Voices of Faith Speak Out: The Real Assault on Marriage

A conversation with Rev Dr Nancy E. Petty, Senior Pastor of Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh, North Carolina.

“One of the actual threats to marriage in our society today...comes from people misusing the Bible to define marriage. If you look at the Old and New Testaments, you will not get one picture only of what constitutes marriage. In fact, often in the Bible, men had numerous wives, and women were bought and sold as property. The claim that the Bible defines marriage for today is false....

“The real assault on marriage is to be found in right-wingers’ support of inequality within marriage, with a man given more power than a woman. If you look at what Jesus said about relationships, he calls us into relationships that are loving, just, compassionate and equal. Where [anti-marriage activist] Crouse says that love is not the most important thing in a marriage, her argument is morally, spiritually and ethically bankrupt. The real assault on marriage is Crouse’s use of hateful language spoken in a total void of what love means. For obvious reasons, it does not work well, generally, for a homosexual person to marry a heterosexual one. Where one social group, feeling itself superior, is beating another group down in order to get ahead, that is not talking about what is of value in loving commitments, and it certainly is not an authentically Christian way of being. The foundational Christian message is to love one another.”

The Chicago Catholics and Religious Freedom

Enough with this religious freedom argument already!  As I've told you before, it is specious as well as illogical.

FACT:  you are all free to practice your religion any way you choose.   


Regardless of the hyperbole, no one is, or will, ever step foot into any church and force them to marry anyone they don't want to.  After all, the Roman Catholics are free to deny marriage to anyone divorced, even though marriage following divorce is civilly legal.  No divorcé is suing the church for marriage, are they?

• Actually, what they are doing is buying "annulments", kinda like indulgences, which is why serial adulterer and thrice-married Newt Gingrich is now a Roman Catholic.  Note to cardinals, do you really think Newt is the best examplar of the meaning of marriage?

What you are NOT free to do is:

• force anyone else to practice your religion.
  For example, lots of faith groups disagree with the Roman Catholics about who can marry. The Episcopalians allow divorced people to remarry in the church, and in many jurisdictions where it's legal, they allow LGBT people to marry, neither of which are allowed under of Roman Catholic doctrine. Same for the MCC, the UCC, the Lutherans, reform Jews, etc etc etc. These faith groups should be free to practice THEIR faith, not be forced to be unwilling Roman Catholics. 



• get the government to pay for it.
  Yes, we know that Catholic Charities in IL is shutting down, rather than let gay people adopt children-- but they do not have a constitutional right to federal funding.  Catholic charities are more than free to keep providing discriminatory adoption services, if they choose to pay for it.  They just aren't perfectly free to keep using my gay taxpayer's dollars to fund discrimination against other gay people. 

And let's be very clear; this is a choice.  As the NY Times points out, 

Taking a completely different tack was the agency affiliated with the conservative Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod, which like the Catholic Church does not sanction same-sex relationships. Gene Svebakken, president and chief executive of the agency, Lutheran Child and Family Services of Illinois, visited all seven pastoral conferences in his state and explained that the best option was to compromise and continue caring for the children.

That is, you can keep taking public money and compromise.  You can not take public money, and do as you please.  Or you can shut down and scream "martyr!"

Here's the basic fact: claiming that you are being discriminated against, if you are not allowed to discriminate against others, is like killing your father and claiming sympathy for being an orphan.

Update:  Jay Bookman, writing in the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

...the church is not being persecuted. It is not persecution to be held to the standards that are applied to every other contractor that does business with the state. To the contrary, the church is demanding “special rights” to violate the law and to use taxpayers’ money to do so.  

Gay in Michigan? The Governor wants you to leave

The right-wing Michigan Governor has outlawed health benefits for unmarried partners of government employees. From the Advocate:

A bill to end health insurance coverage for domestic partners of government workers in Michigan was signed into law today by GOP governor Rick Snyder....

“Governor Snyder’s support for this bill is appalling," Emily Dievendorf, director of policy for Equality Michigan, said in a statement. "Today, the governor told unmarried public employees that they can no longer care for their partners or children. He has put hardworking gay and lesbian couples and their children into harm’s way by eliminating important health care coverage. He has spent the last two years talking about creating a welcoming state with a attractive business climate, and this bill flies in the face of those goals."

This will particularly hit academic institutions, as I've described before.  Academics don't like working in places where there is institutionalized bigotry.  Good time to be picking up talented faculty from U-Michigan.  And since more and more companies support benefits (indeed, quite a large number of major firms are actively opposed to DOMA ), this will also hit the business climate.

So Michigan may be purer, but it will surely also be poorer.

The repeal of DADT: the lies they told

By now, you've seen this image, I'm sure, of the US Navy petty officer claiming the traditional right of the "first kiss" after the ship comes home.  It's a long tradition, with a twist:  this time it's two young women.  And no one really cares that they are a same-sex couple serving openly.  Far more important, as any servicemember will tell you, is that the sailor is home from the sea.

There has been little real response to DADT repeal. Indeed, the biggest thing to notice is how little it's been noticed.  A Marine officer goes to the Marine Ball with a boyfriend.   A decorated airman can finish his career honorably.   Even the Marine commandant who was originally opposed to repeal, is pleased at its results.  And I'm not particularly surprised.   Living in San Diego, I  know quite a few military, largely Navy but a few Marines, and they are above all professionals.  Of COURSE they've done what they should--it's what a professional force does.

And, frankly, sexuality is a non-issue to them, across the board-- from BP's cousin, an aviation technician from a carrier who danced at our wedding in his dress blues, to the young sailor my stepdaughter dated briefly, who had no issue with her gay parents or his gay colleagues (and yes, even before DADT repeal, he knew who they were), to the retired Navy Captain in his 80s who always greets us with a big hug, and asks how the battle for marriage equality is going.

Writing in the HuffPo, Nathaniel Frank challenges those who made dire predictions about DADT destroying the American military to admit they were wrong (emphasis mine):

During the years I spent researching and writing about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," I frequently pointed out that when other countries lifted their bans, nothing bad happened. But people weren't convinced that the same would hold true here. As my colleague Aaron Belkin has theorized, in the U.S., fear and anxiety about change had swelled into full-blown paranoia. And this sentiment was being exploited and inflamed by political opportunists. There is even firsthand evidence that military and cultural leaders exaggerated the threat to unit cohesion throughout the debate over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," in an effort to give credibility to what was, at bottom, simple prejudice. 

....Throughout our history, opponents of equal treatment have insisted that it would wreak havoc on society, indeed that it would cause such grave disruptions that equality was an unacceptable threat to civilization. This "disruption" theory was wielded against African Americans, immigrants, women, gays and lesbians, and transgender people, to name a few. It is perhaps the sharpest tool in the arsenal of people who refuse to rise above passions and prejudice, but who know that they can't win their argument using religious and moral dogma alone. So they deploy arguments that sound secular and pragmatic -- equality will somehow harm kids, undermine the family, destroy civilization -- to mask what really amounts to feelings of discomfort, resentment or simple opposition to sharing first-class citizenship. 

The "disruption" theory was exactly what was applied -- and finally defeated -- in the effort to keep gay people from serving openly in uniform.... 

We hear that letting gay couples marry will disrupt the social fabric of American life, undermine marriage, kill a "culture of life," dry up the Western population, and threaten our civilization. If this is what was said about gay people serving openly (which it was), and if none of it happened, then the lesson is monumental: a culture of anxiety has become a politics of paranoia, which has pulled the wool over our collective eyes in service to maintaining an unjust status quo. Will we let it happen again and again and again? Will anyone be held accountable for steering us so terribly wrong?

And the other thing I'd like the naysayers to do is apologize to our military.  To assume dire consequences is to insult their professionalism.   Somehow, though, I think we'll be waiting a long time for that.

A reprise: coming out for Christmas (video)

From the London Gay Men's Chorus

Love makes a family (video Sunday)

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays from our home to yours.

 The video is from MoveOn.

 

Voices of Faith: An open letter to homophobic Christian parents at Christmas

I'm lucky that my parents immediately welcomed my partner (now wife) into our family life. But lots of people aren't so lucky. Here's a letter by an MCC minister:

To be Christian means to seek to be like Jesus, to follow His teachings and example, right? That's what makes your rejection of your LGBT children and their partners so richly ironic. The good news is that the upcoming holiday season provides you with a perfect opportunity to take a step toward turning things around....

Of course, my mother wanted me to come “home” for Christmas – me and my children. But my partner was not welcomed. ...I desperately searched for some kind of compromise. ...She was so genuinely convinced that she was obliged to "take a stand" about my life and my relationship -- that she would not meet me any fraction of the way. I had to choose. And the "wrong" choice would break her heart.

But here's another great irony in all of this, my partner -- the very same person that my mother refused to allow to sit and break bread at her table on Christmas Day -- insisted that I go to my Mom's house for Christmas.....She said she didn't want my mother to have a heavy heart on Christmas Day because of my absence.

"If Jesus were the head of our family, sitting there at the head of the table Christmas Day, how would He have handled this?" Based on everything I've read about Him, every encounter He had with His society's "undesirables," every word that I've read that He said and what He oh-so-conspicuously did not say -- not one word about homosexuality -- I believe that when my partner dropped me and my kids off in front of my mother's house, He would have said to my partner, "Come on in. Have some dinner."

That's what I wish my mother had been willing to do. It will never happen now because my mother has passed away. I’ve gone from spending Christmas with my mother and without my partner to spending it with my partner and without my mother. The opportunity for me to spend Christmas -- or any time -- with the two most important women in my life in one room is gone.

If you are reading this, it’s not too late for you to give your son or daughter that gift. You don't have to understand his or her intimate relationship. You don't have to approve. Just hear this: Jesus clearly never saw spending time in the company of “sinners” and “undesirables” as condoning their behavior. Even He did not see Himself as too “holy” to hang out with them. So you, too, can be kind to your gay children and their partners without “condoning” anything you believe to be wrong. You can just love your child, and be open to the possibility of growing to love someone else who loves your child. It is not too late for you to give him or her that precious gift. Christmas is coming. Invite your child -- and his or her partner -- to come on in and have some dinner. Do that, because, -- in your heart -- you must know that Jesus would. Just be like Jesus. He is, after all, the One whose birth we will celebrate.

Christmas flash mob with unexpected ending (video)

A good flash mob, but goes a bit different around 3.30.  It's significant that this comes from Canada, a civilized country on our northern border.

Homo for the Holidays: a religion survival guide

Do you dread your relatives?  Is Aunt Patsy likely to harangue you about "hating the sin"?  Is your embarrassing brother in law going to glare at you? Are you a straight ally looking to deflect conflict?  In this Survival Guide, the Rev Jay Johnson gives you some talking points.

Here's the most important thing: religion is supposed to draw us together, create community, and deepen our love for one another. You love your uncle, and you love your lesbian daughter. Religion should never force you to choose between them. That's the good news of religion this holiday season: God loves LGBT people just as much as your beloved uncle. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Why it matters: marriage is good for your health

From the Boston Globe:

It turns out that legal marriage for gay couples reduces reliance on health care and decreases medical expenses, according to a new study being published in the American Journal of Public Health. 

Researchers analyzed health data from a group of gay men in Massachusetts for the twelve months before and the twelve months following the legalization of civil marriage for same-sex couples in mid-2003. 

The results? 

The number of visits to health care facilities dropped significantly. Accompanying costs went down as well. 

How can this be?  Because when you are an equal citizen, and have equal rights, a very significant source of stress and ill health in your life is eliminated.

Marriage is good for people.  Shouldn't we encourage stable relationships and mutual respect?

Why DOMA discourages marriage

From New York:

After the euphoria of attaining same-sex marriage in New York, gay and lesbian couples—and the companies that employ them—are now confronting mundane but maddening red tape because the federal government doesn’t recognize their unions.

Wrestling with complications from income tax returns to health insurance plans to estate tax planning, businesses have sought outside help from consultants and training courses to learn how to comply with contradictory state and federal laws for their gay and lesbian employees who marry.

DOMA is punitive and unfair. There are now multiple cases in different federal districts challenging Clause 3, the part that forbids federal recognition of legally married lesbian and gay couples. Of course, the dysfunctional Congress won't do anything about repeal, because of the hyper-partisan anti-gay Republicans. Some day.... maybe...

How to explain gay rights to an idiot

From Buzzfeed:

How to talk to your family this holiday about marriage equality (video Sunday)

From EqualityMaine:

Voices of Faith Speak Out: Bishop Gene Robinson on Rick Perry's ad

From the Washington Post, a blog from Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson (the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal church) taking on Rick Perry's now-notorious anti gay advert:

It is breathtaking (and not in a good way) when someone who aspires to be the Commander in Chief denigrates the soldiers he means to command....The blood of gay and lesbian soldiers flows as readily and as redly as that of other young Americans fighting in Afghanistan, yet Gov. Perry feels free to use them as political cannon fodder for his campaign. In an attempt to garner conservative Christian votes, he would stigmatize these brave young men and women who are, as we speak, risking their lives on our behalf. If this is patriotism, count me out!...

Christians - or at least many of us - value the separation of church and state and see no harm in drawing these careful lines of separation for the good of a diverse nation. We don’t need the enforcement of the state in making our case for a loving God. We offer numerous and ample opportunities for public prayer in our churches and religious gatherings. We don’t need them or want them in school. Besides, we learned long ago that allegiance to God can’t be a forced march.

Christians everywhere should be alarmed that a candidate for our nation’s highest office would play fast and loose with both the Constitution and our men and women in uniform. It would be simply pathetic that Gov. Perry would do so in an effort to entice conservative voters, if it weren’t such an abuse of religion and a violation of the Constitution...

Well said, Bishop. I also like this badge that has been making the rounds on Facebook:

Hearing today on DOMA

Today, there will be oral arguments on one of the many DOMA cases working their way through the federal courts: the Golinski case, in which a legally married California woman, Karen Golinski, was denied health coverage for her spouse. (The kicker here is that she works for the federal courts). Frankly, I would much rather see this go to the Supremes than Prop8, right now--I don't trust the Supremes on Prop8, but the DOMA clause 3  issue is a slam dunk failure of equal protection big enough for Antonin Scalia to see.  Legally married couples are treated differently by the federal government for no reason but their gender.

This case is a big deal,because the Department of Justice will actually be arguing against DOMA, which will be defended by the expensive lawyer bought by the Republicans in Congress (called BLAG). From The Advocate:

Tony West, assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s civil division, told The Advocate that his Friday arguments in federal district court will center on why Section 3 of DOMA, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages, should be subject to heightened judicial scrutiny — in part given the long history of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the United States.

“This issue is really about whether the federal government, in distributing health insurance benefits, can pick and choose on the basis of sexual orientation when deciding whom to confer benefits,” West said. “Here is a married couple who, for all intents and purposes, is the same as anyone else, with one distinguishing characteristic, and that is sexual orientation.”

The Advocate also tells us about some of the specific questions the judge hearing the case has put forth for the attorneys:

Earlier this week, U.S. district judge Jeffrey S. White issued a two-page list of questions to attorneys on DOMA’s constitutionality and whether the law should be subjected to heightened scrutiny. Among them to be addressed Friday in court: 

• How does treating some state sanctioned marriages different from others promote consistency or maintain the status quo? 
• How does the withholding of federal benefits to children of families with same-sex parents encourage responsible parenting and child-rearing?
• Is the [Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group] actually bipartisan? Does BLAG have the support – and funding for the increasing cost of defending DOMA – from a majority of Congress or just from the House of Representatives?
• How does BLAG distinguish the line of authority treating classifications based on religious affiliation as a suspect class from classifications based on sexual orientation?

LGBT report card for presidential candidates

Thanks to a commentator below, who points us at this excellent comparison from MarriageEquality.org

Mitt Romney meets a gay vet in New Hampshire...

Mitt Romney who once claimed he would be "better than Teddy Kennedy" on gay rights, is now firmly in the anti-gay camp. He opposes open service, marriage equality, etc etc. So what happened when he went to a campaign stop in New Hampshire and met a vet? Seems the conversation turned to marriage:

As the Boston Globe reports,

With that, it started to become clear that a routine campaign conversation could become hostile. Though Romney had no reason to know it, Garon – a 63-year-old from Epsom, N.H. -- was sitting at the table with his husband.

Garon challenged Romney, saying, “If two men get married, apparently a veteran’s spouse would not be entitled to any burial benefits or medical benefits or anything that the serviceman has devoted his time and effort to his country, and you just don’t support equality in terms of same-sex marriage?”

Romney reiterated his support for the Defense of Marriage Act, and added, “And we apparently disagree.”

“It’s good to know how you feel,” Garon said. “That you do not believe that everyone is entitled to their constitutional rights.”

Yeah, because even old vets in flannel can be gay, Governor Romney.

First they came for the gays....

The vicious homophobia that has developed in Africa is fanned by the efforts of anti-gay Evangelical activists from the United States. We saw that in Uganda. NOw, in Nigeria, they are proposing death for gay people.

Tsk, tsk, say the straights. How unfortunate.

But straights are also at risk. From the WaPo:

Under the proposed law, couples who marry could face up to 14 years each in prison. Witnesses or anyone who helps couples marry could be sentenced to 10 years behind bars. That’s an increase over the bill’s initial penalties, which lawmakers proposed during a debate Tuesday televised live from the National Assembly in Nigeria’s capital Abuja.

Other additions to the bill include making it illegal to register gay clubs or organizations, as well as criminalizing the “public show of same-sex amorous relationships directly or indirectly.” Those who violate those laws would face 10-year imprisonment as well.

So, if you are a gay-friendly straight person in Nigeria, you can go to prison.

And don't think for a minute there aren't people here who would like to do the same thing to LGBT people and their allies.

New Ads from Maine (video Sunday)

You may recall that Maine's marriage equality law got Prop8'd, before anyone actually got married. The bad guys used the same exact tactics as Prop8 in CA and it worked. But Maine is trying to reverse this bias and bigotry. Here's one of the new ads they're running. What do you think?

Why it matters: Ed Watson dies without equality

From the LA Times:

Derence Kernek and Ed Watson became prominent faces in the California gay community's campaign for the right to marry when they urged a federal appeals court earlier this year to halt the enforcement of Proposition 8 so they could wed before Watson succumbed to advancing illness. 

On the eve of a Thursday hearing on challenges to a 2010 ruling that the voter initiative banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, Watson died at age 78 of complications from Alzheimer's disease, diabetes and hypertension. 

Gay rights activists lamented Watson's death as a reminder of the harm inflicted on same-sex couples throughout the state because they are denied the right to marry.

So, I'm sure NOM founders Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher are happy over this. After all, Ed and Derence  have been devoted to each other for 40 years, but have been prevented from irrevocably damaging marriage, while Brian is off supporting marriage by supporting the campaign of serial adulterer Newt Gingrich.  Hypocrisy, much?

Prop8 in court, yet again, today

There are now four issues being litigated in the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeal around Prop8.  Two of these will have a hearing today:

1. Should the tapes of the trial be released?  The supporters of Prop8 say "no", but that's hard to argue given that everyone knows who testified and what they said.  What the supporters REALLY don't like is that their witnesses didn't bolster their case (and one actually supported marriage.)  So far, all the lower courts have supported release.


2. Should the whole case be vacated because Judge Walker is gay?  Everyone knew this going in, although he didn't make a big deal about it.  But now the supporters of Prop8 say that because he might someday want to marry, he can't be fair.  That's like saying a black judge can't hear a case on race, or a woman judge can't hear a case on abortion--because she might want one.  The district court firmly said Judge Walker's sexuality is irrelevant.

Two additional points have already been argued.  Additional briefs have been filed, but it's in the hands of the judges now.  Those questions:

1. Do the supporters of prop8 have standing to appeal?  The California court says they do, under California Law.  Now the federal court can decide.


2. Is prop8 constitutional?  This is the main show, the argument about the merits of the case rather than all the peripheral stuff.  Judge Walker said it is not constitutional.  The big question:  was that decision correct?

Human rights for gay people: Thank you Mr President

Yesterday, something amazing happened.

The Secretary of State gave a long, powerful speech supporting the rights of gay people around the world.

From the LA TImes:

In a speech to mark Human Rights Day, which is celebrated Saturday, Clinton declared that protecting the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people is "now one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time" and compared it to the battles for women's rights, racial equality and religious freedom.

(Video and transcript here). Along with this, the Obama Administration has released a memo detailing its efforts.

Now, as you know I'm an advocate for marriage equality.

But many of our issues here in the US are "luxury" issues.  Gay people in many parts of the world don't have the luxury of marriage, or serving in the military. They are lacking even fundamental rights like life and liberty.  Gay people in many places, particularly but not exclusively Africa,  are at risk of violence, imprisonment, and even death simply for being who they are.

There are people here who advocate the same thing. They pop up in the comment threads of articles on line, they write hateful things on the pages of NOM's facebook, they buy NOM"s lies.  But they aren't the majority.  So they export their hate.

And now, the US is saying with the weight of officialdom, "Being gay is NOT a crime." Well done.


Update:  Rick Perry, presidential wanna-be, complains:  "Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America’s interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers’ money."

Andrew Sullivan fires back: "Not getting murdered is NOT a special right."

Children deserve loving parents

The main argument that the right wingers use these days to oppose marriage equality is "children deserve a mother and a father."  This argument is specious and illogical and I am really tired of it.  It makes no sense.

Do they think that gay people will stop raising children if they can't marry?  Of course we won't.  WE already have children and they aren't magically whisked away if we aren't married.

Do they think that gay people can't adopt or foster children if they can't marry?  California's prop8 said nothing about children or adoption. No anti-marriage amendments touch this.  Gay couples in California and many other states continue to provide loving homes for foster children and adopted children despite the bias against us.  Banning marriages between gay people has nothing to do with adoption.

Do they think that gay people will stop having their own children if they can't marry?  We already have biological children, from previous (straight) marriages, or by other means, such as surrogacy--all perfectly legal, and unaffected by marriage.

Do they think that gay people who want children and aren't allowed to marry, will turn straight?  To which one answer is, would they want a gay man to marry their daughter for the sole sake of breeding?

Do they think that straight people will stop having children if gay people marry? Obviously the species is in no peril, since straights outnumber gays by 10:1 at least!  And remember, nearly all gay kids had straight parents.

The fact is that by denying civil marriage to us, they willingly put our children at risk.  Marriage between parents is good for kids.  If they cared about children, they'd care about ALL children.  

And the fact is that that civil marriage is not linked to childbearing, nor to adoption:  they are completely separate issues.

Now, if you want to use that argument to try to forbid gay couples from adopting, that would be logical.  Wrong, but logical.  But as I've shown, it has no bearing on the question of whether two faithful and commited people who happen to be of the same sex, should be able to marry.

Roman Catholic Don't Ask, Don't Tell

I'm getting seriously annoyed at the Roman Catholic Church. The Conference of Bishops recently met and rather than being concerned about social justice, they discussed how to wage the culture war: particularly,  marriage equality.

East Bay Express

USA today

LGBTQnation

These are three of the most vocal bishops against us. Bishop Salvatore Cordileone, now Bishop of Oakland CA, was formerly in San Diego. He's extremely smart and widely considered the architect of Prop8. Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York puts forward an avuncular face, but he's lobbying the president and vigorously fighting a rearguard action in New York trying to challenge equality there.  Archbishop John Nienstedt of Minneapolis is mobilizing troops in each parish to pass a Prop8-style anti-equality amendment. He has infamously suggested that parents can't support their gay children and be Catholic.

 These men are intelligent, very powerful, and implacable foes of the LGBT community.

Their new meme is that marriage equality threatens religious liberty. To which the proper answer is, POPPYCOCK. There is no religious liberty if the Roman Catholic bishops impose their will on everyone else. The Episcopalians want to marry same sex couples: how is religious liberty protected if they are unable to do so?

The FACT is that the Roman Catholics are and will be free NOT to marry same sex couples, just as they are free NOT to marry previously divorced people, non-Catholics, or the unbaptized. But right now, most Episcopalians aren't able to perform legal marriages for their LGBT congregants. So say again, who's liberty is being infringed?  Bilerico follows this up, highlighting the explicit lies being told by Abp Dolan in New York.

As you may know, there is some irony that Roman Catholics overall are the religious group most supportive of marriage equality. Thus, the laity is simply ignoring the bishops, much as they do on birth control (I mean, how many RC have more than two children, these days?)

But I'm getting very frustrated with their "Don't Ask Don't Tell". Because while they simply ignore the Bishops, they continue as good Catholics to support the Church, and essentially function as enablers of the Bishops' war against gay people. We have many dear, supportive RC friends who love us to death, but none of them are standing up and saying, "no more!" to the institutional Church as it continues its attacks. None of them are calling out the Church on its actions; none of them are withholding their donations.

 Our friends  tried to persuade my wife to stay Roman Catholic: "just don't tell Monsignor that you're gay," they advised, and seemed unaware of the cost of pretending to be "in Communion" with an institution that reviles you.  My wife is now a joyful Episcopalian, free to be who she is.  (I am an ex-Catholic myself, baptised and confirmed, and parochial school educated.  My departure from the church led me to become a non-believer, but with my wife I have found a home with the tolerant and inclusive Episcopalians.)

But all those supportive Roman Catholics, who ignore the Church's teaching on LGBT people just as they ignore the Church on birth control?  It's the Roman Catholic version of the NALTs (not all like that).

Many RC find it hurtful when their church is criticized. After all, they themselves have no problem with their LGBT friends. But I want to get across to my RC friends: The institution that is your church is attacking us.  What are you doing--really DOING--  to stop them?


Updated: from the National Catholic Reporter, we learn that Catholics care far more about caring for the poor than for issues around gays marrying.

But the Bishops are putting their effort behind an anti-gay web site (I don't link to such sites; google it if you want to find it).  And they (the Bishops) continue to tell lies and bear false witness.

Tell me, Bishops,  What WOULD Jesus do?

The "We Do" campaign in North Carolina (video Sunday)

In North Carolina, voters are considering an amendment to outlaw marriage between same sex couples. It's already not possible for same sex couples to marry, as this video shows. Gay folks are asking for a marriage license, pastors in tow, and being refused.

Why it matters: lesbian binational couple forced apart

This is a great article from SheWired about the real human costs of being a binational same-sex couple.

As I sit here writing this, a few hours from now my wife will be waking up on her 44th birthday without me by her side. I know that she’s already struggling with this idea because at 4 a.m. UK time I received a text that read, “Laying here drowning in my tears, I miss you so much, I can’t stand being away from you. You are the only one who will make me whole. Need you!”

Quite honestly I didn’t know how to respond, as any words I have to offer won’t change the fact that I can’t give Inger what she needs for her birthday; me there with her.

The real costs of DOMA and Prop8 are ignored by the Roman Catholic and Mormon hierarchies who finance the prejudice against us. And increasingly, I find it to be hatred--unChristian, brutalizing, bigoted hatred. Why would a true Christian want our families to suffer? But they do not consider us families, and I believe they do not consider us human.

Taking liberties with Shakespeare,

Hath not a gay eyes? hath not a gay hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a hetero is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die?

And too many of us ARE dying, apart and alone. And that's what they want.

DP benefits for federal employees redux?

Federal employees have only limited benefits for their partners--some moving expenses, that kind of thing. Big ticket items like health coverage or pensions are not allowed. There's some effort to bring benefits to federal employees with domestic partners. The Advocate reports,

The bill would allow federal employees and their same-sex domestic partners to participate in federal retirement, life insurance, health, workers’ compensation, and family and medical leave benefits to the same extent as married employees and their spouses. They would also be subject to the same antinepotism rules and financial disclosure requirements that apply to married heterosexual workers.

The irony? Thanks to DOMA, those of us legally MARRIED as opposed to living in the second-class civil unions will not be eligible.

Both BP and I have employers who would cover both of us. However, as I've explained before, thanks to DOMA, the federal government does not consider us married. If BP were on my health plan, the costs would be reported as extra income to me, which would incur a fairly substantial tax liability. So we could get the coverage, but we would pay dearly for it. Fortunately we are both employed but it means that we have to navigate two very different policies and often can't use the same providers.

Yet another insult from my government confirming my second-class citizenship, and forcing me to live under Roman Catholic/Mormon rules.