thomascwaters.com

Often, I post stuff that deals with Religion and Homosexuality over my my other blog, Queer Look at the Bible, but then, I usually feel compelled to try and sort out some theological commentary about it. Additionally, this seems to deal more with the Talmud, still a religious text, but not the Bible. So, for whatever reason I want to come up with, posting this here.

My friend on Twitter @mattincinci posted this, and I had to follow up. It generally seems as if it is just the crazy fringe Christians who blame natural disasters on gays- people like Pat Robertson- but in reality, there is  also a group of fundamental rabbis who are also in on the blame game.

Here is the thing about this blame game.  Anything at all can be attributed to God (or as the rabbis write, G-d). And there is no verification at all. It isn’t like Dick Cheney, who will go on TV to try and save his image. No way to get ahold of G-d and ask, for verification. So, no matter whatever happens,  claim that it was G-d! In some regard, this in the tradition of fundamental Judiasm. So much of the Hebrew Scriptures (Christian Old Testament) deals with just this sort of stuff: big catastrophes attributed to G-d’s happiness or upset with G-d’s creation, man.

But these old stories also come from an era where it was believed the sun moved around the earth, and the world was flat. And, if you pay attention, there are others gods in the Hebrew scriptures and many of the Biblical stories are about demonstrating that the Hebrew G-d was greater than the other gods.

Wow, this is writing itself as if it were over on the other blog…

So these rabbis are doing what the religious community leaders have always done. When faced with what were seen as attacks to their status quo, they spoke out  in an attempt to control, and keep the community following that status quo. This is different from the hateful Christians who blame everything on the gays. While conservative Judaism has not been supportive of homosexuality, it also hasn’t created a  history of persecution of demonization of gays. Maybe that is changing?

It isn’t useful to brand these rabbis as simple haters (one strategy some gays will want to take), nor is it helpful to dismiss this stuff as old fashioned quackery. I think though it is important to see it as another symptom of the way cultural changes are impacting the status quo, and those who see it as their job to protect the status quo are doing just that. That said, the linked post points out some great points worth noting.

Does Gay Sex Cause Earthquakes? – Jeffrey Goldberg.

The linked letter to the editor is a good illustration of both where we currently are, and what is wrong with the debate over Gay Rights when we confront the religious argument. The question, isn’t, “Is the Bible Clear” or even “What does the Bible say” but rather, the right question is, “what relevance, if any should the Bible have when it comes to civil law and what rights people deserve?” If we live in a democracy that is based, even in part on a separation of Church and State, then what the Bible does or doesn’t say, no matter how clearly, just isn’t relevant today, in 2009 American government and politics. Period.

A common knee-jerk reaction to the use of the Bible as the authoritative source for government, is to counter that Jesus was all about Love, etc. And maybe in the context of a Sunday School class, that might be an interesting discussion, but in terms of laws- and what rights people should have today in 2009 America, it is a trap. The only useful response to any Biblical argument is to counter that the Bible is not relevant in the ways we craft laws and protect people or grant them rights.

The Bible was the source of justification for condemning Galileo when he claimed that the earth moved around the sun. The more we learn from Science, we will again and again, come up against the Bible as an authoritative source. And I’m not anti-Bible at all. I am however, against the bible being used as a basis for how we legislate and protect the rights of people. I think there is plenty of great stuff in that book, but our civil system of governance isn’t the place for it.

The Bible is clear that homosexual behavior as well as types of heterosexual behavior such as fornication, adultery, incest etc. are immoral and things Christians should overcome.

via Bible clear on homosexuality | BlueRidgeNow.com | Times-News Online | Hendersonville, NC.

@Cocoa_Goddess72 DM’ed me on Twitter with a link to this Slate article which is a very interesting read. Personally, I am pretty stupid when it comes to hip-hop and rap, and in general really struggle with it, except for the dancing! I could sit and watch dancers hip-hop forever in total amazement. But the music, the lyrics? I struggle. Even in the struggle, I’ve had a certain appreciation for the way rap is a “new” use of poetry in a radical role, subversive to the status quo and attacking back against the White Upper Class that oppresses black youth. Or at least I think it could be that, except that from the outside, the misongynist and homophobic lyrics seem to have become their own status quo. but here comes a Slate article that can help me better grasp this idea of “no homo.” I encourage you to chech it out and read it all, even if you aren’t too sure about it. I think there is a lot going on and some really awesome ideas in there.

But I want to leave you with this video clip of lesbian hip-hop performers God-des and She:

NY Bishop Tells Politician: Same-Sex “Marriage” Stance is “Non-negotiable” for Practicing Catholic

According to the New York Bishop, William Murphy, the Catholic Church doesn’t want you- or at least doesn’t want you to call yourself a “practicing Catholic” if you are pro-marriage equality or pro-choice. The linked article below describes the battle brewing in Nassau County New York, where Nassua County Executive Thomas Suozzi was publicly chastised for publicly announcing that he was a practicing Catholic who now supports same-sex marriage.

I grew up in a neighborhood where there were many Catholic families, and the Catholic Church sat just up the hill. I would on occasion go with my friends to Mass on Saturday afternoon. We would be playng, and they would say they had to stop and we would race up to the church. I was always intrigued that I wasn’t “allowed” to go up for communion, and always wondered (but wasn’t brave enough to test) what would happen if I defied my friend’s warnings and went up and accepted that wafer anyway. Today, I’m wondering how Suozzi is feeling. Is this for him, the equivelent of being told, you don’t belong here? Or is it just a slap on the wrist?

I have been saying for sometime, that Marriage Equality in specific, but perhaps greater equality for the GLBTQ community in any way, will be the last straw and a major battle with religious denominations is n the way. It may be the mainstream denominations last stand. God, and Faith, will be just fine, but the Church, whatever that really means, will be changed forever. This article and the Bishop’s op-ed is one example of this battle.

While the Bishop faults the Suozzi’s logic, the reality is that it is the Church’s actions/logic which is unsupportable. Why is it that the Church has changed to accept divorce, which Jesus unquestionably condemned, yet the are holding fast on the issue of gay love and gay relationships? How is it that we have many politicians who are practicing Catholics but pro-choice, and they have been “allowed” to carry that stance, yet being pro-marriage equality will get you called out and told you can’t be a practicing Catholic? If the Catholic Church feels they have to so strongly hold to one Biblical idea/ interpretation, why has it not done this before on other issues. Actually it has. In the case of Galileo, the Church was pretty clear as it left no room for Science to question Church teachings. I think the Church may be about to make such a mistake again. Not so much, just with this one individual, but with the issue of homosexuality overall.

There are very many great people of Faith in all faith traditions who seek justice and love God. Many find denominations which allow room for a greater sense of progress and action. Some continue to seek change to the church from within. How much change will the church, and more specifically, the Catholic Church allow?

I posted this here at thomascwaters.com intentionally, where as, I usually post things of a religious nature over at qlatb.com. I saw this as less about the chuch and faith directly, and more about the intersection of this with politics, but I may move this discussion over there at some point. I admit, I don’t fully understand the idea of remaining within the Catholic Church when it is so restrictive like this. If I was a Catholic and pro-choice and pro- gay rights, I think I’d leave and find a denomination or a church home that welcomed me. But many stay within the Church. I’d love to see comments from others about this notion of staying within the church. What do you think?

NY Bishop Tells Politician: Same-Sex “Marriage” Stance is “Non-negotiable” for Practicing Catholic.

UK Police to Preacher: It’s a Crime to Call Homosexuality a “Sin”

A few months ago, the Westboro Baptist Church was here in Pittsburgh protesting a number of things, but one was about protesting the funeral of Catherine Baker Knoll’s funeral. She had supposedly been involved in some law that influences street preachers. My original idea for Queer Look at the Bible was to develop a “preacher character” who used the street corner in a style lie the fire and brimstone type of preacher, but preached from the Bible as if it were a queer positive book. Preaching is 30% interpretation and 70% performance, so why not utilize a queer positive interpretation and pay it up?

But I’m getting off track. The linked blog is about a Glasgow street preacher who feels his free speech rights are being taken from him. He claims that the police are saying that to call homosexuality a sin is a crime. This preacher is doing more than a 30% interpretation! The police are saying that to say that  on a public street corner is offensive, and that is the problem.

If preachers and Bible thumpers want to rail on and on about homosexuality, in their church, go right ahead and do it. Just keep that vitriolic speech out of the public square, where all people- those who are believers and those who are not have a right to be in peace.

Now, I’m not saying I personally am for all the anti-gay rhetoric even in a church, but that is the place where it belongs, and there, preachers ought to be able to deliver their interpretation of the Bible as they believe is right. There is a reason why greater numbers of people are leaving the churches- because the church is still using an old “text” as it if is the most relevant guidelines for modern life.

So the preacher just wants free speech. Interestingly, the blog this came from does not accept comments. So much for free speech?

Slice of Laodicea » Blog Archive » UK Police to Preacher: It’s a Crime to Call Homosexuality a “Sin”.

In recent weeks, we have seen some in the Republican Party begin to soften on Gay Marriage and suggest the GOP is a welcoming place for the GLBTQ community. This can be understood in a few ways:

1. The GOP, since Reagan, was supposedly a “big tent” party with room for diverse opinions. However, the growth of the radical religious right has over time, forced many from the big tent. As the GOP attempts to redefine itself and regroup, some are calling for a return to the big tent, while those in power call for a cleansing of the party.
2. For some, it isn’t so much about “the big tent” as it is the recognition that the radical religious right has harmed the party irreparably, and this is an attempt to capture the reigns of the party. For them, its about power, not diversity. It isn’t hard to see that while the Democratic Party has claimed to be backing of change to support gay rights, Obama has shown us (so far) that it was all empty rhetoric. We got used to help get him elected, and we are again slipping into invisibility. Some in the GOP see this as an opportunity to exploit, and get GLBTQ people to jump ship and be a strong enough base to give them power over the radical religious right.
3. For some, it is simply a matter of believing that a more progressive stance on Gay Rights is needed. They recognize that the culture has changed and if the party is going to stay relevant, it must be at the fore front of the change. The GOP has always claimed to stand for a strict adherence to the Constitution and personal liberties, yet, we see in the Gay rights issue government encroaching upon the rights of people. It isn’t too hard of a stretch philosophically, to see the Gay Rights movement fitting well within a GOP framework, except that the party is so full of the radical religious, I think a snow ball has a better chance in hell, that Gays have in the GOP.

But this may be one of the first times, we are starting to see such major shifts within a religious denomination, especially one as strict as the Catholic Church. Of course, Kmiec, really isn’t inside the Church leadership. He is merely a member of the flock.

His suggestion to remove the government from marriage, and return it completely to the Church, is not so new.  Kmiec’s perspective is one of “religious liberty. In his editorial, he writes:

Some faiths accept same-sex relationships and others profoundly object. As a matter of religious freedom, both must be accommodated, but how? Separate state and church.

How to accomplish this? The state would grant civil licenses to all couples same-sex or opposite sex. Then churches may perform marriages as each sees fit. If a faith accepts gay marriage it can marry a gay couple, but if a faith does not, it can marry only straight couples. A number of folks have suggested the same, but usually from the other side of the issue. All couples have the same legal rights this way.

Princeton University law professor Robert George, denounced his idea, telling CNN:

“Family is built on marriage, and government – the state – has a profound interest in the integrity and well-being of marriage, and to write it off as if it were a purely a religiously significant action and not an institution and action that has a profound public significance, would be a terrible mistake,”

Truly, one of the main reasons to push for Marriage Equality is to protect gay families, and if marriage is removed as a civil institution, it is unclear how this would impact laws and protections that are all about the family. Dissolving Marriage as a civil institution could make it harder for same-sex families in areas of adoption, second parent adoption.

My views on this are changing dramatically. At one time, I would have totally agreed with getting the government out of the marriage business and grant everyone a civil license, but as the debate continues, I am more inclined personally to believe that the better distinction to be drawn is between Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage. All couples get married, but only religious marriages have the blessing of the church (and presumably God). I recognize for someone wishing to elevate the importance of Religion, this may seem inadequate. That is something writing more about.

So, I started this saying that there were several reasons why the GOP’s stance of Gays seems to be in flux. Are there potentially different reasons why the Church, or the religious (or some intersection of these) may be calling for a different stance? I’d say, yes, and while I think I have become to articulate some of that, it would be a good base for another blog post.

Both the linked article, and the linked editorial is a good read. Check them out, and then comment here in my blog about what you think.

Pro-Obama “Catholic” Jurist Douglas Kmiec Now Abandons Church Teaching on Homosexual Unions.

Kmiec’s Editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle

Ladst thing I’m going to put up this evening. The article is a really good read!

In the comments, sir4474 asks:

Question? If gay marriage is on the horizon as it is being suggested then can someone explain why in the histroy of human beings living on plant earth and the many civilizations that have come and gone has this not been a part of the mainstream of every day life.

The reality is that in many (all??) known civilizations or cultures, there have been meaningful same-sex relationships based on love and intimacy. Historically, these have often been either wiped from history or misrepresented to hide the “gay” part of it. However, it is probably very true that gay relationships as we know them today have never existed in a similar fashion before perhaps WWI. So many factors influence the way people live and the way our culture is. WWI and then WWII brought enormously large groups of same-sex into cities like San Francisco and New York, and the rise of the industrial age changed the rile of work, workers, family and individualism. but in most every culture, there are stories of same-sex attraction, affection and love. In these human interactions there may have been a physical dimension or they may not have. We won’t fully know, although evidence suggests that there were.

Gay Marriage: Only a Matter of Time — Politics Daily.

Drinking Harvey Milk’s Kool-Aid by Daniel J. Flynn, City Journal 21 May 2009

The linked article offers a differing view of Harvey Milk and suggests he was “unremarkable.” As we begin Pride month, June, it is important to speak out when anyone is attempting to rewrite our history. As with any historical event, different people can see it as having different value and meaning. But even given that, this article goes way far right of reality.

Drinking Harvey Milk’s Kool-Aid by Daniel J. Flynn, City Journal 21 May 2009.

I just had to post this- the poster is quite funny I believe. and when you mix that with Peter LaBarbera’s anti-homo rhetoric, it is even funnier.  My favorite sentence is:

They’ll tolerate Folsom, but they won’t tolerate Californians voting in Prop 8 to defend marriage.

Americans for Truth » San Francisco’s Deviant Values: New Folsom Street Poster Mocks Family, Prop 8.

I have noticed in many places, an argument put out there, that says basically, that the radical homosexual movement can’t be trusted. Because homosexuals are liars- they have acted like all they wanted was toleration but it appears that want total domination.  Okay, the rhetoric  of total domination varies… but you get the idea.

Like here:

This video from You Tube documents the manipulative efforts of the radical homosexual organization Equality Marriage USA – San Diego Chapter, where one of their activists in the You Tube video unequivocally states that the goal of the homosexual movement is: “more than tolerating – it’s accepting, it’s embracing (homosexuality).”  (original blog)

What I want to know is who ever had the idea that gay rights was about wanting just to be tolerated? I have never gone about doing anything in my life hoping that I would just be tolerated. Seems to me this notion says more about some straight people than it does the gay rights movement.

Equal rights means just that- equal rights, and a part of that, is the ability to just be and enjoy the same rights, privileges, and obligations as everyone else.

So what’s the difference I experience between being tolerated, accepted or embraced? I’m not sure if there is any difference from my side of things (as a gay man) from being tolerated  to being accepted. From a different perspective maybe it matters. You don’t have to accept me but can tolerate that I have equal rights, and the ability to be?

Perhaps, the real basis of this accusation is an ttempt to suggest that gay rights activists are sneaky and manipulative- that we portrayed the struggle one way and now a different way?

For the record, I don’t care that anyone “embraces homosexuality.” but I do expect to receive equal rights, and that means that others either accept thaty I have rights or at the very least tolerate that I have rights, whatever works for them. Innan ideal world, we will keave behind this “us vs them” false dichotomy of those who have rights and those who do not deserve rights. The day that we all have equal rights will be a real step forward into a tomorrow better than the past.