this. And you over here, you're the woman and it's your role to do that." Instead the State only recognizes that these are two people who have defined their marriage roles for themselves and have decided for themselves whether the agreement has been kept or broken. And if the State no longer holds an interest in whether it is the man or the woman who fulfills this or that marital duty, neither should it matter to the State whether it is two men or two women dividing the marital responsibilities between themselves. Judge Walker writes in his Conclusions of Law:

The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage . . . [T]he exclusion [of same-sex couples from civil marriage] exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.

Wrapping things up under this heading, the rest of the evidence shows how eliminating gender restrictions doesn't diminish the vitality of the marriage as an institution, and outlines the social, psychological, financial and legal benefits of marriage that ultimately serves the State's interest.

Next up, heading number two (and three if I can fit it in).

"Why I regret voting yes on Prop 8"

I found this blog post by a conservative Christian to be most encouraging: "Why I regret voting yes on Prop 8"

What I got out of reading the Prop. 8 ruling, part 2 of 7

Last time I explained how the proponents (pro-Prop. 8) only produced two expert witnesses to present evidence for their case. One witness's testimony was found to be "unreliable" and the testimony of the other was given "little weight" by the court. You can read my earlier post for further explanation on why this happened.

By the way, why do I keep referring to the pro-Prop. 8 side as "proponents" instead of "defendants"? Well, because that's how the judge referred to them in the ruling. And why, you ask, does he use that term? Originally the lawsuit was brought against the governor of California, the Attorney General, the Director and Deputy Director of Public Health, and the clerk recorders of Alameda County and Los Angeles County--the defendants. But they all declined to defend Prop. 8 in court, and actually the Attorney General even conceded that Prop. 8 was unconstitutional. Therefore, the people who organized the actual pro-Prop. 8 campaign stepped forward to take up the cause in place of the defendants as "defendant-intervenors." I believe that's why they are referred to as "proponents" and not "defendants."

Getting on with the plaintiffs' case: the plaintiffs argued that Prop. 8 violates both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I'll do my best to unpack that statement. Due process means the government can't arbitrarily interfere with your right to life, liberty or property. If they do interfere with a right so fundamental--and the right to marry does fall within that definition--there are only a handful of acceptable reasons the government can give to justify that interference (such as national security or some dire situation like that). So the plaintiffs are claiming that the right to marry the person of their choice is protected by the Due Process Clause and Prop. 8 violates that right.

Now the Equal Protection Clause says that no person can be denied equal protection of the laws. Basically, this has to do with discrimination, that everyone must be treated equally under the law. The plaintiffs argued that Prop. 8 interferes with their right to marry (contra Due Process) because it discriminates against them as gay men and lesbians (contra Equal Protection). They claimed that Prop. 8 discriminates on two counts: it denies them a right to marry the person of their choice (sex discrimination), and disadvantages them as a suspect class because they are gay and lesbian (sexual orientation discrimination).

Okay, now what is a suspect class? Suspect class refers to distinctions made by the government on the basis of race, national origin or alienage that cannot be used as a basis for discrimination except for maybe a few special, narrowly defined cases (which, in practice, amounts to almost never). My (somewhat shaky) understanding is that sexual orientation isn't officially on the suspect class list, but the plaintiffs were arguing it should be and in the ruling the judge seemed to agree it should be treated as such. Yet as we'll see later, it wasn't necessary for the judge to decide whether sexual orientation should be considered a suspect class in order for him to rule in favor of the plaintiffs--but now we're getting ahead of ourselves.

Well, I was going to write more but my brain has been thoroughly exercised by all this legalese. I had to read way too many Wikipedia articles just to get this far. (Law students, feel free to correct whatever errors I'm sure I have made.) Next up, the "Findings of Fact."

What I got out of reading the Prop. 8 ruling, part 1 of 7

I finally finished reading the Prop. 8 ruling this past weekend, all one hundred and thirty-six pages of it. I'm not a legal expert or anything so I'll do my best to explain in layman's terms what I got out of it. Except for some tedious parts in the "Findings of Facts" section, I found it to be a pretty smooth read.

From what I can tell, the ruling went the way it did because the plaintiffs (anti-Prop. 8) were prepared to make their case while the proponents (pro-Prop. 8) were not. The plaintiffs put forward eight lay witnesses, including the plaintiffs themselves (Kristin Perry, Sandra Stier, Jeffrey Zarrillo and Paul Katami). They also put forward nine expert witnesses, all of whom had Ph.D.s and had published peer-reviewed articles in the fields relevant to the case.

The proponents (pro-Prop. 8), on the other hand, only ended up putting forward two expert witnesses. On the first day of trial they announced they were withdrawing four of their expert witnesses because the witnesses were "concerned about their personal safety, and did not want to appear with any recording of any sort, whatsoever." So in response to their concern the judge stopped all public broadcasting of the trial. Yet the proponents never called upon these four witnesses even after public broadcasting was banned from the court, and gave no explanation why.

Interestingly, the plaintiffs were able to enter into evidence the deposition testimony of two of the proponents' withdrawn witnesses, "because their testimony supported the plaintiffs' claims." Katherine Young (Ph.D. in history of religions and comparative religions) of the proponents' side stated in her deposition that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality and that same sex couples express the same desire for love and commitment as opposite sex couples. Paul Nathanson (Ph.D. in religious studies), also of the proponents' side, testified at his deposition that religion lies at the heart of the hostility and violence directed at gays and lesbians, and that there is no evidence that children who are raised by same-sex couples fare worse than those raised by opposite sex couples.

The two expert witnesses that remained for the proponents were David Blankenhorn and Kenneth P. Miller. I guess Blankenhorn was now going to be their star witness, except that the judge had to throw out his testimony as unreliable. The main problem with Blankenhorn from the start was that he didn't have a degree in psychology, sociology or anthropology (he had a B.A. in social studies and an M.A. in social history), and he didn't have any peer-reviewed articles published in the areas that related to the case. His credentials simply paled in comparison to that of the expert witnesses on the plaintiffs' side.

The judge let him testify anyhow and found several problems with his testimony. Blankenhorn could not explain the methodology he used to arrive at his opinions, would merely quote from others to support his opinions without citing sources, made reference to research that did not support his claims, contradicted himself a lot, and refused to directly answer many questions upon cross examination. Here's a sample of one of the bizarre exchanges that took place: Blankenhorn says there are three universal rules that govern marriage: the rule of opposites (man/woman), the rule of two people, and the rule of sex. Even a polygamous marriage, he says, does not violate the rule of two.

Q: Is it your view that that man who has married one wife, and then another wife, and then another wife, and then another wife, and then another wife, and now has five wives, and they are all his wives at the same time, that that marriage is consistent with your rule of two?

A (Blankenhorn): I concur with Bronislaw Malinowski, and others, who say that that is consistent with the two rule of marriage."

Blankenhorn was also questioned about something he wrote in 2007: "I believe that today the principle of equal human dignity must apply to gay and lesbian persons. In that sense, insofar as we are a nation founded on this principle, we would be more American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were the day before." Blankenhorn testified that he wrote the statement and agreed with it. With all the unsupportable, contradictory and bizarre statements Blankenhorn was making, it's no wonder the judge found his testimony unreliable.

The second expert witness put forward by the proponents, Kenneth P. Miller (Ph.D. in political science), testified on the political power of gays and lesbians. The court found that "while Miller has significant experience with politics generally, he is not sufficiently familiar with gay and lesbian politics specifically to offer opinions on gay and lesbian political power." Miller's main argument was to point to political successes for gays and lesbians in California to show how they possessed significant political power. He admitted, however, that he has never focused his research specifically on gay and lesbian issues. He could not comment on anti-discrimination laws, anti-gay harassment at workplaces and schools, gay political power as compared with African-American political power, or explain his claim that religious groups support gays and lesbians when the polling data shows that 84% of regular churchgoers voted yes on Prop. 8. The judge wasn't as harsh with Miller as with Blankenhorn, but still found Miller's opinions to be of "little weight."

So you can see where all this is going. The proponents have utterly failed to make their case, leaving the door wide open for the plaintiffs to make theirs. But not only did they fail to make a case, the judge also noted that the proponents presented a very different set of arguments before the court than the arguments they presented to the voters in the Yes on 8 Campaign. No one on the proponents' side attempted to explain this discrepancy.

Next up, I'll attempt to sum up the evidence the plaintiffs presented in support of their case. To be continued...

Prop. 8 ruled unconstitutional

What are you doing here? Go to The Man himself, my good friend Andrew Sullivan, who spearheaded the civil same-sex movement almost single-handedly a couple of decades ago. He'll tell you all you need to know at The Daily Dish.

To get you started, you'll find the ruling here.

A list of facts found by Judge Walker is here.

And the latest followers willing to associate with this blog are...

Larry Huffman
jill
Daemon
Kristi Fites
Adam
uumomma
KyleJL

Thanks guys!

Don't mess with the geeks

Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church crew finally met their match at yesterday's Comic-Con in San Diego, where geeks were ready to meet him in battle with their chanting and counter-protest signs.

Unbeknownst to the dastardly fanatics of the Westboro Baptist Church, the good folks of San Diego's Comic-Con were prepared for their arrival with their own special brand of superhuman counter protesting chanting "WHAT DO WE WANT" "GAY SEX" "WHEN DO WE WANT IT" "NOW!" while brandishing ironic (and some sincere) signs. Simply stated: The eclectic assembly of nerdom's finest stood and delivered.

Enjoy.

Update: More images here.

Call for research participants

A reader was kind enough to alert me to this notice by the Marin Foundation. Their four year research study is coming to a conclusion on August 1. So far they have over 2,000 participants, but it is not too late to add more. If you are LGBT and you haven't already done so, please consider participating in the study. You can do so anonymously. In the Marin Foundation's words, "It takes about 5 minutes to complete, and all we are looking for is the dead honest truth."

I'm not a part of the Marin Foundation but I have read Andrew Marin's book, Love Is An Orientation and I highly recommend it. He is one of the few straight evangelical Christians out there who really gets gay and lesbian issues. He has become a powerful advocate for building bridges between the Christian and gay communities and he takes plenty of heat for it. I don't know the details about the research project but I do know I'm excited about it. The impact that pseudo-scientific "research" has had on the church through the likes of Paul Cameron and Family Research Council has been tragic. I am hopeful that new, credible research can help to educate Christians in facts, not myths.

Understanding your celibate gay friends

I'm a straight person who supports Side B gay Christians who are trying to live celibate, but that doesn't necessarily mean I support the way some churches treat their celibate gay members. Evidently there are many straight Christians who, in the name of purity, feel obligated to view with suspicion every friendship a gay Christian might strike up in the church with another person of the same sex. And if said friendship appears to develop into anything meaningful, then that justifies confronting the gay celibate person of having crossed a line. Based on what some of my Side B gay friends tell me, it sounds like some straight Christians won't be satisfied until they see them utterly reduced to living emotionally and socially sterile lives for the remainder of their existence. For the sake of the kingdom, of course.

If it were a case of two gay men or two gay women always hanging out exclusively while claiming to be celibate, I agree that ought to raise suspicion. But if a gay man and a straight man become friends (or a gay woman and a straight woman), then obviously nothing is going to happen, particularly if all the cards are on the table about orientation issues. I repeat: no sex will happen. Yes, it's always possible the gay friend might cross an emotional line with his or her same sex straight friend, in which case it's up to the straight friend to say something. That's a risk those two people took when they struck up this friendship, and life is full of risks. But I don't think the risk of the gay person possibly having those feelings justifies putting him or her under immediate surveillance by the Purity Police every time they are seen hanging out with a friend of the same sex.

Living celibate is tough, whether it is a temporary calling or lifelong. Even if you're a married Christian, surely you remember what it was like when you were single and saving yourself for marriage. Imagine what it would be like if you were committed to abstinence for life. For gay celibate Christians that's hard enough to deal with without having everyone at church spying out your efforts to make the kind of meaningful friendships that will help to replace that one special relationship you'll always be denied.

Christian purity is not achieved through constant scoldings of "Don't do this!" and "Don't do that!" (For all you Bible students see Colossians 2:20-23.) Purity within the church family has as much to do with building solid, wholesome relationships as it does with not acting inappropriately. Singles within the church, whether gay or straight, need many more friendships and social outlets than married people. Instead of having the depth of an exclusive relationship, singles need the breadth of many relationships to focus their energies upon and satisfy their social and emotional needs. Without question, the celibate gay Christian needs more friendships and social ties in order to maintain the purity of their walk. They need to be socially fed, not starved.

Let's get creative. If you're not comfortable with your gay brothers and sisters in Christ making friends with people of the same sex, maybe churches should encourage opposite sex friendships. Gay women who seek to live celibate should be encouraged to form friendships with straight men, and gay men with straight women. Frankly about half of my friends are gay men, so from my experience it works out quite nicely. The one problem I see is that most straights in the church have been conditioned to avoid opposite-sex friendships and consequently aren't that good at cultivating them. That's obviously because for straights, friendship with the opposite sex normally means risk of sexual sin whereas friendships with the same sex equals safety. Therefore at churches men tend to congregate with men and women with women. We even encourage that division by separating men's Bible studies from women's Bible studies and men's discipleship groups from women's discipleship groups. Everything about the way we structure our churches' social activity encourages the greatest intimacy in same sex relationships, and those habits are hard to break.

Or maybe we can encourage our celibate gay members to form friendships with married couples. That might be an even better solution, if only we can learn to break out of our single and married group cliques. This can be a problem too. No single person really cares about the merits of breastfeeding or how the baby's nap schedule is going no matter how interested they may try to be. Married people will have to break out of their married-with-children world and talk about deeper things. They will have to make room in their lives for their single friends. Singles, in turn, must learn to accept their married friends' lack of free time and spontaneity.

All this to say that sometimes it's just natural for single men to hang out with other single men and single women with other single women. This is not a conspiracy. If a gay celibate man befriends a straight single guy, you shouldn't automatically assume the absolute worst about his motives. Who else is he going to hang with? If a gay celibate woman bonds with a straight female friend, it doesn't necessarily mean something inappropriate is going on. Just chill for a second and try to reflect a little. Gay people need friends too, don't they?

The best Christian demonstration at a gay pride parade

I'm not a big fan of gay pride parades but, oh, how I would've loved to march with these guys. You'll be encouraged by this story. Two thumbs up for the Marin Foundation. You guys rock!

Another straight evangelical who knows what it's like

She's more Side A than me, but other than that . . . yep.

Latest batch of followers

You're awesome, of course.

Jenn Possible
gec44ac
Neo
Timothy Dann-Barrick
Amy E. Hall
N

Now we're talking

I don't hear Christians saying "homosexuality is a lifestyle choice" as often as I used to. Instead the catch phrase that's been floating around for some time goes like this. A gay person will say, "Homosexuality isn't a choice." Then the Christian will respond, "But it is a choice whether you act upon it or not."

In my opinion this retort has a "So there. Nyah!" sound to it. It's just a comeback to parry an argument from the gay side. It's also a way of reducing someone's entire life's struggle over self-acceptance, social rejection, questions of faith and moral introspection down to a simplistic choice of "acting upon it or not." And making them feel judged for it.

Let's break down this exchange and see if we can put some thought into what ought to be the Christian's response. First off, when a gay or lesbian person says, "Homosexuality isn't a choice" or "I didn't choose to be gay," they are referring to a charge that Christians have been leveling at them for a long time, namely, that they do choose their homosexuality. So this person is really airing a grievance, and you should be thankful that he or she is willing to put it that nicely, considering that they are really trying to say that the church has been perpetuating lies about them

Here is a translation of what that gay person might actually mean: "I have been told by my church, or by Christians, that I don't really have involuntary same-sex attractions that I can't help. That I don't really fall in love with people of the same sex or am capable of experiencing real feelings of caring and spiritual bonding. Instead I've been told that I am actually a heterosexual who has perverted myself, or been perverted by molestation, so that I am now such a screwed up human being that I no longer know how to love naturally, but have become a morally and sexually warped person who lusts after unnatural things.

"I have looked at myself and asked myself whether this is true. For a long time I was afraid to introspect for fear of what I might find. Some people have killed themselves because they could not sort out the truth from the lies they have been told about themselves. But I've made it through all that and I know that this story about my so-called 'choice' doesn't ring true with the narrative of my life. Nevertheless, because this lie still hangs around conservative Christian circles, my family and friends think horrible things about me and this has damaged my relationship with them beyond repair.

"So now I am sharing this with you to disabuse you of hurting someone in your life who may be gay or lesbian: I did not choose to be gay. I should know since I'm the one who's experiencing it. Will you take what I have to say seriously?"

Now this is the part where you, as a Christian, might miss the entire context from which this gay person is coming. Instead you will be tempted to fight back with your zinger of a response so that you can go back and tell everyone in your church small group that you "witnessed" to a homosexual this week.

Don't do that. You must resist temptation. Primarily because you are probably slapping down a wounded soul, which is very un-Jesus-like. And secondly, when you answer the protest "Homosexuality isn't a choice!" with "But you can choose whether to act upon it or not!" you are actually conceding their point. You have shifted your ground without acknowledging that you have done so. You have redefined "choice" from "choosing to be homosexual" to "choosing whether to act upon one's [unchosen] homosexuality." By making this sleight-of-hand switch, you acknowledge that this homosexuality--which someone can choose to act upon or not--is in fact an unchosen condition.

A better approach would be to drop the superiority act. Instead clothe yourself with humility and try to come up with some honest words to say. Here's an example: "You know, I have to admit that for a long time I thought people simply chose to be homosexual, but now I'm not so sure it's as simple as that. I once knew someone who was ex-gay. Sometimes it seemed like she was making progress in overcoming her same-sex attractions and sometimes she was very discouraged. It got me thinking about whether it's realistic to expect people to completely overcome their sinful conditions. Okay, I know that you don't agree that homosexuality is sinful, but as a Christian that's the perspective I'm coming from, and I hope I'm not offending you by sharing where I'm at with this whole issue.

"Anyhow, back to my ex-gay friend, I remember that she used to say that even if she couldn't choose away her homosexuality, she could at least choose not to act upon it. You might not agree with her, but speaking for myself I had nothing but respect for her. As you were just saying, she probably didn't choose to be homosexual, but I admired the choice that she did struggle to make for herself every day."

Now if at this point you still get attacked by that gay person, fine. Take it on the chin. At least you can have a clear conscience that you've "witnessed" with kindness and courtesy. But my bet is that you will have succeeded in avoiding a fruitless argument and will find yourself involved in a much more meaningful conversation.

Ted Haggard on church and state

Ted Haggard understands the separation between church and state. The first minute is awkward but it gets better after that. I've been reading up on Rev. Haggard's news recently, and I believe that he is a broken man who is seeking to be healed through the gospel. I'm not quite sure what direction he's ultimately planning to take, but at this point I know it would not be a good idea to write him off.

Having faith

I have to admit I was discouraged about missing the TEN (The Evangelical Network) conference a few weeks ago. People were flying in from out of state to attend and I am only a 90 minute drive from Irvine, yet it was impossible for me to go since I had to watch the kids while my husband was away for the weekend. It's not so much about missing that particular conference, but more about missing events like that in general. I rarely get out of the house except to attend church and the occasional mid-week fellowship meeting. That's just how it is when you have three relatively young kids and a husband who gets home late every night after a ninety-minute commute. The equation adds up to: not much of a life.

Meanwhile the landscape of gay Christian ministry has changed. It used to be that most gay Christians were disconnected and half-closeted and were only linked to one another through the Internet. Now those connections are being solidified into real communities through conferences like TEN and GCN and probably a few more cropping up that I'm not even aware of. As a result the issue of how gays and lesbians fit into the church is more visible than ever before. I heard that Urbana invited Andrew Marin to speak at one of their seminars. Urbana. I was blown away when I heard that. The presence of gay Christians in the church and the need for the church to be a credible witness to the secular gay community are actually creeping onto the radar screen of evangelical consciousness.

I'd like to be more involved with all that, but right now I have to accept the limitations that God has placed in my life. Christians like to use the metaphor of a "closed door." It means accepting that God has closed off one possible path and now you need to look for an "open door" to another opportunity. I guess I tend to view "closed doors" more as an opportunity to look around the room I feel stuck in and figure out what can be done within the confines of these four walls.

And maybe I am exactly where I need to be. The way I see it, two things need to change: 1) The church needs to become a compassionate, caring witness to the secular gay community. 2) Straight Christians need to stop marginalizing the gay Christians in their own churches and instead learn how to properly understand and minister to them. But the only path to making real progress in those two areas can be nothing short of a complete spiritual transformation at the very heart of the most conservative evangelical churches in our nation. The Bible-believing churches, the Republican hang-outs, the homeschooling hubs--yeah, those places.

In spite of the dysfunction, the screwed-up-ness, and the insufferable arrogance that often springs up from those circles, I have to admit that I still hold out a lot of hope for conservative, church-going people. In fact I'll admit even more. I think many of them are good people, maybe even some of the best people in our society. But with regard to this particular issue I think they abide under a dark shadow and have temporarily lost their way.

And I'm one of them--at least I fit more closely with this group than with any other I know. For one thing I'm obsessed with my Bible. Some people say I even teach the Bible well, but I'll never seek the pastorate because I don't believe in women's ordination (for myself, that is. If you want to get ordained as a woman, I'm not standing in your way). I'm still a registered Republican. I don't feel comfortable with the party anymore but I know I could never fit in with the Democrats, so I remain a nominal Republican and hope someday the party comes back to its senses. I homeschool. I'm not against public schools--in fact our oldest child has been attending a public school for the past two years. Yet at the same time I feel enough of that sense of being a "marginalized conservative" that I don't mind doing something risky like taking my children's education into my own hands.

I think, perhaps, I'm at this place in my life because that's where I'm supposed to be. Most of my conservative friends know I support gay rights and have gay friends and maintain a blog where I talk about "those things." Yet I'm sure they are relieved to see that I haven't--for example--pierced my nose. Or cut my hair short and dyed it purple. I don't send out mass emails inviting them to the local candlelight vigil. I don't suggest that we set up a panel discussion in our church to debate social issues. There's nothing wrong with those things if they're done in the right social context, but conservatives aren't comfortable with any of that stuff. Mention "candlelight vigils" and "panel discussions" to a conservative and they expect that next you'll be burning incense and talking about Mother God.

Conservative Christians "focus on their families" I guess. They work hard at their jobs, set up businesses, raise their kids, coach Little League, volunteer at the school, attend prayer meetings, go Christmas caroling. They will discuss the merits of breast-feeding versus formula. They will give advice on how to seed your lawn. They get excited about the classical education private school that's starting up in their neighborhood.

And I guess that's the sort of thing I've been busy with too. That and blogging. And thinking about bisexuality. And plotting how I might make the next GCN conference. But the point is, talking to conservative Christians about gay issues means first showing that you don't need to drive your faith or your values off a cliff in order to be open to these things. Maybe that's why I'm here in this "room" behind these walls and closed doors. Because the people I'm with are the ones I'm forming my closest relationships with. And I suppose it's no accident that I also love them, and believe in them.

Multiple hats

You may recall that on this blog I linked to the press release sent out by "The American College of Pediatricians" (ACPEDS) which sought to advise school superintendents and educators about homosexuality. The organization turned out to be just another promoter of NARTH and Focus on the Family viewpoints under the guise of an official-sounding name that might be mistaken for the more reputable American Academy of Pediatrics.

While I linked to the ACPEDS press release, I didn't take a look at the actual letter they sent out to the district superintendents. Turns out MSNBC's Rachel Maddow did and found . . . George Rekers' name on it. Take a look at the left margin of the letter under the heading "Pediatric Psychosocial Development Committee."

Small world? Not exactly. What we've learned about Rekers' career, and the multiple hats he has evidently worn, suggests that while there may appear to be many organizations touting the same message--NARTH, Focus on the Family, ACPEDS--they typically involve the same key players. Clearly these people want to give the appearance of having a multiplicity of professional opinions confirming their particular brand of science, when in reality there are only a small handful of "experts" doing the opining.

This may not be news to many gays and lesbians who have been following these organizations, but it is to most straight Christians who are targeted for this kind of deception. I've learned to read the fine print, check the footnotes, and take time to look at the sources cited. It's surprising how often the same names--Joseph Nicolosi, Charles Socarides, Paul Cameron, James Dobson--pop up. And now there's a new name I'll be looking for: George Rekers.

Laura Bush for gay marriage

First Dick and Lynne Cheney, then Cindy and Meghan McCain. Now Laura Bush.

Thankfully, this won't be you

There's only one thing I want to say with regard to George Rekers. If you are gay or lesbian, and you have found the courage to admit that to yourself, be thankful. Otherwise you might have ended up where Rekers has. You might have spent your life running. You might have hurt others by turning your self-hatred into hatred against the very people with whom you could identify all too well. You might have become so good at rationalizing that you might even have crafted it into a sophisticated doctrine, dressed it up in scientific terminology, and built a career on selling it to the public. All because you could not face the truth.

But if you have faced the truth, be very thankful.

And if you're straight and you know someone who is trying to grapple openly with the truth of his or her own homosexuality, please be supportive. Don't think of that person as "pushing homosexuality in your face." Rather see them as trying to save their own sanity, or perhaps even their own soul.

"GLBT"

I don't know if you've noticed, but I've resisted using the term GLBT or LGBT on this blog even though I'm well aware that most other gay-friendly blogs, books, magazines, etc. use it freely. It would be so nice if I could make my peace with these four letters. I wouldn't have to say "gay and lesbian" or "the gay community" all the time, or worry whether using the term "gay" sounds like it's excluding lesbians. GLBT just rolls off the tongue lickety-split. Simple.

My problem is the whole honesty thing that I tend to get obsessed with. Am I really addressing the needs of bisexual and/or transgender people on this blog? Not really. Not because I don't want to, but because I haven't had enough personal experience with bisexual and transgender individuals to make the claim that I can write intelligently about their situations. I don't feel right about using the term GLBT when I'm always going to be leaving the "B's" and "T's" out, or only addressing their situations tangentially. I imagine that bisexual people face different issues than gay and lesbian folks, and being transgender is certainly a very different experience than being either gay, lesbian or bisexual.

Actually I've had more transgender people write to me to share their stories than bisexual. I believe transgender people when they say they have always felt like a woman trapped inside a man's body, or vice versa. I used to think that maybe it was a problem of a mismatch between soul and body, a female soul in a male body for instance. But the latest scientific findings suggest that our sense of "maleness" and "femaleness" may reside in the brain, so perhaps it has something to do with the mismatch between people's brains and physical bodies, whatever that means. Then I'm aware of the people who want to deny that there is any such thing as maleness and femaleness but assert that we all exist in some kind of socially flexible gender continuum. I get the whole idea that we need to be more flexible in defining maleness and femaleness, but in the end I don't really buy into that theory, yet I'm not sure I can explain why. Anyhow, as you can see, I sort of grope around with these thoughts. They are certainly not well developed enough to claim that I am somehow addressing the needs of the transgender community by sharing them.

Bisexuals are even more of a mystery to me. I recall only one person writing to me and claiming to be bisexual, but without any explanation. I know that truly bisexual people are out there, but my difficulty in being able to nail down this issue is two-fold. First, I'm never sure how to distinguish between the people who are truly bisexual, and the people who are claiming to be bisexual but are really just warming up to the idea that they might be gay/lesbian. Second, I suspect many bisexual people feel no need to reveal themselves because they are able to pass themselves off as heterosexuals. I mean, if many gays and lesbians are able to masquerade as straights by dating and marrying opposite-sex partners, how much more successfully would bisexuals be able to remain closeted, especially since they can have satisfying sexual relationships with opposite-sex partners?

I do want bisexual and transgender people to read this blog, especially if they feel my musings benefit them. But I just don't want to add the "B" and "T" as if I'm promising to address their situations, then I just forget about them. I think that would be disrespectful. I believe the situation of transgender people is especially unique and complex and, frankly, I just feel bad when I see how they are sort of tagged on as the fourth letter of the GLBT grouping like an afterthought.

A second blog

I'm not sure what's gotten into me because I already have a thousand things going on in my life--but I've started a second blog. Don't worry, I'm still going to be keeping up this blog, but I'm starting the second blog to record my thoughts on the New Testament. The posts will be arranged so that anyone can use it for their own devotional readings. My ridiculously ambitious plan is to cover all the New Testament books from Matthew to Revelation. So I've decided to call it "Matthew to Revelation" (matthewtorevelation.blogspot.com).

In January 2009 I started a series on this blog called "Finding Jesus Christ" in which I put down thoughts for seekers on understanding who Jesus Christ is. I've felt a little uncomfortable trying to incorporate those studies onto this blog because I consider "More Musings On" to exist for the very narrow purpose of recording my musings on issues of faith and sexuality. On the other hand, I know that many gay and lesbian people are too estranged from the church to have a chance to explore issues of faith with anyone. So I kind of go back and forth about this series I've created. Maybe a separate Bible study blog altogether is a better solution. It won't be for seekers per se, but I'm planning to make the posts layperson-friendly.

I probably won't be posting every day and I don't know if I'll even make it through Matthew, let alone the entire New Testament. But I've always had a passion for understanding the Bible. I love doing Bible studies with the women at church and reading through the New Testament with my kids at home. I've considered for a long time whether I should write up some devotional materials and have them published. But that would involve a publishing company and all the politics and marketing schemes that come with that. Who needs it? Blogging is more accessible to people, and it's free. Didn't Jesus say, "Freely you have received, freely give"? Besides, in order to get published with a publishing company I'd probably have to adjust my writing style to sound all boring and dignified, instead of just being able to talk out my thoughts about the Scriptures like I do with my kids at the kitchen table.

Anyhow, I hope you'll check it out.

It's that time again...

Welcome to our newest followers!

Kimberly
Jimmie Lee
Josh
Jerica Truax
Greg
Kate Larson
Melissa Milage

The count is up to 58. Thanks, everyone!

New packaging, same message

You may have encountered a recent press release by an organization called the American College of Pediatricians that announces "College Cautions Educators About Sexual Orientation in Youth":

The College reminds school superintendents that it is not uncommon for adolescents to experience transient confusion about their sexual orientation and that most students will ultimately adopt a heterosexual orientation if not otherwise encouraged. For this reason, schools should not seek to develop policy which “affirms” or encourages these non-heterosexual attractions among students who may merely be experimenting or experiencing temporary sexual confusion. Such premature labeling can lead some adolescents to engage in homosexual behaviors that carry serious physical and mental health risks.

There is no scientific evidence that anyone is born gay or transgendered. Therefore, the College further advises that schools should not teach or imply to students that homosexual attraction is innate, always life-long and unchangeable. Research has shown that therapy to restore heterosexual attraction can be effective for many people.

I just thought I'd point out that the American College of Pediatricians is not the same as the mainstream organization you might have heard of called the American Academy of Pediatrics. If you dig a little deeper into the American College of Pediatricians website and find the list of books that they recommend for parents, you'll see Focus on the Family and James Dobson materials, plus a book called A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality by Joseph Nicolosi.

I'm just saying that a press release, a fancy website and an official sounding name can sound intimidating, but the bottom line of the organization is pretty much NARTH and Focus on the Family. Same old same old.

Update: The American Academy of Pediatrics speaks out about the confusion caused by the American College of Pediatricians. So does Dr. Warren Throckmorton.

Competing agendas

Here's a conversation I've had many times over. A fellow straight Christian who takes a conservative position on same-sex relationships wants to know whether celibacy is "the answer" for gay Christians. I respond that it might be a solution for some people who think they can handle it. But there's always the problem of what to do about the people who don't think they can handle it. I bring up depression. I point out how the depression caused by the strain of trying to avoid this one sin can lead to worse problems. It might lead to acting out, for instance. It might lead to abandoning faith. It might even lead to contemplating suicide.

And the fellow Christian I'm talking to says, "Uh-huh . . . uh-huh . . . okay, but--"

Okay, but?

At this point I'm wondering, "What's so 'okay but' about suicide?" We're talking suicide. SOO-IH-SIDE. Why do alarm bells not go off in this person's head when they hear that word?

But now I've come to realize something. To me this conversation is about real people, friends I care about. It's about hearing someone on the other end of the phone going off about how they feel like God hates them and they can't do this and there are no answers and nowhere to turn and what hope can I give them that would make their life worth living, huh??

But to this straight Christian I'm talking to, this conversation is largely a theological exercise. Nothing real is at stake. It's about coming to the right answer while staying within the bounds of orthodoxy.

In other words, when one person is talking about love and the other is talking about protecting certain doctrines, how can the two sides be having the same conversation?

I see this problem on a larger scale too. We evangelicals tend to get starry eyed when it comes to rubbing shoulders with our favorite evangelical celebs. Someone tells of shaking the hand of Pastor of a Certain Megachurch, or studying under Professor at a Respected Theological Seminary or having their Facebook friend request accepted by Author of a Popular Christian Book. But when it comes to, say, a mother seeking out advice for her gay son or daughter, can she entrust her loved one into the hands of these "experts"? Is that megachurch pastor going to advise her out of love for her gay son, or is he going to be thinking about what the board of elders would say if they found out "a homosexual" was in their midst? Is that popular author going to love her gay daughter as much as she does, or will he be thinking about protecting the book deal he's trying to close with IVP?

It's a problem, isn't it?

When people ask me what respected Christian leaders or theologians I've consulted to guide me on my views, I have to admit that I haven't done that much consulting. I have no idea what other people's agendas are. Can these strangers love my friends the way I do? Can they feel the weight of the responsibility of it? Or are they just concerned about what a publisher or a committee or the powers-that-be want them to say?

I think the responsibility of love falls on the individual alone. You can't fully entrust it to others. The path love carves out is too uncertain, with too many twists and turns to be able to write it up in a brochure and submit to a board for approval. It's not something you vote on, it's a journey you take alone. I don't scoff at love like I used to, as something that's liberal and mushy and unprincipled. Loving others the way Jesus commanded is by far the most frightening thing I've ever had to do.

What change?

Friends will sometimes send me links to articles that quote from the latest evangelical leader--a seminary prof, a radio show host, some megachurch pastor--who demonstrates an ability to speak about homosexuality in calm, moderate tones while even daring to suggest that we should work toward peace and understanding in the church. Nothing earth-shattering enough to post on this blog, but I see bits of progress here and there that tell me a quiet trend of questioning and self-examination is afoot in some pockets of the evangelical church. I expect that it will grow over time. In the meantime it's interesting to check out what people have to say, and observe how the gears are turning in people's minds as these more moderate evangelicals contemplate the issue of homosexuality.

But I've noticed one little catch phrase that keeps popping up. You know how evangelicals love using catch phrases, and once the usage of a certain phrase reaches a critical mass you hear everyone saying it left and right? Here is the one I keep hearing:

"While we know that change is possible for some [gay and lesbian] people, we need to consider that maybe it isn't possible for everyone."

Then the evangelical leader goes on to plead for Christian compassion and understanding for these leftover gay people, these stragglers who evidently couldn't get their act together enough to make the full conversion from gay to straight like all the other success stories out there.

My question is, What are all these success stories of "change" that they're talking about? Who has ever successfully and completely changed from gay to straight? Anyone I know? Anyone you know? I'm not saying that such change doesn't exist on the face of the earth, but I am saying that I have never encountered any of these changed people, and I've been researching and writing on the topic of homosexuality for the last ten years.

I realize that this catch phrase is thrown out there as a way to reach those evangelicals who cling with white-knuckled fervor to the idea that gays are an ultra-depraved sub-species of the human race who don't deserve anyone's compassion--not even Jesus's. The word to them is, "Oh, but they do deserve compassion, if you would just realize that while some people can change [satisfying the evangelical belief that most gays do choose to be homosexual at some subconscious level], you also have to understand that not all people can succeed at changing, you see."

These days I find myself categorized within this small crowd of straight evangelicals who are trying to talk to other straight evangelicals about being more understanding toward the gay community. I'm thankful that the category even exists, and I'm thankful the talk is happening. But am I supposed to go out there and say, "While we know that some people can change, blah blah blah . . ." even though I have never--in all my hundreds of contacts via email exchanges and coffee dates and phone calls and dinners and conferences and small groups--crossed paths with anyone who has told me a credible story of converting from being completely homosexual to being completely heterosexual? It is a problem of honesty.

I know you should "never say never," which is why I continue to be open to the possibility that somewhere out there, someone has successfully made the gay-to-straight conversion. But the silence is strange to me, because most people who have had a positive, unique, life-changing experience that might possibly help millions of other people tend to go public about it and make their fortune publishing how-to books and traveling the country holding conferences and seminars. I know the ex-gay movement is trying to pretend that that's what they're all about--but I'm talking about the real thing, and I'm still waiting.

In the meantime I can't bring myself to feed my Christian friends the line about all the supposed change that's going on out there, regardless of what they may want to hear. Instead I say, "It's possible someone has really gone through a genuine orientation change and I just haven't heard about it yet. So if you know of anybody, please tell that person to contact me. I'd love to meet them and ask how they did it."

What would Jesus do about gay weddings?

A Christian has the fear of God put in him and hastens to attend his gay friends' weddings:

I think I better go to the weddings of my gay friends. I'm almost scared not to. In some of his parables Jesus wasn't exactly fortune-cookie clear, but he didn't even almost waffle about his "Love your neighbor as yourself." He very explicitly declared that the "first and greatest commandment."

If there's any wiggle room there, I just don't see it.

Introducing our newest batch of followers

Thanks guys!

GMB
Adam
Christopher
Wayne Knockel
FB
Curt
Jessica

Finding Jesus Christ: Unexpectedly sane

Click here for an explanation about this series: "Finding Jesus Christ."

I've now had seven full weeks to de-tox from Christmas, which means I can safely talk about the incarnation of the Son of God without feeling haunted by unpleasant associations such as sleigh bells ringing, traffic jams at the shopping mall, and dead Christmas tree needles clogging up my vacuum cleaner. Thank God for February.

An infant child is born into the world and is greeted by people kneeling down to worship him, from dignified wise men who have served in royal courts, to lowly shepherds who nudge sheep through lonely hills. Yet when King Herod learns of it, he tries to kill the child, and his parents are forced to flee with him to a foreign country for a time. Talk about a welcome that could potentially mess with a kid's mind. He's barely out of the starting blocks of life and already people love him and people hate him, people worship him and people want to kill him. The closest analogy I can think of is the way the media tabloids treat big-name child celebrities. You see what kind of a screwed-up human being normally emerges when someone is alternately venerated and demonized by others their entire young life.

Parents don't help. Joseph and Mary were fairly grounded people, yet I can't imagine they were immune to the usual follies of human pride for being the chosen couple to raise the Messiah for crying out loud. A little bragging to the neighbors here, a little over-protectiveness of the child there, and soon the home in which young Jesus had to grow up becomes an atmosphere that nurtures the resentment of his younger siblings toward him. Any normal kid might develop an overblown sense of self-importance as either prodigy or victim, two sides of the same coin, potentially landing him in deep resentment.

Jesus, however, displayed no such angst, no sign of a growing psychosis. Far from becoming an egomaniac, he grew into a more humble man than the world has ever known. Far from embracing more self-protectiveness, he embraced increasingly more pain, more misunderstandings, and more suffering. Rejection by his siblings turned into rejection by his entire home town. He was a rabbi who was an outcast of the synagogue, gawked at by the crowds, persecuted by the authorities, and ill-used by even his friends. His fame turned to infamy, then betrayal, violence and death. His dying words were about forgiveness for his murderers and requesting care for his aging mother. He goes as quietly as if he were a nameless peasant.

I know of no person in human history who has received worship and adoration, coupled with relentless persecution, who did not become an egomaniac or develop a serious, crippling paranoia. Think back in history of emperors and dicators, of kings and sons of kings. Head cases, all of them.

So it's hard to explain where this ridiculously sane and balanced human being came from. Jesus' humility might be explained if he were super well-grounded in his own human limitations, if he went around saying stuff like, "I'm just a regular guy like you. I'm nobody special. I'm just your average Joe Israelite doing my best to serve God." That's what you'd expect to hear from someone like Gandhi, or Mother Teresa. Yet Jesus came with no such self-effacing message. Instead he went around saying, "Truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am" (the Hebrew expression for "I have always existed"). "I am the living bread that came down from heaven." "I and the Father are one." How could he be humble and sane and claim to be God who has come down to earth from heaven?

The only crime Jesus was charged with during his lifetime was, essentially, claiming to be the Son of God. A man who claims to be divine either will prove himself to be the worst egomaniac that ever lived, or he will back up his claim with a perfectly lived life. There are only two choices as far as I can see. You make the call.

"Gay lifestyle" revealed

The (In)Famous SMT has done the service of providing us with an inside look at his "gay lifestyle." Pastors and preachers who regularly condemn such lifestyles from the pulpit would do well to pay attention in this rare moment of disclosure:

My Gay Lifestyle
Weekdays
1. Wake-up ~7:00 AM
1. Dress, brush teeth, etc.
2. Go to class 9:00 AM – 12:00/12:30 PM
1. Eat lunch in the 15 minutes I have to spare everyday.
3. More class 1:00 PM – 5:00 PM
1. 4 hour lab section are alternately draining and exciting
4. Lab research, homework, food, and 1 30-min nap 5:00 PM – 12:00/1:00 AM
5. Sleep

Saturday
1. Wake-up ~ 8:00 AM
2. Lab research, homework 9:00 AM – 12:30 PM
3. Club Meeting 1:00 PM – 4:30 PM
1. Food!
4. Lab research, homework, food 5:00 PM – 12:00 AM
5. Sleep

Sunday
1. Wake-up ~8:00 AM
2. Catch Bus at 9:50 AM
3. Set-up for Church A 10:15 – 10:35 AM
4. Church A Service 10:45 AM – 2:00 PM
5. Walk back to campus
6. Lab research, homework 3:00 – 4:30 PM
7. Subway
8. Church B 5:00PM – 9:00 PM
9. Subway
10. Lab research, homework, food, nap 9:30 PM – 2:00 AM
11. Sleep

Shocking, I know.

Beyond the silence, continued

My previous post "Beyond the Silence" seems to have struck a chord with a lot of you. So let me add a few more thoughts on how straights should go about "continuing the conversation" with a gay friend or family member who comes out to you.

One thing I have found to be true for myself, and for many straights who think seriously about gay issues, is that it's perfectly natural for your thoughts to be constantly evolving. Once you learn to tune in to the debate, you become aware of how many different angles and perspectives are being discussed all the time: gay marriage, gays in the military, hate crimes laws, the teaching of the Bible, the attitudes of the church, coming out stories, ex-gay ministries, and so forth. For the thoughtful person, these debates have a way of injecting small insights into your brain bit by bit so that you are constantly adjusting your attitude toward homosexuality. You confront contradictions in your thinking. You make connections. You have mini "aha!" moments that hit you at odd times of the day.

So if your friend or family member has already come out to you as gay and if, at the time, in your panic, you were only able to produce some half-audible, highly dissatisfying mumble, don't let that response stand as a Monument For All Time representing your attitude toward homosexuality. You were taken off guard. You had a brain freeze. You hadn't had a chance to get out of the starting blocks in this journey. But now you're off, slowly jogging along, taking in the sights.

Now that you've had a chance to recover and think a little, you can let that gay friend or family member know that the gears of your mind are turning upstairs. Just because you botched it when they first came out to you doesn't mean you can't recover. In fact, you should just take for granted that most people botch it--and that's forgivable--but now you're on your feet ready to think coherent thoughts. They don't have to be profound. This is bit by bit, remember?

Probably the safest way of bringing up "the topic" is to talk about some article you read or something you saw on TV. Nowadays there is no shortage of news stories, human interest stories, editorials, political debates, interviews, court cases or comedy sketches on gay-related topics. "The other day I saw an interview of this guy who got kicked out of the military just because he's gay. That sucks, man." That's a conversation you can have with a gay friend in the car while driving to 7-Eleven to grab some beer. Or drop them an email. "Hey, man. Long time no talk. I saw this today and was wondering what you think. (Cut and paste link to article or YouTube on gay-related subject.)"

It's pretty difficult for someone who is gay to bring this stuff up with you. They don't want you to accuse them of being "pushy," or of coming off like an "activist." It's better when you take the initiative. Even if you never end up having a deep conversation, the little gestures do make a difference in a relationship. And if you're a Christian, there's no better way to let that person know that the love you claim to have for them in Christ is genuine.

Cindy McCain for gay marriage

Cindy McCain comes out publicly against Prop. 8., posing for a NOH8 ad. She follows the lead of her daughter, Meghan McCain, who posed for a NOH8 ad before. Meanwhile, Republican attorney Ted Olson continues to challenge Prop. 8 at a federal court in San Francisco . . .

What's the Republican party coming to? For some, maybe it's a realization that they want to be on the right side of the issue when history looks back and recognizes this as a civil rights struggle.

Pat opened his trap again, and it's not good

According to Pat Robertson, the Haitians are "cursed" because they once "swore a pact to the devil" to gain their freedom from the French.



So in the mind of Pat Robertson and his generation of culture warrior Christians, this is what it means to show "compassion" in the face of tragedy? Can anything he says be taken as a true Christian perspective anymore?

Which reminds me. Don't forget to sign the petition "Christians Against Pat Speaking." The link is always available in my sidebar.

HT: My appalled Christian FB friends

Update: The devil responds.

Ted Olson's conservative case for gay marriage

Attorney Ted Olson, renown champion of conservative and Republican causes, is currently involved in persuading a federal court to invalidate Proposition 8, a voter-approved measure that overturned the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry in California in 2008. His article, "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage," appears in Newsweek today.

Reactions to our lawsuit have reinforced for me these essential truths. I have certainly heard anger, resentment, and hostility, and words like "betrayal" and other pointedly graphic criticism. But mostly I have been overwhelmed by expressions of gratitude and good will from persons in all walks of life, including, I might add, from many conservatives and libertarians whose names might surprise. I have been particularly moved by many personal renditions of how lonely and personally destructive it is to be treated as an outcast and how meaningful it will be to be respected by our laws and civil institutions as an American, entitled to equality and dignity. I have no doubt that we are on the right side of this battle, the right side of the law, and the right side of history.

In 1996 Andrew Sullivan made the first conservative case for civil same-sex marriage in his book Virtually Normal. After reading his arguments in 2000 I became persuaded that I could make a conservative Christian case for civil same-sex marriage, aimed at Christians who might think homosexual practice is sinful but weren't interested in hindering the freedoms of those who would disagree. Evidently my essay was only one example of how Sullivan's ideas were spreading. Now, six years after I was forced out of my old denomination for expressing my views, Olson's article appears in today's Newsweek. The snowball has long been gathering speed and momentum. Given enough time, justice and truth will eventually win out.

Welcome, newest followers!

It's time to recognize a new batch of followers. We've now hit the 45 mark. Thanks for joining, you guys!

Meadowlark
psevert
Bro.Chrystoph Damien, OCM
Alli
SweetLadyJ ChristianLesbian
G#

Beyond the silence

I've noticed how the younger generation of evangelicals seems to have taken to heart the damage that the culture war has done to our Christian witness in this country. Movements like the emerging church, the "red letter Christians," and the popularity of pacifist politics show that young evangelicals are seeking to make a break from the past and strike out in new, even controversial, directions. I even see this generation of Christians making a concerted effort not to come off as hostile toward gays and lesbians, nuancing their opinions about homosexuality and steering clear of anything that smacks of homophobia.

The problem I hear about now, especially from young gays who attend evangelical churches or Christian colleges, is not that fellow Christians are hostile toward them, but rather they treat their homosexuality with silence. Complete deathly silence. No one says a word. One reader told me, "I came out to my brother a year ago but he hasn't mentioned it to me since. It's almost like I never came out to him at all."

I wonder if many straight Christians are so afraid of saying the wrong thing they've become utterly paralyzed. Silence is certainly better than screaming "pervert!" at somebody and calling up his pastor to get him excommunicated. But when a gay friend or family member comes out to you, he or she is signaling that they want the silence to be broken. They want the door of conversation to be open from now on. It doesn't have to be a daily topic of discussion, but it should lead to something, and you need to keep in mind that anyone who comes out to you is purposely making him- or herself vulnerable to whatever your response might be. That takes guts. Giving no response at all, ever, is a terrible way to react.

Possibly the best response you can give, if it's an honest one, is: "This doesn't change anything about our friendship as far as I'm concerned," or, "I love you just the same." If you can't say anything quite that positive, you should say something that's both honest and decent: "This has really thrown me for a loop. Is it alright if I get back to you after I've collected my thoughts?" And then make sure you get back to them. If someone was brave enough to come out to you, you should at least try to be brave enough to follow up as promised.

So what is a "safe" way to advance the discussion? Here are some suggestions:

* When did you first realize you were gay? (I just want to listen and understand where you're coming from.)

* Have you told anyone else besides me? (I'd like to know if I should keep this under wraps, or if you want to be open only with certain people, or if you want to be completely open with everyone.)

* Do you plan to tell your family/friends? How have your family/friends reacted? (I'd like to lend my moral support in case anyone's been a jerk to you.)

* How has going to church been for you lately? (I'm wondering if you still feel safe and comfortable there.)

* How can I pray for you? (I'm open to seeing what God will do in your life, even if it doesn't end up fitting into my "box.")

Goodbye 2009

A meditation on the passage of time:

"Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher,
"Vanity of vanities! All is vanity."
What advantage does man have in all his work
Which he does under the sun?
A generation goes and a generation comes,
But the earth remains forever.
Also, the sun rises and the sun sets,
And hastening to its place it rises there again.
Blowing toward the south, then turning toward the north,
The wind continues swirling along,
And on its circular courses the wind returns.
All the rivers flow into the sea, yet the sea is not full.
To the place where the rivers flow, there they flow again.
All things are wearisome; man is not able to tell it.
The eye is not satisfied with seeing
Nor is the ear filled with hearing.
That which has been is that which will be,
And that which has been done is that which will be done.
So, there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there anything of which one might say, "See this, it is new"?
Already it has existed for ages which were before us.
There is no remembrance of earlier things;
And also of the later things which will occur,
There will be for them no remembrance among those who will come later still.

- Ecclesiastes 1:2-11

Rev. Rick Warren's statement

Now this is a statement I can get excited about.



A written copy can be found here.

Frankly, when I heard yesterday that Rev. Rick Warren had come out with a statement opposing the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality bill, I imagined that he dispensed upon us another unconvincing, rear-end covering, washing-my-hands-of-any-responsibility type statement to toss out to the media and nothing more. But I think the difference here is that Warren is not just making a public statement to absolve himself. He is addressing Ugandan pastors and churches directly, using his influence and personal connections with them to urge them to oppose the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. I do not see empty talk here, but an appeal that may very well make a difference.

I particularly like how he makes arguments from Scripture that would appeal specifically to a conservative Christian Ugandan audience. In doing so, he has made himself an easy target for the liberal and secular media, but that makes me respect him more, because it shows the genuineness of his effort to convince the audience he is addressing, whose voice will undoubtedly play a key role in the outcome of this bill. I'm impressed.

"I do think you have blood on your hands"

If your book was being used to promote the legal execution of gay people in a foreign country, wouldn't you be a tad more outraged than this guy?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

You know the country's going down the tubes . . .

. . . when you can't even get arrested for speaking out publicly against homosexuality.

Conservative Christian ministers from across the land, determined to test the bounds of a new law punishing anti-gay hate crimes, assembled outside the Justice Department on Monday to denounce the sin of homosexuality and see whether they would be charged with lawbreaking.

Anything other than sex "between a male and his wedded wife," announced the Rev. Paul Blair, "is a perversion, and the Bible says that homosexuality is in fact an abomination."

No arrest was made . . .

. . . In fact, the few cops in attendance were paying no attention to the speakers, instead talking among themselves and checking their BlackBerrys.

Side B interview on GCN Radio

In case you aren't already aware, earlier this week GCN Radio posted their interview of my friend Wesley Hill on what it means to be a Side B Christian. (You may recall that Wesley is the author of the article "'A Few Like You': Will the Church Be the Church for Homosexual Christians?" published by Ransom Fellowship and mentioned on this blog last March.) Whether you are a gay or straight Christian, I think you will be surprised and challenged by what he has to say.

I personally think being a Side B gay Christian is the toughest calling of all. They don't fit in with the majority of "out" gay Christians, who are mainly Side A. They aren't warmly embraced by the conservative church since they reject the label of "ex-gay." And they don't have the comfort of having a life partner to support them through these difficulties.

Yet Side B'ers will make the biggest impact on the conservative church for the benefit of all gay Christians because of two reasons: 1) Their commitment to celibacy means they can't be dismissed out-of-hand by straight Christians as sexually immoral. 2) They are insisting on being called "gay" and are not letting straights get away with thinking that homosexuality is something you can just detox from.

Side B gay Christians are in the best position to change minds in the toughest pockets of the conservative Christian church, and yet they tend to be the most marginalized group among a marginalized group. They very much need our encouragement, support and prayers.

Welcome to our new followers

It's time to welcome a new group of followers to this blog. Thanks for joining, everyone!

Jeff
J.Bags
Lori D
Raynor
Whitney
Lynda Mounts
Peter
mishkan
Freeing Julius
Wesley
Jon Trouten
Joelle Wolters

On an administrative note, from now on you'll have to sign in with Google in order to leave a comment in the comments section. Sorry for the inconvenience, but it's to avoid getting spam and I had to delete one for the first time this morning.

Generally I'm skeptical of comments sections on blogs. I've only recently enabled this blog's just to see how things go. So far I'm pleased with the quality and civility of the discussion. Thank you, everyone. I know what an achievement that is, especially for the kinds of topics we are discussing.

But, just to warn you, the moment I see things starting to go south, I'm canning it.

The Side A/Side B debate

As many of you know, there is a debate among gay Christians about what the Bible teaches regarding same-sex sexual relationships. "Side A" believes that God approves of same-sex sexual relationships and that living a chaste life means abstaining from sex prior to entering into same-sex marriage. "Side B" believes that God does not approve of same-sex sexual relationships and that living a chaste life means living celibate (or, in some cases, being married to an opposite-sex partner, where both partners know it is a "mixed orientation" marriage). In my writings I have sometimes referred to Side A as the "affirming" position and Side B as the "traditional" position. I just like the idea of using terms that aren't judgmental or inflammatory when engaging in this debate.

Yet even though I take the Side B position, more than half of my gay Christian friends are Side A and we get along just fine. Why is that? I first began to realize that there were Side A evangelical Christians out there when I began meeting them at gay churches and gay Christian Bible studies. I'd worship with them, discuss the Scriptures, share testmonies and prayer requests. A group of Side A Christians prayed for me and supported me during the entire controversy I went through with my old denomination. When you experience that kind of close fellowship with one another, you can't deny the presence of the Holy Spirit is among you.

I also came to understand that many Side A evangelicals have scripturally-based reasons for believing as they do. Some arguments are very sound while others I can't agree with. But I agree with them on all the important things: the central doctrines of the gospel and the saving work of Jesus Christ. I just don't agree with their understanding of what the Bible teaches about the specific issue of whether homosexual sexual relations is sinful.

So this is how I've come to think of our differences. Suppose I were asked to write out a list of sins for which I think Jesus died on the cross. This list would represent my interpretation of what Scripture teaches to be sin. I might put down a thousand things on that list, one of which would be homosexual sexual relations. Then I'd leave a large section at the bottom of the paper blank for all the sins I might have left out, perhaps out of ignorance or self-deception or whatever. A Side A Christian might do the exact same thing, except he or she excludes homosexual sexual relations from their list and instead includes the sin of thinking homosexual sexual relations is a sin. So we have both included something on our list that the other person has excluded, and excluded something that the other has included. And we both acknowledge that our own lists are probably very flawed.

Now when we both come before Jesus to ask for forgiveness of our sins, we know that he pays for everything regardless of whether we have included them on our "list" or not. We both come with humility of mind, trusting that his blood will cover not just the sins we've acknowledged but also the ones we've failed to acknowledge because of ignorance, prejudice, hardness of heart, or whatever. So in the end does it really matter if a Side A Christian and a Side B Christian don't agree with each other's "lists"?

The main thing is that we both come before Christ knowing that he can remove all our transgressions, whether we fully understand what those transgressions are or not. In Christ there are no more lists. Our lists have been wiped clean, both what was on it and what we failed to put on them. And since we both come away from the throne of grace so thoroughly cleansed and perfected in Christ's righteousness, can't we forgive each other those disagreements that the blood of Christ has ultimately made irrelevant?

Welcome, GCN Radio listeners

Thanks, GCN Radio listeners, for dropping by to visit my blog. I've been writing on the topic of "Christianity, Homosexuality and the Bible" over a span of nine years, which has ended up being a lot of writing. The links to many of the articles I referred to during the interview can be found along the sidebar of this blog. Nevertheless, I thought I'd provide a list of them right here for your convenience, along with links to other writings that you might be interested in.

(I apologize in advance for the crummy format of some of these older articles. I really need a web designer who can update my original MusingsOn.com site but somehow haven't gotten around to finding one yet.)

"A Conservative Christian Case for Civil Same-Sex Marriage"

"Gregg and Joel." The story of my gay neighbors.

"A Log of My Progress, 1999-2001." My journey toward understanding homosexuality.

Chronology and documents relating to the controversy in my old denomination.

"The Broken Hearts' Club: My Movie Experience"

Some highlights from this blog:

"Is homosexuality lust or love?"

"How Christians and gays talk past each other." Three part series.

"What it's like to be you." What straight Christians need to understand about celibate gay Christians.

My critique of ex-gay testimonies here and here.

"Suicide." Three-part series.

My interview with GCN Radio is up

My interview on Gay Christian Network Radio is now available at the GCN website. Don't forget to scroll down the page and check out other GCN Radio programs. I felt honored to be invited as a radio guest for what I consider to be one of the hippest, coolest gay Christian ministries out there today.

GCN Radio Interview

I was interviewed this morning by Justin Lee and Aaron Sperling for Gay Christian Network (GCN) Radio. It's an Internet radio show that you can download from GCN's website. I thought I was going to be all nervous and dry-throated but I actually had a good time. I'm not sure when the recording of my interview will be available. I'll let you guys know.

"The Vast Fields of Ordinary" by Nick Burd

I know we're discussing Marin's book, but I have another recommendation, a young adult novel I just finished by Nick Burd called The Vast Fields of Ordinary. It's about a gay teenager coming out in the suburbs of Iowa. There's a subtle beauty to the writing, and the story feels so real you just keep turning pages until you're done. I won't say any more about it than that. Thanks to my friend Wes for a great recommendation.

Quote for the day

[Love Is an Orientation] is a book that will put most of you into an immediate struggle. You are going to read what Marin says about the situation between Evangelicals and the Gay community with intense appreciation, but part of your ingrained evangelical training will be talking to you the whole time, telling you to stop thinking about anything other than the abomination of Gay sex and the verses that apply. You’ll want to shut it and you’ll want to keep reading. You’ll know you need this and you aren’t hearing it anywhere else, but part of you will say you’re slipping into squishy, emerging liberalism.

You aren’t. You are applying the Gospel.

Internet Monk

Thoughts on "Love Is an Orientation" by Andrew Marin

I'm having a hard time evaluating a book that hasn't so much enlightened me as it has left me with the strange impression that I was reading a chapter out of The Story of My Life. Andrew Marin's Love Is an Orientation has organized, systematized and articulated, better than I ever could, just about everything I've thought and experienced over the last nine years in my own outreach to the gay and lesbian community, and more. Marin has been laboring in his own ministry for ten years, except much more intensely and in a situation that is far more immersed. Nevertheless, I've learned from reading his book that we've had a lot of the same experiences, thought a lot of the same things, and come to a lot of the same conclusions. Dude, where have you been all my life?

Love Is an Orientation was written as a handbook for evangelical Christians who want to make a serious attempt at crossing the barriers that separate them from the GLBT community. It is designed to give Christians a brain make-over in their approach to understanding who gay people are and how to love them with the love of Christ. The best kind of review for this book ought to be written by a Regular Joe Christian who can point out stuff like, "I was so convicted when Marin wrote this," "I was so enlightened when he explained this to me," "I didn't want to face this fact about myself, but I had to." That kind of perspective can give us a true idea of whether Marin has accomplished what he intended in writing this book.

I can't give you that perspective because I was going through a whole different set of thoughts and emotions. For what it's worth, I'll explain. First, I had the weird experience of thinking I was looking at myself in a mirror, since Marin's experiences and my own were so alike: "I've noticed that, too." "I've been in that situation." "I've had those fears." "I've taken that approach before." Then, once I accepted the fact that he and I have evidently been living in parallel universes over the last decade, I started to feel jealous: "How come he gets to move his family to Boystown and work with the GLBT community 24/7? I'm stuck here at home in the suburbs with three kids, struggling just to get a couple of hours of blogtime a week. Grr!"

Then, once I accepted that my lot in life is squeezing in only a handful of coffee shop meetings a year with my gay friends, while Marin has gotten as far as starting an entire organization (The Marin Foundation) dedicated to full-time outreach to the GLBT community, I started to feel kind of sad as I read on. Not for myself and all the selfish reasons I just mentioned. Not exactly. This is the part that's hard to explain.

I felt sad because as I read this very helpful guidebook, in which Marin explains in clear, step-by-step terms how Christians can be more humble, more teachable, more loving, and more persevering in reaching out to the gay community, a certain realization began creeping up on me, though Marin never once elucidated on it. I knew that in order to gather this kind of information, in order to come to these kinds of conclusions, you have to have experienced some pretty hard knocks. You've gone down blind alleys. You've said wrong things and beat yourself up later. You've been bewildered and humiliated and rejected a few more times than you would've liked. You've had to tear yourself down and build yourself back up from the inside out. You've felt like a failure. Marin refers to some of these experiences, mainly to make himself an object lession for his readers on what to do or not do. But I could tell there was a lot more there between the lines. I think what made me sad--and I don't even know if "sad" is the right word--was seeing how Marin was largely restrained about revealing what goes on beneath the surface, which made me wonder what all this might be costing him as he abandons himself daily to what is perhaps the most neglected mission field of our time.

When you read this book you'll want to discuss Marin's ideas and critique his strategies and analyze what he says from a myriad of angles. But don't get so caught up in the debate that you forget to say a prayer for him, his family and the Marin Foundation. For I imagine that what they've had to suffer and sacrifice to accomplish what they've done so far is something that can only be rewarded at the gates of eternity.

"God made me this way"

An unlikely crowd is embracing the argument. A humorous twist from The Onion .

Thanks, followers!

Looks like the pattern has been that I post the names of new followers by increments of nine. We've hit the 27 mark now. Here's the latest batch (with apologies to those of you who have been on my sidebar for awhile):

Kate
Holly Killen
Eugene
danielle nelson
Joe Branca
Jonathan
Lead_Worshiper
Tim Morris
Secretly Gay

Suicide, part 3

We are told at the beginning of the Book of Job how the whole deal got started. God and Satan were having a dispute over whether Job worshipped God from a true heart or whether his motives were purely mercenary. My guess is that this conversation was only a small snippet of some ancient dispute between God and Satan from way back. Satan was the one who had tricked Adam and Eve into eating the forbidden fruit after all. He'd scored one against God there, so he figured Job would be more easy prey. He was saying that all he would have to do is destroy everything Job had and Job would renounce God in a heartbeat. God had more confidence in Job than that. He told Satan to go for it.

Job, knowing nothing about all this, saw everything he'd worked for in his life get trashed for no apparent reason. He managed to hang in there until, in a second wave of affliction, Satan struck him from head to toe with boils and he finally broke. He asked God what he did to deserve this. He demanded to know what sin he committed that brought this on. He wondered if God was capable of wickedness. He wondered if God had become perverse. He accused God of pulling rank on him--the rank of being too big, too powerful and too righteous to have to answer to a lowly mortal. The problem with God was . . . he was God.

O that a man might plead with God
As a man with his neighbor!
(Job 16:21)

In the end God answered Job, but it's not quite what we expect. God could have told Job about his conversation with Satan. He could have explained to Job that it was just a test of faith, that he didn't commit any great sin. He could have defended himself point by point against Job's accusations that he was being unjust, reckless and aloof.

But God knew that Job, in the throes of his sufferings, wasn't looking for "an answer." Job didn't want to be handed a list of reasons. "Well, you see, I'm conducting this test . . . it'll work together for the cosmic good . . . you'll get your life back when it's over . . ." None of that. The answer God gave was the only one Job craved. God appeared to him.

I had heard of Thee by the hearing of the ear,
But now my eye sees Thee. (Job 42:5)

Job saw God with his own eyes and that was all the answer he needed. God rebuked him, too, (rather mildly considering the intensity of Job's accusations) and didn't answer him point by point. He reminded Job that his ways were beyond understanding. He appealed to everything about his wisdom and greatness that Job already knew but had become blinded to in the thickness of his sorrows. Essentially God asked him, "Don't you remember who I am and why you once trusted me?"

Job had to accept that there were reasons behind his sufferings he could never understand. Instead he had to find comfort in the presence of the One who held those answers. In the end Job was rewarded and God restored to him all that he had lost. But like all the Old Testament books, the message that the Book of Job contains is only a partial answer. Because even as we come to the close of the story, none of Job's accusations against God were ever answered. They still remained. How God can afflict us with no explanation. How God is accountable to no one and is too terrifying to approach with a complaint. How God is just too big and powerful for us to deal with when we are weak and crippled and in pain.

In other words, even God could not remain satisfied with the answer he gave Job. Not while those accusations still stood. His fuller answer was yet to come in the New Testament, and once again he knew that our souls would not be content with a dry list of reasons. We crave fellowship with a God who is not only willing to draw near but to come down, find out what it's like to be us, walk in our shoes, suffer as we suffer, in crippling, excruciating pain. The only answer God could give to Job was to become a man himself.

He was despised and forsaken of men,
A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
And like one from whom men hide their face,
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God and afflicted.
(Isaiah 53:3-4)

Jesus excelled Job both in righteousness and in suffering. He knew what it was like to be accused and afflicted and rejected for no apparent reason. As the Son of God, his fellowship with his Father sustained him through these hardships. Yet as he drew nearer to the moment of his death, as the persecution intensified and his friends fell away and he found himself captured and tortured and condemned, he sought for God yet encountered only silence. In his most desperate hour, God found himself abandoned by God. We are told that when Jesus hung on the cross, he cried out,

"My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"
(Matthew 27:46)

If you've ever been there, you know that this is not a question. Jesus was not asking to be told, "You have to be forsaken so you can bear the sins of the world. It's part of the plan. The atonement, remember?" Jesus knew that, but for him, in that moment, this was not an answer. He was alone, his heart was breaking, he was suffering something no righteous man, no divine being, should ever have to suffer. And he wanted to know why.

Sometimes the only comfort you can give to someone with a broken heart is to say, "I know." At one time God could not say this to us; but he wanted to. So he did what it took to be able to say it. God was forsaken. God broke. God asked the question that was not really a question. It was his final answer to Job.