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 »

We are a Sanctuary.

June 2, 2011 by Pastor Dan.

As our church polishes us and celebrates the recent completion of new things in our sanctuary (such as flooring and pipe organ), my mind turns to the significance of the sacred space, what it has meant historically as a place of prayer and sacrament for nearly 90 years, and what it should mean in the lives of Christians—not just here but everywhere.

The idea of Sanctuary is an ancient one. A sanctuary is not merely a sacred space where we can pray to God, but a safe space from the anxieties, terrors and violence of the world around us.

From time to time, churches also serve as a refuge or sanctuary for illegal immigrants, for runaways and for the hungry and homeless. Battered wives have fled to the church as a place of safety, hiding and understanding. After natural disasters, many people who have been displaced by fire or flood have come to churches seeking help and temporary shelter.

Hollywood Lutheran Church is a sanctuary for sexual minorities (LGBTQ etc.), people in recovery from alcohol, drugs and other addictions, people living with HIV/AIDS, people of color and everybody else who suffers discrimination, and even inmates and parolees who are shunned even after they have “paid their debt to society.”

We don’t just sit in a Sanctuary to pray! The purpose of the Christian Church everywhere should be to enlarge the Sanctuary of God’s love and compassion, and to become a living sanctuary of people committed to mercy, safety, healing and wholeness.

There is no place in our church for judgmentalism, rejection, hatred, prejudice or fear. The Christ we know in faith—who on the Cross gave up his life for our sake and took away the sins of the world—is a Lord who seeks the lost, upholds the weak, feeds those who hunger and thirst, and reveals the light of God to anyone who struggles against the darkness.

If that sounds over-dramatic, it shouldn’t. Christians are in a life-and-death struggle with evil in the world. Every day I see the ruins and results of evil—broken lives, fearful people, indifference or hatred. In the midst of this world, there is no reason to be “religious” if not to follow in the steps of Jesus Christ. And if we follow Christ, we must be the change we want to see in the world. We must be the sanctuary to which others may come and rest and pray and feel safe. This is true religion . This is the life of faith.

—Pastor Dan

P.S. If you’re curious, here are some key Bible passages about sanctuary: Psalm 20:1–5, Psalm 28:1–3; Isaiah 8:13–14; Ezekiel 37:26–27; Hebrews 10:19–24.

Posted in Bible & Interpretation, LGBT Christian, Doctrine, HIV and AIDS, Violence, Homophobia, Faith, Living by Grace, Recovery, Ministry, Spirituality, PRAYERS, History, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Another close call coming, another earthquake?

May 10, 2011 by Pastor Dan.

More Light Presbyterians and Lutherans Concerned began their advocacy, education and support work about the same time, in 1974. Over the years we have had a great deal of dialogue about LGBT issues between the two bodies. I first met the late Dr. John Boswell at a Presbyterian event in West Hollywood not long after the publication of his blockbuster Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality in 1981. Chris Glaser, a Presbyterian pioneer in the gay/Christian movement, has worked tirelessly and written numerous books although he could never be ordained as a Presbyterian elder or minister.

All that may be about to change, if the Twin Cities Presbytery votes tonight to ratify a measure, Amendment 10-A, removing the ban on non-celibate lesbian/gay clergy in the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. In Presbyterian polity, a vote such as this in the General Assembly must be ratified by a majority of local presbyteries (smaller than Lutheran synods). According to Minnesota Public Radio, the Twin Cities Presbytery vote to rescind the policy would be the 87^th ratifying vote. Sixty-two presbyteries have voted against the change. Not all presbyteries have weighed in yet.

Because of the advocacy—lobbying—work of More Light Presbyterians and many others, the Presbyterian General Assembly (national convention) has three times voted to rescind the 1996 policy which expressly banned partnered lesbian/gay people from ordained service.

But we live in an era of domino-effect tipping points. The United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America have all dismantled their gate-keeping rules that kept lesbian and gay clergy out. The ELCA, which is larger than the other three church bodies, changed its policies most recently, in 2009.

Even more interesting, the PCUSA is one of the “full communion” partners with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. And so are the United Church of Christ and the Episcopal Church. (And the Moravian Church.) Together this group of Protestant bodies represents close to 10 million members, and begin to present a common witness of sexual inclusivity.

But there are “wrinkles” in this witness. Another “full communion” partner of the ELCA, the United Methodist Church, has not budged on sexuality issues and is not likely to any time soon, largely because it is a global church body, and because it is a very rural church in the United States. So the changing attitudes of large urban centers in the United States will not be enough, culturally, to shift the anti-gay attitudes of the Methodists.

Another significant wrinkle, of course, is that every time a church body moves forward on a social issue, it leaves some people behind who refuse to move on. The Presbyterians in American, for example, split over the issue of slavery more than 150 years ago, and have never completely reunited all of their congregations into the PCUSA. The Episcopal Church lost a lot of people over the ordination of women to the priesthood, and is still engaged in a battle with its global partners of the Anglican Communion over the consecration of openly-gay and partnered Bishop V. Gene Robinson. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has lost somewhere around 100-200 of its 10,000 congregations because of its courageous tipping vote in favor of partnered same-sex clergy in 2009, and lost a considerable amount of revenue flowing to the national church from other congregations who are withholding their cash in spite.

The PCUSA faces a similar on-going breach with congregations and individuals who won’t move on about sexuality issues. A disgruntled group, Presbyterians for Renewal, already has its own executive director and will hold its own convention later this year in Minneapolis, even though its director concedes that Amendment 10-A is likely to be ratified.

But according to MPR, Presbyterian polity will make it harder for individual congregations to just “pull out” and form a break-away churchbody. The local presbytery holds all church properties in its area in trust, so a local congregation would have to buy their own church buildings (and I guess convince the presbytery to sell!), or else just be disgruntled out in the street.

These years of struggle to change the church are really the raw data of a massive realignment of Christian groups as they confront the extraordinary social change happening in our times in the world. I can’t help thinking of the shifting of the globe’s huge tectonic plates, as entire continents or ocean floors continue to either slide past or move over or under each other. All that movement is bound to cause quite a few earthquakes. So it is with communities of faith.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in LGBT Christian, Ecumenical Issues, History, Ministry, ELCA, Uncategorized | 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 »

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 »

Privilege behind the curtain.

February 26, 2011 by Dan Hooper.

   We’ve long known about those folks who think they are spiritual but don’t like “organized religion.” Now add the group of political conservatives who say they want what is best for the people but don’t want organized labor. In fact, many of the same conservatives have relentlessly ridiculed the sitting President for, among other things, having been a community organizer.

Iran and Libya don’t want organized opposition. Scott Walker has now coerced the Wisconsin legislature to deny the right of state workers to collective bargaining. (If unions are outlawed, only outlaws will have unions?) It has become clear that the effort to break the back of organized labor is itself highly organized and well-funded.

What these things have in common is fear and loathing for anything organized. Better, they think, if everything which threatens their status quo remains disorganized.

But curiously, one organization that doesn’t seem to suffer the same criticism, at least from the people on the proverbial right, are corporations. Highly organized, armed with extraordinary international clout, fluid money and shadowy subsidiaries, a very controlled hierarchy and playing for high stakes, corporations are running my life from behind the velvet drapes of the Wizard of Oz. “Pay no attention to the corporation behind the curtain,” says the corporation behind the curtain.

Is there any doubt that Wisconsin’s Governor Scott Walker intended to keep a curtain drawn over his own prejudices until he was exposed by a prank caller? Is there any doubt that Hosni Mubarek or Moammar Gadhafi want to keep control shielded by a curtain of absolute authority from all public accountability. Is it any wonder that British Petroleum corporately winced at the exposure of its avarice and manipulation that contributed to that catastrophic Gulf oil spill?

It amazes me that the mental coprolites who think there is a conspiracy behind everything don’t want to look behind the curtain of their own privilege, made possible by the simple act of hurting and destroying other people.

This is not naivete here. I am well aware, for example, that the California Prison Guards Union is screwing both the inmates in California prisons and the people of California. In little more than a decade, the cost of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations, which runs 33 state prisons, has jumped from $3.5 billion to $11 billion.

But by and large it is not the union lobbyists who are bankrupting state governments. It is not the corporate lobbyists either—at least on the surface. It is greed which is behind the curtain. Lobbyists make their living on funding politicians behind the curtain. Where is the public accountability if the public thinks it is really more comfortable and privileged as a result of corporations?

On my recent “vacation” to Florida, where the land is flat enough to be completely erased from the map by a high tide, people are in complete denial about global warming, for example. The ground of their denial is not that the science of permanent climate change is still hugely theoretical, but linked to the denial that anything could possible wash out their entitlement to a life of privilege, ease, comfort and high standard of living.

Probably more than anything, it is privilege which is behind the curtain: masculine privilege, white privilege, American (native-born not immigrant legal or otherwise) privilege. For all the conservative ranting about entitlements, our nation, our culture, our wonderful America is turned our national entitlement into a god at whose altar anyone, any minority, any cause, any just thing, many be slaughtered and sacrificed. We have met the enemy, says Pogo, and it is us.

—Dan Hooper

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

Are anti-gay prejudices falling like dominoes?

February 23, 2011 by Dan Hooper.

Don’t hold your breath, but at least we’re seeing anti-gay legislation tumbling in our lifetimes.

After the U.S. Supreme Court (which has Supreme Clout) decriminalized consensual sex between same-gender couples in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, and now that the notorious “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” law, used against sexual minorities in the armed forces, has been repealed, DOMA is the next big domino.

Jay Carney, White House spkesperson

Although Obama himself is still struggling with the legitimacy of our relationships, it is heartening to hear from NPR today that Attorney General Holder will no longer defend DOMA in court. Holder issued a well-reasoned statement Wednesday that again tilts the legal landscape in favor of sexual minorities, specifically, lesbian/gay couples:

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

Holder is very aware of the landscape. He has to also be aware that homophobic conservatives will not take this lying down. Speaking of DOMA, Holder says, “this Administration will no longer assert its constitutionality in court” and of course he speaks only for this Administration. If Republicans have their way —which is truly not certain even after last November’s surge for their party—the Obama Administration would be turned out in January 2013. If DOMA is not repealed by Congress (not likely, given the surge) during the coming months, today’s Justice Department decision not to defend DOMA will be yet another way for the conservatives to beat their drum in the 2012 campaign. Remember: the run for the Presidency is already underway, and begins to obsess the media a year before the election itself.

Wait 24 hours and see what the conservatives say about this news. (Speaker of the House John Boehner is already talking.)  But for today, it is great news.

— Dan Hooper

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

A step to rectify the past.

February 12, 2011 by Dan Hooper.

It is wonderful to read that Hawaii may have finally said “welcome” to a community it had shunned a decade ago.

Hawaii’s Supreme Court was the first in the nation to say, in the Baehr v. Miike case, that it was unconstitutional to deny the right to marry to same-sex couples.  But because it was so far ahead of its time, the backlash was severe, and the citizen’s voted it down.

Now the Hawaii Legislature is rectifying the small-minded mistake of a generation ago.  By a vote of 31 to 19, the House passed a Civil Unions bill already passed by the state Senate and set to be signed by the new governor.  (Is it any wonder that an Abercrombie would side with gay people? — probably concidence, I know.)  See the Advocate story here.

This is not likely to trigger a wave of romances going to Hawaii to get married, however.  LEgal marriage is not yet on the horizon.  Too bad, because it would be fun to stuff a piece of wedding cake in former Governor Linda Lingle’s mouth for vetoing the same bill a year ago.

— Dan Hooper

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

Pastor Jay Wiesner received to ELCA roster.

December 10, 2010 by Dan Hooper.

LC/NA Celebrates the ELCA Reception to the Clergy Roster of Pastor Jay Wiesner, an Openly Gay Philadelphia Pastor

Lutherans Concerned/North America (LC/NA) celebrates the upcoming reception of Pastor Jay Wiesner onto the clergy roster by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) on Sunday, December 12.

He will be received as clergy during a Service of Reception presided over by Bishop Claire Burkat, ELCA Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod, held during the 10:30 a.m. Sunday service at the University Lutheran Church of the Incarnation (www.uniluphila.org), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Pastor Anita Hill, a pastor at St. Paul Reformation Lutheran Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, and also recently similarly received onto the clergy roster, will preach.

Pastor Jay Wiesner had been ordained “extraordinarily” in 2004. “Extraordinary” in this context means the ordination was outside of the usual practices of the ELCA. As a result, the ELCA did not recognize his ordination at the time it occurred. At this Service of Reception, the ELCA recognizes that ordination and the ministries Pastor Wiesner has done over time.

Pastor Wiesner completed his seminary training in 2002, but, because he was in disagreement with the then policy that imposed celibacy in a life lived without a partner, he was denied ordination by the ELCA. In 2004, Bethany Lutheran Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, called him as Pastor of Outreach Ministry and ordained him, an act of ecclesiastic disobedience at the time. In September 2008, he was called by University Lutheran Church of the Incarnation as pastor, also an act of ecclesiastic disobedience.

His reception onto the roster of clergy is one of the results of the decisions of the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly to eliminate the policy that had since 1989 precluded service as ministers by those in a lifelong, committed same-gender relationship. Though not in such a relationship, Pastor Wiesner had disagreed with the previous policy precluding even the possibility of it.

Emily Eastwood, Executive Director, Lutherans Concerned/North America, said “The prophetic witness of Bethany Lutheran, Minneapolis and University Lutheran, Philadelphia is coming true. We give thanks for Jay and the congregations who courageously called him in the face of policies precluding his service. We applaud the Southeast Pennsylvania Synod and its bishop for their visible support for the full inclusion of people of all sexual orientations and gender identities. While our struggle is not ended, this day leaves an indelible exclamation point in history. This day justice has prevailed, not just for one, but symbolically for all LGBT people.”

Pastor Jay Wiesner said, “This day has been a long time coming and something I have been praying for before I was even ordained in 2004. Both Bethany Lutheran Church and University Lutheran Church of the Incarnation have risked their standing in the greater Church to be a prophetic witness and for that I am truly blessed and grateful.”

Jay is originally from New Ulm, a small town of German descent in southwestern Minnesota. He graduated from Concordia College in Moorhead, Minnesota with a BA in religion. After college, he attended Wartburg Theological Seminary in Dubuque, Iowa. During his senior year, he publicly came out to the faculty and students at Wartburg and left to take some time off. He finished his Master of Divinity degree in 2002 and immediately began work at Bethany Lutheran Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, as Pastoral Minister of Outreach. He was called and ordained by Bethany on July 25, 2004. He served that congregation from 2002-2008.

Since September 2008, Pastor Wiesner has served as pastor of University Lutheran Church of the Incarnation, an ELCA congregation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (www.uniluphila.org)

Pastor Wiesner is also pastoral director of The Naming Project. The Naming Project is a faith-based youth group serving youth of all sexual and gender identities. The primary focus is to provide a place for youth who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning to learn, grow, and share their experiences. In this way The Naming Project is a space in which youth can comfortably discuss faith and who they understand themselves to be–whether that be gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender…or straight.

Phil Soucy
Communications staff
communications@lcna.org

Posted in Living by Grace, PRAYERS, Ministry, ELCA, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

We have met the enemy.

November 20, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

After watching the emotionally-wrenching “It Gets Better” video from Oral Roberts’ grandson, Randy Roberts Potts, no one could deny that LGBT people have their most formidable “enemy” in the right-wing Christian church. In the video, Randy reads a letter he has written to his gay Uncle Ronnie, who took his own life on June 10, 1982.

(Full disclosure: I am not a member of a right-wing Christian church, but of a church which has struggled with all the issues in the contemporary sexuality wars and come out to a place which welcomes and affirms LGBT people.)

As if anybody would have doubted this, there is a smoking gun that now tries to connect the alarming rate of gay/teen suicides and the homophobia of right-wing Christian churches. The Public Religion Research Institute (based in Washington D.C.) has recently published this: “Two-thirds see connections between messages coming from America’s places of worship and higher rates of suicide among gay and lesbian youth.”

Over a thousand people were asked their opinions about church and homosexuality, but only five questions were asked. The Institute summarized their findings:

“A plurality (43%) of Americans say the messages coming from places of worship are negative, and 4-in-10 Americans believe that these messages contribute “a lot” to negative perceptions of gay and lesbian people. One-third (33%) of the public also believe that messages from religious bodies are contributing “a lot” to higher rates of suicide among gay and lesbian youth, and another third (32%) say these message contribute “a little;” only 21% say they do not contribute at all.”The PRRI partnered with Religious News Service to survey American attitudes. As with any other issue, there is a spectrum of opinion. In the survey results, however, the questions asked allowed for a lot of ambiguity in assessing the answers given. For example although 43% believe that negative messages are coming out of “places of worship”— churches— this may include people who firmly believe that negative messages should be coming, in other words, that words of judgment ought to be preached from Christian pulpits.The third question was: “If you had to grade your own place of worship on how it is handling the issue of homosexuality? Would you give it an ‘A’, a ‘B’ a ‘C’, a ‘D’ or an ‘F’?” As worded, of course, this doesn’t tell you if respondents’ churches were preaching judgment or understanding. Twenty-eight percent, the largest group, gave their own churches an “A” in its “handling of homosexuality.” But this may include right-wing fundamentalists who like judgmental preaching about homosexuality and therefore give their church and its preacher high marks for scolding or damning homosexuals.Similarly, 24% percent gave their own church an “F” for its handling of homosexuality. But which “side” are these respondents on? A full 44% of the respondents believe that same-gender sexual relations are sinful.The questions could have been asked to filter the grading of America’s churches more intelligently. But at least there is no doubt from this study that many churches are broadcasting negative messages.It takes only a small link in one’s brain—like a simple circuit being switched on—to realize that if America’s churches are publicly proclaiming negative messages about homosexuality, there are young people in the pews hearing and heeding those messages.If you are a straight young kid, and you hear negativity being preached, you may (a) think it doesn’t apply to you, (b) like what you hear because you already dislike homosexuals, (c) be inspired to express hatred or homophobic violence because you see and hear Christian role models doing the same.

But if you are a young person trying to discern and understand your own sexuality, and coming to the realization that you are indeed homosexual, the choices are entirely different. You may: (a) try to convince yourself you are not really gay; (b) begin to think that God and the church don’t want you around and look for the nearest exit; (c) feel deeply shamed and conflicted; (d) hate yourself enough to think of a “final solution”—taking your own life. Don’t!!!

Clearly, there is no one Christian message about human sexuality these days. The worst thing churches do is to speak forcefully and authoritatively when they haven’t done their homework and haven’t listened to the personal stories and testimony of the people they’re talking about. The personal coming out stories of individuals to their families, friends and fellow-church members is the single most powerful tool for changing public attitudes.

When Rev. Jim Swilley of Church in the Now in Conyers, Georgia came out to his congregation as a gay man last month—at enormous risk to himself and his mega-church to be sure—he nonetheless contributed to changing social attitudes. Some people in the “bishop’s” church got up and walked out, apparently during his sensitive, honest coming out speech (over an hour long). Others, including many from all of the country, applauded his courage and honesty.

But the bottom line is that integrity and honesty demand us to take the risks we take in telling our stories. Those who can handle the truth remain our friends and maintain our family ties. But parents, siblings and friends who can’t handle it are choosing to destroy important relationships that don’t conform to their expectations.

For me, the bottom line is not a scorecard on how American houses of worship are handling homosexuality, but how they handle the truth.

(a) We’re here, we’re queer. Get used to it.

(b) God loves the whole world. No exceptions.

(c) The Bible is a book of God’s gracious promises, not a weapon.

(d) Human beings don’t “choose” our sexual orientation, but discover it.

(e) In spite of everything, many LGBT love God and remain faithful to the Christian faith.

(f) All of the above.

— Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Homophobia, "The Closet", Bullying, LGBT Christian, Faith, ELCA, Coming Out, Public Affairs, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

This bullying thing, writ large.

October 28, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

Once our society becomes more aware of the extend of personal bullying and its role in violence and criminal behavior, things would have to get better in this country, right?

I wish that were true.  Many naysayers are found of using the term “slippery slope” to describe moral points of no return. We are afraid of legalizing marijuana, for example, because it may/will lead to harder drugs, etc. Chief William Bratton, when serving the New York Police Department, subscribed to the “broken windows theory” that ignoring trivial things like broken windows in the city leads to the deterioration of entire neighborhoods: vandalism first, then, bigger crimes against property and against people.  In other words, “it gets worse.”

Why, then, do we allow child and adolescent bullying to go unchecked? Is it not a slippery slope for adult aggression, violence and crime?

There is a lot of conversation now about the bullying which has led to the self-hatred on the part of lesbian or gay teenagers which led to them taking their own lives. Another slippery slope that should be corrected, right?

As President Obama says in his It Gets Better Project video: “It breaks my heart. It’s something that just shouldn’t happen in this country. And we’ve got to dispel this myth that bullying is just a normal right of passage.”

Bullying is a sign of a deeply-rooted psychology of violence. School bullies often go on to become violent criminals as adults. If they are sufficiently motivated not deflect their own rage, it can often come out in resentment, hatred, racism, and those odd and dangerous political views that hold other people in suspicion and try to deprive them of equal rights and equal opportunity in our society.

If bullying were a “right of passage”—or something Jamie Nabozny was told by his high school principal, “boys will be boys”—then theoretically bullies would “grow out if it.” Instead, many “grow into it” and become more violent in their lives.

The story of Jamie Nabozny has just been released: “Bullied” premiered in Washington three weeks ago. Nabozny was a gay teen in small-town Wisconsin who was harassed relentlessly, attacked and even urinated on in the school bathroom. He tried running away from home, attempted suicide, and finally sued his school district and won a $900,000 settlement.

Ironically there is an anti-bullying law in California which has been on the books for seven years, but it has no teeth: no definitions of either bullying or of protected classes of people, and no penalties against schools or educational executives who decline to stop the harassment and violence in their schools. Nabozny’s successful lawsuit should have made a forceful point to all of America’s educational system that one school bully is like a “broken window” in a community, and it will almost always lead to a meaner, less civil, more violent society.

It is interesting to see the letter published in the Ashland, Wisconsin paper this week that shows some progress in local thinking there. Kaylie McCarthy, a 10-th grader there wrote, “Now, I ask the Ashland School Board this: do you choose to accept the mistakes made in the past, to help move on for the future and prove not only to us students, but the entire community, that leadership comes from acceptance? Or do we cover up the mistakes, and halt the progressions that’s been made thus far? As a proud Ashland High School student, all I know is that I look forward to seeing the documentary for myself.”

Looking at the larger society, In my view, the present political climate in America is a form of bullying on steroids—when inexperienced political wannabees think they can buy an election through forceful negative advertising and saturation of our TV channels; when a minority caucus or segment of elected officials think they can demand to have their way or shut the government down in retaliation. And is not war itself the ultimate form of bullying? —when one nation thinks that by intimidation, sheer force and aggression, violence and bloodshed, it can have its way in the world.

We live in a big city, and the bullying that takes place on our streets and highways has also reached a serious, fevered level. I have personally followed drivers in traffic, for example, who barely slowed down in slipping through stop sign after stop sign on the same route. Twice I have had a driver of a truck stop and get out of his vehicle and threaten me verbally for something he didn’t like. (One of those times I was a pedestrian who had yelled out “slow down!”) The slippery slope created by the dangerous, aggressive driver is convincing others to say “everybody does it.”

I doubt, however, that the civic discourse in this country will take that direction in reacting to the tragic suicides of recent weeks, because to see bullying as pervasive in our society would cause a great deal of social self-examination. America is no longer very good at self-examination. Like the playground or locker-room bully, our society tends to blame everything external for our own character flaws. It is always somebody else’s fault: socialists, communists, jihadists, the poor, the wealthy, illegal immigrants, people of color, the homosexuals and their “agenda,” etc.

If any good comes out of the tragic deaths of at least six gay teens this fall, it would be to trigger a serious self-examination of the American way of aggression.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Violence, Bullying, Homophobia, LGBT Christian, Public Affairs, LGBT Rights, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Osama bin Jones.

September 11, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

Jones deserves the title because he is the latest extremist of the “Christian” faith who is trying to incite global conflict in the same way that Osama bin Laden has done with his plotting.

ObJ wants to make a name for himself. How else to explain his arrogance to think he can lay down an ultimatum for the imam of New York City, ten states away, with an “or else” condition that he will start burning the Muslim holy scriptures?

And it seems ObJ wants to compete for a place in the pantheon of arrogance, hubris and wacko Christianity with people like Fred Phelps—who wasn’t outrageous enough with his God Hates Fags routine and escalated his own rhetoric to God Hates America (for tolerating fags).

Aglow with the joy of knowing I’m right.

People have been sending him death threats, Korans to burn–and, I suspect, contributions, so this looks like quite a gimmick for his own institutional survival. According to the ABC News story, the congregation’s bank recently demanded repayment of their $140,000 mortgage. And also this from the same story: “According to the Gainesville Sun, Alachua County officials revoked part of the church’s tax-exempt status earlier this year, saying portions of the 20-acre campus are used in for-profit businesses. The property is valued at more than $1.6 million, but the 1,700-square-foot taxable portion is worth only $135,000, according to the Gainsville Sun.” ABC gave no link to the Gainsville Sun story.

Perhaps the most laughable thing is that ObJ heads the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainsville. A dove, I thought, would be a symbol of peace (doves are a very calm bird) as much as a symbol of the Divine Spirit— but ObJ apparently has a pistol strapped to his hip while on church property. And “World Outreach” is quite ambitious for a congregation of about 50 people.

So ObJ is milking his 15 seconds of fame for all its worth. It’s also possible that the feeble-minded wants to become a martyr to his own imaginary god. Meanwhile, local Gainsville Muslims are praying for Jones’ safety. According to this Gainsville Sun article, “‘I pray that nothing happens to him,’ Rizwan Mansoor said at the Hoda Center on Monday.”

This is classic Fundamentalism, of course. Fundamentalism is more than comfortable with religious grand-standing, and in fact seeks it. The fundamentalist Christian movement for more than a century has been trying to draw lines in the sand for what it considers orthodox. Unfortunately for all Christians, the lines they continue to draw are the least defensible lines one could draw—things such as the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, etc.

It isn’t enough to say very strongly that ObJ and I would disagree profoundly on many things. As far as I am concerned, his version of Christian truth has virtually nothing in it that resembles the faith I live by. If he can find chapter and verse from the Christian bible to support the idea of inciting riot, stoking the fires of interreligious and inter-ethnic violence, endangering U.S. troops abroad, I am certain he would have to twist such verses entirely out of reality.

But the underlying issue here deserves to be mentioned. ObJ’s “World Outreach” flock is a charismatic independent non-denominational thing. I call them “Indy-Nondies” for short. While being “non-denominational” is touted as important in this era when mainstream (at least Protestant) denominations seems to be in decline, Indy-Nondies are in fact accountable to no one. Any partly-educated wack job can start his or her own “ministry” and claim some particular trait to emphasize in order to grab “market share” from other churches. People are gullible, and with the media’s help, will be drawn to the latest craze, even in the world of religion.

In the Dove World Outreach case, according to Wikipedia, it was founded in 1985 by Donald O. Northrup of the now-defunct Maranatha Campus Ministries. “Maranatha came under considerable fire during the 1970s and 1980s, largely due to its highly authoritarian structure. There were accusations of MCM being a cult with some former members reporting behavior similar to cults that frequently recruited college students during that time.”

The real cult here is the cult of personality. ObJ’s picture that keeps cropping up on the internet seems to indicate that he doesn’t have any personality, but looks can be deceiving. The fact that ObJ’ name is plastered all over the media but you have to dig to find out anything about his church (it’s web site is simply “under construction”) confirms that ObJ is trying to cultivate his own importance over the mission of his flock.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

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

The Legal Playing Field on the morning after.

August 5, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

It was this morning’s top headline: “Ban on gay marriage overturned.” I expected that. The Los Angeles Times article [updated 7:42 a.m.] reviewed much of the same ground that yesterday’s on-line commentaries did. I have already downloaded the decision and read the back-end completely, from page 109–136, so I’m already somewhat familiar with Judge Walker’s careful legal reasoning in dispensing the Pro-Prop 8 arguments one by one under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the federal 14^th Amendment.

After dispensing with other pro-prejudice arguments (two moms or two dads aren’t good for the children, etc.), and underlining the complete lack of supporting evidence for those arguments, Judge Walker concludes that the State of California has no compelling reason to deny lesbian and gay couples the fundamental legal right of marriage. “The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples,” he wrote.

Still, it is interesting to see what others have to say about the quality of the decision, especially authoritative minds. Shannon Price Minter was quoted in the Times, for example. She is the legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) a major player in the larger LGBT movement for many years. Said Minter: “This is a tour de force—a grand slam on every count. This is without a doubt a game-changing ruling.”

(The game that changes is because of a judicial ruling which goes beyond the close-in arguments about the meaning and scope of civil marriage, to rather help build a case in support of full equality before the law for sexual minorities.)

It did not surprise me that the defense counsel had little to say–the guys hired to defend the constitutionality of Proposition 8. At least in what they were quoted a saying, there was no counter-argument (e.g. that Judge Walker had erred in legal reasoning, that there is solid evidence that gay marriage will wreck heterosexual marriage, damage children, destroy the institution and sink the State of California, etc.) except the one which attempts to stoke right-wing indignation: How dare the judge decide against the 52.3% majority of voters who [having been intentionally mislead in the fall of 2008 by a blitzkrieg of anti-gay advertising paid for largely by members of the Mormon religion] said they don’t like gay or lesbian couples. The Times quotes Andrew Pugno (General Counsel for Protect Marriage) as saying that Walker’s “invalidation of the votes of over 7 million Californians violates binding legal precedent and short-circuits the democratic process.” The Alliance Defense Fund is calling Judge Walker’s ruling “dangerous.”

(Pugno has a tendency to puff and bluff, which is understandable because that is the posture of the organization which pays him. For example, this is what Pugno said about the lawsuit filed the day after Prop 8’s passage by the ACLU and Equality California: “The lawsuit filed today by the ACLU and Equality California seeking to invalidate the decision of California voters to enshrine traditional marriage in California’s constitution is frivolous and regrettable. These same groups filed an identical case with the California Supreme Court months ago, which was summarily dismissed. We will vigorously defend the People’s decision to enact Proposition 8.” As it turned out, the arguments advanced against Proposition 8 are certainly not frivolous, and Pugno’s “vigorous defense,” at least in Judge Walker’s court room, turned out to be a total dud.)

On “being intentionally misled” I think Protect Marriage sums it up for me:

“In the campaign, voters were told clearly that voting YES on Proposition 8 would do 3 simple things: . . .

• It would protect our children from being taught in public schools that ‘same-sex marriage’ is the same as traditional marriage, and would prevent other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.”And binding legal precedent is a valid concept. But it generally means that lower courts must abide by the decisions of higher courts. The whole concept of judicial review, which has been with this American republic for two centuries, is meant to, yes, have the authority to overturn legislation—whether written by elected lawmakers or by the initiative process—which is inconsistent with and in conflict with America’s highest principles. That’s what declaring a law “unconstitutional” is all about. The pro-Prop 8 attorneys, by the way, failed in Judge Walker’s courtroom to demonstrate that there is binding legal precedent for forbidding same-sex couples to have civil marital rights. For example, here is the Protect Marriage blog page for Pugno’s Closing Argument before Judge Walker 7 weeks ago:

Hmmm.  Whether pugnacious Pugno’s whimper has any muscle remains to seen. Judge Walker has given the defense counsel until tomorrow, August 6, to submit more papers for a follow-up hearing about whether Walker’s Order should be “stayed” until the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals has a chance to consider it. According to Times writers Maura Dolan and Carol Williams, “To win a permanent stay pending appeal, Proposition 8 proponents must show that they are likely to prevail in the long run and that there would be irreparable harm if the ban is not enforced.”

Meaning: the don’t-like-gay-marriage side must immediately convince Walker and/or the 9^th Circuit that when all the legal dust has settled, the anti-gay view will have won; and that permitting any more same-sex marriages in the meantime would cause “irreparable harm.”

The second half of this is easier for non-experts to analyze. For starters, can attorney Pugno prevent evidence now (that he couldn’t produce during the trial phase) showing that there was irreparable harm caused by the existing marriages of some 18,000 same-sex couples who wed between June and November, 2008? I don’t think so.

The first half is of course open to much debate. Will the anti-gay forces ultimately win? A lot of commentators still fear that the United States Supreme Court, if and when this case comes before them, and if they choose to review it, is so conservative it will make a decision that reinforces anti-gay prejudice in America for many years to come. That’s mostly a political guess based on attitudes which can and do shift. For example, the Lawrence v. Texas decision (2003) which decriminalized consensual sexual activity between persons of the same gender surprised many of us because we thought the right-leaning Supremes would echo the reactionary Bowers v. Hardwick decision (1986), a grossly prejudicial decision even for the times.

I can’t speak to the legal procedural issues on this, but it would seem to me that Pugno and his forces can’t argue for a “permanent stay” of Walker’s ruling on the assumptions that (a) this case will one day be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, (b) that they will accept the case, which they don’t have to do, and (c) that they will overturn the lower court. What comes in between is the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals, a noticeably more liberal court that could very much agree with Judge Walker’s legal conclusions.

So my suspicions are that Pugno and company (Texas attorney Austin Nimrocks representing the Alliance Defense Fund is another attorney being quoted, but there were a total of 11 attorneys listed on the Closing Arguments filing) will not be able to get a “permanent stay” against the Walker decision until the appeal process winds through the 9^th Circuit Court–which could take a year or two. This would mean that Walker’s Order (on page 136) would have to be given full force—Proposition 8 would not be enforceable and marriage licenses would begin to be issued again for same-sex couples. We should have an answer to this within days.

The Christian reactionary Alliance Defense Fund (founded by leaders of Campus Crusade for Christ, Focus on the Family and Coral Ridge Ministries among others), you will remember, is also opposed to hate crimes legislation. ADF also seems quite nervous about the Walker decision, if its website is any indicator, especially about the apparent intentions of the American Bar Association to endorse same-sex marriage later this week! See: ABA to Consider Same-Sex Marriage Measure” The ABA is meeting in San Francisco, beginning today (what timing, what synergy!).

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Family, wingnuts, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Boycott Target and Best Buy!

July 30, 2010 by Dan Hooper.

Date: Fri 7/30/2010 3:06 PMFrom: “Joe Solmonese, Human Rights Campaign” hrc@hrc.org
Subject:  Target and Best Buy!  Make it right!

$250,000 in donations to a rabidly anti-LGBT candidate? Tell Target and Best Buy: You need to make this right. Add your name!                         Dear Daniel, One candidate for Governor of Minnesota has promised to veto marriage equality legislation and has ties to a Christian rock band that advocates death to gays. Target and Best Buy, both based in Minneapolis, have donated $250,000 to a political committee supporting his campaign. But they still have a chance to make it right. We’ve drafted an open letter calling on the companies to donate an equal amount to support fair-minded candidates. We’ll publish it in a full-page ad in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. Will you help us ratchet up the pressure by adding your name? Tell Target and Best Buy to make it right. Add your name now. By signing on, you’ll help make it clear that Target and Best Buy are risking the business of millions of pro-equality customers – and show the rest of corporate America, which is watching this situation very closely, that support for hateful and intolerant candidates won’t go unnoticed. But don’t stop there. Print out our letter, take it to the manager of your local Target and Best Buy, and let them know how disappointed you are. Here’s the backstory: Earlier this week, reports surfaced that Target had donated $150,000 to the political committee MN Forward. Best Buy pitched in another $100,000. MN Forward’s mission? Elect as governor an anti-LGBT state representative with a long history of attacks on LGBT Americans. This representative’s campaign even donated to a controversial “punk-rock Christian ministry” whose leader has advocated executing gays and lesbians! After all these two companies have done to build a fair and equitable workplace, it’s a slap in the face. In years past, Target and Best Buy consistently received 100 percent ratings on the Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s Corporate Equality Index. They need to make this right – by donating an equal amount to support candidates who will fight for equality. But they won’t do it just because we ask. They need to see that hundreds of thousands of customers across the country are upset and disappointed. Add your name now. I hope Target and Best Buy will do the right thing. But it’s up to us to show that fair-minded consumers are paying close attention to what they do next. Let’s make this happen, Joe Solmonese President  Share on Facebook  Share on Twitter This link is specific to you, so please take action on this campaign before you forward to your friends. Having trouble clicking on the links above? Simply copy and paste this URL into your browser’s address bar: https://secure3.convio.net/hrc/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=911

© 2010 The Human Rights Campaign. All rights reserved. Human Rights Campaign | http://www.hrc.org/ 1640 Rhode Island Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036-3278 Phone: 202/628-4160 TTY: 202/216-1572 Fax: 202/347-5323

Do not reply to this email. This inbox is not monitored on a regular basis. Replies to this email will not be read or responded to. If you would like to unsubscribe from a specific Human Rights Campaign list, or update your account settings, you can visit your Subscription Management Page.

Well, I was pretty outraged by this, and I have to assume it is accurate, even if Human Rights Campaign did not entrust us with the actul facts.  I frequently shop in both of these chains, especially the Target store in, of all places, West Hollywood, California. 

When I reflect back just a few years ago when people were fired or had a criminal record just for associating with a known homosexual, such guilt by association was assumed to be justifiable.  Politicians continue to use this practice to discredit and shame the other candidate and the other party.  Why then, if the public mind accepts the reasonable conclusion that association with bad is bad, should businesses be able to duck every blemish on their carefully-groomed public relations skin?

Fox News (!) reports that Republian candidate Tom Emmer doesn’t like the flap over the campaign contributions because “I thought we were supposed to be able to exercise our rights of free speech.”   Well, it is about free speech, so everybody is free, thanks to the Supreme Court decision earlier this year, to buy all the speech that their corporations want to pay for.  But that’s not the issue, Tom.  We are just as free to tell Target and Best Buy not that they don’t have a right to speak with their campaign dollars, but that we think what they’re saying is disgusting.

Am I being cynical about the Supreme Court?  Hardly.  The same Fox News story explains it in detail:

Target and other Minnesota-based companies, including electronics retailer Best Buy Co., Red Wing Shoes and snowmobile maker Polaris Industries Inc., donated to MN Forward after a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allowed companies to spend money on elections. The decision overturned prohibitions on corporate campaign spending in about half the states, including Minnesota.

If you can’t stand Fox News, catch the story on ABC News.

 

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

If we don’t tell we don’t exist.

June 22, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

This is a couple of weeks old but it’s worth reading, and participating in the survey (Link is below) — P.D.

Friends,

When I heard the news yesterday, I couldn’t believe my ears.

Rep. Ike Skelton, a Democrat from my home state of Missouri and the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he was against the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” because he is worried it would force parents to explain homosexuality to their children and would open up a national discussion. “What do mommies and daddies say to their 7-year-old child?” Mr. Skelton asked reporters at a news media breakfast. [1]

It would be bad enough if Ike Skelton were just pretending that DADT still makes sense. But based on his comments yesterday, Skelton wants to pretend that LGBT people don’t even exist!

From anyone, these comments are uneducated and unfortunate; from a U.S. Congressmen, those kind of statements are simply unacceptable. That’s why we’re calling on Skelton to offer a full public apology to the LGBT people in his district, and across the country. Join us in demanding a public apology!

http://www.getequal.org/missouri.php

Sadly, Ike Skelton has a history of actively working against our civil rights. He was one of the original authors of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislation 17 years ago. [2] And it’s long been clear that the law needs to end. In fact, a 2010 poll found that 60% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans believe that being gay or lesbian “has no bearing on a service member’s ability to perform their duties” and 73% say it is “personally acceptable to them if gay and lesbian people were allowed to serve openly in the military.” [3]

That’s why I’m asking you to sign this petition to call on Rep. Skelton to apologize for his remarks. Democrats and Republicans alike need to understand that our community is everywhere, and it is not okay to continue with this type of political homophobia.

I hope you’ll join me in signing this petition. Help us hold Rep. Skelton (D-MO) accountable by demanding that he represent the full diversity of his community and of communities across the country.

Sign the petition here! http://www.getequal.org/missouri.php

Get out, get active, GetEQUAL!

Thanks for your support,

Ed Reggi

Co-founder, Show Me No Hate

St. Louis, Missouri

[1] “He’d Rather Not Talk About ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/us/09brfs-HEDRATHERNOT_BRF.html

[2] “Skelton opposes repeal of ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’” http://thehill.com/homenews/house/76427-skelton-opposes-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell

[3] “Bi-Partisan Poll of Iraq & Afghanistan Vets” http://www.vetvoicefoundation.com/new?id=0002

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