More Musings on Christianity, Homosexuality & the Bible

"99.9% of them have not experienced a change in their orientation" -- Alan Chambers

2012-02-06T10:04:00.000-08:00

Oh, and in case you missed all the hoopla, as an unofficial side event at the GCN Conference Alan Chambers was interviewed by Justin Lee as a part of a panel discussion on ex-gay ministries. Chambers is the president of Exodus International, the largest ex-gay organization in the United States. The video of the discussion is long (I was there to hear most of it in person), but the most significant statement Chambers made that evening was this:

The majority of people that I have met--and I would say "the majority" meaning 99.9% of them--have not experienced a change in their orientation, or have gotten to a place where they could say they could never be tempted, or are not tempted in some way, or experience some level of same sex attraction.

Quoth the President of the Largest Ex-gay Ministry in America. If you're worried I ripped it out of context, go to 1:09:44-1:10:09 and hear it for yourself. Then go tell your friends.

What I've been looking for

2012-01-26T09:44:00.000-08:00

When I was in college I went on a short-term missions trip to Japan, where I taught English for six weeks at a small village church in Hanakawa. The congregation at Hanakawa was small, barely thirty people on an average Sunday, because Japanese Christians are a persecuted bunch. They don't pay homage to their dead ancestors at the Buddhist temple, nor do they offer prayers at the Shinto shrines imploring the spirits for good health or success. Their families are ashamed to own them. Wives risk the wrath of their husbands for going to church; children risk being disowned by parents. But when they come together for worship at church, that little group of thirty could sing. They worshipped with full hearts every Sunday out of joy and sorrow and gratitude. Twenty-five years later I can still hear the sound of their voices, accompanied by the whine of that cheap church organ, singing "Jesus Paid It All" in Japanese.

Three weekends ago gay Christians arrived from all over the country, and even other parts of the world for the Gay Christian Network (GCN) Conference to worship, learn, fellowship and break bread. And when they sang, the outpouring of their hearts carried me back to those days on the missions field. These were Christians rejected by their families and friends, whose very existence is considered a shame to society--and in this case, their churches. They were gathering to take a brief, collective breath of heavenly air before having to return to the grind of an oppressive existence. Even those who had churches to go back to said that they couldn't worship there with nearly the same freedom as they found at the safe haven of the conference. "Soon as we get back home, we'll start counting pennies to save up for next year's GCN Conference," someone told me.

I have to admit I've spent a lot of years hankering after the spiritual giants of the Christian world. I wanted to witness true faith, which I associated with passion and zeal. Maybe I wanted some of that faith to rub off on me. I would hang out with missionaries, thinking these people who gave up a comfortable life in the States to preach Christ in a foreign country had to be the real deal. I looked up to my brilliant seminary profs, feeling that anyone who spent a lifetime studying the Bible or theology must have a deep love for Christ. I've tried to grab hold of that genuine Christianity for myself. I've joined movements, studied and read, evangelized and prayed, and sold myself out for Christ numerous times. Many disappointments later I learned that outward spiritual impressiveness isn't always what it's cracked up to be, and I can't rely on other people's faith to carry my own.

And just as I'm learning to let go of all that, I come to the GCN Conference and realize that it's here where I least expected it, that authenticity I've been looking for. There was such a spirit of unguardedness among everyone that conversation and fellowship flowed easily. The name of Jesus was precious in the mouths of those who spoke of him. I could talk about suffering and sin and get quiet, understanding nods in return.

But it wasn't flashy or outwardly attractive; the faith of these people was born out of pain and doubt, of wandering and loneliness. It was almost as if the secret to faith was having a messy life, not a together one. Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted, some wise person in the Bible once said. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

This Sunday

2012-01-19T11:09:00.000-08:00

In case anyone's interested, I'm going to be speaking this Sunday at the 10 a.m. service of Open Door Ministries in Long Beach. The church website provides directions to the William F. Prisk Elementary School where they meet. If you already went to the GCN Conference then you're not missing anything. I'll be telling pretty much the same story as I did on January 7. Not a sermon, but a testimony. Thanks to Pastor Dan Burchett for inviting me.

Welcome, GCN visitors!

2012-01-11T21:58:00.000-08:00

I'm still enjoying the afterglow of the Gay Christian Network (GCN) Conference this past weekend. The best part was meeting many of you in person. I can see why people count pennies all year so they can afford the plane fare to this annual event. The fellowship in Christ across denominational lines, because of the suffering everyone has experienced in being marginalized by the institutional church, is incredibly moving.

I know some of you are visiting this blog for the first time because you heard me speak on Saturday. Welcome! No doubt I'll have more to say about the GCN Conference as I let my thoughts percolate over the next few weeks. But in the meantime, for those of you who had further questions about my talk, here are some links that will take you into greater depth:

* A more complete story about my gay neighbors: "Gregg and Joel"

* Walter Olson's article on theonomy: "An Invitation to a Stoning"

* The article that started the controversy: "A Conservative Christian Case for Civil Same-Sex Marriage"

* Chronology of the OPC controversy

* A brief article on sovereign (or more specifically, irresistible) grace.

Done!

2011-12-24T21:32:00.000-08:00

Aaandd I'm done writing my talk for the upcoming GCN Conference. I can't believe I managed it with all the holiday chaos going on. Merry Christmas, everyone, and hope to see many of you in Orlando in 2012.

One hundred!

2011-12-08T20:46:00.000-08:00

Oh yeah! Thanks for helping us to hit the 100 mark on the followers list.

John Alsdorf
Jordan Haynes
William Lenz
David
Allen
D.J.
katybraden
The Fried Doctor
Julia Paterson

I'm grateful to all of you, both the official and unofficial followers of this blog, for teaching me, encouraging me and supporting me through this journey.

A dose of reality

2011-11-30T09:56:00.000-08:00

Wow. This captures why I think civil rights in society and freedom of conscience in the church must be respected when it comes to this issue. Every Christian with conservative views on homosexuality has to allow him- or herself to be tempered by the reality of what gay relationships are all about.

Side B, with qualifications

2011-11-22T11:35:00.000-08:00

I get labels. I understand them, I embrace them. Sometimes people just want to cut to the chase and know what you're all about. Who are you? Where do you stand? What's your deal? I'm straight. I'm an evangelical. I'm Reformed. I'm a homeschooler. Only later on you'll find out that I'm a straight person with a lot of gay friends. I'm an evangelical who is uncomfortable with evangelical culture. I'm a Reformed Christian that most Reformed Christians reject. And I'm a homeschooler with two kids in public school.

Ah, nuances. How they upset one's neatly labelled world.

I'm also "Side B." What does that mean? Well, within the realm of those who call themselves gay Christians there are generally two camps, labelled Side A and Side B. Side A gay Christians believe that God blesses same-sex marriages. Side B gay Christians believe that God calls them to lifelong celibacy.

These terms can be stretched a bit. For instance because I'm involved in the dialogue between the two groups, people often ask me which Side I hold to. Since I'm straight they are not asking about what choice I'm making for my own life, but are inquiring about my theological view. Which do I think is biblical?

Biblical. When I hear people use that term, I know I'm heading for trouble. Since I'm straight the only way I can deal with the Side A/Side B question is to imagine what it would be like if I were gay. What choice would I make? What would I understand the Bible to be telling me? Notice that this is an extremely theoretical question, having to do with me living a life that I've never actually lived, and asking myself what I would do in a situation that I've never actually dealt with. What do I think would be biblical for my own personal life that isn't actually my personal life but only exists in theory?

Yet I do try to give an answer because I don't want to chicken out, get defensive, or press my hands together in a steeple and start philosophizing about how life is full of complex questions. I feel that people deserve an honest response. I look at the Bible, I look at myself, I talk to lots of gays and lesbians and try to imagine myself in their situation. I know I hold to the traditional creation-fall-redemption-consummation view of the Bible. And I know that I'm the type of person that tends to make the hard, conservative choices for myself in my own personal life, whether in the area of marriage, women's roles, or parenting--even though I don't ask other people to make the same choices for themselves. In other words, I know that I fit the profile of someone who would choose gay celibacy.

I think if I were lesbian probably the most difficult situation for me to face would be if I met someone who was also lesbian and Christian, we got along splendidly, we were completely spiritually compatible, there was potential for happiness and spiritual health and excitement about a future for myself and for her--and yet I have this theological hang-up that gay relationships aren't biblical. I imagine I would be sorely tempted to shelve the theological conviction and move forward with the wedding bells. I might even plead with God for leniency on this point; yes, it isn't ideal but look at the spiritual good that has come out of it, that will come out of it, if we got married. And since there are a lot of good Side A arguments out there, it's possible that I might be able to put my conscience shakily to rest about it.

The point is, even when I try to picture my non-existent, best-case-scenario married life with a lesbian partner, I imagine that I would have a far greater struggle of conscience trying to live as Side A than Side B. That's why when people ask me point-blank, cut-and-dried, to put a label on myself, I spit out: "Side B."

This has caused me some problems. I have discovered that labeling myself Side B conveys the idea that I think Side A gay Christians aren't really saved, that all gay Christians should be celibate otherwise they're living in sin, and that my agenda should be to befriend Side A people for the purpose of converting them to Side B. And I have to wonder, what ever happened to respecting the consciences of others? I believe I can manage that as a Side B person. And nothing about what I believe concerning my imaginary choice as an imaginary gay person in an imaginary scenario blinds me from the reality of seeing true Christian faith in the many, many Side A gay Christians I meet all the time.

From what I've experienced I don't think the Side A/Side B divide is nearly as great as the divide between those who do and do not recognize that there are some cases where taking a "biblical" side is more about a personal choice than a cosmic mandate. I side with those who believe in strict moral convictions for themselves but much leniency and charity for others. I wish there were a label for that group.

Book Review: "Out of a Far Country"

2011-10-01T14:34:00.000-07:00

Christopher Yuan emailed me over the summer, asking if I would be willing to review the book he and his mother, Angela Yuan, co-authored called Out of a Far Country. Some months earlier I had seen a video clip of Christopher and Angela discussing the book, and then it happened that a staff member at my church stopped me one Sunday to ask if I had read it. So awareness of the book was already hovering at the edge of my consciousness.

I told Christopher that I'd be glad to review the book, but because of my son's surgery it would take some time before I could get going on it. After a couple more email exchanges it wasn't long before he had the publisher send me a copy of the book gratis. I guess I'm a novice in the business of book reviewing because I was fully expecting that if I promised an author I would review his book, I should be glad to go out and buy a copy of it myself, because a promise is a promise. And besides, I wouldn't want to be accused of giving a biased review because I got a free book out of it. So, wrapping up this statement of full disclosure, I just thought y'all should know that those are the circumstances under which I am writing this review, and you can decide for yourself whether I'm being biased or not.

Out of a Far Country is a story told by both mother and son about how they were once both spiritually lost and headed in separate directions. Christopher's coming out as gay is what caused Angela to embark on a spiritual journey that would lead her, and eventually Christopher, to return like prodigals back to their heavenly Father. Christopher and Angela tell their stories in alternating chapters, giving their differing perspectives on the same events, yet showing how God worked over a period of eight years to bring their once widely divergent paths to merge together into one by his grace.

It was a fast read, the story never dragged and contained plenty of fascinating elements. It wasn't until I was finished that I began to wonder whether this book was really about homosexuality at all. It could have been the story of any rebellious child, and of any mother's ache to see a son or daughter find peace with God and within themselves. So I read it a second time and confirmed that the strongest connection I made with the book was as a parent, not so much with the gay issue. It seemed to me Christopher's rebellion wasn't so much about being gay as it was about the feelings of rejection that led him into drug addiction and some of the darker aspects of '90's gay society. Yet the main drama centered around Angela's quest to find healing and hope in Christ, to resurrect her dying marriage, and to mend her broken relationship with her son while pointing him to the way of true inner peace.

I worried that the story would be about Angela's attempt to make her son ex-gay, but it wasn't about that. Even though she pursued that path at first, it became apparent as the story unfolded that she was slowly learning to surrender her son entirely to God and allow him to carry out his own plan, not hers, in her son's life. And even though Christopher's story of rebellion appears to play right into the hands of the evangelical stereotype of the "gay lifestyle," his post-conversion reflections about the need to live in "holy sexuality" as a follower of Christ who is still gay would definitely be off-message in many conservative Christian circles. He spends only about four and a half pages explaining how he came to the Side B position, coming off as neither dogmatic nor resentful, but rather as someone who fully and willingly embraces it.

I didn't care for the study guide questions at the end. I'd rather not have each chapter presented to me as an object lesson when it is really the broader strokes of the story that display the mysteries of how God works in our lives. How he raises life out of ashes and dust, how surrendering everything to him is the only way to true happiness, how hope is never truly dead when you seek the one who holds all things in his hands. I can't tell you if the message of Out of a Far Country is more for straights or gays, but its message is definitely Christian.

"Honor Thy Children"

2011-09-10T14:40:00.000-07:00

First off thanks, everyone, for your patience while I took some time off from blogging to care for my five-year-old son post-surgery. He is now out of his surgical casts and is learning to walk again just like a baby. The house is a mess, my health is slightly neglected, and I spent way too much money on take-out and frozen food these past two months, but other than that we're doing great.

Okay, enough about me. For those of you who live in the Greater Los Angeles Area, I want to let you know about a unique opportunity to hear Al and Jane Nakatani speak at the Japanese American National Museum on Saturday, September 24 from 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM. You can find more information at this Facebook page if you're interested. Or go to the JANM page and check out their Events Calendar.

In the book Honor Thy Children, Al and Jane Nakatani tell author Molly Fumia the story of how they lost all three of their children. Their first son, Glen, came out to them as a teenager in 1977 and they essentially disowned him. Glen later died of AIDS in 1990. Their second son, Greg, who was straight, was shot to death in an altercation in 1986. So when their third son, Guy, also came out as gay, Al and Jane were initially horrified, but they soon learned to embrace him unconditionally. Guy was diagnosed as HIV positive, and as he went around speaking at schools and businesses about homophobia and HIV, his father Al accompanied him. Guy died of AIDS complications in 1994 at age 26.

Since then the Nakatanis have traveled around the country speaking out about homophobia, bullying, teen suicide and the importance of loving your children unconditionally. While their message isn't necessarily religious, they are often invited to speak at churches. I understand that at the September 24 event they will be presenting a short film that chronicles their story. If I can resolve a scheduling conflict, I'm hoping to be there myself.

GCN Conference 2012

2011-07-29T10:23:00.000-07:00

So, if you haven't already heard, I've been blessed and honored with the opportunity to be a keynote speaker at the upcoming 2012 Gay Christian Network Conference. The conference will be in Orlando, Florida, and I understand that the super early bird registration deadline is this Sunday, where you pay only a $99 reg fee. It would be cool to meet some of you guys in person, so if you're at all inclined to spend January 5-8, 2012 in sunny, balmy, home-of-Disney-World Orlando, come on out and join us!

You'd think that this would be the perfect time for me to get busy writing and take advantage of some of the free advertising that GCN's conference publicity has given this blog. But it turns out I'll be doing no such thing. See, my five-year-old son just had major surgery on his feet, and while he recovers for the next five weeks in his casts and wheelchair, he needs me to do just about everything for him, including entertaining him by playing a lot of computer games. Hours and hours of Plants vs. Zombies and Bejeweled 3. So instead of imagining that I'm in front of my computer right now coming up with some brilliant thing to say at the upcoming GCN Conference, picture me fetching medication and the urine bottle in between sessions of bombing zombies and exploding hypercubes. If you don't know what I'm talking about, that's okay. I just thought I'd disabuse you of any glamorous notions about my life, in case you were tempted to have any.

Nine more!

2011-07-11T10:58:00.000-07:00

I let a few months slide innocently by and when I next check, nine new followers have joined this blog. You guys really encourage me. And thanks to everyone who has written in and commented on this blog over the years. You are my teachers and I have learned a great deal from you.

So let's welcome our newest followers:

Michael OB
Stefan
Caroline Croad
William Baldwin III
Cody Dickerson
brian dockery
Personal Secret
Dan Dorman
HEATHER

The call for stories continues

2011-07-06T08:18:00.000-07:00

In a previous post I put out a call on behalf of Huffington Post blogger John Shore who is compiling a collection of stories by gay Christians for a book (whether an e-book or a traditionally published book remains to be seen) aimed at enlightening a general evangelical readership on what it means to be gay and Christian. I talked to Shore recently and learned that he needed only about a dozen more submissions before he'd have enough stories to move forward with this project. (But of course, ideally, it would nice if he had about five dozen more submissions, because the more the merrier.)

So once again, here are the details about the project in his own words:

I’m exhausted with the absurd notion that gays can’t be just as Christian as any pastor in any pulpit in any church in the country. And I have found that nothing can more trenchantly drive that point home than gay Christians simply telling their own stories.

And if gays can be Christian, then … well, then we’ve necessarily got ourselves a whole new dialogue about Christianity and homosexuality.

So let’s do it. Let’s make that dialogue happen. Let’s force the change. Let’s present what will be impossible to ignore.

If you’re an LGBT Christian who would like evangelical Christians to hear your story, here’s your chance. Write your story in the first person. Try to keep it under 2000 words. (But basically just use however many words you need; we can later adjust the length if necessary.) Don’t worry about grammar, spelling, or any of that sort of thing; I can edit it for you. (And I’ll certainly get your okay on all edits before publishing your testimony.) I don’t care how well “written” your story is; I just want your raw, true, and heartfelt words.

The stories in the collection will presented anonymously. Identity-wise, all I need from you is two initials, and whatever city you (want to say you) live in — same as in the bylines for What Non-Christians Want Christians to Hear.

Submit your story to me either via my “Contact Me” page, or by email to: john [AT] johnshore [DOT] com. Sending me your story implies granting me obligation-free permission to include it in the (as-yet-unnamed) collection. You won’t be compensated for your story; just knowing evangelicals will read it has to be motivation enough for you to write it. (I could no sooner track and deal with ongoing payments to fifty different people than I could win a Flamenco dancing contest.) I don’t yet know if I’ll publish this book as an e-book, or with a traditional book publisher.

If you believe in this project and would like to see it happen, please spread this post to wherever you know gay Christians gather online. The more stories I get in for it the better.

Shore's full post is here, where you can also get updates on how the project is going. As far as I know, no deadline has been set yet. So if you have a story to tell, I hope you won't pass up this opportunity to tell it.

Angry at God

2011-07-04T09:19:00.000-07:00

I grew up in an angry household. My dad's family had a lot of tough things happen to them over past generations and Dad carried the anger of his own father inside of him. When my brothers and I were young, he would do plenty of shouting if he was unhappy with our behavior. Now I carry his anger around inside of me. It's like a flame that catches from one person to the next.

Anger is the easiest emotion for me to conjure up, more than sadness or fear or joy. It's also the easiest emotion for me to understand in other people and in God. But unlike God's holy wrath, human anger is often a distrustful mix of wounded pride and uncontrolled passion. I try to freeze my own anger down with cold hard reason, or channel its energy into doing good for others. Sometimes I have to accept that my anger is simply there, telling me that I'm not at peace with myself or with another person. It's presence is like a warning light indicating that there's something I need to confess or give up, or someone I need to confront or forgive. A lot of times there isn't much I can do but wait it out, just let the fire die out into a heap of embers.

Most people I know are afraid of anger, and they are also afraid of God, which is why you rarely hear anyone confess to being angry at God. If it does come up, people quickly backpedal. "No, I'm not angry with God. I wouldn't say that." But anger is a deep and complex emotion. You can be angry at someone and not want to be angry at them at the same time. You can be angry at someone you love and even feel both anger and love simultaneously. And just as we tend to hide from God, we hide from our own feelings about him too. Of all the relationships we have or will have in our lifetime, our relationship with God is by far the most dysfunctional.

The thing is, even if you don't want to admit being angry with God, you'd have to admit that in a lot of cases being angry with God makes more sense than being angry with people. Here's what I mean. If your family rejects you for being gay, for instance, you might be angry at them for awhile. Or you might turn your anger toward the church for teaching people to have negative attitudes against homosexuality. But then as the years pass by, and maybe you've gotten involved in activism or in trying to change people's minds, you start to see how people are already too weak-minded and ignorant and prejudiced to resist the simplistic things they are told. You start to realize that you yourself often fall prey to prejudice and the temptation to demonize others, and you wonder if it's just inevitable that gay and lesbian people would be misunderstood by a largely straight society. Then the Bible comes along and seems to reinforce these attitudes and misunderstandings in people. So if there's anyone it "makes sense" to be angry at, it's God. Isn't he the one who set up this whole impossible situation in the first place? Why did God allow you to be gay knowing it was going to be like this?

I wish I could say that I have the answers to those questions, but I don't. I only mention all this stuff because it's what I hear people saying. I've read a lot of emails and talked to a lot of gay Christians, and I hear people hinting at their anger toward God all the time. Of course it's easy to deny you're angry with God just because you don't feel a red hot rage, but anger can also take the form of cold resentment, the kind that avoids or gives the silent treatment, where you talk to God only when you have to, and even then you just mention the safe stuff that you think he wants to hear, hoping to mollify him and send him on his way.

The missionary Jim Elliot once wrote in his journal about growing in enough confidence to be able to laugh in the presence of God. I used to marvel at that. Laugh? Who would dare? Who feels such freedom? But for me it's always been about anger. Do I have the confidence to express my anger before him? At him? Being honest instead of feeding him lines like, "No, it's not you I'm angry at, it's the situation. And I'm not really angry, just hurt and disappointed." Coming clean seems too frightening. Am I really going to risk affronting the God who holds my life in his hands?

But somewhere along the way I crossed a forbidden threshold and found the freedom and confidence to express my anger at God, not for the purpose of telling him off but to lay it before him. It has helped to think of it this way: God already knows everything. He knows more about you than you know about yourself. He even knows what you're going to say before you say it, and what you're going to feel before you feel it. So if it happens that somewhere inside you are harboring a deep resentment against him, he already knows it and has already taken care of the sinful aspects of your anger in the death of his Son. So he's good.

The problem is entirely on your side when you do not own up to this anger. Your heavenly Father sees you coming before him day after day pretending that the anger doesn't exist when he knows very well that it does, because he sees your heart as plain as day. He knows that the reason you won't admit to being angry is that you're afraid of his rejection, and yet here he is loving and accepting you in Christ every day, patiently putting up with your resentment against him, which you deny that you have, and waiting for you to come around to the truth so that you can finally unload that awful burden off yourself. So given that this is the situation, which is the better course to take? To admit your anger before him, or not to?

Pastors' Conversation video available

2011-06-27T10:43:00.000-07:00

New Direction's livestream "Pastors' Conversation" video is now available here. Thanks, Wendy Gritter!

New York beats California to it

2011-06-25T09:04:00.000-07:00

This is something I wish our California state legislature had done instead of allowing us all to get dragged through that nasty 2008 battle over Prop. 8, in which the side that spooked the most voters with shameless, bald-faced lies prevailed. I don't know why I've remained a registered Republican all this time--I suppose it's because I could never feel politically at home with the Democrats. But today I can be a proud RINO in view of this Republican-led effort to legalize same-sex marriage in New York. Interestingly, CBS News reports that a critical factor was that two fence-sitting Republican senators, one of whom opposed an almost identical marriage equality bill in 2009, turned in yes votes in the end.

Ultimately, gay couples will be able to marry because of two previously undecided Republicans from upstate regions far more conservative than the New York City base of the gay rights movement.

Sen. Stephen Saland, 67, voted against a similar bill in 2009, helping kill the measure and dealing a blow to the national gay rights movement. On Friday night, gay marriage supporters wept in the Senate gallery as Saland explained how his strong, traditionally family upbringing led him to embrace legalizing gay marriage.

"While I understand that my vote will disappoint many, I also know my vote is a vote of conscience," Saland, of Poughkeepsie, said in a statement to The Associated Press before the vote. "I am doing the right thing in voting to support marriage equality.

Also voting for the bill was freshman Sen. Mark Grisanti, a Buffalo Republican who also had been undecided. Grisanti said he could not deny anyone what he called basic rights.

"I apologize to those I offend," said Grisanti, a Roman Catholic. "But I believe you can be wiser today than yesterday. I believe this state needs to provide equal rights and protections for all its residents," he said.

Some of these senators have put their careers on the line to cast this vote, and I don't expect it will turn out well for them. No doubt many longtime, liberal supporters of gay marriage will look at these Republicans and say, "Well, duh! It's about time!" Yet as a conservative supporter of civil same-sex marriage, I know what it's like to experience that dawning upon your conscience, when everything you once thought to be true and right is being challenged within your own mind, and you realize that this new idea which you once opposed is actually more true to your sense of morality and decency than your former position. It is an unsettling and frightening realization, particularly when you picture yourself trying to explain how you came to this "new moral conviction" that also happens to take sides with the half-naked guys parading down Castro Street with nothing on but their nipple rings and leather jock straps. Can't wait to get up in front of everyone and make a speech about this one.

Speaking of which, you are now faced with a choice. It would be so easy to hide what's going on inside your own mind and heart. If you did, you can keep your religious conservative friends, all the people who love and respect and support you; and if you're a senator these are the people to whom you owe your political career. Or you can dare to be "wiser today than yesterday," as Sen. Grisanti said, and risk losing everything. Hats off to those senators who dared. Whatever happens to them in the future, I trust that today they are at peace with themselves.

Calling all gay Christians

2011-06-22T08:37:00.000-07:00

If you're a gay Christian, here's a project you may want to consider participating in. Straight Christian writer/blogger John Shore is planning to publish a collection of personal stories by gay Christians that communicate what they wish straight evangelicals knew about them. It is similar to the idea behind Shore's earlier book, What Non-Christians Want Christians to Hear*, except it will be what gay Christians want straight Christians to hear. Shore explains all the details in his post. Here's an excerpt:

If you’re an LGBT Christian who would like evangelical Christians to hear your story, here’s your chance. Write your story in the first person. Try to keep it under 1500 words. (Eight hundred words is about ideal. But basically just use however many words you need; we can later adjust the length if necessary.) Don’t worry about grammar, spelling, or any of that sort of thing; I can edit it for you. (And I’ll certainly get your okay on all edits before publishing your testimony.) I don’t care how well “written” your story is; I just want your raw, true, and heartfelt.

The stories in the collection will presented anonymously. Identity-wise, all I need from you is two initials, and whatever city you (want to say you) live in — same as in the bylines for What Non-Christians Want Christians to Hear.

Submit your story to me either via my “Contact Me” page, or by email to: john [AT] johnshore [DOT] com. Sending me your story implies granting me obligation-free permission to include it in the (as-yet-unnamed) collection. You won’t be compensated for your story; just knowing evangelicals will read it has to be motivation enough for you to write it. (I could no sooner track and deal with ongoing payments to fifty different people than I could win a Flamenco dancing contest.) I don’t yet know if I’ll publish this book as an e-book, or with a traditional book publisher.

If you believe in this project and would like to see it happen, please spread this post to wherever you know gay Christains gather online. The more stories I get in for it the better.

*6/23/11: Correction: the name of John Shore's earlier book is, I'm OK--You're Not: The Message We're Sending Non-Believers and Why We Should Stop. (I love that title.)

So many topics, so little time

2011-06-21T13:19:00.000-07:00

Just got done watching the livestream "Pastors' Conversation" hosted by Wendy Gritter. I wish my 5 year-old didn't get so suddenly needy during the broadcast or I might have been able to follow the conversation more closely. But I was very impressed with Wendy's moderation job and her incredibly well-articulated insights that she was able to throw out there as if she were discussing the weather. As someone commented in the chat room, I feel like I could listen to her talk forever.

Wendy promises to have video of the livestream conversation available soon for those who missed it. You can check the Facebook Page or the website for further news about that. There was so much to discuss I felt like the hour and a half flew by much too quickly. So many conversations got started with so little time to explore them.

Check out this live stream event

2011-06-15T11:48:00.000-07:00

I'm sure this will interest many of you. Wendy Gritter of New Direction Ministries is organizing a live stream event called "Pastors' Conversations: Navigating LGBT Issues and Questions" that will take place Tuesday, June 21 at 2:00 pm (Eastern Standard Time). The event is free and interested participants only need to RSVP via Facebook or Eventbrite by clicking on one of the links on this page.

I'll be checking it out too. I understand there will be a chat room for online participants, as well as a time of Q& R (I'm guessing that means "question and response") with the Pastors' Panel. (I love that . . . Q&R instead of Q&A . . . acknowledging there may not be answers to some of these questions!) Personally, I find chat rooms intimidating so I don't expect to be making comments left and right. But I am looking forward to listening in on what people have to say and tuning in to their concerns.

Giving your best anyway

2011-05-18T08:02:00.000-07:00

"People are often unreasonable and self-centered. Forgive them anyway.
If you are kind, people may accuse you of ulterior motives. Be kind anyway.
If you are honest, people may cheat you. Be honest anyway.
If you find happiness, people may be jealous. Be happy anyway.
The good you do today may be forgotten tomorrow. Do good anyway.
Give the world the best you have and it may never be enough. Give your best anyway.

For you see, in the end, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway."

— Mother Teresa

I wish more people would talk about death openly so that I wouldn't feel like the only freak who has no problem bringing up the apparently morbid subject. I think about my death a lot because 1) it's one of the few things in life that I can be absolutely certain I will have to face; 2) it helps me to clarify what my priorities should be and whether, today, I am living according to those priorities.

This past March marked my 25th year of knowing Jesus Christ and this coming August I will turn 43. Even if I live to an optimistic 86 years old, I am already halfway done with my life. And as I look forward to the next half of my life, possibly another 43 years, or possibly less, I figure I'd better spend it focusing on the right things and learning from some of the wrong things I've pursued in the past. After a lot of misguided idealism, running down blind alleys, crashing and burning, and meditating on the scars left from hard knocks, I've come to the brilliant conclusion that life--in particular my life as a Christian--is about loving God and loving people.

Any five-year-old Sunday School child could have told me that. What's both profound and mysterious is why on earth it eludes me so easily, and eludes most Christians I know. It sounds deceptively simple. Just love. Love will keep us together. All you need is love. At church even our praise songs about love fill you with such a wonderful, sentimental feeling you start thinking that love must be like floating blissfully along on a soft cloud, eating chocolates. You forget that the last time you tried to truly deny yourself in order to love someone who didn't return the favor, the effort took so much out of you you wanted to take the rest of the year off from humanity. If you haven't experienced what's it's like to be hurt, disillusioned, embittered, humiliated or ill-used, you probably haven't stepped out far enough in faith to obey Jesus' command to love. And unless you are able to rise from your wounds and know that Christ sacrificed so much more because of his love for you, you won't make it very far as his disciple.

Despite of all our glib talk about love, deep down we are aware of these hard truths, so we try to make following Jesus about everything but putting his love into practice. I've been down the road of trying to make the Christian life into a cause, a self-improvement program, a path to the American dream, an area of academic study, and an occupation. Anything but about loving people and loving the God who asks me to love people, because every day I wake up and encounter new reasons not to love people.

I don't know a great deal about Mother Teresa, but from her insightful words above I can tell that she understood the secret of loving others. You have to believe that giving the best of yourself to other people isn't the equivalent of flushing your life down the toilet. Because ultimately you are offering your life to God, believing that none of it is in vain, and that he is the rewarder of those who seek him.

Spiritual fretting

2011-04-25T09:30:00.000-07:00

I thought I was going to go the entire month of April without posting, but here I am. I've been a bit over-stressed spiritually. I still find I'm able to give to others, that hasn't changed. Christ is the living fountain in my life and amazingly he always supplies me with plenty of strength when it comes to serving others. But it's another thing to feel at peace in the in-between moments. Walking with Christ means keeping my eyes on him each day and not looking around too much, and maybe that's where the discouragement has leaked in.

Right now there may be too many distractions for me to gain fully that sense of security I want in him. While reading in the Psalms before the Easter service yesterday I was arrested by the first line of Psalm 37: "Do not fret because of evildoers." Ah yes, the temptation to fret and lose focus. That must be my problem. The more I go on in life, the more I see that we live in a world where selfishness and dishonesty seem to gain the upper hand while those who try to practice patience, submission and love are shoved aside. Psalm 37 gives assurance that this state of affairs won't last forever, but in the meantime it does grieve the soul.

I know that the big thing right now is to believe in a God who is too loving to judge us or require atonement for our sins, but frankly I have trouble believing in a God who isn't offended by evil. A God who isn't provoked by the selfishness, the greed, the arrogance, the exploitation, the deceit, and the cold-heartedness that pervades our society, our relationships and our churches? Really? This stuff grieves me more than it grieves him? Somehow I highly doubt that.

Talking with today's young gay teens

2011-03-17T08:54:00.000-07:00

Since my daughter will be attending high school this coming Fall, I took her to a welcoming event on the campus for prospective ninth grade students. Outdoor booths were set up featuring the swim and dive team, the ASB Club, cross country and track, varsity baseball--basically clubs and sports teams trying to recruit the incoming freshmen. As we were walking around I spotted the booth for the Gay-Straight Alliance Club and told my daughter to go on ahead. I wanted to stop and talk with these guys.

I figured the best way to scope out the bullying situation at a high school is to talk to the gay kids. They would be the most obvious target of bullying, and what they had to say would be a good litmus test whether a school is serious about the "no tolerance" policy they are supposed to enforce. We are in the Los Angeles Unified School District, famous for its inefficiency, bureaucracy and misuse of funds. But this was a charter high school and came highly recommended to us. I was curious to know what the Gay-Straight Alliance Club had to say about their school.

I had never talked face-to-face with gay kids so young, just teenagers. There were five girls manning the booth, which didn't surprise me. I've come to expect that such a club would either be male-dominated or female-dominated. I've noticed that even gay groups that intend to be co-ed get quickly lopsided either in the male or female direction.

The first girl who responded to my question about bullying had short cropped hair with green highlights. She said that the kids on campus were friendly and generally cool, and if there were any negative incidents they involved isolated individuals. She said one time in class a fellow student asked her point blank if she was gay. Everyone stopped and turned in their direction, and when she answered "yes" the onlookers said, "ooooooh." A giddy sort of response but that was about it.

An African-American girl wearing a rainbow headband then spoke up and told me just that day she had been harassed by another student for having two dads, to the point where she was reduced to tears. The hostile student was quickly dealt with by the school administration. Everyone in the booth agreed that having the administration's support was key to their sense of well being on campus. They felt that the administration had their backs and took seriously any bullying incidents that involved targeting kids because of sexual orientation issues. When they participated last year in the Day of Silence, they told me, even some of the teachers voluntarily talked to their classes about what the day meant and explained about the problem of bullying LGBT students. These teachers were able to give a voice to the participants who, because of their vow of silence, could not do any explaining.

I ventured to inquire specifically about their encounters with the religious clubs on campus. Did they feel any hostility from them? One girl spoke up, whose more confident demeanor made me think she was a senior. She said she was a part of the Jewish Club on campus and never experienced any problems from them. "But what about the Christian Club?" I pressed. "See, we're Christians and my daughter is interested in joining the Christian Club. But I won't let her if they're giving you a hard time." "Oh, the Christian Club is really laid back," the senior girl said. "I actually know some of them and they're really nice. They've never given us a hard time." I expressed my surprise. Really? "Yeah," she said. "But even if they wanted to give us a hard time, they wouldn't be able to. We're protected from harassment by law, and the school administration is good about enforcing it."

I came away from that conversation with the feeling that perhaps times are a-changing. Gay kids saying that the Christian Club kids are "nice" and "laid back." (If there was a Christian Club booth around--and there wasn't--I might've gone over and high-fived them on the spot.) A school administration in a conservative Hispanic/white/Asian suburb of L.A. taking a hard-line stance against sexual orientation discrimination. Young lesbian teens and children of gay parents who were out to their teachers and classmates, who still had to deal with the occasional obnoxious kid but understood their legal rights ("It's called AB 537 in the California Education Code," they informed me. "You can find it on the GSA Network website.") I was impressed. Yeah, I'll let my daughter go to this school. I felt sure of it, even though I didn't stop by any more booths that day. I'd already found out all that I needed to know.

A big shout-out to our latest followers

2011-03-03T19:51:00.000-08:00

Thanks guys!

dena
Jen
Jody Morris
Alexandra
Paul
srk12

Thoughts on Obama and DOMA

2011-02-25T09:20:00.000-08:00

Most of the reaction to the Obama administration's refusal to defend DOMA has been tepid. It's certainly not an announcement that will lead to the immediate legalization of gay marriage in all fifty states. And sure, someone else can always step in and do the job of defending DOMA in court. Yet to me Wednesday's announcement by President Obama and the Attorney General is significant not so much legally, but symbolically. In my bones I feel the impact of it, and I'm struggling to put into words what I sense is a shift in the moral tide of this country.

Last summer I spent countless hours going over Judge Walker's Prop. 8 ruling so I could blog out a summary of it here. That study impressed upon me how difficult it is to defend the position that homosexual couples should be treated differently than heterosexual couples without sounding like some kind of bigoted, backwater, religious nutcase. Think about it. In order to defend such a position, someone has to take the witness stand and explain from the perspective of hard facts and scientific research that gay couples are less stable, less worthy, and less valuable to society than straight couples. You'd have to show that gay couples make worse parents, threaten the fabric of society, endanger religious freedom, or corrupt the nation's youth. This is not a political rant on a street corner, or a Sunday sermon that quotes a few ripped-out-of-context Bible verses. This is court testimony by an expert witness who must deliver a convincing objective account of the facts of the case, who must stand up to the cross-examination that follows.

Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Attorney General refused defend such a position, and you can understand why. So instead the people who ran the pro-Prop. 8 campaign volunteered to defend it, and look what happened. Four of their expert witnesses were no-shows. Of the remaining two witnesses, one did not have the credentials to be an expert witness and his testimony was deemed unreliable, while the other qualified as an expert witness but gave testimony that was largely irrelevant to the case. Reading between the lines, my guess is that the proponents had so much trouble getting their case together because no self-respecting sociologist, psychologist, historian or university professor who cares about their career and reputation wants to publicly defend the position that gays and lesbians are inferior human beings.

The California Attorney General would later admit reluctantly, when pressed, that he thought Prop. 8 was unconstitutional. I got the impression that he and Governor Schwarzenegger were trying to slip out of having to publicly make that admission, or they were at least trying to be as low-key about it as possible. But this past Wednesday President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder come out with a formal announcement that they will not defend DOMA. They were not being shy about it. What's more they put their finger directly on the heart of the issue, which is that "classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny." In other words they don't think it's right to argue for discrimination based on sexual orientation. Just as Schwarzenegger couldn't stomach it, neither can Obama, except Obama calls a press conference to say it. And he's the President.

I can't help but think that President Obama's announcement is somehow, either directly or indirectly, a consequence of what happened with the Prop. 8 ruling. Even if someone else wants to step up and defend DOMA, how do you avoid a repeat of the pro-Prop. 8 case? Where will you get your witnesses? How will you argue the case? What will this do to people's professional or political credibility? I think the Obama administration must have realized all this and now they don't want anything to with the case. And if that realization has hit the highest level of our government, then that is significant indeed. It should only be a matter of time before the repercussions pervade throughout the moral fabric of this country in the coming decade.

No defense for the Defense of Marriage Act

2011-02-23T21:54:00.000-08:00

The big news today is that President Obama announced that his administration will no longer oppose legal challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law that bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages or extending to them the same benefits that heterosexual married couples receive.

Here is the letter to Congress from Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. The legalese may be difficult, but if you were following my blogging on the Prop. 8 ruling last year, you should be able to understand the basic flow of thought. For review, read the introductory section of this post to refresh yourself on some of the terms.

Photo-genetic

2011-02-09T13:49:00.000-08:00

I can't stop looking at this blog. The "Born This Way" blog features childhood photos submitted by readers that reveal something about their LGBT identity, some at a very young age.

As a parent I have observed the extent to which all three of my kids came "prepackaged." The 13 year-old who doesn't like to express her feelings was once an eighteen-month-old who used to hold in silent tears whenever she fell and scraped her knee. The ten-year-old who folds her own clothes without being told and has all her stuffed animals organized at the foot of her bed was the one who already knew how to dress herself in color-coordinated outfits at age two. (As for my four-year-old who owns a hundred toy cars and trucks, trails dirt into the house, knocks holes in our dry wall, and gives me the big-brown-puppy-eyes-look when he knows he's in trouble--I can only imagine what ten years will bring.)

All this to say: the idea that sexuality comes with the package when a child enters the world has never been a difficult concept for me to grasp. Yet still I find myself surprised and fascinated by these photos and the short essays that accompany them. While I know that not all gay men and women fit the stereotypes, it's apparent that many who do fit them more closely expressed themselves early on.

One reason I blog?

2011-02-08T08:42:00.000-08:00

Because I don't want to be embarrassed in front of my grandkids. The Onion issues this warning.

A big thank you to our newest followers

2011-01-31T21:26:00.000-08:00

Welcome aboard!

Norm!
Jacob
heathersjoy
Ray
Marisa feathers

Thoughts on Ian Charleson

2011-01-19T22:30:00.000-08:00

I recently realized that the movie Chariots of Fire, which I watched for about the fifth time last weekend, would have completely failed if it weren't for the brilliant acting of Ian Charleson who played Eric Liddell. That may seem obvious: Eric Liddell's character is the inspiration of the movie. He's the Christian missionary who ran for God's pleasure, who risked throwing away three years of training and a chance for Olympic gold because he felt he could not run an Olympic heat on the Christian Sabbath.

People think it's the story itself that captivates us, but I think it is Charleson's performance that sells it. His job as an actor was not just to play a good man but a saintly man, pious yet likable, reserved but not dull, conflicted yet steadfast, vulnerable enough to draw our sympathy yet strong enough to stand entirely alone. Then he had to make it look so natural the audience would be tempted to think this guy Ian Charleson must just be playing himself; yet I can't think of a more difficult acting role. One misstep and the whole thing is ruined: we're left with a story about a self-righteous prig who's determined to put the hopes of an entire nation on hold because of his personal fanaticism. The difference between that disaster and the Academy Award winning picture we got is Ian Charleson's ability to hit exactly the right note.

I got curious about the man who was able to pull off this subtle, multi-layered, highly spiritual performance. I thought, "I really like this Charleson guy. I'll bet he's either Christian or gay." I googled, then wikipedia-ed. Charleson was gay. And reading between the lines he was probably also Christian, judging from how eager he was to play the part of Eric Liddell, saying the role would "fit like a kid glove." He studied the Bible intensively to prepare for the role and wrote the post-race speech Eric Liddell delivered to the working class crowd himself. Charleson died of AIDS in 1990. He was 40.

It was all news to me. Maybe ten years ago such a discovery would have shocked and disgusted me, but now I find it makes sense, and I even guessed beforehand that maybe a gay man pulled off this remarkable performance. But why did I have that hunch? So many times when I encounter a song, a performance, or a piece of art that strikes me as so true and subtle and poignant and uplifting I feel almost a spiritual connection with it, I later learn the artist behind it is gay. It's happened so often I now take it for granted. Maybe there's something about being gay that enables an artist to see more clearly what it means to be human, to identify certain truths about us all. Maybe it is the ones who are forced to the margins who truly understand what it is we all have in common.

Now that I know Ian Charleson was gay it occurs to me that the dimension he grasped about Eric Liddell, which made that character seem so authentic, was his loneliness. To run for the pleasure of God had to be a lonely calling, one that neither your coach nor your missionary sister could easily understand. It's too religious for the athletic world and too secular for the Christian world. The Eric Liddell that Charleson portrayed was a man caught in between, and while both worlds sought to foist their own agendas upon him, he insisted on marching to a tune that he alone could hear, indulging in a private joy which, though mixed with pain, enabled him to carry himself with dignity throughout the chaos. Who else but a gay actor could understand so intuitively how these complex elements fit seamlessly together: to stand seemingly on center stage and still feel like an outsider looking in, to navigate through so many apparent contradictions and other people's attempts to define you, to drop an anchor deep within yourself and stay centered upon it with a conviction that reaches near spiritual heights?

Words of wisdom from Derek Webb

2011-01-07T09:42:00.001-08:00

I don't follow the contemporary Christian music scene at all. However, I am extremely impressed with this Huffington Post interview with Christian musician Derek Webb. It's not the first time I've heard about Webb or his stance against homophobia and other ills in the evangelical church, but this interview captures the seriousness of thought he has given to his life and calling as a Christian.

Some quotes I resonated with:

At a time when everybody in our culture is talking about tolerance, it seems that tolerance has the highest premium of any response -- "If we just tolerate one another..." But my feeling is: Who wants to be tolerated? People don't want to be tolerated; they want to be loved.

I personally don't think that any Christian who doesn't have a friend -- not just a token friend, but someone they love and care about -- who is gay should speak out about the gay issue. I think that should almost be a requirement to publicly voice your opinion, because I can't tell you how it changes your posture and your language when you're not just talking about a "behavior" or a "faithless" group of people, but a family member or loved one -- someone who, when you're done saying what you're going to say, you'll have to deal with.

"Showering with homosexuals"

2010-12-22T12:49:00.000-08:00

Even before President Obama signed the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell today, I've been hearing objections from conservatives that "now our straight servicemembers will have to shower with homosexuals." Like, the repeal of DADT means we're now going to usher in the new homosexual brigade and dump them naked on our straight men and women in the showers and make everyone too scared to undress in the lockers ever again.

Well, I've got news for you, people. The repeal of DADT means our servicemembers will have to shower with the exact same people they have already been showering with for the past year, or two years, or five years, or however long they've been in the service. In other words, they have already been showering with homosexuals. The only difference is that because DADT has been repealed, the threat of being kicked out of the military for having one's sexual orientation revealed relieves the gay serviceperson from the pressure of having to keep quiet about his or her identity. As a result, this may increase the likelihood that he or she would make their gay identity known to others. On the other hand, the gay individual might just choose to keep quiet about it, while enjoying greater peace of mind knowing that being outed won't bring dire consequences. Other than that, everything goes on as usual.

Servicemembers who fought in the Gulf War showered with homosexuals. Same with those who served in Vietnam, in the Korean War, in World War II, and as far back as the history of locker room showers goes. High school football players shower with homosexuals. College kids living in the dorms shower with homosexuals. NBA superstars shower with homosexuals. Considering how much peaceful showering with homosexuals goes on every day all over the country, it would appear that gay men and women have been handling themselves appropriately in America's locker rooms. Why should it be any different in the military, just because the homosexuals that people are already showering with are no longer being forced into the closet under the threat of expulsion?

Senate repeals DADT

2010-12-18T15:26:00.000-08:00

Brings tears to my eyes. President Obama promises to sign it into law next week.

Cartoon HT: Andrew Sullivan

Jon Stewart on DADT

2010-12-16T11:18:00.000-08:00

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Moral Kombat

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>

The Daily Show on Facebook

Sorry for the light blogging lately. When the holidays are upon me, I feel like I've been hit by a tornado. I have no idea what's going to happen with the current attempt to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, but it's reminded me of one of my favorite Jon Stewart clips from last year (keep watching, he'll get to it at 3:14).

The caveman factor

2010-12-13T11:58:00.000-08:00

John Shore thinks hatred of gays has to do with power, not sex. I'll leave it to a straight man to explain this one.

Latest followers of this blog, I salute you.

2010-11-29T13:42:00.000-08:00

Craig DeLoach

trashy2008

Sean Maney

don prewitt

Rethinking Christian love

2010-11-22T14:40:00.000-08:00

People complain that Christians do a poor job of loving their neighbors, that for a bunch of self-professed followers of Jesus we rarely come off as very Jesus-like. But from an insider's perspective that's not such a big surprise considering all the hurdles you have to clear as a Christian just to obey what Jesus referred to as the second greatest commandment. The stumbling blocks come from the teaching you get at the average evangelical church. Honestly, the advice that I've come away with over the years on how to love people is probably the exact opposite of what Jesus actually meant and practiced. And after you've invested huge chunks time and energy believing this misguided advice, the process of figuring out how to deprogram from all the bad habits and how to adopt a more common sense approach while fighting the guilt that past sermons have instilled in you can take the rest of your living life.

You're told that your main approach in loving people should be confronting them with the gospel message, and you must put that front and center of every personal contact you have because, after all, if you don't care about someone's eternal destiny how can you say you care about them at all? How loving would it be if you just sat in the safety of your lifeboat and watched someone drown, huh? And so you file out of church service with the crowd, feeling determined to love the world by sounding an alarm. Your love takes on a shrill tone.

But after awhile you realize that your emergency broadcast is being ignored, which is when you take the next step of looking for ways to convince people that the crisis really does exist. They don't know they're drowning, so you gotta convince them. Now your love becomes argumentative and sales-pitchy. It's like talking to the Amway guy. "Hey, let me enlighten you. Let me show you what Jesus can offer. Don't run away, you haven't heard the whole story. I promise, it gets better!" Your concern for people's souls morphs easily into a concern for the sins in people's lives. Pointing out sin is a way of pointing out their need of salvation. It's all part of the argument: "See, I told you you were a sinner and this proves it." It gets to where you can hardly restrain yourself from delighting that you have an example of solid sin in this person's life that you can use to press home your very important point of how much they need Jesus.

Strangely, in pursuing a certain definition of "love," one coldly logical step leads to the next and pretty you never notice just how far you've strayed from the Bible's teaching on how to relate to others: "Do not judge, lest you be judged." "Love is patient and kind, . . . it is not rude." "However you want to be treated, so treat others." "As far as it is possible, be at peace with all men." Where did you go wrong? At which fork in the road did you take the spiraling path downward until you became--in the name of love--the preachy, self-righteous person that no one in the lunchroom wants to sit with?

The problem is you've been blind. The example of Jesus has been right there in front of you the whole time. And even though Jesus ought to know how to lead people to salvation, because he is salvation after all, for whatever reason you've chosen to listen to voices which you have judged to be wiser than his. "It's okay to love people, as long as you let them know where you stand . . . as long as you don't compromise on 'the truth' . . . as long as you don't give the impression you approve of their sin." As long as, as long as, as long as. Did Jesus cripple his love for others with so much fearfulness and petty concern for himself? Love was once a living, breathing thing, but now that we have surrounded it like a dangerous animal and poked and prodded it to death with our long sticks, it's become pale and limp, drained of all its blood. Love cannot be love when it is self-protective, self-serving, and pursuing an agenda for someone else's life.

Love always puts the other person first, their feelings, their comfort, their needs. Love meets them where they're at, understands things from their perspective, relates to their weaknesses, sits quietly with them in their sorrows, listens when spoken to, helps when asked, and sees the real human being beneath the bluster and folly. To do this you have to be unselfish, and tough. There is nothing wimpy or mushy or compromising about it. Jesus embodied this kind of love without people mistaking his compassion for compromise. He didn't become a "liberal" who thought sin didn't matter anymore. Quite the opposite, people became vulnerable before him. They felt their sinfulness in his presence. It is not judgment but kindness that leads people to repentance.

Love is supreme because it is the closest people come to having a direct encounter with God. When you love people the way they should be loved, they feel God's touch upon their souls. That does not happen by arguing or condemning. People don't come to know God by assenting to your prescribed list of theological tenets. They come to know him through your love. Brace every nerve in your body to have patience with their faults. Stretch every creative brain cell to imagine life from their perspective, to have sympathy and understanding. Let down the self-protective guard. Don't have all the answers. Get stepped on. Find yourself frequently ill-used. And be a blessing in someone else's life.

Talking to my kids about the "h" word

2010-10-22T08:59:00.000-07:00

For those of you who might have missed this YouTube, this is one of the great moments that has come out of the recent public discussions on gay teen suicides. Check it out.

So let's advance the discussion beyond what school administrators should be doing and what gay teens can do for themselves. What about regular old parents who send our kids to school? I'd imagine that how we raise our kids has everything to do with being a part of the solution. I've had other parents ask me (significantly lowering their voice at this point) whether I discuss the issue of homosexuality with my children. My answer: of course. With one child in middle school and another one about to enter middle school next year, I know that they might learn about other kids coming out as gay. I want them to understand what that means and how to respond to it.

I started laying the groundwork long ago by introducing our kids to a few of my friends who were gay when they were small. I didn't mention anything like "this person is gay" but I just let the kids get to know them for who they were. They would also hear during our family prayer times that I wanted prayer for friends of mine who are planning to come out to parents or who got kicked out of their churches. As the kids got older they'd ask why someone would get rejected by family or friends for being gay. What's gay? That's when I'd explain. That was also an opportunity to say, "Remember Mr. So-and-So who helped you with your science project? He's gay. Do you also remember Mr. So-and-So who gave you those nice chairs? He's also gay."

Most parents start wigging out at the thought of explaining homosexuality to their grade-school-aged kids. I'm not sure if it's because they think they have to talk about gay sex, or because they are afraid they'd be planting doubts into their kids' minds about their own sexuality if the existence of homosexuality were acknowledged. For what it's worth, here's how I've approached it.

First off, you don't have to talk to your kids about sex acts. Particularly if you are raising your kids as Christians, they are probably fairly sheltered and naive about that kind of stuff anyhow. Even when kids make crude sexual jokes in grade school, they don't have the slightest idea what they're talking about. Whether it's gay sex or straight sex, it's all gross and unfathomable to them anyhow, so don't feel an obligation to address it. Besides, sex is not really the issue here.

The issue is feelings. Talking about feelings is a good place to start if your seven or eight year-old asks about homosexuality--or just sexuality in general. I point to the story of Cinderella or any other well known prince and princess story. Kids understand that there's a special loving feeling that attracts a man and a woman in such stories. I explain that some people have those kinds of loving feelings except it's between two men and two women. I also explain that people who experience homosexual feelings can't help it and don't know where the feelings come from, so it's not like they're trying to be different on purpose.

But will bringing up homosexuality raise questions in a kid's mind about whether he or she is homosexual? Sure, my kids have asked about that. I just tell them that most people are heterosexual and chances are they are too, so don't worry about it. The reason I tell my kids that is not because I know for sure that they will turn out straight, but because there's no point in speculating about something when it's too early to tell anyhow. Encouraging them not to worry about it is the best way for them to avoid mind games, which can get in the way when it comes time later on to evaluate honestly whether they are gay or straight or bi or whatever. I also tell them that if they do come to an awareness of being gay at some point, I will love them just the same and nothing will change, so that's another reason not to worry. Since they already see how much I care about my gay and lesbian friends, I trust that they know I'm not just speaking empty words.

Because we raise the kids as Christians, of course they ask me about what the Bible teaches. I simply explain to them my personal view, which I've explained many times on this blog and you're welcome to skip this paragraph if it bores you. I tell them that because we live in a fallen world, some people find that their feelings are directed toward people of the same sex instead of the opposite sex, so it's true that homosexuality doesn't fit into what God had originally planned for humanity. But then, none of us can live up to God's original plan for us as human beings, so we shouldn't be singling out gay and lesbian people as if we're somehow doing better than they are. What's more, even though the Bible teaches that marriage should be between a man and a woman, it also teaches that loving one another is the most important thing, and since gay couples really do love each other, how condemning do you want to be of that? I just try to impress upon them that being true to the whole of the Bible's teaching quite often means that the answers don't come easily.

There is a payoff to having all these at-home conversations (which, by the way, should never become preachy or overbearing, but should happen gradually over a period of years). For one thing, your kids should know that you will always love them, that you've thought ahead to all the different scenarios of how they might turn out and you've already decided that nothing will stand in the way of your love for them. For another, with all the hatred and bullying that goes on in our schools today, you want your kids to be a positive influence, a voice reason and understanding among their friends, even their Christian friends. I may not be able to control what the other kids do, but as a parent I have to focus on raising my own kids to contribute positively to society. You do your part and hope that other people are doing theirs.

"Washed and Waiting"

2010-10-01T09:27:00.000-07:00

My friend Wesley Hill has written his first book, Washed and Waiting, which arrived fresh off the press and at my doorstep via UPS about ten days ago. I had the privilege of reviewing the manuscript when it was still in its early stages 2 1/2 years ago and am gratified to see it now in such elegant form, a short-and-sweet volume of 153 pages, containing reflections that are spiritual, personal and even poetic.

It probably isn't going to make most people happy, yet that's exactly why I think it needed to be written. Wesley writes an unapologetically Side B story of his own journey. By Side B I mean that he is gay, Christian and celibate. He does not offer an ex-gay testimony to satisfy straight evangelical conservatives, nor does he speak approvingly of his homosexuality to satisfy gay Christians who affirm same-sex relationships. This book was written for the benefit of those very few Christians who walk the narrow path that he walks, and offers them a sense of companionship on the way.

Woven into Wesley's own story is the inspiration he has found in the stories of two other highly respected Christian men, Henri Nouwen and Gerard Manley Hopkins, whose private struggles with homosexuality and with living celibate were little known during their lifetimes. There are no magic solutions offered here, no eureka moments that would enable one to coast the rest of the way through the pearly gates. If you view your homosexuality as sinful and you don't see any possibility of change, you know there are no pat answers to your situation. But what you will gain--what I hope you will gain if you are a Side B Christian--is encouragement from knowing you aren't alone, that others have walked this path before you and are walking it even now.

But this book has something to say to straight Christians too. These days there is a lot of arguing in the conservative church about how you can't be gay and Christian. People who talk this way have a certain definition of "gay" but they also have a certain definition of "Christian." In their eyes, anyone who believes that the Bible does not condemn same-sex relationships is a liberal whose faith doesn't have to be taken seriously. That's a debate for another day. But with Wesley's book you don't have to read too far before you realize that he not only holds to a very conservative position on homosexuality, but his theological knowledge and breadth of Scriptural understanding far surpasses the average pew-sitter. This isn't someone you can dismiss as a "liberal." Even the title, Washed and Waiting, is a profound theological expression of how he views his current status: one who is already justified (washed), but is not yet glorified (waiting). If only more of us would have to humility to embrace the status of "washed and waiting," instead of viewing ourselves as "having arrived and waiting for others to catch up."

And so what also interests me about the book is how it speaks indirectly to the straight conservative Christian who may be skeptical about whether someone really could be gay and Christian. And beyond that it also addresses straight Christians who may have gotten as far as accepting the "gay Christian" label but might be tempted to view celibacy as a simple, one-size-fits-all solution for everyone. Wesley shows that he has embraced the call to celibacy but that walking the path is hardly simple. He tells stories about all the straight Christian friends he has had to lean on for support and speaks of the church as his spiritual family he needs to fill the void of loneliness. He draws upon a deep Christocentric theology of patience, suffering and sanctification to sustain hope through his personal struggles. As a straight Christian reader you wonder again and again, "Could I do this? Could I walk in Wesley's shoes?" and, "Maybe I could support someone who feels called to this, but could I demand such a thing of my brothers and sisters in Christ?"

Wesley decided to write this book because as a gay, celibate Christian he could find nothing on the bookshelves that spoke to his need for wisdom, encouragement and spiritual reflection in the midst of his raw struggle. I know a lot of you out there have been looking for a book like this as well. I hope that you will take away from this volume not only Wesley's insights, but wisdom from Nouwen, Hopkins, and the many other voices that are woven together here in a grand conversation about suffering, sanctification, longing and hope.

"The (Confusing?) Power of the Devout Gay Christian"

2010-09-29T09:41:00.000-07:00

Amen, let the confusion begin. Thanks, John Shore.

Buried

2010-09-23T07:51:00.000-07:00

Sorry for being scarce. After I finished my summary of the Prop. 8 ruling, I had to dive straight into writing my lecture series for our church's upcoming women's retreat. Been doing that day and night every spare moment, in between taking care of the younger kids, helping my oldest with her homework in the evenings, and during early morning bouts with insomnia. But I haven't forgotten about this blog and will be posting again soon. Thanks for your patience.

What I got out of reading the Prop. 8 ruling, part 7 of 7

2010-08-30T05:53:00.000-07:00

Last time I covered the Due Process half of the "Conclusions of Law" section. Now I will cover the Equal Protection half. It's a long one, but it's the finale. Aside from some re-wording and reorganizing, I lifted so much of it from the judge's actual words I didn't bother to put any of it in quotes. (If you need to review some of the legal terms, see my introduction to Part 6.)

* * * *

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment says that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This guarantee of equality co-exists with the reality that most laws do treat people unequally because of some reason or other. Now, if a law neither targets a suspect class nor interferes with a fundamental right, it is considered valid as long as it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. The court is very lenient on this point and will even accept rational reasons that are considered debatable, which is why most laws easily survive rational basis review. However, a law has to do more than simply disadvantage or harm a particular group.

Plaintiffs challenge Prop. 8 on the grounds that it discriminates both on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. It prohibits Perry from marrying Stier, a woman, because Perry is also a woman. Perry would not be prohibited if she were a man, therefore Prop. 8 restricts Perry's choice because she is a woman, yet it also restricts her because of her sexual orientation. Her desire to marry another woman arises only because she is a lesbian.

Gays and lesbians have historically been targeted for discrimination because of their sexual orientation. Sex and sexual orientation discrimination are interrelated because the sex of one's chosen partner is a large part of what defines sexual orientation. Proponents argue the Prop. 8 does not target gays and lesbians because its language does not refer to them, but in so arguing they seek to mask their own initiative. Those who choose to marry opposite-sex partners--heterosexuals-- are not restricted by Prop. 8, while those who choose to marry same-sex partners--homosexuals--are restricted. Prop. 8 eliminates a right only a gay man or a lesbian would exercise.

As will soon be demonstrated in detail, the Equal Protection Clause renders Prop. 8 unconstitutional under any standard of review. Therefore, the court does not need to address whether laws classifying on the basis of sexual orientation should be subject to a heightened standard of review. (In other words, the court was ready to address whether sexual orientation qualifies as a suspect class, and thus whether Prop. 8 should be subject to strict scrutiny, but now it's not necessary).

The evidence shows that gays and lesbians are the type of minority that strict scrutiny was designed to protect, since they have experienced a history of unequal treatment and have been disadvantaged by stereotypes that misrepresent them. The trial record shows that strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review to apply to classifications based on sexual orientation, since California would rarely, if ever, have a reason to categorize individuals because of their sexual orientation. Here, however, strict scrutiny is unnecessary. Prop. 8 fails to survive even rational basis review.

Proponents have put forward six purported interests. The court will examine each one in turn:

Purported interest #1: Reserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman and excluding any other relationship. Proposition 8 is rational because it preserves 1) the traditional institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman; 2) the traditional social and legal purposes, functions, and structure of marriage; 3) The traditional meaning of marriage as it has always been defined in the English language.

Court examination: Tradition alone cannot form the rational basis for a law. The evidence shows that the tradition of gender restrictions arose when spouses were legally required to adhere to specific gender roles, and California has since eliminated all legally mandated gender roles except that marriage consist of one man and one woman. Prop. 8 enshrines a gender restriction that is an artifact of a past notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life. Prop. 8 harms the state's interest in equality by mandating that men and women be treated differently on the basis of discredited notions of gender.

Tradition alone cannot legitimate preferring opposite-sex couples to same-sex couples. The state has no interest in such preference, nor in disadvantaging an unpopular minority group simply because they are unpopular. Proponents' asserted state interests in tradition are nothing more than tautologies and do not amount to rational bases for Prop. 8.

Purported interest #2: Proceeding with caution when implementing social changes. Proposition 8 is related to state interests in: 1) acting incrementally and with caution when considering a radical transformation to the fundamental nature of a bedrock social institution; 2) decreasing the probability of weakening the institution of marriage; 3) decreasing the probability of adverse consequences that could result from weakening the institution of marriage; 4) decreasing the probability of the potential adverse consequences of same-sex marriage.

Court examination: Plaintiffs presented evidence at trial that sufficiently rebutted any claim that same-sex marriage amounts to a sweeping social change. Rather, evidence shows that same-sex marriage would have a neutral, if not positive, effect on the institution of marriage, and that the rights of those who oppose homosexuality or same-sex couples will remain unaffected.

Proponents have presented no reliable evidence that same-sex marriage will have any negative effects on society or the institution of marriage. California does not need to restructure any institution to allow same-sex couples to marry, nor does it need any lead time to integrate same-sex couples into marriage. Allowing same-sex couples to marry is simple for California to implement because it has already done so. Prop. 8 is therefore not rationally related to proponents' purported interests in proceeding with caution when implementing social change.

Purported interest #3: Promoting opposite-sex parenting over same-sex parenting. Proposition 8 1) promotes stability and responsibility in naturally procreative relationships; 2) promotes enduring and stable family structures for the responsible raising and care of children by their biological parents; 3) increases the probability that natural procreation will occur within stable, enduring, and supporting family structures; 4) promotes the natural and mutually beneficial bond between parents and their biological children; 5) increases the probability that each child will be raised by both of his or her biological parents; 6) increases the probability that each child will be raised by both a father and a mother; 7) increases the probability that each child will have a legally recognized father and mother.

Court examination: The trial evidence supports two points: 1) Same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents are of equal quality; 2) Prop. 8 does not make it more likely that opposite-sex couples will marry and raise offspring biologically related to both parents.

Evidence shows that children's developmental outcomes have nothing to do with their parents' genders. Moreover Prop. 8 has nothing to do with children; it only prevents same-sex couples from marrying. Prop. 8 does not affect who can or should become a parent under California law.

If proponents are seeking to encourage sexual activity within marriage so that reproduction will occur within stable households, Prop. 8 actually discourages that norm because it requires some sexual activity and child-bearing and child-rearing to occur outside of marriage. Because of Prop. 8, same-sex couples are not permitted to engage in sexual activity within marriage. Domestic partnerships are separate from marriage and thus codify California's encouragement of non-marital sexual activity.

Far from advancing a state interest in encouraging the formation of stable households, Prop. 8 makes it less likely that California children will be raised in stable households. The inability to marry denies same-sex couples the benefits, including stability, attendant to marriage. There is no credible evidence that Prop. 8 will make opposite-sex households more stable. None of the interests put forth by proponents relating to parents and children is advanced by Prop. 8; rather Prop. 8 disadvantages families and their children.

Purported interest #4: Protecting the freedom of those who oppose marriage for same-sex couples. Proposition 8 1) preserves the prerogative and responsibility of parents to provide for the ethical and moral development and education of their own children; 2) accommodates the First Amendment rights of individuals and institutions that oppose same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds.

Court examination: These purported interests fail as a matter of law, for Prop. 8 does not affect any First Amendment right or responsibility of parents to educate their children. The California anti-discrimination law requires identical treatment for same-sex unions and opposite-sex marriages. Prop. 8 does nothing more than eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California, and does not affect the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or to same-sex marriage. As for saying that one of the rights of those opposed to same-sex unions is the right to prevent same-sex couples from marrying, the private moral views of individuals are not a sufficient basis upon which to single out a group of people for unequal treatment.

Purported interest #5: Treating same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples. Proposition 8 advances state interest by: 1) using different names for different things; 2) maintaining the flexibility to separately address the needs of different types of relationships; 3) ensuring that California marriages are recognized in other jurisdictions; 4) conforming California's definition of marriage to federal law.

Court examination: Here, proponents assume a premise that the evidence thoroughly rebutted: rather than being different, same-sex and opposite-sex couples are, for all purposes relevant to California law, exactly the same. Only moral and religious views form the basis for the belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples. The evidence undermines any purported state interest in treating couple differently.

Proponents appear to claim that Prop. 8 eases administrative burdens associated with issuing and recognizing marriage licenses, but in fact Prop. 8 creates an administrative burden because California must maintain the parallel institution of domestic partnerships for same-sex couples to provide the equivalent rights and benefits afforded to married couples. Prop. 8 thus hinders rather than advances administrative convenience.

Purported interest #6: The catchall interest. Proposition 8 advances any other conceivable legitimate interests identified by the parties, amici, or the court at any stage of the proceedings.

Court examination: Proponents, amici and the court, despite ample opportunity and a full trial, have failed to identify any rational basis Prop. 8 could conceivably advance. Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples. None of the legitimate interests are related to the classification drawn by Prop. 8. The evidence shows that, by every available metric, opposite-sex couples are not better than same-sex couples. As partners, parents, and citizens opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are equal. Prop. 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it does not treat them equally.

Since the proponents could present no rational basis for Prop. 8, what's left is the inference that Prop. 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples are simply not as good as opposite-sex couples. Whether that belief is based upon of moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus toward gays and lesbians, or the superiority of opposite-sex couples, it is not a proper basis upon which to legislate. The campaign to pass Prop. 8 relied heavily on negative stereotypes about gays and lesbians and on the idea that children need to be protected from them. It played on the fear that exposure to homosexuality would turn children into homosexuals, and implied that parents should dread having children who are not heterosexual.

The evidence shows that Prop. 8 was a hard fought campaign and that the majority of California voters supported the initiative. The arguments surrounding Prop. 8 raise a question similar to that addressed in Lawrence v Texas, when the Court asked whether a majority of citizens could use the power of the state to enforce "profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles" through the criminal code. The question here is whether California voters can enforce those same principles through the regulation of marriage licenses. They cannot.

The proponents' purported rationales amount to nothing more than post-hoc justifications. While the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit post-hoc rationales, they must connect to the classification drawn. Here, the purported state interests fit so poorly with Prop. 8, they are irrational.

Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis for denying rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows that Prop. 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples. Prop. 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without rational justification and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In conclusion, Prop. 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of marriage licenses. Prop. 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the idea that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Prop. 8 prevents California from fulfilling its obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional.

Another Republican ally

2010-08-27T10:38:00.000-07:00

To me the most significant part of this story is not just that Ken Mehlman is the most powerful Republican in history to come out as gay, but he is doing so because he wants to become an advocate for gay marriage. It's a good sign that his family, friends and colleagues have been supportive. A well-positioned Republican can do a lot of good for the cause of gay rights, as Ted Olson has already shown. More power to him.

What I got out of reading the Prop. 8 ruling, part 6 of 7

2010-08-27T05:11:00.000-07:00

We're through with the "Findings of Fact" and now we move to the final section, the "Conclusions of Law." I've decided to break my coverage of this section into two posts. Today I'll spend some time prepping you by reviewing the legal terms once again, which are critical to understanding the judge's conclusion, and then I will summarize the "Due Process" half of this conclusion. In my final post I will summarize the "Equal Protection" half.

So let's do some review. The plaintiffs' case against Proposition 8 is that it violates both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If you read Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, it says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That part I italicized contains the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Due process protects individuals against arbitrary government intrusion into life, liberty or property. In other words it has to do with interfering with a fundamental right. Equal protection has to do with treating all citizens equally under the law, since we believe that "all men are created equal."

Of course, more often than not, laws have to treat citizens unequally (for instance, allowing 18 year-olds to drive but not 12 year-olds). But when a law does classify one group to be treated differently than another, that classification must be subject to what's called rational basis review. This means showing that the law's unequal treatment a certain classification of people is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. And by the way, even a hypothetical government interest will do. Usually, showing that a law can pass the standard of rational basis review is a piece of cake.

Now here's the critical point. If you can demonstrate that a law interferes with a fundamental right (Due Process), or that a law denies the Equal Protection of a suspect class (more on that in a minute), then it has to do more than just pass rational basis review. You can't come up with any old government interest to justify such a law, but you have to show that it survives what's called strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny means demonstrating that this law serves a "compelling government interest" (national security at stake; multiple lives in danger; doesn't violate constitutional protections). And not only that, but it must be "narrowly tailored" to achieve that government interest using the "least restrictive means." So if the law isn't directly on target to achieve this compelling interest, if it either does too much or too little, then it won't pass strict scrutiny. It gets the eject button.

Strict scrutiny, then, is applied in two cases: 1) when a law interferes with a fundamental right, or 2) when a law denies equal protection to a suspect class. Now a suspect class is not just any old group of people but a specially protected classification of person. Currently the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes race, national origin and alienage (that is, being a foreigner) as suspect classifications, meaning that any law that targets a group of people because of their race, national origin or alien status to be treated unequally must pass the highest standard of scrutiny (strict scrutiny). Currently, sexual orientation is not on the list of suspect classifications.

Okay, now for the conclusion of the ruling. Before we dive into the details, I'll give you a one paragraph summary of the whole thing. The plaintiffs challenged Prop. 8 on two grounds: 1) it interferes with their fundamental right to marry (contra Due Process), 2) it discriminates against gays and lesbians, targeting them because of their sexual orientation (contra Equal Protection). Because Prop. 8 interfered with a fundamental right (the right to marry the person of one's choice), strict scrutiny was applied. On that count Prop. 8 failed. As for Equal Protection the judge said the plaintiffs presented enough evidence to show that sexual orientation ought to be treated as a suspect class, and therefore strict scrutiny should also be applied here. However, because the proponents failed to show how Prop. 8 met even the standard of rational basis review (the "piece of cake" standard,) it wasn't necessary to make the case for sexual orientation as a suspect classification. In other words, this was a slam dunk for the plaintiffs.

(As a side note, even if the judge did overreach in his conclusions under heading #3 of the "Findings of Fact" (see my criticisms in the last post), the overall case was so overwhelming in the plaintiffs' favor, the question of whether the judge did overreach has become ultimately irrelevant, it seems to me.)

* * * *

Now, my summary of the Due Process half of the "Conclusions of Law":

"Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."

The Due Process Clause recognizes the freedom to marry as a fundamental right. The parties don't question whether the right to marry is fundamental; the question presented is whether the plaintiffs are seeking the right to marry or, because they are of the same sex, whether they seek recognition of a new right.

Throughout history marriage has retained certain characteristics: two parties freely consent to form a relationship; this relationship becomes the foundation of a household; the spouses consent to support each other and any dependents. The State regulates marriage because marriage creates stable households which in turn create a stable and governable populace. The State recognizes the individual's choice to build a family and that this is a central part of that individual's life. The State has never inquired into the procreative capacity or intent of the couple before granting a marriage license, recognizing that marriage is more than a license for procreative sexual intercourse.

At one time there were race restrictions on marital partners, as well as the requirement that a woman's legal identity be subsumed by her husband's under the doctrine of coverture. The lifting of such restrictions and requirements did not change the definition of the right to marry. Race restrictions are now recognized has having stood in stark contrast to the ideas of liberty and choice inherent in the right to marry. The movement of marriage away from state-mandated gender roles "reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage."

In the State's eyes, gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage, since it sees marriage as a union of equals. Same-sex couples are equally capable of performing their marriage obligations as opposite-sex couples. The right to marry is the right to choose a spouse and join together to form a household with mutual consent. The plaintiffs are not seeking recognition of a new right. To characterize their objective as "the right to same-sex marriage" suggests that they are seeking something different than what opposite-sex couples enjoy. "Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages."

The availability of domestic partnerships does not fulfill California's due process obligation to same-sex couples. California maintains two separate and parallel institutions that provide essentially the same rights and obligations: the historic, highly respected institution of marriage; and the new, unfamiliar and less socially meaningful institution of domestic partnership. Domestic partnerships are only available to opposite-sex couples if one partner is at least sixty-two years old (for the benefit of those eligible for benefits under the Social Security Act). But other than this exception, "California allows almost all opposite-sex couples only one option--marriage--and all same-sex couples only one option--domestic partnership."

Domestic partnerships do not fulfill California's due process obligation to plaintiffs because 1) domestic partnerships are distinct from marriage and don't have the same social meaning, and 2) they were created specifically so California could offer to same-sex couples the rights and benefits of marriage while withholding marriage from them. "California does not meet its due process obligation to allow plaintiffs to marry by offering them a substitute and inferior institution that denies marriage to same-sex couples."

Because plaintiffs seek to exercise the fundamental right to marry, their claim is subject to strict scrutiny. However, as will be shown later in the Equal Protection analysis, Proposition 8 cannot even withstand rational basis review. "The minimal evidentiary presentation made by proponents does not meet the heavy burden of production necessary to show that Proposition 8 is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest." Moreover, the fact that the majority of California voters supported Prop. 8 is irrelevant since "fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcomes of no elections" (West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette).

* * * *

Next up: my summary of the Equal Protection half of the "Conclusions of Law."

What I got out of reading the Prop. 8 ruling, part 5 of 7

2010-08-22T22:47:00.000-07:00

Sorry that getting "part 5" to you has taken so long. It's just that I've had an agonizingly troublesome time connecting the dots of the argument, and in the end I've had to conclude that some of it doesn't quite hold together. That's just my amateur, honest opinion. I'll leave you to come to your own conclusion.

Let me explain my problem. This body of evidence intends to show that Prop. 8 enacted a "private moral view" and not a "legitimate government interest." If I'm reading this correctly, it's saying that the evidence shows voters voted on the basis of their personal moral disapproval of homosexuality, not on the basis of a broader State interest. Frankly, I think there's a whole lot of truth in that. The problem is, I don't see any evidence presented here that conclusively reveals the inner mind and motivation of California voters who approved of Prop. 8. (For example, the results of a poll asking, "Why did you vote 'yes' on Prop 8? Check the top two reasons in the list below".) The only conclusion I can draw from the evidence here is that the Prop 8 campaign used stereotypes--in a climate and culture that already discriminates against gays and lesbians--to play upon the fears and prejudices of the population, particularly upon religious people, whose moral disapproval of homosexuality made them especially prone to those fears, stereotypes and prejudices. The way the campaign was conducted greatly increased the likelihood that people would vote based on a private moral view--but that's about all you can say for certain. Again, my gut tells me that this suspicion is correct, but to justify that conclusion you need conclusive evidence.

There's one more difficulty I had with this section. One of the key "findings" under this heading is this: "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians"--and some of the evidence listed include simply the doctrinal statements of certain conservative denominations (Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Free Methodist Church, Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and Orthodox Church of America). This is such a bizarre statement for a judge to affirm. I can agree that religious beliefs combined with harmful political action do harm. But to say that the beliefs themselves do harm to another person goes against the entire basis of the First Amendment. Of course people have the freedom to think and say what they want, and that freedom cuts both ways, but we draw the line where harm is actually being done. My entire purpose in this blog is to be an example of a Christian who does as much good as I can do for the gay and lesbian community even though I privately believe homosexual practice is sinful. Needless to say, I was disappointed with this one part of the Findings.

* * * *

III. Whether the evidence shows that Proposition 8 enacted a private moral view without advancing a legitimate government interest.

Proposition 8 has no other legal effect than to bar a man from marrying a man and woman from marrying a woman. Thus it places the force of law behind stigmas that already exist against gays and lesbians in society, such as the belief that gays and lesbians don't have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples, that they are not as good as heterosexuals, and that their relationships don't deserve the full recognition of society. Prop. 8 requires California to treat same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples, and it reserves the most socially valued form of relationship, namely marriage, for opposite-sex couples.

Prop. 8 has the effect of codifying distinct roles for men and women in marriage (the evidence here is largely the rhetoric of the Protect Marriage campaign, not the history of coverture as I would have expected, so I suppose what is meant is that such roles would be codified in the perception of the public). It does not affect the First Amendment rights of religious groups that don't want to recognize same-sex couples. In other words, religion is no more protected as a result of Prop. 8 than before.

Economically, Prop. 8 has a negative fiscal impact on the state and local governments. It increases costs and decreases wealth for same-sex couples because of increased tax burdens, decreased availability of health insurance, and higher transactions costs to secure rights typically afforded to married couples. There are also the costs that can't be measured, the overall impact of discrimination upon a human life. "What we're really talking about . . . [are] the long-term costs of discrimination as a way that weakens people's productivity and integration into the labor force. Whether it's weakening their education because they're discriminated against at school, or leading them to excessive reliance on behavioral and other health services, these are impacts that are hard to quantify . . . . How much healthier you are over your lifetime. How much wealth you generate because you are in a partnership."

By singling out gays and lesbians for unequal treatment, Prop. 8 perpetuates negative stereotypes that gays and lesbians aren't capable of forming long-term relationships and are not good parents. The fact of unequal treatment is a frequent reminder for gays and lesbians in committed, long-term relationships that their relationship aren't as valued as opposite-sex relationships. As for whether same-sex couples make good parents, research shows that whether a child is well-adjusted depends upon the quality of a child's relationship with his or her parents and the availability of economic and social resources. The fact that gender and sexual orientation do not determine whether someone can be a good parent is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology. Studies also show that having both a male and a female parent and having a genetic relationship between a parent and a child do not increase the likelihood a child will be well adjusted.

Gays and lesbians have been victims of a long history of discrimination and still experience discrimination today. "[O]ver the last five years there has actually been an increase in violence directed toward gay men and lesbians." In 2008 hate crimes against gays and lesbians accounted for "71 percent of all hate-motivated murders" and "[f]ifty-five percent of all hate-motivated rapes." "There is simply no other person in society who endures the likelihood of being harmed as a consequence of their identity than a gay man or lesbian." Well-known stereotypes exist about gay men and lesbians, that they are affluent, self-absorbed, incapable of forming long-term relationships, and are disease vectors or child molesters who recruit young children into homosexuality. "'[I]n some ways, the most dangerous stereotypes for homosexuals really developed between the 1930s and '50s, when there were a series of press and police campaigns that identified homosexuals as child molesters.' These press campaigns . . . focused on sex perverts or sex deviants. Through these campaigns, the homosexual emerged as a sex deviant."

Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians. "Religions teach that homosexual relations are a sin and that contributes to gay bashing." A CNN exit poll showed that "84 percent of people who attended church weekly voted in favor of Proposition 8." Quoting Catholics for the Common Good: "[a]llowing children to be adopted by persons living in [same-sex] unions would actually mean doing violence to these children" and "legal recognition of homosexual unions . . . would mean . . . the approval of deviant behavior." The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod teaches that "homosexuality is a sinful distortion of [the Lord's] desire that one man and one woman live together in marriage as husband and wife." The Orthodox Church of America teaches that "homosexuality is to be approached as the result of humanity's rebellion against God."

Stereotypes and misinformation have resulted in social and legal disadvantages for gays and lesbians. The "Save Our Children" campaign led by Baptist singer Anita Bryant revived stereotypes of homosexuals as child molesters. The term "gay agenda" was mobilized in the late '80s and early '90s to pick up on long-standing stereotypes and create the idea of a unitary agenda. "[I]f a group is envisioned as being somehow . . . morally inferior, a threat to children, a threat to freedom, if there's these deeply-seated beliefs, then the range of compromise is dramatically limited. It's very difficult to engage in the give-and-take of the legislative process when I think you are an inherently bad person."

The Prop. 8 campaign tapped into fears created by these stereotypes, suggesting that children exposed to same-sex marriage might become gay or lesbian, and that parents should dread having a gay or lesbian child. "One of the enduring . . . tropes of anti-gay argumentation has been that gays are a threat to children . . . [I]n the Prop 8 campaign [there] was a campaign advertisement saying, . . . 'At school today, I was told that I could marry a princess too.' And the underlying message of that is that . . . if Prop 8 failed, the public schools are going to turn my daughter into a lesbian." Parents in Massachusetts claim that in their schools "homosexuality and gay marriage will soon be taught and promoted in every subject, including math, reading, social studies and spelling." Frank Schubert and Jeff Flint wrote in the article, "Passing Prop 8" in Politics magazine:

[P]assing Proposition 8 would depend on our ability to convince voters that same-sex marriage had broader implications for Californians and was not only about the two individuals involved in a committed gay relationship . . . . We probed long and hard in countless focus groups and surveys to explore reactions to a variety of consequences our issue experts identified . . . . [One area we focused on was] how this new 'fundamental right' would be inculcated in young children through public schools . . . . [Californians] would entertain allowing gay marriage, but not if doing so had significant implications for the rest of society . . . . The Prop 8 victory proves something that readers of Politics magazine know very well: campaigns matter."

What I got out of reading the Prop. 8 ruling, part 4 of 7

2010-08-16T09:51:00.000-07:00

Last time I summarized the evidence of the first heading under the "Findings of Fact." Under heading #2 I will also try to summarize the evidence in a way that connects it with the judge's rationale in the "Conclusions of Law" section:

II. Whether any evidence shows California has an interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions.

The evidence first establishes some pretty basic things: the existence of same-sex love and intimacy, the definition of sexual orientation, and the fact that the vast majority of people are consistent in their sexual orientation, attraction and behavior. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person's identity and therefore becomes a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. The proponents argue that sexual orientation cannot be defined, but that claim seems disingenuous considering the Prop. 8 campaign was built upon the assumption that voters understood that homosexuals existed as a distinct group from heterosexuals.

Could gays and lesbians change their sexual orientation? (Here the presentation of evidence seems to be addressing the question of whether gays and lesbians, as a group, need to exist in the first place. Couldn't they just become heterosexuals?) There is no credible evidence that an individual can change, whether through conscious decision, therapy or other methods, even though social stigma has motivated many people to desire change. For the most part gay men and lesbians say they had little choice in the matter of their sexual orientation.

What's more, even if change were possible, the State has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change. According to all the major professional mental health organizations, homosexuality is not a pathology but a normal expression of human sexuality. Same-sex orientation doesn't impair a person's judgment, social skills, vocational skills or parenting skills, and is not related to a person's ability to perform or contribute to society. In other words, the State has no interest in wanting to reduce the number of gays and lesbians in California.

As far as marriage is concerned, all the evidence shows that same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in their ability to form lasting, committed, caring relationships. "Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex." California law already encourages gay couples to become parents through adoption, foster parenting or assistive reproductive technology (18% of same-sex couples in California are raising children under the age of 18, a total of 37,300 children). When you consider that married same-sex couples in Massachusetts report that they receive many of the same benefits that opposite-sex couple receive from marriage--greater sense of commitment in the relationship, more acceptance from extended family, less anxiety over legal problem, greater access to health benefits for themselves and their children--the marriage of same-sex couples would appear to serve rather than conflict with the State's interest.

Now the evidence shifts to considering whether there are alternatives to legalizing same-sex marriage. Couldn't gays and lesbians avail themselves of opposite-sex marriage? What about domestic partnerships, which grants them all the legal benefits of marriage except for the name "marriage"? In other words, at this point the evidence appears to be addressing whether it is necessary for the State to legalize same-sex marriage given that there are legal alternatives already available to gays and lesbians.

First, marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals because such a union would require them to negate their sexual orientation and identity. Gays and lesbians report that they have no attraction or desire to be with a member of the opposite sex, and many opposite-sex marriages they enter into dissolve. Opposite-sex marriage is not a meaningful alternative for them "because sexual orientation is about the relationships people form--it defines the universe of people with whom one is able to form the sort of intimate, committed relationship that would be the basis for marriage."

Second, even though gay men and lesbians are given the option of entering into domestic partnerships, this arrangement lacks the social meaning associated with marriage. In the United States marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment. It is understood as "the principal happy ending in all our romantic tales" and "a destination to be gained by any couple who love one another." When you are married you believe that "you are part of the first class kind of relationship in this country, that you are . . . in the status of relationships that this society most values, most esteems, considers the most legitimate and the most appropriate, undoubtedly has benefits that are not part of domestic partnerships." Many same-sex couples do not register as domestic partners because they view domestic partnerships as second class status.

The category of "domestic partnership" presents legal difficulties because other states may not recognize them and the federal government does not recognize them. As an aside, I struggled with this section a bit, but I believe the evidence here is saying that because domestic partnerships are sort of a made-up category of relationship, in many states there is often no legal recognition of that relationship, and so the law doesn't address what rights or benefits belong to someone who is a "domestic partner." The implication is that since marriage is the relationship that is widely known and universally recognized, granting same-sex couples that status would just legally simplify things for everyone.

Finally, domestic partnerships do not provide gays and lesbians with an equivalent status to marriage because the whole purpose of creating a separate category called "domestic partnerships" is to withhold the cultural significance of marriage and all its associated benefits from same-sex couples. The Attorney General "admits that establishing a separate legal institution for state recognition and support of lesbian and gay families, even if well-intentioned, marginalizes and stigmatizes gay families." Marriage is honored and respected by family, friends, and acquaintances as symbolizing a lifetime commitment, the most important decision you make in your life. A domestic partnership is viewed as just a legal document. In the "Conclusions of Law" the judge writes, "the evidence at trial shows that domestic partnerships exist solely to differentiate same-sex unions from marriages . . . [W]hile domestic partnerships offer same-sex couples almost all of the rights and responsibilities associated with marriage, the evidence shows that the withholding of the designation "marriage" significantly disadvantages plaintiffs. . . California does not meet its due process obligation to allow plaintiffs to marry by offering them a substitute and inferior institution that denies marriage to same-sex couples."

Wrapping it up, the last bit of evidence shows that allowing same-sex couples to marry will not affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages, or the marriage or divorce rates of opposite-sex couples. In Massachusetts the marriage and divorce rates during the four years prior to legalizing same-sex marriage and the four years after proved to be no different. Race, socioeconomic status, education, age at marriage and other similar factors are what affect marriage and divorce rates. Showing that marriage would benefit the children of same-sex couples is also covered, but a lot of that is a repeat of what was said earlier.

Next up: heading #3.

What I got out of reading the Prop. 8 ruling, part 3 of 7

2010-08-12T09:27:00.000-07:00

The witnesses gave their testimonies and now we encounter the "Findings of Fact" section that lists the evidence presented to the court, but not just randomly. The evidence is organized under three main headings:

1. Whether any evidence supports California's refusal to recognize marriage between two people because of their sex.

2. Whether any evidence shows California has an interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions.

3. Whether the evidence shows that Proposition 8 enacted a private moral view without advancing a legitimate government interest.

These three headings encompass sixty-two separate findings, quite a lot. Instead of throwing a list of facts at you, I will attempt to synthesize the most significant findings under each heading into a coherent train of thought, connect the dots if you will. To do this I will be jumping ahead and consulting the "Conclusions of Law" section to help me understand the judge's rationale.

* * * *

I. Whether any evidence supports California's refusal to recognize marriage between two people because of their sex.

This section starts out acknowledging basic facts about civil marriage in the United States: religious leaders don't dictate who may enter or leave a civil marriage; only those who have the legal capacity to consent can marry; and you don't have to be able or willing to procreate to enter into marriage. When California became a state in 1850, marriage laws originally required a husband and a wife. At that time whites and non-whites weren't allowed to marry each other, but later racial restrictions were deemed unconstitutional in California in 1948 (and nationwide in 1967).

In 1850 when California first defined marriage as requiring a husband and a wife, the doctrine of coverture was part of the legal marital bargain. Coverture meant that women, once they were married, "lost their independent legal identity and became the property of their husbands. [This was] once viewed as a central component of the civil institution of marriage." In other words, the woman became absorbed into her husband's legal identity. "She lost her independent legal and economic individuality." The reason for this mutual bargain, into which both parties entered by consent, was that the husband took on the legal responsibility of supporting and providing for his wife, and the wife's part was to serve and obey her husband. She gave him charge of all her earnings and property so he could represent her in court or in any other legal transactions. The basis for this understanding of civil marriage was the assumption of a division of labor along gender lines. The men were seen as suited for being the providers and the women for being the dependents and raising children.

Notice that we're not talking about simply a cultural understanding of marriage, but about State law dictating and enforcing the roles of the spouses along gender lines. To fail in your responsibility as a husband or as a wife would be to violate the legal agreement you made before the State. "In nineteenth century America, marriage was permanent, spousal roles were non-negotiable and divorce 'punished the guilty for criminal conduct' and 'provided a form of public punishment for a spouse who had knowingly and criminally violated his or her public vows of marriage.'"

Starting around the late 19th century, states began to evolve toward recognizing the equality of the sexes, and laws and practices such as coverture were eliminated over time. The shift from the State defining marriage as a male-dominated institution to being an institution that recognizes men and women as equals culminated in the 1970's with no-fault divorce. No-fault divorce epitomized the transformation of the institution of civil marriage because it meant that couples were allowed to define their own roles in the marriage relationship. It meant the State had relinquished its former practice of assigning roles to the spouses and would now allow the couple to divide the marriage responsibilities between themselves as they saw fit.

Now I'm going to do some dot-connecting. Here's my take on what the judge drew from these facts. Because the State no longer assigns gender roles according to the sex of the parties entering into marriage, from the standpoint of the law it no longer matters whether it is the man or the woman who acts as the provider or the dependent (or a little of both) in the marriage relationship, since the law no longer has the job of regulating those roles through threat of punishment. So when a couple comes before the civil authorities to marry or to obtain a divorce, the State no longer "sees" a man or a woman, because it no longer has the obligation to say, "You over here, you're the man and it's your role to do this. And you over here, you're the woman and it's your role to do that." Instead the State only recognizes that these are two people who have defined their marriage roles for themselves and have decided for themselves whether the agreement has been kept or broken. And if the State no longer holds an interest in whether it is the man or the woman who fulfills this or that marital duty, neither should it matter to the State whether it is two men or two women dividing the marital responsibilities between themselves. Judge Walker writes in his Conclusions of Law:

The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage . . . [T]he exclusion [of same-sex couples from civil marriage] exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.

Wrapping things up under this heading, the rest of the evidence shows how eliminating gender restrictions doesn't diminish the vitality of the marriage as an institution, and outlines the social, psychological, financial and legal benefits of marriage that ultimately serves the State's interest.

Next up, heading number two (and three if I can fit it in).

"Why I regret voting yes on Prop 8"

2010-08-11T08:42:00.000-07:00

I found this blog post by a conservative Christian to be most encouraging: "Why I regret voting yes on Prop 8"

What I got out of reading the Prop. 8 ruling, part 2 of 7

2010-08-10T15:52:00.000-07:00

Last time I explained how the proponents (pro-Prop. 8) only produced two expert witnesses to present evidence for their case. One witness's testimony was found to be "unreliable" and the testimony of the other was given "little weight" by the court. You can read my earlier post for further explanation on why this happened.

By the way, why do I keep referring to the pro-Prop. 8 side as "proponents" instead of "defendants"? Well, because that's how the judge referred to them in the ruling. And why, you ask, does he use that term? Originally the lawsuit was brought against the governor of California, the Attorney General, the Director and Deputy Director of Public Health, and the clerk recorders of Alameda County and Los Angeles County--the defendants. But they all declined to defend Prop. 8 in court, and actually the Attorney General even conceded that Prop. 8 was unconstitutional. Therefore, the people who organized the actual pro-Prop. 8 campaign stepped forward to take up the cause in place of the defendants as "defendant-intervenors." I believe that's why they are referred to as "proponents" and not "defendants."

Getting on with the plaintiffs' case: the plaintiffs argued that Prop. 8 violates both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I'll do my best to unpack that statement. Due process means the government can't arbitrarily interfere with your right to life, liberty or property. If they do interfere with a right so fundamental--and the right to marry does fall within that definition--there are only a handful of acceptable reasons the government can give to justify that interference (such as national security or some dire situation like that). So the plaintiffs are claiming that the right to marry the person of their choice is protected by the Due Process Clause and Prop. 8 violates that right.

Now the Equal Protection Clause says that no person can be denied equal protection of the laws. Basically, this has to do with discrimination, that everyone must be treated equally under the law. The plaintiffs argued that Prop. 8 interferes with their right to marry (contra Due Process) because it discriminates against them as gay men and lesbians (contra Equal Protection). They claimed that Prop. 8 discriminates on two counts: it denies them a right to marry the person of their choice (sex discrimination), and disadvantages them as a suspect class because they are gay and lesbian (sexual orientation discrimination).

Okay, now what is a suspect class? Suspect class refers to distinctions made by the government on the basis of race, national origin or alienage that cannot be used as a basis for discrimination except for maybe a few special, narrowly defined cases (which, in practice, amounts to almost never). My (somewhat shaky) understanding is that sexual orientation isn't officially on the suspect class list, but the plaintiffs were arguing it should be and in the ruling the judge seemed to agree it should be treated as such. Yet as we'll see later, it wasn't necessary for the judge to decide whether sexual orientation should be considered a suspect class in order for him to rule in favor of the plaintiffs--but now we're getting ahead of ourselves.

Well, I was going to write more but my brain has been thoroughly exercised by all this legalese. I had to read way too many Wikipedia articles just to get this far. (Law students, feel free to correct whatever errors I'm sure I have made.) Next up, the "Findings of Fact."

What I got out of reading the Prop. 8 ruling, part 1 of 7

2010-08-09T12:47:00.000-07:00

I finally finished reading the Prop. 8 ruling this past weekend, all one hundred and thirty-six pages of it. I'm not a legal expert or anything so I'll do my best to explain in layman's terms what I got out of it. Except for some tedious parts in the "Findings of Facts" section, I found it to be a pretty smooth read.

From what I can tell, the ruling went the way it did because the plaintiffs (anti-Prop. 8) were prepared to make their case while the proponents (pro-Prop. 8) were not. The plaintiffs put forward eight lay witnesses, including the plaintiffs themselves (Kristin Perry, Sandra Stier, Jeffrey Zarrillo and Paul Katami). They also put forward nine expert witnesses, all of whom had Ph.D.s and had published peer-reviewed articles in the fields relevant to the case.

The proponents (pro-Prop. 8), on the other hand, only ended up putting forward two expert witnesses. On the first day of trial they announced they were withdrawing four of their expert witnesses because the witnesses were "concerned about their personal safety, and did not want to appear with any recording of any sort, whatsoever." So in response to their concern the judge stopped all public broadcasting of the trial. Yet the proponents never called upon these four witnesses even after public broadcasting was banned from the court, and gave no explanation why.

Interestingly, the plaintiffs were able to enter into evidence the deposition testimony of two of the proponents' withdrawn witnesses, "because their testimony supported the plaintiffs' claims." Katherine Young (Ph.D. in history of religions and comparative religions) of the proponents' side stated in her deposition that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality and that same sex couples express the same desire for love and commitment as opposite sex couples. Paul Nathanson (Ph.D. in religious studies), also of the proponents' side, testified at his deposition that religion lies at the heart of the hostility and violence directed at gays and lesbians, and that there is no evidence that children who are raised by same-sex couples fare worse than those raised by opposite sex couples.

The two expert witnesses that remained for the proponents were David Blankenhorn and Kenneth P. Miller. I guess Blankenhorn was now going to be their star witness, except that the judge had to throw out his testimony as unreliable. The main problem with Blankenhorn from the start was that he didn't have a degree in psychology, sociology or anthropology (he had a B.A. in social studies and an M.A. in social history), and he didn't have any peer-reviewed articles published in the areas that related to the case. His credentials simply paled in comparison to that of the expert witnesses on the plaintiffs' side.

The judge let him testify anyhow and found several problems with his testimony. Blankenhorn could not explain the methodology he used to arrive at his opinions, would merely quote from others to support his opinions without citing sources, made reference to research that did not support his claims, contradicted himself a lot, and refused to directly answer many questions upon cross examination. Here's a sample of one of the bizarre exchanges that took place: Blankenhorn says there are three universal rules that govern marriage: the rule of opposites (man/woman), the rule of two people, and the rule of sex. Even a polygamous marriage, he says, does not violate the rule of two.

Q: Is it your view that that man who has married one wife, and then another wife, and then another wife, and then another wife, and then another wife, and now has five wives, and they are all his wives at the same time, that that marriage is consistent with your rule of two?

A (Blankenhorn): I concur with Bronislaw Malinowski, and others, who say that that is consistent with the two rule of marriage."

Blankenhorn was also questioned about something he wrote in 2007: "I believe that today the principle of equal human dignity must apply to gay and lesbian persons. In that sense, insofar as we are a nation founded on this principle, we would be more American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were the day before." Blankenhorn testified that he wrote the statement and agreed with it. With all the unsupportable, contradictory and bizarre statements Blankenhorn was making, it's no wonder the judge found his testimony unreliable.

The second expert witness put forward by the proponents, Kenneth P. Miller (Ph.D. in political science), testified on the political power of gays and lesbians. The court found that "while Miller has significant experience with politics generally, he is not sufficiently familiar with gay and lesbian politics specifically to offer opinions on gay and lesbian political power." Miller's main argument was to point to political successes for gays and lesbians in California to show how they possessed significant political power. He admitted, however, that he has never focused his research specifically on gay and lesbian issues. He could not comment on anti-discrimination laws, anti-gay harassment at workplaces and schools, gay political power as compared with African-American political power, or explain his claim that religious groups support gays and lesbians when the polling data shows that 84% of regular churchgoers voted yes on Prop. 8. The judge wasn't as harsh with Miller as with Blankenhorn, but still found Miller's opinions to be of "little weight."

So you can see where all this is going. The proponents have utterly failed to make their case, leaving the door wide open for the plaintiffs to make theirs. But not only did they fail to make a case, the judge also noted that the proponents presented a very different set of arguments before the court than the arguments they presented to the voters in the Yes on 8 Campaign. No one on the proponents' side attempted to explain this discrepancy.

Next up, I'll attempt to sum up the evidence the plaintiffs presented in support of their case. To be continued...

Prop. 8 ruled unconstitutional

2010-08-04T15:49:00.000-07:00

What are you doing here? Go to The Man himself, my good friend Andrew Sullivan, who spearheaded the civil same-sex movement almost single-handedly a couple of decades ago. He'll tell you all you need to know at The Daily Dish.

To get you started, you'll find the ruling here.

A list of facts found by Judge Walker is here.

And the latest followers willing to associate with this blog are...

2010-07-28T19:58:00.000-07:00

Larry Huffman
jill
Daemon
Kristi Fites
Adam
uumomma
KyleJL

Thanks guys!

Don't mess with the geeks

2010-07-23T12:37:00.000-07:00

Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church crew finally met their match at yesterday's Comic-Con in San Diego, where geeks were ready to meet him in battle with their chanting and counter-protest signs.

Unbeknownst to the dastardly fanatics of the Westboro Baptist Church, the good folks of San Diego's Comic-Con were prepared for their arrival with their own special brand of superhuman counter protesting chanting "WHAT DO WE WANT" "GAY SEX" "WHEN DO WE WANT IT" "NOW!" while brandishing ironic (and some sincere) signs. Simply stated: The eclectic assembly of nerdom's finest stood and delivered.

Enjoy.

Update: More images here.

Call for research participants

2010-07-15T12:37:00.000-07:00

A reader was kind enough to alert me to this notice by the Marin Foundation. Their four year research study is coming to a conclusion on August 1. So far they have over 2,000 participants, but it is not too late to add more. If you are LGBT and you haven't already done so, please consider participating in the study. You can do so anonymously. In the Marin Foundation's words, "It takes about 5 minutes to complete, and all we are looking for is the dead honest truth."

I'm not a part of the Marin Foundation but I have read Andrew Marin's book, Love Is An Orientation and I highly recommend it. He is one of the few straight evangelical Christians out there who really gets gay and lesbian issues. He has become a powerful advocate for building bridges between the Christian and gay communities and he takes plenty of heat for it. I don't know the details about the research project but I do know I'm excited about it. The impact that pseudo-scientific "research" has had on the church through the likes of Paul Cameron and Family Research Council has been tragic. I am hopeful that new, credible research can help to educate Christians in facts, not myths.

Understanding your celibate gay friends

2010-07-12T20:00:00.000-07:00

I'm a straight person who supports Side B gay Christians who are trying to live celibate, but that doesn't necessarily mean I support the way some churches treat their celibate gay members. Evidently there are many straight Christians who, in the name of purity, feel obligated to view with suspicion every friendship a gay Christian might strike up in the church with another person of the same sex. And if said friendship appears to develop into anything meaningful, then that justifies confronting the gay celibate person of having crossed a line. Based on what some of my Side B gay friends tell me, it sounds like some straight Christians won't be satisfied until they see them utterly reduced to living emotionally and socially sterile lives for the remainder of their existence. For the sake of the kingdom, of course.

If it were a case of two gay men or two gay women always hanging out exclusively while claiming to be celibate, I agree that ought to raise suspicion. But if a gay man and a straight man become friends (or a gay woman and a straight woman), then obviously nothing is going to happen, particularly if all the cards are on the table about orientation issues. I repeat: no sex will happen. Yes, it's always possible the gay friend might cross an emotional line with his or her same sex straight friend, in which case it's up to the straight friend to say something. That's a risk those two people took when they struck up this friendship, and life is full of risks. But I don't think the risk of the gay person possibly having those feelings justifies putting him or her under immediate surveillance by the Purity Police every time they are seen hanging out with a friend of the same sex.

Living celibate is tough, whether it is a temporary calling or lifelong. Even if you're a married Christian, surely you remember what it was like when you were single and saving yourself for marriage. Imagine what it would be like if you were committed to abstinence for life. For gay celibate Christians that's hard enough to deal with without having everyone at church spying out your efforts to make the kind of meaningful friendships that will help to replace that one special relationship you'll always be denied.

Christian purity is not achieved through constant scoldings of "Don't do this!" and "Don't do that!" (For all you Bible students see Colossians 2:20-23.) Purity within the church family has as much to do with building solid, wholesome relationships as it does with not acting inappropriately. Singles within the church, whether gay or straight, need many more friendships and social outlets than married people. Instead of having the depth of an exclusive relationship, singles need the breadth of many relationships to focus their energies upon and satisfy their social and emotional needs. Without question, the celibate gay Christian needs more friendships and social ties in order to maintain the purity of their walk. They need to be socially fed, not starved.

Let's get creative. If you're not comfortable with your gay brothers and sisters in Christ making friends with people of the same sex, maybe churches should encourage opposite sex friendships. Gay women who seek to live celibate should be encouraged to form friendships with straight men, and gay men with straight women. Frankly about half of my friends are gay men, so from my experience it works out quite nicely. The one problem I see is that most straights in the church have been conditioned to avoid opposite-sex friendships and consequently aren't that good at cultivating them. That's obviously because for straights, friendship with the opposite sex normally means risk of sexual sin whereas friendships with the same sex equals safety. Therefore at churches men tend to congregate with men and women with women. We even encourage that division by separating men's Bible studies from women's Bible studies and men's discipleship groups from women's discipleship groups. Everything about the way we structure our churches' social activity encourages the greatest intimacy in same sex relationships, and those habits are hard to break.

Or maybe we can encourage our celibate gay members to form friendships with married couples. That might be an even better solution, if only we can learn to break out of our single and married group cliques. This can be a problem too. No single person really cares about the merits of breastfeeding or how the baby's nap schedule is going no matter how interested they may try to be. Married people will have to break out of their married-with-children world and talk about deeper things. They will have to make room in their lives for their single friends. Singles, in turn, must learn to accept their married friends' lack of free time and spontaneity.

All this to say that sometimes it's just natural for single men to hang out with other single men and single women with other single women. This is not a conspiracy. If a gay celibate man befriends a straight single guy, you shouldn't automatically assume the absolute worst about his motives. Who else is he going to hang with? If a gay celibate woman bonds with a straight female friend, it doesn't necessarily mean something inappropriate is going on. Just chill for a second and try to reflect a little. Gay people need friends too, don't they?

The best Christian demonstration at a gay pride parade

2010-07-03T21:33:00.000-07:00

I'm not a big fan of gay pride parades but, oh, how I would've loved to march with these guys. You'll be encouraged by this story. Two thumbs up for the Marin Foundation. You guys rock!

Another straight evangelical who knows what it's like

2010-06-29T18:21:00.000-07:00

She's more Side A than me, but other than that . . . yep.

Latest batch of followers

2010-06-26T20:59:00.000-07:00

You're awesome, of course.

Jenn Possible
gec44ac
Neo
Timothy Dann-Barrick
Amy E. Hall
N

Now we're talking

2010-06-09T22:48:00.000-07:00

I don't hear Christians saying "homosexuality is a lifestyle choice" as often as I used to. Instead the catch phrase that's been floating around for some time goes like this. A gay person will say, "Homosexuality isn't a choice." Then the Christian will respond, "But it is a choice whether you act upon it or not."

In my opinion this retort has a "So there. Nyah!" sound to it. It's just a comeback to parry an argument from the gay side. It's also a way of reducing someone's entire life's struggle over self-acceptance, social rejection, questions of faith and moral introspection down to a simplistic choice of "acting upon it or not." And making them feel judged for it.

Let's break down this exchange and see if we can put some thought into what ought to be the Christian's response. First off, when a gay or lesbian person says, "Homosexuality isn't a choice" or "I didn't choose to be gay," they are referring to a charge that Christians have been leveling at them for a long time, namely, that they do choose their homosexuality. So this person is really airing a grievance, and you should be thankful that he or she is willing to put it that nicely, considering that they are really trying to say that the church has been perpetuating lies about them

Here is a translation of what that gay person might actually mean: "I have been told by my church, or by Christians, that I don't really have involuntary same-sex attractions that I can't help. That I don't really fall in love with people of the same sex or am capable of experiencing real feelings of caring and spiritual bonding. Instead I've been told that I am actually a heterosexual who has perverted myself, or been perverted by molestation, so that I am now such a screwed up human being that I no longer know how to love naturally, but have become a morally and sexually warped person who lusts after unnatural things.

"I have looked at myself and asked myself whether this is true. For a long time I was afraid to introspect for fear of what I might find. Some people have killed themselves because they could not sort out the truth from the lies they have been told about themselves. But I've made it through all that and I know that this story about my so-called 'choice' doesn't ring true with the narrative of my life. Nevertheless, because this lie still hangs around conservative Christian circles, my family and friends think horrible things about me and this has damaged my relationship with them beyond repair.

"So now I am sharing this with you to disabuse you of hurting someone in your life who may be gay or lesbian: I did not choose to be gay. I should know since I'm the one who's experiencing it. Will you take what I have to say seriously?"

Now this is the part where you, as a Christian, might miss the entire context from which this gay person is coming. Instead you will be tempted to fight back with your zinger of a response so that you can go back and tell everyone in your church small group that you "witnessed" to a homosexual this week.

Don't do that. You must resist temptation. Primarily because you are probably slapping down a wounded soul, which is very un-Jesus-like. And secondly, when you answer the protest "Homosexuality isn't a choice!" with "But you can choose whether to act upon it or not!" you are actually conceding their point. You have shifted your ground without acknowledging that you have done so. You have redefined "choice" from "choosing to be homosexual" to "choosing whether to act upon one's [unchosen] homosexuality." By making this sleight-of-hand switch, you acknowledge that this homosexuality--which someone can choose to act upon or not--is in fact an unchosen condition.

A better approach would be to drop the superiority act. Instead clothe yourself with humility and try to come up with some honest words to say. Here's an example: "You know, I have to admit that for a long time I thought people simply chose to be homosexual, but now I'm not so sure it's as simple as that. I once knew someone who was ex-gay. Sometimes it seemed like she was making progress in overcoming her same-sex attractions and sometimes she was very discouraged. It got me thinking about whether it's realistic to expect people to completely overcome their sinful conditions. Okay, I know that you don't agree that homosexuality is sinful, but as a Christian that's the perspective I'm coming from, and I hope I'm not offending you by sharing where I'm at with this whole issue.

"Anyhow, back to my ex-gay friend, I remember that she used to say that even if she couldn't choose away her homosexuality, she could at least choose not to act upon it. You might not agree with her, but speaking for myself I had nothing but respect for her. As you were just saying, she probably didn't choose to be homosexual, but I admired the choice that she did struggle to make for herself every day."

Now if at this point you still get attacked by that gay person, fine. Take it on the chin. At least you can have a clear conscience that you've "witnessed" with kindness and courtesy. But my bet is that you will have succeeded in avoiding a fruitless argument and will find yourself involved in a much more meaningful conversation.

Ted Haggard on church and state

2010-06-02T14:12:00.000-07:00

Ted Haggard understands the separation between church and state. The first minute is awkward but it gets better after that. I've been reading up on Rev. Haggard's news recently, and I believe that he is a broken man who is seeking to be healed through the gospel. I'm not quite sure what direction he's ultimately planning to take, but at this point I know it would not be a good idea to write him off.

Having faith

2010-05-25T11:03:00.000-07:00

I have to admit I was discouraged about missing the TEN (The Evangelical Network) conference a few weeks ago. People were flying in from out of state to attend and I am only a 90 minute drive from Irvine, yet it was impossible for me to go since I had to watch the kids while my husband was away for the weekend. It's not so much about missing that particular conference, but more about missing events like that in general. I rarely get out of the house except to attend church and the occasional mid-week fellowship meeting. That's just how it is when you have three relatively young kids and a husband who gets home late every night after a ninety-minute commute. The equation adds up to: not much of a life.

Meanwhile the landscape of gay Christian ministry has changed. It used to be that most gay Christians were disconnected and half-closeted and were only linked to one another through the Internet. Now those connections are being solidified into real communities through conferences like TEN and GCN and probably a few more cropping up that I'm not even aware of. As a result the issue of how gays and lesbians fit into the church is more visible than ever before. I heard that Urbana invited Andrew Marin to speak at one of their seminars. Urbana. I was blown away when I heard that. The presence of gay Christians in the church and the need for the church to be a credible witness to the secular gay community are actually creeping onto the radar screen of evangelical consciousness.

I'd like to be more involved with all that, but right now I have to accept the limitations that God has placed in my life. Christians like to use the metaphor of a "closed door." It means accepting that God has closed off one possible path and now you need to look for an "open door" to another opportunity. I guess I tend to view "closed doors" more as an opportunity to look around the room I feel stuck in and figure out what can be done within the confines of these four walls.

And maybe I am exactly where I need to be. The way I see it, two things need to change: 1) The church needs to become a compassionate, caring witness to the secular gay community. 2) Straight Christians need to stop marginalizing the gay Christians in their own churches and instead learn how to properly understand and minister to them. But the only path to making real progress in those two areas can be nothing short of a complete spiritual transformation at the very heart of the most conservative evangelical churches in our nation. The Bible-believing churches, the Republican hang-outs, the homeschooling hubs--yeah, those places.

In spite of the dysfunction, the screwed-up-ness, and the insufferable arrogance that often springs up from those circles, I have to admit that I still hold out a lot of hope for conservative, church-going people. In fact I'll admit even more. I think many of them are good people, maybe even some of the best people in our society. But with regard to this particular issue I think they abide under a dark shadow and have temporarily lost their way.

And I'm one of them--at least I fit more closely with this group than with any other I know. For one thing I'm obsessed with my Bible. Some people say I even teach the Bible well, but I'll never seek the pastorate because I don't believe in women's ordination (for myself, that is. If you want to get ordained as a woman, I'm not standing in your way). I'm still a registered Republican. I don't feel comfortable with the party anymore but I know I could never fit in with the Democrats, so I remain a nominal Republican and hope someday the party comes back to its senses. I homeschool. I'm not against public schools--in fact our oldest child has been attending a public school for the past two years. Yet at the same time I feel enough of that sense of being a "marginalized conservative" that I don't mind doing something risky like taking my children's education into my own hands.

I think, perhaps, I'm at this place in my life because that's where I'm supposed to be. Most of my conservative friends know I support gay rights and have gay friends and maintain a blog where I talk about "those things." Yet I'm sure they are relieved to see that I haven't--for example--pierced my nose. Or cut my hair short and dyed it purple. I don't send out mass emails inviting them to the local candlelight vigil. I don't suggest that we set up a panel discussion in our church to debate social issues. There's nothing wrong with those things if they're done in the right social context, but conservatives aren't comfortable with any of that stuff. Mention "candlelight vigils" and "panel discussions" to a conservative and they expect that next you'll be burning incense and talking about Mother God.

Conservative Christians "focus on their families" I guess. They work hard at their jobs, set up businesses, raise their kids, coach Little League, volunteer at the school, attend prayer meetings, go Christmas caroling. They will discuss the merits of breast-feeding versus formula. They will give advice on how to seed your lawn. They get excited about the classical education private school that's starting up in their neighborhood.

And I guess that's the sort of thing I've been busy with too. That and blogging. And thinking about bisexuality. And plotting how I might make the next GCN conference. But the point is, talking to conservative Christians about gay issues means first showing that you don't need to drive your faith or your values off a cliff in order to be open to these things. Maybe that's why I'm here in this "room" behind these walls and closed doors. Because the people I'm with are the ones I'm forming my closest relationships with. And I suppose it's no accident that I also love them, and believe in them.

Multiple hats

2010-05-17T15:51:00.000-07:00

You may recall that on this blog I linked to the press release sent out by "The American College of Pediatricians" (ACPEDS) which sought to advise school superintendents and educators about homosexuality. The organization turned out to be just another promoter of NARTH and Focus on the Family viewpoints under the guise of an official-sounding name that might be mistaken for the more reputable American Academy of Pediatrics.

While I linked to the ACPEDS press release, I didn't take a look at the actual letter they sent out to the district superintendents. Turns out MSNBC's Rachel Maddow did and found . . . George Rekers' name on it. Take a look at the left margin of the letter under the heading "Pediatric Psychosocial Development Committee."

Small world? Not exactly. What we've learned about Rekers' career, and the multiple hats he has evidently worn, suggests that while there may appear to be many organizations touting the same message--NARTH, Focus on the Family, ACPEDS--they typically involve the same key players. Clearly these people want to give the appearance of having a multiplicity of professional opinions confirming their particular brand of science, when in reality there are only a small handful of "experts" doing the opining.

This may not be news to many gays and lesbians who have been following these organizations, but it is to most straight Christians who are targeted for this kind of deception. I've learned to read the fine print, check the footnotes, and take time to look at the sources cited. It's surprising how often the same names--Joseph Nicolosi, Charles Socarides, Paul Cameron, James Dobson--pop up. And now there's a new name I'll be looking for: George Rekers.

Laura Bush for gay marriage

2010-05-12T13:29:00.000-07:00

First Dick and Lynne Cheney, then Cindy and Meghan McCain. Now Laura Bush.

Thankfully, this won't be you

2010-05-11T07:51:00.000-07:00

There's only one thing I want to say with regard to George Rekers. If you are gay or lesbian, and you have found the courage to admit that to yourself, be thankful. Otherwise you might have ended up where Rekers has. You might have spent your life running. You might have hurt others by turning your self-hatred into hatred against the very people with whom you could identify all too well. You might have become so good at rationalizing that you might even have crafted it into a sophisticated doctrine, dressed it up in scientific terminology, and built a career on selling it to the public. All because you could not face the truth.

But if you have faced the truth, be very thankful.

And if you're straight and you know someone who is trying to grapple openly with the truth of his or her own homosexuality, please be supportive. Don't think of that person as "pushing homosexuality in your face." Rather see them as trying to save their own sanity, or perhaps even their own soul.

"GLBT"

2010-04-26T08:32:00.000-07:00

I don't know if you've noticed, but I've resisted using the term GLBT or LGBT on this blog even though I'm well aware that most other gay-friendly blogs, books, magazines, etc. use it freely. It would be so nice if I could make my peace with these four letters. I wouldn't have to say "gay and lesbian" or "the gay community" all the time, or worry whether using the term "gay" sounds like it's excluding lesbians. GLBT just rolls off the tongue lickety-split. Simple.

My problem is the whole honesty thing that I tend to get obsessed with. Am I really addressing the needs of bisexual and/or transgender people on this blog? Not really. Not because I don't want to, but because I haven't had enough personal experience with bisexual and transgender individuals to make the claim that I can write intelligently about their situations. I don't feel right about using the term GLBT when I'm always going to be leaving the "B's" and "T's" out, or only addressing their situations tangentially. I imagine that bisexual people face different issues than gay and lesbian folks, and being transgender is certainly a very different experience than being either gay, lesbian or bisexual.

Actually I've had more transgender people write to me to share their stories than bisexual. I believe transgender people when they say they have always felt like a woman trapped inside a man's body, or vice versa. I used to think that maybe it was a problem of a mismatch between soul and body, a female soul in a male body for instance. But the latest scientific findings suggest that our sense of "maleness" and "femaleness" may reside in the brain, so perhaps it has something to do with the mismatch between people's brains and physical bodies, whatever that means. Then I'm aware of the people who want to deny that there is any such thing as maleness and femaleness but assert that we all exist in some kind of socially flexible gender continuum. I get the whole idea that we need to be more flexible in defining maleness and femaleness, but in the end I don't really buy into that theory, yet I'm not sure I can explain why. Anyhow, as you can see, I sort of grope around with these thoughts. They are certainly not well developed enough to claim that I am somehow addressing the needs of the transgender community by sharing them.

Bisexuals are even more of a mystery to me. I recall only one person writing to me and claiming to be bisexual, but without any explanation. I know that truly bisexual people are out there, but my difficulty in being able to nail down this issue is two-fold. First, I'm never sure how to distinguish between the people who are truly bisexual, and the people who are claiming to be bisexual but are really just warming up to the idea that they might be gay/lesbian. Second, I suspect many bisexual people feel no need to reveal themselves because they are able to pass themselves off as heterosexuals. I mean, if many gays and lesbians are able to masquerade as straights by dating and marrying opposite-sex partners, how much more successfully would bisexuals be able to remain closeted, especially since they can have satisfying sexual relationships with opposite-sex partners?

I do want bisexual and transgender people to read this blog, especially if they feel my musings benefit them. But I just don't want to add the "B" and "T" as if I'm promising to address their situations, then I just forget about them. I think that would be disrespectful. I believe the situation of transgender people is especially unique and complex and, frankly, I just feel bad when I see how they are sort of tagged on as the fourth letter of the GLBT grouping like an afterthought.

A second blog

2010-04-21T12:07:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure what's gotten into me because I already have a thousand things going on in my life--but I've started a second blog. Don't worry, I'm still going to be keeping up this blog, but I'm starting the second blog to record my thoughts on the New Testament. The posts will be arranged so that anyone can use it for their own devotional readings. My ridiculously ambitious plan is to cover all the New Testament books from Matthew to Revelation. So I've decided to call it "Matthew to Revelation" (matthewtorevelation.blogspot.com).

In January 2009 I started a series on this blog called "Finding Jesus Christ" in which I put down thoughts for seekers on understanding who Jesus Christ is. I've felt a little uncomfortable trying to incorporate those studies onto this blog because I consider "More Musings On" to exist for the very narrow purpose of recording my musings on issues of faith and sexuality. On the other hand, I know that many gay and lesbian people are too estranged from the church to have a chance to explore issues of faith with anyone. So I kind of go back and forth about this series I've created. Maybe a separate Bible study blog altogether is a better solution. It won't be for seekers per se, but I'm planning to make the posts layperson-friendly.

I probably won't be posting every day and I don't know if I'll even make it through Matthew, let alone the entire New Testament. But I've always had a passion for understanding the Bible. I love doing Bible studies with the women at church and reading through the New Testament with my kids at home. I've considered for a long time whether I should write up some devotional materials and have them published. But that would involve a publishing company and all the politics and marketing schemes that come with that. Who needs it? Blogging is more accessible to people, and it's free. Didn't Jesus say, "Freely you have received, freely give"? Besides, in order to get published with a publishing company I'd probably have to adjust my writing style to sound all boring and dignified, instead of just being able to talk out my thoughts about the Scriptures like I do with my kids at the kitchen table.

Anyhow, I hope you'll check it out.

It's that time again...

2010-04-19T17:56:00.000-07:00

Welcome to our newest followers!

Kimberly
Jimmie Lee
Josh
Jerica Truax
Greg
Kate Larson
Melissa Milage

The count is up to 58. Thanks, everyone!

New packaging, same message

2010-04-13T12:21:00.000-07:00

You may have encountered a recent press release by an organization called the American College of Pediatricians that announces "College Cautions Educators About Sexual Orientation in Youth":

The College reminds school superintendents that it is not uncommon for adolescents to experience transient confusion about their sexual orientation and that most students will ultimately adopt a heterosexual orientation if not otherwise encouraged. For this reason, schools should not seek to develop policy which “affirms” or encourages these non-heterosexual attractions among students who may merely be experimenting or experiencing temporary sexual confusion. Such premature labeling can lead some adolescents to engage in homosexual behaviors that carry serious physical and mental health risks.

There is no scientific evidence that anyone is born gay or transgendered. Therefore, the College further advises that schools should not teach or imply to students that homosexual attraction is innate, always life-long and unchangeable. Research has shown that therapy to restore heterosexual attraction can be effective for many people.

I just thought I'd point out that the American College of Pediatricians is not the same as the mainstream organization you might have heard of called the American Academy of Pediatrics. If you dig a little deeper into the American College of Pediatricians website and find the list of books that they recommend for parents, you'll see Focus on the Family and James Dobson materials, plus a book called A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality by Joseph Nicolosi.

I'm just saying that a press release, a fancy website and an official sounding name can sound intimidating, but the bottom line of the organization is pretty much NARTH and Focus on the Family. Same old same old.

Update: The American Academy of Pediatrics speaks out about the confusion caused by the American College of Pediatricians. So does Dr. Warren Throckmorton.

Competing agendas

2010-03-30T11:14:00.000-07:00

Here's a conversation I've had many times over. A fellow straight Christian who takes a conservative position on same-sex relationships wants to know whether celibacy is "the answer" for gay Christians. I respond that it might be a solution for some people who think they can handle it. But there's always the problem of what to do about the people who don't think they can handle it. I bring up depression. I point out how the depression caused by the strain of trying to avoid this one sin can lead to worse problems. It might lead to acting out, for instance. It might lead to abandoning faith. It might even lead to contemplating suicide.

And the fellow Christian I'm talking to says, "Uh-huh . . . uh-huh . . . okay, but--"

Okay, but?

At this point I'm wondering, "What's so 'okay but' about suicide?" We're talking suicide. SOO-IH-SIDE. Why do alarm bells not go off in this person's head when they hear that word?

But now I've come to realize something. To me this conversation is about real people, friends I care about. It's about hearing someone on the other end of the phone going off about how they feel like God hates them and they can't do this and there are no answers and nowhere to turn and what hope can I give them that would make their life worth living, huh??

But to this straight Christian I'm talking to, this conversation is largely a theological exercise. Nothing real is at stake. It's about coming to the right answer while staying within the bounds of orthodoxy.

In other words, when one person is talking about love and the other is talking about protecting certain doctrines, how can the two sides be having the same conversation?

I see this problem on a larger scale too. We evangelicals tend to get starry eyed when it comes to rubbing shoulders with our favorite evangelical celebs. Someone tells of shaking the hand of Pastor of a Certain Megachurch, or studying under Professor at a Respected Theological Seminary or having their Facebook friend request accepted by Author of a Popular Christian Book. But when it comes to, say, a mother seeking out advice for her gay son or daughter, can she entrust her loved one into the hands of these "experts"? Is that megachurch pastor going to advise her out of love for her gay son, or is he going to be thinking about what the board of elders would say if they found out "a homosexual" was in their midst? Is that popular author going to love her gay daughter as much as she does, or will he be thinking about protecting the book deal he's trying to close with IVP?

It's a problem, isn't it?

When people ask me what respected Christian leaders or theologians I've consulted to guide me on my views, I have to admit that I haven't done that much consulting. I have no idea what other people's agendas are. Can these strangers love my friends the way I do? Can they feel the weight of the responsibility of it? Or are they just concerned about what a publisher or a committee or the powers-that-be want them to say?

I think the responsibility of love falls on the individual alone. You can't fully entrust it to others. The path love carves out is too uncertain, with too many twists and turns to be able to write it up in a brochure and submit to a board for approval. It's not something you vote on, it's a journey you take alone. I don't scoff at love like I used to, as something that's liberal and mushy and unprincipled. Loving others the way Jesus commanded is by far the most frightening thing I've ever had to do.

What change?

2010-03-07T10:35:00.000-08:00

Friends will sometimes send me links to articles that quote from the latest evangelical leader--a seminary prof, a radio show host, some megachurch pastor--who demonstrates an ability to speak about homosexuality in calm, moderate tones while even daring to suggest that we should work toward peace and understanding in the church. Nothing earth-shattering enough to post on this blog, but I see bits of progress here and there that tell me a quiet trend of questioning and self-examination is afoot in some pockets of the evangelical church. I expect that it will grow over time. In the meantime it's interesting to check out what people have to say, and observe how the gears are turning in people's minds as these more moderate evangelicals contemplate the issue of homosexuality.

But I've noticed one little catch phrase that keeps popping up. You know how evangelicals love using catch phrases, and once the usage of a certain phrase reaches a critical mass you hear everyone saying it left and right? Here is the one I keep hearing:

"While we know that change is possible for some [gay and lesbian] people, we need to consider that maybe it isn't possible for everyone."

Then the evangelical leader goes on to plead for Christian compassion and understanding for these leftover gay people, these stragglers who evidently couldn't get their act together enough to make the full conversion from gay to straight like all the other success stories out there.

My question is, What are all these success stories of "change" that they're talking about? Who has ever successfully and completely changed from gay to straight? Anyone I know? Anyone you know? I'm not saying that such change doesn't exist on the face of the earth, but I am saying that I have never encountered any of these changed people, and I've been researching and writing on the topic of homosexuality for the last ten years.

I realize that this catch phrase is thrown out there as a way to reach those evangelicals who cling with white-knuckled fervor to the idea that gays are an ultra-depraved sub-species of the human race who don't deserve anyone's compassion--not even Jesus's. The word to them is, "Oh, but they do deserve compassion, if you would just realize that while some people can change [satisfying the evangelical belief that most gays do choose to be homosexual at some subconscious level], you also have to understand that not all people can succeed at changing, you see."

These days I find myself categorized within this small crowd of straight evangelicals who are trying to talk to other straight evangelicals about being more understanding toward the gay community. I'm thankful that the category even exists, and I'm thankful the talk is happening. But am I supposed to go out there and say, "While we know that some people can change, blah blah blah . . ." even though I have never--in all my hundreds of contacts via email exchanges and coffee dates and phone calls and dinners and conferences and small groups--crossed paths with anyone who has told me a credible story of converting from being completely homosexual to being completely heterosexual? It is a problem of honesty.

I know you should "never say never," which is why I continue to be open to the possibility that somewhere out there, someone has successfully made the gay-to-straight conversion. But the silence is strange to me, because most people who have had a positive, unique, life-changing experience that might possibly help millions of other people tend to go public about it and make their fortune publishing how-to books and traveling the country holding conferences and seminars. I know the ex-gay movement is trying to pretend that that's what they're all about--but I'm talking about the real thing, and I'm still waiting.

In the meantime I can't bring myself to feed my Christian friends the line about all the supposed change that's going on out there, regardless of what they may want to hear. Instead I say, "It's possible someone has really gone through a genuine orientation change and I just haven't heard about it yet. So if you know of anybody, please tell that person to contact me. I'd love to meet them and ask how they did it."

What would Jesus do about gay weddings?

2010-03-01T20:02:00.000-08:00

A Christian has the fear of God put in him and hastens to attend his gay friends' weddings:

I think I better go to the weddings of my gay friends. I'm almost scared not to. In some of his parables Jesus wasn't exactly fortune-cookie clear, but he didn't even almost waffle about his "Love your neighbor as yourself." He very explicitly declared that the "first and greatest commandment."

If there's any wiggle room there, I just don't see it.

Introducing our newest batch of followers

2010-02-19T10:55:00.000-08:00

Thanks guys!

GMB
Adam
Christopher
Wayne Knockel
FB
Curt
Jessica

Finding Jesus Christ: Unexpectedly sane

2010-02-16T17:50:00.000-08:00

Click here for an explanation about this series: "Finding Jesus Christ."

I've now had seven full weeks to de-tox from Christmas, which means I can safely talk about the incarnation of the Son of God without feeling haunted by unpleasant associations such as sleigh bells ringing, traffic jams at the shopping mall, and dead Christmas tree needles clogging up my vacuum cleaner. Thank God for February.

An infant child is born into the world and is greeted by people kneeling down to worship him, from dignified wise men who have served in royal courts, to lowly shepherds who nudge sheep through lonely hills. Yet when King Herod learns of it, he tries to kill the child, and his parents are forced to flee with him to a foreign country for a time. Talk about a welcome that could potentially mess with a kid's mind. He's barely out of the starting blocks of life and already people love him and people hate him, people worship him and people want to kill him. The closest analogy I can think of is the way the media tabloids treat big-name child celebrities. You see what kind of a screwed-up human being normally emerges when someone is alternately venerated and demonized by others their entire young life.

Parents don't help. Joseph and Mary were fairly grounded people, yet I can't imagine they were immune to the usual follies of human pride for being the chosen couple to raise the Messiah for crying out loud. A little bragging to the neighbors here, a little over-protectiveness of the child there, and soon the home in which young Jesus had to grow up becomes an atmosphere that nurtures the resentment of his younger siblings toward him. Any normal kid might develop an overblown sense of self-importance as either prodigy or victim, two sides of the same coin, potentially landing him in deep resentment.

Jesus, however, displayed no such angst, no sign of a growing psychosis. Far from becoming an egomaniac, he grew into a more humble man than the world has ever known. Far from embracing more self-protectiveness, he embraced increasingly more pain, more misunderstandings, and more suffering. Rejection by his siblings turned into rejection by his entire home town. He was a rabbi who was an outcast of the synagogue, gawked at by the crowds, persecuted by the authorities, and ill-used by even his friends. His fame turned to infamy, then betrayal, violence and death. His dying words were about forgiveness for his murderers and requesting care for his aging mother. He goes as quietly as if he were a nameless peasant.

I know of no person in human history who has received worship and adoration, coupled with relentless persecution, who did not become an egomaniac or develop a serious, crippling paranoia. Think back in history of emperors and dicators, of kings and sons of kings. Head cases, all of them.

So it's hard to explain where this ridiculously sane and balanced human being came from. Jesus' humility might be explained if he were super well-grounded in his own human limitations, if he went around saying stuff like, "I'm just a regular guy like you. I'm nobody special. I'm just your average Joe Israelite doing my best to serve God." That's what you'd expect to hear from someone like Gandhi, or Mother Teresa. Yet Jesus came with no such self-effacing message. Instead he went around saying, "Truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am" (the Hebrew expression for "I have always existed"). "I am the living bread that came down from heaven." "I and the Father are one." How could he be humble and sane and claim to be God who has come down to earth from heaven?

The only crime Jesus was charged with during his lifetime was, essentially, claiming to be the Son of God. A man who claims to be divine either will prove himself to be the worst egomaniac that ever lived, or he will back up his claim with a perfectly lived life. There are only two choices as far as I can see. You make the call.

"Gay lifestyle" revealed

2010-01-29T15:07:00.000-08:00

The (In)Famous SMT has done the service of providing us with an inside look at his "gay lifestyle." Pastors and preachers who regularly condemn such lifestyles from the pulpit would do well to pay attention in this rare moment of disclosure:

My Gay Lifestyle
Weekdays
1. Wake-up ~7:00 AM
1. Dress, brush teeth, etc.
2. Go to class 9:00 AM – 12:00/12:30 PM
1. Eat lunch in the 15 minutes I have to spare everyday.
3. More class 1:00 PM – 5:00 PM
1. 4 hour lab section are alternately draining and exciting
4. Lab research, homework, food, and 1 30-min nap 5:00 PM – 12:00/1:00 AM
5. Sleep

Saturday
1. Wake-up ~ 8:00 AM
2. Lab research, homework 9:00 AM – 12:30 PM
3. Club Meeting 1:00 PM – 4:30 PM
1. Food!
4. Lab research, homework, food 5:00 PM – 12:00 AM
5. Sleep

Sunday
1. Wake-up ~8:00 AM
2. Catch Bus at 9:50 AM
3. Set-up for Church A 10:15 – 10:35 AM
4. Church A Service 10:45 AM – 2:00 PM
5. Walk back to campus
6. Lab research, homework 3:00 – 4:30 PM
7. Subway
8. Church B 5:00PM – 9:00 PM
9. Subway
10. Lab research, homework, food, nap 9:30 PM – 2:00 AM
11. Sleep

Shocking, I know.

Beyond the silence, continued

2010-01-22T08:25:00.000-08:00

My previous post "Beyond the Silence" seems to have struck a chord with a lot of you. So let me add a few more thoughts on how straights should go about "continuing the conversation" with a gay friend or family member who comes out to you.

One thing I have found to be true for myself, and for many straights who think seriously about gay issues, is that it's perfectly natural for your thoughts to be constantly evolving. Once you learn to tune in to the debate, you become aware of how many different angles and perspectives are being discussed all the time: gay marriage, gays in the military, hate crimes laws, the teaching of the Bible, the attitudes of the church, coming out stories, ex-gay ministries, and so forth. For the thoughtful person, these debates have a way of injecting small insights into your brain bit by bit so that you are constantly adjusting your attitude toward homosexuality. You confront contradictions in your thinking. You make connections. You have mini "aha!" moments that hit you at odd times of the day.

So if your friend or family member has already come out to you as gay and if, at the time, in your panic, you were only able to produce some half-audible, highly dissatisfying mumble, don't let that response stand as a Monument For All Time representing your attitude toward homosexuality. You were taken off guard. You had a brain freeze. You hadn't had a chance to get out of the starting blocks in this journey. But now you're off, slowly jogging along, taking in the sights.

Now that you've had a chance to recover and think a little, you can let that gay friend or family member know that the gears of your mind are turning upstairs. Just because you botched it when they first came out to you doesn't mean you can't recover. In fact, you should just take for granted that most people botch it--and that's forgivable--but now you're on your feet ready to think coherent thoughts. They don't have to be profound. This is bit by bit, remember?

Probably the safest way of bringing up "the topic" is to talk about some article you read or something you saw on TV. Nowadays there is no shortage of news stories, human interest stories, editorials, political debates, interviews, court cases or comedy sketches on gay-related topics. "The other day I saw an interview of this guy who got kicked out of the military just because he's gay. That sucks, man." That's a conversation you can have with a gay friend in the car while driving to 7-Eleven to grab some beer. Or drop them an email. "Hey, man. Long time no talk. I saw this today and was wondering what you think. (Cut and paste link to article or YouTube on gay-related subject.)"

It's pretty difficult for someone who is gay to bring this stuff up with you. They don't want you to accuse them of being "pushy," or of coming off like an "activist." It's better when you take the initiative. Even if you never end up having a deep conversation, the little gestures do make a difference in a relationship. And if you're a Christian, there's no better way to let that person know that the love you claim to have for them in Christ is genuine.

Cindy McCain for gay marriage

2010-01-21T21:21:00.000-08:00

Cindy McCain comes out publicly against Prop. 8., posing for a NOH8 ad. She follows the lead of her daughter, Meghan McCain, who posed for a NOH8 ad before. Meanwhile, Republican attorney Ted Olson continues to challenge Prop. 8 at a federal court in San Francisco . . .

What's the Republican party coming to? For some, maybe it's a realization that they want to be on the right side of the issue when history looks back and recognizes this as a civil rights struggle.

Pat opened his trap again, and it's not good

2010-01-14T10:38:00.000-08:00

According to Pat Robertson, the Haitians are "cursed" because they once "swore a pact to the devil" to gain their freedom from the French.

So in the mind of Pat Robertson and his generation of culture warrior Christians, this is what it means to show "compassion" in the face of tragedy? Can anything he says be taken as a true Christian perspective anymore?

Which reminds me. Don't forget to sign the petition "Christians Against Pat Speaking." The link is always available in my sidebar.

HT: My appalled Christian FB friends

Update: The devil responds.

Ted Olson's conservative case for gay marriage

2010-01-09T12:41:00.000-08:00

Attorney Ted Olson, renown champion of conservative and Republican causes, is currently involved in persuading a federal court to invalidate Proposition 8, a voter-approved measure that overturned the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry in California in 2008. His article, "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage," appears in Newsweek today.

Reactions to our lawsuit have reinforced for me these essential truths. I have certainly heard anger, resentment, and hostility, and words like "betrayal" and other pointedly graphic criticism. But mostly I have been overwhelmed by expressions of gratitude and good will from persons in all walks of life, including, I might add, from many conservatives and libertarians whose names might surprise. I have been particularly moved by many personal renditions of how lonely and personally destructive it is to be treated as an outcast and how meaningful it will be to be respected by our laws and civil institutions as an American, entitled to equality and dignity. I have no doubt that we are on the right side of this battle, the right side of the law, and the right side of history.

In 1996 Andrew Sullivan made the first conservative case for civil same-sex marriage in his book Virtually Normal. After reading his arguments in 2000 I became persuaded that I could make a conservative Christian case for civil same-sex marriage, aimed at Christians who might think homosexual practice is sinful but weren't interested in hindering the freedoms of those who would disagree. Evidently my essay was only one example of how Sullivan's ideas were spreading. Now, six years after I was forced out of my old denomination for expressing my views, Olson's article appears in today's Newsweek. The snowball has long been gathering speed and momentum. Given enough time, justice and truth will eventually win out.

Welcome, newest followers!

2010-01-08T16:52:00.000-08:00

It's time to recognize a new batch of followers. We've now hit the 45 mark. Thanks for joining, you guys!

Meadowlark
psevert
Bro.Chrystoph Damien, OCM
Alli
SweetLadyJ ChristianLesbian
G#

Beyond the silence

2010-01-03T15:17:00.000-08:00

I've noticed how the younger generation of evangelicals seems to have taken to heart the damage that the culture war has done to our Christian witness in this country. Movements like the emerging church, the "red letter Christians," and the popularity of pacifist politics show that young evangelicals are seeking to make a break from the past and strike out in new, even controversial, directions. I even see this generation of Christians making a concerted effort not to come off as hostile toward gays and lesbians, nuancing their opinions about homosexuality and steering clear of anything that smacks of homophobia.

The problem I hear about now, especially from young gays who attend evangelical churches or Christian colleges, is not that fellow Christians are hostile toward them, but rather they treat their homosexuality with silence. Complete deathly silence. No one says a word. One reader told me, "I came out to my brother a year ago but he hasn't mentioned it to me since. It's almost like I never came out to him at all."

I wonder if many straight Christians are so afraid of saying the wrong thing they've become utterly paralyzed. Silence is certainly better than screaming "pervert!" at somebody and calling up his pastor to get him excommunicated. But when a gay friend or family member comes out to you, he or she is signaling that they want the silence to be broken. They want the door of conversation to be open from now on. It doesn't have to be a daily topic of discussion, but it should lead to something, and you need to keep in mind that anyone who comes out to you is purposely making him- or herself vulnerable to whatever your response might be. That takes guts. Giving no response at all, ever, is a terrible way to react.

Possibly the best response you can give, if it's an honest one, is: "This doesn't change anything about our friendship as far as I'm concerned," or, "I love you just the same." If you can't say anything quite that positive, you should say something that's both honest and decent: "This has really thrown me for a loop. Is it alright if I get back to you after I've collected my thoughts?" And then make sure you get back to them. If someone was brave enough to come out to you, you should at least try to be brave enough to follow up as promised.

So what is a "safe" way to advance the discussion? Here are some suggestions:

* When did you first realize you were gay? (I just want to listen and understand where you're coming from.)

* Have you told anyone else besides me? (I'd like to know if I should keep this under wraps, or if you want to be open only with certain people, or if you want to be completely open with everyone.)

* Do you plan to tell your family/friends? How have your family/friends reacted? (I'd like to lend my moral support in case anyone's been a jerk to you.)

* How has going to church been for you lately? (I'm wondering if you still feel safe and comfortable there.)

* How can I pray for you? (I'm open to seeing what God will do in your life, even if it doesn't end up fitting into my "box.")

Goodbye 2009

2009-12-31T17:33:00.000-08:00

A meditation on the passage of time:

"Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher,
"Vanity of vanities! All is vanity."
What advantage does man have in all his work
Which he does under the sun?
A generation goes and a generation comes,
But the earth remains forever.
Also, the sun rises and the sun sets,
And hastening to its place it rises there again.
Blowing toward the south, then turning toward the north,
The wind continues swirling along,
And on its circular courses the wind returns.
All the rivers flow into the sea, yet the sea is not full.
To the place where the rivers flow, there they flow again.
All things are wearisome; man is not able to tell it.
The eye is not satisfied with seeing
Nor is the ear filled with hearing.
That which has been is that which will be,
And that which has been done is that which will be done.
So, there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there anything of which one might say, "See this, it is new"?
Already it has existed for ages which were before us.
There is no remembrance of earlier things;
And also of the later things which will occur,
There will be for them no remembrance among those who will come later still.

- Ecclesiastes 1:2-11

Rev. Rick Warren's statement

2009-12-11T09:35:00.000-08:00

Now this is a statement I can get excited about.

A written copy can be found here.

Frankly, when I heard yesterday that Rev. Rick Warren had come out with a statement opposing the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality bill, I imagined that he dispensed upon us another unconvincing, rear-end covering, washing-my-hands-of-any-responsibility type statement to toss out to the media and nothing more. But I think the difference here is that Warren is not just making a public statement to absolve himself. He is addressing Ugandan pastors and churches directly, using his influence and personal connections with them to urge them to oppose the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. I do not see empty talk here, but an appeal that may very well make a difference.

I particularly like how he makes arguments from Scripture that would appeal specifically to a conservative Christian Ugandan audience. In doing so, he has made himself an easy target for the liberal and secular media, but that makes me respect him more, because it shows the genuineness of his effort to convince the audience he is addressing, whose voice will undoubtedly play a key role in the outcome of this bill. I'm impressed.

"I do think you have blood on your hands"

2009-12-09T11:02:00.000-08:00

If your book was being used to promote the legal execution of gay people in a foreign country, wouldn't you be a tad more outraged than this guy?

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

You know the country's going down the tubes . . .

2009-12-04T10:50:00.000-08:00

. . . when you can't even get arrested for speaking out publicly against homosexuality.

Conservative Christian ministers from across the land, determined to test the bounds of a new law punishing anti-gay hate crimes, assembled outside the Justice Department on Monday to denounce the sin of homosexuality and see whether they would be charged with lawbreaking.

Anything other than sex "between a male and his wedded wife," announced the Rev. Paul Blair, "is a perversion, and the Bible says that homosexuality is in fact an abomination."

No arrest was made . . .

. . . In fact, the few cops in attendance were paying no attention to the speakers, instead talking among themselves and checking their BlackBerrys.

Side B interview on GCN Radio

2009-11-28T17:22:00.000-08:00

In case you aren't already aware, earlier this week GCN Radio posted their interview of my friend Wesley Hill on what it means to be a Side B Christian. (You may recall that Wesley is the author of the article "'A Few Like You': Will the Church Be the Church for Homosexual Christians?" published by Ransom Fellowship and mentioned on this blog last March.) Whether you are a gay or straight Christian, I think you will be surprised and challenged by what he has to say.

I personally think being a Side B gay Christian is the toughest calling of all. They don't fit in with the majority of "out" gay Christians, who are mainly Side A. They aren't warmly embraced by the conservative church since they reject the label of "ex-gay." And they don't have the comfort of having a life partner to support them through these difficulties.

Yet Side B'ers will make the biggest impact on the conservative church for the benefit of all gay Christians because of two reasons: 1) Their commitment to celibacy means they can't be dismissed out-of-hand by straight Christians as sexually immoral. 2) They are insisting on being called "gay" and are not letting straights get away with thinking that homosexuality is something you can just detox from.

Side B gay Christians are in the best position to change minds in the toughest pockets of the conservative Christian church, and yet they tend to be the most marginalized group among a marginalized group. They very much need our encouragement, support and prayers.

Welcome to our new followers

2009-11-19T08:58:00.000-08:00

It's time to welcome a new group of followers to this blog. Thanks for joining, everyone!

Jeff
J.Bags
Lori D
Raynor
Whitney
Lynda Mounts
Peter
mishkan
Freeing Julius
Wesley
Jon Trouten
Joelle Wolters

On an administrative note, from now on you'll have to sign in with Google in order to leave a comment in the comments section. Sorry for the inconvenience, but it's to avoid getting spam and I had to delete one for the first time this morning.

Generally I'm skeptical of comments sections on blogs. I've only recently enabled this blog's just to see how things go. So far I'm pleased with the quality and civility of the discussion. Thank you, everyone. I know what an achievement that is, especially for the kinds of topics we are discussing.

But, just to warn you, the moment I see things starting to go south, I'm canning it.

The Side A/Side B debate

2009-11-14T21:14:00.000-08:00

As many of you know, there is a debate among gay Christians about what the Bible teaches regarding same-sex sexual relationships. "Side A" believes that God approves of same-sex sexual relationships and that living a chaste life means abstaining from sex prior to entering into same-sex marriage. "Side B" believes that God does not approve of same-sex sexual relationships and that living a chaste life means living celibate (or, in some cases, being married to an opposite-sex partner, where both partners know it is a "mixed orientation" marriage). In my writings I have sometimes referred to Side A as the "affirming" position and Side B as the "traditional" position. I just like the idea of using terms that aren't judgmental or inflammatory when engaging in this debate.

Yet even though I take the Side B position, more than half of my gay Christian friends are Side A and we get along just fine. Why is that? I first began to realize that there were Side A evangelical Christians out there when I began meeting them at gay churches and gay Christian Bible studies. I'd worship with them, discuss the Scriptures, share testmonies and prayer requests. A group of Side A Christians prayed for me and supported me during the entire controversy I went through with my old denomination. When you experience that kind of close fellowship with one another, you can't deny the presence of the Holy Spirit is among you.

I also came to understand that many Side A evangelicals have scripturally-based reasons for believing as they do. Some arguments are very sound while others I can't agree with. But I agree with them on all the important things: the central doctrines of the gospel and the saving work of Jesus Christ. I just don't agree with their understanding of what the Bible teaches about the specific issue of whether homosexual sexual relations is sinful.

So this is how I've come to think of our differences. Suppose I were asked to write out a list of sins for which I think Jesus died on the cross. This list would represent my interpretation of what Scripture teaches to be sin. I might put down a thousand things on that list, one of which would be homosexual sexual relations. Then I'd leave a large section at the bottom of the paper blank for all the sins I might have left out, perhaps out of ignorance or self-deception or whatever. A Side A Christian might do the exact same thing, except he or she excludes homosexual sexual relations from their list and instead includes the sin of thinking homosexual sexual relations is a sin. So we have both included something on our list that the other person has excluded, and excluded something that the other has included. And we both acknowledge that our own lists are probably very flawed.

Now when we both come before Jesus to ask for forgiveness of our sins, we know that he pays for everything regardless of whether we have included them on our "list" or not. We both come with humility of mind, trusting that his blood will cover not just the sins we've acknowledged but also the ones we've failed to acknowledge because of ignorance, prejudice, hardness of heart, or whatever. So in the end does it really matter if a Side A Christian and a Side B Christian don't agree with each other's "lists"?

The main thing is that we both come before Christ knowing that he can remove all our transgressions, whether we fully understand what those transgressions are or not. In Christ there are no more lists. Our lists have been wiped clean, both what was on it and what we failed to put on them. And since we both come away from the throne of grace so thoroughly cleansed and perfected in Christ's righteousness, can't we forgive each other those disagreements that the blood of Christ has ultimately made irrelevant?

Welcome, GCN Radio listeners

2009-11-08T20:22:00.000-08:00

Thanks, GCN Radio listeners, for dropping by to visit my blog. I've been writing on the topic of "Christianity, Homosexuality and the Bible" over a span of nine years, which has ended up being a lot of writing. The links to many of the articles I referred to during the interview can be found along the sidebar of this blog. Nevertheless, I thought I'd provide a list of them right here for your convenience, along with links to other writings that you might be interested in.

(I apologize in advance for the crummy format of some of these older articles. I really need a web designer who can update my original MusingsOn.com site but somehow haven't gotten around to finding one yet.)

"A Conservative Christian Case for Civil Same-Sex Marriage"

"Gregg and Joel." The story of my gay neighbors.

"A Log of My Progress, 1999-2001." My journey toward understanding homosexuality.

Chronology and documents relating to the controversy in my old denomination.

"The Broken Hearts' Club: My Movie Experience"

Some highlights from this blog:

"Is homosexuality lust or love?"

"How Christians and gays talk past each other." Three part series.

"What it's like to be you." What straight Christians need to understand about celibate gay Christians.

My critique of ex-gay testimonies here and here.

"Suicide." Three-part series.

My interview with GCN Radio is up

2009-11-06T22:52:00.000-08:00

My interview on Gay Christian Network Radio is now available at the GCN website. Don't forget to scroll down the page and check out other GCN Radio programs. I felt honored to be invited as a radio guest for what I consider to be one of the hippest, coolest gay Christian ministries out there today.

GCN Radio Interview

2009-10-30T16:48:00.000-07:00

I was interviewed this morning by Justin Lee and Aaron Sperling for Gay Christian Network (GCN) Radio. It's an Internet radio show that you can download from GCN's website. I thought I was going to be all nervous and dry-throated but I actually had a good time. I'm not sure when the recording of my interview will be available. I'll let you guys know.

"The Vast Fields of Ordinary" by Nick Burd

2009-10-21T22:14:00.000-07:00

I know we're discussing Marin's book, but I have another recommendation, a young adult novel I just finished by Nick Burd called The Vast Fields of Ordinary. It's about a gay teenager coming out in the suburbs of Iowa. There's a subtle beauty to the writing, and the story feels so real you just keep turning pages until you're done. I won't say any more about it than that. Thanks to my friend Wes for a great recommendation.

Quote for the day

2009-10-16T15:27:00.000-07:00

[Love Is an Orientation] is a book that will put most of you into an immediate struggle. You are going to read what Marin says about the situation between Evangelicals and the Gay community with intense appreciation, but part of your ingrained evangelical training will be talking to you the whole time, telling you to stop thinking about anything other than the abomination of Gay sex and the verses that apply. You’ll want to shut it and you’ll want to keep reading. You’ll know you need this and you aren’t hearing it anywhere else, but part of you will say you’re slipping into squishy, emerging liberalism.

You aren’t. You are applying the Gospel.

Internet Monk

Thoughts on "Love Is an Orientation" by Andrew Marin

2009-10-16T09:35:00.000-07:00

I'm having a hard time evaluating a book that hasn't so much enlightened me as it has left me with the strange impression that I was reading a chapter out of The Story of My Life. Andrew Marin's Love Is an Orientation has organized, systematized and articulated, better than I ever could, just about everything I've thought and experienced over the last nine years in my own outreach to the gay and lesbian community, and more. Marin has been laboring in his own ministry for ten years, except much more intensely and in a situation that is far more immersed. Nevertheless, I've learned from reading his book that we've had a lot of the same experiences, thought a lot of the same things, and come to a lot of the same conclusions. Dude, where have you been all my life?

Love Is an Orientation was written as a handbook for evangelical Christians who want to make a serious attempt at crossing the barriers that separate them from the GLBT community. It is designed to give Christians a brain make-over in their approach to understanding who gay people are and how to love them with the love of Christ. The best kind of review for this book ought to be written by a Regular Joe Christian who can point out stuff like, "I was so convicted when Marin wrote this," "I was so enlightened when he explained this to me," "I didn't want to face this fact about myself, but I had to." That kind of perspective can give us a true idea of whether Marin has accomplished what he intended in writing this book.

I can't give you that perspective because I was going through a whole different set of thoughts and emotions. For what it's worth, I'll explain. First, I had the weird experience of thinking I was looking at myself in a mirror, since Marin's experiences and my own were so alike: "I've noticed that, too." "I've been in that situation." "I've had those fears." "I've taken that approach before." Then, once I accepted the fact that he and I have evidently been living in parallel universes over the last decade, I started to feel jealous: "How come he gets to move his family to Boystown and work with the GLBT community 24/7? I'm stuck here at home in the suburbs with three kids, struggling just to get a couple of hours of blogtime a week. Grr!"

Then, once I accepted that my lot in life is squeezing in only a handful of coffee shop meetings a year with my gay friends, while Marin has gotten as far as starting an entire organization (The Marin Foundation) dedicated to full-time outreach to the GLBT community, I started to feel kind of sad as I read on. Not for myself and all the selfish reasons I just mentioned. Not exactly. This is the part that's hard to explain.

I felt sad because as I read this very helpful guidebook, in which Marin explains in clear, step-by-step terms how Christians can be more humble, more teachable, more loving, and more persevering in reaching out to the gay community, a certain realization began creeping up on me, though Marin never once elucidated on it. I knew that in order to gather this kind of information, in order to come to these kinds of conclusions, you have to have experienced some pretty hard knocks. You've gone down blind alleys. You've said wrong things and beat yourself up later. You've been bewildered and humiliated and rejected a few more times than you would've liked. You've had to tear yourself down and build yourself back up from the inside out. You've felt like a failure. Marin refers to some of these experiences, mainly to make himself an object lession for his readers on what to do or not do. But I could tell there was a lot more there between the lines. I think what made me sad--and I don't even know if "sad" is the right word--was seeing how Marin was largely restrained about revealing what goes on beneath the surface, which made me wonder what all this might be costing him as he abandons himself daily to what is perhaps the most neglected mission field of our time.

When you read this book you'll want to discuss Marin's ideas and critique his strategies and analyze what he says from a myriad of angles. But don't get so caught up in the debate that you forget to say a prayer for him, his family and the Marin Foundation. For I imagine that what they've had to suffer and sacrifice to accomplish what they've done so far is something that can only be rewarded at the gates of eternity.

"God made me this way"

2009-10-13T11:10:00.000-07:00

An unlikely crowd is embracing the argument. A humorous twist from The Onion .

Thanks, followers!

2009-10-04T19:52:00.000-07:00

Looks like the pattern has been that I post the names of new followers by increments of nine. We've hit the 27 mark now. Here's the latest batch (with apologies to those of you who have been on my sidebar for awhile):

Kate
Holly Killen
Eugene
danielle nelson
Joe Branca
Jonathan
Lead_Worshiper
Tim Morris
Secretly Gay

Suicide, part 3

2009-09-22T10:36:00.000-07:00

We are told at the beginning of the Book of Job how the whole deal got started. God and Satan were having a dispute over whether Job worshipped God from a true heart or whether his motives were purely mercenary. My guess is that this conversation was only a small snippet of some ancient dispute between God and Satan from way back. Satan was the one who had tricked Adam and Eve into eating the forbidden fruit after all. He'd scored one against God there, so he figured Job would be more easy prey. He was saying that all he would have to do is destroy everything Job had and Job would renounce God in a heartbeat. God had more confidence in Job than that. He told Satan to go for it.

Job, knowing nothing about all this, saw everything he'd worked for in his life get trashed for no apparent reason. He managed to hang in there until, in a second wave of affliction, Satan struck him from head to toe with boils and he finally broke. He asked God what he did to deserve this. He demanded to know what sin he committed that brought this on. He wondered if God was capable of wickedness. He wondered if God had become perverse. He accused God of pulling rank on him--the rank of being too big, too powerful and too righteous to have to answer to a lowly mortal. The problem with God was . . . he was God.

O that a man might plead with God
As a man with his neighbor!
(Job 16:21)

In the end God answered Job, but it's not quite what we expect. God could have told Job about his conversation with Satan. He could have explained to Job that it was just a test of faith, that he didn't commit any great sin. He could have defended himself point by point against Job's accusations that he was being unjust, reckless and aloof.

But God knew that Job, in the throes of his sufferings, wasn't looking for "an answer." Job didn't want to be handed a list of reasons. "Well, you see, I'm conducting this test . . . it'll work together for the cosmic good . . . you'll get your life back when it's over . . ." None of that. The answer God gave was the only one Job craved. God appeared to him.

I had heard of Thee by the hearing of the ear,
But now my eye sees Thee. (Job 42:5)

Job saw God with his own eyes and that was all the answer he needed. God rebuked him, too, (rather mildly considering the intensity of Job's accusations) and didn't answer him point by point. He reminded Job that his ways were beyond understanding. He appealed to everything about his wisdom and greatness that Job already knew but had become blinded to in the thickness of his sorrows. Essentially God asked him, "Don't you remember who I am and why you once trusted me?"

Job had to accept that there were reasons behind his sufferings he could never understand. Instead he had to find comfort in the presence of the One who held those answers. In the end Job was rewarded and God restored to him all that he had lost. But like all the Old Testament books, the message that the Book of Job contains is only a partial answer. Because even as we come to the close of the story, none of Job's accusations against God were ever answered. They still remained. How God can afflict us with no explanation. How God is accountable to no one and is too terrifying to approach with a complaint. How God is just too big and powerful for us to deal with when we are weak and crippled and in pain.

In other words, even God could not remain satisfied with the answer he gave Job. Not while those accusations still stood. His fuller answer was yet to come in the New Testament, and once again he knew that our souls would not be content with a dry list of reasons. We crave fellowship with a God who is not only willing to draw near but to come down, find out what it's like to be us, walk in our shoes, suffer as we suffer, in crippling, excruciating pain. The only answer God could give to Job was to become a man himself.

He was despised and forsaken of men,
A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
And like one from whom men hide their face,
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God and afflicted.
(Isaiah 53:3-4)

Jesus excelled Job both in righteousness and in suffering. He knew what it was like to be accused and afflicted and rejected for no apparent reason. As the Son of God, his fellowship with his Father sustained him through these hardships. Yet as he drew nearer to the moment of his death, as the persecution intensified and his friends fell away and he found himself captured and tortured and condemned, he sought for God yet encountered only silence. In his most desperate hour, God found himself abandoned by God. We are told that when Jesus hung on the cross, he cried out,

"My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"
(Matthew 27:46)

If you've ever been there, you know that this is not a question. Jesus was not asking to be told, "You have to be forsaken so you can bear the sins of the world. It's part of the plan. The atonement, remember?" Jesus knew that, but for him, in that moment, this was not an answer. He was alone, his heart was breaking, he was suffering something no righteous man, no divine being, should ever have to suffer. And he wanted to know why.

Sometimes the only comfort you can give to someone with a broken heart is to say, "I know." At one time God could not say this to us; but he wanted to. So he did what it took to be able to say it. God was forsaken. God broke. God asked the question that was not really a question. It was his final answer to Job.

Suicide, part 2

2009-08-29T17:54:00.000-07:00

Well-meaning people will assure you that things are going to get better and there are plenty of joys you have yet to experience that are worth living for. Over time I've actually found this to be true. But when you're lying at the bottom of that dark pit looking up at the small circle of light above, those words seem like empty promises. You tend to be in a more skeptical frame of mind than the average person.

Because even if things do get better, you wonder how life could hold such bitterness in the first place. You've seen the ugliness behind the veil and now people are saying you can go back to pretending it isn't there? Why would you want to hop onto their merry-go-round when you know it is spinning in the middle of a wasteland? But then, there is no point in resenting them. Isn't it God whom you really question?

A closer look at Job reveals that it wasn't so much the loss of his children, his servants, his animals, his property or his bodily health that he found so devastating, but the near loss of his faith. He went straight for the heart of the matter when he vented his disillusionment with God. Who was this God who would allow such things to afflict a man who had served him so faithfully? Behind the veil Job saw the reality of his own frailty before an unrelenting Power who had a right to do as he pleased for reasons completely hidden from view. How could Job, a lowly, fallible human being be expected to play the game of life with a God who held all the cards, dictated all the rules and always produced the winning hand?

If I am wicked, woe to me!
And if I am righteous, I dare not life up my head.
I am sated with disgrace and conscious of misery.
And should my head be lifted up,
Thou wouldst hunt me like a lion;
And again Thou wouldst show Thy power against me.
(Job 10:15-16)

Doesn't matter what I do, Job says. If I'm wicked I'm doomed. If I'm righteous I'm disgraced by my sufferings. If I rise from my misery you'll just tear me down again like a lion.

For he bruises me with a tempest,
and multiplies my wounds without cause.
He will not allow me to get my breath,
But saturates me with bitterness.
If it is a matter of power, behold, he is the strong one!
And if it is a matter of justice, who can summon him?
Though I am righteous, my mouth will condemn me;
Though I am guiltless, he will declare me guilty.
(Job 9:17-20)

In other words, Job says, you can't win with God. He can afflict you all he wants with impunity. Power and justice are stacked on his side. Even when you think you are right, he can prove you wrong. You may think you are guiltless, but it is only his verdict that matters.

Why then hast Thou brought me out of the womb?
Would that I had died and no eye had seen me!
I should have been as though I had not been,
Carried from womb to tomb.
Would he not let my few days alone?
Withdraw from me that I may have a little cheer?
(Job 10:18-20)

Why did God bother to make me? Job says. Why couldn't I have gone from womb to tomb instead of suffering all the miserable stuff in between? Couldn't God allow me a little happiness and leave me alone? Go away already!

The Bible isn't endorsing this perspective so much as acknowledging Job's real feelings as he fights for the survival his faith. Yes, these complaints were a function of Job's faith. Because if he were faithless he would have simply cursed God and walked away. Instead, desperation pushed him beyond the restraints of his normal pious fear. To save his faith he risked bringing his impious accusations openly before God in hope of getting an answer.

A lot of Christians feel they can't relate to Job because he insisted he was righteous and did not deserve the calamity he suffered. But actually it was because of Job's scrupulously righteous life that he could be such an able spokesman for the rest of us. His righteousness made him bold with God, more bold than someone whose guilty conscience would silence him in doubt. Job had no such reserve. He just let God have it.

In all my bitter wanderings and dark thoughts, I never dared to go where Job went. But if existential pain can be translated into words, I can affirm that Job's questions and complaints were exactly my own. God used Job to articulate what many of us cannot. He has even published Job's charges against himself in the Holy Scriptures, uncensored, for all of humanity to see. And he demonstrates by the restraint with which he rebukes Job and the abundance with which afterward blesses him, that he is not willing to crush or condemn those of us who rail against him in our desperation to believe in him.

Suicide, part 1

2009-08-22T13:22:00.000-07:00

Suicide is when your soul lies at the bottom of a dark pit, feeling painful to the touch. I don't see it as an act so much as the state of mind that went on long before. It's looking around and seeing what everyone else seems to be blind to. The whole world appears to have gone insane. Everyone is busy, busy, so damned busy and enthusiastic about carrying on with their lives as if there were a point. They eat and drink and work and sleep as if life promised some hope or outcome worthy of all the effort. Their talk is even more disturbing. "Gotta see the new Harry Potter movie." "I'm looking to get a raise soon." "Let's try the new restaurant down the street." This is why people get out of bed every morning?

There was a time in my life when I drove my soaring hopes and expectations straight into the concrete wall of reality and spent quite a few years afterward cleaning up the crash site. Some people call it depression and will direct you to the appropriate medication. I think medication is a good idea but for some reason I didn't go that route. I took the gradual way out, rebuilding my faith and my psyche bit by bit, observing and examining the whole process until one day I was far enough out of the pit to see daylight. As a result I still feel an organic connection with the former days. I don't like to soar too high anymore, since I know how far it is to fall. A thin cloud of melancholy still hovers around me as a reminder.

What makes the difference between being in the pit and getting out? I realize this is a problem many people are anxious to solve, so bear with me when I say that I'm not so sure that my perspective on life from "within the pit" was altogether removed from the truth. There are many truths I saw most clearly when I was in my depressive state. The world is overrun with insanity. We chase after vain things. We hardly reflect on our lives. We do very little that truly touches the lives of others in a meaningful way. Happiness is much too fragile in this life, too dependent upon fickle people, upon changing circumstances.

The hardest part to deal with was not the facts of the situation, but the lack of honest acknowledgement from other people that the situation even existed. The isolation, in other words. No one I knew was willing to lay it out there, which is why I was amazed to find that Job, that ancient saint of the Bible, had traveled these paths long ago:

Why is light given to him who suffers,
And life to the bitter of soul;
Who long for death, but there is none,
And dig for it more than for hidden treasures;
Who rejoice greatly,
They exult when they find the grave?
(Job 3:20-22)

That's just a sample. You should read the whole chapter. I think it's great that the Holy Scriptures give air to a bitter speech that every pious Christian would instantly condemn out of Job's mouth. Sometimes life really is that painful, that Job longed to dig for his grave like hidden treasure. The Bible says so. God knows.

Finally reading Marin's book . . .

2009-08-02T17:46:00.000-07:00

I'm finally reading Andrew Marin's Love Is an Orientation, which I plan to review on this blog when I'm done. A couple of months ago I suddenly started hearing about the book all over the place: first a Facebook ad, then a friend of mine published a review of it, then a pastor friend asked my opinion about it, and on it went. I'm taking my time with it to help me digest everything, but I'm very encouraged by what I'm reading so far.

From a reader

2009-07-30T15:39:00.000-07:00

It's been a long time since I've printed a sample of the many emails I get from readers. My number one concern has always been to be sensitive to people's privacy which is why, with very few exceptions, I make an effort to write back to everyone personally. But I had to share this email which was particularly encouraging to me (the brackets are mine):

Hey Misty. I'm a worship pastor at a fairly conservative evangelical church. At an early age I was heartbroken to see the church's response to my gay uncles. They lived and died without any support or love from the church. I have recently been thinking about the response the church should have to homosexual believers. I know that there are several SSA [same-sex attracted] believers in our church, all but one of them is closeted. The one that is out is my dear friend who comes to my house weekly for a home group that my wife and I host. He's given us an amazing opportunity to process all these thoughts from a different perspective. Just this past weekend he brought a boyfriend to church. His friend loved the church, said he was intrigued by the message and prayed the prayer with our pastor. I sat with them throughout the service to show my acceptance, support and love, but I know that this raised many eyebrows. It should be interesting to see what kind of comments I get, especially from my boss.

So, I'm hopeful that our church will be open to ministering to those with SSA, but I'm sure that this will be a slow process.

I really appreciate your blog. Thanks for all you do.

grace and peace, jimmy [with permission]

I don't have all the answers when it comes reaching out to gays and lesbians. But it's great to hear how some of you are out there taking chances and sharing the love of Christ boldly. Someday you will be rewarded for your faithfulness.

Gay at Wheaton

2009-07-23T17:29:00.000-07:00

A gay Wheaton student shares insights that younger evangelicals--who are interested in being more compassionate and open-minded toward homosexuals--need to hear in order to take the next step in reaching out to the gay Christians in their midst. Is it enough to simply not be anti-gay?

Wheaton is not oppressive for the reasons Soulforce was protesting. Homosexual students aren’t actively oppressed under the community covenant. We just can't have sex--which puts us in the same boat as all unmarried Wheaton students. Wheaton is also not oppressively anti-gay, like some other communities. When we finally share our stories, we are usually well received. The community really does desire to help and love us. But they don't necessarily know how, so they keep quiet. As a result, many of us are wasting away, even in the midst of a loving community, under the burden of a well-meaning but deadly silence.

The third point of the article gives helpful advice on how to create a community for Side B (committed to celibacy) gay Christians in the church or on campus. If you want to know why this is so critical, read the second point of the article about what happened to a Wheaton student named Stephen . . .