More shaking likely.

May 13, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

May 13, 2009

Two news items that are likely to keep social and emotional temblors rolling for a while.  First, from the Gay Religion Blogspot, Tuesday, May 12, 2009 ~

Former Catholic Bishop Of Milwaukee Says He’s Gay

New York — A Roman Catholic archbishop who resigned in 2002 over a sex and financial scandal involving a man describes his struggles with being gay in an upcoming memoir about his decades serving the church.

Archbishop Rembert Weakland, former head of the Milwaukee archdiocese, said in an interview Monday that he wrote about his sexual orientation because he wanted to be candid about “how this came to life in my own self, how I suppressed it, how it resurrected again.”

Called “A Pilgrim in a Pilgrim Church: Memoirs of a Catholic Archbishop,” the book is set to be released in June.

“I was very careful and concerned that the book not become a Jerry Springer, to satisfy people’s prurient curiosity or anything of this sort,” Weakland told The Associated Press. “At the same time, I tried to be as honest as I can.”

Weakland in 2002

I found this on the Gay Religion Blogspot, but the whole story is on Huffington Post. Unfortunately, Weakland’s personal story is heavily colored by the ongoing sexual abuse scandal rocking the Catholic church. the former Archbishop, who was forced to resign in 2002, admits his role in moving abusive priests around without alerting the people or the police. Clearly, the abusive climate is too big to control without a complete change in both rampant clericalism and dishonesty about human sexuality. I don’t look for any improvement under the current pontiff, who is doing all he can do to increase clerical power and to maintain the atmosphere of denial about sexuality.

According to the Huffington story, “Weakland said Christians needed to speak more openly about gays in the priesthood without the ‘hysteria’ that often characterizes the debate.” And here’s the real “elephant in the sacristy” issue: “U.S. Catholics have long debated whether the priesthood had become a predominantly gay vocation. Estimates vary from 25 percent to 50 percent, according to a review of research on the issue by the Rev. Donald Cozzens, author of The Changing Face of the Priesthood.”

What most non-Catholics don’t fully understand is how tight the belts of clerical authority can be cinched. For generations, no Catholic writer could publish a work without first obtaining permission and clearance, known as the nihil obstat and imprimatur.  I guess if you’ve already resigned, what else can they do to you?

Secondly, from www.365gay.com this morning, May 13 ~

New York Assembly passes gay marriage

Washington —The New York State Assembly voted 89-52 Tuesday in favor of marriage for same-sex couples. The legislation will now move to the State Senate.

“It’s great to see the Assembly strongly re-affirm its support for marriage equality. It’s time for the Senate, which now has pro-equality leadership, to ensure that loving, committed same-sex couples in New York can have the same rights and responsibilities under the law as loving, committed different-sex couples,” said Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese.

In June 2007, the New York State Assembly voted 85-61 in favor of a marriage equality bill. That bill stalled in the Senate, which was then controlled by the GOP.

In 2006 the New York Court of Appeals ruled against marriage equality, stating that it should be resolved by the legislature. New York currently recognizes marriages by same-sex couples legally entered into in another jurisdiction, but does not permit same-sex couples to marry in New York.

Five states have recognized marriage for same-sex couples under state law: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont (effective September 1, 2009), and Maine (effective September, 2009, pending a possible referendum). California recognized marriage by same-sex couples between June and November of 2008, before voters approved Proposition 8. The Proposition 8 vote has been challenged in court; a decision by the state supreme court is expected by June.

The New Hampshire state legislature has approved legislation recognizing marriage equality for same-sex couples; that legislation will go to the Governor’s desk. Same-sex couples do not receive federal rights and benefits in any state.

Librado Romero for The New York Times; their caption: Assemblyman Daniel O’Donnell, who has been at the center of efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, has used force and humor in trying to persuade colleagues to back the bill.

Well, the New York bill is still a long-shot, put forward by Governor David Paterson (a shot over the bow?). (Also see: James Withers’ opinion piece.) I commented before that it may not be the best strategy to float a bill that doesn’t have a chance of passage. But now the Assembly has passed it (by a wider margin than in 2007,  possibly because of the personal push by Assemblymember Daniel O’Donnell, the old brother of Rosie O’Donnell), it does put more pressure on the New York Senate. Wait and see. And speaking of wait and see, when does the New Hampshire bill get put on the Governor’s desk? For crying out loud!

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Sex, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, Catholic matters, LGBT Christian, LGBT Rights, Coming Out, Public Affairs, Ministry | Print | No Comments »

The parable of a reconciling community.

May 12, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

I am exploring the idea of a Taizé style of contemplative worship as an alternative serviceion cooperation with Deacon Roberta Morris of the American Catholic Church.

Taizé is a small village in France near Cluny. The ecumenical community of Taizé was founded in 1940 by a Swiss man, Brother Roger, who was of Lutheran and Catholic roots; his father was a pastor. During World War II, with the help of his sister and other friends, they practiced a ministry of hospitality for anyone fleeing the terrors of war. Taizé was very near the demarcation line which divided France under Nazi power. Before long, friends in Lyon were simply giving the address of Taizé to all who needed refuge.

According to the Taize website, “their desire was to create a community of hospitality and trust for people from all over the world, and particularly a place of refuge for those from Eastern Europe.” Taizé is truly ecumenical and European because it has refused to be limited by the labels of the past. Brother Roger thought that Taizé’s mission or vocation was to be a “parable of community,” a small but visible sign of reconciliation.

I am mindful that this is how our own congregation is growing. Whether we realize it or not, we are a small community near the demarcation lines of various conflicts, struggles and even culture war. We are practicing a ministry of hospitality and trust. We are a Reconciling in Christ congregation. And —although we are a Lutheran church— in another sense we are neither Evangelical nor Catholic but a little of both. We offer compassion, food, spiritual nourishment, refuge, and a place where anyone seeking God may be at peace.

As a community, we are neither black nor white, gay nor straight; not rich or poor, although our community has individuals who fit those labels. Our purpose is to reflect the will of God and the mission of Jesus for whoever comes here.

Brother Roger continued to serve as the prior or abbot of the community from 1944 for six decades until his death in 2005 as a martyr. At the age of 90, he was murdered by a mentally ill woman who attacked him with a knife. Brother Roger wrote some 14 books, and co-authored three more with Mother Teresa of Calcutta. Today, May 12, is the birthday of Brother Roger, who was born in 1915.

The Taizé Community today has more than 100 brothers from Catholic and Protestant backgrounds and from more than 25 countries, who live in community. Since the 1950’s, young people have been visiting Taizé from all over the world. Some weeks, there are as many as 7,000 gathered from 70 nations. Taizé has become a model of ecumenical spirit, Christian renewal, prayerful contemplation and service. All over the world, churches of different denominations hold Taizé prayer services including silent meditation and its simple music.

Prayer by Brother Alois. On Easter 2009, Brother Alois offered this prayer in the Church of Reconciliation in the presence of the brothers and thousands of visitors.

Risen Jesus, like Mary of Magdala, who on Easter morning stayed close to the tomb, we say to God our expectations, our unresolved questions, and sometimes our helplessness. You, the Risen One, you come towards us humbly and call us by our own name.

To each one of us you say, “Go towards those who have been entrusted to you. Tell them that I am risen. Pass on my love by your life.”

And as we communicate the mystery of your resurrection, we understand it more and more; it can transform our lives.

So I believe that if we move with commitment toward those who are given to us—entrusted to us—it will transform our community life. We must not just talk about faith and love. We must model what we believe God is working in us. We must be the change we believe God asks of us—not only the change within each of us by repentance and faith, but the change within our shared life as love, welcome, hospitality and reconciliation. The stronger our parish community becomes, the more we model Christ’s love within the larger church: not drawing sharp demarcation lines, never turning people away, never tiring of showing compassion and hospitality.

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Ecumenical Issues, Catholic matters, Faith, Living by Grace, Spirituality, History, Ministry | Print | No Comments »

Is there a higher standard?

May 11, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

I talked about Christian Baptism recently—and I’m yet undecided whether we still need to divide ourselves on whether we baptize infants or only “believers”– after the age of accountability or decision. Plenty of teens make a decision for Jesus just before their gonads begin to fire, and suddenly the Christian life seems so much less interesting than everything else. I don’t think that is the dividing issue among Christians.

What bothers me (and I will come back to Baptism either here or on the Gay Catechism site), is that Baptism, with its rich symbolism (cleansing, freedom, repentance, turning, light, fire and Spirit, death and life) raises questions about getting in to the Realm of God. Baptism is the gate to the Christian life.

If Baptism is an “entrance exam”, and all Christians pass through it at some point, it is not a filter to keep out Lesbian/gay, bisexual and transgender applicants, largely because we are not always aware of our psycho-sexual selves when we are teenagers or before. (It would be an interesting study of Baptist denominations if they are having more trouble over making the decision to be baptized because teens and pre-teens are now more aware of homosexuality than they were a generation ago.)

But it’s obvious that many Christian groups would like to keep LGBT people out, like an insurance company wanting to know if we have a pre-existing condition so they can deny coverage.

Conservative Christians have an answer for everything, so they tell us that we are backsliding, that we have fallen from grace, that we can lose or have lost our salvation, … whatever, as if there is another, higher standard —a sexual standard— or a qualifying exam that LGBT people categorically fail even if we or our parents made a baptismal decision for Christ. “You can’t be gay and be Christian!!” they insist. But we are gay/lesbian/transgender/bisexual and we are Christian. Because the only qualification anyone can have to “be a Christian” is to put our faith and trust in Jesus Christ as our Savior. Everybody who believes in Jesus and is baptized will be saved (Mark 16:16; Acts 16:31).

(Of course, narrow/strict Christians like to point also to Matthew 3:7–8: ” But when he saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit worthy of repentance.”

But “bearing fruit” is not an entrance requirement. Living the Christian life is the result of God’s grace and the believer’s faith through the help of the Holy Spirit. I can’t help wondering if the reason this kind of harsh attitude is used on LGBT people is grounded in the idea that we literally don’t bear fruit (ignoring the pun)– we don’t have kids.

If propagating the Christian faith through biology is “bearing fruit” for the kingdom of God, bringing up one’s own kids in the Christian faith is “low-hanging fruit,” if you ask me. It’s the easy way out to assume that raising a family is a measure of merit.)

But why do some Christians set up another standard, beyond simple faith, to filter out others? Because some folks don’t like Everybody and they can’t stand the idea that Everybody who believes in Jesus could possibly be acceptable to God. If they can set a higher standard than God sets, or than Jesus sets, and make people believe there is such a standard, they can keep out the undesirables, the riff-raff, the minorities (and in our times, that means the sexual minorities).

The Gospel’s standards are not impossibly high. Most important, they are not based on achievement or merit but on faith — especially the faith of those who would have no other merit.

And the shoddy thing, which fundagelicals and ex-gay ministry people seem to practice, is to create a secondary standard, an entrance exam designed for them to pass that others cannot. Let me explain:

Some modern scholars have suggested that today’s homosexual is the Bible’s eunuch, and have drawn connections with Matthew19:12 and sexual orientation. In the Law of Moses, the eunuch is categorically excluded from Israel (Deuteronomy 23:1); i.e., “You can’t be a eunuch and be an Israelite!!” By definition a eunuch cannot sire children, cannot “bear fruit.” Yet Isaiah 56:3–5 argues against the Law of Moses: “For thus says the LORD: To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.” (Again, ignoring Isaiah’s pun.)

So it is convenient to insist that to really be a Christian you also have to do something which is impossible, that “precludes” a whole category of people from the Christian Club and keeps it pure.

If heterosexuality were really the most important sign of righteousness which God demands of all people, as the Right insists, they are creating a standard which demands virtually nothing from those to whom heterosexuality comes naturally, and categorically lock out sexual minorities. (Sounds a lot like Matthew 23:4 and 13, “They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them. . . . woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in, you stop them.”)

In effect, they ignore the demand of all disciples to practice self-denial but expect complete self-negation from us. It would be bad enough if the Right pushed these views as mere opinions, but they attempt to give them the authority of God. When I think of all the people who have suffered spiritually, deeply, because of such stuff, it is beyond mere hypocrisy. It is evil.

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Doctrine, Gay Catechism, Bible & Interpretation, Fundamentalism, Faith, LGBT Christian, Living by Grace | Print | No Comments »

That would be a switch!

May 10, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

A few weeks ago, the results of another of those polls was published that revealed and extraordinary level of religion-swapping in America. This summary is from USA Today:

Survey: Half of U.S. adults have switched religionsKey findings:

• The reasons people give for changing their religion — or leaving religion altogether — differ widely: 71% of Catholics and nearly 60% of Protestants who switched didn’t think their spiritual needs were being met, liked another faith more or changed their religious or moral beliefs.

• Most switched early, committing to one faith by age 36. Americans switch religions “often, early and for many different reasons,” says John Green, a Pew senior fellow.

• Catholicism has suffered the greatest net loss in the process of religious change: The 10% of U.S. adults who have quit the church vastly outnumber the 2.6% who are incoming Catholics. Two in three who became unaffiliated — and half of those who became Protestant — say they left the Catholic Church because they “stopped believing its teachings.” The sexual abuse scandal was a factor for fewer than three in 10 former Catholics.

• Life circumstances, not religious doctrinal differences, prompt most Protestants who switch denominations (Baptist to Methodist, for example). Moving to a new town or marrying someone of a different tradition are the most often-cited reasons, but 36% attributed changes to “likes and dislikes about religious institutions, practices and people.”

• Many people who left a religion and now are “unaffiliated” say they did so in part because they see religious people as hypocritical or judgmental, because religious organizations focus too much on rules, or because religious leaders focus too much on power and money.

• Among the 16% of Americans who say they’re now not affiliated with any religion, most are former Protestants and Catholics who say they didn’t quit in a huff or get lured away by science or by atheist philosophy: About 70% say “they just gradually drifted away” from their childhood religion.

• About 9% return to their childhood religion, saying they tried another religion or two but then went back. Religious education or youth group participation seemed to make no dent, although people who say they participated frequently in worship services or Mass were less likely to switch.

Of course, I want to make a few evaluative comments (what else are blogs for?):

• If people switch because their spiritual needs aren’t being met, isn’t that a wake-up call for America’s churches? Why aren’t we meeting people’s spiritual needs — to offer strength, compassion, understanding and acceptance, in short to offer the same patient love as Christ did? Is there any other reason a church should exist?
• People switch early in life. Translation: while many people remain in the faith tradition in which they are raised, it’s not a slam-dunk. Young people are restless. That’s a given. When it comes to LGBT youth, it is not necessarily adolescence but the 20’s which are the greatest period of self-discovery. If 70% of those who remain “unaffiliated” just say that they “drifted away,” it could be that there is just not enough substance in “Christian Lite” way of life to keep people engaged. If love is no deeper than a pleasant feeling, and discipleship is no more demanding than church attendance, is that supposed to be a compelling reason for people to remain faithful?
• A lot of Catholics desert their faith, but hasn’t that been going on for generations? is this news, or just statistical evidence that huge religious systems don’t always speak to everybody. And the relative anonymity of large Catholic parishes makes it pretty easy to disappear. The Catholic church could ask itself, like Protestants have for years, what do we offer that will help keep those who nurtured as children? Why would they want to stay? Do we have a faith and a message and a spiritual way of life for adults.
• This study find that, as a factor in religion-switching or religion abandoning, the clergy sex abuse scandal has not done that much damage. People cite many other reasons besides that scandal for leaving the Catholic church. To me, here is the “smoking gun”: “Two in three who became unaffiliated — and half of those who became Protestant — say they left the Catholic Church because they “stopped believing its teachings.” Did they stop believing in Christ, in the power of God, in the love, forgiveness and renewal in the Gospel? Or did people stop believing or reject “teachings” that are in stark contrast to actual behavior and the real world? If teachings are hypocritically put out there (”don’t do as I do, do as I say”), isn’t it logical that people will reject the teachings as phony?
• Unfortunately— and this is not just a “Catholic problem” —the teachings I think many people don’t buy any more are the sexual control and narrow-mindedness. Included are teachings about birth control, abortion, homosexuality, divorce, abstinence before marriage, the evil of masturbation, guilt or shame over sexual feelings or an ordinary sex drive. This is not strictly a Catholic issue, but at least some non-Roman Catholic churches do a better job of grounding their ethical teachings in the Scriptures None of those strict, narrow teachings are well grounded in the Bible—certainly not birth control, homosexuality, abstinence before marriage, masturbation, guilt and shame. Vast parts of the Christian church have made sexual purity the ultimate measure of faithfulness, even though Jesus never did so. Is it any wonder people don’t believe those teachings any more?
• That life circumstances prod many to change affiliations is no surprise. If the churches are to nurture people in spirituality and faith are not responsive to real people’s life circumstances, they are clearly irrelevant. In our society, few people remain with anything in our lives simply out of a sense of loyalty or because of inertia. If a job, a marriage, a hobby, a political party, or a religion do not mesh with our sense of purpose and fulfillment, then “we’re outta here”–we’ll make a switch to something that does fit, or a switch to nothing at all. In that regard, LGBT people may have different life circumstances than others such as divorcees or whatever, but we’re going to have a similar reaction: if my church is out of touch with my life experiences and does not respond to my life circumstances with understanding and compassion, I will move on or at least move out.

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Doctrine, Catholic matters, Ecumenical Issues, LGBT Christian, Spirituality, Faith, Ministry | Print | No Comments »

Standing against the Religious Wrong.

May 8, 2009 by Dan Hooper.

You don’t have to point this out to me: After all the blogs about the same-sex marriage fight in America, what does gay marriage really have to do with being Christian? The question can cut both ways, and, no, I haven’t addressed it here (probably because an entire book won’t fit on this screen), yet.

In the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s analysis of why Proposition 8 (overturning the Supreme Court’s May 2008 decision which legalized civil same sex marriage in California) passed, the religion card played a big role. Conservative churches produced buckets of money to push Prop 8, and they demanded that their members vote for it, to “save” marriage.

(As if the lesbians and gay men were going to, multiple choice, (a) steal it; (b) damn it; (c) throw it away; (d) destroy it; or (e) none of the above.)

((One commentator of the Daily KOS site I mentioned last week said this about same-sex marriage coming to Iowa: “Thank God! Marriage is saved. Let Gays do to marriage what they do to run down neighborhoods…. fix it up, make it better, sell it back to the heteros for tidy profits, and move on to the next thing that needs rehab.”))

But on the progressive side, a lot of churches are entirely supportive of same-sex weddings. My own parish started to allow same-sex ceremonies in the church long before I was called to serve there. Last fall, it went on record against Proposition 8. The United Church of Christ (successor to New England’s Congregational churches), in its advertising campaign “God Is Still Speaking” and other venues has made clear that it supports gay marriage. So does the Universalist–Unitarian church denomination.

At one level, marriage is completely irrelevant to the Christian message. Jesus stressed that in the world to come people “neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven,” (Mark 12:25) and he criticized those who tried to bait him or pose trick questions or devise spiritual litmus tests. “But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites?” (Matthew 22:18)

But at another level, marriage is foundational for the family and community life which most human beings believe is important to humanity and civilization. Traditional Christians, who have so far opposed same-gender marriage, strongly believe in the value of family and fidelity.

But, so do progressive Christians, including many LGBT Christians and their straight allies. Speaking as such a one— both as a pastor and as married (33 years together; legally recognized for 7 months and counting)— I too believe in the value of family and fidelity.

Then why the odious, noxious and expensive fight over civil  marital rights? Why Christians against Christians?

It certainly isn’t just semantics. No one owns the word “marriage.” Besides, the traditionalists have the words “Holy Matrimony” and a host of other terms to use. And they don’t use the words “civil marriage” to describe the sanctity or sacramental nature of Christian marriage, anyway.

And as I said to a reporter last June in West Hollywood, “if you want to ‘protect’ marriage, then buy your own wife some flowers and listen to her when she talks to you. Protect your own marriage, and Marriage will take care of itself.”

No, the only reasonable answer is that ring-wingnut leaders, who do believe in the value of family and fidelity, do not want anyone else to have except people like them. This is no mere struggle over the use of the word “marriage,” and therefore it’s no mere struggle over whether a “civil union” or “domestic partnership” is truly equal to a civil marriage. The bald, undisguised truth is that right wing does not want homosexual persons to have and enjoy family, fidelity, stability and security. To deny us familial relationships makes it easier to continue to reject us as promiscuous sexual perverts, even when clearly many of us are not. They want to lower our ability to lead stable lives which might be regarded by others as decent and comparable to their own stable lives.

Taken as a group, the negative actions of the Right, especially the “Christian” Right, if successful would all reduce us back to closeted, insecure, self-loathing and pathetic individuals who neither deserved nor possessed significant relationships. They would prevent us from having the right to employment or housing, from serving in the military, from parenting or adopting children, from belonging to a Christian church, from teaching in public schools, or even from having intimate relations in the privacy of our own homes. If you glance back to pre-Stonewall times, 40 years ago this coming June, gay and lesbian people were in constant fear of the law simply for having a drink and talking to one another in a neighborhood bar.

The clear pattern of prejudice has been to do everything possible to deprive us of our self-esteem, our dignity and our very humanity; and instead to taunt us that we are despised here and damned hereafter by God.

Even the rhetoric about the so-called Gay Agenda is a smoke-screen thrown up by the right wing to conceal their agenda: to control, hurt and destroy people who are different from themselves. The methodology is to intimidate, shame, attack, and sue.

Do you think I am painting this with over-broad strokes? That I exaggerate, that I am unkind and therefore un-Christian toward those of simple faith and traditional values? I know activists that would say the opposite: that I am being too kind, too gentle on the right wing. Jesus, after all , utterly reject the right wing of his day. “You brood of vipers!” (Matthew 3:7); “You hypocrites!” (Matthew 15:7) He caricatured the self-righteous in parables, for example, “The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.’” (Luke 18:11)

It is not my place to judge. But of this I am certain: the call of God to all Christians is to do all we can to build one another up with love, to be compassionate, and to forgive one another as we have been forgiven. In my view, that precludes virtually all of the angry, harsh rhetoric of right-wing Christians who repeatedly defame and reject progressive Christians.

So, if marriage is the battleground right now, but the war itself is over our dignity self-esteem, our humanity, then marriage is important for progressive Christians. We are simply not backing down. We will stand against any and all who devalue our relationships, our life experiences, our faith, our consciences, and who would deny us our place at the table (Luke 15:28–32), even other brothers and sisters who call themselves Christian.— Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Lesbian/Gay Marriage, "The Closet", Doctrine, Ecumenical Issues, History, LGBT Christian, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

The tides of change are lapping at another shore.

May 7, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

This is completely unprecedented, isn’t it? New Hampshire is on its way to joining its neighbors in extending civil rights to lesbian and gay couples who wish to marry, and truly creating the Lavender States of America. 

On Wednesday, May 6, the bill legalizing same-gender marriage passed the New Hampshire legislature, although narrowly. Democratic Governor John Lynch has five days to sign or veto the bill or it will become law anyway. As of this morning he hasn’t indicated what he will do. According to the Union Leader, all eyes are on Lynch. Associated Press says Lynch promises to make the best decision for the people of the state.

New Hampshire is completely surrounded by other states and Canada where gay marriage is legal or soon will be. (Tuesday’s breakthrough in Maine does not take effect until August 4; one news commentary said not until mid-September, but the law says 90 days not 120. Opponents are gearing up now.)

Is there political pressure on other states where action has been expected? My suspicion is that gay-positive activists are taking a gentle hand, knowing that time is on our side. The process is already underway in New York and New Jersey. Why push? Perhaps there will be less backlash (”wedlash”?) if progress there now slows and takes its time.

NGLTF’s “Recognition Map” of the status as of May 6. Download it here.

Of course, anti-gay voices in Maine are already threatening to overturn the legislature through a ballot veto, as early as November. (Would that be a special election? Does everybody have a ballot every November? And May and March and June and every time somebody wants to storm the electorate with their issue? This stuff is time-consuming to track.)

But what about the left coast of America? California is still waiting for its own Supreme Court. The clock is really ticking now, since a decision is “due” no later than June 4, or just 28 days from now.  Meet in the Middle 4 Equality is prepared to march, rally and carry candles to Fresno, California the Saturday after the California Court announces its decision.

My husband and I have been discussing the issues which our court must decide. In either case, whether they uphold Proposition 8 because it amended the constitution, or turn it down because it violates equal protection and the spirit of justice in the constitution, it seems that internal conflict might be a legal case worthy of the U.S. Supreme Court. Either side, pro– or anti-gay marriage, could presumably appeal the California decision over Proposition 8, but that would be a very slow and expensive process. In the meantime, today’s Los Angeles Times had a front page story by Jessica Garrison and Maura Dolan predicting that the repeal of Proposition 8 will be back on the ballot as early as 2010 (June? November? Aaaaarrrgh!) So does ABC News with a story by Teddy Davis, and the New York Times in a story by Jesse McKinley.

But to say that “time is on our side” is a simplism to be wary of. Timing, rather than the ticking of time itself, is critical for social change. If the California Court upholds Proposition 8, it will most likely not derail legislative or court changes in other states, although it might give momentary energy to right-wingnuts trying to fight change on all fronts (didn’t they learn anything from the Bush administration about fighting too many wars at once, or do they have unlimited budges for their histrionics and aggression?) After all, many non-Californians already see this state as a granola bowl–filled with fruits, nuts and flakes. Intyelligent people can be California-phobic because we frequently suffer whiplash (or again,”wedlash”), being hit from behind by extremists.

But if the California Court overturns Proposition 8, it is also possible that a long drawn-out appeal to the federal Court would give pause to other states on their own marriage statutes. If appealed to the U.S. Supremes, even before the case is presented or argued, the general perception would be this is now a nationwide issue, so local initiative could, therefore, be trumped federally.

Maybe. In the meantime, a federal marriage amendment (banning gay marriage forever and ever) seems to have less traction now than two years ago. With regard to that, time is on our side, because the more couples who wed and live and watch each day’s sunrise without social or cosmic catastrophe, the more the popular view of lesbian and gay couples shifts toward a “live and let live” view. And is time progresses, more issues and more expressions of LGBT people and their lives slide into that “live and let live” column.

Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as a “slippery slope.” And, as reactionary as the wingnuts want to be, a slippery slope is impossible to defend. The slippery slope of social change, right now, are the shores of New England. But in 28 days the tides may shift.

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, History, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

There goes New England, there goes marriage!

May 7, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

Okay, I know this is way too much marriage talk for a general LGBT/Christian blog. BUT, well, Maine just made New England’s tipping point on gay marriage, by imitating Iowa, … or was it Vermont, … or California?

Maine’s Gov. John Baldacci signed the legislation on Wednesday that was passed by the state House only the day before (and previously by the Senate). It had been up in the air whether he would sign or not. According to 365Gay.com,

Up until he put his pen to the bill, it was anyone’s guess whether he would sign or veto it. Baldacci had said previously he had not made up his mind on gay marriage. Had he vetoed it, the bill likely would have died. It received final approval in the Senate by a slim majority, not enough to override a veto.

As the governor appeared to be equivocating, same-sex marriage advocates delivered more than 10,000 postcards asking him to support the legislation.

So Maine becomes the second state to legalize same-gender marriage by action of the legislature. And again, the opponents who have loudly cried about “judicial activism” have to remain silent on this one.

For example, Maggie (National Organization for Marriage) Gallagher’s testimony before a U.S. Senate subcommittee in March 2004, which argued for a federal marriage amendment (to disenfranchise us) was prepared for a hearing linked to “judicial activism.” Gallagher’s thinking is at best flimsy whenever she sounds off, and I applaud John Corvino’s May 1 opinion piece “Gay marriage and the bigot card” for exposing some of this.

But Maine may be more like Iowa because, although same-gender marriage became legal by action of the Supreme Court, a constitutional amendment to reverse the court’s decision is also unlikely. A constitutional amendment in Maine apparently requires the action of the legislature itself—the same legislature that just passed the law—but by a 2/3 vote in each house, and then only with subsequent ratification by the voters. And please note (365gay.com) “The new law repeals Maine’s 12-year old so-called Defense of Marriage law, which bars same-sex marriage. Under the new law, churches are not compelled to conduct same-sex weddings if it would be inconsistent with their doctrine.” Observers think it is highly unlikely that the Maine legislature would reverse itself any time soon.

But Maine is also like California, because with enough signatures, according to Ballotpedia, the voters themselves could put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to overturn same-gender marriage (see Maine’s constitution, Article VI, Part 3. Section 18). And what is particularly noteworthy is that instead of having to gather 1 million signatures as in California, it would apparently require only 55,000 signatures.

The Maine Marriage Alliance, a conservative consortium of mainly churches and individuals, are pushing such an amendment, but they don’t appear to be a formidable group. As of Wednesday, May 6, their web site is completely ignorant of the new law. And interestingly, there is no religious-based argument against gay marriage. The Pastor’s Portal is a private, secured site.

Maine’s situation is also like California in another regard: the law signed May 6 doesn’t take effect for 90 days, meaning that the first legal marriage would not happen until August 4. I don’t know if there is enough time beginning now to gather and qualify 55,000 signatures to put a repeal on a ballot in November. If not, Maine voters could face a November 2010 constitutional amendment to undo what the legislature has done. In either case, there will almost certainly be hundreds of same-gender couples who legally wed before any voter backlash could stop the process.

Certainly the more couples who wed, and the more days that pass, and the more states that legalize gay marriage, will only add to that sense that gay/lesbian marriage is inevitable.

As a final observation, I was surprised and amused that the National Organization for Marriage would put (at least for today) a Carrie Prejean video in a pop-up box in front of their site.

I wasn’t going to go there, but: it is fascinating that a woman who happily commoditizes her own breast-enhanced body should become the poster child for a NOM advertisement “protecting” marriage “and the Faith Communities that Sustain It.” According to an Associated Press story on May 6, “The directors of the Miss California USA pageant are looking into whether title holder Carrie Prejean violated her contract by working with a national group opposed to same-sex marriage and by posing semi-nude when she was a teenage model.” If this kind of thing is the moral high ground, Ms. Gallagher, then “traditional marriage” is doomed, and it won’t be the lesbians, gay men, court justices or state legislators who doomed it.

— Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Lesbian/Gay Marriage, Sex, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

Marriage momentum in New England and California.

May 6, 2009 by Dan Hooper.

It is an amazing coincidence that all of New England seems to be moving rapidly to consolidating same-gender legal marriage rights in a very short period of time. Maybe we can begin to see why the “inevitable” word is getting used so much.

None of this, as far as we can tell, will affect the thinking of the California Supreme Court, if that thinking has not already been set in concrete. (Their final decision on Proposition 8 is due virtually any time now, and certainly by June 4, under the own internal rules.)

365Gay.com May 5 headline: Maine House approves gay marriage

Here’s the gist of it:

With a vote of 89-58, the Maine House on Tuesday gave initial approval to legislation allowing same-sex marriage.  The [House] spent three hours in impassioned debate on the bill.  It received initial passage in the state Senate on April 30.

The House version and that of the Senate now must be unified and undergo a final vote before going to the desk of Gov. John Baldacci.  Whether the governor will sign it is anybody’s guess at this point. Baldacci has said he has not made up his mind on gay marriage. . . . ( Read it all.)

And another 365Gay.com headline, also on May 5: NH marriage bill advances

Legislation that would allow same-sex couples to marry is headed to a final vote Wednesday in the New Hampshire House.

The bill was approved by the Senate last week with an added provision that specifically states that churches that do not support gay marriage may refuse to perform the ceremonies.  The revised bill was returned to the House, where Tuesday it was approved by a key committee which recommended passage.

It is expected the House will endorse the revised version, sending it on to the governor.  But Gov. John Lynch remains silent on whether he will sign or veto the bill. . . . ( Read it all.)

If anything might yet influence California’s highest court, it would be the cool and logical legal reasoning of Iowa’s Supreme Court. But as we have seen, the issues are still very different, since Proposition 8, if upheld, trumps all matters of “equal protection” and simply writes unequal rights into the California constitution.

Even as each state’s progress is checked in the equal rights column, it becomes clearer and clearer that California must and will see a ballot measure to get rid of Proposition 8. That is certainly the position of Love Honor Cherish and other groups which are meeting this spring to strategize the next steps. From what I’ve been told personally, every time a collection of representatives of other groups have gathered to discuss timing, the question boils down to 2010 or 2012, and after vigorous discussion most people are saying we must move in time for the 2010 ballot. The momentum for reversing Proposition 8 couldn’t be stronger, especially when it seems each passing week in New England is adding to that momentum.

— Dan Hooper

Posted in Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

Marriage Wars. Again. Still. Over?

May 5, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

This may seem to be is a secondary issue in the Marriage Wars, but an important one that chips away at the Defense of Marriage concept: when a state or in this case the District of Columbia voluntarily decides to recognize other states’ gay or lesbian marriages.

DC Council OKs Out-of-State Gay Marriages (Christian Post, May 5, 2009)

The Washington, D.C. Council gave its final approval on Tuesday to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The council voted 12 to 1 to pass the legislation.

While the Human Rights Campaign, a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights organization, and other gay rights advocates applauded the vote, saying it was “simply the right thing to do,” a group of traditional marriage advocates, including local ministers, were outraged.

“Every minister who fears God should be here,” said Paul Trantham, according to The Washington Post. “This is disrespectful to the nation’s capital. There is nothing equal about same-sex marriage.”

Former Mayor Marion Barry casted [sic] the lone opposing vote. He initially voted with the rest of the council to approve the measure but after consulting with the religious community, he chose to stand with the ministers.

According to MSNBC today,

The vote is considered the first step toward eventually allowing gay marriages to be performed in Washington. Congress, which has final say over the city’s laws, will get 30 days to review the bill assuming Democratic Mayor Adrian Fenty, a supporter, signs it.

If Congress takes no action, the bill will become law automatically. President Barack Obama and congressional leaders have not signaled where they stand on the D.C. bill. Obama generally supports civil unions but has said marriage is between a man and a woman.

But seriously, has the war been won even while the battle rages? Can we claim victory even while we are suffering casualties and setbacks in some states, including California? (When will the California Supremes issue their final word on Proposition 8??)

“Is Gay Marriage Inevitable?” – Maggie Gallagher, June 20, 2008, not a particularly supportive opinion piece. Gay marriage, she says, will redefine infidelity, among other things. Was she the first to suggest the “inevitable” word? Or do journalists trade crib sheets? Is “inevitable” the “next big thing” in reporting on the sexuality wars? For example (a very quick Google survey):

“Is Legal Same-Sex Marriage Inevitable?” – Freakonomics, April 9, 2009, and this is sort of fascinating: “Polling guru Nate Silver has built a regression model, based on demographic and political trends, to forecast when a majority of the voting public in each of the 50 states might vote against a gay-marriage ban, or vote to repeal an existing one. His findings: by 2016, most states will have legalized gay marriage, with Mississippi alone holding on until 2024. . .”

“Marriage Equality Is Inevitable” – Bernard Whitman in Forbes Magazine, April 29, 2009: “But no matter your opinion on the subject, this truth is inexorable: Gays and lesbians will one day be able to wed legally in all 50 states. Our relationships will finally be recognized as valid under the law and protected by our government. And America will be a stronger country for it.”

“Gay marriage is inevitable” – Jeff Jared, Kirkland, Washington Reporter, April 23, 2009: “The inexorable march of gay marriage continues. Connecticut and Massachusetts already have it. Four states down, 46 to go. I’ll wager in 20 years, it’ll be legal in all 50 states, just like it took interracial marriage many years to become universally legal.

“For people under 30, gay marriage is a non-issue. To them, it’s obvious gay marriage should be legal. It violates equal protection to give marital benefits (inheritance rights, divorce rights, tax advantages, medical visitation rights, etc.) only to straights.”

For the record, rights, justice, understanding, and fairness are never inevitable. And once achieved they are never secure. We will always see the flip-flopping of public opinion from one generation to the next, or from one region of the country to the next.

My question is always, are we following Jesus? Because discipleship is also not inevitable nor permanent. Each person must commit to discerning what Jesus asks of us, how far to stick our necks out, when to speak and when to remain silent. If we are determined to claim our place at the table of the Lord, and to ask for God’s blessing of our relationships, these things will not come to us inevitably. We must ask for them by name, seek them with diligence, and thank God when they are ours.

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

How did they let this one slip by?

May 4, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

Yesterday it was my privilege to preside at the baptism of a little girl, on the occasion of her first birthday. May 3 will truly be a memorable day in her life. Surrounded by her parents—good and thoughtful young adults—and four sponsors, and other children, it brought back memories of these special family celebrations from past generations.

Baptism for many Christians is not a big deal. Almost a superstition to some who are not particularly active in church, baptism is something that parents “have done” to their child, and then most often because grandparents are breathing down their necks.

For LGBT Christians, however, Holy Baptism is something we should be genuinely excited about, because it is one of the foundation blocks of our claim to a place at the table of the Lord, even if some groups have developed strange views along the margins of this ancient rite (”Aborted Babies Go to Limbo“).

Baptism is the true entrance rite into the Christian faith. There are no other layers or levels of membership. For most all Christians, Baptism is where God takes a risk on human beings who may or may not turn out to be what God expects. It doesn’t matter if the church practices “infant baptism” or “believer baptism” at the age of discretion or discernment as a young teen, no one except God above can know how the person who is baptized will turn out.

[photo: infantbaptism-Lutheran.jpg]

Will this young life blossom or wither? Will this new member of the body of Christ wander, or become lost in life, or stay obediently close to home? Will this person be a heterosexual “conformist” or a sexual minority?

For those right-wing Christians who insist that homosexuality is a choice, for example—and many of those church groups also practice “believer baptism“—maybe they should move the age of accountability up to the mind-20s when many people finally come out. At least you would know if the newly baptized person is gay or straight!

The point of course is that God knows, and yet no thunderbolts seem to zap anybody’s church steeple or baptistry — not the traditional and liturgical churches who inch by inch are moving toward openly welcoming LGBT people, and not the born-again churches who think that God hates us, and not the super-mega-churches, either.

Regardless of denomination, we all accept people for baptism without performing a litmus test on their sexuality. That’s because we don’t know when and where sexuality is first discerned in the individual’s spiritual and emotional development. And we all think our baptismal practices are the correct ones even if other Christians get it wrong. We all offer prayers and blessings to the effect that God receives this new person into the fold as a precious daughter or son in the faith, and so as a sister or brother in Christ.

I think God laughs! I think God has a big belly-laugh at those who believe that can keep out or push out or freeze out or disfellowship anyone who is baptized into Christ. Because it just isn’t possible. All who believe, and are baptized, are part of the household of faith. ” There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all” (Ephesians 4:4–6).

So for all the quarreling and posturing and angry schisms because somebody is trying to let the homosexuals into the church of Jesus Christ (or consecrate one as a bishop!), it might be best just to remind everyone at once that it’s too late for noisy arguments and rants and ultimatums. We’re already inside!

We were born in the church, and baptized in the body of Christ. We are not clamoring to get in to this troubled, archaic institution. We are already here, already baptized, already part of Christ’s missionary force in the world. Those of us who are LGBT have already “infiltrated” every Christian denomination there is, simply by being who we are and who we have been since we grew up—lesbian/gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or anything else.

So relax. God knew it all along!  And, by grace, God lets each one slip by!

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Doctrine, Ecumenical Issues, LGBT Christian, Living by Grace | Print | 1 Comment »

It ain’t over until it’s over, so it ain’t over.

May 3, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

Poll: Most Americans Don’t Want Gay Marriage in Their State

By Nathan Black, Christian Post Reporter (Sat, May. 02 2009 01:46 PM EDT)

A recent poll released this week shows that the majority of American voters do not want their state to allow gay marriage.

Fifty-five percent of voters oppose a law in their state allowing same-sex couples to marry, according to an April 30 poll of more than 2,000 registered voters by Quinnipiac University.

Moreover, half of American voters support the federal law allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

The 1996 Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted under the Clinton administration, provides that states need not recognize same-sex marriages from another state.

Fewer Americans, however, support the second DOMA provision which defines marriage as between one man and one woman and bans the federal government from recognizing gay marriage for any purpose, including eligibility for federal benefits.

Fifty-four percent of voters say the federal law denying federal spousal benefits to gay and lesbian partners should be repealed.

Also, 57 percent support same-sex civil unions and 53 percent favor allowing same-sex couples to adopt children.

Clearly, the mood is changing, even if we haven’t reached the tipping point.

“Americans have nuanced and at times inconsistent views about gay rights issues,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, in the report.

“In general, Americans tend to be more supportive when it comes to narrow equity questions like serving in the military or collecting federal benefits,” he noted. (Fifty-six percent of voters say the ban on openly gay men and women in the military should be repealed.)

“But they are less accepting of more philosophical issues such as equating gay rights with civil rights for blacks and the belief that people are born gay rather than it being a choice,” said Brown.

If indeed the tipping point has been passed about gender orientation being a choice, then the day will come that a majority of people will see that there is no choice but to give full civil rights to LGBT people. It ain’t over yet.

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

Freedom of Hate, Freedom of Religion.

May 2, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

[So-Called] Christian Attorneys Urge Senate to Vote Against ‘Hate Crimes’ Bill (Christian Post, May 1, 2009)

Attorneys at a Christian legal group are urging the U.S. Senate not to pass the expanded “Hate Crimes” bill, which the House this week voted 249-175 in favor of.

The attorneys at the Alliance Defense Fund insist that the bill, H.R. 1913, could severely impede Americans’ constitutional rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression while creating additional legal protections for those engaged in homosexual behavior that are not available to everyone else.

If made into law, the bill would add violence against individuals based on sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability to the list of federal hate crimes. Current federal law only covers crimes committed on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity or national origin.

It figures. The Alliance Defense Fund is the right wing God squad that also gave you Proposition 8. Said Stuart Whatley of The America Prospect last October, “[The] Ultraconservative legal organization the Alliance Defense Fund is backing a California marriage ban with rhetoric about ‘defending’ family and children.”   His entire article is worth a careful re-read, but here is more:

Following the ADF’s defeat in California’s In re Marriage Cases in May, when the court ruled that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, the ADF found reinforcements in other conservative groups such as ProtectMarriage, the National Organization for Marriage and Focus on the Family. In the following months, this conservative conglomeration successfully garnered over one million signatures to place Prop 8 on the ballot with hopes of overturning the court’s ruling. The ADF’s role in the case was to “defend” its position on the legal definition of marriage — that it is exclusively between a man and a woman — under the aegis of traditional Christian family structures.

Just so you know what axe is bring ground by whom (according to Wikipedia), “ADF’s President, CEO, and General Counsel is Alan Sears. Sears was previously a Justice Department official under the administration of President Ronald Reagan, and has co-authored two books with Craig Osten: The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today, and The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values.

Here is the ADF’s own news release on this. At the bottom of the page: “ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith.” Apparently they don’t think Christians can live out their faith without the legal right to hate. Has it crossed the minds of any of these “Christian” attorneys that Jesus was the victim of a hate crime?

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Homophobia, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

Undisguised indifference to bigotry and suffering.

May 1, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

I followed his story closely. I became emotional when he died. I made memorial gifts in his name.  I have written about him. But I never met Matthew Shepard. There was something so tender, so shy in the few photos of him that have been published. Maybe the heart-strings that his murder tugged upon was that I could have been just as easily victimized at that age.  Skinny, shy, not very masculine, uncertain of my gay self in a hostile world.  The only thing different was I don’t have blond hair.  But that innocent 21 year-old could have been me.  Since I was that young, and even since his senseless death, I have met countless gay kids.  And too many of them have sad stories, if not horror stories, to tell about parental rejection, being bullied, feeling too hungry for a little sympathetic company while sitting all alone on a bar stool. Too many of us still experience real queer bashing.  In my own neighborhood (liberal Silverlake in Los Angeles) there are still fearful, frightening episodes of queer bashing and mugging.Of course I am gratified that the House of Representatives has now passed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill (and who knows, will there be an uphill battle in the Senate?). Yet since Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) called this hate crime a “hoax”, I am outraged all over again. (Huffington Post’s headline, “Virginia Foxx: Story of Matthew Shepard’s Murder A ‘Hoax.’“)

For one thing, I must surmise that she didn’t follow his story, when Matthew was discovered tied to a Wyoming fence in the freezing cold, his skull already crushed. Everyone (except people like Foxx) was horrified. And within hours he was dead. Rep. Foxx has simply “bought into” the flimsy defense argument that those scumbags who murdered him had only robbery on their minds; and therefore she could argue that to classify his murder, and to name this bill after him, is a hoax. 

That is almost like suggesting that Hitler only incidentally murdered six million Jews, and all he meant to do was to rob their bank accounts, seize their art collections and remove their gold dental fillings!

I certainly agree with Keith Olberman (MSNBC Countdown) that if Foxx cannot fully and appropriately apologize for her calloused remarks (now indelibly written into the Congressional Record to document her indifference to bigotry, homophobia and suffering in 21^st Century America), she ought to resign.

Of course, Rep. Foxx sort of apologized soon after for her poor choice of words, as if it were only a matter of language. Language is the servant of thought, Rep. Foxx. The language you chose reflects your thought, and it made clear that you really trivialize Matthew Shepard’s brutal torture and murder as a mere robbery, and so you trivialize the reality of brutal, relentless hate crimes in America.

Gay and lesbian people aren’t the only ones who suffer hatred. But like African Americans, Muslims and those who resemble one, Jews, transgender persons, physically-challenged individuals, and women of all states and conditions, violent hate crimes against such people are violent hate crimes. Robbery is a convenient sequel to the evil within the heart of those whose real intent is to hate, to reject, and to destroy people. If Ms. Foxx had followed the trial, read the transcript, or even watched the news, it might have tested her to see if she has any genuine human emotions. I am completely disgusted by her comments because I can tell how she measures the whole matter in her “heart.”

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Violence, Homophobia, LGBT Rights, History, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »