Sunday Drive: Let's go to David's house

Now that we've seen refutations of the "Clobber Passage" texts, let's look at some affirming passages:

King David and Jonathan


David and Jonathan’s relationship is often described as a deep, platonic friendship. However, I have a different interpretation of this story.

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle

The terminology used here—“the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David and Jonathan loved him as his own soul”—and the description of the behavior (stripping down and giving all of his clothing and weapons, and even his belt to David) does not sound like just platonic love in my book. A prince’s clothing and weapons were important symbols of his status. Imagine the passage if David had been a woman:

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of Eve, and Jonathan loved her as his own soul. And Saul took her that day, and would let her go no more home to her father's house. Then Jonathan and Eve made a covenant, because he loved her as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to Eve, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle

Had David been female, no one would question that Jonathan loved her, and their story would be celebrated as a great love. Since David was male, cultural censorship kicks in and the relationship is sanitized to ‘deep platonic friendship’.

Later, when he learns Jonathan was killed David says

“I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”

Again, that doesn’t sound like they were ‘just friends.’

Share

Sunday Drive: A Quick Stop at the Temple and then on to Rome

Deuteronomy 23:17-18 None of the daughters of Israel shall be a temple prostitute; none of the sons of Israel shall be a temple prostitute. You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a male prostitute into the house of the LORD your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are abhorrent to the LORD your God.

Like the verses in Leviticus last week, these verses deal with temple prostitution, not a loving committed relationship.

Romans 1: 21-28

If we follow [this] passage, step-by-step, we find Paul is moving through a logical progression. He is talking about people who:

1. Refused to acknowledge and glorify God. (v. 21)
2. Began worshipping idols (images of created things, rather than the Creator). (v. 23)
3. Were more interested in earthly pursuits than spiritual pursuits. (v. 25)
4. Gave up their natural, i.e., innate, passion for the opposite sex in an unbounded search for pleasure. (v. 26-27)
5. Lived lives full of covetousness, malice, envy, strife, slander, disrespect for parents, pride, and hatred of God. (v. 29-31)

The model of homosexual behavior Paul was addressing here is explicitly associated with idol worship (probably temple prostitution) and with people who, in an unbridled search for pleasure (or because of religious rituals associated with their idolatry), broke away from their natural sexual orientation, participating in promiscuous sex with anyone available.

There are, no doubt, modern people who engage in homosexual sex for reasons similar to those identified in Romans 1. If someone began with a clear heterosexual orientation, but rejected God and began experimenting with gay sex simply as a way of experiencing a new set of pleasures, then this passage may apply to that person. But this is not the experience of the vast majority of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. (Miner and Connoley, The Children are Free)

Most of the GLBT people of faith I have met, have felt called to worship the Lord but were attracted to members of the same sex, nevertheless. They were not people looking for thrills and pursuing their own desires. Actually, those GLBT people would be guilty of this kind of sin if they stay in the closet and attempt to marry partners of the opposite sex because they are naturally attracted to people of the same gender.

Share

Sunday Drive: Leviticus Law Library

Leviticus 18 and 20

Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20: 13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Both of these verses seem like straightforward condemnations against any homosexual behavior. However, we need to consider what was happening in the world of the Israelites at the time these rules were issued. The book of Leviticus is a series of rules for the Israelite priesthood and laity to ensure ritual purity. Elsewhere in this book we find listings of ‘unclean’ foods, requirements for priestly vestments (no blended fibers), and requirements for males to cleanse oneself after incidental contact with women who are having their menstrual period. No one makes the argument that these laws have any application today; in fact, the arguments for rejecting these laws are often based on their historical and religious context.

In the case of the verses quoted above, let’s look at the historical and religious contexts. The laws presented in chapters 18 and 20 are meant to prevent the Israelites from doing what the Egyptians and the Canaanites did.

What did the Canaanites do?

Sunday Drive: Construction at Sodom and Gomorrah

Believe it or not, the Bible only has 6 verses in it that explicitly mention homosexual behavior, and none of those verses describe anything resembling a loving, committed gay relationship.  Case in point: Sodom and Gomorrah.

Gen 19:1-9 tells the story of the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah. The term ‘sodomy’ as a reference for anal sex comes from this story because that sex act is often performed by gay men. In the story, some angels come to Sodom and spend the night with Abraham’s nephew, Lot. The men of the town come to Lot’s door to ask him to turn the angels over to them “so that we may know them." Lot asks the men not to be so wicked and offers his daughters instead, but they refuse and threaten to break down his door. Later, because the cities were so wicked, they were destroyed.


The word translated “to know” in Verse 5 is also used in Judges 19 to indicate that they raped a woman to death. Lot was more familiar with the men of Sodom and Gomorrah than we are. Would he have offered his daughters to people whom he knew were gay? Even in the most conservative estimates, the gay population is only a fraction of the entire group. It is more probable that he knew the men in the group were heterosexual, and that this ‘knowing’ was a reference to rape and sexual degradation.

These two wicked towns are mentioned other places in the bible, and nowhere does it mention that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality. Rather, it indicates that the sin was inhospitality. Take Ezekiel for instance:

This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.

Whether you lump homosexual activity in with ‘abominable things’ or not, this passage deals with homosexual rape—not two individuals in a loving, committed relationship.

Share

I am “the Intersection of Church and State”

Where did "Separation of Church and State" Come from?

"The intersection of Church and State" is not just a useful metaphor.  The American ideal is that the State does not mess with Church business, and the Church doesn't meddle in State affairs, referred to as the "Separation of Church and State".  This principle comes from the First Amendment to the US constitution.  However, recently the line has started to be muddied.  Churches have started taking positions on issues like LGBT rights and abortion.  Based on the "separation" principle, I feel that religious institutions have the right to issue position statements on issues, and privately influence their members to vote a particular way.  However, by taking actions like signing the "Manhattan Declaration" and funneling money to various political organizations in support of ballot initiatives, these Churches and other religious institutions are acting like political action committees. If they are going to act as PACs then they should be treated as such.


However, the blurring of that line is a double-edged sword. While separating Church and State is a lofty ideal for creating laws, it is easier said than done. Someone once told me that we should have "Christian men and women in office making Christian laws." I disagree. Making a 'Christian' law violates the separation of Church and State because it respects one religion over another, and in the words of the First amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

In addition, much of the atrocity in human history can be arguably attributed to some religious person/people trying to impose their interpretation of their faith on someone else. That being said, I have no issue with people of any faith voting for or against a law because of the way it matches or conflicts with their personal faith.

The Intersection of Church and State

Individual people are the "intersection of church and state". Their understandings of their faith, and of the laws in the US, place them there. The issues in the two areas overlap, especially in the case of LGBT citizens. The attacks on our lives and loves come from both sides, especially from people who have a stake in blurring the line, like certain religious institutions or conservative politicians. This intersection results in institutionalized heterosexism, where "one man + one woman" is considered normal and anything that is not is abnormal. One of the major issues I have with this though is that the conservatives have hijacked the conversation.


When analyzing the response to any political issue, whether it is a referendum on a local budget item or a law to allow gay couples to marry in any state, there are going to be three groups of opinions: for, against, and undecided. The object in the political fight is to sway the undecided votes to your side of the issue temporarily (long enough to vote). In the fight for gay rights, unfortunately the majority of the religious voices getting the attention, and therefore spreading their message to those 'undecided' voters, are the conservatives. They go on quite loudly about how gay rights are a threat to marriage, our society, etc. and how granting LGBT rights will cause (in a fruity, booming announcer's voice) "the END OF THEWORRLLLDDD!"

Unfortunately, the progressives don't get as much media attention. It is unclear whether this is from the progressives' distaste for using the same over-the-top histrionics as their opponents, cowardice, or just the simple fact that supporting gay rights is not that controversial an issue. We need to do a better job of not only countering the negativity from the right, but also communicating the pro-gay positions and mobilizing the voters on our side. One way to help build a coalition that actually has political influence and counter the right-wing negativity is by reaching out to other groups that we are part of.


LGBT rights issues have been cast as "single voter" issues so long that the meme is not even questioned. In actuality, LGBT people come from various political, religious, ethnic, economic, ability and social groups. (I probably left some groups out, but you get the idea.) Once when I mentioned that I would not support a political candidate who did not support LGBT rights, the reply came back "So you're a single issue voter? What about the economy, healthcare, national security, immigration, etc.?" I could not convince him that by expressing support for LGBT issues I was not abandoning other issues. LGBT rights do not override these issues; they are a material part of these issues:

• ENDA (which would prohibit job discrimination based on sexuality, gender identity, and gender expression (in addition to the other protected classes from the Civil Rights Act of 1964) keeps people from losing their jobs. Therefore, they are working and have money to buy things. How does preventing job loss not have a bearing on the economy?
  
• Repealing "Don't Ask; Don't Tell" addresses both the economy and national security. SLDN estimates that approx 400,000 LGBT people would enlist if it were repealed. That means that 400,000 people are now working and contributing to the economy. Additionally, it helps improve national security because it means that many more troops are available to fight wherever necessary.
  
• Recognizing gay relationships under the law has a bearing on healthcare and the economy because it does no one any good to reform healthcare if their spouse/partner cannot be covered or you have to pay more to cover them.
  
• Few people think about the Uniting American Families Act. It affects immigration reform similar to the way gay relationships affect healthcare. If a bi-national straight couple lives in the US, the spouse who is a citizen can sponsor the non-citizen spouse. In the case of gay relationships, one partner cannot sponsor the other, and therefore once the partner's visa is up. That couple either is exiled from the US (since the partner would be an illegally entered alien) if they want to stay together, or they break up because the partner is deported.
  

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, "Justice delayed is justice denied." If LGBT people reach out to other groups they belong to, they can build the bridges necessary to create a coalition and be heard.
Share

Intersections of Church and State: Healthcare, Outing Priests, Marriage Equality, Parenting and more!

All over the web there are Church-State intersections. Here's a roundup:

• 
  
  Healthcare:
  
• Daily Kos: I Will Pray For You -- Send Money --Christian Scientists want provision for "Spiritual Healthcare" in Healthcare reform Bill
• Abortion:
• Enlightened Catholic: Back and forth between Bishop Tobin of RI and Patrick Kennedy over Kennedy's stance on abortion rights, and Tobin's refusal to serve Kennedy communion
• G.A.Y.: Was she arrested for "simply praying near an abortion clinic"?
• Bearing False Witness: FCR Mischaracterizes Congresswoman Diana DeGette's remarks about the separation of church and state, via Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters
• Outing Priests:
• Fr. Geoff Arrow: Would Outing gay priests do more harm than good?
• OTOH, can we afford to remain silent? A Pro-Outing argument from Enlightened Catholic
• Marriage Equality:
• PinkNews: Straight couple applying for a UK civil partnership have their application rejected based on their sexuality
•  G.A.Y.:NOM is gearing up in New Jersey
•  Parenting:
• Holy Bullies: Lesbian mother wins custody case against 'ex-gay' partner
•  Ideological Purity
• Joe.My.God: Republican 'Purity' test Problem is, according to Keith Olbermann on his Countdown yesterday, President Reagan would have failed! (Ok, this one is more solely on the state side, but the case can be argued that Homophobic attitudes from the Church
•  Social Justice
• Joe.My.God: DC Catholic Charities whines about bad press due to the US Council of Bishops declaration.
•  Crooks & Liars: AZ woman forced to give birth in shackles due to undocumented immigrant status and racial profiling. Sentenced inmates are treated better!
•  Towelroad: City of Atlanta, Police Chief and 48 Officers Sued for Raid on Atlanta Eagle

Where are the progressives?

In the furor over the Catholic Bishops threat to cut off services to the least among the citizens of Washington DC simply to make a political point, and the subsequent announcement of the Manhattan Declaration, it is very easy to overlook the positive Christian voices preaching acceptance.


Episcopal Bishop John Bryson Chane posted an op-ed in the Washington Post detailing “A Christian Case for Same Sex Marriage”. He’s got some interesting points, and it is an interesting read. It is an extreme contrast to most of the hate-filled rhetoric coming from the religious right.

What I wonder about is why the positive voices seem to get lost in the babble when the negative voices come through loud and clear? Perhaps it’s because we tend to take our supporters for granted. Why put time and effort into lobbying someone who already agrees with you? Americans have a slang term for this, incidentally based in religious imagery—“preaching to the choir.”

Another reason could be that the media thrives on controversy. The only time support is notable is when a formerly unsupportive person or organization switches positions. Most of the positive GLBT Christian voices, like the Episcopal Church in America, the MCC, and others, have been consistently positive for years, so they are no longer generating controversy. Even when something does generate controversy, like the ELCA decision this summer, it boils down to a tempest in a teapot. Most of the general public and even many of the church’s laity are ignorant of what is going on, and even if they know, they brush it off as ‘politics as usual’ and see it as having little bearing on their daily life.

Conversely, the Religious Right knows how to mobilize their base. Fear is a very powerful motivator. While it is not a direction I’d necessarily like to see progressives move in, I wonder if part of the issue is that they’ve been taking the “See, you have nothing to be afraid of” approach.

With the crazies ratcheting up their base, can the Progressives afford to sit on the sidelines or refuse to stoop to their opponent’s level? That’s what happened to get Maine Question 1 passed and strip away marriage rights for gay couples. The base was whipped up into a fearful froth, and the progressives said, “Oh, I don’t need to vote because so-and-so who agrees with me is going to vote for the side of this bill I support.” When you do that, it’s a case of Anybody, Everybody, Somebody and Nobody.

Well, I'm somebody. Are you?

Share

Watch The Road! The Catholic Church's Attempts to Distract Us From Their Hypocrisy and Wrongdoing

In a post on The Bilerico Project entitled "The DC Catholic Church's Red Herring", Nancy Polikoff discusses her take on the DC Bishop's threat to distract people from the fact that they have been breaking discrimination laws for years.  In Washington DC, it is illegal for any organization that receives public funding to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or marital status, and has been for approximately 30 years.  That law is on the books now, and predates any form of recognition of same-sex marriage.  Up to this point, no one has asked that they be de-funded because gay couples will go elsewhere to another provider that will help them.  This threat simply calls official attention to the fact that they have been breaking the law for years, and the DC lawmakers aren't going to let them get away with it.

It is well known that donations to Catholic Charities are declining in the wake of the priest sex-abuse scandals, and that several parishes have gone bankrupt because of having to pay damages to those who were abused.  I wonder if this is an attempt to save face for the Catholic Church, as well as a way to publicize their opposition to a law they feel contradicts their teachings, and for them to embark on a campaign of defiance?

Share

Who is the wierd guy standing on the corner of Church street shouting?

Bill Donohue is at it again.  Mr. Donohue is a rabidly conservative, Catholic man who runs what he calls the "Catholic League" defending what he sees as smears and insults to the Catholic Church and its teachings.  This time Mr. Donohue is screeching about the website ChurchOuting.org.  From their website:

For generations, in Catholic churches across the country, LGBT youth are told they should be ashamed of who they are and that they should lead loveless lives as social and religious abominations. The emotional, psychological and spiritual abuse inflicted on them by Catholic priests and our church hierarchy is in reality as damaging as the physical or sexual child abuse anyone would quickly condemn. Yet to this abuse, few raise their voices and say "ENOUGH!"


It is shameful that in many Catholic churches, this abuse is being supported by men, who are gay themselves, leading closeted lives of self-persecution and quiet desperation.

Even more shameful, is that many of these priests, while remaining silent, actually lead duplicitous lives rich with romantic and sexual relationships -- both homosexual and heterosexual.

This hypocrisy must end.

 The website was created partially in response to the Manhattan Declaration.  Joe Jervis of Joe.My.God has the details. 

Share

When does Church turn into State?

UPDATED 11/20/2009: Jeremy's got the text of this "manifesto" up at Good As You.

 As a Christian, a political liberal, and a gay man, I often find myself dismayed and torn when leaders claiming to speak for one group I am part of say something negative about another group that I am part of. That is part of why the Manhattan Declaration is so disturbing. The full document is set to be released at noon today, but excerpts and commentary have been popping up around the blogosphere ahead of the release.

AP: Christian Leaders issue Call of Conscience
NY Times: Religious Leaders unite on Political Issues

The document is signed by multiple Catholic bishops; James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Anus Family; the president of the National Assoc. of Evangelicals; and various seminary leaders, pastors and professors. In it, the signers are stating their continued opposition to abortion, stem-cell research, same-sex marriage, and anti-discrimination statutes, among other issues. 

My take after the jump