The whole first-grade-field-trip-to-gay-wedding deal

I'm sure you've heard of the latest hype about "First Graders Taken to San Fransciso City Hall for Gay Wedding." A pro-Prop. 8 mailer I received yesterday says:

Just recently in San Francisco, first grade students were taken on a school-sponsored field trip to a gay wedding. The school's principal called it 'a teachable moment.' Gay marriage WILL be taught in California public schools if we don't pass Proposition 8.

A public school took a first grade class to see a gay wedding to indoctrinate children on the moral equivalence between gay and straight marriages! We have to vote for Prop. 8 or else this practice will become widespread!

Breathe, breathe. All right, now let's consider some facts that will help us better understand what was going on here:

1. The wedding the children attended was for their school teacher, Erin Carder, who was marrying her partner, Kerri McCoy.

2. The field trip was not arranged by the teacher or the school principal. It was arranged by one of the parents, with the school's permission.

3. The trip was meant to be a surprise for Ms. Carder. The students took a Muni bus then walked a block to City Hall. They surprised their teacher by blowing bubbles and throwing rose petals as she and her partner emerged from City Hall, then they mobbed Ms. Carder with hugs.

4. It appears that some of the parents attended the wedding with their children. Take a look at these photos and decide for yourself.

5. As with all school field trips, parents have a right to opt their children out. Two families did.

6. The school is Creative Arts Charter School. I think of charter schools as sort of a hybrid between a public and private school. Like a public school they are government funded, but like a private school they are allowed a certain amount of freedom to chart their own educational course. Creative Arts Charter School uses innovative teaching methods, relies heavily on parental involvement (parents are required to volunteer 40 hours a year at the school) and refers to experience-based learning as "a teachable moment" (a phrase that is mocked by the pro-Prop. 8 mailer). They are a small, community-based, K-8 school with only eleven classroom teachers and less than 200 students. In other words, they are far from your typical public school.

So . . . will voting for Prop. 8 prevent charter school parents from arranging surprise field trips to the weddings of well-loved first grade teachers? The difference is maybe a parent will arrange for the school kids to surprise their teacher at her civil-union ceremony instead of her wedding ceremony. Is it worth amending the state constitution to deny an entire segment of the California population their marriage rights to achieve this difference? Just asking.

Rebuttal to pro-Prop. 8 campaign claims . . . by a Mormon

Here I've been sinking the few hours of the day I have left in my schedule into investigating the claims of the pro-Proposition 8 campaign, and someone has already done it for me!

Morris Thurston is an active member of the Mormon church, a graduate of BYU and Harvard Law School, and a recently retired senior partner of a global law firm. He is every bit as interested in the preservation of religious freedom as many of us are. But he is also very concerned that the falsehoods and misrepresentations of the pro-Prop.8 campaign will tarnish the reputation of his church, which has contributed heavily to this campaign.

Check out his sensible, readable essay:

"A Commentary on the Document 'Six Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails.'"

If only more religious conservatives were equally concerned about integrity. Should Proposition 8 pass this coming November 4, just remember how many Christians blindly supported the lies, misrepresentations and shameless scare tactics it took to make it happen. Then please, try to make an effort to temper your righteous indignation against gays and lesbians when your attempt to share with them the message of Christ's grace, love and forgiveness is met with hostile rejection.

Our Lord Jesus calls us to adorn his gospel with lives of humility, integrity and love for the truth, yet we are willing to sell that sacred calling for a mess of pottage to satisfy our earthly craving for political and social supremacy. We are willing to win the earthly battle and yet lose the war for people's souls. How did we manage to get so far afield?

Will gay marriage threaten the tax exempt status of churches?

To recap, I received a pro-Prop. 8 mailer containing all sorts of scary talk about how the legalization of gay marriage will strip Christians of their religious freedoms across the board. I've been looking into the cases listed in the mailer one by one to determine whether the threat to our religious freedom is real. Here's the next one on the list:

Same-sex marriage threatens tax exempt status of churches. The Methodist Church's Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association in New Jersey was stripped of its tax-exempt status for part of its property after it refused, for religious reasons, to allow a lesbian couple to hold a "civil-union" ceremony at a pavilion on the camp's property.

Wow. A lesbian couple demanded to be married in a Methodist church, the church refused, and for that it was stripped of its tax exempt rights! How frightening that churches will now be forced to accommodate gay and lesbian couples who demand, upon threat of lawsuit, to be married in our sanctuaries!

Before we have a collective heart attack, let's take a look at the pavilion in question:



This is an open-air pavillion on a beach boardwalk that overlooks the Atlantic Ocean. The locals understand that it is controlled by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (OGCMA) which is governed by a Methodist board of trustees. But the locals also understand this property to be open to public use. While it is used for worship services, Bible studies, gospel choir performances, it has also been open to the public for weddings and other events and generally provides refuge for pedestrians and beach-goers looking for a place to rest.



So you can see why one of the major considerations in the State of New Jersey's decision in this case was whether this pavillion was for public or private use based on its history. "Evaluating these matters under the appropriate section of the LAD [Law Against Discrimination]. . . will require a determination as to whether Respondent's pavillion rental is a public accommodation subject to the LAD's anti-discrimination provisions, or is exempt as a program which is distinctly private." Notice how the State is ready to recognize exemptions from LAD provisions in cases where the property is private. The problem is, OGCMA couldn't demonstrate that the use of these facilities was distinctly private.

Even weirder was that the State had trouble determining whether OGCMA is even a religious organization. While acknowledging that the state Supreme Court had at one time confirmed the OGCMA's religious status in a case some thirty years ago, "evidence of subsequent changes, such as those relating to the Respondent's relationship with and funding by government entities, may demonstrate that Respondent is no longer a religious organization."

I looked into this "relationship" a bit. First of all, OGCMA doesn't just own the pavillion, but much of Ocean Grove's choicest beach property including, apparently, 1000 feet of the ocean. Furthermore, within the last two decades OGCMA has lobbied U.S. Representative Frank Pallone (D-Monmouth) for state and federal funds to have their property repaired. This includes $250,000 in state funding to replace the roof of the Great Auditorium and federal funds to repair the Ocean Grove boardwalk after a 1992 storm. While all this government money was rolling in, they also successfully secured tax exempt status for themselves as if they were just like any other private religious organization. So which are they? A public or a private organization? Rep. Frank Pallone stated, "They've taken state, federal and local funds by representing that they are open to the public."

Sure, the pro-Prop. 8 mailer correctly reports that OGCMA was "stripped of its tax-exempt status" as a result of this civil union lawsuit. But that's because the OGCMA was getting away with enjoying the benefits of government funding and tax-exempt status at the same time. All the State did was decide, in view of this lawsuit, which side of the line the OGCMA should properly fall.

Sounds fair to me. But instead of giving you the facts, the pro-Prop. 8 mailer would have you believe that this lawsuit unjustly stripped a church organization of its rightful tax-exempt status in favor of the homosexual agenda. That just isn't so.

Frantic pro-Prop. 8 mailers

Twenty-five million dollars have been spent to boost an enormous campaign in favor of Prop. 8 here in California. I just got one of their mailers yesterday. The rhetoric comes off as truly frightening to all church-going, child-raising, conservative-value-cherishing Californians. Activist judges are out of control. Children will be indoctrinated in the second grade. Churches will be stripped of their rights. It goes on and on.

Except I keep seeing stuff on the mailer that contradicts known facts. For instance, you open it up to this headline:

In May of this year, four activist judges on the Supreme Court in San Francisco ignored four million voters and imposed same-sex marriage on California. Their ruling means it is no longer about 'tolerance.'

Hmm. One problem is they fail to mention that three out of four of these "activist judges" were appointed by Republican governors. These "activist judges" are:

Chief Justice Ronald M. George--Gov. Wilson (Republican), 1991
Assoc. Justice Joyce L. Kennard--Gov. Deukmejian (Republican), 1989
Assoc. Justice Carlos R. Moreno--Gov. Davis (Democrat), 2001
Assoc. Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar--Gov. Wilson (Republican), 1994

They also fail to mention that before this ruling, the California state legislature had already voted twice in favor of full marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. The legislature took the lead on this one, not "judicial activism." And since California state law had already granted gay and lesbian domestic partners all the legal benefits and responsibilities of married couples, the court's decision was simply about whether there was any constitutional reason to deny the label of "marriage" to such couples. Three out of the six conservative-appointed judges on the CA Supreme Court apparently thought there wasn't.

Then there's this claim on the flyer:

Same-sex marriage threatens the education of our children. After Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, public schools began to teach school children about gay marriage. After second graders were read a story in which a prince married another prince, some parents complained. A court ruled that they had NO RIGHT to withdraw their children from classes that taught gay marriage. And since California law already provides children as young as kindergarten be taught about marriage, gay marriage will be taught in our schools too!

Sounds scary, right? So scary that you forget that Prop. 8 has nothing to do with educational policy in public schools. At all. It's about whether gay civil unions, which are already recognized by the state of California as equivalent to marriage relationships in just about every legal aspect except in name, should be called "marriages."

But what about down the road? What if inappropriate sex education gets taught to our children in public schools? I don't know about Massachusetts law, but the California Education Code says parents have every right to excuse their children from public school sex education. Read it for yourself:

Article 5. Education Code sections 51937, 51938—
Notice and Parental Excuse
Many of the parent notification requirements from the prior sex education and HIV/AIDS instruction codes have been retained and moved to this section. Education Code Section 51938 retains a parent's right to excuse their child from all or part of comprehensive sexual health education or HIV/AIDS instruction and any assessments related to that education. Parents are to be notified:

• about instruction that is planned for the coming year in comprehensive sexual health education, HIV/AIDS prevention education, and research on pupil health behaviors and risks. This notification is to be at the beginning of the school year or at the time of enrollment for a new student.
• that written and audiovisual materials are available for inspection
• if instruction will be taught by school district personnel or outside consultants
• of their right to request a copy of this chapter
• that they may request in writing that their child not receive comprehensive sexual health education or HIV/AIDS instruction

But what if the California Education Code changes to strip parents of these rights? Well, obviously that's the time to start screaming and hollering about "our rights" as parents and sending out panicky mailers about the "threat to the education of our children." The thing not to do is to send out mailers implying that parents will have "NO RIGHT" to withdraw their children from sex education classes, when in fact they currently do have that right in very explicit terms.

There's more misleading stuff on the mailer I'd like to talk about, but I've got to pick up my oldest kid from public school now. More on this later.

Freedom is a Republican value

Cool ad.

Prop. 8: "It's about the children"

So while I was sitting in my minivan yesterday waiting to pick up my oldest daughter from middle school, I was trying to understand an editorial by David Blankenhorn in Friday's L.A. Times on why gay marriage would have a negative impact on kids. In "Protecting Marriage to Protect Children," Blankenhorn starts by saying, "I'm a liberal Democrat. And I do not favor same-sex marriage. Do those positions sound contradictory? To me, they fit together." Well, I'm intrigued. Maybe Mr. Blankenhorn can enlighten me using his liberal Democrat point of view. Shed some new light on the subject.

I read the editorial twice over. The second time I really combed through it, underlining, even slowing my eyes down to study his arguments word by word, and still I wasn't exactly sure what points Mr. Blankenhorn was attempting to make. Was I missing something? I'll put them down line for line and maybe you can tell me.

[M]arriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children . . .

[T]he anthropologist Henry Fisher in 1992 put it simply: "People wed primarily to reproduce."

Presumably, Mr. Blankenhorn is aware that the entire debate we're having here in California over Proposition 8 is whether gay marriage should be legally recognized. This is not a philosophical discussion about marriage ideals. This is a debate over whether to grant or withhold marriage rights from a certain segment of the California population. Given that context, Blankenhorn sounds like he believes that the marriages of all couples who are biologically incapable of producing children (including: the man or woman is sterile, or the woman is past childbearing years) should not be legally recognized. I don't think he is seriously suggesting that, but that's certainly the direction of his logic.

Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood--biological, social and legal--into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you . . .

In 2002 . . . a team of researchers from Child Trends, a nonpartisan research center, reported that "family structure clearly matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage."

I agree that this is a beautiful ideal. I had it in my family as a child. My three children have it now. But, as we all know, it's not possible for all children to have that. Now, if we are serious about passing laws to minimize these less-than-ideal child-rearing situations, we should start by outlawing divorce. Such a law would make great strides in ensuring that "the man and the woman whose sexual union made [the child] will also be there to love and raise [the child]," wouldn't it? But again, I don't think Mr. Blankenhorn is serious about following through on his own logic.

Let's look at this from another angle. According to Blankenhorn, Child Trends says that the ideal family structure for raising children is "two biological parents and a low-conflict marriage." That means, in theory, a stable married gay couple who, let's say, adopts a child would provide a better family structure than a divorced single mother who shares custody of her child with her ex on the weekends. The household of the stable married gay couple would fulfill the "two parent" requirement, the "low-conflict" requirement and the "marriage" requirement. The household of the divorced single mother who still has to deal with her ex on the weekends would fulfill only the "biological" requirement and fails on the "two-parent," the "low-conflict" and the "marriage" requirements. By Child Trends' standards, the theoretical stable gay married couple is far more preferable to the single divorced mother.

So why aren't we voting on a proposition to penalize divorced single mothers, since they can't provide the ideal family structure according to Child Trends? The answer is, because this is America, not communist China. In this country we don't use the law to penalize someone because he or she fails to live up to everyone else's utopian ideals.

And, I might add, we also know too many divorced single mothers who have successfully raised well-adjusted kids. Why not give gay couples the same chance?

[C]hildren have the right, insofar as society can make it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world . . .

Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one.

Every child has a "right" to be raised by both biological parents, says Blankenhorn. This is where he really loses me.

When I picture a gay married couple raising children, I think of four different scenarios. 1) The children are biologically related to one partner from a previous heterosexual marriage. (One biological parent, one stepparent.) 2) The children are adopted. (Both are adoptive parents.) 3) A child being raised by a lesbian couple was conceived by implanting donated sperm into the womb of one partner. (One biological parent, one stepparent.) 4) A child being raised by a gay male couple was conceived by implanting the sperm of one partner into the womb of a surrogate mother. (One biological parent, one stepparent.)

Plenty of straight parents have or acquire children through these means. Plenty of straights are also involved in raising children who are not biologically their own. Besides stepparents and adoptive parents, there are also godparents and grandparents who step in to help raise a child where one parent is deadbeat, deceased, etc.

Shall we penalize all these people, whether gay or straight, because they are "denying" the child his right to be raised by two biological parents? What on earth does Blankenhorn mean by that anyhow? You could rephrase Blankenhorn's statement as follows:

"Every child being raised by a stepparent, adoptive parent, godparent or grandparent is being denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one."

At best it's a dismal take on the situation. At worst it's an insult to the people who are unselfishly devoting themselves to the child's well-being. Someone who isn't even their own biological child.

I thought that people who weren't the biological parents of a child, yet still took on the responsibility of giving him love, attention, discipline, security and provision, ought to be commended for doing a noble thing. I thought that people who wanted children so badly they would go as far as adopting a child, using cutting edge medical procedures, or risking hiring a surrogate mother showed tremendous promise for being committed and enthusiastic parents.

I have an odd feeling that the real answer is, if you're straight you can be a noble, committed and enthusiastic parent. But if you're gay you are only capable of denying a child his "birthright."

* * * * * *
I know at this point you're expecting me to list more of Blankenhorn's arguments. But really, that's it. Read the article for yourself and let me know if I've missed any other profound insights from the liberal Democrat on why I should oppose gay marriage. For myself, I can think of plenty of socially conservative, even Christian reasons why I should support it. I think I'll stick with those.

Ray Boltz's story

A friend sent me a link to this interesting article in the Washington Blade. I've never been a CCM fan so I can't say I knew the name, but apparently Ray Boltz is right up there with the likes of Sandi Patty and Steven Curtis Chapman. His journey to coming out as gay is, unfortunately, typical of many people I know. He was married for 33 years and has four children. He hated himself for his homosexuality and endured decades of pain, of hiding, and of fear. Although he never formally joined an ex-gay group, he tried all their methods. “I basically lived an ‘ex-gay’ life — I read every book, I read all the scriptures they use, I did everything to try and change.”

Boltz speaks for many, many people who have been down the same path. The difference is that he is a celebrated name in Christian circles, and evangelicals can be brutal when their idols disappoint them.

Says Boltz:

I don’t want to be a spokesperson, I don’t want to be a poster boy for gay Christians, I don’t want to be in a little box on TV with three other people in little boxes screaming about what the Bible says, I don’t want to be some kind of teacher or theologian — I’m just an artist and I’m just going to sing about what I feel and write about what I feel and see where it goes.

Sample lyrics from one of his recent songs:

I was so good at pretending/like an actor on a stage/but in the end nobody knew me/only the roles that I portrayed/and I would rather have you hate me/knowing who I really am/than to try and make you love me/being something that I can’t (from “God Knows I Tried”).

Boltz isn't the first Christian singer to come out, though he may be the most famous. Kirk Talley, a Southern Gospel singer, came out in 2005. The Washington Blade tried to interview Talley for their story on Ray Boltz but he declined, offering only one comment:

"I will definitely be in prayer for Ray," he said in an e-mail. "He has no idea the crap he will have to endure."

Post-trip let down

I haven't forgotten about you guys. I even got started on a couple of posts for this blog, which I've left incomplete for now. But it's not just this blog that's suffering neglect. I have friends I'm supposed to email back, or get back in touch with, or get together with, and I've been slow to follow through.

I think it's because the Cambodia trip is still eating at me. This summer my husband and I went on a short term missions trip to Cambodia for ten days, my first missions trip since I was in college in 1987. Ever since that first trip in '87, I've wanted to go back. The past twenty-one years I've invested a lot of time thinking and educating myself about foreign missions. I thought finally getting the chance to go to Cambodia would reignite a desire for missionary work and give me clearer direction about when and where that would take place.

Instead I've come back feeling less excited about it than before, and I guess I didn't expect I'd feel that way. I'm not less enthusiastic about missionary work itself. I understand the tremendous needs out there and saw them firsthand. I was inspired by the missionary workers I met who have given up everything to dedicate themselves to this task. For most of my life I've half expected that I'd be called upon to make those sacrifices myself. But now, after this trip, I'm no longer sure that God is confirming that path for me.

Twenty-one years is a lot of build-up to come to a conclusion like this, so right now I'm feeling a bit of a let down. But it helps to confront the hard facts of the situation, writing it down here, so that I can start making some progress in moving forward. Maybe when more of that progress is made, I'll feel up to writing again.

Posthumous Oscar for Ledger?

Heath Ledger's performance in The Dark Knight was outstanding. There are even rumors that he might be considered for a posthumous Oscar. I think that would be terrific, of course, but not without mixed feelings.

The year Ledger was nominated for Best Actor for his performance in Brokeback Mountain, I heard from reliable opinions that Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance in Capote that year (which I didn't see) happened to top his. I could accept that.

But for the Academy to award Best Picture to Crash instead of Brokeback Mountain was, to my mind, pure cowardice. The Academy nominated the Brokeback cast for Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, and Best Supporting Actress, and didn't give the award to any of the three. That must mean that, given that the collective performance of the cast was so exceptional, by the Academy's own admission, not the mention the obvious impact the film was making among the general public and the social relevance of the issues being raised, it all points to a best picture of the year, right? Any other picture carrying those credentials would be an obvious shoo-in for the award. Except, it turns out, a picture that tells the truth about being homosexual in America.

Since Crash won Best Picture two and a half years ago, do you hear anyone talking about it? Any memorable scenes recalled? Any truly memorable performances? When someone says "Crash" you think they're talking about their commute home from work. When someone says "Brokeback" everyone knows what they're talking out.

All things considered it makes me wonder if Heath Ledger ever had a chance at winning the Oscar, Philip Seymour Hoffman notwithstanding. I wouldn't be surprised if the Academy viewed Hoffman as a godsend that year. If Ledger wins an Oscar this time around, posthumously, that would be great. But it also leaves me with the sad feeling that the honor came too late, and on a picture that, overall, isn't nearly the achievement that Brokeback was.

Back from Cambodia

Phnom Penh was an amazing, exciting, crazy place to be staying for ten days. Geckos crawled the walls inside the houses and restaurants. People set up shop any place they could find on the shoulder of the road--all you need is a cart and some merchandise. And no traffic rules applied, such as: what lane you're supposed to be in, what side of the road you're supposed to drive on, and whether red means stop or green means go. As far as we could tell the only traffic rule that applied in Phnom Penh was, Do what you need to do to get there.

The Cambodian people are friendly, gentle, easy-going souls. They graciously tried to understand my Khmer and gave me pronunciation pointers on my vowels. (There are more than 40 different vowel sounds in Khmer, the most of any language in the world.)

Using a translator, I taught a discipleship-type class for Christian women from Monday to Friday the week I was there. Going in, I was under the impression that my students would be at a more basic level. But as I began teaching them I quickly realized they were much more advanced, and I had to rework all my lessons to make them adequately challenging.

They wanted to know why the clean and unclean food laws from the Old Testament changed after Jesus' coming. They wanted to understand the Trinity. They wanted to know why good people suffered and evil people prospered in this life. All really good questions. They were questions that I had thought of before, and the more I answered the more questions they asked. Before I knew it, it was Friday.

I only wish I had more than just one week to spend with those Christian women. But whatever my longing, I have to accept the shortness of my stay. I had seen enough to know that the Holy Spirit is working in the lives of those believers, and it was my privilege to be able to stop in briefly and enjoy fellowshipping with them in our common faith.

Off to Cambodia

I'm off to Cambodia tomorrow morning. I spent a year and a half trying to learn Khmer just for this ten-day trip, and yet I feel like I know hardly anything. Since not many people know Khmer, I thought I might be able to connect with the Cambodian people more quickly if I at least made an effort to learn their language.

Otherwise I will be relying on a translator. I'll be giving five lectures at a Christian women's conference on how to grow in your relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ. I'll also be sharing the gospel with women in the rural villages who are mostly illiterate.

From everything I've heard, the Cambodian people are a cheerful and resilient people in spite of the horrors they suffered during the Pol Pot massacre in the 70's. Going into that context carrying Jesus' message of forgiveness and of redemption through suffering, I can't say I feel entirely adequate. If there are Cambodian Christians who have learned to forgive the past and have managed to find redeeming value in their sufferings, they are the true message bearers. I'm sure I'll come away feeling more blessed by them than the other way around.

AFA bizarreness

A friend points me to a story about the bizarre editing practices of the American Family Association. Anyone ever heard of "auto-replace"? I think I'll turn it over to The Carpetbagger Report to explain . . .

The auto-corrected version of the article can be found here.

Reporting live from California

I thought I should report to all of you who might have been concerned that even though gay and lesbian couples have been getting married all day here in California, my own heterosexual marriage is currently in good and stable condition. Today has been largely uneventful. My husband went to work, worked, and came back from work. I cooked dinner while he played with the kids in the yard. I served honey Dijon chicken breast, braised carrots and salad. We enjoyed dinner then watched the Laker game. In disgust he just now walked out the door to run an errand, not because his marriage has been redefined but because the Lakers are trailing the Celtics by 29 points. So things are pretty normal around here, and I do believe our marriage will pull through. But thanks, everyone, for your concern.

Sunday School class, part two

I felt burnt out from my studies after finishing the second and final Sunday School class three weeks ago. And yet as soon as the class ended I had to hit the computer again to write a series of five lectures (different topic) in preparation for a Cambodia missions trip next month. No rest for the weary.

Hence, this late report on how the second class went. It was a more practical class than the first. I talked about understanding where gay and lesbian people are coming from, the ways in which we often talk past each other, and how to communicate about our Christian beliefs without sounding like a religious right fanatic.

I explained that one complicating factor is that gay people divide roughly into two groups on the question of how to evaluate their own orientation. Which group any given person is a part of changes entirely how I understand and relate to them. I've found that people can look at their homosexuality in two ways:

1. Some people focus on the fact that their sexual feelings and attraction are not oriented toward the "right" sex. They have always felt that there is something about them that has gone awry, and their conscience, the pressures of society and the teachings of religion seem to confirm this perception. People who view their homosexuality in this way often come from a religious, conservative or ethnic background. More liberal-minded gays often dismiss them as self-haters, weaklings who have failed to stand up to social oppression. This may be the case with some, but I think it's only fair to acknowledge that there are others who believe they are simply following the convictions of their conscience. In other words, even if the pressures of family, society and the church could be shoved aside, many people would still feel something is wrong with being homosexual. It is easier for the average conservative Christian to relate to people from this group because Christians can appeal to the idea of sin and the fallen state of human beings when talking to them.

2. On the other hand, there are other people who choose to focus more on the fact that their sexual feelings and attraction are an expression of love, which they say is no less real than heterosexual love. The fact that their sexual orientation happens to be directed toward the same sex is a less critical issue to them. Whether they think their same-sex orientation is a morally neutral or morally troubling phenomenon, to them the more weighty issue is pursuing a loving relationship. Love is among the highest of moral virtues--so healing and beneficial to yourself and the person you love. Loving and being loved makes you whole. How can this be harmful to society? Conservative Christians dismiss this group as depraved and hard-hearted because they celebrate with "gay pride" the very thing Christians view as sin. But it's hardly fair to assume people are "celebrating sin" when they believe they are just celebrating love. Conservative Christians may have a serious moral disagreement with them, but going as far as calling them "depraved" only shuts down the conversation altogether.

I remember when I was a kid my dad used to tell me, "There's a difference between saying 'I understand' and 'I agree.' I may understand you but not agree with you." Dad isn't a Christian, but I think his advice is apropos for Christians who want to be effective witnesses in the world today.

From my experience it never hurts to understand where the other side is coming from. It might only hurt if hearing a different viewpoint upsets you to the point of shaking your faith, in which case you should definitely bail. But if you are a mature Christian, if you are secure in your own personal moral life and you know what your limits are, having a conversation with someone who sees things differently than you shouldn't imperil your soul. I view listening as an act of kindness. It is just taking to heart the advice from James 1:19-20, "But let everyone be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger. For the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God."

Running low

Opponents of same-sex civil marriage will need to present Californians with a convincing argument for voting in favor of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage this November. But as this Bill O'Reilly interview shows, they're running low on ideas.

(HT: Andrew Sullivan)

Last Sunday's class

My Sunday school class went really well this past week, and I've been so busy preparing for the next class I forgot I was leaving you guys hanging. Sorry!

My goal was to present my understanding of homosexuality to the class, so that later on we can discuss how Christians can do a better job of loving and understanding their gay friends, family members and acquaintances. I presented the homosexual orientation as both a fallen and yet unchosen condition, a definition that stays true to both biblical teaching and people's experiences. It is in accord with Augustine's view of original sin that is further expounded upon in the Westminster Standards' Larger Catechism, to which our denomination (the PCA) subscribes.

But it's not enough to present abstract doctrines and theological definitions. I also read from the testimonies of two gay men who were professing Christians who talked about what it was like to grow up with the dawning awareness that they were homosexual. To me this was the centerpiece of the class, because if you haven't heard people describe it for themselves, you can never fully appreciate what people mean when they say, "I didn't choose this." I don't know how people in the class felt about those testimonies, but everyone listened in a respectful silence.

The question and answer time went on for 30 minutes. No one was hostile, everyone was trying to think and understand. Maybe the reason it all went so well was because our church is very young. The vast majority of members are in their 20's and 30's.

People wanted to know if these testimonies were typical to most gay people's experiences. One guy mentioned off-hand that he didn't have a problem with the CA Supreme Court's recent decision, and wanted to know how Christians can distance themselves from the "religious right" image. We talked about celibacy, what that was like for people, how the church might support someone who makes that decision for him- or herself. Someone brought up Joseph Nicolosi, not to bring up ex-gay ministries but to ask whether Nicolosi's theories about child-rearing could prevent kids from becoming gay. (I said I had never seen any convincing evidence to support his theories.)

Before we broke up, I asked the class whether they wanted me to explain about ex-gay ministries next time, or if they just wanted me to move forward with how to talk to and befriend someone who is gay. I was offering to read some ex-gay testimonies and explain how they related to what we had just talked about in class. One guy said, "Skip it" and I saw a lot of heads nod. To me that was the most surprising thing about last Sunday's class. Is the younger generation of conservative Christians becoming more skeptical about the claims of ex-gay ministries? If so I think that would be a huge step in the right direction.

Republicans aid "judicial activism"

I heard that Hugh Hewitt threw a fit on the radio this afternoon over today's 4-3 California Supreme Court ruling. Apparently he was screaming something about voting for John McCain so that a Republican could appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court instead of a bunch of liberals.

Well, I'm afraid that may not necessarily solve things because Hugh Hewitt failed to mention one small detail. I learned from the Log Cabin Republicans today that 6 out of 7 justices on the CA Supreme Court were appointed by Republican governors. I checked it out for myself:

Assoc. Justice Joyce L. Kennard--Deukmejian (Republican), 1989
Assoc. Justice Carlos R. Moreno--Davis (Democrat), 2001
Assoc. Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar--Wilson (Republican), 1994
Chief Justice Ronald M. George--Wilson (Republican), 1991
Assoc. Justice Ming W. Chin--Wilson (Republican), 1996
Assoc. Justice Marvin R. Baxter--Wilson (Republican), 1991
Assoc. Justice Carol A. Corrigan--Schwarzenegger (Republican), 2005

Given that the Democratic appointee voted in favor of this ruling, it means that the remaining Republican appointees were split 3-3. You're not going to learn this tidbit from either the Democrats or the Republicans. Leave it to Log Cabin to give us the real scoop.

California joins Massachusetts

Andrew Sullivan astutely points out that the ruling in California today is not judicial activism, as the religious right will no doubt spin it. Far from ramming this ruling past the legislature, the California legislature has already voted in favor of full marriage rights for gay couples twice. All the court has done is refuse to buy into the "civil unions" rationale, which says, "Gay couples can have all the legal benefits of marriage but let's stop short of actually calling it marriage." Instead, they have chosen to do what is legally fair.

As I have said many times before, when it comes to the civil arena the only justification I can see for stopping short of calling such unions "marriage" is bigotry. We do not live in a theocracy. As a society we do not require that our government withhold the title of "marriage" from all couples whose marriages do not conform to biblical standards (logically, that would include a lot of marriages). You cannot withhold the label "marriage" from gay couples seeking legal recognition of their unions by appealing to a Christian definition of marriage, unless of course you want to start by attacking the Buddhist married couple down the street. You have to find some other excuse. And speaking for myself, I've been hard pressed to find one over the past eight years of studying this issue.

If you're a Christian, look on the bright side. For years we've pounded on gays, condemning their "lifestyle." Well, there is no better remedy for a sexually promiscuous and irresponsible lifestyle than entering into a marriage union, where your gay spouse would be much more effective in keeping you on the straight and narrow than a Focus On the Family broadcast. Let's prove that Christians can be smart, consistent and fair-minded by at least giving a nod of approval in that direction.

Doing them justice

For the very first time since I started studying this issue eight years ago, I will have an opportunity to teach a class on homosexuality at my church. The fact that I've been overthinking my lesson plans and generally stressing about it shows that I'm more than a little nervous.

How often do we talk openly about these issues in the conservative church? Whenever it does spring up, it's usually because someone within the church is suddenly discovered to be homosexual, and so the discussion arises in an atmosphere of shock, gossip and scandal. The person in question is under a cloud from the start. There is no opportunity to discuss what it means to be homosexual in a calm and rational environment.

I feel I need to speak for that person, to explain to my fellow Christians what homosexuality is from the perspective of those who experience it. There is so much to say, and it is difficult to know where to begin.

I have been reading through old emails that readers have sent me over the years. I'm amazed at how open people have been with me, how articulately they have expressed themselves. It's overwhelming, really. Now I want to do them justice, and I'm afraid of failing them.

Moved in

So we're finally getting settled into our new place. The house is so . . . nice. I've been working on it non-stop but am finally beginning to realize that there is no end to the stuff that needs to be done. Maybe it's time to let up a little.

I keep wondering why God gave this house to us. For the first time we have a yard for the kids to play in, a garage to store stuff, a fireplace (two of them!), a driveway (where your newspaper sits waiting for you instead of getting swiped by neighbors in the next unit), and a roomy kitchen (where I don't have to use the pull-out cutting board as counter space). Recently I realized that I've been working so hard because I felt like I had to deserve to be here. Which is dumb because no matter how hard I work, I would always be able to think of other people who deserve this house more than me. There must be some other reason why we're here.

If you'd asked me back in college where I thought I'd be living at age 39, I would have said a thatched hut somewhere on the missions field. When I started dating my husband, he asked me if I'd mind apartment living the rest of my life since that's all he'd be able to afford with a career in the ministry. I figured it was a step up from a thatched hut, so no problem. I was fairly content with apartment living until the third kid came along and I couldn't walk three steps in our apartment without bumping into something. (Mysterious bruises routinely appeared on my legs that I never remembered getting.) I wanted to stay content, though, because if I couldn't hack the situation that might mean I couldn't hack Africa or China or some place God might call us to someday.

I guess I'm worried that the reason God gave us this nice house and the reason I'm enjoying it so much is that he's telling me I'm not cut out for the rough stuff of missionary life. Yet at one time I thought he had called me to be a missionary. Was I mistaken?

A gay friend of mine observed, "Maybe God wants you to be a missionary here. I know of so many conservative Christians who would much rather minister in Cambodia than to homosexuals right here in the States." I wonder if he may be right. I have the tendency to think that anything I enjoy doing couldn't be God's real calling for me. I always imagine that his real calling for me would be something distasteful.