Today's Post-Gazette includes a reflection from a member of Calvary Episcopal Church on the impending vote of the local diocese to leave the US branch and join a more conservative branch. It is very flourishy, too much so for a beautiful late summer Sunday in the sense that I prefer to go for a drive to look at covered bridges and enjoy my time with Ledcat rather than rail further against yet another example of religious intolerance and bigotry.
I will say that the essay rightfully questions the motivation of Bishop Duncan and his ilk. Is the homosexual/female ordination question really the cause of such a drastic rip in the very fabric of the worldwide church? Or is an excuse for a power grab?
If that latter, it does not absolve Duncan and his merry minions of their responsibility for sowing intolerance and hatred into the hearts (and actions) of the faithful. If they indeed are not true believers, perhaps their culpability for hateful actions infused with theocratic righteousness is even weightier. That's not my call to make.
I do urge you to read the reflection. Then go outside and enjoy the only real evidence that God has walked among us this holiest of weekdays -- the loveliness of a September afternoon.
I am Janet Edwards, a Presbyterian minister in Pittsburgh, PA. I greet you with the joy that springs from Jesus' gospel of love!
On June 25, 2005, I was blessed beyond measure to preside at the Spirit-filled wedding of Nancy McConn and Brenda Cole. Following the usual practice, Brenda and Nancy placed an announcement of their marriage in the Celebrations section of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The announcement included all that we expect in such notices: a picture of the couple, a list of the wedding party and a brief description of me as the officiant. This public disclosure of my pastoral act has led to a trial under the disciplinary rules of my church, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
I understand my calling from God to be a "pray-er," to devote myself to prayer without ceasing. So I am shocked myself that my life's work has placed me at the very heart of the long-stewing debate that engages the whole world on the place of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in our community.
Perhaps we can all agree that we, in the church, are not very good at talking about our differing views on the inclusion of GLBT people in marriage. We keep a stony silence or throw accusations ? and this is why my trial becomes such a gift from God. It is an opportunity for the different sides in the church to lay out their positions for ourselves and the world to see, to think about, to pray about, to talk about.
This is why I want the world to come to this trial, participate in the conversation and worship around it. Please come.
Here is the way to do it:
The trial will reconvene at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, October 1, 2008, at the Grand Hall of the Priory, 614 Pressley Street , Pittsburgh, PA 15212. Just call All Directions, 412.566.1710, say you want to come to the trial and they will plan your trip. If you are able to give the time to come, we are able to arrange your travel and stay in Pittsburgh.
To start a dialogue now, I invite you to read an overview of the brief I have submitted to the Permanent Judicial Commission of my presbytery called an Apologia in preparation for the trial. Whether you come to the trial or not, thank you for giving my position your prayerful consideration.
May the peace of Christ be always with you,
Rev. Janet McCune Edwards
P.S. Please watch this video to get to know me and why I am reaching out to you.
(New York City) A priest who attempted to protect a 21 year old transwoman from four teens who were hitting and verbally harassing her was beaten in front of a shelter for gay and trans young people.
The teens were pelting Alessandra-Michelle Carver with garbage and yelling transphobic insults outside the Carmen's Place shelter in Queens when Fr Louis Braxton attempted to chase the youths away.
"One of them hit me with a garbage can," Carver told The Daily News. "Then his friends started joining in."
Braxton, who runs the shelter, was able to scare off the teens while Carver made it inside the building. But minutes later the youths returned with metal poles, belts, and construction equipment including empty paint cans and a miter saw, and began beating Braxton.
"Father was trying to make peace with them, but then one of them hit him in the back of the head with a paint can," Carver told the Daily News. "He fell to the ground, and they kept hitting him."
Carver said she and other teens fended off the attack on the priest. Two of the residents also were injured.
In making their escape the four ran past Transportation Authority Police officers who apprehended them.
I'd like to know more about a priest who runs a shelter for gay and trans young people. It is like a little jolt of faith in a world filled with Barack Obama. Nice.
Color me not surprised by this little pronouncement from Mr. Theocracy.
Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans that would expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and - in a move sure to cause controversy - support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.
"The challenges we face today, from putting people back to work to improving our schools, from saving our planet to combating HIV/AIDS to ending genocide, are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama was to say, according to a prepared text of his remarks obtained by The Associated Press. "We need all hands on deck."
Obama proposes to elevate the program to a "moral center" of his administration, by renaming it the Office of Community and Faith-Based Partnerships, and changing training from occasional huge conferences to empowering larger religious charities to mentor smaller ones in their communities.
Some of those hands, Senator Obama, happen to be doing a damn fine job without being faith based. How about funding us?
Faith based institutions do not serve the entire public. They serve their faith based constituencies. Some folks play by the rules and don't play the conversion card. Too many don't and we cannot afford -- we cannot PREVENT -- them from inflicting their agenda on the vulnerable people they are entrusted to serve.
What's worse is that faith based entities are going to suck up resources previously allocated to secular organizations -- organizations already doing good work and perhaps heavily affiliated with unpopular and underserved communities. Like ours.
This is pandering, pure and simple. It is the #1 reason I am opposed to electing Barack Obama, but I have no choice do I? And he seems to know it. Damn.
Craig Galik of Duquesne is not pleased. Apparently, when he tunes in to the Ellen DeGeneres show, he doesn't expect to see any lesbian claptrap. Imagine his horror when Ellen spoke about her plans to marry partner, Portia De Rossi. On television. In front of viewers. Gay stuff.
Either Craig is the only person on earth who doesn't know that Ellen is a lesbian or he is just an idiot. Actually, I'm pretty sure its the latter based on these statements:
Isn't it funny that we can talk openly about gay affairs on TV, but we cannot freely talk about Jesus.
Is this what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wanted freedom for all?
This is exactly the narrow-minded thinking that is so seductive to people lacking the capacity for original thought. Craig postulates that there is more discussion of gay issues than Jesus-flavored religious issues on television. That's simply preposterous. You can't turn on a news station without smacking into some religious advisor or another commenting on the latest political issue. We can't have a discussion on anything -- from access to healthcare to hemlines -- without contemplating what Jesus would do about it. Craig also seems to forget that entire stations devoted to Jesus flavored religions dominated the airwaves long before LOGO came churning along. It has been a long, long time since it wasn't cool to talk about Jesus on television. Exactly one day longer than there has actually been television.
What Craig is trying to do is pit any discussion of gay issues as a suppression of his religious liberties. He does it poorly and with a distinct lack of poetry, but I'm sure he got a few amens out of the PG readers. It is just amazing that Christians can somehow redefine themselves as a persecuted minority on one hand and yet force all three Presidential candidates to prove their Jesus-love in order to win the nomination. Amazing.
To answer Craig's question about the Founding Father's wanting us to talk about gay issues as freely as religious issues, I say a resounding YES. Freedom to exchange ideas was a big Founding Father priority, not the content of said ideas. See the difference, Craig? They wanted a society where you get to be a small-minded bigot and I get to love a woman without impinging on each others liberties.
If you don't want to hear about the personal life of a lesbian, stop watching a television show named after and starring a lesbian. There's nothing radical about that.
This brazen attempt to pander to the theocratic aims of the religious right must be opposed by all who cherish the freedoms of our secular nation.
Would that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court follow the excellent example of the California Supreme Court ("Gay Marriage Ruled Legal in California," May 16).
Monday, May 5, 2008 is the Rally in Harrisburg. Rally? The Rally Against the "Protection of Marriage" Amendment. Ledcat and I had hoped to attend, but fate (and work) conspired against us. Are you planning to attend? I'm hoping for an eyewitness account.
Last week, there was a "highly charged" hearing in Harrisburg. The PG has the coverage
Scott Hollander, executive director of KidsVoice, said his board members are divided on the gay marriage issue but unanimous in opposing the language banning "the functional equivalent of marriage." Under that language, children placed with unmarried foster parents could be denied health insurance through domestic-partner benefit programs and could face hurdles if those foster families want to adopt them, he said.
"They could lose many of the benefits they currently enjoy," said Mr. Hollander, whose group serves abused and neglected children in Pittsburgh.
It continues to amaze me that the folks opposed to the amendment have a long list of concrete ways this legislation will have a negative impact on families whereas the other side just has a claim that it will protect families with nothing to back it up. How is it we are still having this discussion?
Here are the letters of recent vintage:
M.W. Sage of Swissvale puts it succinctly:
Regarding the bill to protect heterosexual marriage ("Backers, Foes of Gay Marriage Collide at Capitol," April 30): There are many greater issues needing attention. Couples know when a relationship is working and when it isn't. They can seek help if they want it.
The same is so for gay relationships.
The nation and the world have more pressing issues to be addressed. Let the Legislature busy itself with those.
Well put.
Meanwhile, a series of letters in the Tribune Review finally address this issue.
First up is Sharon Capretto of Mt. Washington. She is a member of the Cult to Protect Marriage (something like that) and thinks that the will of the people is not embedded in our legislative system. She must not vote. Or at least, she doesn't trust most of the people who do vote:
This proposed amendment would give our federal Defense of Marriage Act constitutional protection to ensure that a judge or the Legislature could not redefine marriage in our state without the will of the people. Twenty-seven states have seen fit to pass similar amendments. Pennsylvanians would like the same consideration.
In response, Amesh Adalja of Butler (hey, that's cool -- Metcalfe Country)is embarrassed by the Republicans embracing this issue at the expense of real concerns.
Inserting religious proscriptions into the state Constitution utilizes precious legislative time that could be directed toward lowering taxes, scaling back the size of state government, privatizing the state liquor stores and many other worthy Republican causes.
Such moral reasoning recognizes that marriage is inherently based upon the complementarity between a man and a woman. They are clearly designed to come together in a way that leads to the generation of new life. It is the fundamental building block of any society.
I'm not sure it is scientifically accurate to claim that two men or two women cannot complement each other, unless you reduce human beings to the sum of the reproductive organs. I'd say the 20,000+ children in the Pennsylvania foster care system are proof positive of that reductive assumption being utter bullshit. By the way, how many kids do you foster, Kris?
Now, I'm not an expert on the Founding Fathers, but I did study a little political theory. My understanding of Jefferson and Madison is that society is built upon the individual in relationship to the institution. They had a clear concept of individual freedoms and liberties, not family based liberties. Women and children weren't even enumerated in the Constitution, considered the property or wards of the male head of household. Is that where Kris wants to go? It was only through societal progress and a recognition of the civil rights of women (and children) that the modern family has evolved (and women are allowed to read newspapers).
The family is not the building block of society, Kris. Your partner/spouse and your children have rights and responsibilities that are separate and distinct from your own. Coming together to build a family sometimes strengthens society and sometimes does not. But you should be more precise if you plan to throw around scientific terms like "complementarity."
This is a good letter. When Obama starts his explanation on opposing gay marriage, he uses the phrase "I"m a Christian." Is he fueling the myth that being gay and being Christian are mutually exclusive? This taps into my deep concern that the modern politician is forced into Christians versus LGBTQ community position. Guess who loses? The Christo-flavored rhetoric of Obama gives me pause.
Although both you and Senator Clinton decline to support gay marriage per se, it is your statements on this issue that seem alienating, divisive, and uninformed and that subtly contribute to the persistence of one of this country?s worst forms of religious persecution and social bigotry. Even the possibility that you and your platform -- wittingly or unwittingly -- may contribute to the perpetuation of bigotry and prejudice in any way against anyone is, to our sensibilities, unthinkable.
<snip>
While you are careful to appear to uphold and defend the GLBT community?s basic safety and legal rights, in a March 25, 2007, Chicago Tribune story that referenced comments you made during your 2004 run for the U.S. Senate, you led off your objections to gay marriage with the statement ?I'm a Christian? [see below for full context of quote]. On its own as a part of your personal profile or in answer to a query about your personal beliefs, this statement is both appropriate and informative. But linked to your objections about gay marriage and by extension the gay lifestyle, it serves to entrench modern attitudes of religion-based bigotry and persecution and effectively implies that ?gay? and ?Christian? are mutually exclusive. This is not only wrong and uninformed but also flies in the face of the most basic Christian values and beliefs of unconditional love and acceptance.
<snip>
Mr. Obama, you have clearly stated your reluctance to allow your private religious beliefs to shape your public policy. This is wise in theory but difficult in practice, because while you are free to interpret your personal religious beliefs in any way you choose, as a talented orator you realize that words are powerful and can also crucially shape both public policy and public opinion. This letter is not an attempt to change your personal opinions or religious beliefs on this or any other issue, but it is an invitation for you to reexamine your spoken expressions and public statements toward a segment of Americans about whom you clearly evidence a lack of knowledge and experience. Can we be gay? Can we be Christian? Perhaps now, Mr. Obama, you may be a bit more aware of the possibilities and the answer that must include us all in your visionary new world: Yes, We Can.
It is completely true. My innocent little email was rejected by the Steel City Media cyber guardians. I just wanted to ask Chris Potter a question. Rest assured, Potter was on it once I made the call. And once it became apparent that someone in marketing couldn't email her boyfriend ... well, he was on it a little bit. He does have important columns to write and it has been awhile since he played the white-straight-guy privilege card so I'm gonna assume this was all just a big misunderstanding.
The important thing is that Gary and Beth are gone, right? Right?
OK, onto other topics. Letters to the editor. The PG has been full of 'em -- everyone has something to write about gay marriage. Some of it is good, some of it is crap. Most of it is poorly written, but filled with joie de vivre!
Interesting to me has been the dearth of letters in the Tribune Review. What's up with that? Have the subscribers been so blindsided by Richie's meeting with Hillary Clinton that they've lost track of important gay-bashing goals? I mean how are you supposed to oppress an entire group of citizens if your base isn't stepping up on the letter writing? The next thing, we'll be distributing civil rights to Mexicans, Hondurans and <gasp> people who wear turbans but aren't Islamic. What is this world coming to?
I wrote a letter to the Post-Gazette, but I forgot to send it to myself so I'm not 100% sure what I wrote. I know that I did praise Doug Shields and draw comparisons between Sally Kern and the gay marriage amendment stuff here in PA. I thought it was topical and had a national contexty flair that has yet to come to light in the other "published" letters. Whatever.
Seriously, my letter. It rocked.
Slow day at lesbian central. I didn't cry when I came home which is a first since Mona's demise. I really appreciate when people offer their condolences, but it isn't fun when someone wants to know about the injection experience. I would think my terse one-word answers would be a social cue that I don't want to talk about it. Ledcat brought my tulips from a local flower store here on the Northside. He has a dog and now she wants a small little dog. I draw the line at a dog that could actually squeeze outside of the fence.
See what lesbian marriage creates? Tulips (patronizing local businesses), a clean load of dishes (cleanliness next to Godliness), Chinese take out (more local business and the family of Ming Na -- hottie!), the one repeat of NCIS I missed this year (don't ask and I won't tell), and my secret hope that Ledcat will go ahead and replace the cat vomited sheets while I'm up here doing important blogging work.
Q92.9. I listen. I find the autotron female voice very amusing. As well the lack of gay bashing phone calls being aired. Ah, sweet.
I've been wracking my brains all weekend for an approach to this day. You've read all the facts about the legislation attempting to amend the PA constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. It has the potential to hurt a lot of people, gay and straight alike.
You've read all the arguments from those who want to impose their Christian-interpretation of marriage on the rest of us. And those who believe gay rights are not a civil rights issue (check out today's Post-Gazette for more on that). You've also heard from thoughtful Christian leaders who do affirm individuals who are LGBTQ. There was also civil rights luminary Coretta Scott King's affirmation. We can trump card each other until the end of the day.
What you may not know, particularly if you are heterosexual, is the impact that all of this has on day to day life. All of what? All of the constant negative discussion about the gay community -- of course, there is a connection between the rhetoric that people hear in the pulpit and the way they treat gay people, or teach their children to treat gay people. Love the sinner, hate the sin is not the American way. Treat people poorly who get between you and what you believe is yours is a bit more accurate, particularly when there is a relentless drum beat about their being "one" way and "one" truth in a land of religious freedom.
I live in Pittsburgh, a fairly gay-positive place considering how socially conservative most Catholics can be. Still, there are probably three public places in the entire region where I would be comfortable holding the hand of my partner, Ledcat. We spend entire weeks where we only touch each other inside our home or our vehicle. I'm talking the most simple gestures -- and believe me, I'm very aware of those right now. We lost our beloved pet this week and I've been inconsolable. You know that feeling of grief that sweeps over you unexpectedly ... imagine that the person you love is right next to you, but has to be careful about the things she says or the way she touches you when consoling you about a deep loss.
It is horrible. We have been fortunate to only have experienced a few frightening incidents -- mostly kids and mostly being stupid. But it is still frightening to have anyone try to menace you because they think you are gay. They get that message from their parents, their preachers and their peers -- gay people are fair game. So they use whatever power they have -- intimidation, verbal harassment, even constitutional amendments -- to keep you down. It happens at all levels -- I once had a supervisor send me an email with an embedded photoshopped image that degraded lesbians. He thought it was funny. It might have been funny coming from my friend Bob, but not someone with power and authority over my career.
We have to pick our battles. I fought back against the supervisor because I had protections in place. I walked away from the menacing kids and found a public space because I had no protection from their ignorance other than the brightness of public opinion. I'm fighting back against this amendment because I think we have to draw a line in the sand on this one. Let the bigots stew in their own hatred and fear if they so choose. That's why they have their own churches. But just as they are free to practice their religions, I am free *from* their religions.
Change is on the horizon. Children grow up surrounded by cultural gay images -- television, music, movies, video games, etc. They have gay friends in school and know gay neighbors. This chips away at the mantra of fear emanating from those who seem to have the most to lose if we are granted our due equal rights. OK, so I still don't understand who that is, but I'm trying to allow bigots their due.
I want to hold Ledcat's hand. Ultimately, I want to hold her hand in mine forever. But I'm content to start with holding it at Target.
Just this morning, I read my favorite comic strip, For Better or For Worse, and there is a reference to gay marriage (Michael's friend Lawrence is gay and has a partner, Nicholas). It is a casual reference, but I thought it an auspicious omen for this first ever Pgh Blogging for Equality Day.
For B4E posts from my fellow bloggers, click on the logo at the top and follow the links ...
