Entitlement: or, Ducks Behaving Badly

I always find it depressing when people I respect do something that destroys that respect. When it's something like this – LaMichael James' recent arrest for domestic violence – it's particularly depressing; added to my disgust and loss of respect is the plentiful ammunition it gives to my friends who object to the violence of football and the adulation so freely given to sports stars.

For context, here's what I like about the guy:

So added to the injury to Courtney Eckhart is the insult to all Duck fans: Do we really want this guy on the team?

More important, perhaps, is the question that arises: Why do so many star athletes get into this kind of trouble?

On Feb. 11, Oprah Winfrey interviewed Kim Reed, who used to be Paul McKerrow.* That's not the non sequiter it seems on first glance – check out the video clip on the link. Paul had some pretty good football highlights, too. I'm bringing her up here because of something she said on the interview: She said she was glad she was born and raised as a boy because it gave her a sense of possibility and entitlement she would not have learned as a girl, though if she had to do it over again she'd transition earlier. She wants all girls to have that sense of entitlement. I can relate; my own sense of male entitlement, inculcated even in my much more awkward boyhood, still colors every aspect of my social interaction – so much, in fact, that I think it is just as important as my non-menstrual biology in guaranteeing that I won't ever have the complete experience of womanhood in our culture. Probably more so. And believe me, that's not necessarily a bad thing - rather, perhaps it is some compensation for the positive experiences of womanhood I've been denied.

The Patriarchy creates and supports this sense of male entitlement that is, to most men, invisible and taken for granted. This entitlement manifests itself in our society in various ways: as the "dominator" model of social interaction Riane Eisler identifies in "The Chalice and the Blade;" and as Rape Culture (see also my previous post and here).

I think that male entitlement is a key to understanding why so many athletes make such poor choices, but that doesn't satisfy me. That answer leads me to another question: Is this sense of entitlement inherent and inevitable? Is there a way to have football, with all its inherent violence and encouraged aggression, without the entitlement? Or am I wrong, and it's just a guy thing?

I don't think it's a guy thing. Too many men act responsibly. I think these poor choice are connected to Rape Culture. And that begs the question: Is football itself connected to Rape Culture and male entitlement?

I don't think so.

But I'm not sure.

And that pisses me off.

(*My boss at work is Kim's cousin. He copied the interview and shared it with me. I wasn't able to find it on the web, but if you can find it somewhere, it's worth watching.)

Thoughts on God and Sex [Revised]

There's an interesting distinction in my battered old King James that is replaced with the word 'homosexuality' in a lot of the newer translations. The word homosexuality wasn't even coined until something like the 1890's, so using it in a Bible translation seems the height of hubris. Anyway, in Romans 1:26-27, Paul says "…even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another…" Big-time condemnation of homosexuality and homosexuals, right?

But remember who Paul was speaking to. He was a Roman Jew living in an area that was saturated in Greek culture. Remember what a mentor was originally? He was an older Greek man who accepted a post-pubescent boy to be his apprentice, student, and paramour. Every man was expected to mentor somebody, and every boy expected to be mentored. Remember Sodom? Who wanted to have sex with Abram and Lot? That's right, it was every single man in town. (All the married ones, too.) It wasn't a few women shacking up together that earned Lesbos its reputation.

So who was Paul talking about? Read the whole chapter. It sounds a hell of a lot like a hell of a lot of people. Not just a few queers.

Was he condemning homosexuals? Or condemning people who had sex against their own nature?

Who hurt other people more – Barney Frank, the openly gay congressman from Massachusetts who enjoys a loving relationship with another man, or that pastor in Colorado, what was his name, Ted Haggard or something, who ripped his family and church apart with his relationship with a gay prostitute?

Homosexuality isn't a choice. Nobody in their right mind, in our culture, would make a choice like that, and invite all the hate, ridicule, discrimination, and physical danger of gay-bashing that comes with it. You're gay because that's who you are, and either God made you that way, or God got the hell out of the way and it was a random chance, or God doesn't exist, or God made a mistake. Oops. Sorry, Tom. I got these rules, see, but I just made you in a way that you can never obey them and be true to yourself at the same time. You don't obey them, and I'm gonna drop you into a fire and torture you forever. Tough life, dude, good luck.

It's tough to say with Paul [- at least, it is for me, because I disagree with a lot of what he said -] but I think he [had intentions of helping people live happier lives]. I'm guessing he was talking about heterosexuals. And that would imply that it's a sin for a homosexual to get married and have sex with a person of the opposite sex. That's right. I said that Paul's words imply that sometimes it's a sin to have heterosexual sex within the bonds of matrimony.

(I think that's why Republicans have so many problems holding their marriages sacred. At least when Democrats cheat, they cheat with people of the opposite sex.)

The question is, do we generalize Paul's condemnations in the first chapter of Romans to mean that the problem is sex outside of marriage and individual nature, or do we generalize it to mean that the problem is homosexual sex?

If it's the first, are we furthering the gospel by ensuring that between two or three percent of the population cannot have sex that is natural to them within the sanctity of marriage?

How do we decide which position Paul was taking? How do we gain the wisdom to make that choice? And what is our responsibility to do so, and sit in judgment over our fellow humans? Does Paul, or perhaps Jesus, offer any guidance?

Well, perhaps.

I turn my battered old Bible to Matthew 5:44, and read, "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."

I flip the page. It's made of rice paper, thin, delicate, and torn from many readings, so I turn it carefully, kind of holding the torn pieces together. And there I see Matthew 7:1-3: "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?" I turn the pages again, to Matthew 22:21, where Jesus says, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

(Y'all can have your new translations. I'll keep my old King James, with its beauty and poetry. And it smells good, too.)

Maybe we don't have to make that choice.

Maybe we don't have to take that responsibility unto ourselves.

Maybe we can withdraw from the argument, and let God do the judging.

But wouldn't that mean we'd have to let people decide for themselves who they thought it was natural to marry? Wouldn't that mean changing the laws to admit the whole range of gender and sex into the legal institution of marriage? Men with men, women with women, transpeople with whoever?

Wouldn't that destroy our society?

Um… well – what does it change, on a practical level? Those folks are getting married in their own churches already. They're giving birth, adopting, raising kids, and doing it with legal hurtles we don't have to deal with. But they're making it work. They're signing contracts and living wills that ensure they own their children and that they'll be with their partners in medical emergencies. They're planning ahead and enriching lawyers left and right. They're facing life with courage and passion, and yes, love.

What is our responsibility to our fellow humans – and, for that matter, to the elect of God, our own congregations?

What does it mean to come out from the world, and be separate?

If our neighbors Tom and Andrew want to go down to the courthouse and sign a contract to love each other and raise their daughter together, we don't have to officiate at their wedding, do we?

No.

We don't have to welcome them into our pews, do we?

No.

We don't have to say we agree with them, do we?

No.

We don't have to compromise our faith in any way, do we?

No.

The legal contract that they sign in front of the county clerk doesn't equate in any way with sacred vows spoken at the holy altar of God, does it?

No. That contract is sealed with the "image and superscription" of Caesar (or, at least, the state).

We can, however, stand out in front of the courthouse, and show 'em Romans 1:26-27, and explain that we're really worried that they're making a big mistake, and all those bad things Paul threatens are going to happen to them, and tell them how much we love them and how badly we'll miss them if they don't make it into heaven with us. That's what we'd do if we really loved them, like Jesus says we should, right?

But if we really loved them, would we stop them from passing by and making that mistake? Would we raise a gun, and point it at them, and tell them we'll shoot if they pass through those courthouse doors? Would we join arms together and form a human chain that would block them, and use our greater numbers to prevent them from acting on their own conscience?

Because that's what you're doing.

What would Jesus do?

Help Protect Marriage!

A message from HRC (Human Rights Campaign):

Dear Friends,

Do you want to live in a country that legalizes discrimination? Despite the recent California Supreme Court decision that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is unconstitutional, efforts are underway throughout the country to take away rights from same-sex couples.

I just joined thousands of others in showing my support for marriage equality for all. But recently, proponents of bigotry and hate collected even more signatures in an attempt to invalidate the California Supreme Court decision. Some people are even trying to add a same-sex marriage ban to the U.S. Constitution.

We are at a turning point in our nation's history and I'm hoping you'll join me in standing up against discrimination. Please sign the Million for Marriage petition and get us one name closer to showing that Americans overwhelmingly support marriage equality!

http://www.MillionForMarriage.org

Every committed couple deserves to enjoy the privileges and responsibilities conferred by marriage. Add your name to the petition and be a part of the movement to fight for marriage equality for all.

Thank you!

Of course, the folks supporting the ban on equal marriage are not really "proponents of bigotry and hate" – at least, not intentionally. They're just scared. I don't know how to help them understand that they are not endangered by allowing equal marriage for all. I suspect the best way is to show them that it just ain't that scary. In other words, to make marriage legal for any consenting adult who wants it, regardless of sex or gender. Really, it's doing them a favor. By relieving them of what appears to be one of their worst fears, they will live life with less fear, and hopefully more love.

And anyway, what business does the government have telling you who you may marry, so long as that person is a consenting adult? That is not an effective role for government.

Marriage for Everyone in California!

The California Supreme Court has ruled that gay marriage is legal in California. One of those "duh" moments, when they actually read the 14th Amendment and decided that it was - or should be - the law of the land.

At least, four out of seven thought so. A little depressing to realize it was such a narrow victory for human rights and equal treatment under the law.

But not much. Mostly it's just an awesome, really cool time to celebrate!

I never understood why some people care who their neighbor marries, anyway. Maybe now they'll be able to see that allowing others full access to civil institutions doesn't take any of theirs away. I hope so!

Joy

Entering the door to the Tango Center tonight, a wave of music, cheering, and sheer joy washed over me. Electricity crackled in the air. Couples danced across the floor, dodging the children who ducked and dived under their feet. Among the tables along one side of the dance floor, several women in wheelchairs held court. At the back, plastic cups filled with champagne fizzed in partners’ hands. Old couples, young couples, music, dancing.

Joy.

There is no other single word I can conceive to describe so well the feeling of these many same-sex families, celebrating their new ‘domestic partnerships.’

It has been six days now since Oregon same-sex families have finally been granted a decent proportion of those marriage rights and responsibilities taken for granted by those of us privileged enough to be born into the majority orientation. Most of the people who filled the room had lined up on Monday to file; others had gotten ‘partnered’ later in the week. One lesbian couple, together for 28 years, was planning on getting partnered next Wednesday; “We didn’t want to rush into anything.”

(As if they could, when the right of marriage had already been withheld so long.)

I laughed, I hugged, I toasted old friends and met new ones. Some of these couples had been married before, only to see their union torn away when the state nullified the Multnomah County marriages. But no one can take this night away.

On the way out, I took a moment to look over the “Congratulations” board. “Tom and Mark – 22 years.” “Elaine and Joy – 28 years.” “Ken and Tom – together 16 years.” Again and again, commitment writ large – and long.

Get real, people. These folks are married, they have been married, they are more married than many heterosexual couples have ever been or will ever be. It’s time to honor them with the same recognition the rest of us have enjoyed for so long.

Thank the good people of Oregon, and our legislators, domestic partnerships are a real good step on the way. Hallelujah! What a celebration!