Marriage and Equality

Awhile back I commented on a post by a guy (conservative anti-gay type) who, in order to defend "traditional" marriage as between a man and a woman only, created the idea that women's equality came about because of their marriages – that "marriage brings equality," or, the interactions women had with their husbands were what led to women's suffrage, not the marching and the protesting and the blood of courageous women spilled on the ground in protest, along with the cultural change these brave pioneers instigated. (Well, what the heck, as the article in yesterday's post reveals, sometimes "marriage defenders" get desperate.) I wish I had found this website while I was taking issue with his fantasy.

OnLawn works hard to make his case, but the No Longer Quivering bloggers, along with their counterparts such as Our Quiverfull, offer real-time examples of how fully patriarchal marriage – traditional marriage, if you will, from the days before women's suffrage and the feminist movement – works. It's true that women often influence their husbands, even under the most oppressive legal circumstance. John Stuart Mill is an example – way back in the mid-1800's, his relations with his wife led to his essay On the Subjection of Women, where he proposed that women should be wholly equal with men. So I have no doubt that OnLawn's argument about marital interactions and relations is correct – for some men. But reading the accounts of the NLQ bloggers shows the flip side; for many – I would argue most – men, the subjection and submission of women in their households leads to varying levels of abuse, from outright physical and emotional abuse to subtle abuse that amounts to no more than fond contempt, such as one might have for a child or pet – the assumption that women are less competent, less able, less intelligent than men.

Where have you encountered that attitude before?

Even when intended with love and nurturance, that attitude damages women and society by preventing the development of the full potential of both men and women.

I have no doubt that many women were in happy, near-equalitarian relationships with their husbands, back when they were legal chattel. But that is a testament to the quality of their husbands, not to the legal disparity between them, or their powers of persuasion. As Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely." The moral character of men put in a position of absolute power over their wives must have degraded, damaging them as well as their wives. The NLQ bloggers' experience shows that it still degrades. The indoctrination of women from birth in their inferiority and natural submissiveness, along with the promise of reward in the afterlife for that submissiveness and fear of punishment for being uppity (emphasized in the past by executions of women purported to be "witches"), serves only to gain their acquiescence. It, and their marital relations, do nothing to bring equality. I know of no one who, having power, has given it up without a strong demand – often a violent demand – being made to do so.

The husbands of 100 years ago are no different. Equality – or at least, women's suffrage – was brought by the persistent demand of women, led by courageous women such as Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mary Baker Eddy, and others.

Marriage: What’s Going On?

Not long ago, a "marriage defender" who calls himself R.K. asked me what I would like the general cultural understanding of marriage to be, whether "marriage is between any two persons"? Or "marriage is between a man and a woman, unless...."? He recommended I answer after reading this article. I didn't answer in that comment thread, but it's a fair question – one I'll answer here.

I recently read that 4 in 10 children – 40% - are born to unmarried mothers. This is a radical cultural shift from what marriage would have been even 50 years ago, when getting pregnant outside of marriage was stigmatized, and women didn't have the economic equality and opportunity to support themselves effectively. 150 years ago, pioneering feminist Mary Baker Eddy wrote: "… the frequency of divorce shows that the sacredness of this relationship is losing its influence and that fatal mistakes are undermining its foundations." At that time, divorce was relatively rare; today, around 50% of marriages end in divorce. The institution of no-fault divorce is at least partly, and perhaps wholly, responsible, and this represents another profound cultural shift in the perception and understanding of marriage. Today, gay people in four states can get married, just the same as straight people and into the same institution, and hate crimes legislation has been passed to protect them from crimes based on their identity. 50 years ago, they were frequently targeted by police for beatings, harassment, and arrest, and very few people in mainstream, straight society seemed to care.

There's a saying in architecture: "Form follows function." In other words, how a building works is more important than its shape, colors, textures, and so on; instead, the function of the building informs what shape it will (ideally) take.

So already, the cultural understanding of marriage – and its function – is profoundly different than it was 100, or even 50 years ago.

I'm not going to argue what's right or wrong here, or what's best. I've seen enough marriages where children were being hurt by the wars between their parents, where no-fault divorce was a better option than allowing the anger to escalate to violence, where the children were benefited, perhaps even their lives saved, by their parents' separation. At the same time, there is a preponderance of evidence that shows that, overall, children of divorce fare worse than the children of intact families. I don't have the wisdom to even suss out all the variables that influence things like that, much less analyze their effects.

The article cites six "goods" of marriage as an other-sex-only institution: it supports a child's birthright to know and be raised by her biological parents; it maximizes the level of private welfare of children; it is the foundation of the "child-rearing mode" that correlates – "in ways not subject to reasonable dispute" – with a child's well being; it is a bridge that unites men and women; it
is "the only institution that can confer the status of husband and wife, that can transform a male into a husband or a female into a wife …, and thus that can transform males into husband/fathers … and females into wife/mothers …; and last, it constitutes "social and official endorsement of that form of adult intimacy that society may rationally value above all other such forms. It cites these as self-evidently, inarguably the ideal. But I can't help but question some of them.

For instance, do kids have a right to know who their biological parents are? No doubt. Do they have the right to be raised by their biological parents? Maybe. But too often they should have the right to not be raised by their biological parents. I imagine Rusty Yates' kids would have welcomed an opportunity to be raised by someone else. What kids do have, is the right to be raised by people who love them unconditionally and have the emotional, spiritual, and physical resources that will enable them to grow into fulfilled, functioning adults. Indisbutably, that is, in most cases, biological parents. But the exceptions are so common, that can we justify codifying that into law? Thousands of children are worse off with their biological parent or parents than with someone else; thousands of adults have love and resources to bestow on children, yet for one reason or another cannot or will not contribute their genes.

I very much question whether a child's private welfare is better with a man-woman parenting couple than with a same-sex parenting couple. Again, too many variables intrude. We have seen that divorce is not the best platform for a child's well-being; but do we even have any significant data on intact same-sex parents? And even if we did, is it so compelling as to codify it? The children of same-sex couples I know are doing just fine. A child's well-being depends more on her individual relationships than on any particular "mode." Men and women are united by far more than marriage, biology and our common humanity perhaps being the strongest bridge. Inclusion of gay marriage transforms a male into a husband (two of them, in fact), and a woman into a wife. And why should society endorse one form of consensual adult intimacy over another? There is great danger in this assumption – our culture currently endorses one-man, one-woman marriage, but other cultures endorse polygamy, and ours has endorsed the concept of the woman as subservient to the man in the not-so-distant past.

Okay, back to the question:

Answer: I don't know. Theoretically, I think I could live with the cultural understanding of marriage being man-woman only, or including only same-sex couples. Objectively, I don't even know what it should be, or which form is best for children or society.

What I do know, is that regardless of what the cultural understanding of marriage should be, when I see my friends "Ken" and "Tom" together – they've been faithful to each other for 19 years now – I see married. I see two people deeply in love, with the comfortable intimacy that marks happy couples who've been through years and trials together. It's the same when I see Ann & Christine (14 years, 1 child), Angela & Cecily (at least 10 yrs.), Lila & Elaine (28+ yrs.), Annie & Michelle (more than 18 yrs, 2 kids). And last year, when Kelly broke up with her domestic partner, and her eyes were red from crying for a month, I saw the deep grief of divorce. (All names are changed to protect their identities.)

In other words, the cultural understanding of marriage I have is that it's between two people, and sometimes more. What I want doesn't seem to play into it that much, except that I would like a shared understanding. I bet you would, too. On the other hand, I want the cultural understanding of intimate relationships to be that same-sex relationships are just as legitimate and valuable as other-sex relationships. I also strongly believe that gay couples should have access to all the rights, responsibilities, privileges, and obligations that straight married couples have. I'm not set on the idea that those rights be defined as "marriage" – if equality can be obtained through "civil union," fine. In fact, some people have suggested that a two-tier system would be better – you get a license for a civil union from the state, and hold a legal ceremony completely separate from religious affiliation at a courthouse or other state building; then, if you want, you can get married in a sacred ceremony in the religious venue of your choice. Our German friend recently went through just such a pair of ceremonies, and it seems to make sense, separating the legal from the sacred. In such a case, both gay and straight couples would enter into the civil union, while the sacred union would be completely regulated by religious authority. If that system could end the animosity and free the energy of both "marriage defenders" and "marriage reformers," may it happen.

In sum, I think what we have is a culture in upheaval, caught in a radical shift between two visions, two understandings of what this particular social institution is and means, linked to the growing cultural understanding and acceptance of gender variance. I'm part of the new culture, along with, judging from recent votes in California and Maine, probably about 45 to 48% of our population. Judging by history and current trends, it's just a matter of time before that cultural shift is complete. The changes in function will bring about a new form, and the "goods" of marriage will have shifted to a new set. Looking back at history, the cycle is clear: the new (fill in the blank) causes great social upheaval, the old resists stiffly, but gradually fades away, and the new becomes accepted as normal and right. Industrial Revolution vs. Luddites. Feminism vs. patriarchy (or women as people vs. women as servants). Transition of European monarchical political systems to parliamentarian systems following the French Revolution and Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo. This shift in marriage is intrinsically linked to the cultural shift of recognizing homosexuality and transgenderism as normal variations of the human condition. And in some ways things will be better, in some ways worse.

I just pray that that new set of goods more than compensates for the old, and that our families and our children are blessed by it and grow stronger.

A Very Special Relationship

It's a joy working with Kristin on our new house addition.

Last Saturday the boys went off with friends and Ken left for a wedding gig and to do his schoolwork (he's earning a math certificate to add to his music teaching certs), and we spent the whole day working together. I don't think our jaws stopped yapping for more than a minute! We talked about everything from Roman and Viking history to relationships to kids to how we can best contribute to the world and society to how to take care of our bodies, etc., etc.

Our relationship has developed into something unique and incredible. We know each other like the paths of our own mind, and work together like music. There is a depth of spiritual intimacy and honesty that was not there (especially for me) when I was faking life. Now we are like sisters, but closer than sisters. We are partners and teammates. We are coparents who share in the nurture, guidance, and education of our children. It is this holistic female partnership that feels complete, even without the sexual relationship of spouses; and complete in a way that is hard to image a spousal relationship. Even now, two years past our spiritual divorce, there is a strong possibility that we'll stay together for the rest of our lives. Our love is that strong. Our respect and admiration for each other's strengths is that sincere.

I love her.

The Definition of Marriage

In his book "The Future of Marriage," David Blankenhorn devotes an entire chapter (pp. 91 to 125) to the definition of marriage. He traces the history of marriage, the biology of marriage, different forms of marriage in different cultures, and focuses on fatherhood as the core meaning, or definition. Even so, I don't have the sense that he's entirely satisfied with his definition. It's terribly ironic, because there is a simple definition that has been written down for millennia, which really sums it up. That definition is found at the very beginning of the Bible, Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

I always read this as meaning that they become one in sexual intercourse. But that's not what it means. You can have sex and not be married. It happens all the time. For that matter, you can be married in the physical, social, legal sense of the word, and not be married in the spiritual relationship that it is.

The key point, the crucial word, in this simple definition is "one." "They shall be one."

Marriage is a spiritual relationship, not a physical one – though it does have a physical component, which is embodied in the sexual relationship, but which is probably not necessary to consummate in order for the marriage to occur. In fact, marriage is probably the spiritual meaning or embodiment of sex, but that spiritual relationship is not contingent on ceremonies or legal documents or property exchange, or even a vow. It is an aspect of family, but family is more inclusive. Children are an aspect of it, but they are not necessary to it. Some "marriage defenders" put "responsible procreation" only within the boundaries of marriage, and in the spiritual aspect of it, I think they are right.

The problem is that Blankenhorn and other "marriage defenders" have limited the definition of marriage to the physical, social, and legal sense of the word. They have mistaken the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself.

Notice the simple phrases that make up that one sentence definition. "A man [shall] leave his father and mother." A child, growing up, separates from his nuclear family, from the unity to which his mother and father belong. "…and shall cleave unto his wife." I emphasize "and" because it's not enough to separate from mom and dad. The adult child must also form a new relationship, which has a sexual connection or aspect – what Blankenhorn calls "pair bonding." "… and they shall be one flesh." Again the emphasis on "and," simply because there is no way to separate the two aspects. The "one flesh" is spiritual unity. By pair bonding in this way, those two people literally become one unit. That unit is marriage. It's like an molecule of water – atoms of hydrogen and oxygen bond to create a new element. And, like water, that element can be re-divided into its individual parts; but when that re-division happens, the element no longer exists. (That is divorce. And that spiritual divorce can happen with or without dissolving the physical-social-legal aspect of marriage.)

That spiritual unity, whole unto itself, is basic to humanity. It is part of our spiritual biology. Growing within it is the spiritual and emotional birthright of children, and that birthright should never be intentionally taken away.

In this, the "marriage defenders" are absolutely correct.

But what "marriage defenders" don't understand, is that the physical form of marriage is only the physical manifestation of a spiritual entity. The social institution of marriage, in whatever form it is manifested in the different cultures of the world – patriarchal, matrilineal, whatever – is how society honors, acknowledges, and recognizes this spiritual entity and unity. The form doesn't matter. And while the social institution of marriage is important in honoring and sanctifying the spiritual entity of marriage, in supporting the child and the child-rearing unit, it is not vital to it. Marriage will continue whether it is recognized by society or not, because it is at heart the joining of two individuals into one unit – and it is inherent to our species.

What they further don't understand is that gender is not a defining aspect of it. That sexual-spiritual unity exists among gay and lesbian relationships, and in my experience as a witness, is very common to those same-sex relationships. In other words, like it or not, gays and lesbians do marry, in the basic, spiritual-physical aspect that is the genuine entity of marriage – literally, the marriage of the Bible. The Bible puts it in terms of man and woman for good reason; by far the most common marriage relationship is between a man and a woman, and that is the form of the marriage relationship that produces children entirely within itself, and until the recent advent of IVF gestation and surrogate motherhood, the only way children were brought into being inside a married, family-childrearing unit.

So the first question we must ask in the marriage debate is whether we are going to define marriage as a purely physical relationship, or as the spiritual relationship it is. The health of the social institution of marriage is directly proportional to society's value and recognition of the spiritual entity of marriage.

The second question in the marriage debate is whether we as a society are going to find a way to honor those relationships between same-sex partners with a social institution, or whether we will continue to throw gay and lesbian families – gay and lesbian marriages, and their children – under the bus.

Then lets talk about how, within that framework, we are going to ensure that every child possible is raised with the birthrights of both family-childrearing unit and biological heritage intact.

More on Marriage…

But not here. I've moved that discussion over to Culture Pax. This is my personal blog, and I'm going to try to keep it more on a personal basis for awhile, though of course, being the political person I am, I'll certainly post my opinions here. Just don't ask me for news. I've got no more news than Fox (Faux) News does. My opinions do align, however, far more with reality than theirs.

What Constitutes a Marriage?

Anonymous asked for a definition of marriage, and, as it seems like a reasonable request, I'll give mine.

There are two aspects of marriage to consider. One is a sacred contract sealed between two or more people in the presence of family and their God. There is no legal aspect to this – it is simply a promise, made in the presence of God to seal it with holy sanctity. The details of who qualifies is determined by religious hierarchy. Some religions endorse polygamy, some define marriage as between one man and one woman, some endorse same-sex marriage. All of these religions can be found in the United States, and all of them currently practice marriage by their definition. In a free society, each religious tradition defines marriage as it sees fit; there is no obligation to treat different configurations equally, or even to recognize that they exist.

The other is a legal contract, made between two or more people in the presence of the state. It is an agreement on dispensation of property, ownership of children, and social organization. The role of a government of free people in regulating this contract is, first, to ensure that all parties are consenting adults – a consenting adult being someone who has reached the age where they fully understand the obligations, responsibilities, and consequences of joining into this contract, and who is entering into it of their own free will, without coercion. The second is to apply the law evenly to all citizens, which means that once assured that all members of the union are consenting adults, the state allows them to sign the paper joining their individual lives, and treats them henceforth as one unit within the bounds of the marriage contract.

Yes, that means I believe the state should allow same sex and multiple partner marriages, so long as all members are consenting adults. The state also has a duty to prevent marriages that include young people under the age of consent, people who are under pressure from family or church, and people who are incapable of understanding what they are doing. And yes, this is a very libertarian philosophy or definition, but that doesn't make me a libertarian. I just believe in freedom, responsibility, and conscience. I believe in the principles under which this country was created.

Note: I did not consult a dictionary in writing this. Anonymous asked my opinion. Here it is.

A Distinction with Illustrations

David's reply to my last post struck me hard. I'm guessing that many people who object to "gay marriage" have not thought about it in this way before, very much. I'm guessing that marriage to them is a package, one thing – not a mixture of private, very personal commitments, social implications, and legal protections and responsibilities. I suspect that much of the emotion about the discussion of this issue in the political sphere is that each side is talking about different things. Each side is feeling like the other is attacking something so precious and important to their own well-being, and refusing to give any at all.

My hope is that by engaging in this conversation, we all can at least understand what the other side is talking about. My hope is also that no one has to give anything up to find a solution. Christians, I want you to know that I value your moral structure – I don't want to force anything on you. I treasure your right to live as most befits your faith. I see your personal integrity and your sincere efforts to love all the world, and I cherish that. I believe your prayers add to the peace of the world. I don't want you to give up anything, I don't want you to lose anything; I want you to live free in the integrity of your faith.

But I also don't want to give up anything. I want to live free, too.

Maybe there is a way that can happen. If I'm right, and we are talking about different things, maybe we can find a way to all understand what the other side's concerns and needs are. I believe that if we can figure that out, a solution that meets the needs of everyone will arise, perhaps far more easily than any one of us imagines.

I'd like to tell a few brief stories to illustrate what marriage equality, or 'gay marriage,' means to me.

The first is about a friend of mine who lives in California. Twelve years ago she married her wife/partner in, I believe, a church ceremony. Together, the two women had a child, and raised him to be a very connected young man. Recently, on their twelfth anniversary, they married again, this time in a civil ceremony, thanks to the action of the California Supreme Court. My friend has mixed feelings about getting married again, after so long together, but she now enjoys the legal recognition of the state.

The second is my own story. I met Kristin 18 years ago, and married her at a winery the next year. My uncle, an Episcopalian minister, officiated. We embarked on life together, and eventually had two children. As life progressed, however, and I got older, the problems I'd been hiding for so long continued to grow until I could no longer hide them. Sixteen years after our marriage, I told her that I had misrepresented my vows, and broke them. I began to live as a woman, and to transform my body as much as possible to conform to the person I've always felt I was inside. I changed the gender marker on my driver's license, and am now, legally, a woman. But Kristin is straight, and our relationship changed. We are no longer married, and live as sisters, roommates, co-parents. We are, in every sense of the word but one, divorced.

That one is that we are still married in the eyes of the state. Even though Oregon has a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, we are a legally married, same-sex couple, as recognized by the State of Oregon. We are not even separated, as we still live in the same house. We own our property and our children in common. If we were not married, I could not claim Kristin as a family member on my health insurance plan, and there is no way we could ever pay for a policy for her without it. She would be forced to live without health care coverage through no fault of her own, while I, who put her in that position, would still be covered.

The last is about a friend who is German. A couple of years ago she got married, and we crossed the ocean to celebrate with her. We were a little confused at first – she was having two ceremonies. The first was a wedding at a state building (courthouse), where they stood before a bureaucrat, signed a contract, and made promises to each other. I don't think the bureaucrat was the equivalent of a county clerk – she might have been a judge. I don't speak the language, so I just watched. People were dressed formally, but just in suits and dresses. A couple of days later, she put on a beautiful wedding gown, and went to the church. There, before a much bigger crowd, kneeling at the altar of God, they spoke sacred vows in the presence of a priest.

Can you imagine what we could do together with all the money and energy we are now spending on getting our own way on this issue? Can you imagine everyone getting their needs met around it? Everyone "winning," and the whole world winning as we re-route our resources to alleviate the pain of others, or even just keep it and enjoy it ourselves?

Christians especially, I'd love it if you'd be willing to leave a comment telling me how you feel reading this, and if you are feeling heard by me – whether or not you think I understand what your needs are regarding marriage equality and protection of the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman?

An Interpretation

Christians,

When I see your strenuous objections to allowing gays and lesbians to marry, I think that you hold the sanctity of marriage to lie with the document signed in front of the county clerk, and not with the vows spoken between man and wife in the presence of clergy, family, and community. After all, lesbians and gays are currently getting married in churches left and right, and I haven't heard you object to that, or take a stand that that should be made illegal. So the sacred, holy aspect of marriage lies in whether the state – the secular government – recognizes it as valid. Am I correct in this understanding?

Could We Start Again, Please?

I've been living to see you,

Dying to see you but it shouldn't be like this.

This was unexpected,

What do I do now?

Could we start again, please?

  ~Jesus Christ Superstar

 

Hey, Christians!

Thank you for the conversation, and your patience with me. You didn't ask for it this. I stuck my nose right into your business, and you've responded wonderfully, with warmth and love (for the most part) and a whole lot of "gospel." If you'd be willing to be patient awhile more, I'd appreciate it.

Could we start again, please?

Okay, this part is in response to David's last post in reply to "Thoughts on God and Sex:" (I don't know how you "start again" with a response, but I guess with God all things are possible.)

 

So, David, if I'm hearing you right, when I ask to be allowed to marry someone of the same sex as I am, you feel worried and/or anxious. You've got a need for safety that isn't met, fearing that if I marry someone of the same sex, you won't be safe within this larger community of the United States of America, and your closer, personal community won't be safe, either. Need for community not met in that concern. Is that correct?

Also, when I read your comment on salt, I'm guessing that you feel sad, or confused by these people who want to change the way things have been, because you really value the sacredness of marriage and the long tradition that has held it as being between male and female. You've got a need for sanctity or sacredness that isn't met. Am I correct in that?

I'm wondering also if you feel a bit frustrated, because you have needs for choice and for control of your own environment and social structure that aren't met. Am I correct in that?

 

It may be rushing things to go straight from empathy to expression, but I think I'd like to try it.

When you compare thievery to getting married as two things that are equal both morally and in how they hurt others, I feel confused and puzzled. My needs for clarity and understanding aren't met. It's quite clear to me how, if someone steals from me, my life has been affected; I've been hurt. Likewise, if I steal from you, I see how you are hurt. What I don't see is how you are hurt if I marry another woman. Would you be willing to give me a specific example of how my marriage will hurt you?

(The reason I ask is that your example of a country that endorses homosexuality failing is vague to me. What about Greece? What about Rome? The two of them were among the greatest of the early civilizations, yet Greece lasted for hundreds of years, up to two thousand if you count the various city-states and periods. Rome lasted for over 600, and didn't fail until shortly after it adopted Christianity as the state religion. The Third Reich, on the other hand, institutionalized discrimination against homosexuals, even sending them to the gas chamber, and it only lasted about twelve years.)

When you say, "I feel that having God's laws be our laws helps preserve the country," I feel downright scared. I wonder, who gets to decide which laws are God's? I think of Afghanistan, where the Taliban ruled with God's laws; Saudi Arabia, where the Saudi royal family enforces God's laws; Iran, where the ayatollahs enforce God's laws; The Spanish Inquisition, where Christian leaders ruled with God's law. I think of my own Puritan ancestors who came here on the Mayflower to escape from God's laws, and yet set up a new rule of God's laws in Massachusetts Bay and ended up burning "witches." I have needs for safety, choice, autonomy, freedom, and sanctity that aren't met. I feel sad, with a deep, deep grief. David, I feel my emotions strongly triggered by reading this! I feel confused; I have needs for understanding and being understood that aren't met. My understanding of this country is that our Founding Fathers specifically wrote "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" as the very first right of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights because living free of God's laws that have been imposed by the state (others) is the most important right we have, even more important than freedom of speech. It allows each of us to live according to the dictates of our conscience – our own understanding of God – within the parameters of social equity and civility. It is the most basic cornerstone of our nation. Would you be willing to tell me, David, what you think that first clause of the Bill of Rights means, and whether it should be repealed?

 

I'd also like to reiterate Anne's point from "Not Quite Connecting," that for me, this issue is economic – it is about having equal access to the opportunities and protections provided by our system of laws, i.e., being able to file joint tax returns or pick up my kid from school.

Would you be willing to tell me what you heard me say with that comment?

Thank you all so much.

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!

Domination Culture

A friend was talking with Kristin about her garden the other day.

"I wish my soil wasn't so thick and compacted and hard."

Kristin: "Well, that's why I've mulched this one so much." Our garden has fruit trees and fava beans blooming; asparagus, potatoes, and peas sprouting; kale, collards, chives, and swiss chard already at or near harvestable stage; garlic growing quickly.

Her friend sipped her tea. "I know, but I've got a commitment problem. I never know whether I'm going to be here next year, or not."

Kristin raised an eyebrow. "Well, what's your commitment to the earth?"

"What do you mean?"

"My dear, you don't have to do it for you. You take all your food from the earth, and give nothing back. You can do it for the earth, or for the next person to live there."

"Oh!"

The sound of lightbulbs going on.

We have an amazingly self-centered culture. I may be wrong, but I put the fault at a mistake made long ago, written in stone in the first chapter of the Bible: Go forth, and subdue the earth, and have dominion over it; God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed… and every tree; etc. No one remembers that the first part of that commandment is "replenish the earth," and the reason no one remembers it is because the entire paradigm of our culture is in direct opposition to it.

We belong to a culture that says, "The earth belongs to us, to do with as we please."

In fact, as Chief Seattle said, we belong to the Earth. "Man did not weave the web of life; he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself."

As a species, and as a society, I believe there is nothing more important to our survival than to make that simple paradigm shift. But when I see how the dominant religions in the world – especially, in our country, Christianity – all agree on the domination paradigm, I'm not optimistic.

Ironically, I think Chief Seattle's paradigm was exactly what Jesus was trying to get at, when he said, "Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; … Seek ye first the kingdom of God." The Earth is the kingdom of god; and we should return to Mother Nature Her dominion over us. We should take from Her gently, and nurture Her in return.

But of course, interpreted from a domination paradigm, the message is different. The kingdom is something that only happens after we die – after the Earth has been stripped, raped, and barren – and we get there by making damn sure that homosexuals can't get married.

Never mind that they go ahead and do it anyway, just without the legal and civil rights that fine, upstanding christians take for granted.

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!