The elephant of privilege.

November 26, 2011 by Pastor Dan.

One of the ELCA blogs caught my eye because of this single word:  “privilege.”  It is about time that it gets called out in public discussion. 

RE: Hunger Rumblings http://blogs.elca.org/hungerrumblings/post/privilege-22112011/

I was surprised that this post, while taking two paragraphs to set a context for his observation, never connected the dots between lack of privilege, hunger and justice. People with privilege— certainly a group larger than “the 1%” identified by the Occupy Movement—actively resist not only the loss of their privilege but even the identification of their privilege as such. They rationalize what they have as necessity, or earned, or in their contract or as the result of doing “nothing illegal.”

There are many voices in the current strident partisanship in America who decry the sense of “entitlement” in programs for people at the bottom of society, and from that argument they are earnestly trying to unweave our badly-frayed safety net for the poor/elderly/hungry/vulnerable. Ironically, the most strident voices are themselves coming from the most privileged segment of our society.

Privilege itself has balkanized our society. It is the “elephant in the room” of political discourse on many hotly-debated matters, including federal bail-out programs, immigration reform, and access to health care, education, jobs, and criminal justice. Even the sexuality wars of our times stem from the sense of entitlement which heterosexual people typically feel gives them the right to deny equality before the law to LGBT people.

Unfortunately, a sense of privilege has long since permeated the mainline church, especially in those denominations and congregations that cater to suburban upper/middle class (and mostly white) people. This sense of privilege is a cancer which continues to attack the very heart of the Gospel of Jesus. Need we look any further than the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3–12, the Parable of the Judgment (Mt. 25:31–46), or the Rich Man and Lazarus (Lk. 16:19–31) to see where privilege or lack of privilege is found in Christ’s teachings?

But privileged Christians can begin the “critical self-reflection and repentance” to which Creech refers, and hopefully resist the corrosive power of privilege by seeing what we have not as privilege but as gift. It is easy to rationalize our privilege as entitlement. Before God none of us has, or deserves, privileges. But that truth should not be easily “spiritualized” as simply a matter of forgiveness or justification by grace (gift) alone. All that we are, and have, and hope to do with our lives, are gifts of God. Even that we can get up every day, and use our health and wealth productively, is a gift. We do not deserve life itself. Life is a gift.

We have all heard the lame jokes about a family sitting down to a table of leftovers where someone who thinks it is unnecessary to give thanks says “This food was already blessed once before!” But when I give thanks at each meal, it is not the food which is blessed. I am blessed that I am able, once again, to eat. So recognizing that our whole lives are gifts may help us to begin to see those all around us for whom food, health, shelter, safety, dignity and justice are all still deeply felt hungers.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in LGBT Rights, Bible & Interpretation, Living by Grace, Health, Public Affairs, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Prop 8 Defenders Have Standing?

November 17, 2011 by Dan Hooper.

This news item is just in from Lutherans Concerned/North America:

Today, November 17, the California Supreme Court handed down its decision that the proponents of Proposition 8 had the right to appeal the August 2010 decision of Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, U.S. District Court, that the law was unconstitutional.

This ruling answers the question asked of the California Supreme Court by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, when the proponents of Prop 8 submitted an appeal to the 9th Circuit following the refusal of the then Governor of California and the State Attorney General to appeal the decision of the District Court.

In its ruling the California Supreme Court said, “The inability of the official proponents of an initiative measure to appeal a trial court judgment invalidating the measure, when the public officials who ordinarily would file such an appeal decline to do so, would significantly undermine the initiative power.” The court was unanimous in its decision. The court said that it made this ruling solely on the issue of process, and not on the merits or issues of Proposition 8 itself.

Both sides of the action before the 9th Circuit have said that they fully expect the appeals court to accept and abide by the ruling of the California Supreme Court as to the standing of those bringing the appeal.

Though some LGBT advocacy groups have expressed disappointment with the California ruling, the lawyers who brought the original suit by two same-sex couples and are directly involved in the case before the 9th Circuit have expressed confidence. In press reports, Theodore Olson, former U.S. Solicitor General during the Bush administration, has said, “This frees up the 9th Circuit to go ahead and decide the constitutional issues on the merits. We’re anxious to get to a decision on the merits that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”

The case has already been briefed and argued before the 9th Circuit; so, on that basis, the court could move to deliberation and decision. However, the proponents of Prop 8 have raised the issue of Judge Walker’s being in a long-term, same-gender relationship at the time of the trial and his ruling as grounds for overturning because of presumed bias. This argument was previously made to Chief U.S. District Judge James Wade and rejected earlier this year. His ruling has now been appealed to the 9th Circuit, as well.

The saga that is Prop 8 moves now to and through a 9th Circuit decision, since those who are unhappy with whatever the 9th Circuit says about the case will undoubtedly take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Phil Soucy
Director Communications LC/NA
communications@lcna.org

— Pastor Dan Hooper

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

Safe to be ourselves, to be relevant.

October 16, 2011 by Dan Hooper.

Over the last two decades, I’ve had opportunity to at least sample what gay life is like in Latin America, Canada and Europe.  We have visited bars and other establishments in Mexico City and Monterrey, Toronto, Milan, Barcelona, Paris, etc.  We also traveled with the Gay Men’s Chorus of Los Angeles to Moscow and St. Petersburg, Russia, and Berlin.  We’ve had a few beers in Prague, where gay life has been quite open for a long time.

Tonight I am writing from San Jose, Costa Rica, in a “gay hotel”– a place that probably could not have existed two decades ago.  It is run by an “expat” American and caters mostly but not exclusively to U.S. and Canadian tourists who, thanks to the internet, can find a place like the Colours Oasis Resort.

What I find most interesting is that “Ticos” (Costa Rica’s term for its own people) also come here from elsewhere in the country because they can be themselves, or vacation as lesbian or gay couples with relative openness.  I might add, in case you are curious, that this is a legitimate, well-run boutique-sized establishment where nudity is not an option and momentary sexual encounters are not part of the scene.

In addition to the safety for guests, this is an oasis for gay employees who can find jobs and futures without shame or fear.

Costa Rica is relatively “open” to gay people, but mostly in a “don’t ask don’t tell” sense.  A one-page essay inside the guest book of the hotel explains in English what is appropriate and what to expect.  But it is  heartening to see that the host/waiter in the restaurant and the cook in the kitchen can test out and strengthen their one-year relationship in the safety of this resort.

For LGBT people in the United States, worrying about safety in 2011 seems almost quaint.  But for Latin America, it is amazing progress.

What seems to be lacking, of course, is any reference to the Christian church.  Everyone mentions the church only as geographical reference point, such as a gay bar which is several blocks east and south of the Cathedral.  But when we asked one person whether he was Catholic, he smiled and said  “mas or menos.”  As with millions in the United States, the church continues to speak in a largely irrelevant manner to its own people, and by adulthood they drift away.

I am convinced this is not because the church is morally strict and people do not want to live up to that strictness.  It is because the church is not listening, does not walk with people in their real life experiences, and therefore has little which is relevant to say.

But although we have not located a worship service yet for Sunday morning, there is a small group of Lutheran missions in Costa Rica and a bishop who oversees the church.  It appears from the web that they are trying very much to be relevant with ministries for those with HIV/AIDS, refugees, the poor, etc.  Because the Lutheran church here is not the establishment church, it has much less to risk in ministering among the marginalized.  We can only hope that it would some day also recognize its mission to LGBT people in its midst.

— Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in International, "The Closet", LGBT Christian, Public Affairs, Coming Out | Print | No Comments »

Not all are negative on same-sex marriage.

August 31, 2011 by Pastor Dan.

Thanks to Elizabeth for this link. The Atlantic Wire (Atlantic Monthly Group) has a brief article on American attitudes on same-sex marriage ~ they call it “gay marriage” ~ that shows that not all religious people are of the same mind.

Well, duh! We knew that but it’s helpful when the general public is given information to help them separate the sheep from the goats on this issue.

According to the chart, based on a study from the Public Religion Research Institute (based on data collected in July 2011), Catholics and “White Mainline” churches line up as slightly positive on the issue (52 and 51% in favor), and Black Protestant and White Evangelical church people decisively negative on the issue (60 and 76% opposed respectively).

Three years ago in the post mortem hand-wringing as to why Proposition 8 passed in California, you will remember, it was these two groups which helped to push Prop 8 to victory. the LGBT community in California was especially dismayed that we had not communicated our core message effectively to the Black churches. That reality appears to prevail today, even while general attitudes and even “White mainline” Christians have been moving steadily into our column.

Read the article linked here, because the most important finding is not represented in the Atlantic chart:

” the main theme of the study was that younger people are supporting gay rights at much higher rates than their elders. It found “at least a 20-point generation gap” between 18 to 29 year olds and adults over 65 on every public policy issue concerning gay rights. And seven in 10 people in that younger age bracket say that religious groups that come out against homosexuality are alienating them.”

This last sentence confirms a finding from the Barna Group published four years ago. See Indwelling Spirit comments here, which was based on a September 2007 Barna news article.

Today, the most common perception is that present-day Christianity is “anti-homosexual.” Overall, 91% of young non-Christians and 80% of young churchgoers say this phrase describes Christianity. As the research probed this perception, non-Christians and Christians explained that beyond their recognition that Christians oppose homosexuality, they believe that Christians show excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians. One of the most frequent criticisms of young Christians was that they believe the church has made homosexuality a “bigger sin” than anything else. Moreover, they claim that the church has not helped them apply the biblical teaching on homosexuality to their friendships with gays and lesbians.

— Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Lesbian/Gay Marriage, Catholic matters, Ecumenical Issues, LGBT Christian, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

Justice delayed, again and again.

June 23, 2011 by Dan Hooper.

It is more than a mere “cliff-hanger,” that the New York state legislature went home for the night without voting once and for all on the same-sex marriage bill. It is justice denied.

William Gladstone, the 19^th century British politician is attributed with the quote “Justice delayed is justice denied” —something that politicians forever have simply ignored. But again tonight, the citizens of New York are being denied justice while the Neros of the Senate fiddled with funding and financing and pensions and economic matters over which the two major parties love to disagree.

It is becoming quite clear that the Republican lawmakers want the clock to run out on the legislative session (which was supposed to have adjourned last week) without having to take a vote either way on Governor Cuomo’s bill. The last count was that 31 of the necessary majority of 32 Senators would vote for it. The rest of them apparently don’t want to vote for it, and don’t want to identified as being against it either. So the bill could die again because justice was delayed.

This is our legal system in America, folks. This is our court system, too, because legislators (not judges) hold the cards on appointing judges. Dozens and dozens of federal benches sit empty because the U.S. Senate refuses to confirm the nominees—another political maneuver to deny justice by postponing it.

Lawsuits take years to work their way through the courts, because attorneys afford themselves all the time in the world (someone else is paying them by the hour at prices they set without any form of regulation) to argue over technicalities. All the time in the world is justice denied while justice is debated, deferred, derailed, in courtrooms full of detached parties. In California, neither the state courts nor the federal courts seems to be able to get to the core issues raised by the ludicrous manipulation of our voters’ initiative system to shove Proposition 8 into the state constitution. While New York Senators fiddle, no one is taking charge over the clearly unconstitutional denial of fundamental human rights for gay and lesbian people because they have to think about whether outside parties—who are not harmed in any way by my marriage or yours— have the legal standing to defend the proposition in court. If the legal issues about “standing” aren’t clear by now, is it unfair of the citizens to ask, “what the hell have you attorneys and judges and legislators been doing with your time for the last century or more?”

The filibuster is another device with which everybody is familiar. It ought to be outlawed—absolutely and forever—but the bastards who filibuster are the bastards who write the laws, and do it to favor themselves rather than justice. But the filibuster is a blatant and intentional abuse of the democratic process to delay and therefore deny justice.

It isn’t that New York’s legislative “good night” this evening at 11:00 p.m. is so awful in and of itself. But it is simply one more nail in the coffin of democracy. What’s been holding up the vote for weeks? Republican lawmakers want to argue some more over whether there are enough legal protections for religious groups who don’t want to perform same-sex marriages. Was that an issue with Loving v. Virginia, that religious groups who didn’t believe that interracial marriage was moral wouldn’t be compelled to perform them? To my knowledge, no minister, rabbi, imam or other religious figure is ever compelled to preside over a marriage ceremony of any kind. We all have the freedom to say no. So the Republican misgivings about the bill in New York is an obvious stalling maneuver—to suggest that there are just too many unresolved issues to move forward. I’m not buying it.

—Dan Hooper

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

A June roller coaster.

June 21, 2011 by Pastor Dan.

This is an unusual month so far for “gay pride,” even by the unusual standards of contemporary life. The President of the United States formally proclaimed it as LGBT Pride Month ( a first). Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa declared June as the city’s first LGBT Heritage Month and the City Council had a special (and amicable) pre-session observance on June 3.

But the word “pride” doesn’t convey both the challenge and the agony we face. HIV/AIDS turns 30 this month (the first identified cases were labeled in June 1981) and AIDS is still a curse on the world, especially to minorities and nations where medications are not readily available. I will post my article on AIDS in the prison system separately.

In the meantime, both a federal Bankruptcy Court and U. S. District Court made decisions to bolster the appropriate legal recognition of gay people. The Bankruptcy Court (Central District of California) basically found that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was signed into law by our friend Bill Clinton—during a senior moment when he forgot to be our friend?—is unconstitutional. This ruling comes down beside the Justice Department’s announcement that they aren’t going to defend DOMA in court cases any more, so it will be interesting to see how an appeal plays out.

Meanwhile the original federal Proposition 8 is still working its way through the appeal process, but Judge Walker’s finding that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional will not be tossed out because of Walker’s personal prejudice. “Protect Marriage” [sic] had argued that, since Walker is himself gay and did not reveal he was in a same-sex partnership for ten years until after the trial was over, his decision was somehow tainted. The conservative fringe has trouble understanding that if their “logic” was sustained it would eliminate white, Black, Asian, married, single, or indeed all human judges from deciding all cases because their own existence would somehow prejudice their view of the law.

We thought, too, that New York’s state legislature was about to legalize same-sex marriage by June 17, but that hasn’t happened yet. June 17, 2008 was the date that same-sex marriages briefly became legal in California, before Proposition 8 blew then out again that November. Reuters reported last night that we should look for a vote by mid-week (in a hold-over legislative session), which may make New York the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage, … or not.

— Pastor Dan Hooper

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

Another June “First.”

June 20, 2011 by Pastor Dan.

http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2011/06/un-adopts-groundbreaking-resolution-affirming-that-lgbt-rights-are-human-rights/

UN Adopts Groundbreaking Resolution Affirming that LGBT Rights are Human Rights

By Paul Guequierre • June 17th, 2011 at 10:34 am

The following post comes from Mark Bromley Chair of the Council for Global Equality:

For the First time, the UN’s Human Rights Council in Geneva has adopted a resolution expressing concern at acts of violence and discrimination committed against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. The text calls on the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a global study outlining discriminatory laws, practices and acts of violence directed at LGBT individuals, with recommendations on how to put an end to such fundamental human rights abuses. The study will be reviewed by the UN Human Rights Council next year. The resolution was tabled by South Africa and it enjoyed strong support from the United States and a broad coalition of voting states from all regions of the world. It was adopted in Geneva today by a vote of 23 countries in support, 19 against and 3 abstentions.

The United States was represented at the adoption by U.S. Ambassador Eileen Donahoe and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Baer. Baer noted the importance the United States placed on this vote, emphasizing that “this resolution confirms to millions of people around the world that every person – every human being on this planet – matters. As Secretary Clinton said, ‘Gay rights are human rights.’ So are the rights of religious minorities, the disabled and so many others who have been historically ignored or persecuted, not for what they do but for what they are. This is an important step in the quest for dignity for all. And I am proud that the U.S. is a part of it.”

This is the first official UN resolution to focus exclusively on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity, and it is the first time that gender identity has ever been included in such a formal UN text. A vocal coalition of civil society advocates, coordinated by ARC International, also gathered in Geneva to push the UN to adopt the text. Those advocates, together with non-governmental leaders in South Africa, worked with the South African government to refine the text and then lobbied hard for its adoption. See the full text of the statement from the NGO coalition that supported the resolution here.

The United States was an official co-sponsor of the resolution and worked with South Africa and other co-sponsors from Europe, Latin America and Asia to secure its passage. Under President Obama and with the leadership of Secretary of State Clinton, the United States has become a strong voice for LGBT rights at the United Nations. The Human Rights Campaign is a founding member of the Council for Global Equality whose mission is to bring together international human rights activists, foreign policy experts, LGBT leaders, philanthropists and corporate officials to encourage a clearer and stronger American voice on human rights concerns impacting LGBT communities around the world. You can find more information on the Council for Global Equality and their work on this action here.

— Dan Hooper

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

One vote away from a slender majority?

June 14, 2011 by Dan Hooper.

The New York Times is reporting this afternoon that the New York Senate is only one vote away from passing the bill that would legalize same-gender marriage in that state, making it the sixth state and the largest state to do so. It is important in the larger struggle for rights and recognition because it will come as a result of legislative action, not court opinion.

Lawmakers are fond of counting their chickens before they hatch, and the vote count stands at 31 out of 62 votes. Only one more is needed for passage by simple majority. Two Republican lawmakers are already behind the bill.

A Senate vote is likely to come up this week in the Senate. The lower house of the legislature has passed this bill twice before and is considered likely to pass it again if the Senate comes through. Governor Cuomo had introduced the bill in both houses simultaneously. If passed by both houses, the law would take effect in 30 days.

Catch the New York Times story here. The Human Rights Campaign, which has delivered 25,000 postcards to New York law makers in support of this bill, is also offering instantaneous voting results directly to your cell phone: “Be the first to find out the result! Text “NY” to 30644. You’ll join HRC’s Mobile Action Network – and we’ll let you know as soon as the vote tally is in.”

If the New York vote happens by Friday, it will make an interesting and bittersweet historical footnote in the struggle for marriage equality. It was on June 17, 2008 that the first same-gender marriages were performed in California (and the last ones were performed in early November when Proposition 8 passed on the general election ballot—by a slender majority).

— Pastor Dan Hooper

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

Perspective is everything.

May 31, 2011 by Pastor Dan.

I am always browsing the internet for graphics and photos to use in illustrating articles, web sites and this blog. But this one I took myself last week. I haven’t seen this particular vehicle before or since, but its owner certainly has a different perspective on things than I.

And I can’t help wondering what level of frustration, anger or rage against the cosmos would drive a person to further deface his/her/probably his own vehicle as an editorial on one’s own life. Everything is a pretty inclusive word, after all, and no one person’s perspective is quite so vast. Okay, I know, it’s rhetorical. But we’re looking at a mental case, folks, and this driver needs help.

A second equally plausible explanation: the painter of the message is not the owner of the car.  That opens up another entire set of assumptions and conclusions.

How are things for you? Is this your car?  Is this your life? Feel free to comment.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in wingnuts, Bullying, Go figure!, Violence, Doctrine, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

Is this story for real?

May 9, 2011 by Pastor Dan.

I often am reminded, in the Peanuts comic strip, of Lucy pulling the football away at the last second when Charlie Brown goes for the kickoff. I guess it’s been a defining symbol of our times, that if something sounds too good to be true,… it probably is.

In this case, the intersection of two of the high profile LGBT topics of our times: same-sex marriage and the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

I am not familiar with CNS News, so I’ll keep scouting to see if other news outlets run this story. But tonight CNSnews.com is running this headline: “Navy Authorizes Chaplains to Perform Same-Sex ‘Marriages’ in Naval Chapels.”

My suspicion started with the headline that puts “Marriages” in quotation marks. This is typically the sign that the publishers means “so-called” instead of authentic. A little Wiki-search reveals that CNS News now means Cybercast News Service, but it was launched in 1998 as Conservative News Service, funded entirely by “private donations.” According to Wikipedia, CNS’ editor for 7 years was Scott Hogenson, who simultaneously worked for the Republican National Committee for a time.

This is not a gay marriage story lifted from the pages of The Onion. According to a 2-page April 13 memo from Rear Admiral M. L. Tidd (bio here) linked CNS, this is a genuine article.

Citing “additional legal review” by Navy attorneys, the admiral said the Navy “has concluded that, generally speaking, base facility use is sexual orientation neutral.”"If the base is located in a state where same-sex marriage is legal, then the base facilities may be used to celebrate the marriage,” the admiral’s directive states.Tidd has been Chief of Navy Chaplains since last August, according to his official bio. But it surprised me I had not seen this story on mainstream news wires. I went digging and, well, it has, sort of. Yahoo News is running the Reuters version of the story, also with today’s date. And MSNBC is running it tonight. The only real question, then, is where was Tidd’s memo since April 13?The Family Research Council is lamenting this and crying foul, because it believes that DOMA still prohibits same-sex marriages on federal property. That, I am sure, will be open to interpretation. (see pro-DOMA or anti-DOMA sources.) The Obama administration announced more than two months ago its finding that DOMA is unconstitutional and that it will no longer defend DOMA in court. If this is the conclusion President Obama came too, and he is (ahem) Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, wouldn’t that settle this issue? But according to the MSNBC story, “Representative Todd Akin, chairman of a U.S. House subcomittee that oversees Navy and Marine Corps programs, said the new Navy guidance violates a federal law that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The Missouri Republican and 62 other members of Congress have sent a letter to the Secretary of the Navy calling for the service to obey the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.”Nothing I could find says that any Navy Chaplain has actually performed a same-sex wedding since April 13. So as of this minute, the news still falls in the category of “probably too good to be true.” At least it gives our partisan political system something else to chew on. I wouldn’t send out your invitations just yet.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Family, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, History, Public Affairs, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Day of arising.

May 7, 2011 by Pastor Dan.

The Easter hymn comes to mind tonight:  “When we are walking, doubtful and dreading, blinded by sadness, slowness of heart; yet Christ walks with us, ever awaiting our invitation: Stay, do not part.”  It is based on tomorrow’s Gospel text from Luke 24, the “Road to Emmaus” story.

On Thursday, our friend Jeffrey was finally released from state prison—one month late due to the passive-aggressive incompetence of our state department of “corrections.”

Jeffrey is a gay man who was part of our church community, even though actually homeless when he was nabbed for a technical violation of his parole—failing to report his whereabouts to the parole officer.

Our “criminal justice” system is broken.  In California it eats up about as much as our entire educational system, some $10.5 billion a year.  The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation admits that more than 95% of that monstrous sum goes to simply keeping inmates locked up.  Prisons are running at over 200% design capacity.  Actual “correction” or “rehabilitation” scarcely happen at all.  Job training is spotty and inadequate.  Those inmates who never finished high school may only be permitted to take one class per week toward their G.E.D., while prison guards have the money sewed up and take home huge sums of overtime pay.  Medical care is equally spotty, and we know inmates who have had to manipulate the system just to get a nurse to see them.  There really is no such thing as counseling available to inmates, and it is extremely onerous to get the permission needed to visit inmates as pastors or volunteer chaplains.

Gay men are still targets in prison, and get raped—often by guards, not other inmates.  (See Just Detention International.)  We know of inmates who got HIV while doing time.  One straight inmate has gotten himself permanently into Ad Seg, or Administrative Segregation, so that other inmates don’t hit on him or try to beat him up because he is not real masculine-appearing.  How do we know he’s straight?  He serving time for raping his girl friend (even though she was living with him at the time, but that’s another symptom of a broken justice system).

I wouldn’t have thought so, but transgender M2F (male to female) inmates have it easier, and often find a straight protector in a fellow inmate who likes having someone feminine around for friendship and privileges.  We’ve had some difficulty with one transgender parolee, who looked for the same sweet deal “on the outside,” expecting someone would protect and support her.

It is hard to get an accurate picture of the system unless you get to know the people who have been swept into its grasp.  Voters see periodic reports that California has the highest recidivism rate in America, but according to the UC-Irvine Center for Evidence-Based Corrections in September 2005, “Two-thirds of California’s offenders return to prison within three years, but more than 50% of those offenders are sent back for parole violations alone, a rate considerably higher than in other large states.”

Such parole violations may sound serious, but how they are defined is itself often at the whim of the system which is abused not only by the guards union but political opportunists.  They have created a climate of “lock ‘em up and throw the key away” at the same time we don’t have enough money for education or the decent humanitarian care of our most vulnerable citizens.  As if the Three Strikes Law weren’t ineffective enough, in 2010—thanks to governor Arnold Schwarzenegger—Chelsea’s Law added to the insanity of Jessica’s Law, making it almost impossible to live in an urban county in this state if you are a sex offender.  (This is on top of Megan’s Law.)  The two options for such parolees are idiotic: either you declare yourself homeless, in which case the public is no safer if it doesn’t know where you are from night to night; or move to a rural county where there are no jobs or future, increasing the likelihood that parolees will eventually turn to criminal activity just to eat and stay alive.

Yet the CDCR and parole system requires parolees to return to the county in which they were originally apprehended.  We were working with another gay parolee a few months ago who did not want to return to the central valley county where he had been mixed up with local gangs that got him into trouble in the first place.  He had the official promise he could return instead to Los Angeles, where there was a support network waiting to help him start a brand-new life. But the minute he actually got our on parole, the parole officer changed everything, had him nabbed for a parole violation for not returning to his home county, and forced him back into the very criminal environment he was trying to avoid. As a result, he has disappeared.

Yet Christ walks with us, even as we try to carry out the mandate of Matthew 25:36. Tomorrow Jeffrey comes home to our congregation, to meet the people who have kept faith with him for three years of imprisonment.  Thanks to the vision of church members, we’ve been able to visit him twice in prison, write frequently, send him supplies and accept collect calls from prison several times a month.  Tomorrow is a homecoming, even though he still faces homelessness, unemployment, and three more years of close surveillance under parole. Yet Christ walks with us!

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Sex, Bible & Interpretation, LGBT Christian, Public Affairs, Ministry | Print | No Comments »

Is California education FAIR?

April 14, 2011 by Dan Hooper.

Mark Carlson of the Lutheran Office of Public Policy brought me up to speed on this. Senate Bill 48, introduced last December 13 by Senator Mark Leno (D–San Francisco) is the Fair, Accurate, Inclusive and Respectful (FAIR) Education Act, which would amend the California Education Code to include social sciences instruction on the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, and prohibit discriminatory instruction and discriminatory materials from being adopted by the State Board of Education.

Senator Leno is introducing this bill on the Senate floor on Thursday morning. Go to http://www.calchannel.com and click on Live Webcast, Senate Floor Session. It’s not exciting television viewing, but it’s useful if you want to see how our legislature actually conducts itself. If you really want to see change, get involved by contacting your representatives and sharing your views on matters of public policy. To make it easier, download the Pocket Directory of California State Government from the LOPP web site.

Leno, who is openly gay, has been a responsible proponent for legislation that would not only benefit LGBT citizens of California but contribute to a social and political environment of authenticity, justice and understanding between people of all sexual orientations.

SB 48, by the way, has already passed the Senate Education Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee.  And for more background on this bill and a lot of other important pending legislation, I recommend Equality California’s web site, www.eqca.org.

—Dan Hooper

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

They don’t want my blood.

April 14, 2011 by Dan Hooper.

The news that the British ban on gay blood donation is being lifted is a mixed bag for us. The 365Gay.com story explains that the ban is being lifted because “the rule could be discriminatory and might breach equality legislation.”

My husband and I used to be serious blood donors (he more than I). When the AIDS pandemic hit and our blood was no longer wanted for fear we had HIV in our veins, we kept on donating for awhile by simply lying about never having sex with another male.

The truth was that we were entirely monogamous had had been for years, but that didn’t seem to matter to the rules governing the American Red Cross demand for our blood. It assumed that gay men were promiscuous or possibly had the virus, even at low levels, in our systems. America could not distinguish between monogamy and promiscuity.

Even now, the distinction in this British announcement is missing. According to journalist Andy Bloxham, “However, gay men will only be permitted to donate if they have not had sexual intercourse for a decade. Homosexuals who are or have recently been sexually active will continue to be barred from giving blood.”

Well I admit I have had sexual intercourse in the last decade. But the new policy apparently wouldn’t care that it has been with the same partner for the last three decades plus. And for the record, I have never had any STD in my lifetime. But I won’t be flying to Britain to be generous with my blood.

The real oddity of our own American blood policy (I haven’t looked into British law or policy) is that it seems to be crafted to give assurances to heterosexuals that they can’t get HIV from gay blood. Are we doing that for white supremacists to assure them they won’t ever be given a transfusion of African-American blood? Truthfully, assurances of purity really can’t be 100% ever.

Blood banks do not and cannot guarantee the purity of their blood supply. Although blood products are screened carefully, but HIV takes awhile to show itself in an infected person. You would think in the 30 years since this terrible pandemic began (June 1981) that blood-screening science would have improved as dramatically as the medicines to control HIV/AIDS.

Of greater concern is that America can’t seem to convince our youth that getting HIV/AIDS is a serious health problem, even while the older generations still fear getting it from blood transfusions. We have much work to do, for example, to educate people who engage in risky behavior. (Keep your eye on www.HollywoodRemembers.org).

I still believe that donating blood is a worthy cause and that it saves lives. As a generous person, I would still donate blood, but they don’t want it. Even as the science of blood purity struggles to improve itself, I don’t see American homophobia declining rapidly enough or law and public policy keeping pace with the change of either. And although our national blood supply is amazingly safe, too much bigotry still seems to flow in America’s veins.

— Dan Hooper

Posted in Homophobia, International, Sex, HIV and AIDS, Health, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

The Religious Reich’s moral pipe bomb.

March 29, 2011 by Pastor Dan.

Well as March runs out, Wayne Besen never misses a thing of interest. He heads up Truth Wins Out, which he started to counter the “Truth Won Out” pray-away-the-gay movement. the graphic is from Besen’s site; you can read it more easily here.

What is so transparent in the Harvard thing here is that Wallnau is trying to position his group or himself in the midst of the public discourse. Commentator Besen calls it red meat rhetoric.

And did we catch the “us who are Christians”? The phrase is not incorrect, but it’s opportunistic. Christians are not all of the same mind. Wallnau has no more moral authority to speak for “us who are Christians” than I do. He apparently wants Harvard University to bunch all LGBT people, abortion, all Muslims and “the financial collapse” in the same pot. “Ain’t it awful?” we used to say. Tsk, tsk.

Transparently, he positions the “us” opposite the “you”: “you remove God from public discourse.” Who is he speaking about here? You who? Obviously in his opportunistic world of us-and-them, the “us who are Christians” are meant to be opposed to the you” of “your homosexual activity, your abortion activity,” and “you” who “removed God from public discourse.”

Nobody has removed God from the public discourse. Almighty God, who is Play-Doh in the hands of demagogues, has never been more in the public discourse. As the partisan right wing tries to make everything there is into a political issue if it can benefit from it, the religious reich tries to make everything there is into a religious issue if it can benefit from it.

Certainly, there are issues of profound importance to America and to all human beings, which deserve public discourse, but which do not directly involve one or another religious view of God. Jesus was wise enough to distinguish between the things that belong to God and the things that belong to Caesar (state), Mark 12:17. There is a moral issue in the abortion debate, for example, that is not directly a religion issue, but Christians have differing views of the moral factors in anyone’s decision to have an abortion. And some people who differ profoundly on religion may be on the same side on abortion, for example.

Wallnau’s “baiting” over Islam is especially odious, because there are some of “us who are Christians” trying to promote serious and responsible dialogue with the adherents of Islam about our views of God, revelation, obedience, morality and peace. But to suggest that “You’ve got Islam invading the United States,” as Wallnau did last fall, is irresponsible and only brings more shame on Christians in America. Red meat rhetoric is the moral equivalent of a pipe bomb, and the religious reich doesn’t seem to give a rip about that.

Worse, these people are extremists even for religious wing-nuts. Besen quotes Rev. Bill Harmon, for example, who states that Leviticus requires “the penalty of death, bareness or excommunication” for adultery, etc. and “any sexual activity other than between husband and wife.” Not sure what bareness means to him, but Rev. Bill apparently hasn’t read the Song of Solomon, where erotic pleasure is beautifully described in some detail, and the lack of an actual marriage in the relationship is unmistakable. And, Rev. Bill, if you would check Matthew 1:18–21, you will see that when Joseph and Mary were betrothed, and he thought she must have committed adultery because she was pregnant, but he understood Leviticus to allow him to break the engagement quietly and not hurt Mary. If this was good enough for Joseph and Mary, why is Rev. Bill Harmon trying to incite the masses and beat the drum for the death penalty for any morality that doesn’t fit his personal preferences?

The quote from Dr. Pat Francis is pure “woo woo religion.” If he weren’t wasting his breath about “false religion” (in a nation which guarantees freedom of religion), maybe he could pay attention to James 1:27: “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.” In other words, do some actual good for people who carry heavy burdens, and practice self-discipline in the things you think are not right for you. If such people don’t believe in abortion, then don’t have one. If they don’t like homosexuals, then don’t be one. If they don’t like Islam, then don’t convert to Islam.

But as to the “financial collapse,” they’re on their own. Jesus is opposed to serving both God and money anyway, according to Matthew 6:19 and 24. “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth,” says Jesus. “You cannot serve God and mammon” (money). I know, that won’t go over very well among the economic/political/religious right wing, but then they don’t pay close attention to the Bible anyway. I am sure the Social Transformation Conference will find a way around the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. Such people always have.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

　

　

Posted in Go figure!, wingnuts, Family, Sex, Bible & Interpretation, LGBT Christian, Fundamentalism, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

White privilege rejects Jesus’ social values.

March 8, 2011 by Pastor Dan.

I’ve been trying to figure out this Tea Party movement since it began catching headlines, but it seems not so much like revolutionaries throwing tea chests into Boston Harbor as much as loose cannons firing on anything. Or is it mostly the same old white conservatives saying, “We’re cheap as ever and we’re not going to pay for it anymore.”

(A conveniently forgotten aspect of the Boston Tea Party is that the rebels who dumped the tea in a protest against taxes had dressed themselves up as “Indians,” in effect to hide their true identities and to scapegoat others.)

Geoff Farrow’s Current Blog has a rambling half hour speech in Wisconsin from filmmaker Michael Moore insisting that America is not broke. According to Moore, “400 people in America have more wealth than one half of the entire population of the United States of America. Those 400 individuals have more wealth than 155,000,000 people do.”

So it’s plausible that the tea party is revealed as the wealthy few agitating not just for no taxation without representation, but no taxation of them, period. Specifically, they are angry about the white privileged class being taxed to support the underprivileged class.

But I have had other nagging suspicions about the motivation of tea partiers. All of this would just be mere political finger-pointing, except that there is a strong religious connection.

The Pew Research Center has released a new study, citing exit polls from last November’s election, that reveal tea partiers as being largely white evangelical Christian Republicans.

“Does the movement draw support across the religious spectrum? Or has the religious right “taken over” the Tea Party, as some commentators have suggested?”A new analysis by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life finds that Tea Party supporters tend to have conservative opinions not just about economic matters, but also about social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. In addition, they are much more likely than registered voters as a whole to say that their religion is the most important factor in determining their opinions on these social issues. And they draw disproportionate support from the ranks of white evangelical Protestants.”Reflecting on the research, a sociology professor at Pitzer College in Claremont, Phil Zuckerman (co-authoring with Dan Cady), has characterized the religious/political connection of the tea party is sharper contrast in a Huffington Post article, “Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus.” “White Evangelical Christians are the group least likely to support politicians or policies that reflect the actual teachings of Jesus. It is perhaps one of the strangest, most dumbfounding ironies in contemporary American culture.”The irony—which the Pew Forum research would seem to support—is that contemporary American Christianity has become a smorgasbord at which you can choose what you like and ignore the rest. “People look at the content of their religious tradition—its teachings, its creeds, its prophet’s proclamations—and they basically pick and choose what suits their own secular outlook.” So white evangelicals pick only the parts of the New Testament Jesus and that message that makes them feel good, and ignore those things that call for love, compassion and self-sacrifice. “Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness. These are supposed to be cardinal virtues of the Christian faith. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture. Jesus exhorted humans to be loving, peaceful, and non-violent. And yet Evangelicals are the group of Americans most supportive of easy-access weaponry, little-to-no regulation of handgun and semi-automatic gun ownership, not to mention the violent military invasion of various countries around the world. Jesus was very clear that the pursuit of wealth was inimical to the Kingdom of God, that the rich are to be condemned, and that to be a follower of Him means to give one’s money to the poor. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of corporate greed and capitalistic excess, and they are the most opposed to institutional help for the nation’s poor — especially poor children. They hate anything that smacks of “socialism,” even though that is essentially what their Savior preached. They despise food stamp programs, subsidies for schools, hospitals, job training — anything that might dare to help out those in need. Even though helping out those in need was exactly what Jesus urged humans to do. In short, Evangelicals are that segment of America which is the most pro-militaristic, pro-gun, and pro-corporate, while simultaneously claiming to be most ardent lovers of the Prince of Peace.”This lays bare the classic distinction between the religion of Jesus (”I was hungry and you fed me, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was naked and you clothed me…) and the religion about Jesus (”praise the Lord! He’s the greatest!”). While Zuckerman’s editorializing analysis pushes the hypocrisy to the extreme, the distinction, the black and white contrast can be stated quite simply: there is nothing in the ethical demands of Jesus in the New Testament that supports the astonishing materialism of our times, and the public squalor/private wealth which this supposedly “Christian” nation now reveals.And for me it confirms a point I’ve been gently bringing up for a long time: because we each have our own political views as well as religious values, it is critical for each of us to understand which is driving which. Do our political views select our religious values, or do our religious values shape our political views? Which one has greater influence on our decisions? Which one is in the driver’s seat?

— Pastor Dan Hooper

---

---

Posted in Doctrine, Bible & Interpretation, Fundamentalism, Public Affairs, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »