Father Geoff Farrow

The Gay Rights Movement, a video

2012-01-17T15:14:00.000-08:00

The Price of Hate and Compromise

2012-01-12T21:05:00.000-08:00

Tonight I sat down to check messages on my computer and I found myself overwhelmed with incredible sorrow as I read the following post, “CA Teen Filmmaker Commits Suicide After Making ‘It Gets Better’ Video.”

The article goes on to say that Eric James Borges a 19-year-old resident of Visalia, CA was, “Not accepted by his birth family, Eric James was striking out on his own, trying to deal with his personal situation, but also wanting to help others. Sadly even involvement with the Trevor Project was not enough to help him navigate the turbulent waters of young adulthood.”

Eric grew up in Visalia, California, a town I know very well because I lived there for 15 years. One year 1989 as associate pastor at St. Mary’s (the wealthy White parish) and 14 years as pastor of Holy Family Church (the poor Latino parish) located at 1908 North Court Street in Visalia.

The website for the City of Visalia speaks of the pro-South culture of Visalia during the Civil War that alarmed the Federal government enough to build a military installation in 1862 to prevent an uprising, centered in Visalia, in favor of the Confederacy.

Visalia, like most rural communities in the USA, is socially conservative. I recall walking down Main Street about ten years ago; a new shop had opened up called, “Prim and Proper.” Another priest, also assigned to Visalia quipped, “That’s Visalia.”

There is much that I loved and still love about Visalia, but there exists a dark side to most conservative rural towns in America. They are very wonderful places to live IF you happen to belong to the majority and conform to conservative ideas/values, or at least appear to conform. Eric’s story is chillingly familiar because it is the story of far too many of us.

Most of us become aware of our sexuality at puberty. Our physical attraction (sexual orientation) slowly “dawns” upon us uninvited, it simply emerges as we grow from children into adolescents. The greatest fear for a young LGBT person at this point in their life, is that they would be rejected by the very people that they love the most in this world, their family and their friends. As survival mechanism LGBT children adapt by denying who they are, they learn to lie about themselves to their parents, siblings, friends and classmates.

The price of all of this is ultimately self-hatred. The Center for Disease Control’s 1999 Youth at Risk Behavior Study, found that one-third of gay adolescents attempt suicide. One-Third! Not reflected in those statistics are the abuse of alcohol and drugs by LGBT youth. Not reflected in those statistics are the large numbers of gay teens that are driven from their homes, or emotionally alienated by parents practicing “tough love.” Parents attempting to force their children to be something they are not, heterosexual. All too often parents have been misled into adopting this tough “love” by clergy.

The fact that the hierarchy of many religions, including Catholicism, promote these attitudes towards LGBT people and makes them accomplices to this moral evil. The prejudice, emotional and physical violence, alienation of affection between parents and their children, the resulting despair and tragic suicides can all be traced back to religious authorities who willfully disregard the insights of psychology.

Pope Benedict XVI, just this week, made the absurd and unsubstantiated statement that; gay marriage was one of several threats to the traditional family that undermined "the future of humanity itself".

In the USA those states that have Marriage Equality laws have substantially lower divorce rates that those that prohibit Same-sex marriage.

Consider the following report from the BBC,

“A UK HIV charity said there was a clear link between happiness and health.
Research has already suggested that gay men are more likely to suffer from depression and suicidal thoughts than heterosexual men, and that social exclusion may be partly responsible.

Same-sex marriages are legal in six US states, with Massachusetts the first to allow them in 2003.”

And,

“Researchers from Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health surveyed the demand for medical and mental health care from 1,211 gay men registered with a particular health clinic in the 12 months prior to the change, and the 12 months afterwards.
They found a 13% drop in healthcare visits after the law was enacted.
There was a reduction in blood pressure problems, depression and "adjustment disorders", which the authors claimed could be the result of reduced stress.”

And,

“A spokesman for the Terrence Higgins Trust, a UK-based sexual health and HIV charity, said: "There is a known link between health and happiness.
"It's no surprise that people who are treated as second class citizens tend to have low self esteem, which in turn makes them more likely to take risks.
"Whether this is drugs, alcohol abuse, or unsafe sex, treating gay men unequally has lasting repercussions for their health."

Tragically, society (like our President) is “evolving” too slowly to have saved the life of Eric James Borges, 19, of Visalia, California. Hopefully, his death will outrage us to speak louder, work harder and fight more uncompromisingly for full federal equality and protection. For the human dignity that is every person’s birthright.

Reactionary "Catholic" Moral theology, cutting the foot to fit the shoe.

2012-01-05T18:20:00.000-08:00

The Hartford Archdiocese wants gays and lesbians to practice abstinence in the New Year.
On Tuesday, the archdiocese announced it was launching a local chapter of a national ministry called Courage "to support men and women who struggle with homosexual tendencies and to motivate them to live chaste and fruitful lives in accordance with Catholic Church teachings."

1. This is wrong within the realm of current Catholic moral theology.

The following book description of “The Sexual Person” by Professors Todd A. Salzman and Charles E. Curran is found on Amazon Press.

"Two principles capture the essence of the official Catholic position on the morality of sexuality: first, that any human genital act must occur within the framework of heterosexual marriage; second, each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life. In this comprehensive overview of Catholicism and sexuality, theologians Todd A. Salzman and Michael G. Lawler examine and challenge these principles. Remaining firmly within the Catholic tradition, they contend that the church is being inconsistent in its teaching by adopting a dynamic, historically conscious anthropology and worldview on social ethics and the interpretation of scripture while adopting a static, classicist anthropology and worldview on sexual ethics.

While some documents from Vatican II, like Gaudium et spes ("the marital act promotes self-giving by which spouses enrich each other"), gave hope for a renewed understanding of sexuality, the church has not carried out the full implications of this approach. In short, say Salzman and Lawler: emphasize relationships, not acts, and recognize Christianity's historically and culturally conditioned understanding of human sexuality. The Sexual Person draws historically, methodologically, and anthropologically from the best of Catholic tradition and provides a context for current theological debates between traditionalists and revisionists regarding marriage, cohabitation, homosexuality, reproductive technologies, and what it means to be human. This daring and potentially revolutionary book will be sure to provoke constructive dialogue among theologians, and between theologians and the Magisterium."

The critical piece in the thinking of Salzman & Lawler is to view/understand human sexuality not as merely a physical act; but rather, in the context of human relationships. What makes the sexual act morally good, or bad, is not the act per se, but the relationship between the two people engaging in the act.

2. It is wrong because it ignores the findings of science; the American Psychological Association states the following on this subject,

"The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation (Bell, Weinberg & Hammersmith, 1981; Bullough, 1976; Ford & Beach 1951 ; Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953 ). Homosexuality per se is not a mental disorder (APA, 1975). Since 1974, the American Psychological Association (APA) has opposed stigma, prejudice, discrimination, and violence on the basis of sexual orientation and has taken a leadership role in supporting the equal rights of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals (APA, 2005).

APA is concerned about ongoing efforts to mischaracterize homosexuality and promote the notion that sexual orientation can be changed and about the resurgence of sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE)1. SOCE has been controversial due to tensions between the values held by some faith-based organizations, on the one hand, and those held by lesbian, gay and bisexual rights organizations and professional and scientific organizations, on the other (Drescher, 2003; Drescher & Zucker, 2006). Some individuals and groups have promoted the idea of homosexuality as symptomatic of developmental defects or spiritual and moral failings and have argued that SOCE, including psychotherapy and religious efforts, could alter homosexual feelings and behaviors (Drescher & Zucker, 2006; Morrow & Beckstead, 2004). Many of these individuals and groups appeared to be embedded within the larger context of conservative religious political movements that have supported the stigmatization of homosexuality on political or religious grounds (Drescher, 2003; Southern Poverty Law Center, 2005; Drescher & Zucker, 2006)."

3. Finally this is wrong because it places an inhuman life long burden on children who happen to have a same-sex orientation.

All of these theological and scientific discussions may be very stimulating and even entertaining; however, the real effect of these abstract ideas is made concrete in the lives of real people. The American Psychological Association states,

“According to current scientific and professional understanding, the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence. These patterns of emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction may arise without any prior sexual experience. People can be celibate and still know their sexual orientation-–be it lesbian, gay, bisexual, or heterosexual.”

Imagine yourself at the age described by the APA in the preceding statement. Further imagine yourself at Sunday Mass with your family and hearing the “Courage” message from the pulpit. Imagine how your classmates hearing the same message would view you, if they “knew.”

Listen now to the words of a young Rabbi,

“You lay impossible burdens on men but will not lift a finger to lighten them.” Luke 11: 46

• Telling a child that there is something inherently defective about them as a person is evil.
• Telling them that they may never date, hold hands, fall in love with or marry the person they are naturally attracted to is evil.
• Telling them that they must live their life alone for the next 50, 60, 70, etc years is evil.
• Doing all of this in the name of God while claiming to be “compassionate” is both evil and a blasphemy.

This is the real sin here and it is the sin of the bishops who close their eyes to the truth in order to advance their careers and make an idol of an institution while forgetting God who is love and the people who they were ordained to serve.

Gov. Chris Gregoire advances Marriage Equality in Washington State

2012-01-04T19:56:00.000-08:00

Another substantive step forward towards Full Federal Equality.

Petition Asking Cardinal George to resign after defaming LGBT people.

2011-12-23T13:58:00.000-08:00

After almost a quarter of a century hearing confessions and counseling individuals and families, I know that sexual orientation is not merely a political, sociological or psychological issue. At core, what this is truly about is discrimination and its hurtful and harmful impact on simple human dignity and the lives of real people.

Bullying, employment discrimination, denial of service in the armed-forces under the recently repealed “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, denial of adoption rights, denial of Civil Marriage rights, all attempt to force LGBT people into lives of secrecy, shame, denial, fear and foster self-hatred. The Center for Disease Control’s Youth Risk Behavior Study of 1999 found that 33% of gay adolescents attempt suicide. A statistic that we were tragically reminded of last year when several young LGBT students took their own lives. That is the true cost of bigotry in the lives of countless LGBT people, their families and loved ones.

Cardinal George’s comparison of LGBT people who are simply seeking full Federal equality as American citizens with the KKK, a notorious hate group that seeks to deny full Federal equality to minorities, is both an inversion and a denial of the truth. George’s words constitute both a grave injustice and a moral outrage. By vilifying members of a minority group he targets them for prejudice and hate crimes.

A simple apology is insufficient, since an apology is merely a public announcement of one’s personal feelings. I believe that cardinal George is morally required to ask for forgiveness of the LGBT people, their families and loved ones, who he has vilified. His immediate resignation, upon asking for forgiveness, would manifest his sincerity and serve as a reproach to bigotry in our society.

I invite you to sign a petition from Change.org asking Cardinal George to resign as Archbishop of Chicago due to his defamation of LGBT people.

Cardinal George attempts to raise fears about LGBT people.

2011-12-22T18:05:00.000-08:00

Cardinal George of Chicago objected to an LGBT parade in that city. Claiming that it would force the cancellation of Mass at a church along the parade route. The Huffington Post reported

"I go with the pastor," George told Fox. "He's telling us that he won't be able to have services on Sunday if that's the case. You don't want the gay liberation movement to morph into something like the Ku Klux Klan, demonstrating in the streets against Catholicism."

The preceding quote makes it appear that this “poor pastor” desperately called the “good” cardinal for help. Fear that his services might be interrupted, or that Catholics might be targeted for harassment by rioting LGBT parade attendees.

Don’t believe it for a moment. Having lived as a pastor for decades I can tell you how the system works. The pastor in question most probably got a phone call from the Archdiocese “asking” him to write to the cardinal about the LGBT parade routed pass his church. Failure to express what the cardinal wanted to hear in that letter would impact unfavorably on the pastor’s future career.

The pastor lives and works in that community, many of the folks in the parade are either his parishioners, or family members/relatives of his parishioners, he does not want to alienate these people. Furthermore, Chicago is a large city, there are countless parades held there every year and most of them on weekends. Odds are that, like most Catholic priests, the pastor (as well as the cardinal) is gay.

Sadly, I am not surprised by cardinal George’s absurd assertion comparing the LGBT communities struggle for full Federal Equality, with the KKK. My former bishop, the late John Steinbock, compared the LGBT community with, “Stalinist Russia and Maoist China.” The disturbing fact is that it is the Catholic bishops who are using strong-arm tactics against LGBT people who simply seek equality.

It is the bishops who have consistently orchestrated political campaigns against LGBT people and their families. This despite the fact that the majority of U.S. Catholics are supportive of equality legislation for LGBT people, but then again the only opinion on LGBT rights that concerns George is that of the out-going pope.

In the middle of what some have called the Second Great Depression and the Sexual Abuse Cover-Up Scandals that have rocked the Catholic church both in the USA and internationally, implicating even the current pope himself, cardinal George’s chief pastoral concern is not helping the jobless, the homeless or addressing the Cover-Up scandal. It is lobbying, in a vain attempt, to keep LGBT people in the closet socially and second-class citizens legally.

Mass Deception

2011-12-01T21:39:00.000-08:00

You may say, “Why should I care about the new English translation of the Mass, I’m not a Catholic!” Regardless of your personal beliefs the spiritual and social significance of this translation cannot be brushed aside. Regardless of how you “feel” about this translation, the Mass, Catholicism, or religion in general, 25% of the U.S. population is Catholic.

Those numbers are augmented by the numbers of Catholics in other English speaking countries worldwide (e.g. Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, etc). Prayers that people recite every week seep into the depths of their psyche. They affect how they think, how they act, and how they vote; therefore, this new translation will affect you personally and our society as well.

“Out of the mouths of babes” is an old adage that aptly describes the insights of a young Latinist and his comments on the new English translation of the Roman Missal. Erik Baker is a sixteen-year-old child prodigy who, having taken every Latin course offered at the high school level, is currently doing course work at Northwestern University. Erik also happens to be Catholic and so, when the new translation of the Roman Missal, that is much more faithful to the original Latin, became public he was eager to read it.

Erik’s astutely captures the “Why” of these uniform changes throughout the English-speaking world. Here are some of his insights in a nutshell; the new translation will slowly and subtly effectively reprograms churchgoers in the following ways:

• It destroys the communal and egalitarian nature of the Mass.
• Rather than an act of communion through which the churchgoer relates to God, it becomes an individualistic act through which the churchgoer relates to "experts" in Rome.
• The notion that only “moral” (as defined by those experts in Rome) or Christian people deserve peace and our prayers.
• Faith becomes something of the individual, by the individual, for the individual -- ironically, a very Protestant idea. Catholicism is supposed to value unity and togetherness.
• It might aim to promote humility, but inevitably it fosters guilt instead. It promotes a vision of human nature as overwhelmingly and inexorably sinful-- a vision more in line with the heretical Janesenist doctrine of centuries past than Catholic dogma.

Here is a full reprint from an article by Erik in the National Catholic Reporter

On the revised Roman missal

By Erik Baker

It's definitely a better translation. That's probably the biggest misconception that critics of the recent revision of the General Roman Missal have. They perceive the new translation as some sort of conservative formalization of the text that is only ostensibly more faithful to the Latin. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Though there are some changes that really are no better, and certainly tend towards archaic jargon, the vast majority of the dramatic shifts -- especially to the Confiteor, the Gloria, and the Nicene Creed -- are certainly far more accurate.

In fact, looking over the Latin, it’s quite clear that the former translation didn't even attempt to be literal. So the question clearly isn't "is it a better translation," if "better" is defined in terms of accuracy vis-à-vis the Latin. The question is "is a more accurate translation desirable?" For many that question will seem like a no-brainer. Of course we want to stay as close to the Latin as possible. And yet, I think it's valuable to use these changes as an opportunity to examine the value of the Latin Mass and ultimately the nature of the Mass itself. I think that the conclusions might be startling.

Let's start at the beginning. The first major change is to the Confiteor, the prayer used in most forms of the Penitential Rite. The new translation translates the adverb "nimis" as "greatly", so that it now reads "I have greatly sinned." It's certainly a dramatic change, but one that's grounded in the Latin. In fact, the word "nimis" means something more than "greatly"; it actually connotes the idea of "excessiveness". The other change is that the Latin "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa" is now translated "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault." This is pretty much a literal translation. So the Latin is solid.

The problem, though, is that the Latin itself seems to be hyperbolically critical of humanity. It might aim to promote humility, but inevitably it fosters guilt instead. It promotes a vision of human nature as overwhelmingly and inexorably sinful-- a vision more in line with the heretical Janesenist doctrine of centuries past than Catholic dogma.

An apologist of the translation reminds us that "the guiding principle of the new translation is a closer adherence to the Latin--not a sharper critique of our virtue." But this makes absolutely no sense. Who cares what the "guiding principle" was? The end result is that the Latin is more condemnatory for no discernible reason. And there is no scriptural grounding for this “sharper critique” either-- the first appearance of the prayer is in 1100 AD, over a millennium after Christ.

The next major change is to the Gloria. Most of the changes are innocuous enough, but there's one at the beginning of the prayer that seems bizarre to me. The familiar "and peace to his people on earth" is changed to "on earth peace to people of good will." Not only is the latter far more awkward in English, but there's also a problematic sentiment implicit in the new phrase. Why are we only praying that people "of good will" receive peace? This seems to say that people who are without "good will" are not deserving of peace.
But what is "good will"? It seems to me that it could either mean "good" in the virtuous sense of the word, or, more specifically, Catholic. In either case, it expresses a profoundly anti-Christian sentiment. The notion that only moral or Christian people deserve peace and our prayers is anathema to everything Jesus ever taught. There is simply no sound reason for abandoning "love your enemies" simply because it’s closer to the Latin. The original Greek text recognizes this, and expresses "goodwill to all people." Ironically, the Latin is then actually a mistranslation of the Greek. This just highlights the fact that the possibility of human error doesn’t disappear when writing church texts. It’s hard to see what inherent reason we have for respecting this highly fallible process.

Finally, I think the changes to the Nicene Creed merit some discussion. As before, all of them have good grounding in the Latin, but it's the Latin that's problematic. The first is the fact that all of the "believe"s are in the first person. This destroys the sense of communal vision found in the "we believe" of the previous translation. Faith becomes something of the individual, by the individual, for the individual -- ironically, a very Protestant idea. Catholicism is supposed to value unity and togetherness.

Furthermore, there are two bizarre translations of particular words in the Latin that sound awkward and even obscure: "consubstantial" and "was incarnate." The former is a translation of the word "consubstantialem" in the Latin, so it certainly resembles the Latin the most. But does that make it a better translation? Surely not. The first rule that every Latin translator learns is that often Latin words may look like certain long, rare English words -- but comprehensibility matters more. The same applies to "was incarnate." The whole reason why an English translation is used in the first place is so people can actually understand the Mass. For the average churchgoer "consubstantial" is no more comprehensible than "consubstantialem.” Ridiculous words defeat the point of a translation in the first place.

Ultimately, the whole affair just begs the question of why the Latin Mass has any particular spiritual significance. It's certainly not Scripture, and it's often just an amalgamation of various communal prayers used throughout Europe for several centuries. In fact, many early bishops would write their own Masses or translations to best fit their community's needs. And that's the essence of Mass. The reason why we come to Mass in the first place rather than just praying by ourselves is the interaction with others that has spiritual importance. In the Mass the people become the Body of Christ, conceived as the organic whole Paul writes about in the famous passage from 1 Corinthians: “for the body is not one member, but many.”

The problem with the new translation and indeed the notion of a codified Latin Mass at all is that it destroys the communal and egalitarian nature of the act. Rather than an act of communion through which the churchgoer relates to God, it becomes an individualistic act through which the churchgoer relates to "experts" in Rome. It sets certain people above others in terms of their knowledge of a dead language and of dogma -- concerns that clearly distract from the message of God. If the Mass has any meaning, it must be grounded in communal concerns and vision-- not an effort to include as many four-syllable words as possible.

Some of my own observations:

The two things that I find most striking about this article are the brilliance and passion of Erik. Beyond his technical knowledge of Latin, his theological insights are both profound and exceptional for someone of his young age and experience.

Let me say that many years ago I heard about the new English translation of the Roman Missal. Frankly, I thought it was long overdue. Every Sunday I celebrated Mass in both English and Spanish language. The Spanish translation of the Mass is far more poetic, natural and beautiful than the English translation that has just been discarded. No one, at least from a literary point of view, will mourn the passing of the previous translation. However, while what replaces it may be more polished it reminds me of a quip from a poisoner, “You put the arsenic in the cake, not in the brussel sprouts, after all it doesn’t work if the victim doesn’t eat it.”

Having come from Cuba I had relatives who lived and died under a totalitarian regime, I grew up very attuned to the impact of ideology in people’s daily lives. One of the distinguishing characteristics of Stalinist era movies, for example, is that the protagonists all tend to die. What remains is “The State, The Revolution.” Stalin couldn’t have done a better job re-writing the Mass than Benedict XVI. The re-written Mass makes the churchgoer feel that he/she is part of something greater than him/herself, something to which he/she should be completely submissive and that will be here, long after he/she is gone and forgotten. Utopias, atheist or theist, are bigger than lives. Apparently that the Gospel is lost in the translation is a small price to pay for all that power and glory.

"LOVE and do what you will." -Saint Augustine

2011-11-26T23:26:00.000-08:00

Demons, Coffee and Cheesecake.

2011-11-06T16:20:00.000-08:00

In 1987 I was a young associate pastor at Saint Francis church in Bakersfield, California. One night, around 2 AM I received a disturbing phone call. It turned out to be the first in a series of such phone calls, all in the middle of the night.

The caller was not some abusive person; rather he was a Vietnam veteran suffering from extremely disturbing nightmares. In my extended conversations with him, I listened as he related his experience as an infantryman in Vietnam. “Walking point,” meant that he led his platoon down jungle paths on missions. The guy walking point was the person most likely to get killed, maimed, or seriously wounded by an enemy attack.

Additionally, he was the person who had to detect and disarm/avoid any traps that might have been set by enemy combatants. These could be ditches filled with hollowed-out, sharpened bamboo filled with human excrement and hidden with foliage. They could be spring traps that would pierce the sides of a person who unwittingly sprung them while walking on the path. They could be an anti-personnel mine that was discreetly buried just beneath the earth on the jungle path.

If you find reading this disturbing, imagine what it would be like to live through this not once, but on a daily basis for years. Imagine what it would be like to see a friend you had shared dinner or a beer with, impaled, shot or blown-up in your immediate presence. Imagine that, its latent effects, and the guilt you’d feel for having survived such an attack, while others were maimed or killed and you will begin to understand the meaning of PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder).

These were some of my thoughts as I officiated at a Memorial Service for Vietnam veteran this morning. His brother had asked that I refrain from making the Service overly religious. “We don’t want to come off like hypocrites,” he said. John (not the deceased’s real name) was not very religious. I smiled when he shared that sentiment with me, because I have heard something similar on innumerable occasions. “I’m spiritual, but not religious.”

Nevertheless the deceased’s niece, who helped plan the Service, asked that I include some prayers and a reflection. I selected a passage from the First Epistle of St. John, Chapter 4, and Verse 16, “God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.” Those words are etched in my mind and heart, because they were written in illuminated gold leaf behind the high altar at my childhood parish church. As a child, that was my definition of true religion.

I added a commentary ascribed to Saint Francis instructing Franciscans, “Teach the Gospel always, use words when necessary.” The heart of authentic spirituality is love. A love expressed concretely and practically to those we encounter on life’s journey.

The deceased had lived through hell on earth. He had ample cause to become embittered and to close in on himself. It would have been completely understandable if he had developed into a closed and sullen person. Instead, he chose to be a loving uncle and to reach out to those in his retirement home. He chose to love and not become consumed with hate. Yet, he did not consider himself a “religious” person. Maybe not, but perhaps that is due to a distorted understanding of “religion.”

It seems that in contemporary America, and certainly in the political campaigns we are currently suffering, religion has become a code word not for loving; but rather, for judging/controlling thy neighbor. Has this seeped into the ranks of the clergy too? I would argue that it has seeped from the ranks of the clergy. A critical read of the Passion account in the Gospel leaves little doubt as to who were the prime movers in visiting evil upon on an innocent man, or upon the prophets who preceded him. Titles and garb may have changed, but motives of power, vanity and greed remain firmly unchanged.

At the luncheon reception following the Memorial Service, an open microphone was offered to anyone who wished to share personal reflections. One gruff bear like man came up wearing a Vietnam veteran’s baseball cap. He picked up the microphone and said, “John wrestled with his share of demons, but I have never met a more loving and generous man, and that’s all I have to say.” I smiled quietly over my cup of coffee and half eaten cheesecake.

On the drive home, I thought about priests with whom I have been privileged to serve over the decades. I recalled one priest who decided to leave active ministry about ten years ago. He decided to return after a year away. When asked by the Vicar General (the #2 man under the bishop) why he had decided to return to active ministry, the returning priest said, “Finances.” The Vicar General looked down briefly, nodded and told him that he would be given a new assignment.

At the Personnel Board Meeting (the priests who advise the bishop on assignment placements), one priest angrily protested, “He has been off living a carefree life, while we have been struggling with the unjust stigma of pedophilia and now he comes back and we’re going to give him a nice assignment?!” Ironically, the returning priest is a highly introverted person, who has a Victorian view of sex.

When I found out the identity of the Personnel Board Member who had made that statement, I was aghast. That Personnel Board Member was known to go up to San Francisco and pay hustlers for sexual favors. The bishop looked the other way, “there are things a bishop shouldn’t know” he once quipped. The returning priest was given a highly undesirable assignment.

Years later, the Personnel Board Member apologized to the returning priest. He confided that he was gay, but felt that his family would reject him if they knew the truth about him. He had lived in fear, self-loathing and lashed out at gay people as a result. Not for a year, or a decade, but for decades. As you read these words, he is still imprisoned in that living hell.

Like the deceased veteran and the Personnel Board Member, we all have to face demons in life. How we respond, and whom become is entirely our choice. Speaking the truth will set us free from fear, but only practical love will heal and make us whole.

The Occupy Movement promotes both Liberation and Evolution

2011-10-16T09:25:00.000-07:00

An article in The Economist entitled: "We are the 99% Straining for the populist mandate" represents a sophisticated attempt to "debunk" the international Occupy Movement that continues to grow. Here are some counterpoints to this attempted debunking.

You state in your article, “If "we" really are the 99%, why have we failed to use our overwhelming democratic heft to set in place reforms that would unrig the system and put the 1% in their place? The obvious answer there is a great deal of ideological disagreement within the lower 99%”

Yes and No. If there has been widespread “ideological disagreement” among the 99%, this is due not to apathy or lack of common concerns but to a well choreographed messaging by the Corporately controlled Major Media outlets and the two Major Political parties in the USA.

What is in the best interest of the Nation, a national energy policy that moves us off of fossil fuels (e.g. Brazil), a national healthcare plan, a national public education policy through University level that does not create a caste of indentured servants, a much reduced military budget that funds national defense and not an international Corporate empire, all of these it may be argued are in the national interest. Are these “leftist” goals? I would argue that they are human goals and that maintaining the current economic/social systems in place, although they profit 1% of the population, do so on the backs of an increasingly disenfranchised and vocal majority.

The choice is either voluntary reform, as Britain did when they freed their colonies in the post WWII period, or escalating social/political destabilization that will forcefully lead to the long overdue changes. Obama in 2012? Perhaps, but only an Obama and Democratic Party that aggressively pursues substantive reform, e.g. publicly funded political campaigns for Congress and the Presidency and anti-bribery laws with sharp teeth that make an end of political lobbying. Why should the 1% acquiesce to such reforms? Better to deal with a Gandhi than with a Lenin.

The 100% will all benefit with an end to the economic neo-colonialism of the Near East and Third World by Corporations and their purchased politicians (governments). We will all benefit from an end to Climate change that endangers all of our future. We will all benefit by an end to wars and uprisings inspired/driven by Corporate international Arms Sales and Oil interest’s greed.

A speech I delivered at Occupy LA on Wednesday 12 October 2011

2011-10-12T17:20:00.000-07:00

In 1989 I watched my television screen in awe as a single young Chinese student stood in front of a column of tanks and forced them to stop.

In 1992 again I watched in awe as I saw people rip apart the Berlin Wall.

This year I watched in awe as I saw people fill Tahrir Square in Cairo and demand a government answerable to them.

Today Americans are moved by the same thirst for greater Freedom, Equality and Justice that moved all those champions of Human Dignity to fight for governments free of corruption.

Americans want an end to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan that has cost countless human lives, suffering and TRILLIONS of our tax dollars. A war, that Alan Greenspan said, was fought for oil, period.

86.7 million Americans do not have health insurance today, Americans NEED single-payer health insurance. Millions of Americans have lost their homes, tens of millions of Americans can't find a decent job and 44 million Americans are on food stamps. While we are on the subject, Social Security is not “an entitlement” it has been paid into by American workers over a course of their lifetime. It is not charity it is their pension that some politicians want to rob them of to give tax breaks to the wealthy.

There is much work that needs to be done. More than a quarter of the nation’s bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Leaky pipes lose an estimated seven billion gallons of clean drinking water every day. And aging sewage systems send billions of gallons of untreated wastewater cascading into the nation’s waterways each year.

These are among the findings of a report released by the American Society of Civil Engineers, which assigned an overall D grade to the nation’s infrastructure and estimated that it would take a $2.2 trillion investment from all levels of government over the next five years to bring it into a state of good repair.

In the face of all these staggering needs, Corporations are sitting on TWO TRILLION dollars that they refuse to spend to stimulate the economy, even after America has reduced tax rates to levels not seen since President Eisenhower and a 700 Billion dollar bail out to Wall Street by American taxpayers. It is time to TAX the Corporations, put American workers back to work and fix America’s infrastructure.

Our generation is fighting for Freedoms written into our Bill of Rights, which the so-called “Patriot Act” has diluted. 56% of Californians are in favor of Marriage Equality and yet, Marriage Equality is currently denied in California. Tomorrow, language for a new ballot initiative in 2012 that will restore Marriage Equality in California will be submitted in Sacramento.

America needs just and humane immigration laws that do not make criminals of innocent and honest people who contribute to our national economy. School children in Alabama cry in their classrooms today out of fear because the color of their skin is brown. This is immoral and needs to end now.

Americans are waking-up! In cities all across America, ordinary people are standing-up and demanding simple justice, equality and human dignity. Together we are reclaiming our country.

Occupy Wall Street, in their own words:

2011-10-05T23:19:00.000-07:00

What follows is the first official, collective statement of the protesters in Zuccotti Park:

As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.

They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.

They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one's skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.

They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.

They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.

They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.

They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.

They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.

They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.

They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.

They have sold our privacy as a commodity.

They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.

They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.

They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.

They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.

They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.

They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.

They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.

They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.

They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.

They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.

They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.

They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.

To the people of the world, We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.

REAL Audacity, Hope & Change!

2011-10-05T11:13:00.000-07:00

What is Occupy Wall Street all about? What are their demands? Where is this going?
Why are the major news media playing this down?

The following video, in the tradition of Gulliver’s Travels, offers an insightful synopsis of the issues at the heart of this protest.

Dolan attempts Re-defining “Religious Liberty” for America.

2011-10-04T11:36:00.000-07:00

I live in a heavily Jewish neighborhood in Los Angeles. Every Friday I see many of my neighbors walking (it is not permitted to drive on the Sabbath) with their families. Some of them wear clothing that would have been used in nineteenth century Eastern Europe. Some men simply wear conservative suits and yamaka their wives dressed in black or dark blue ankle length dresses.

My next-door neighbor is an Evangelical Protestant. Every Sunday, he and his wife, dutifully climb into their SUV and drive to their church for worship. The Buddhists down the block own a Thai restaurant and have a neatly manicured lawn. There is a gay couple a few doors down the street, one is an agnostic and the other is an atheist. There is a Church of Religious Science located at the end of our street. The Minister and his partner (a Roman Catholic) came to dinner a few weeks ago.

When I think of “Religious liberty” I think of my neighborhood in LA. Religious Liberty for me, and many Americans, means that you are free to follow your own conscience on matters of belief. That no one, no institution and most certainly not the government have the right or the power to dictate to you what you may or may not believe, or what dietary or adult consensual sexual practices you may or may not engage in predicated on those beliefs.

The Buddhist couple, although they are vegetarians, serve meat dishes to their customers who wish to purchase and eat meat. The local supermarket stocks and sells both kosher foods and bacon. When the city repaved our street, the Religious Science Church down the block offered its parking lot to local residents, so that they had a place to park their cars. They did not require us to convert to Religious Science for that convenience. Occasionally Jehovah Witnesses ring the doorbell, I am polite but have absolutely no desire or intention of joining their religion. The Hasidic Jews have not threatened to burn down the Religious Science Church because the Minster is gay and has a male partner.

I would be offended and vocal, if any of my neighbors were attacked or maligned because of their beliefs, or if some entity attempted to force them to change their beliefs. I hope my neighbors would also stand by me, if I were attacked or maligned due to my beliefs, or some entity attempted to forcibly change my beliefs. That is my understanding of “Religious Liberty.” However, Archbishop Dolan of New York City, the current president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops [NCCB] has a radically different understanding of “Religious Liberty.”

“Citing the famous preamble to the Declaration of Independence, Dolan wrote that the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are now "increasingly and in unprecedented ways under assault in America" because of administration policies.”

He goes on to list six items he believes impinge on “Religious Liberty.” These include:

1. Proposed regulations that requires private health insurers to cover contraceptives for patients who wish to use contraceptives.

2. Proposed requirements those religious aid groups, who accept federal money, to include condoms in their HIV prevention campaigns.

3. Dolan claims that “the religious conscience exemptions” in the proposals from the Department of Human Services “are not broad enough.”

4. Dolan also cites the administration's challenge to the "ministerial exception" rule, which will be argued Wednesday (Oct. 5) at the U.S. Supreme Court, which could determine whether churches have to conform to employment discrimination laws for workers who are not clergy.

5. Dolan also blasted the White House's decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

6. Dolan voiced frustration that neither he nor the previous USCCB president, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, received responses to private letters sent to Obama. Dolan said that's partly why he decided to take the feud public.

Essentially, Dolan wants,

1. For your health insurance NOT to cover the cost of contraceptives that you chose to use.

2. To use your tax dollars as he wishes, without requirements attached for the use of public funds.

3. To be able to invoke “religious conscience exemptions” at will and at his personal discretion.

4. To apply “ministerial exception” not only to clergy, but also to secretaries, gardeners, custodians, bookkeepers, choir directors, musicians, housekeepers, accountants, security guards, and any other person employed by the Church. That means these employees, as a condition of their continued employment, had better agree with the NCCB.

5. The NCCB not elected representatives, to decide policy decision and civil law.

6. The President of the United States (and all other elected officials and Judges) to “consult” privately with the NCCB in the formation/implementation of laws.

Where did the Roman Catholic Hierarchy get the idea that they have the right and the power to do all of this stuff? The Emperor Constantine and fifteen centuries of dictating moral laws in Europe and Catholic colonies. Oh, and that little exercise of over ruling the California State Supreme Court on Prop 8 (with a huge check written by the Mormon Church's leadership in Salt Lake City).

Thankfully, President Obama and the Federal government are choosing to follow the example of most Roman Catholics (and many Catholic theologians/priests) and simply ignore Archbishop Dolan, the NCCB and the Vatican. True Religious Liberty grants religious entities the freedom to make the laws of their religion, which may be voluntarily followed by their believers, but it does not grant them the power to dictate the law of the land, so far.

Are you energized and excited about the 2012 Elections?

2011-09-24T09:59:00.000-07:00

Most Americans, regardless of political affiliation, would answer no. Watching the Republican candidates “debate” on multiple occasions reminds me of how an elderly Hispanic woman described American food, “It is light brown, dark brown and green; and it all tastes the same.” Ron Paul, who advocates for an end to the “Patriot” Act, pulling our troops out of Afghanistan & Iraq, and ending American Empire, provided the only moments of interest. Sadly, these were offset by his views on healthcare and social programs that, if implemented, would push American society back to a pre-Theodore Roosevelt social Darwinism.

The Democratic side of the aisle provides all the spectrum of food service choice found in coach class on a budget airline. Apologists for President Obama, desperately trying to convince progressives to vote for him, resort to, “He’s better than the alternatives.” That alone is a comment on the President’s litany of half-measures and outright “Cave-ins” to Republicans.

We got Healthcare “Reform,” instead of a Single Payor or a National Healthcare PLAN. The “Reform” does not fully kick in for another two years and three months (too bad if you need health care before the kick in date) and requires Americans to purchase health insurance out of pocket, sort of like we are required to purchase automobile insurance out of pocket. Why are there so many “irresponsible” uninsured drivers? Because the poor cannot afford monthly automobile insurance payments, yet they still need to get to their part time jobs. The “public exchanges” and special subsides to the poor offer a complex and frustrating series of hurdles to people who are least equipped to successfully navigate such obstacles. Setting aside EPA laws, Financial “Reform” akin to requiring an additional fire extinguisher on the Hindenburg and reauthorizing George “W” Bush’s tax break to millionaires adds to an increasingly frustrating and seemingly inexplicable series of decisions by President Obama.

Seemingly inexplicable, until you ask who benefits from all these policies “mistakes,” Corporations are awash in over two trillion dollars, while average Americans suffer a worsening second Great Depression. Essentially, American’s choices in the 2012 Election will boil down to Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum. A Corporation candidate who is also a social Darwinist, or a Corporation candidate who will offer limited concessions to progressives on “social issues.” Either way, Corporations will fund the candidate’s political campaigns and thereby continue to dictate America’s economic policies, energy policies, healthcare policies, and foreign policy. The rest is a sideshow between the teabaggers and social progressives meant to generate the illusion of democracy.

So, why did the media fail to cover weeklong protests on Wall Street by demonstrators demanding real economic reforms and real policy changes? Because Wall Street owns the politicians and the media and they don't want you to realize you have it within your power to take your country back. Caesar’s old maxim, “Divide and Rule,” will continue to work until, like the demonstrators on Wall Street, the American people realize that their enemies are not fellow citizens with differing social views, but the Corporations that have foreclosed on their homes, force them to pay exorbitant fuel costs, outsource their jobs to third world nations, use the resultant economic depression as a license to eliminate the social safety networks of FDR while striping workers of collective bargaining powers, and substantively weakened the Bill of Rights through the “Patriot” Act.

How to beat John Eastman, NOM's new spokesperson, in public debate

2011-09-23T11:08:00.000-07:00

The Associated Press reports the following, re-printed by the Huffington Post:

"A law school professor from Southern California was named Thursday as the new chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, one of the most active groups opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage.
John Eastman, a professor and former dean at Chapman University Law School in Orange, Calif., will replace NOM's co-founder, Maggie Gallagher, who will remain a member of the board while devoting some of her time to finishing a book about the same-sex marriage debate.

Eastman, a former clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, ran unsuccessfully last year for state attorney general in California, though he did garner support from some tea party activists."

In confronting John Eastman, the new spokesperson for NOM, I would suggest using material presented in Professors Salzman and Lawler’s recent book, “The Sexual Person.” ISBN: 9781589012080 (1589012089)

The Huffington Post re-published an interesting article by Phyllis Zangano on “The Sexual Person” on 29 September 2010,

"Salzman and Lawler's dense academic argument turns traditional Catholic teaching on natural law on its head. They redefine natural law, saying "nature" is personal and individual, and that sexual activity need not be directed at procreation (contrary to what the Catholic Church has always said).

Salzman and Lawler argue that what is "natural" for a heterosexual is not "natural" for a homosexual, and therefore homosexuals and heterosexuals must act in accord with their personal "natures".

In other words, if it's "natural" for a homosexual to perform homosexual acts, then--for that person--heterosexual acts would be "unnatural" and immoral. For the two professors, homosexual activity is only immoral for the heterosexual acting against his or her nature."

Georgetown University Press offers this review, for more click here,

"Two principles capture the essence of the official Catholic position on the morality of sexuality: first, that any human genital act must occur within the framework of heterosexual marriage; second, each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life. In this comprehensive overview of Catholicism and sexuality, theologians Todd A. Salzman and Michael G. Lawler examine and challenge these principles. Remaining firmly within the Catholic tradition, they contend that the church is being inconsistent in its teaching by adopting a dynamic, historically conscious anthropology and worldview on social ethics and the interpretation of scripture while adopting a static, classicist anthropology and worldview on sexual ethics."

Professors Salzman and Lawler’s work is a very important tool in our battle for Full Federal Legal Equality, because “Natural Law” arguments form the philosophical foundation for Anti-Equality laws and policies. Salzman and Lawler's arguments transform Natural Law into our ally for full Equality and should be required reading for anyone debating John Eastman, Robert George and other NOM spokespersons.

The Day (and work) after the "End of DADT" Celebrations

2011-09-21T10:12:00.000-07:00

As I drove home during LA rush hour traffic I was listening to National Public Radio news. The news commentator observed that the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen had been an important advocate for the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, especially in his testimony on several occasions last year on Capitol Hill.

At a news conference held on the day the repeal took effect, Politico reports
the following comments by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Admiral Mullen,

“Today is really about every man and woman who serves this country, every man and woman in uniform, regardless of how they define themselves,” Mullen said. “Tomorrow they’ll all get up, they’ll all go to work, and they’ll all be able to do that work honestly.”

Asked about how the military can guard members of the military against harassment and violence against gays, Panetta noted that the military has a “zero tolerance” with regards to harassment and that military leaders must be on the lookout for potential problems that arise.

I think that the Admiral’s words are the clearest expression of what is at the heart of our struggle for Full Federal Legal rights and protection. It really is simply about people, ALL people including LBGT people, being able to get up in the morning, go to work and live their lives (and relationships) in peace. Without harassment and violence.

Yesterday, we took a significant step forward towards that ultimate goal. It was an imperfect step, transgendered people are not protected by the repeal of DADT and gay/lesbian service member’s spouses/domestic partners are not granted the same rights and privileges of their heterosexual counterparts. However, it was a historic step forward, not only for the Armed Forces and their members but also, for American society.

When I arrived home I found the following article posted to my Facebook wall,

Jamey Rodemeyer, 14, Dies in Suicide

Another tragic reminder that bullying against gay youth is a continuing problem comes with the suicide of a 14-year-old boy, Jamey Rodemeyer, who had asked for help repeatedly.

The repeal of DOMA and the passage of ENDA are necessary and important next steps in our struggle for Full Federal Legal Rights. However, while we work to recapture the House of Representatives and secure victories in November of 2012 that will make such legislation possible, we can and must work on the grassroots level to advance Anti-Bullying laws.

You can be part of this effort by attending your local PTA meetings, School Board meetings and becoming informed, involved and advocate for Anti-Bullying Laws. Write local officials letters, with a postage stamp, members of Congress actually pay much more attention to real letters from constituents than to E-mails.

Anti-Bullying laws will help to avoid tragedies like the one posted above. Remember how you felt when you were very young and first discovered that you were “different?” Remember how alone and powerless you felt? You can be a voice for the voiceless. You can personally make a real and immediate difference in this battle. Finally, Anti-Bullying laws will help all the “letters” in our alphabet soup.

DADT Repeal, Part of Full Federal Legal Equality.

2011-09-19T00:33:00.000-07:00

"The President-Elect has promised to lift the ban on homosexuals serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. What we are going to do here today is brainstorm about policy changes that we will make in the Air Force after the ban is lifted."

Through my peripheral vision I saw Airmen manning recording equipment and I looked down at that dime-sized microphone at my desk. I looked around the room at approximately fifty young officers, each at an identical desk also equipped with a dime-sized microphone. I raised my hand and said, "Major, until the Uniform Code of Military Justice is amended we are not free to speculate on policy changes." The Major paused and said, "That is correct." That was the end of the exercise.

Years later, I learned that similar exercises were held at various military bases. Many of those who offered policy recommendations in favor of accommodating homosexuals had their careers “negatively impacted.”

In those heady days, many of us believed that President-Elect Clinton would lift the ban. National Healthcare was given priority and all we got was DADT and DOMA. Still, LGBT people were thrilled that the President mentioned us at all. Oh, we never got National Healthcare either, even now we only have a partially implemented Healthcare Reform Act. Arguably, this is better than what we had, but still far less than Single Payor, or a National Healthcare Plan. So much for bi-partisan cooperation.

The cost of DADT was paid for in destroyed careers and ruined lives of countless members of our Armed Forces. Most of those costs will never be recouped. Moreover, gay and lesbian military personnel were forced to live double lives in the shadow of fear. DADT was a lie. Everyday at the water cooler people talked about whom they were dating. About their wives and husbands. About what they were doing on the weekend, or on leave. Gay and lesbian had to do what they had learned to do as adolescents, what they had learned as a survival mechanism, they had to lie. Heterosexual service members were quite free to Ask and Tell, gay and lesbian service members were not.

Pronouns were changed and reasons were fabricated as to why they were still single, why they chose to live off base. Worse still, some entered into sham marriages in order to protect their careers. I recall one such marriage that ended shortly after the military member reached his twenty years of service. Suddenly, his wife discovered that her husband was gay and that he was divorcing her. DADT had straight victims too.

Thankfully all that ends on Tuesday 20 September 2011 for most of our military. Most, not all, transgendered members of the Armed Forces are still at risk. They must still remain hidden. They are still required to lie merely to survive. At a talk I gave tonight, someone stated that we should have held out for “all or nothing!”

Although I empathized with the person’s zeal for justice, I quoted my old Political Science professor who said, “The reasons why liberals seldom win, is that they want the whole loaf of bread. In politics, you’re lucky to get one-third or one-half of what you want.” The repeal of DADT is imperfect for many reasons.

It is imperfect because it does nothing for transgendered members of the Armed Forces. It is also imperfect because spouses/domestic partners of gay/lesbian service members are not entitled to base housing, insurance benefits, etc. There is still much more work to be done, more battles for equality to be fought.

I think that the frustrations with incrementalism in our community are both reasonable and unreasonable. They are reasonable in that some LGBT organizations have used incrementalism as a license for inaction. One woman used to make a substantial donation to the Cancer Society every year and then, one year, she suddenly stopped her donations. Her son asked her why she stopped. The woman answered, “I discovered that they were only funding research for treatments and not research for cures.” If they found a cure, there would no longer be a need for the Cancer Society, or for continued donations and fund-raisers. Not to mention all the salaried positions. Some LGBT organizations might be afraid that the attainment of Full Federal Legal Equality would render them obsolete. Full Equality would mean an end to the donations and fundraisers that make possible all those salaried positions and benefits packages they currently enjoy. Incrementalism in this light is politically cynical and ethically indefensible.

Incrementalism in President Harry S. Truman’s Executive order desegregating the U.S. Civil Service and Armed Forces did little to immediately end segregation in this country. However, the Armed Forces socialize young enlistees from all over the nation and those enlistees bring their new thinking back to Hometown, USA. Truman’s act changed America’s culture and laid the groundwork for the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1954 and the Civil Right Act of 1964. In that light, the repeal of DADT is an ominous defeat for the forces of social bigotry they understand that this will affect all of American society.

It may also be argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was incrementalism. Since it failed to address the issue of housing discrimination based on race. Title VIII of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 addressed that, but without the Civil Rights Act of 1964 there would have been no Fair Housing Act of 1968. In that sense, incrementalism is an intelligent and necessary strategy. We take a third of the loaf of bread today and then fight for fourth of the rest of the loaf tomorrow and so on, until we have the whole loaf. The NAACP still has much work to do today, even though Civil Rights have come a very long way since Dr. King delivered his “I have a dream” speech at the feet of Lincoln’s statue. There will still be many generations of work ahead for LGBT organizations, long after Full Federal Legal Equality is attained.

We still have to pass ENDA and repeal DOMA. We still have to fight for those in our community who have not yet benefited from the repeal of DADT. Some of these battles will be fought by attorneys in courtrooms, some by you at the ballot box and in your conversations with family members, co-workers and in social settings.

Although imperfect, the repeal of DADT represents substantive progress for our community. Today is a day to draw strength from this battle victory by celebrating this encouraging step forward towards greater legal equality. Even after full federal legal equality and protection for our community is achieved, we will have to continue to work and fight for full social equality.

Department of "Justice"?

2011-08-31T19:35:00.000-07:00

As one of the thirteen people who handcuffed themselves to the White House Fence on 15 November 2010, I have been following the trial of Dan Choi with much interest; he has been in my thoughts and prayers through this whole ordeal. The reason I handcuffed myself to the Fence was to draw attention to an unjust law that has destroyed the careers of countless members of the U.S. Armed Forces, simply because they are members of a minority group.

At the time of this act of Civil Disobedience, the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell had been de-prioritized by the Obama Administration. The House of Representatives was about to fall under Republican Control in January 2011. Unless the lame-duck session of Congress, specifically the U.S. Senate, passed repeal legislation sent to them by the House, DADT would remain the law of the land. Our action put DADT repeal on the front page of media. That spotlight helped to move repeal forward in Congress.

Typically protesters are penalized with a $100.00 fine and misdemeanor count, which is about as serious as a traffic ticket. As the current Court proceedings clearly indicate, we were singled out for “special treatment” by Obama’s Justice Department. Twelve of us agreed to plead “guilty” with a plea agreement that dismisses charges against us. Our motives for accepting this agreement were: 1) some members of our group are teachers who would lose employment and be barred from their profession and become unemployed as a result. 2) All of us would have a federal crime on our records that would undermine future employment. 3) Twelve of us did not have the considerable financial resources to retain competent legal counsel and pursue costly litigation in Federal Court.

I am happy that Dan Choi was in a position to pursue this matter further. In doing so he is unmasking not only the true face of this Administration, but a corrupting arrogance on the part of the Federal government since the enactment of the Patriot Act, the de facto suspension of habeas corpus at Gitmo and the violation of the Geneva convention by the Bush Administration. Not to mention our nation’s engagement in a war against Iraq in violation of the Just War Theory. A war prompted by corporate greed for Iraq’s oil, as Alan Greenspan pointed out, and paid for with the blood of civilian non-combatants (collateral damage) as well as members of our Armed Forces.

Regardless of how you feel about LGBT Equality, there are other broader issues at stake here. As Chris Geidner reports in MetroWeekly,

The judge went on to say that he believed the prosecution was not selective in the traditional sense but rather was more subtle.

"It is impermissible," he told the courtroom, "for the U.S. Government to prosecute differently on the basis of the content of First Amendment speech."

We handcuffed ourselves to the White House Fence to obtain Civil Rights for our community in the Armed Forces. Dan has gone on to fight for all of our First Amendment rights. Specifically the rule of law and the notion that the government is accountable to its citizens, BRAVO Dan!

Obama 11 October 2009

2011-08-27T12:01:00.000-07:00

Consider carefully the comments by the President then and also, the insights/comments of the various panelists on the interview. Specifically, consider the comments on the Employment Non Discrimination Act.

Lt. Dan Choi begins his trial on Monday 29 August 2011 for his part in a protest at the White House that helped bring national attention (and move members of Congress) to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. He is being prosecuted by the Executive branch of government that is headed by Obama.

The Many faces of NOM's Maggie Gallagher.

2011-08-16T01:10:00.000-07:00

Click the link below to read a very insightful article by psychologist, Dr. James Walton, on NOM's Maggie Gallagher.

"As A Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist, I Have Just One Question to Maggie Gallagher, President of The National Organization for Marriage: "What’s It All About Maggie?" "

Justice is to Law, as Healing is to Medicine

2011-08-11T13:11:00.000-07:00

Last Tuesday evening I had the privilege of hearing a presentation on the history of marriage in California law by former State Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno. In his presentation Justice Moreno recounted how California’s State Supreme Court overturned the ban on interracial marriage in 1948, 19 years before the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Loving v. Virginia.

"Richard Loving was white; his wife, Mildred, was black. In 1958, they went to Washington, D.C. — where interracial marriage was legal — to get married. But when they returned home, they were arrested, jailed and banished from the state for 25 years for violating the state's Racial Integrity Act. Judge Leon Bazile wrote: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. ... The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Justice Moreno quoted Judge Bazile’s sentencing statement. In August of 2011, Bazile’s statement is (almost) universally seen for what it is, a monstrously ignorant, unjust and bigoted statement. However, in 1958 there were many “God fearing A-mur-eh-kins” who wholeheartedly agreed with Bazile’s “Christian” theology.

Justice Moreno went on to debunk the false accusation of “activist judges.” He explained that the court does not seek to create new legislation; but rather, people come to the court to resolve real world disputes. Justice Moreno cited a case in which a woman had a hysterectomy, but still was producing viable ovum, she very much wanted to have a child. A female friend volunteered to carry the first woman’s fertilized ovum and give birth to the child. The first woman had her ovum fertilized by her husband’s semen at a clinic and then deposited into the volunteer.

During the pregnancy, the volunteer had a change of mind and the two women ended up suing each other in court. The court had to determine who was the lawful mother of the child. Pause here for a couple of moments and place yourself in the position of the Judge who had to decide this matter. Justice Moreno voiced the thoughts of many in the room, when he cited the dilemma of King Solomon having to adjudicate who was the true mother of the child.

Justice Moreno explained all the various indicators usually used to determine paternity (DNA, giving live birth, etc); however, in this particular case both parties could claim several of these. Finally, the Judge in the case used the “intent” of the parties to determine maternity and the corresponding parental rights/duties.

Advancements in human science required a reconsideration of the seemingly “unchangeable” criteria for motherhood. Yet, this “new” understanding had a very ancient precursor, since adoptive parents are not the biological parents of a child and yet, in many cases, they are much more the “true” parents than the biological parents. In short, the intent and the relationship trump the act.

I listened with great interest, since this is precisely the thesis of Professors Salzman and Lawler in their recent book, “The Sexual Person.” Todd A. Salzman is a professor of Catholic theology and chair of the Department of Theology at Creighton University. Michael G. Lawler is professor emeritus of Catholic theology at Creighton University. A review of their new book states,

“Two principles capture the essence of the official Catholic position on the morality of sexuality: first, that any human genital act must occur within the framework of heterosexual marriage; second, each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life. In this comprehensive overview of Catholicism and sexuality, theologians Todd A. Salzman and Michael G. Lawler examine and challenge these principles. Remaining firmly within the Catholic tradition, they contend that the church is being inconsistent in its teaching by adopting a dynamic, historically conscious anthropology and worldview on social ethics and the interpretation of scripture while adopting a static, classicist anthropology and worldview on sexual ethics.

While some documents from Vatican II, like Gaudium et spes ("the marital act promotes self-giving by which spouses enrich each other"), gave hope for a renewed understanding of sexuality, the church has not carried out the full implications of this approach. In short, say Salzman and Lawler: emphasize relationships, not acts, and recognize Christianity's historically and culturally conditioned understanding of human sexuality. The Sexual Person draws historically, methodologically, and anthropologically from the best of Catholic tradition and provides a context for current theological debates between traditionalists and revisionists regarding marriage, cohabitation, homosexuality, reproductive technologies, and what it means to be human.”

I had an opportunity to visit with Justice Carlos Moreno after his lecture. In our conversation I thanked him for his role in serving justice and human dignity. Later that week I read a statement by the American Psychological Association,

“The American Psychological Association reaffirmed its support Wednesday for marriage equality for same-sex couples, noting that its annual convention taking place here this week provides an opportunity to call attention to the science supporting this position.

‘As the world’s largest organization of psychologists, we felt it was important to make a statement here and now to demonstrate APA’s unwavering support of marriage equality,” said APA President Carol D. Goodheart, EdD. “With the issue playing out so prominently in California, we are using the opportunity presented by our annual convention to present the growing body of science that is the foundation for our position, and that has influenced many of the legislators, judges and other public officials who are working to achieve this goal.”

On 06 September 2011 the California State Supreme Court will hear opening arguments regarding the question of legal standing of the “Yes on Proposition 8” proponents to appeal Judge Walker’s decision that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Justice Moreno speculated that the Federal Court thinks that these proponents stand on very “shaky [legal] ground” on Article Three to appeal Walker’s decision and therefore sought an opinion from the California Supreme Court regarding California State Law. The proceedings will be broadcast and since the Court has nothing else on the docket that day, it could be rather extensive. Get some popcorn and tune in.

In conformity with California’s Constitution, the State Supreme Court has ninety days to issue an opinion, so by 06 December 2011 our State Supreme Court may deliver a fatal blow to Prop 8.

NAACP 102nd Annual Convention: "Overcoming Homophobia"

2011-07-30T00:31:00.000-07:00

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE BY KAREN OCAMB IS REPRINTED HERE:

Civil Rights Icon Julian Bond Speaks at NAACPs First Town Hall Meeting on LGBT Rights

by Karen Ocamb on July 29, 2011 | 12:08 PM

The NAACP held its first-ever town hall meeting to discuss LGBT issues on July 25 as part of its 102nd annual convention held at the Los Angeles Convention Center. The theme was “Our Collective Responsibility: Overcoming Homophobia”. Julian Bond, Civil Rights Icon and Chairman Emeritus NAACP, addresses the NAACP. Video by Renee Sotile & Mary Jo Godges of TraipsingThruFilms for LGBT POV and Frontiers In LA. An extensive piece on the town hall with more video is coming soon.

Dangerous Complacency

2011-07-29T11:16:00.000-07:00

On July 2nd, 1964 President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act that had just been passed by the U.S. House of Representatives a few hours earlier, into law. The act outlawed segregation in businesses such as theaters, restaurants, and hotels. It banned discriminatory practices in employment and ended segregation in public places such as swimming pools, libraries, and public schools.

Passage of that piece of legislation was not easy. It had been bottled up in the House Rules Committee and in the Senate, opponents attempted to kill the legislation with a filibuster. It is a testament to the tireless work and clear vision of people of conscience that the Civil Rights Act became law in 1964. But, what if it all ended with the passage of that landmark legislation? What if all activist decided simply to stop all of their work on July 2nd, 1964? What if the NAACP simply closed its door on that victorious day? What if donors to the advancement of Civil Rights and human dignity decided to stop donating? What if volunteers decided to lend their efforts to other causes, and there were several important causes and good works (the Vietnam War, Peace Corps)? What if the President simply decided to focus on other matters?

Without sustained political pressure, volunteers, donations, activists, we would probably never have passed the Civil Rights Act of 1965 that outlawed literacy tests and poll taxes as a way of assessing whether anyone was fit or unfit to vote. After the passage of the 1965 Act, all you needed to vote was American citizenship and the registration of your name on an electoral list, after the passage of the 1965 Act no form of hindrance to this would be tolerated by the law courts. If everyone threw a party, celebrated and went home after the signing of the 1965 Act’s signing into law, what then?

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 that among other things ended legal housing discrimination, would probably not have been passed into law. If people stopped working for Equality after the signing of the 1968 Act, then there would have been no Civil Rights Act of 1991 that protected workers from unlawful harassment and intentional discrimination in the workplace.

The point of this is that the attainment of Civil Rights and Social Justice are rarely, if ever, “an event,” if history is an accurate guide, this is usually a long, painful, tedious and costly process. There will always be vested interests and uncharitable people who will work, contribute and organize to oppress minorities. Dr. Martin Luther King’s famous quote that the “Arc of history bends towards justice,” is a noble truth meant to inspire in the face of evil and not as a license to do nothing in the face of evil.

In our War for Human Dignity, we will be forced to engage in many battles. We have recently won two major battles, the final repeal of DADT that will occur on September 20th, 2011 and the establishment of Marriage Equality in New York State. Some in our community feel that they have won and that someone else, somewhere else, can fight other battles elsewhere. These sentiments are reported in an article by Alana Horowitz (Full Story).

The line of thought expressed by some members of our community is dangerous on two levels. First, there is still much work that must be accomplished before we reach Full Federal Equality and beyond that goal, Full Equality for members of our community Internationally. Here are just two major mileposts on the road ahead:

• Repeal of DOMA (the falsely named “Defense” of Marriage Act)

• Passage of ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act)

Even after we have won, and we will win, Full Federal (legal) Equality. There will be decades of work to be done to establish Full Social Equality for members of our community. There is a distinction between “legal” protection and “social” acceptance. This was tragically pressed home last fall with a spate of suicides of young people in our community. People who were hounded into self-hatred and despair by those who would “keep us in our place” (i.e. silent and invisible).

It is important, healthy and good to celebrate victories in our battles. This encourages future efforts and necessary sacrifices. However, it is a fatal mistake to assume that a victorious outcome to a particular battle, such as the victory in New York State or the Repeal of DADT, marks an end to our War for Human Dignity. It most certainly does not and I promise you that the oppressive elements at NOM and their funders in Salt Lake City and the Knights of Columbus have not stopped trying to restore injustice.

The Man behind the Hate

2011-07-27T13:32:00.001-07:00

The Intellectual Architect who transformed American Catholic Bishops into the Choirboys for the Republican Party.

What do former LA Cardinal Mahony’s and San Francisco’s Archbishop Niederauer’s support of California’s Proposition 8, NYC Archbishop Dolan’s opposition to Marriage Equality legislation in New York state, the unified opposition to all Marriage Equality legislation by the American Catholic hierarchy and the Manhattan Declaration all have in common? Is there one person who is the intellectual architect of all the “talking points,” the inspiration for funding of a coordinated political action against Marriage Equality and LGBT civil rights? New York Times reporter David D. Kirkpatrick tells us that many social and political conservatives say one name.

Robert P. George, a Princeton University professor of jurisprudence and a Roman Catholic who is this country’s most influential conservative Christian thinker.

He has parlayed a 13th-century Catholic philosophy into real political influence. Glenn Beck, the Fox News talker and a big George fan, likes to introduce him as “one of the biggest brains in America,” or, on one broadcast, “Superman of the Earth.” Karl Rove told me he considers George a rising star on the right and a leading voice in persuading President George W. Bush to restrict embryonic stem-cell research. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told me he numbers George among the most-talked-about thinkers in conservative legal circles. And Newt Gingrich called him “an important and growing influence” on the conservative movement, especially on matters like abortion and marriage.

“If there really is a vast right-wing conspiracy,” the conservative Catholic journal Crisis concluded a few years ago, “its leaders probably meet in George’s kitchen.”

The Effect:

George was invited to address an audience that included many bishops at a conference in Washington. He told them with typical bluntness that they should stop talking so much about the many policy issues they have taken up in the name of social justice. They should concentrate their authority on “the moral social” issues like abortion, embryonic stem-cell research and same-sex marriage, where, he argued, the natural law and Gospel principles were clear. To be sure, he said, he had no objections to bishops' “making utter nuisances of themselves” about poverty and injustice, like the Old Testament prophets, as long as they did not advocate specific remedies. They should stop lobbying for detailed economic policies like progressive tax rates, higher minimum wage and, presumably, the expansion of health care — “matters of public policy upon which Gospel principles by themselves do not resolve differences of opinion among reasonable and well-informed people of good will,” as George put it.

A few months later, in a July 17 letter to Congress, the bishops did something close to that in the health care debate.

George’s marching orders have transformed the National Catholic Bishop’s Conference (NCCB) into becoming the choirboys for the Republican Party. What is the real world cost both to American Catholics and American Society?

THE COSTS:

Sixty leaders of Catholic religious orders representing 59,000 nuns sent a letter to Washington leaders urging them to vote for the health care reform bill. Unlike many of the Catholic bishops, who have worked against the current bill on the basis of abortion policy, the sisters argued the pending bill represented a "real pro-life stance" and urged Catholic members of Congress to pass the legislation.

Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of Network, a national Catholic social justice lobby represents one of the organizations that signed the letter to Congress, in her words,

“But this really isn't so much about a face and morals difference. It's about a political analysis difference where does this or does this not fund abortion? And our perspective is is that it does not. And it promotes life by giving 30 million people in our country access to health care when we know that 45,000 people die every year because they don't have access to health care and to having their needs met.”

The hierarchy of the Catholic Church in this country have chosen to transform the Catholic Church into a far right PAC. As Sister Campbell points out the price that the US bishops have paid is not merely dollars but 45,000 human lives per year.

HIS INTELLECTUAL ACHILLES HEAL:

Robert P. George’s own analysis of the weakness in his appeal to absolute reason:
It is a debate at least as old as the Reformation, when Martin Luther broke with the Catholic Church and insisted that reason was so corrupted that faith in the divine was humanity’s only hope of salvation. (Until relatively recently, contemporary evangelicals routinely leveled the same charge at modern Catholics.) “This is a serious issue, and if I am wrong, this is where I am wrong,” George acknowledges.
Over lunch last month at the Princeton faculty club, George noted that many evangelicals had signed the Manhattan Declaration despite the traditional Protestant skepticism about the corruption of human reason. “I sold my view about reason!” he declared. He was especially pleased that, by signing onto the text, so many Catholic bishops had endorsed his new natural-law argument about marriage. “It really is the top leadership of the American church,” he said.

“Obviously, I am gratified that view appears to have attracted a very strong following among the bishops,” he went on. “I just hope I am right. If they are going to buy my arguments, I don’t want to mislead the whole church.”

TWO EFFECTIVE COUNTER-PUNCHS:

First, Professors at Creighton University in a recent book “The Sexual Person” have developed an argument that supports Marriage Equality.

“While some documents from Vatican II, like Gaudium et spes ("the marital act promotes self-giving by which spouses enrich each other"), gave hope for a renewed understanding of sexuality, the church has not carried out the full implications of this approach. In short, say Salzman and Lawler: emphasize relationships, not acts, and recognize Christianity's historically and culturally conditioned understanding of human sexuality. The Sexual Person draws historically, methodologically, and anthropologically from the best of Catholic tradition and provides a context for current theological debates between traditionalists and revisionists regarding marriage, cohabitation, homosexuality, reproductive technologies, and what it means to be human. This daring and potentially revolutionary book will be sure to provoke constructive dialogue among theologians, and between theologians and the Magisterium.”

This work by Professors Todd A. Salzman and Michael G. Lawler has already been condemned by American Catholic bishops, since they understand that it threatens to bring down the whole house of cards on their objections to Marriage Equality based on their appeal to the Natural Law (reason) argument. This would unmask the hierarchy’s relentless opposition to LGBT Civil Rights as nothing more than a cynical attempt to deflect attention from the Sexual Cover-Up Scandal and re-vivify their waning social influence and political power.

Also, too much scrutiny into the supposed “objective” role of reason in Anti-Equality arguments threatens fissures in the “Christian” alliance with Evangelicals. I respectfully suggest that LBGT persons with media connections use their influence to publicly air Professors’ Todd A. Salzman and Michael G. Lawler Natural Law theories and their logical legal/social implications.

Secondly, I’d point out that we “dropped the ball” and missed a significant opportunity to highlight the confrontation between the American Catholic bishops and Catholic Religious women’s orders (Nuns). The bishops have already been largely discredited by their complicity in the National and International Sexual Cover-Up Scandal. The Sisters on the other hand enjoy a much-deserved sterling reputation as ministers of charity and advocates for the marginalized. Diana Butler Bass ask the following question in an article for the Huffington Post,

“I have one question for you: Whom do you trust to speak for the Catholic faith? The bishops who covered up the sex scandal in the church, ignoring the cries of victims, while rewarding those with "habitually foul behavior" with ever-bigger parishes and positions in the hierarchy? Or the sisters -- the women who nursed your sick grandparents, who taught your children to read, cooked meals for hungry people, who started schools on the prairies and established hospitals in far-away jungles? When it comes to being pro-life, you best listen to the ladies.”

I am amazed that we have failed to do “Sixty-Minutes” type television exposes on this showdown between the hierarchy and these brave nuns. Most Catholics are more progressive, not only than other religious people but, than American voters as a whole on several social issues. Somehow, politicians interact with the local bishops as if he controlled a monolithic voting block that held very socially conservative opinions AND voted according to those opinions---they do not.

It is time for us to recognize the source of our oppression and the hatred & bigotry encouraged by these irresponsible theories. As a Philosophy professor of mine once quipped, “You have to shoot these people with their own bullets.” It is time for us to effectively and more aggressively fight back.

Post Script: An excellent article on Dr. George by Colleen at Open Tabernacle

Dealing with Hate

2011-07-25T19:48:00.000-07:00

Due to our two recent political victories, Marriage Equality in New York State and the end of DADT scheduled for 20 September 2011, there has been a backlash of hatred towards our community. I have prepared a reasoned and polite letter of response to such critics.

Through such an approach I hope that we may move some of those opposed to Equality Laws to reconsider their harsh positions. I also believe that by making a reasoned argument and presenting it reasonably, we will move more people “in the middle” to support our fight for Full Federal Equality.

Please feel free to use the following in letters to editors, personal correspondence, etc.

Thank you for your interest in contacting me,

Moral questions regarding sexuality are, and should be, a concern for us all. I find the following presentation by moralist Dr. John Corvino especially helpful in regard to issues of sexuality and morality.

What's Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?

The following is taken from the American Psychological Association website:

Is sexual orientation a choice?

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

Can therapy change sexual orientation?

No; even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable. However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.

Consider the loving advice would you give to a young person who confided in you that they had a same-sex orientation. Would your advice lead that young person to a life of love and self-acceptance, or to a life of fear, self-hatred and hiding?

Thank you very much for your interest and for making the time to consider the role of sexuality in your own and other’s lives.

God Bless!

Father Geoff

20 September 2011 the death of DADT.

2011-07-22T14:13:00.000-07:00

Today President Obama joined the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen certified the repeal of the unjust Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT). The clock now starts ticking for the sixty day time period after certification. On 20 September 2011 gays and lesbians will be able to serve openly in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Obviously this is of immense significance for gay/lesbian members of the U.S. Armed Forces and their loved ones. It is also a huge “game changer” for the national debate on Marriage Equality, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act [ENDA] and the repeal of the unconstitutional and falsely named Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA].

In 1947 President Harry S. Truman desegregated the U.S. Civil Service and the U.S. Armed Forces. That decision set in motion changes in social attitudes. Those changing attitudes helped to usher in tectonic social changes in America. The landmark Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education that ordered the desegregation of schools and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are both connect to Truman’s courageous Executive Order of 1947.

Imagine the impact that the repeal of DADT will have in “military towns” across America. Suddenly locals will see Marines, Soldiers, Airmen and Sailors who are gay/lesbian. Inductees into basic training will be formed to be respectful of service members with same-sex orientations. These values will become engrained and affect civil society.

Sunday the State of New York will recognize Same-sex marriages. This is a huge victory for Marriage Equality nationally, since New York is one of America’s most populace and influential states. In September the California Supreme Court will issue an opinion regarding the standing of the “Yes on Prop 8” proponents to appeal Judge Walker’s ruling striking down Prop 8 in California.

Make no mistake, there remain many battles to be fought until Full Federal Equality for LGBT people is achieved. Beyond that happy day, there will still be many struggles to end bullying and bigotry in our nation. However, it is good to celebrate and draw strength from today’s victory.

Polite Bigotry

2011-07-20T11:25:00.000-07:00

The man who will become the new Archbishop of Philadelphia in September, Charles Chaput:

“This is the issue of our time,” Chaput adds, speaking of “gay marriage,” in an interview published today in the National Catholic Reporter. “The church understands marriage as a unique relationship, with a unique definition, which is the faithful love of a man and a woman for each other, permanent, and for the sake of children. As children, if we don’t know that our parents love one another, our lives are very unstable. That’s why I think every child deserves a family where the father loves the mother, and the mother loves the father. For us to redefine marriage as anything else undermines that notion. I think it’s very important that the church keep insisting on this.

Let us take a closer look at Chaput’s argument, he claims marriage is, “for the sake of children.” Curiously, “The Roman Ritual” revised by decree of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and published by the authority of Pope Paul VI, places references to children in red brackets. This is done so that the sacred minister at Catholic wedding rites can easily omit all references to children/childbearing in wedding ceremonies.

Catholic theology specifies two ends to marriage. First the “unitive end” and secondly, the “procreative end.” Marriage is a union of love and life that may also lead to physical reproduction. However, not all marriages will be procreative, a common example would be any marriage entered into by a woman who is no longer capable of reproduction. These marriages are recognized as valid and a sacrament by the Church, even though procreation is impossible. The unitive end of marriage is sufficient for a valid and sacramental marriage in the Catholic Church and always has been. This is not “new” nor does this in anyway constitute a “redefinition” of marriage.

As regards Chaput’s statement, “As children, if we don’t know that our parents love one another, our lives are very unstable. That’s why I think every child deserves a family where the father loves the mother, and the mother loves the father.”
On surface, this statement seems perfectly reasonable and it resonates interiorly with most people. Of course, a child should be raised in a community of love (family), where he/she is loved. However, the term “parent” needs to be defined. The simple biological act of reproduction does not make a person a parent. Saint Joseph did not engender Jesus and yet, I doubt that Archbishop Chaput would argue that Saint Joseph was not a father to Jesus.

Being a parent means taking an active role in the life of a child. It means loving that child. It means waking up in the middle of the night to nurse a child suffering from the flu, measles, or chickenpox. It means making time to help the child with homework and encouraging him/her to pursue their dreams. It means nurturing that child physically, psychologically and emotionally. It means enabling that child to mature into an autonomous adult, who can stand on his/her own, face the world and have a real shot at happiness.

That child may or may not share your DNA. That child may be your grandchild, your niece/nephew, or may be your adopted son/daughter. What makes you his/her parent is honestly loving and caring for him/her. That, Archbishop, is what every child “deserves.” I doubt, hope, that you never “checked” your parent’s genitalia and I sincerely doubt you ever considered that central to their parenthood.

Chaput goes on to say, “I think it’s very important that the church keep insisting on this [that marriage must always be heterosexual].” Again, we need to define our terms. I have already addressed the false notion of “redefinition of marriage.” I would take issue with the use by Chaput of the term “church.” The Second Vatican Council defined the “Church” as “the people of God.” This was beautifully illustrated in the American Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s:

“Catholic participation in the southern civil rights movement culminated at Selma in March 1965. As was customary in much of the South, Selma’s Catholic churches were strictly segregated, with the priest in charge of the African American “mission” parish ignored by the city’s other clergy. (One attempt at integration of the city’s “white” parish by a group of African American teenagers met with fierce resistance.) 1 In addition, the bishop of Montgomery, Thomas Toolen, attempted to prevent northern Catholics from responding to the please of civil rights activists for assistance, maintaining that outsiders were “out of place in these demonstrations—their place is at home doing God’s work…”2 Regardless, priests from fifty different dioceses, lay people, and nuns flocked to Alabama to join in the marches.

One participant observed that many speakers at the headquarters of the Selma campaign “pointed out with happiness and gratitude that this was the first time that so many Catholic priests, acting with their bishop’s permission, had joined them on the front lines of the movement.” 3 Ralph Abernathy congratulated one priest on the Catholic turnout, jocularly adding that “the only ones they hate more than Negroes down here are Roman Catholics, especially Monsignors.”4 Newspapers across the country, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, carried front-page photos of nuns in full-habit striding down Dallas County roads.5 One editorial concluded that “For a great many Catholics…the pictures of demonstrating clergymen and religious, flashed on TV screens or bannered across front pages, spoke more clearly and directly than any conciliar decree could ever do about the effective presence of the Church in the world today.” A nun marching down Selma’s Highway 80 made the same point more emphatically: “We are the Church,” she declared.6”

During discussions at the Second Vatican Council a “proof text” for the concept of collegiality (that the bishops come to decisions jointly) was being sought. Cardinal Ottaviani quipped, “the only one I can think of is, ‘…and they fled’ [Mark 14: 50]” As citation above demonstrates, bishops (like Bishop Thomas Toolan & his Southern colleagues) often get it wrong. The hierarchy simply remains silent about these popes and bishops, knowing that silence is a stealthy censor and ignorance of history serves as an effective “white-out.”

Chaput’s comment, “It’s also important to say that we’re not against gay people”
It is the standard bromide employed by members of the hierarchy whenever they attempt to destroy the Civil Rights of LGBT people. It is as threadbare as it is hollow; it is a hypocritical nod by vice to virtue. It is reminiscent of bromides such as, “Hate the Race, Love the man.” Employed by Southern racists to justify segregation, Jim Crow laws and the ban on interracial marriage.

Joan of Arc was burned at the stake by the hierarchy, later the hierarchy declared her a saint and martyr for the Faith. It seems that bishops don’t make mistakes, just martyrs and saints, but not always the way God prefers.

Apostles of Hate

2011-07-19T12:55:00.000-07:00

This week California Governor Jerry Brown signed the Fair, Accurate, Inclusive and Respectful (FAIR) legislation passed by California’s State Assembly and Senate. The new law requires public schools to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. "History should be honest," said Brown. The law takes effect in January, but state textbooks probably wont' be updated until 2015.

“The FAIR Act “[a]dds lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans, persons with disabilities and others to the list of groups of people whose role and contributions shall be accurately portrayed in instructional materials and included in social science instruction, and adds sexual orientation and religion to the list of characteristics that shall not be reflected adversely in adopted instructional materials.”

Almost on cue, a group has already announced plans for a ballot proposition in California to invalidate the law and effectively avoid mentioning LGBT persons (as such) in California classrooms. In an impassioned editorial piece in the Daily Beast, author Michael Medved attempts a litany of “common sense reasons” why such legislation is erroneous, flawed and ultimately sacrifices academics on a “PC” altar. Although this particular author may not be of national significance, the arguments he makes will most probably be invoked by those who wish to force LGBT people to be invisible and thereby deny them not only of their Civil Rights, but a place at society’s table.

Let us consider some of the arguments put forth by Medved. He opens his editorial by saying,

“Thanks to California’s newly enacted “gay history” law, William Rufus Devane King will finally receive the comprehensive classroom attention that previous generations of educators had so cruelly denied him.”

Medved then attempts to make his point,

This thoroughly obscure Dixie [is alluding to “Dixie” an attempted manipulation by Medved of socially conservative African Americans?] politician left behind no major accomplishments or stirring speeches, but he represents precisely the sort of forgotten figure the Golden State legislation means to emphasize in retelling the story of America for an enlightened new generation.

Medved seemingly argues that LGBT persons have, “left behind no major accomplishments or stirring speeches.” Medved ignores Alexander the Great, the Roman Emperor Hadrian, Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Joan of Arc (charged at her Church trial with dressing as a man), Ralph Waldo Emerson, Oscar Wilde, and John Maynard Keynes each of these is a noted LGBT historical figure.

Can it be that Medved is sincerely ignorant of these famous figures and the fact that they were LGBT people? Possibly; however, that seems improbable. That improbability raises a more sinister and disturbing specter. Medved deliberately selected an obscure LGBT person as if he were the only known LGBT person in recorded history. This suggests that Medved does not wish to acknowledge that LGBT people have, in his words, “left behind [any] major accomplishments.” In effect, Medved is arguing, that LGBT people have added nothing of significance or value to human history.

Medved apparently bristles at the idea that Walt Whitman, and Abraham Lincoln were gay. All this despite stark evidence that they were, for example this piece in the New York Times published on 16 December 2004,

“Was Abraham Lincoln a gay American?

The subject of the 16th president's sexuality has been debated among scholars for years. They cite his troubled marriage to Mary Todd and his youthful friendship with Joshua Speed, who shared his bed for four years. Now, in a new book, C. A. Tripp also asserts that Lincoln had a homosexual relationship with the captain of his bodyguards, David V. Derickson, who shared his bed whenever Mary Todd was away.”

Medved makes his argument clearer when he says,

“Or consider the beloved classical composer Aaron Copland. Although he made few efforts to hide his homosexuality, he never alluded to it in any of his musical compositions, in either of his bestselling books about music, or in countless articles and interviews. Except to satisfy a prurient fascination with a great artist’s private affairs, why should any middle-school or high-school student learning about American music spend precious time on an aspect of Copland’s life that the composer himself clearly considered unimportant?”

Medved, of course, is unable to refute the fact that considerable numbers of LGBT persons have been pivotal historical figures who have contributed significantly to politics, economics, science, literature, music, art, religion and changed human history. Therefore, he now attempts to dismiss their sexual orientation as “unimportant.”

Imagine if the same approach was suggested for any other minority group. Would Medved suggest that Albert Einstein’s Judaism, Susan B. Anthony’s gender, Dr. Martin Luther King’s race, was “unimportant?” Members of those groups would rightly be outraged and would instantly recognize that Medved was attempting to marginalize, subordinate and dismiss them both as groups and as individuals.

What is particularly offensive about Medved’s arguments is that they attempt to reinforce and reinstate a closet mentality in LGBT people. The American Psychological Association states the following on their official website,

“Is sexual orientation a choice?
No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

Can therapy change sexual orientation?
No; even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable. However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.”

Therefore, a student in a classroom discovers their sexual orientation as it emerges in early adolescence. Medved is arguing that student should not be presented with any positive role models of other LGBT people.

As the APA states,
“some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups to try and do so.”

The results of this form of child abuse were seen in last year’s spate of suicides of LGBT young people. The Center for Disease Control, Youth at Risk study of 1999 found that one third of LGBT adolescents attempt suicide.

Evidently that is a price that Paulo Sibaja of the conservative “family” organization, Capitol Resource Institute is more than willing & happy to pay. Apologists for such thinly veiled hatred, such as Medved seem eager to be their messengers. Such irresponsible editorials threaten to promote hatred of LGBT people in general; and even more egregiously make targets of LGBT students.

The real world results as the Center for Disease Control study stated are astronomical LGBT youth suicides. Not specifically documented in that study, but logically suggested, are increased incidence of bullying of LGBT students, depression, alcohol and drug abuse and divide families. Ironically, all of these evils done in the name of “Family Values” and “God.”

President Obama: 'I've Met My Commitments to the LGBT Community' No Sir, you have not!

2011-06-30T12:16:00.000-07:00

President Obama: 'I've Met My Commitments to the LGBT Community'
No Sir, you have not!

The fact Sir that you can make such an absurd statement betrays a grotesque ignorance of the inequality that remains enshrined in American law on a Federal level. Even more disturbing is your apparent insensitivity and cynicism to such inequality and the suffering, despair, destroyed lives, broken families and, as we witnessed last fall, tragic suicides of LGBT youth.

Let us visit some of those inequalities:

1. In those states where Marriage Equality is the law, Same-sex couples are denied federal recognition of their marriages. This means that the IRS, Social Security, INS do not grant to those couples and their children the rights that are automatically granted to heterosexual couples. In the real world Same-sex, couples and their children are taxed at higher rates. Those couples do not receive the Social Security benefits that they and their spouse paid into over a lifetime. A legally married person in Massachusetts (or any of the other states that recognize [d] their marriage) can have their spouse deported by INS, effectively destroying that family and causing incalculable trauma to both spouses and their children for a lifetime.

2. You signed legislation from the Congress that authorized you to repeal the unjust Don’t Ask Don’t Tell law on 22 December of 2010. To date, DADT remains enforced and members of our community are currently being discharged under this discriminatory law. It is within your power, as President, right now to issue a stopgap order that would effectively end these injustices that are destroying the lives and careers of innocent people. You have chosen not to issue that order.

3. As President of the United States you command, what your predecessor Theodore Roosevelt called “the Bully Pulpit.” You could have used your position to promote the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act [ENDA] that would have protected huge swaths of members of our community from wrongful termination and denial of benefits. You choose to do nothing.

What is most disturbing is that you have, and continue, to squander the opportunities that the people of this nation have placed into your hands. You appear to place Reelection to the Office, in which you are called to serve, above the interests of the people whose votes; sweat and treasure put you into that Office. Here is the truth regarding your much touted signing of DADT [that you have yet to enact]:

"White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs expounded on Obama’s commitment to legislative repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as he acknowledged that the president hasn’t yet reached out to senators to lobby them on the issue.

Asked whether Obama had made any phone calls to “swayable senators” such as Susan Collins (R-Maine), who voted “no” on moving forward with the defense authorization bill in September, Gibbs replied that he doesn’t believe the president has spoken to the Maine senator on the issue."

Moreover, what moved Obama on DADT is reported in The Daily Beast,

"It’s critical for LGBT people to remember that a fulfillment that always heads Obama’s list—the dissolution of DADT—happened not since folks were calm with a occasional wink, though since groups like Netroots and GetEQUAL spurred him into action. The boss had been formulation to wait until 2011 to pull for repeal. But Lt. Dan Choi, a plainly happy Iraq War maestro who became a open face of antithesis to a policy, altered a diversion in Mar 2010 by chaining himself to a White House fence and removing vital media pickup. There was nonetheless some-more coverage a subsequent month, when another GetEQUAL romantic heckled Obama’s inaction on DADT during a fundraiser for Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA).

And that’s when things began to shift. According to GetEQUAL’s cofounder, Robin McGehee, a contributor from a White House pool emailed her immediately after a Boxer occurrence to say, “DADT hasn’t even been on this president’s radar, though now it’s a usually thing he’s articulate about.”

Even now, you continue to drag your feet on DADT certification. Your inaction leaves some in our community wondering if you will trade repeal of DADT to our opponents to obtain some political concession.

The best argument that your most ardent supporters/defenders in our community can muster is that you are acting out of political expediency and that you have done more than any other President has ever done for our community; let us take a closer look at those claims. The former argument serves as an apt explanation of why most people use the term “politician” as a slur. The latter argument is easily dismissed by the progress of history and that is due to the real world sacrifices of activists, people of moral conviction, and elected officials like Governor Cuomo who have honestly served our community, the people of New York, our Nation and World consciousness.

The only time we hear from you is when you want to take the credit for other’s work, when you have your hand extended for a contribution, or you need volunteers to staff your campaigns and for us to give you our votes. The rationale, “The other side will work against your interests, he is the lesser of two evils. Therefore, you have no choice but to vote for Obama.” Lesser or greater, both are evil and the only way to defeat evil is to name it as such and reject it. We deserve better, but we will not get better until we demand it and refuse to accept miserable crumbs and excuses meant to quiet us.

Sir, our patience is wearing very, very thin. ACT! Start by announcing your public and unqualified support for Federal Marriage Equality. ACT! Pick up your telephone and call the Secretary of Defense and the Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Certify the repeal of DADT and in the interim issue an Executive Order to immediately stop all discharges under this hatefully unjust law. ACT! Pick up your telephone and order the Department of Justice to drop charges against Lt. Dan Choi. IF you did these ALL of these today you would make a good start towards making true your claim, “I've Met My Commitments to the LGBT Community.”

Not until you can sign legislation for the LGBT community, as your predecessor President Lyndon B. Johnson did when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for your community, can you honestly claim that you have met your commitments to us. That requires that you DO for us what President Johnson did for your community. That means that you must take risks, place your comfort and security beneath a real commitment to the ideals you beautifully enunciated as a candidate.

NOM called out on deception and outright lies

2011-06-29T11:54:00.000-07:00

Please help out and post this on your facebook page. Thanks!

OUR STRUGGLE: Past, Present, Future and Beyond.

2011-06-27T16:54:00.000-07:00

After the seismic decision by the state of New York in favor of Marriage Equality and the subsequent weekend of elation and celebration, it occurred to me that this is a good time to pause and reflect. A good time to look back, to see how far we have come; a good time to look at our present realities and a good time to look forward to the near future and beyond.

A LOOK BACK:

Let's begin by looking at the following chart.

In examining the chart, you will note that a precipitous decline in the percentile favoring the criminalization of homosexuality begins in 1973. It was at that time that the American Psychological Association publicly stated that homosexuality was not a form of mental illness and, in fact, constituted a sexual orientation. In 1975, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Holy Office of the Roman Inquisition) declared that for some, homosexuality was innate.

From 1973 to 1980, the percentage of states in which homosexuality was illegal fell from 92% to 52%, a staggering 40% drop in only seven years time. By the 2003, date of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas the number of states in which homosexuality was illegal had dropped to 30%. Over two-thirds of the states had rejected criminalization of homosexuality as being both irrational and unjust.

A LOOK AT PRESENT REALITIES:

Currently the American Psychological Association states the following,

Is sexual orientation a choice?

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

Can therapy change sexual orientation?

No; even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable. However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.

As increasingly more in our community come-out to parents, siblings, friends, and co-workers and society in general. As we become more visible in media, stereotypes have begun to give way to reality and prejudice to reason. The most liberating and healthy part of this coming-out process is on a personal level. The joke that, “the last person you come-out to is yourself,” as with all humor, it is funny because it is built around a kernel of truth. People who learned self-loathing as children, through reason slowly come to accept and assert themselves. This in turn advances the cause of simple justice and equality for all.

There are, as always, those opposed to the expansion of civil rights for disenfranchised minority groups.

"Cuomo was able to convince people -- both Democrats and Republicans -- that they were more likely to get reelected if they supported marriage equality than if they didn't," said Richard Socarides, of gay rights organization Equality Matters and the chief aide on LGBT issues in the Clinton White House. "The right-wing threatened these guys and the Catholic Church threatened them."

Actually, if statistics are accurate, it was not “the Catholic Church” that threatened elected officials; but rather, Catholic bishops and a minority of Catholic voters. Catholic laity, as a group, are far more supportive of Marriage Equality than any other American denomination and even more progressive on this question than the general American population. Evidently, even cautious politicians are beginning to realize that listening to the Catholic bishops and the Knights of Columbus will actually lose them Catholic votes.

A LOOK FORWARD:

On a visit by the late John Paul II to New York City, he said to then Cardinal O’Connor, “You are the Archbishop of the Capital of the World.” Friday’s enactment of Marriage Equality by the Republican led senate of New York state is the equivalent of Waterloo, or Stalingrad in our war against discrimination.

I think that the courts will reinstate Marriage Equality in California within one year. The certification of the repeal of DADT will have a national impact as a culture changer and move forward full equality for our community. People forget the role that Truman’s desegregation of the Armed Forces had in changing national social attitudes on racial equality.

Courts have already declared DOMA unconstitutional and Obama has instructed the Department of Justice NOT to appeal that ruling.

Any one of these events would be a serious wound to NOM, which is a Pac of the religious right, but in combination, these constitute a mortal wound to legally sanctioned discrimination in our nation. As this occurs, Marriage Equality will also be moved forward in France and other EU and Latin American nations. As John Paul II said, “What happens in the United States of America today happens everywhere else in ten years.”

…FORWARD AND BEYOND:

New York state Senator and ardent Equality opponent Ruben Diaz’ surprisingly lucid and honest quote that, “same-sex marriage is inevitable in New York state,” is an accurate prophecy for the United States of America, the European Union and Latin America. In our own nation, this will probably occur within the next few years.

President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Law in 1964. After that date, legal discrimination based on race was illegal in the United States of America. Racial bigotry has diminished since that date; however, still remains ingrained in American popular culture, although it is increasingly less socially acceptable to hold and express such bigoted views.

Once we have full legal equality and protection, our community must also fight a similar series of battles. What Affirmative Action was to the struggle for equality for racial minorities, I believe that Anti-Bullying laws will be for our community. Despite nationally held perceptions of “Hollywood” as being ultra-liberal, the culture of the Entertainment Industry in this town is very socially conservative on the question of sexual orientation.

Like Roman Catholic priests, many actors, writers and people in the film industry are gay. As with priests, many of these folk’s livelihoods are predicated on keeping that fact a secret. Self-loathing is unhealthy both for the individual and for society as a whole. Hold studios accountable for their (non) depiction of our community and for their employment practices towards members of our community. Marriage Equality households need to be presented not as a comedic foil, but as an increasingly normative reality. We must demand the same respect and exposure in film and television depictions of our community as is currently accorded to religious and racial minorities in our society.

Draw inspiration from our past, draw hope from our present victories, rejoice and continue the battles first to secure full equality on the federal level and then create a safe and positive environment for both ourselves and the next generation.

THE TIPPING POINT!!!

2011-06-24T19:48:00.000-07:00

HOW SWEET IT IS!!!!

New York state senators Friday night voted 33-29 to legalize gay marriage, a breakthrough victory for the gay-rights movement in the state where it got its start.

The adoption of gay marriage makes New York the sixth and largest state in which gays and lesbians can legally marry. It also marks the first time in the nation that a Republican-led chamber has voted to adopt gay marriage.

Clearly, this is HUGE! Within a year, the Ninth Circuit Court will most probably uphold Judge Walker’s decision to overturn Prop 8 in California. The certification of the repeal of the odious DADT (Don’t Ask Don’t Tell) is expected this fall. Obama’s decision not to defend DOMA (the so called “Defense Of Marriage Act”) will probably cinch the Court’s decision declaring that unjust law unconstitutional. That in turn will usher in full federal rights for Same-sex couples and effectively make Marriage Equality the law of the land.

So, pop open a bottle of Champaign and raise a toast to Maggie Gallagher’s new job search and the defeat of NOM (and its puppet masters in the Mormon & Catholic leadership).

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, in the NY State Marriage Equality Battle.

2011-06-24T10:25:00.000-07:00

First, a heartfelt THANK YOU! To Governor Cuomo for his noble intentions and great efforts on behalf of Equality. His courage, vision and unwavering leadership stand as a national model that will hopefully inspire other elected officials to move from being “politicians” to becoming “statesmen.”

Consider State Sen. Jim Alesi of Rochester, the first Republican senator to express support for same-sex marriage, predicted last week that the measure would pass with 35 votes. Not the bare minimum 32 votes, six of those votes in Senator Alesi’s projected count, would have been Republicans. So, why does it seem that the Republican Senate Majority Leader Dean G. Skelos is choosing kill the bill by political maneuvering?

The “micro” answer is that Michael Long, a majority of Republican State Senators, Archbishop Dolan & Co., and probably the national RNC are applying considerable political pressure in order (among the Republican Party elements) to appeal to their base. On the part of Dolan & Co., it was to appeal to Benedict XVI (and secure future promotions).

The “macro” answer is essentially that Skelos, Long & the Republican Party are driving in a very determined manner, tragically they have their eyes firmly fixed on the rearview mirror and are not looking through the windshield. Politically, this is a strategic error on the part of Republican leadership, since objective poling indicates that Americans now approve of Marriage Equality by 53% (58% in New York state). Furthermore, those polls show a movement in favor of Marriage Equality by 2% to 4% annually.

This posits a serious national problem for the Republican Party, their current strategy might work for one more national election, but after that they will have to do a radical 180-degree course correction on Marriage Equality and other LGBTQ Civil Rights issues. In short, if they kill New York State Marriage Equality legislation, they will squander a credible opportunity to begin making that course correction. An ardent Equality Foe, New York state senator Ruben Diaz said, “gay marriage is inevitable in the State of New York.” Had I been a political consultant to Skelos & Co., I would have advised him to bring the bill to a vote and timed it to occur while the President was delivering yet another of his signature milquetoast speeches at an LGBTQ fundraiser in Manhattan.

In one of life’s delicious ironies, President Barack Obama was speaking at an LGBTQ fundraiser the very night that the New York State Senate Republicans were expected to announce a decision on allowing the Marriage Equality Bill to come up for a vote. Talk about a missed opportunity for the Republicans! Take a moment now to imagine (and enjoy) the frenetic conversations between Obama and his speechwriters as he attempted to calculate the most non-committal and yet “encouraging” speech possible. Reach for an airsickness bag as you read Obama’s statement that Equality legislation should, “Best addressed by the states.” What would you call a politician that made such a statement regarding Jim Crow laws?

Consider Obama's actions on a national Health Care Plan, the two TRILLION dollar wars, the housing/financial crisis, the closing of GITMO in Cuba, his reluctance on ending DADT, hesitation on ENDA and his last hour conversion on DOMA. Winston Churchill's quip about America seems very apt about Obama as well, "Eventually they [he] will do the right thing, but only after they have [he has] exhausted every other option." In my heart, I wish it was President Cuomo instead of Obama, but like a person on a bicycle who sees an Aston Martin drive by, I wish that was mine, but the bicycle will get me were I need to go.

That said, I am not reaching for my checkbook with any enthusiasm or haste and if DADT is not certified by the projected September 2011 date, I will have extra money to spend on gifts this holiday season. I am sure that Obama’s view, and more importantly, his real world actions on, Equality legislation will “evolve.” However, I believe that evolution will reflect objective political polling, and not a personal moral conviction, on the subject. At the end of the day, he is a politician. He may well be of service to Equality, but he is no Joan of Arc, Dr. King, Gandhi or even Abraham Lincoln.

So, what practical lessons have we learned from this circus? The squeaky wheel gets the oil. Stand-up, Speak-out, reward/punish with your vote & checkbook, and perhaps most of all, do not settle for anything less than Equality NOW, or that is what you will get.

Why Separation of Church and State is good for the Church.

2011-06-23T19:59:00.000-07:00

A professor in theological graduate school stated to our class, “The greatest tragedy for Christianity was the conversion of the Emperor Constantine.” By entrusting some government functions to the Christian clergy Constantine actually made the church an agency of the imperial government. the Church became one of the Departments of the State. When the Western half of the Roman Empire collapsed in 410 C.E., civil officials vanished in the wake of the barbarian invasions and clergy effectively filled the void. First, the Church was part of the government and then, government became a tool of the Church to impose/enforce its teachings on the people.

This remained largely unchallenged until the Protestant Reformation, but then it largely became a question of what would be the State Religion of England, Germany, France, etc. The American and French Revolutions were “game changers.” The United States of America became the world’s first secular state. We have no formal “State Religion.”

Old habits die hard and after fourteen centuries of defining laws and setting policies, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church does not want to let go of that role in society and the intoxicating power it grants to them. However, as my professor pointed out, this union between the State and the Church was an illicit marriage to begin with.

Religion provides an understanding of the universe and life, structure, rules and values to adherents, as does a loving parent for a child. Religion, like a family, forms a community of love for its members. It is the role of a parent to enable the child to stand on his/her own feet and face life as an adult. In the case of religion, it is the function of the religion to enable the adherent to attain spiritual maturity and be equipped to make informed moral decisions.

Simply because we become autonomous adults does not mean that we abandon the parent/child relationship, or our family. It means that the relationship (like us) matures and develops. How a parent relates to a child aged 8 should be different from how they relate to a child who is 18, 38 or 48. If it is not, then there is something seriously wrong in the parent and/or the child, and most certainly with the relationship.

If a child encounters a parent who demands that the relationship remain at an infantile level of development, the child will either cease development, or that development will strain and eventually rupture the relationship. That is what has been happening in the Roman Catholic Church since 1968.

The Catholic Church is suffering from such a dysfunctional relationship between its hierarchy and its laity. It began with the rejection by Pope Paul VI of the recommendation by the Majority opinion of a Pontifical Commission (established by John XXIII) examining the question of artificial contraception and his implementation of the Minority opinion in Humanae Vitae. In a book entitled “Sexuality and Catholicism” former Catholic Register Editor, Thomas Fox lists four probable motives for Paul VI’s highly controversial (and widely disregarded) prohibition of artificial contraception.

Fox asks why Paul VI took the stance he did and suggests that at the end of the day he may have had four motives.

1. One was the possibility that the traditional church had grown "increasingly defensive and even ghettoized" in the face of modernity's attendant "evils," and the pontiff wanted to draw a clear line in the sand against said "evils."

2. Another possibility was the danger seemingly imposed to the longstanding "systematic theory" the church had promulgated concerning matters of sexuality, a theory which linked moral beliefs about contraception with those proscribing extramarital intercourse, homosexuality, and masturbation.

If childbearing within marriage alone justified sexual expression, and if the church changed that teaching to allow sex for purposes of other than creating new life (such as cementing the loving relationship between husband and wife), might not changes concerning other matters of sexual morality be unavoidable?

3. A third possibility was that the pope might simply have wanted to reaffirm the church's "great emphasis on tradition."

4. And fourth, there was the question of the church's authority, never mind the details of the particular moral issue involved. If the pope changed the church's signals on birth control, would he not be admitting the church might have been wrong in other of its previous stances.

As Fox puts it, "How could the Holy Spirit allow the church to have been wrong?" If wrong on one important matter, then possibly wrong on others ... and the whole edifice of church authority might come tumbling down.

The real world result? The great cathedrals of Europe are not filled with worshipers, but with tourists. They have effectively ceased being churches and have become museums. This dysfunctional state of affairs was even alluded to by the current pope at the outset of his administration in 2005 when he set as his goal, “to re-evangelize Europe.” Europe will never be re-evangelized until the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is re-evangelized. That was precisely the intent and thrust of Pope John XIII and the Second Vatican Council.

Tragically, the current pope has spent the greater part of both his life and ministry as part of the Vatican Curia (a highly centralized bureaucracy). As with most bureaucrats, the institution is paramount and becomes seen as “the good.” This in part explains the mentality that prompted the pedophilia Cover-Up Scandal. Many changes ushered in by the Second Vatican Council, alarmed and disquieted both the Curia and many within the Church, since they called into question the very existence of the Curia. Bishops should instead govern in collegiality with each other and the successor of St. Peter.

Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae marked an attempted return to a more orderly age in which one was not disturbed by questions, simply by not questioning. This is Benedict XVI’s “smaller purer Church.”

Pastoral concerns regarding artificial contraception, divorced and remarried Catholics (in the USA annulments are easily obtained in other countries it is almost impossible to obtain an annulment), women priests, Marriage Equality, married clergy, ecumenism, or collegiality (bishops actually governing with the pope instead of being his functionaries), these are simply brushed aside. This may have worked in pre-Napoleonic Europe; but began to unravel in the twentieth century and even more so in the twenty first century. Pope John XIII understood this and that is why he convened the Second Vatican Council.

However this is not 1962; we live at a time when nuclear and biological weapons are proliferating throughout the world and not simply confined to two superpowers. We find ourselves in the midst of an AIDS pandemic that is consuming the African continent. We face a global recession that may well worsen into a global depression that threatens to ignite social unrest of unprecedented proportions. Scientists warn of cataclysmic climatic and oceanic changes that even now approach being irreversible. We do not find ourselves in the religiously homogenous Christendom of medieval Europe, but in a very diverse world made smaller by instant communication and by an increasingly interconnected global economy.

The world does not need and will not welcome an autocratic religious institution that treats and speaks to us in imperial tones. What the world needs from religious figures now, is not a failed attempt to restore the historic Constantine relationship between Church and State. Even if this were to succeed, it would ultimately simply create another theocratic state like Iran, which would only further exasperate the international crisis the world now faces. On a spiritual level, such a marriage between Church and State would reduce faith to a form of ideology and rob it of its spiritual value.

Catholics would profit by considering the motives that caused John XXIII to convene the Second Vatican Council. John Paul II said that the Church had to enter the Twenty-First century on her knees. Such humility suggests, that if more and more Catholics are leaving the faith, perhaps the problem is not with the people, but with the hierarchy.

Tonight Obama will speak at an LGBTQ event in New York

2011-06-23T13:23:00.000-07:00

Passing, a symptom of bigotry.

2011-06-20T20:48:00.000-07:00

We have been here before, at the threshold of equality, waiting and hoping that tomorrow will see an end to discrimination. That tomorrow will bring the relief and hope of a sunburst after a terrible storm. For many of us, that storm began when we were children and discovered that we were “different.”

Learning how to “pass” as straight was a requisite for survival in grammar and High School. The cost of pretending to be something other than our self was self-hatred. It meant dating people for appearance sake. It meant lying to our parents and siblings, our cousins, our classmates, our teachers, to strangers. It meant laughing along at “fag” jokes told by all of the aforementioned people. Do they know? Do they suspect?

For many of us that psychological and emotional straight jacket, with which we were fitted as children, remained immovably in place as adults. Serving in the military, in religious organizations of our birth, in states without protections for LGBTQ workers, in “corporate cultures” that looked down on “them.”

I was at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama attending Chaplaincy School in 1992. President-Elect Clinton had promised to lift the ban on gay & lesbian service in the Armed Forces. About sixty Chaplains sat in a conference room listening to a lecture from a Major. “Let’s brainstorm,” he said, “the Commander-in-Chief has said he intends to lift the ban on gays in the Air Force. I would like all of you to share how this we can implement this change.”

In my peripheral vision, I saw a glass wall, behind which several Airmen were operating recording equipment. Directly in front of each Chaplain on our desk was a small microphone, about the size of a dime. Perhaps it was seven years of navigating my way through seminary, where comments made at dinner, or on the recreation field, or in class, would appear on reports and be inserted into files. Perhaps it was having gone through years of “peer evaluations” and being voted on by professors as to whether or not I was fit for ordination. Something inside of me sensed this was a trap.

“Sir, until the Uniform Code of Military Justice is amended, it is inappropriate for us to speculate on what laws, policies or procedures will change." My comment abruptly ended the exercise. Years later, I discovered that similar “exercises” took place on other bases and that those who spoke out in favor accommodating gays faced career repercussions.

These memories streamed into my mind as I read the following piece in the Baltimore Sun,

In Maryland, Del. Emmett C. Burns, himself a veteran of the civil rights movement and one of the state's most outspoken opponents of same-sex marriage, gave voice to the disconnect between the two issues. During the floor debate on the gay marriage bill, Delegate Burns, who is a minister, said the push for same-sex unions is not comparable to a civil rights movement in which blacks and their supporters were beaten or killed. "If same-sex marriage is to be equated with the civil rights movement that I know … show me your Birmingham, Alabama, where high-pressure water hoses were turned on us, so powerful they knocked the bark off trees."

Reverend Burns concluded: "I am a black man, an African-American. I cannot change my color, nor do I wish to do so. Those who are gay can disguise their propensity. Even in this legislature, 50 or 100 years ago gays and lesbians were here because they could disguise who they were. I was not here because I can never disguise who I am."

I would encourage Rev. Burns to read the story of black Americans who “passed as white,”

Thelma Marshall knows that routine.

During the 1950s and early '60s, she did what her mother before her had done. What her grandmother and aunts had done.

She passed for white.

"One time I told a woman I was black, colored in those days," Marshall recalled. "She said, 'You won't get the job unless you pass for white.' "

So that's what Marshall did.

"I passed for white on lots of jobs," she said. "I had to be white to get the jobs." It's what many fair-skinned blacks did during those times.

Marshall's remarks are without shame or remorse. She felt she did what she had to do. Still, it is a prickly subject, and the 76-year-old woman does not want to offend so she asked that her real name not be used.

Passing for white offered not only opportunities, but also the opportunities white people received. During slavery, it could mean freedom. There are many documented instances of fair-skinned slaves who posed as white to escape. In modern times, it meant being able to vote in the South. It meant a job in the office rather than a job cleaning the office. It meant schools with the latest equipment and books, instead of dilapidated buildings and out-of-date texts. It often meant better housing. It meant being treated with respect, not disdain.

Barbara Douglass recalls the difference between going out with her white college friends vs. her black college friends.

"We went to a show, about six of us [black students]. The manager came and sat behind us. I asked him 'Why are you sitting behind us?' He said, 'I have to make sure you don't destroy anything.' "

Douglass said she told the manager that he had never sat behind her before.

His response was, "You never came with these people before."

Douglass, who the manager had assumed was white, encouraged her friends to leave the theater rather than be insulted.

So, Rev. Burns, what is worse? Being called an epithet, or having someone like you being called that epithet? No more than you had a voice in your skin color, did I have a voice in my orientation. As a child in the fourth grade when I discovered that I was a homosexual, and then discovered that this was “wrong.” I spent decades of my life trying to repress who I was and “passed” as straight, as Thelma Marshall and Barbara Douglass “passed” as whites.

You speak of being able to “disguise” who you are as some sort of a luxury, or personal indulgence. Shame on you Sir! Shame, for your lack of empathy and for the ignorance you have of your own people’s suffering. Shame for having come from a people who were subjected to discrimination and for now choosing to be an instrument of discrimination for another group of human beings.

If the Buddhist are correct, you will come back as a gay man in a culture you helped to create. If Catholics are correct, the same fate will be your purgatory. If Protestants are correct, it may well be your own personal hell. Sadly, for us all, you (like Archbishop Dolan of New York) help to make hell on earth by being an instrument of discrimination, by adding to the sufferings of others, by choosing to be a bigot.

Who decides what is legal in New York (& the USA)?

2011-06-17T12:07:00.000-07:00

The New York Times reports,

Several Republican senators in New York are urging Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo to consider changing his proposed same-sex marriage bill to better protect religious institutions, addressing a concern that has emerged as one of the bill’s chief obstacles as the legislative session comes to an end.

Conservative religious leaders and representatives of the New York State Catholic Conference made the rounds of the Capitol on Thursday seeking to press their case against the measure.

“We are relaying our very serious concerns to members of the Legislature regarding the religious liberty implications of Governor Cuomo’s bill,” said Dennis Poust, a spokesman for the conference. “It should be noted that we will continue to strongly oppose any redefinition of the historic understanding of marriage, regardless of the strength of the religious liberty protections. However, should the bill pass without adequate protection, it will have potentially far-reaching consequences for our ministries, both in terms of contracts to provide services and potentially to challenges to not-for-profit status.”

Dennis Poust, communications director for the New York State Catholic Conference, says it has a network of more than 60,000 people across the state emailing and making thousands of phone calls to senators' offices.
"We're trying to convince them, this is not right for the state," he said.

The bill does not compel any member of the clergy to conduct same-sex marriages, but some Republican lawmakers are concerned the legal protection is not strong enough.

New York's Archbishop Timothy Dolan on Wednesday equated the actions of lawmakers to restrictive Communist regimes.

Actually, Dolan has far more in common with those dictatorial despots who use the power of the State to impose their vision of right and wrong involuntarily on powerless citizens. Make no mistake, this is not about "morality" it is about raw naked political and social power. It is about the power of individuals to live freely versus the power of institutions, like the Catholic hierarchy, to dictate how those individuals may live. Dolan's assertion is not merely absurd, it is an unsophisticated inversion of the truth meant to seduce and deceive the public and intimidate politicians. In his own words,

"Last time I consulted an atlas, it is clear we are living in New York, in the United States of America - not in China or North Korea," he wrote on his blog. "In those countries, government presumes daily to 'redefine' rights, relationships, values, and natural law."

So the question is: what's "natural" or "unnatural?" That, in turns, leads to a more overarching question: Is homosexuality a status or a choice?

Some thinkers, including several members of the Supreme Court, seem to reason that homosexuality is an inborn status.
Catholicism--and, indeed most religions--teach that while homosexuality exists, homosexual activity is a "disordered" choice against the laws of nature.
If homosexuality is indeed a status rooted in biology or genetics, then homosexuals, like left-handed people, act according to their nature. But if homosexuality is a choice rooted in behavior, then homosexuals act against nature.

Stay with me, because here the argument splits even further. Are we talking about civil rights or morality?

In terms of civil rights, individuals deserve and are afforded protections for both status (say, skin color) and choice (for example, religious affiliation).
In terms of morality, status is neutral, while choice has implications and consequences.

Catholicism argues that homosexuals deserve legal protections, but not because homosexuality is a status. Catholicism says homosexual activity is a choice. So while bishops support non-discrimination policies, they won't agree that homosexuals are protected because of their genetic makeup.

Catholic thinkers have grappled with this question for ages. Creighton University professors Todd A. Salzman and Michael G. Lawler are the latest voices on the Catholic circuit. Their 2008 book, "The Sexual Person," just earned a rebuke from the U.S. bishops' doctrine committee.

Salzman and Lawler's dense academic argument turns traditional Catholic teaching on natural law on its head. They redefine natural law, saying "nature" is personal and individual, and that sexual activity need not be directed at procreation (contrary to what the Catholic Church has always said).

Salzman and Lawler argue that what is "natural" for a heterosexual is not "natural" for a homosexual, and therefore homosexuals and heterosexuals must act in accord with their personal "natures".

In other words, if it's "natural" for a homosexual to perform homosexual acts, then--for that person--heterosexual acts would be "unnatural" and immoral. For the two professors, homosexual activity is only immoral for the heterosexual acting against his or her nature.

Bottom line: Salzman and Lawler are arguing that homosexuality is a status, not a choice. If that's the case, then everyone--including the Catholic Church--should line up in support of an entire rainbow of gay-related arguments and ideas.

Taken to their logical conclusion, Salzman and Lawler's arguments would mean that Catholic moral teaching must do a complete about-face and disconnect sex from marriage--even from procreation--altogether.

Brooklyn Diocese' Monsignor Kieran Harrington says every diocese is now aggressively getting the word out to Catholics across New York, which make up 38 percent of the state population, to encourage parishioners to contact senators.

“Every diocese is speaking out to congregations to realize how significant this is,” he said.

Harrington also accuses Gov. Andrew Cuomo and liberal lawmakers of misrepresenting not only the issue, but also those who would oppose it.
"They're trying to say people of faith are bigots, and we think that's offensive," he said. "If they are convinced we were bigots they wouldn't be giving a religious exemption. How can they be proposing an exemption for bigotry?...They can't have it both ways."

What the “good Monsignor,” (I am reminded of an old seminary saying regarding Monsignors, “You have to kiss purple to wear purple.”) conveniently omits is that the majority of “Catholics are more supportive of legal recognitions of same-sex relationships than members of any other Christian tradition and Americans overall.”

State Senate GOP Majority Leader Dean Skelos just said there is no decision to bring gay marriage out for a vote, our Glenn Blain told me. Skelos said they were still deliberating the religious exemption issue and working on changes to the bill. Staffs will continue to work on the issue during the weekend but since Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver will be observing the Sabbath, not much official can be done until Sunday.

This is not a “cliffhanger” in the sense of loved ones waiting to hear from surgeons operating on a loved one. In that case, it is a question of skilled physicians and staff working feverishly to preserve life. In this case, it is a question of pope Benedict and archbishop Dolan working feverishly to preserve bigotry.

Bigotry is a term that is bandied about much by people on both sides of this issue. A danger in this practice is that we become desensitized to its meaning. Bigotry means, you don’t get the job, or you lose it because of whom you are. Bigotry means you are emotionally and physically abused EVERY day at school, year after year. Bigotry means that you are afraid to speak the truth about yourself to your parents and siblings. Bigotry means that you have to lie about yourself, simply to survive. Bigotry means that you turn to alcohol, drugs, comfort foods for some temporary relief and these themselves become new demons that you must wrestle. Bigotry means that one third of gay adolescents attempt suicide and many of them—tragically, succeed.

Let me say it here very clearly and unmistakably, archbishop Dolan and pope Benedict are actively promoting bigotry.

Sheldon’s comment about not working on the Sabbath recalls a question from a young Rabbi, “I ask you, is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath—or evil? To preserve life--- or destroy it?” [Luke 6:9]

Many Eyes on New York

2011-06-16T13:32:00.000-07:00

As a young priest, I sat at the dining room table of Saint Francis rectory in Bakersfield, California. Several clergy were enjoying a delicious lunch made by the housekeeper when the table talk turned to the many changes ushered into the Church by Vatican II. One priest stated that Vatican II had been a concession to “the Protestants.” Monsignor Lahey, an elderly priest noted for presiding over a “traditionalist” parish quipped, “So what?”

I thought of Monsignor’s dry quip when I read the National Catholic Register article on Bishop Thomas Tobin. The headline of the article quotes Tobin’s ominous assertion, “If we don’t care, gay marriage will pass.” So what?

Tobin goes on in that article to list four reasons why he opposes Marriage Equality. In his own words:

[#1] The arguments we’ve been making against same-sex “marriage” are well known. While the Catholic Church has respect, love, pastoral care and compassion for people with homosexual orientation, we believe that homosexual “marriage” is wrong because it gives state approval of an immoral lifestyle involving immoral sexual activity.

[#2] Also, it is an attempt to redefine the institution of marriage as it has been understood since the beginning of time. Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman and is meant to foster life and love. Homosexual “marriage” can never do that. It is an ill-advised attempt to redefine something God has given us and what is one of the building blocks of human society.

[#3] Additionally, the passage of homosexual “marriage” presents a challenge to religious freedom and conscience protection, as has been the case in other places in the country. Our neighbors in the Archdiocese of Boston in Massachusetts, for example, had to get out of the adoption business because they were being forced to place children in situations where there were two gay people living in a home in an alleged marriage. The Archdiocese of Washington had to stop giving family medical benefits because they were being forced to provide them to gay couples who tried to get married in civil marriages.

[#4] And there are situations where ancillary Catholic facilities, such as reception halls, must be made available to gay couples as they attempt to marry. All these things are on the radar screen if you go down this road of approving homosexual “marriage.”

Regarding Tobin’s objection [#1], consider the question of Divorce. All fifty states grant couples the right to obtain a divorce and subsequently remarry. The Catholic Church literally interprets the Gospel on the question of divorce and remarriage,

“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and the woman who divorces her husband and marries another commits adultery.” [Mark 10: 11-12]

Every divorced and remarried person reading this, unless of course you obtained a church annulment to your previous marriage(s), is an adulterer. Every time a divorced and remarried person has sex, he/she is committing the sin of adultery. Currently all fifty states give, in Bishop Tobin’s words, “state approval of an immoral lifestyle involving immoral sexual activity.” Since all fifty states, according to the Catholic bishops give state approval to adultery.

As for his assertion, “the Catholic Church has respect, love, pastoral care and compassion for people with homosexual orientation.” Hypocrisy is the nod that vice pays virtue. Tobin and the hierarchy of the Church state what is morally correct and then proceed to rob it of all practical meaning. Imagine if heterosexual people were instructed from childhood that they could never date, hold hands, kiss, fall in love and establish a home with a person who they loved. Furthermore, imagine that heterosexual people were then extended a “conditional” love, that as long as they never physically acted on their sexual orientation, then they would be OK. “Hate the sin, but love the sinner.” Just avoid any possible heterosexual contact, or anything that might lead to physical expression of heterosexuality. Too bad you are straight; you just have to remain a virgin all of your life, oh and by the way, don’t “flaunt” your heterosexuality. What would be the psychological, emotional and spiritual consequences for heterosexuals? Real people have already been subjected to this abuse. The Center for Disease Control “Youth at Risk” study of 1999 found that one-third of gay adolescents attempt suicide.

Tobin’s objection [#2] is based on the false premise that “the institution of marriage as it has been understood since the beginning of time. Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman”
In many Islamic nations today, Marriage is a relationship between one man and several women. In some Native cultures, Marriage is a relationship between one woman and several men. Genesis says of Abraham, the Patriarch of Judaism, Christianity and Islam,

“Thus, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, his wife Sarai took her maid, Hagar the Egyptian, to be his concubine. He had intercourse with her, and she became pregnant.” [Genesis 16: 3-4]

Of King David, the Bible says this, “David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem after he had come from Hebron, and more sons and daughters were born to him in Jerusalem." [2 Samuel 5:13]

Tobin is either ignorant of these Biblical passages, Anthropology and the Marriage Laws of Islam, or he conveniently ignores them in an attempt to deceive the people of Rhode Island.

As regards Tobin’s assertion, “Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman and is meant to foster life and love. Homosexual “marriage” can never do that” There are many, many Sacramental Marriages in the Catholic Church in which the heterosexual couples are unable to procreate. Procreation is, by the Church’s own practices and standards, not required for a marriage in the Catholic Church. Consider the marriages entered into by post-menopausal women. Are their marriages invalid because they cannot procreate? Are those marriages incapable of love, because biological procreation is not possible?

Regarding Tobin’s objection [#3], this statement is false. Maryland, like all the fifty states recognizes a couple’s legal right to obtain a divorce and then to remarry. Legal divorce and remarriage is against the teaching of the Catholic Church. Divorced and remarried couples are believed to be living in adulterous relationships by the very bishops who make this statement. The fact that there is legal divorce in all fifty states, with a right to a second, third, fourth, etc Civil Marriage, is not viewed as an attack on religious freedom by Tobin or other Catholic bishops. Why then, is Same-sex marriage singled out as an “attack on religious freedom” while divorce and remarriage (i.e. adulterous marriages) are not?

[#4] Anyone who has ever been in a restaurant is familiar with the following sign, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” As a pastor of many years, I can tell you that I often received requests to rent our parish hall. We had a policy in place that permitted us to say “no” to any request we did not wish to accommodate. As regards marriage receptions, we only lent/rented the hall to couples we married. This fourth objection by Tobin is baseless and serves only to instill doubt and fear in uninformed people. Tobin seems to share the same approach here as Marc Mutty, then public affairs director for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Maine, on the "Yes on 1" Strategy.”

"All we have to do is create doubt. You don't have to convince people that you're right....I know we need to do what we have to do -- not only slam people over the head with a two-by-fou¬r, but a two-by-fou¬r with nails sticking out of it... And it's nuts ... unfortunat¬ely, I think it's a lousy approach. But it's the only thing we've got -- it's the only way. That's the way campaigns work."

Tomorrow the State Senate of New York is expected to vote on Marriage Equality for New York State. Tonight will be a long night for Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York; bigotry is expensive and tiring work. Even more so, when Dolan’s master in Rome will be watching and expects Dolan to deliver New York, as Tobin delivered Rhode Island.

Use the brain (& the heart) God gave you.

2011-05-27T11:02:00.000-07:00

This morning as I sipped my morning coffee and read messages, I came across this posted to my blog:

Moderate Fundamentalist said...

Well, only up to a point, Father. All vice is a matter of habituation, so even if you didn't consciously desire your current situation it is still a result of the choices you have taken, whether intentionally and knowingly or not. I know coming to terms with one's sins is painful, but it's something we all have to do every day.

God bless!

I started to write a personal response to “Moderate Fundamentalist;” however, I think that the points he/she raises should be addressed in the context of a post. Let us consider “MF’s” argument.

“Well, only up to a point,”

“MF’s” statement contradicts the findings of the science of psychology. The American Psychological Association clearly and unequivocally states:

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

Add to that scientific statement, this statement from the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith of the Catholic Church.

In 1975, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly the Holy Office of the Roman Inquisition) produced a document entitled: “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics.” In this document, they made the most remarkable statement. They stated that there are “homosexuals who are such because of some kind of innate instinct.”

BOTH of these statements clearly establish that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. “Moderate Fundamentalist” is either ignorant of the findings of science and the declaration of the Church, or simply chooses to disregard them and their logical consequences.

“MF” next introduces the question of vice (morality) by stating,
“All vice is a matter of habituation, so even if you didn’t consciously desire…”

Since neither heterosexual nor homosexual persons elect their orientation, then orientation itself is morally neutral and neither morally good or morally bad. “MF” makes a jump here to “vice.” Vice implies that the individual makes a choice that he/she consciously knows to be wrong. For example, my physician has told me I should not eat high cholesterol foods, but I choose to disregard her directions and eat a diet that will likely cause a stroke or heart attack. This is a “vice” since it represents a disregard for oneself, loved ones and society as a whole. This is true because the resulting stroke/ heart attack would negatively impacts all these folks to a greater or lesser degree.

“MF” states, “I know coming to terms with one’s sins is painful, but it’s something we all have to do every day.”

Here “MF” is implying that for a person with a Same-sex orientation to “act” on his/her sexuality is a (vice) sin. What he is effectively demanding of this entire group of human beings is that they refrain from all sexual activity from the age of puberty until death, approximately 70 years according to actuarial statements. Since being gay/lesbian is “sinful, disordered, immoral, wrong, defective.”

What would those words mean to someone in junior high school who discovers that he/she is attracted to people of their same gender? The greatest fear that he/she would have is that they would be rejected by the people they love the most—their family. Therefore, their solution is to try to pass as straight, deceive, and in effect—lie. Of course, this leads ultimately to self-loathing. It should come as little surprise that gay teenagers have elevated suicide rates. According to the Center for Disease Control’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey (1999), 33% of gay youth will attempt suicide.

Not reflected in those statistics is the disproportionate number of gay youth that turn to alcohol and/or drugs in an attempt to “escape” (even momentarily) from their living hell, that often includes taunting and bullying at school. Not reflected in those statistics are the numbers of youth who are driven from their homes by “tough love” and end up on the streets selling themselves to survive financially. Not reflected in those statistics are the vast numbers of people with Same-sex orientation who have believed the lie that they can never have a loving home with someone they love and then seek “discrete” outlets for their occasional “moral lapses” with multiple sexual partners. Not reflected in those statistics is the painful tragedy of gay/lesbian persons intimidated into a heterosexual “marriage”, which is doomed from its inception, and makes two victims instead of one by this hurtful “theology.” This “theology,” which is parroted by clerics in polished tones from pulpits, produces the very prejudice and hatred in our society, which they claim to abhor.

How would “MF’s” argument be received if it were applied to people with a heterosexual orientation? What would be the emotional, psychological and spiritual effects on people, who were told from their youth that they must never hold hands, kiss, date or marry a person to whom they are attracted? I think it would be no different from what the Center for Disease Control study found, or what that study logically implies. The words of Jesus come to mind, “Woe to you lawyers also! You lay impossible burdens on men but will not lift a finger to lighten them.” [Luke 11: 46]

To ignore the discoveries of the science of psychology (and what the Holy Spirit has revealed to the Church in 1975) in the area of human sexuality is an attempt to suppress and manipulate the truth. Since for theists the truth leads to God and is never contradictory to God, “MF’s” arguments are unsustainable. Increasingly thoughtful people of faith are connecting the dots.

"Creighton University professors Todd A. Salzman and Michael G. Lawler are the latest voices on the Catholic circuit. Their 2008 book, "The Sexual Person," just earned a rebuke from the U.S. bishops' doctrine committee.

Salzman and Lawler's dense academic argument turns traditional Catholic teaching on natural law on its head. They redefine natural law, saying "nature" is personal and individual, and that sexual activity need not be directed at procreation (contrary to what the Catholic Church has always said).

Salzman and Lawler argue that what is "natural" for a heterosexual is not "natural" for a homosexual, and therefore homosexuals and heterosexuals must act in accord with their personal "natures".

In other words, if it's "natural" for a homosexual to perform homosexual acts, then--for that person--heterosexual acts would be "unnatural" and immoral. For the two professors, homosexual activity is only immoral for the heterosexual acting against his or her nature.

Bottom line: Salzman and Lawler are arguing that homosexuality is a status, not a choice. If that's the case, then everyone--including the Catholic Church--should line up in support of an entire rainbow of gay-related arguments and ideas."

The classic definition of theology is, “Faith seeking understanding.” Perhaps this, even more than homosexuality and Marriage Equality, is what is most disturbing to fundamentalists, “moderate” or otherwise. God is not a lab animal that has been completely dissected with all parts neatly identified and neither is human life. The bible (or the Church) is not an encyclopedic treatise on science, or a substitute for human conscience and personal moral choices.

As Sister used to tell our class in the first grade, “Use the brain God gave you!” To which I would add Jesus’ moral injunction, “Treat others the way you would have them treat you: this sums up the law and the prophets.” [Matthew 7: 12] Perhaps that is what is most disturbing about anti-Equality partisans, their monstrous lack of empathy. Like Cinderella’s evil step-sister they are ready and willing to cut the foot, so that the shoe will fit. They are willing to destroy lives to serve their comfortable world-view and nineteenth century “theologies.”

Same-sex orientation: We did not choose this issue, this issue chose us.

2011-05-19T18:32:00.000-07:00

Truth in Art

2011-05-19T15:29:00.000-07:00

I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell.

--Harry S. Truman

What the Vatican & American bishops DO NOT want you (and Politicians) to know.

2011-04-25T14:59:00.000-07:00

At a New Year’s Eve party in 1999/2000 a woman exclaimed, “You are gay and you are a priest! How can that be?!” I asked her if she had ever visited Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome. “Yes, I have,” she answered. “Well, let me let you in on a little secret, if straight boys had built that church, it would be an “A-frame” with cottage cheese on the ceiling.” Edgar Allen Poe quipped, “The best way to conceal something is by putting it in plain sight, no one would ever think of looking for it there.”

Lest I be accused of speaking anecdotally, let me cite some published proof for the truth conveyed in the forgoing encounter:

"The exact number of gay priests worldwide is unknown. A study conducted in 2000 by Father Donald Cozzens for his book The Changing Face of Priesthood suggests that as many as 60 percent of all American Catholic priests were gay, but those numbers varied greatly depending on geographical location. “At issue at the beginning of the 21st century is the growing perception that the priesthood is, or is becoming, a gay profession,” Newsweek

Donald Cozzens, Ph.D. a psychologist and former Rector [President] of Saint Mary’s Major Seminary in Cleveland, Ohio, states,

“An NBC [National Bishop’s Conference] report on celibacy and the clergy found that ‘anywhere from 23 percent to 58 percent’ of the Catholic clergy have a homosexual orientation. Other studies find that approximately half of American priests and seminarians are homosexually oriented. Sociologists James G. Wolf in his book Gay Priests concludes that 48.5 percent of priests and 55.1 percent of seminarians were gay. The percentage appears to be highest among priests under forty years of age. Moreover, the percentage of gay men among religious congregations of priests is believed to be even higher. Beyond these estimates, of course, are priests who remain confused about their orientation and men who have so successfully denied their orientation, that in spite of predominantly same-sex erotic fantasies, they insist that they are heterosexual.”

“The Changing face of the Priesthood” (The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 2000) page 99

“Equally disturbing is the tendency of bishops to overlook the fact that a disproportionate number of homosexuals are being recruited into our seminaries. I know of one seminary where, two years ago, 60 percent of the students identified themselves as “gay,” 20 percent were confused about their sexual identity, and only 20 percent considered themselves to be heterosexual.” “What Are We Advertising?” The Tablet, April 24, 1999. (553)

“Andrew Greeley believes that U.S. bishops, unclear on how to address the issue of expanding numbers of gay priests, have simply resorted to denial. Among the effects of this psychological defense mechanism is the toleration of lavender rectories and seminaries. ‘Bishops Paralyzed Over Heavily Gay Priesthood,’ National Catholic Reporter (November 10, 1989) 13-14”

“Trappist monk and author Matthew Kelty states,

"Since most men have a woman to love, whom is the gay man to love? God, surely, in the context of community and a noble, celibate service. This is the pattern of history, for then the sexual is absorbed in the loving communion with God and community.
‘The Land I Love In,’ Homosexuality in the Priesthood and Religious Life, ed. Jeannine Gramick (New York: Crossroads, 1989) p. 148.”

Father David Trosch, said the following in a published letter,

“Perhaps a year later in a conversation with a highly placed priest of the archdiocese he stated that approximately 35% of priests were homosexuals. It was most disconcerting to read the following article in which Fr. Cozzens, the head of a Catholic seminary, says that estimates range as high as 60% of American priests are homosexual.

Unfortunately the article states that, "Cozzens is not against ordaining gay men, and concedes some effective bishops and even some popes may have been gay."

I totally disagree with his position of not being against ordaining gay men. I personally believe that it should be incorporated into the Code of Canon Law that homosexual orientation invalidates ordination, that is, makes homosexual orientation a diriment impediment to ordination.”

All of this data might only be of interest to academics, psychologists, sociologists and Church officials; were it not for the fact that those responsible for this state of affairs (no pun intended) in the Catholic Church are themselves promoting an anti-LGBTQ social and political agenda. New York state will be the next battleground for an intense lobbying effort by Catholic bishops (led by Dolan of NYC) of elected officials. This will be an effort by Archbishop Dolan & Co. to defeat Marriage Equality legislation from becoming a reality in New York State.

The fact that many of these Catholic bishops are themselves gay, as the statistics clearly suggest, is something that many of us in the Catholic Church and the LGBTQ community already know. Some of the most homophobic people in the world, are repressed homosexuals.

More bad news for Catholic bishops come from an unexpected source, Catholic theologians.

"Creighton University professors Todd A. Salzman and Michael G. Lawler are the latest voices on the Catholic circuit. Their 2008 book, "The Sexual Person," just earned a rebuke from the U.S. bishops' doctrine committee.

Salzman and Lawler's dense academic argument turns traditional Catholic teaching on natural law on its head. They redefine natural law, saying "nature" is personal and individual, and that sexual activity need not be directed at procreation (contrary to what the Catholic Church has always said).

Salzman and Lawler argue that what is "natural" for a heterosexual is not "natural" for a homosexual, and therefore homosexuals and heterosexuals must act in accord with their personal "natures".

In other words, if it's "natural" for a homosexual to perform homosexual acts, then--for that person--heterosexual acts would be "unnatural" and immoral. For the two professors, homosexual activity is only immoral for the heterosexual acting against his or her nature.

Bottom line: Salzman and Lawler are arguing that homosexuality is a status, not a choice. If that's the case, then everyone--including the Catholic Church--should line up in support of an entire rainbow of gay-related arguments and ideas."

Ever increasing numbers of ordinary Catholics are disregarding the Pope and bishops on Same-sex orientation and Marriage Equality. They have already done this with regards to divorce and remarriage, artificial contraception and the role of women in society.

I wonder how long it will take U.S. Elected officials to connect the dots and discover that Catholic bishops do not speak on behalf of Catholic Voters. In fact, listening to Catholic bishops on social issues, is likely to infuriate (Catholic and Non-Catholic) voters and could cost Elected officials reelection.

Easter Spring Cleaning in NYC's Saint Patrick's Cathedral

2011-04-22T16:54:00.000-07:00

This Sunday 24 April 2011 is Easter Sunday. A group of LGBTQ people, both Catholics and non-Catholics, intend to meet in front of Saint Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City.

Why? In their own words,

“Right here in New York, Archbishop Timothy Dolan and other Bishops and other Catholics of New York State will travel to Albany to lobby state leaders on March 8 to, among other things, ‘’oppose efforts to redefine marriage.’’ It should come as no surprise, but the Pope recently said that no one has an absolute right to be married. More laws or doctrines that discriminate can only contribute to a culture of hate and violence.”

Some will attempt to depict this peaceful protest in support of LGBTQ Civil Rights as “an anti-Catholic attack” targeting Saint Patrick’s Cathedral on the Holiest Day in the Catholic calendar.

The reality is that it is Archbishop Dolan and other Catholic bishops who are out of step with the vast majority of Catholics. It is their relentless and unjust attacks on members of their own flocks, that constitute an “anti-Catholic and anti-human attack.” It is they who blaspheme the Holy Day, as Jesus said, “I ask you, is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath or evil? To preserve life or destroy it?” [Luke 6: 9]

These homophobic attacks on the Civil Rights of LGBTQ Catholics, their dependents and their loved ones, are what are truly anti-Catholic and anti-human. Denying people with same-sex orientation the right to a Civil Marriage, not only robs them of over 1,000 legal protections, rights and obligations associated with Civil Marriage. Dolan and American bishops are supporting a system of Apartheid laws that effectively condone bigotry and stigmatization of people with same-sex orientation in American culture. The Center for Disease Control “Youth as Risk Study” of 1999 states that 33% of gay adolescents attempt suicide, Last years spate of suicides by LGBTQ students was a chilling reminder of the power of hate in our society. Jesus’ words about taking a life on the Sabbath are not mere hyperbole in this matter.

Archbishop Dolan and many of America’s bishops are accomplices to this hatred. Polls demonstrate that they do not speak for the vast majority of American Catholics on this issue. Dolan & Co. attempt to further the cause of bigotry by attempting to unduly influence elected officials, they support hate organizations like the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) headed by Maggie Gallagher.

As Jesus said of religious officials of his day, “Their words are bold but their deeds are few. They bind up heavy loads, hard to carry, to lay on other men’s shoulders, while they themselves will not lift a finger to budge them. All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteries and wear huge tassels. They are fond of places of honor at banquets and the front seats in synagogues.” [Matthew 23: 4-6]

Archbishop Dolan knows all too well, that if he wants to become “Cardinal” Dolan, then he must “persuade” New York’s State Elected Officials to legislate what Benedict XVI wants as law for the citizens of New York State.

The irony about the Church’s overt homophobia is illustrated in Tim Unsworth’s book, “The Last Priests in America” (New York: Crossroad, 1991) on page 248, Unsworth states,

“An NBC report on celibacy out of Chicago stated ‘anywhere from 23 percent to 58 percent’ of the Catholic clergy have a homosexual orientation. A newly ordained priest from a large, multidiocesean seminary believes that at least half his classmates were gay, and a gay Catholic layman, who frequents gay bars in his city stated, ‘I just can’t go into a gay bar without meeting at least one priest….I’m told that the diocese punishes its diocesan priests if they’re seen in a gay bar. That’s terribly ironic since some of the ones meting out the punishments are gay themselves.’ A.W. Richard Sipe’s estimate is that by the year 2010, if the present trend continues, the majority of the clergy will be homosexual.”

Speaking the truth is never an offense against God, or authentic spirituality. Not speaking the truth, especially on Easter Sunday, does constitute such an offense.

What can you do?

1. If you are in, or near New York City on this Easter Sunday join in this peaceful demonstration for Civil Rights and Human Dignity.

2. Write a letter to the Editor in your local newspaper expressing your support for this action.

3. Encourage family and friends who live in the NYC area to participate in this Action.

4. Publicize this Action.

Beyond Death

2011-04-21T18:39:00.000-07:00

This week both Passover and Easter are commemorated by observant Jews and Christians throughout the world. What meaning do these “Holy Days” have for contemporary people who do not share the theological beliefs of orthodox believers?

Passover is the commemoration of the liberation of the Jewish slaves from tyranny. While that sounds wonderful, the story as related in the Torah (Bible) contains implications that make this less and less of a fantastic story and bears a strong resemblance to the human reality even today. The freed slaves find themselves in the middle of a desert facing a lifetime of uncertainty and difficulties, sound familiar? I have written on this subject before, if you wish to revisit those thoughts, follow this jump.

Christian Holy Week is bookended by Palm Sunday and Easter Sunday. It is connected to the Passover, since the young Rabbi Jesus was visiting Jerusalem to observe the Passover with his disciples. There is a layering of new significance onto the older significance of the Passover.

The crowds jubilantly welcome Jesus as a Liberator/King on Palm Sunday. The popular opinion/understanding was that he would eject the Roman occupiers of Jerusalem and restore the Davidic Kingdom. Through this Kingdom and its expansion, Israel would fulfill her role in Salvation history by imposing the Covenant on the pagans (at the point of the sword).

This, was never the divine plan, according to the Prophet Isaiah (42: 43) and to Luke (2: 34), the Messiah of God would invite inner spiritual conversion and not impose external conformity. Not a crowd-pleasing plan, as the elderly priest Simeon prophesied in Luke’s Gospel, this was not the Messiah the crowds expected (or wanted). He still is not, people want the “Shell Answer Man and Julius Caesar” all rolled up in a neat package. Evil should be defined as people elsewhere, someone not like us (me). Evil should never be defined as something we each have to personally face and overcome within ourselves. That requires something of me, far too much work and highly disquieting.

In the course of the week, Jesus fails to deliver, 1) what people want, 2) how they want it, and of course, 3) on their timetable. The religious and political authorities of the day seize this golden opportunity to eliminate Jesus and maintain the status quo, along with their power, wealth and social status. The same crowds that shouted praise at Jesus on Palm Sunday shout jeers at him on Good Friday. This resonates with a truth about popular opinion; it is fickle and more often driven by emotion than by reason.

Another truth about human life revealed on Good Friday, is when Jesus is stripped of his garments. Life does that to each of us. Everything we think is essential for our life and happiness is slowly stripped away from us with the passage of years. Our youth, friends, loved ones, health, mobility, independence and in many cases our other half. We, like Jesus, are left naked and in that nakedness discover what is truly essential. What no thief or time can steal from us, the love we have generously received and given. If you doubt this, or consider it emotional hyperbole, spend a day in the local oncology ward of your closest hospital.

Then there is Easter Sunday. All the chocolate and jelly bean Easter eggs, pale in comparison to the syrupy diabetes inducing nineteenth century “spirituality” that swirls like Katrina around popular American “Easter Day” celebrations and “piety.” The shorter (original) conclusion of the Gospel of Mark [16: 1-8] ends simply with “an empty tomb.” The women leave that tomb, “bewildered and trembling; and because of their great fear, they said nothing to anyone.” What Mark suggests is not so much a “declarative” as a “question.”

That question is as valid today as it was thousands of years ago. The empty tomb suggests that death is not the end of human life. It suggests that there is something beyond death, something beyond this immediate physical existence. The work of Kubler Ross and Dr. Brian Weiss confirm this truth. If Ross & Weiss’ research and work are correct, then the question implied by Mark’s empty tomb is also raised by their research. What is the value and meaning of human (my) life?

There are a vast number of proposed answers to this question, ranging from Aristotle, Plato on one end of the spectrum to Aquinas and Marx on the other end. My experience of working with people on their death beds suggest that these vast collective answers are not the primary concern of someone who is facing death. Rather, how one has interacted with other real people (spouse, friends, family) is what is most pressing at that moment. If what near death experiences suggest is accurate, then how we chose to live our lives is what is of paramount importance.

Specifically, you are the product of your deeds and words. These, be they conscious or unconscious choices, shape who we become. I believe that the “acid test” of the worth of our life is, “Have I done what I honestly believed was right in my life?” and “How have I expanded love in the world?”

Passover suggests that freedom is the beginning of a life long journey, from enslavement towards fulfillment. Easter suggests that death is not the end of our being, but simply a completion and transition. How we use our freedom determines who we are today and the peace/happiness (or lack thereof) both now and at the completion of/transition from/ this life.

If Gay is the New Black, then Trans is the New Gay.

2011-04-20T22:36:00.000-07:00

I am privileged to serve on the Board of GetEQUAL along with Autumn Sandeen, a veteran of the U.S. Navy and a transgender American. She contacted me this week for help on an upcoming project. Happily, I was able to oblige her request. I wrote Autumn the following response. I share it with you here, because I believe that as a community, we need to stand in greater solidarity with the “T’s” in LGBTQ.

Dearest Autumn,

A very dear friend of mine Allison Annalora recently completed her final surgery in her transition process. The actual physical transition process was far less difficult than the psychological and emotional part of her transition. Allison told me of gay friends who suddenly stopped speaking to her when she announced her intent to transition. She faced hostile attempts from some people at her work place and from some clients to force her out of her job. All of this, as difficult and painful as it was, pales in comparison to a lifetime of bigotry and induced self-doubt. It is a testament to her spirit that she is still with us today sadly, many others are not. You think that would be it and a happy conclusion would follow, like a sunburst after a terrible storm. However, Allison still faces the pain of rejection each time she goes on a date with someone. She uncompromisingly insists on telling her truth to anyone she dates, before going out. As a result, she has suffered many painful moments. I reassure her that dating is shopping for a mate and you would not want someone who will not love you for who you are. Allison agrees, but still wrestles with much heartache because of her honesty.

All of this illustrates the reality that "coming-out" is not an event, but a life long process and the most difficult person to come-out to is ultimately yourself. I hope that because of the uncompromising honesty and courage of people like Allison and Autumn Sandeen, the next generation will not have to endure these pains. I hope that because young people today can see people like themselves they will not feel alone, or that they have no options in life. These benefits for Trans-veterans are much more than they appear, they constitute a public acknowledgment of the human dignity not only of Trans-veterans, but also of every human being that is struggling with gender identity. As such, legal recognition is an important first step towards social acceptance and ultimately to the inner peace we all desire for ourselves.

It is an honor to stand with you against injustice and bigotry.

Geoff

DOMA is Cruel, Discriminatory, and Unconstitutional

2011-04-15T16:29:00.000-07:00

Here’s Rep. Jerry Nadler’s opening statement. Nadler has introduced the “Respect for Marriage Act,” a bill that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

DOMA is immoral, because it is (as is all bigotry against LGBTQ people) based on irrational hatred of a minority group within society. It is immoral because it unjustly targets, stigmatizes and penalizes same sex couples. It does this with an obstinate and cavalier disregard for both the findings of science and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Representative succinctly drives home this point as he quotes from the Congressional Record and explains the bigotry that motivated legislators to enact this law. As Rep. Nadler said,

“The Congressional record makes perfectly clear, that DOMA is intended to express moral disapproval of gay men, lesbians and their families. Representative Henry Hyde, then Chairman of this Committee, for example declared, “Most people do not approve of homosexual conduct and they express their disapprobation through [enactment of] the law [DOMA].” During floor debate of the law representatives expressed disapproval of homosexuality as being immoral, or depraved and argued that allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry would demean and trivialize heterosexual marriage and might prove to be, “The final blow against the American family.”

This evidence of the intent of the law being to discriminate against a specific group of people, based on prejudice against them, or disapproval of that group, on pure animus [hatred against them] is presumptive evidence of denial of Equal Protection [the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution] and of the need for Heightened Scrutiny. The Administration so concluded and that conclusion compelled the determination that the law [DOMA] could never survive Heightened Scrutiny and therefore could not be defended as to its constitutionality.”

Representative Nadler specifically used the term “immoral” in describing DOMA and by implication, the intent of legislators who enacted this immoral law. I believe that Rep. Nadler is both correct and temperate in his statements regarding DOMA. Nadler joins Federal Judges, such Walker, Senators, members of Congress, and even Republican former California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, in their opposition to bigoted laws like DOMA and Prop 8.

Proponents of such bigoted laws are unable to offer any compelling reason for denying military service, marriage, and employment non-discrimination protection to LGBTQ people. Their political obstruction of such Civil Rights for LGBTQ human beings stem not from reason, but from hatred, ignorance and fear. Their segregation of LGBTQ people is not, as they claim, motivated out of a desire to “protect marriage, or children,” but out of hatred for a minority group who they intensely dislike and which they want to force to be like them, or at least invisible.

Post Script: Life, Spirituality and Religion

2011-04-15T10:55:00.000-07:00

Further thoughts on "Delivery Salvation" and "Life, Spirituality and Religion."

The parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke suggests a paradox that we instinctively knew as small children. It is when I decide, motivated by selfless love of another, to generously move beyond myself that I am most fully alive. It is in that very act, when I lift up and help someone else that I myself am lifted up and helped.

Each of us, on this life’s journey, has encountered luminous and loving people (e.g. a parent, a true friend, teacher, professor, supervisor, co-worker, etc) who have shown us mercy, extended us patience, kindness and love. Each of us has been that broken wounded person on the road who was helped by another. Implied in that story is, of course, the mugger who, motivated by selfish desires, visited evil upon the person and left their victim to die alone on the road. Each of us can become either the Good Samaritan or the unnamed mugger. Truthfully, each of us has been both at different moments in this life’s journey. The question in life is who do I wish to become. My words and actions NOW determine who I am; they are the hammer and chisel that sculpt me. Eleanor Roosevelt said, "Beautiful young people are accidents of nature, but beautiful old people are works of art."

My choices have both personal and collective resonance. Whom I chose to be affects both me and everyone I encounter today. My words and actions have a ripple effect on me and other individuals and on society that I will probably never fully appreciate in this life. The parable of the Good Samaritan underscores the trans-formative personal and collective power of human decisions to be indifferent/removed (safe) and to choose to love (and become vulnerable).

The spiritual crisis in contemporary life stems from the false belief that meaning/happiness is externally conferred upon me and the fear of being abused by others. The counter-intuitive truth is that meaning/happiness are like water; the only way to hold it is with open hands. Clenched fists create the illusion of invulnerability; however, the cost is isolation. Clenched fists will leave others bruised and will leave me to die of thirst.

In the passage from the Gospel of Luke, the initial question asked by the lawyer is, “Rabbi, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?” In the rabbinic tradition, life answers with another question, “What have you done to expand love in this world?”

Life, Spirituality and Religion

2011-04-14T13:02:00.000-07:00

A reader wrote the following in response to my last post, "Delivery Salvation." I thought his comments touch on several important points, and so I have decided to respond in this format.

"Father Geoff,

Your anecdote illustrates one of the fundamental differences b/t Catholicism & Protestantism - as you surely know, the former believes that faith + good works leads to salvation, whereas the latter believes that faith alone is enough. Perhaps I'm biased, being a Cradle Catholic, but I always found the latter's approach to be empty, as well as intellectually & most importantly, morally lazy.

Unfortunately, our own church hierarchy has done very little if anything in the way of good works. Sure, there are lay people & religious who are doing so, but I don't see the institutional Church tackling poverty, injustice, etc. with nowhere near the same vigor as it does with opposing LGBT rights."

My response,

The differences you cite between Catholic theology and Reformation [Protestant] theology have their foundation in the sixteenth century grace controversies. Essentially, those controversies sought to resolve the apparent contradiction of God’s omnipotence and simultaneously, humanity’s freedom. A more contemporary treatment of this question (1981) and its implications can be found a book by Rabbi Harold S. Kushner, “When Bad Things Happen to Good People.”

In fairness, the thrust of the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke, is not addressing that particular theological question, since it would still be fifteen centuries before it arose. Moreover, neither Catholicism nor Protestantism existed formally as we now know them today. Christianity at that time bore little resemblance to the post Pauline and Constantinian Christianity that developed between the forth century and the present. Luke is addressing the question of personal spirituality.

While I agree with your assertion regarding the contemporary hierarchy of the Catholic Church. The most scandalous and egregious of these faults has been the implication of the Pope and bishops in the Pedophilia Cover-Up Scandal. Not only was this cover-up a deliberate obstruction of justice, it also created new incidences of abuse by priests who were transferred from assignment to assignment by their bishops.

Additionally, the focusing of material resources, social and political influence to prevent and strip LGBTQ people of fundamental civil rights and human dignity; constitutes a betrayal of the people that the hierarchy is supposed to serve. Not only LGBTQ people and their loved ones, but also workers who attempt to organize to protect themselves and their families well being, and the many people in our society who suffer unnecessary illness and death due to a lack of universal health care. Since these, other pressing issues of social justice have been ignored to advance social injustice towards LGBTQ persons.

That was not the question addressed by Jesus in the passage cited from Luke. In that particular passage, the question is not “collective,” that is, “What must we do to inherit everlasting life?” It is personal, “What must I do to inherit everlasting life?”

Luke who cites the exchange between Jesus and the lawyer treats that particular question. The question treated by Luke also incorporates various other subtleties of the ancient world, specifically juxtaposition between the Semitic and Hellenistic understanding of the person. The word “Amen” is one of the few Hebrew words to survive in the contemporary Christian vocabulary. Its basic translation from the Hebrew is, “I believe this and I live it.” Most contemporary Christians, since ours is a Hellenistic culture believe “Amen” means, I intellectually accept a set of propositions, e.g., The Holy Trinity, the Hypostatic Union (Jesus is fully human & Divine), etc.

Spirituality in the Semitic understanding was the assent of the entire person, mind and life, to a truth that was not a concept, but a living reality, “Truth” is not a concept but “God.” Hellenistic thought differentiated between an intellectual understanding/agreement and one’s life. For example, I can read Marx and Lenin and agree with them on various points, I can be illuminated on various questions by them, and yet not be a Marxist-Leninist.

As written in Luke the question, “What must I do to inherit everlasting life?” Translates as, “How must I live my life?” That question is still valid twenty centuries later. It touches on the personal quest for meaning and purpose in life. Dr. Viktor Frankl’s book, “Man’s search for Meaning” addresses this existential question specifically, as does Maslow’s work.

The inherent spiritual danger of a fundamentalist/traditionalist (Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or other) approach to religion is that it separates the believer from dealing with this core issue. The believer is simply told how to live and in exchange promised everlasting life. This is a seductive trap both for the believer and for those in positions of religious authority, since neither is authentically engaged in the spiritual life. The former is placed in spiritual stasis (autopilot) and the latter make an idol of the text/institution, of which they become the official custodians. The religious text/institution rather than being an aid to spiritual development becomes a substitute for such development. Hence, the importance of Jesus’ question, “How do you read it?”

Regardless of one’s intellectual understandings/beliefs, each of us must live our lives. Although we may elect to live without reflection on life and its ultimate meaning, Socrates wrote long ago that, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Socrates made that assertion, because it was true then and sadly, there are many today who still prefer to live an unexamined life, hence the ageless popularity of wine, drugs and gluttony, to name but a few.

Even so, life continually taps each of us on the shoulder and attempts to move us to consider its (and our) greater meaning. The death of a loved one, the loss of material wealth or of our health, the betrayal of a friend, spouse, or lover; all of these create a tectonic spiritual crisis in our life. Each such crisis is an opportunity to reassess, or to borrow from Socrates, to examine our life.

Delivery "Salvation."

2011-04-13T15:27:00.000-07:00

We live in a marvelous time, not only can one get Chinese and Pizza delivered to one’s door, but you can also get delivery “Salvation.” The doorbell rang early this afternoon and, of course, the dogs went berserk. Fortunately, the front door has a glass door that opens permitting me to speak to people without the dogs leaping up all over them.

Two young men stood at the door and my first thought was that they were collecting for their college fund. I have had a few young people come by for that express purpose. They politely greeted me and asked if I would not mind answering a few survey questions regarding religion. “Sure” I said, relieved that they were not asking for money since that is in short supply these days.

“Are you Jewish?” the spokesperson of the two young men asked. “No” I answered, at first I thought this question odd; however, I quickly recalled that many of my neighbors are Jewish.

“At death, there are two possibilities heaven or hell and only Jesus can save you from hell.” I now appreciated why they had asked if I was Jewish. “That is an interesting take on God,” I said. “In the sixteenth century Teresa of Avila wrote, ‘If there was no reward of heaven, I would still serve thee and if there was no pain of hell, I would still fear thee. The hope of reward or the fear of punishment denotes an immature relationship, at best. Just apply that to any other relationship in life, e.g. friendship, family, or romantic relationship. How would you feel if someone close to you viewed your relationship in terms of obtaining a reward or fearing retribution? That attitude itself would constitute an offense and serve to undermine the relationship.

The two young men were processing all of this and I decided to illustrate what God wanted from us, and so I cited from the Gospel of Luke.

Jesus was asked about the afterlife in the Luke 10: 23-37. “Rabbi, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?” The question, by a lawyer, was prompted because there were 614 laws that an observant Jewish person was expected to keep. To break one law, was to break them all. In the rabbinic tradition of questioning/discussion this question was posited, “What does God expect of me?” “What is essential, or central?”
This question is applicable to contemporary people as well, regardless of one’s religion (or lack thereof), “What must I do to achieve my full potential, to be truly whole and at peace?”

In the rabbinic tradition, Jesus answers the lawyer’s question with two other questions. “What is written in the law [Torah/Bible]?” In addition, “How do you read it?” Incidentally, that second question is of critical importance, because our motive in reading any spiritual text, will determine its spiritual value/harm in our life.
The lawyer responded by citing a passage from Deuteronomy 6: 4-5 “Hear, Oh Israel!” that is prayed by observant Jewish people to this day, as Christians pray the “Our Father.” And Leviticus 19: 18, “love your neighbor as yourself.” Jesus approves the lawyer’s quotes and says, “You have answered correctly. Do this and you shall live.”
Luke notes that the lawyer, “because he wished to justify himself” asked, “and who is my neighbor?” Jesus then tells the story of the Good Samaritan.

Interestingly, Samaritans were regard as being beyond any hope of eternal life since; they had comingled Judaism with pagan beliefs and practices. Their theological beliefs and religious practices were seen as flawed, heretical and impious. Jesus deliberately selects a suspect minority group who were believed beyond hope of eternal life to illustrate what God expects from us. I suppose that if Jesus told this parable in the USA today, it would be the story of the Good Faggot.

The Samaritan is “good” not because of what he believes, but because of how he treats others. He encounters a man who was mugged and left to die, unlike his “pious” contemporaries; the Samaritan compassionately tends the victim’s wounds and provides for his practical needs. To underscore the importance of practical love, Jesus concludes by directing the lawyer, “Go and do the same.” In essence, this is what God wants, bottom line, from each person.

God does not demand that we learn a dozen dead languages, obtain a doctorate degree in dogmatic, or moral theology. God does not expect that we follow a set of laws with unerring precision. God does expect that our relationships (with God, others and self) have as their hallmark practical love.

The two young men at my door thanked me politely, even though I could sense that they did not appreciate what I had said. I smiled as they walked on to the next-door and recalled a time in my youth when I, like they, had all the answers. The answer is not as important as the question. “What must I do?” Not what must I believe and how many people can I manage to impose my beliefs on.

God Save the President?

2011-04-07T12:11:00.000-07:00

The British system of government distinguishes between a Head of State and a Head of Government. The Queen is the Head of State and as such, she presides at State banquets, receives foreign dignitaries, and officiates at ribbon cutting ceremonies, generally smiles, and waves at the masses. The Prime Minister is the Head of Government and as such sets budget priorities, decides foreign policy, directs the Armed Forces and leads Great Britain on a practical level. The Prime Minister has to role his/her sleeves up and does the dirty work of politics, the dirty work of governing. Unlike the Queen, who is above all that and simply presides graciously and serenely as a paternal/neutral mascot.

In the United States of America, the President is BOTH the Head of State and the Head of Government, at least until Barack Obama assumed the office of President. Take the current budget crisis that threatens to shut down the federal government for example. Democrats on Capitol Hill are frustrated that the President only became directly involved in budget negotiations this week. Democratic members of Congress feel that he needed to be in the fight a few weeks ago.

All of this is déjà vu with Obama; remember the Health Care Public Option fight? In his State of the Union address before both houses of Congress, Obama gave away “Single Payor” even before the battle for Universal Health Care began. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to do the dirty and hard work of governing, i.e. pushing the legislation forward. Only at the last-minute after the idea of a Public Option had been scraped and even modest Health Insurance Reform seemed doomed, did Obama deign to become directly involved and get his hands dirty.

The same can be said of DADT, ENDA and now DOMA. ENDA could have been passed and become the law of the land by the 111th Congress, if Obama had pushed for it. DADT could have been repealed last summer, if Obama had pushed for it. Instead, his subordinate, Secretary of Defense Gates argued before the Senate Armed Services Committee to postpone repeal until another redundant report on repeal was issued on 1 December 2010. Conveniently, that report would come out one month after Mid-Term Elections in November. DOMA was declared unconstitutional by Judge Virginia Phillips, yet Obama (until very recently) directed his subordinates at the Department of Justice to fight to defend DOMA in the courts. Obama would prefer to appear for a cameo shot at a signing ceremony after all the “politicians” have hammered out a “done deal,” a deal that is politically popular in the polls and “safe.”

Compare/contrast with how Republicans govern when they control the Presidency, e.g. “W” and the invasion of Iraq, Gitmo, the Patriot Act, etc. After his Election in 2004 “W” famously said, “I have political capital and I intend to use it.” Obama prefers to remain serenely above it all, the great reasonable compromiser who will listen to both sides and negotiate a “reasonable settlement” acceptable to both parties.

Obama is, like Queen Elizabeth II, an outstanding Head of State. He delivers inspirational and moving speeches. He possesses a commanding public presence that projects confidence, strength and poise. He, like a young Elizabeth II, is attractive and, like the present day Elizabeth II, is dignified. Like the Queen, Obama fills the room and fills hearts with hope in the face of adversity.

The problem for both Obama and for the Americans that voted for him is that in the United States, being the Head of State is only half the job. On a practical level, it seems that in the 2012 Election Americans will have a choice between a Centrist Republican and a Right-wing Republican for President. Now, who benefits from such a voter choice?

The real winners, yet again, will be the Corporations that fund (bribe) politicians. These Corporations view social issues as an entertaining distraction meant to draw voter attention away from the need for an effective energy policy, finance reform, universal health care and a foreign/military policy that represents the interests of the American people and not of Multi-national Corporations.

Civil Disobedience for Full Marriage Equality

2011-04-06T18:13:00.000-07:00

"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal."

~Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter from Birmingham Jail," Why We Can't Wait, 1963

A Trio of Actions for Marriage Equality from David Wallace on Vimeo.

Meditation on Friendships

2011-04-06T12:30:00.000-07:00

In April of 1994 a classmate and friend of mine died in a car crash. Terry left instructions
that the following passage from the Hebrew Scriptures be read at his funeral. The passage is taken from the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) and was written between 200 to 175 BCE. The ancient date and radically different culture reveal how much human beings share in common, despite cultural and historical differences.

“A pleasant voice multiplies friends, and a gracious tongue multiplies courtesies. Let those that are at peace with you be many, but let your advisers be one in a thousand.

When you gain a friend, gain him through testing, and do not trust him hastily. For there is a friend who is such at his own convenience, but will not stand by you in your day of trouble.

And there is a friend who changes into an enemy, and will disclose a quarrel to your disgrace.

And there is a friend who is a table companion, but will not stand by you in your day of trouble. In your prosperity he will make himself your equal, and be bold with your servants; but if you are brought low he will turn against you, and will hide himself from your presence.

Keep yourself far from your enemies, and be on guard towards your friends.

A faithful friend is a sturdy shelter; he that has found one has found a treasure. There is nothing so precious as a faithful friend, and no scales can measure his excellence.”

[Sirach 6: 5-15]

Myth & Truth about America

2011-04-01T00:04:00.000-07:00

The following is a letter to the editor that I wrote in response to a comment by "HardTruth2011"

Dear “HardTruth2011,”

You state,
“The heritage and the patriotic foundation of this country is based upon a strong belief in God, prayer in schools and in every public gathering, and using the Bible as the standard textbook in all public schools, colleges, and universities.”

I can think of no better rejoinder to your statement than the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The USA was the world’s first Secular State, since it had no established State Religion.

Your views about the founding of this nation are non-historical and highly romanticized, at best. Here are a few quotes from famous Americans regarding religion:

Thomas Jefferson:

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

John Adams:

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
..........To F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

Benjamin Franklin:

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England."

"As to Jesus of Nazareth...I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity."

James Madison:

"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
..........."A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

Thomas Paine:

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

Abraham Lincoln:

"The bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma."

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."

As for your theological views, suffice it to say that, a considerable number of theologians and various denominations would disagree strongly with your exegesis of scripture. However, that is the beauty of the First Amendment it protects both your right to “free exercise” of religion and everyone else’s.

The spiritual truth of authentic religion is practical love of God, neighbor and self. This is much more difficult to accomplish than forcing ideas on others involuntarily. That is why we had Good Friday, the Crusades, and the Inquisition, burning at the stake, State religions, heresy trials, pillories, and sadly too few saints.

The Catholic Vote vs. The Catholic Bishops

2011-03-25T07:05:00.000-07:00

“The Church” is an expression often employed by people who ask me about Catholicism. A philosophy professor of mine once quipped, “You have to define your terms.” If by “the Church” you understand the pope, cardinals and bishops [in their public statements], then you would correctly deduce that “the Church” is opposed to full equality for LGBTQ persons.

However, if by “the Church” you mean the millions of Catholics who are your neighbors, co-workers and fellow voters, think again…

United we will win Full Equality.

2011-03-23T16:04:00.000-07:00

Back in January/February of 2010, I was one of the founding Board Members of “Catholics For Equality.” I later resigned from the Board of Directors of that organization for several reasons. However, one of the good ideas in the nescient stage of that organization was that it would serve as a “holding company” for many and varied Catholic LGBTQ organizations. It would be able to provide a rapid response to any Anti-LGBTQ legislative/media attacks by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. It would also be able to conduct media campaigns and coordinate legislative efforts in our quest for full equality.

This last weekend I attended several receptions for differing LGBTQ organizations in Washington DC. In a conversation with a journalist, we lamented the fact that different LGBTQ organizations often work at cross-purposes. Most recently in the legislative battle in Maryland, some LGBTQ organizations refused to share data base information with other LGBTQ organizations that were attempting to mobilize voters. If only we had a “holding company” for all the major LGBTQ organizations. Let’s call it, “Equality Now,” for the sake of convenience.

The Board of Directors of Equality Now would be comprised of the Executive Directors of the major LGBTQ organizations. The Board would meet quarterly and, although these proceedings would be confidential, transcripts would be kept and later be made public, as are done with Presidential papers. Let’s say, seven years. This would assure transparency and accountability from Board Members/Organizations for their words and actions/inaction.

The Board would also oversee particular campaigns as required by circumstances (e.g. legislative battles such as the one in Maryland, ballot initiatives in the various states, etc.). The fact that the existence of something like “Equality Now” would be publicly known, would go a long way in helping to coordinate and unite our community in the many battles yet to come. Public knowledge of this organization would also serve to lift morale and provide focus for our community, as we fight for full legal equality on the Federal level and then, later in the battles for full social inclusion.

We need to address some of the issues that have divided our community in the past and now in the present. Two comments that I have often heard are:

SOME LGBTQ ORGANIZATIONS ARE MORE INTERESTED IN POLITICAL CLOUT AND MONEY THAN IN EQUALITY.

Some flagship LGBTQ organizations stand accused of compromising with politicians for the sake of access and the purported “influence” that such access provides. Some have gone so far as to assert that these flagship organizations’ worst nightmare would be the immediate certification/repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell [DADT], the repeal of the “so-called” Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] and the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act [ENDA]. The rationale for such an assertion is that if we attained full legal equality today, these organizations would lose their funding and go out of business tomorrow.

President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and the NAACP did not cease to exist the next day. Sadly, long after we win full legal equality we will still have many struggles and much work to accomplish before we end social bigotry against LGBTQ people in this nation.

SOME LGBTQ EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS MAKE SIX-FIGURE SALARIES AND LIVE LAVISH LIFESTYLES.

Years ago my niece required very delicate neurosurgery. There was a high risk that the surgery would only be partially effective and that she might lose some cognitive and speech functions. The surgeon worked for many hours and my niece came out of the surgery with her faculties intact. I do not care how much money that surgeon makes a year, in fact I hope that he is very generously paid. There is a Spanish saying, “Save on the physician, spend on the mortician.” Free/cheap is not always better and in fact can be a false economy. “You get what you pay for.” Is a good rule of thumb, provided of course, that you actually get what you pay for.

Frankly, it is irrelevant if an LGBTQ Executive Director, Development Director, Communication Director, etc, gets to work in a City bus or in a chauffer driven Bentley limousine. What is relevant is that they get to work and that work produces substantive and discernable results. Lest any eyebrows be raised here, I am a volunteer Board Member with Get Equal, I filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last year and my total cash reserves, as of this writing, are $24.19 so, this statement is in no way “self-serving.”

IF WE DO NOT STAND/WORK TOGETHER, WE WILL FAIL TO WIN FULL EQUALITY.

“Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.” –Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Progress requires of us the humility to recognize that no one individual or LGBTQ organization alone will be able to “win the day.” Each individual and LGBTQ organizations possess talents, strengths, also weaknesses, and shortcomings. Together we can hold each other up and carry each other forward towards victory. Otherwise, we will become a parody of ourselves, twelve divas fighting for one spotlight. The cost of that parody does not merely entail suffering bad theater and over inflated egos, the cost will be the unnecessary and unjust postponement of full equality for us all.

A Day in Federal Court for White House 13

2011-03-19T12:35:00.000-07:00

Yesterday the thirteen of us who handcuffed ourselves to the White House Fence on 15 November 2010 to protest DADT were arraigned in Federal Court. A short and accurate depiction of what occurred in Court can be found in an article at MetroWeekly. The action was both necessary, and subsequently proved important,in drawing attention to the policy of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Last fall it appeared that the repeal of DADT was going to be swept under the carpet by the administration and simply ignored. Our action made national headlines and helped put a much needed spotlight on the repeal of DADT. This much needed attention helped motivate members of the US Senate to take up the matter of repeal, that thankfully concluded with the Senate approving repeal legislation and delivering it to President Obama's desk for signature. The repeal process is still not a "done-deal" certification is required by the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense and the President. It appears that this process of certification will be completed sometime this summer, or fall. However, we have been let down before and pressure still needs to be kept up to make sure that we are not sold down the river in yet another "compromise."

Meanwhile, in Maryland we lost a battle for Marriage Equality. It is important to remember that we are engaged in a war for our human dignity and full Civil Rights. In any war, battles will be won and lost. Paris fell to the Nazis in May of 1940 and Hitler danced in delight. It was a battle lost, but the war continued on for many more years. Paris was liberated after the invasion of France by allied forces in 1944 and eventually the Nazis were defeated. We will ultimately triumph because both right and reason are on our side. However, many sacrifices will have to be made to secure our just victory.

One thing that we as a community must do after a defeat, such as the ones in California (with Prop 8) and most recently in Maryland, is to ask ourselves why we lost. A business CEO speaking on the BBC stated that in Corporate America no one wants to admit failure. He went on to say, we need to own our failures because, we do not learn from our successes but from our failures. We also have to look at what the forces of bigotry did and how/why they won.

Some brief observations, we need to work together. Sadly, many LGBTQ organizations view equality as their private proprietary property. We need to become focused on the mission of attaining full Civil Rights and less focused on organizational loyalty. I'm traveling at present, but will develop this more fully in another blog post.

A heartfelt thanks to all those who have worked so hard to secure our Civil Rights in Maryland, and other battle states. You have laid a foundation on which we will continue to build and together we shall overcome hate, bigotry and ignorance with love, decency and truth.

Humor & Truth

2011-03-16T13:55:00.000-07:00

Bill Maher’s video clip is exemplary of his biting sarcastic humor, that frankly I find entertaining. I especially enjoyed his movie, Religulous; however, what is disturbing about this particular video clip is that while it does a wonderful job of attacking symptoms it fails to expose the cause of the problem of sex-abuse in the Catholic Church.

Pedophilia is an inexcusable violence and crime against children. Despite the most determined efforts of law enforcement agencies and the judicial system, such crimes will continue to occur. Just as murders, rapes, and assaults still occur despite the fact that these are criminal acts and prosecuted as such. According to the John Jay School of Law in New York City, “The 4,392 priests who were accused amount to approximately four percent of the 109,694 priests in active ministry during that time.” Logically, that means that ninety-six percent (96%) are not pedophiles. Another stereotype is that pedophiles are predominantly gay. The reality is that most pedophiles self-identify as straight (heterosexuals). A pedophile is an adult who violates children and this has nothing to do with sexual orientation; rather it is a psychological disorder.

Perhaps the reason why such false stereotypes are attractive is because, disturbingly most acts of pedophilia are incestuous. By characterizing pedophiles as Catholic priests and/or gay men, attention is drawn away from two things. First, that it is most probably a heterosexual family member, or relative who will violate your children. There is a false comfort and security in believing that pedophiles are “one of those people” and not someone seated at my family’s Thanksgiving meal. Secondly, the real scandal in the Catholic Church is not that there are pedophile priests. The real scandal is their superiors had knowledge of such crimes and failed to report them to law enforcement and District Attorneys.

Imagine if a Superintendent of a School District knowingly transferred a pedophile teacher from one school to another in the School District. Further imagine that Superintendent paying parents/guardians money to remain silent and requiring the student to sign a statement that he/she would never divulge what happened. What would happen to that School Superintendent if all of this became public?

Can you name one (1) Cardinal, Archbishop or Bishop who has faced criminal prosecution for their role, not merely in obstructing justice, but thereby actually causing new incidents of pedophilia? Visit www.BishopAccountablity.com for a detail listing of such incidents and documentation. Even more disturbing is the fact that documentation exists that links the current Pope Benedict XVI with the Cover-Up Scandal.

Focusing exclusively on the small percentage of priests who are pedophiles and alluding to pedophilia as a gay crime reinforce false stereotypes. Not only does this cause many innocent people to suffer unjustly, but these stereotypes also serve to draw attention away from the real criminals. It may sound counter-intuitive; however, I’ll bet that the Pope and Catholic bishops are very happy that comedians and the public think that the problem is bad gay priests. It is not, the problems are bad bishops and American District Attorneys who lack the political guts to go after them. One of the reasons that politicians lack the guts to do their job is because of false public (voter) perceptions regarding this issue. Bill, please do a show on the Bishops role in all of this and since you are in LA, perhaps you could invite Cardinal Roger Mahony to be your guest.

PS: Since I wrote this post, I ran across this letter from LA Times columnist Steve Lopez to the new Archbishop of LA, Jose Gomez. The letter is posted on www.BishopAccountablity.org.

Words & Deeds.

2011-03-14T15:18:00.000-07:00

My dad is an accountant, he once told me "People lie, numbers don't lie." Here are some numbers about the distribution of wealth in America.

I have received several comments asking what the bishops have said about what is happening in Wisconsin. Actually there is a wealth of statements about social justice and the rights of workers.

On May 1891, Pope Leo XIII promulgated an encyclical Rerum Novarum (On the Condition of Workers). Here are some quotes from that letter to Catholics:

If the question be asked: How ought man to use his possessions? The Church replies without hesitation: "As to this point, man ought not regard external goods as his own, but as common so that, in fact, a person should readily share them when he sees others in need.

No one, certainly, is obliged to assist others out of what is required for his own necessary use or for that of his family, . . . But when the demands of necessity and propriety have been met, it is a duty to give to the poor out of that which remains. (#35-36)

The following duties . . . concern rich men and employers: Workers are not to be treated as slaves; justice demands that the dignity of human personality be respected in them, ... gainful occupations are not a mark of shame to man, but rather of respect, as they provide him with an honorable means of supporting life.
It is shameful and inhuman, however, to use men as things for gain and to put no more value on them than what they are worth in muscle and energy. (#31)

The oppressed workers, above all, ought to be liberated from the savagery of greedy men, who inordinately use human beings as things for gain. Assuredly, neither justice nor humanity can countenance the exaction of so much work that the spirit is dulled from excessive toil and that along with it the body sinks crushed from exhaustion. The working energy of a man, like his entire nature, is circumscribed by definite limits beyond which it cannot go. (#59)

Labor which is too long and too hard and the belief that pay is inadequate not infrequently give workers cause to strike and become voluntarily idle.This evil, which is frequent and serious, ought to be remedied by public authority, because such interruption of work inflicts damage not only upon employers and upon the workers themselves, but also injures trade and commerce and the general interests of the State...(#56)

In protecting the rights of private individuals, however, special consideration must be given to the weak and the poor. For the nation, as it were, of the rich, is guarded by its own defenses and is in less need of governmental protection, whereas the suffering multitude, without the means to protect itself, relies especially on the protection of the State. Wherefore, since wage workers are numbered among the great mass of the needy, the State must include them under its special care and foresight. (#54)

In 1986, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (USA) issued a pastoral message to American Catholics. The title of that message was: Economic Justice for All. Here are some excerpts from that pastoral message:

68. Biblical justice is the goal we strive for. This rich biblical understanding portrays a just society as one marked by the fullness of love, compassion, holiness, and peace. On their path through history, however, sinful human beings need more specific guidance on how to move toward the realization of this great vision of God's Kingdom. This guidance is contained in the norms of basic or minimal justice. These norms state the minimum levels of mutual care and respect that all persons owe to each other in an imperfect world10. Catholic social teaching, like must philosophical reflection, distinguishes three dimensions of basic justice: commutative justice, distributive justice, and social justice11.

70. Distributive justice requires that the allocation of income, wealth, and power in society be evaluated in light of its effects on persons whose basic material needs are unmet. The Second Vatican Council stated: "The right to have a share of earthly goods sufficient for oneself and one's family belongs to everyone. The fathers and doctors of the Church held this view, teaching that we are obliged to come to the relief of the poor and to do so not merely out of our superfluous goods"13. Minimum material resources are an absolute necessity for human life. If persons are to be recognized as members of the human community, then the community has an obligation to help fulfill these basic needs unless an absolute scarcity of resources makes this strictly impossible. No such scarcity exists in the United States today.

89. In summary, the norms of love, basic justice, and human rights imply that personal decisions, social policies, and economic institutions should be governed by several key priorities. These priorities do not specify everything that must be considered in economic decision-making. They do indicate the most fundamental and urgent objectives.

90. a. The fulfillment of the basic needs of the poor is of the highest priority. Personal decisions, policies of private and public bodies, and power relationships must be all evaluated by their effects on those who lack the minimum necessities of nutrition, housing, education, and health care. In particular, this principle recognizes that meeting fundamental human needs must come before the fulfillment of desires for luxury consumer goods, for profits not conducive to the common good, and for unnecessary military hardware.

Two personal observations about all the foregoing documents, it has been said that the best way to keep something secret from people is to publish it in print. Recently I was watching a television comedy series in which the father took his son to a public library. “What’s this place?” the boy asked his dad. “This is where homeless people come to sleep,” came the response from the dad. Winston Churchill quipped “The only thing new in the world is the history that you have not read.”

Secondly, several readers have asked “Why don’t the bishops speak about health care, or what is happening in Wisconsin to workers?” As you can see from the documents re-printed above, they have spoken. Having said that, it is also important to ask, “How have they acted?” Read this excerpt from the National Catholic Reporter commenting on the public position taken by bishops in Wisconsin.

Morlino, writing in his diocesan newspaper, The Catholic Herald, said he and the statewide Wisconsin Catholic Conference were neutral, even though the Catholic Church has long sided with the rights of unionized workers.

“The question to which the dilemma boils down is rather simple on its face: Is the sacrifice which union members, including school teachers, are called upon to make proportionate to the relative sacrifice called for from all in difficult economic times?” Morlino wrote.

“The teaching of the church allows for persons of good will to disagree as to which horn of this dilemma should be chosen because there would be reasonable justification available for either alternative.”

To be sure, Morlino has emerged as a hero of the Catholic right. In the heat of the 2008 campaign, he blasted vice presidential nominee Joe Biden and then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi for “stepping on the pope’s turf—and mine” in appealing to church fathers for their support of abortion rights.

Do Catholic bishops apply what they preach to the secular world in their own relationships with their employees? Specifically, “What are the salary/benefits packages in my (Arch) Diocese for teachers, office staff, janitorial staff, etc?” “What are the salaries for priests, deacons, religious (i.e. brothers and nuns)?”

I was horrified to discover that the parish secretary and her dependants were not covered by our diocesan health insurance plan. Workers had to purchase this out of pocket; this effectively priced them out of health insurance. I was also shocked to discover that a woman who had worked all of her life as a housekeeper in a rectory was given a monthly pension of only $121.00

Bishops often sign these beautiful declarations about human dignity and rights, but fail to implement them in their own house. As long as they can convince the public that morality is primarily, if not exclusively, about what happens south of the belt they should be fine. If by some fluke the little people should actually prevail as they did in Egypt, then they can always point to all of these beautiful official documents and to the nuns and simple priests who worked with the poor as proof that they were always on the right side.

Target, Are you Anti-Gay?

2011-03-13T22:27:00.000-07:00

"Go and learn the meaning of the words, 'It is mercy and not sacrifice I desire."

2011-03-10T08:27:00.000-08:00

Forget about giving up chocolate for Lent. Here are two suggestions of what you can do this Lent to grow spiritually.

First, watch this video:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If, as Michael Moore requested, you are able to participate in a protest on behalf of working Americans, do so. Benjamin Franklin when leaving the Continental Congress was asked, “Do we have a Monarchy or a Republic?” He answered, “A Republic, for as long as you can keep it.”

“This one dealt craftily with our people and oppressed them.” [Acts 7: 19]

The second thing you can do this Lent is to learn. Learn how oppressors operate so that we as a people can effectively stop oppression. An extremely insightful book on this subject is:

“The Secret History of the American Empire” by John Perkins.

ISBN 978-0-452-28957-4

400 Americans have more wealth than 155,000,000 Americans combined!

2011-03-06T21:37:00.000-08:00

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. Please take a few moments and watch this speech from Madison, Wisconsin.

Bishops' Statements and the Erosion of the Family

2011-03-04T11:04:00.000-08:00

Last night I had a long drive from a speaking engagement in Central California. As I drove I, thought again about the statement issued by Cardinal Wuerl, Archbishop O’Brien and Bishop Malooly to the voters of Maryland. Specifically the passage in their directive to voters that states, “We believe such a change would lead to the erosion of the family, our society’s most valued and important social unit.”

Aside from the fact that these religious leaders fail to offer any argument or, evidence whatsoever to support such an accusation, the reality is that their allegation actually inflicts the very harm they claim to oppose. Let me explain how:

The American Psychological Association states, “Human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologist do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.” What happens in a real family with a child who discovers that he/she is gay or lesbian?

If the parents ignore the research and findings of psychology and listen instead to the unsubstantiated claims of these three bishops, they will attempt to coerce their lesbian/gay child to becoming “straight.” Human beings want to love and be loved, and as a child, we especially prize and seek the love of our parents. Gay and lesbian children that are told they are morally disordered by their parents (who acting on bad pastoral advice) are apt to believe this and attempt to change, or at least repress their orientation. As the APA states, “Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings..”

Ultimately they will be unable to accomplish this “change” as the APA has stated based on their clinical research and findings. The results? We saw the consequence of such irresponsible “pastoral” advice last year with a series of teenage suicides. The Center for Disease Control stated in their “Youth at Risk” study of 1999 that one-third of gay adolescents will attempt suicide. Not reflected in that study are the vast numbers of LGBTQ youth who become alcoholics or addicted to drugs in an impossible attempt to change their sexual orientation.

Many parents are counseled by religious authorities to employ “tough-love” with their LGBTQ children. If you drive to one of America’s large cities, you will find some these young people selling themselves on the streets as prostitutes in an attempt to support themselves financially. “Friends are the new family” is an expression that finds wide usage among LGBTQ young people. They are not welcomed or loved by their families unless they change. A change that psychology informs us is impossible.

All of this done in the Name of God by religious authorities, calls to mind the words of Jesus speaking of the religious authorities of his day, “Their words are bold but their deeds are few. They bind up heavy loads, hard to carry, to lay on other men’s shoulders, while they themselves will not lift a finger to budge them.” [Matthew 23: 4].

If these bishops were ignorant of the findings of psychology that sexual orientation is not chosen, if they were ignorant of the Roman Catholic Church’s statement in the 1975 Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, that there are “homosexuals who are such because of some kind of innate instinct.” Then, these bishops might be acting in good faith; however, their words would still gravely contribute to the erosion of the family, that they themselves decry.

As one of our readers (Tal) commented, “The problem is a church hierarchy that has come to value conformity and obedience over conscience, and that fails to draw a distinction between a Supreme Pontiff's personal demons and prejudices and the objective reality of the Church as the People of God.”

Ever increasing numbers of lay Catholics are realizing this and correctly choosing to selectively disregard their bishops. In theology, this is called the sensus fidelium (sense of the faithful). This concept means that, if Catholic laity dissent from the Catholic hierarchy, it may be that the laity are in fact following the correct and "true" Catholic line while the Catholic leaders are in error. American Catholics increasingly call this common sense.

When bishops play politics.

2011-03-02T18:30:00.000-08:00

Maryland is on the verge of joining a growing list of states that grant same-sex couples the right to a Civil Marriage license. The three Catholic bishops who have ecclesial jurisdiction in Maryland have issued a statement against allowing same-sex couples that civil right, “We urge Maryland Catholics throughout the state to act at once to make your voices heard.”

Let us consider the arguments the bishops posit against same-sex Civil Marriage. They state, “We believe such a change would lead to the erosion of the family, our society's most valued and important social unit.” The rejoinder to this “belief” is the question, “How?” The bishops fail to explain how same-sex marriage will “erode” the family.

They go on to state, “The measure would dismantle our state's legal recognition of the true procreative nature of marriage,” again, how? Not all heterosexual marriages result in procreation. No post-menopausal woman could legally marry, if the bishop's argument was taken to its logical conclusion.

In Catholic theology, there are TWO ends to marriage: 1) Unitive and 2) Procreative. The unitive end of marriage is simply a union of love and life. The Procreative end is, of course, to create new life. It is important to understand that the unitive end of marriage is sufficient for a valid marriage. The Church sanctions, and considers a sacrament, the marriage of elderly heterosexual couples that are biologically incapable of reproduction. So, if two people of different genders who are incapable of reproduction can enter into a valid marriage, then why can’t two people of the same gender?

The bishops go on to state, “As a result, the measure would jeopardize the religious freedom of all those who cannot in good conscience recognize marriages that conflict with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

This statement is false. Maryland, like all the fifty states recognizes a couple’s legal right to obtain a divorce and then to remarry. Legal divorce and remarriage is against the teaching of the Catholic Church. Divorced and remarried couples are believed to be living in adulterous relationships by the very bishops who make this statement. The fact that there is legal divorce in all fifty states, with a right to a second, third, fourth, etc Civil Marriage, is not viewed as an attack on religious freedom by Catholic bishops. Why then, are Same-sex marriages singled out as an “attack on religious freedom” while divorce and remarriage (i.e. adulterous marriages) are not?

The Governor of Maryland, Martin O’Malley, is a Catholic and has said that he will sign the bill into law when it reaches his desk. House Speaker Michael Busch, also a Catholic, is planning to vote for the bill and Senate President Thomas Miller a Catholic, held off a filibuster that would have effectively killed the bill.

The issue here is not morality; but rather, power. The bishops are attempting to flex their political muscle and intimidate politicians. The problem for the bishops is that according to Gallup Poll, 62% of Catholics recognize same-sex relationships as morally valid. Then again, the overwhelming majority of Catholics have no problem with using artificial birth control, despite the bishop’s prohibition of such practices. One can only hope that these Catholics heed their bishop’s advice and make their voices heard on this issue “at once.” Although I think the bishops may not like what they hear.

It is time for the bishops to move away from a model of Church focused on political, economic and social power. When the Vatican pressured the Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon, Portugal to oppose Same-sex Civil Marriage in that country, he answered that it was a matter of Civil Law and not Church Law.

This is the central point here. We live in a pluralistic society. Not everyone is required to share the same religious beliefs or, views. The Founders deliberately did not establish a State Religion for the United States of America. That does not endanger religious freedom it protects it.

A Fatal Blow for DOMA

2011-02-23T12:46:00.000-08:00

President Barack Obama has ordered the Department of Justice to stop defending Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA]. In a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, the Attorney General Eric Holder gave the rationale of the White House and the Department of Justice for this decision.

Moreover, the legislative record underlying DOMA’s passage contains discussion and debate that undermines any defense under heightened scrutiny. The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against. See Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 448 (“mere negative attitudes, or fear” are not permissible bases for discriminatory treatment); see also Romer, 517 U.S. at 635 (rejecting rationale that law was supported by “the liberties of landlords or employers who have personal or religious objections to homosexuality”); Palmore v. Sidotti, 466 U.S. 429, 433 (1984) (“Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect.”).

FULL TEXT

Note the language employed by the U.S. Attorney General in his letter explaining “why” the Department of Justice will no longer defend Section 3 of DOMA and considers it to be unconstitutional. He specifically states, “the kind of sterotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.” This expresses almost verbatim Judge Walker’s ruling on the unconstitutionality of Prop 8 in California. In that decision Judge Walker also stated that the proponents were motivated by an animus against same-sex couples.

What is beginning to take shape here is an increasingly clear legal opinion based on the findings of science. The American Psychological Association bluntly states

Is sexual orientation a choice?

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

FULL TEXT

This represents reasoned thinking and that is one of two critical components in the advancement of our rights. Julian Bond, the former President of the NAACP stated, “this is the Civil Rights movement of this generation.” The other critical component in our struggle for justice is that our cause be reasonable. For political parties and politicians that means voter approval, and in 2010, according to the Gallup Poll Organization, for the first time fifty percent of Americans accepted Same-Sex relationships.

The hesitation on the part of the judiciary in declaring laws such as DADT and DOMA unconstitutional is historically based. The landmark Roe v. Wade decision by the U. S. Supreme Court in 1973 was far ahead of popular opinion at that time. The Court experienced a backlash that still manifested today by the social conservative political movement and accusation of “activist judges.”

What this means is that although the Executive branch will continue to enforce DOMA, it will not defend it in court. Eventually, the law will be ruled unconstitutional and Same-sex married couples will enjoy the federal protections and benefits (e.g. income tax, immigration, etc) currently enjoyed by opposite-sex couples.

Today we have won a battle in an ongoing war to claim full Civil Rights for LGBTQ people, and ENDA is next. It is important to remember that even after the signing of the Equal Rights Act in 1964 and the establishment of full legal equality racism did not end. The NAACP is still fighting for the day of full social equality. So it is premature and unwise to claim this is the “Victory.” We are refreshed and encouraged, but the struggle continues.

FREEDOM, SPIRITUALITY AND RESPONSIBILITY

2011-02-22T16:13:00.000-08:00

Incredible popular demonstrations and political changes are occurring in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Jordan, and Iran. There is something about the protests that transcend culture, religion, and the various other adjectives that we employ in daily thought and conversation. Like the young student who stood squarely in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square, these current protests are a testament to the human spirit. The use of the word “spirit” can be somewhat uncomfortable for non-democratic rulers, including religious autocrats.

Wounded or rejected by organized religions many often say, “I am spiritual, but not religious.” They have left the religion of their infancy due to rejection by religious leaders. People are thrown out or alienated from their faith for many reasons. Common reasons range from impossible marriages, institutionalized misogyny, and institutionalized bigotry/persecution of persons due to their sexual orientation or gender issues. In the case of Roman Catholicism, the pedophilia Cover-Up Scandal of the Pope and bishops is tragically another wound unjustly inflicted in the name of God.

Amazingly despite of, or perhaps precisely because of these attacks, rejections and wounds, people remain spiritual. In the silence of wounded hearts, in life’s great moments, we connect with our self, others and something that is paradoxically both transcendent and immanent. This happens for us on a personal level with the death of a loved one, illness, unemployment, or when our own imminent death confronts us. While such moments are painful and difficult, they force us to reflect and reevaluate life and its meaning. Joyful moments, such as falling in love, the birth/adoption of a child, etc can also accomplish similar reflection and reevaluation of life’s purpose and meaning.

The international events we are witnessing today accomplish this same existential reflection and sense of meaning on a collective level. These events are not just political, economic or sociological in nature. These events are tangible eruptions of the human spirit that unites us all. This is why people of radically different cultures can “feel” for and internally “connect” with people they have never met and with whom they have apparently very little in common.

The desire for freedom is part of what defines a human being. Freedom is necessary for full human development. Philosophically all people have this inner freedom. Even individuals living under the most extreme and cruel tyrants possess (and are sometimes tormented by) freedom of thought. The philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote, “I think, therefore I am.”

Freedom is also essential for authentic spirituality; however, it remains merely a starting point for authentic spirituality. “What do I do with my freedom?” Egypt and other newly liberated people must now answer this question. This question implies many things. It means that I am ultimately personally responsible for who I chose to become. My decisions, my words, my deeds shape who I become; once we arrive at conscious thought and we can make personal choices, we become responsible for who we are and who we become.

Consider the passage in the Bible depicting the liberation of the Jewish slaves from captivity in ancient Egypt. Exodus 12: 35-36 speaks of the Israelites using their newly acquired freedom to demand material wealth. The Israelites wandered for forty years in the desert. Forty years represented a lifetime in the scriptures. In other words, this life is a journey from slavery to true liberation. After they had left Egypt and found themselves in the desert, they expressed very different sentiments about freedom “Would that we had died…as we sat by our fleshpots and ate our fill of bread! But you [Moses] had to lead us into this desert to make the whole community die of famine!” [Exodus 16:3]

This reveals something very human regarding the reality of freedom. The sudden joy of attaining liberation from slavery (i.e. freedom) is quickly forgotten once the cost of freedom, personal responsibility, is revealed. The appreciation for freedom is replaced with a longing for the security of slavery. Winston Churchill quipped, “Those who would trade freedom for security, deserve neither.”

Many paradoxically fear freedom, precisely because it assigns them (me/us) personal responsibility for their actions. This is the seductive appeal of many ideologies and religious fundamentalism. In exchange for unquestioning obedience and conformity, they promise their adherents salvation. Additionally, the adherent is no longer personally responsible, since he/she had submitted himself or herself to the collective reality, the state or church.

In fact the adherent relishes this absorption into the state/church since it confers on them identity. A false, prefabricated identity, but an identity that requires no personal development. Specifically, it does not require them to face their own fears and demons. This also poisons adherents with a spiritual pride, a delusion that they are superior to those outside their belief system.

This is part of a spiritual seduction by some religious leaders and institutions. They are happy to assume such responsibility and in fact claim that God has bestowed it upon them, in exchange for power, influence and wealth. This also explains the growing divide between progressives and literalists within Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism and Islam.

The idea that individuals are exempt from personal responsibility for their deeds due to external factors was rejected at the Nuremburg Trials. “I was just following orders” did not work, as a viable defense at those trials and it will not serve as an excuse for people today. However, the chilling reality of such totalitarian regimes does posit a legitimate question. How does authentic spirituality deal with fear? The Roman Senator Cicero stated, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” The Book of Numbers contains a fascinating treatment of this spiritual dilemma.

Why have you brought us up from Egypt to die in this desert, where there is no food or water? We are disgusted with this wretched food! In punishment the Lord sent among the people saraph serpents, which bit the people so that many of them died. … Make a saraph and mount it on a pole, and if anyone who has been bitten looks at it, he will recover.” [Numbers 21:5-8]

Read carefully again that ancient text. It reveals something about the human condition. We will all be stricken with fear on life’s journey. It is only when we confront (look upon) what we most fear, that we are healed.

If we opt for the security of slavery, we may find it once more; however, our spirit will rebel against it once more. Freedom means walking through the desert, it means dropping into the sand those things we immaturely thought would be the cause of our happiness. It means facing our personal fears and in doing so, being healed and becoming whole.

In the case of individuals, this process takes a lifetime. In the case of nations, regions and humanity it can take several lifetimes. On both levels, the human spirit seeks freedom to develop and flower into personal and collective integrity.

The Morality of Sex, gay & straight.

2011-02-17T12:25:00.000-08:00

This morning I had a conversation with my former professor of Moral Theology at Saint John's Seminary. He shared with me this video that I, in turn, am now sharing with you. I hope that you find it helpful.

When the Church married Same-Sex couples.

2011-02-16T14:22:00.000-08:00

The following is a reprint of an article by Jim Duffy that appeared in 1998 in The Irish Times. The Yale history professor quoted in the article is Dr. John Boswell. For an extensive list of books by this noted historian on Same-Sex marriages in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, please follow this hyperlink to Fordham University.

When Marriage Between Gays Was a Rite

An article in the Irish Times that discusses same gender unions in the early church.

by Jim Duffy
Published in 1998

As the churches struggle with the issue of homosexuality, a long tradition of gay marriage indicates that the Christian attitude towards same sex unions may not always have been as "straight" as is now suggested, writes Jim Duffy.

A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.

Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea seems initially shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St. Serge and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St. Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus.

In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their "marriage".

The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet after a twelve year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century.

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved as a concept and as a ritual.

Professor Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th / early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.

Unions in Pre-Modern Europe lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union", having invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, called on God to "vouchsafe unto these Thy servants [N and N] grace to love another and to abide unhated and not cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Boswell found records of same sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, it was only from about the 14th century that antihomosexual feelings swept western Europe. Yet same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578 a many as 13 couples were "married" at Mass with the apparent cooperation of the local clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together", according to a contemporary report.

Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century. Many questionable historical claims about the church have been made by some recent writers in this newspaper.

Boswell's academic study however is so well researched and sourced as to pose fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their attitudes towards homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be a cowardly cop-out. The evidence shows convincingly that what the modern church claims has been its constant unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is in fact nothing of the sort.

It proves that for much of the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom from Ireland to Istanbul and in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given ability to love and commit to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honoured and blessed both in the name of, and through the Eucharist in the presence of Jesus Christ.

We are human beings, not an issue or a cause!

2011-02-15T10:10:00.000-08:00

People often speak of Same-sex marriage, DADT, ENDA, Anti-bullying laws, and gender identity as though they are speaking of political, theological and social issues. The danger of discussing these matters that way is to forget that fundamentally what we are speaking about are human dignity and human lives.

Real people came to the confessional or to my office when I was a priest. They would open their hearts, share their fears and hopes, talk about their trials. As an Air Force Chaplain, I was surprised to discover that Protestants would often ask for an appointment with priest. It was one of the only places they could go on base, and speak freely, without fear that what they said would be reported to their Commanding Officer, and negatively affect their careers.

In my many years of working with people, I was struck by the unimaginable capacity that the human heart has to suffer in silence. Sometimes truths remained unspoken out of fear, but far more often people bear what objectively seems unbearable motivated out of love for another.

The woman in the following video reminds me of those people I encountered in ministerial service. She speaks with the strength found in her relationship as a Mother and the quiet dignity bestowed by the foundational compassion that guides her moral insights.