They’re right, it doesn’t have anything to do with marriage.... anymore.

[Emproph]

It seems to me that all the blowback we’ve seen in response to the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts has brought out the religious right's dirty little secret: That their anti-gay stance has nothing to do with the Bible, religion or being uninformed (save for some of the followers). They are closet supremacists in love with hatred, who at best want nothing less than the legalization of our inferiority as citizens, and at worst the legal right to imprison and/or execute us. In the name of Jesus of course.

I personally don’t have any affinity with the idea of getting married but knowing what I know now, even if I did, the fight for the right to wed still wouldn’t be about marriage, this is war. Whether personal or for those who can’t fend for themselves yet, it’s a fight for our social, psychological and in some ways and cases, especially in other countries, physical survival.

It seems like Massachusetts was a premature catalyst that thrust many on both sides into a fight we weren’t expecting for some time, if at all. I think the scope and existence itself of intentional dishonesty in the propaganda department has been the biggest eye-opener for me over the past couple of years.

The fight for marriage equality seems to have become the fight for equality. I’m not necessarily disappointed by the timing of it, it just doesn’t seem to be as efficient as it could be. It’s like it’s all or nothing now, we don’t have the option of going the incremental route (civil unions etc.) as has been discussed in other threads (Liberal ;)).

I don’t know that I'm looking for any resolution to this what seems to me to be a newer, unique(?) aspect to this fight for equality. There just seems to be a certain disconnect that hasn’t been fully pinned down yet.

The questions that come to mind are: Would marriage equality foster an atmosphere conducive to securing the other still necessary GLBT civil rights laws related to discrimination, hate crimes etc., and what are the ramifications for the movement, in part or as a whole, if they do change the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage? (<and is that term ok?)

Maybe someone else can articulate this better, I haven't figured out precisely what I'm trying to say myself.

Strike a chord? Ring a bell? Chaka Kahn? Vogue? Anybody?

[Zerbie]

Yes, it feels that way. Depending upon how we look at it, it either IS that, or else it's only a few emotional and logical steps distant.

I am so poured into the local fight over our "marriage" initiative in AZ because it's only a couple easy steps from loss of partner benefits to worse things. On some level, I feel that fight the way you have described it, which is the emotional fuel driving me. As bad as the initiative is, and it's BAD, I am even more concerned about the hostility behind it. The proposition came from a policy group whose former leader (who just stepped down to run for governor!) vehemently opposes the Lawrence v Texas decision and wants to see prison terms for gays, (that was in a public statement only a few years ago). I get what you're saying, and I have the same emotional reaction.

Way too exhausted to say any more now, it wouldn't make sense. :rolleyes:

[Emproph]

One of the unfortunate consequences of the situation. I think both sides are culpable in the area of outreach.

‘Marriage-jacking’ the GLBT agenda (http://www.houstonvoice.com/2006/8-19/view/opinion/marriage.cfm)

(A few highlights)

This obsession about marriage by gay Americans has become so all-encompassing that practically every other issue facing gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people takes a back seat.

For the most part on the pro-gay marriage side, the debate is being blindly driven by rich, white gay men with the biggest bully pulpits in the GLBT community, along with gay politicians and gay advocacy organizations.

The fat cats with the biggest distribution lists drown the voices of those who work on homeless issues for transgender people or care for those who have HIV. There are exceptions, but not many.

While same-sex marriage may take several decades to be fully accepted throughout this country, our people will continue to die everyday because the rich gay Americans focus their efforts elsewhere.
_________

-Not sure where I’m going with all this, just trying to get a better overview.

[Dash]

Yeah...I see it (the marriage issue) as the can of worms that spilled everywhere. When it was still in the can, the anti-gay religious right could keep the conversation focused on the act of sex rather than love and the fundamental right to marry who you choose.

Just like black slaves were three-fifths of a person, and women didn't count for much, and foreigners ain't got no rights, and on and on and on...as long as they can deny us this fundamental right, they are successful at classifying us as less than human.

I agree that it came a bit early, but Love always rings your doorbell unexpectedly. I'm sure it's a bit grandiose of me, but I like to think that this cultural crisis is not just about us mortals, but about Love making a statement and clearing Her name of the many slanders that false religion has propogated against Her. (I'm a dork :rolleyes: )

[Vanessa White]

I also wonder if many of those persons whom oppose gay marriage are heterosexual persons who feel a little bit defensive about the demise of the institution of heterosexual marriage?! I don't mean any disrespect to those married couples who have maintained a marriage through thick and thin, but many speak about how sacred of an institution it is, yet as many of those marriages end in divorce as remain intact. What if allowing us gays to marry turned that on its head, because maybe, just maybe, many of us gay couples could get married and make it stick?! Could you even imagine- being shown up by a bunch of gays and lesbians?

[Emproph]

Yes, it feels that way. Depending upon how we look at it, it either IS that, or else it's only a few emotional and logical steps distant.

I am so poured into the local fight over our "marriage" initiative in AZ because it's only a couple easy steps from loss of partner benefits to worse things... As bad as the initiative is, and it's BAD, I am even more concerned about the hostility behind it. The proposition came from a policy group whose former leader (who just stepped down to run for governor!) vehemently opposes the Lawrence v Texas decision and wants to see prison terms for gays, (that was in a public statement only a few years ago). I get what you're saying, and I have the same emotional reaction. Right, and that’s the down side if this all goes to hell, they’ll be empowered to enact more anti-gay legislation, and will do so ever more brazenly. I know you were aware of their nefarious motives long before this whole thing broke.

One thing that occurred to me though was that the ‘gay marriage’ issue may be the thing that has shown their true colors, but their true colors are of the black and white extremist theocratic kind, which affects MUCH more than just we lowly gays. So to that extent I think it’s a good thing this has come out like it has.Yeah...I see it (the marriage issue) as the can of worms that spilled everywhere. When it was still in the can, the anti-gay religious right could keep the conversation focused on the act of sex rather than love and the fundamental right to marry who you choose...as long as they can deny us this fundamental right, they are successful at classifying us as less than human.

I agree that it came a bit early, but Love always rings your doorbell unexpectedly. I'm sure it's a bit grandiose of me, but I like to think that this cultural crisis is not just about us mortals, but about Love making a statement and clearing Her name of the many slanders that false religion has propogated against Her. (I'm a dork :rolleyes: ) :D Yer funny. Or maybe she’s just pissed that she’s been being referred to as “He” all this time...I also wonder if many of those persons whom oppose gay marriage are heterosexual persons who feel a little bit defensive about the demise of the institution of heterosexual marriage?!.. What if allowing us gays to marry turned that on its head, because maybe, just maybe, many of us gay couples could get married and make it stick?! Could you even imagine- being shown up by a bunch of gays and lesbians?That’s actually a really good point, Dash has made it before his above post too. And that’s why I’m wondering how it would play out either way, because then they would have to take us seriously. It wouldn’t just be about an addiction to perverted sex, their so called trump card when it comes to denigrating us.

Look at what’s come out of Massachusetts since ‘gay marriage’ became legal. The last thing I remember hearing about (well besides the break up of one of the original couples) was the hate crime in New Bedford. Essentially we’ve heard NOTHING. Weren’t we supposed to have entire societies based on the ability to marry one’s pet(s) and sibling(s) by now? Not to mention all the countries where it’s been legal for longer than in Mass. How long is this slippery slope effect supposed to take before it takes effect? They seem to have the whole thing mapped out except for the time line.. :rolleyes:

Every once in awhile I catch myself when people are making those arguments and think, hey wait a minute, it’s ALREADY legal and has been for several years now, and not JUST here in the US!

Ok so consensus reached. The legality of ‘Gay Marriage’ would secure us all the other civil rights in question. Yay, nay? I say yay.

Now, what happens if they repeal same sex marriage rights in Massachusetts? Or change the US constitution? Riots or spontaneous block parties in the street? Good parties take planning, we should discuss this..

Another thing I’ve noticed, and correct me if I’m wrong, but for those of us who see this theocratic agenda mentality, we see it clearly, and that pretty much sums up liberals. We’re united, perspective-wise. Their side will continue to fragment.

Even on CARM, those Christians who still feel that homosexuality is a sin but express that in a genuinely loving way and defend us when impertinent studies are used or the Bible is used to condemn us unfairly get lambasted by the others for coddling us and supporting our “sin.”

Well, at least we have the security of knowing that any way you look at it it's going to get worse before it gets better...

[Jennifer5]

it's going to get worse before it gets better...
That phrase alwaya comes back to me...

I think I know what you're saying.... and although it may sound crazy I think Vanessa has a good point. I think many straight couples(married) really are afraid that they'll really look worse, if all these gay and lesbian couples that they hated can make their marriage but they can't.

People who oppose gay marriage really don't look at the whole picture... if you look at it, if you ask someone why they oppose gay marriage they'll say because it wrong, because the bible says it's wrong... but never have any real reason. They never look at how much gay marriage could improve the world... if you think about things like, having so many kids without proper homes, these couples would make incredible parents (if they don't already)... and I actually think that that's another thing that a lot of people don't want to accept. I really think that there are so many of those families... you know the husband is cheating on his wife... the wife is completely burned out from working at home all day and taking care of the kids, and the kids are completely out of controll... and they're honestly threatened by these other couples who can make it all work.


*sorry if I rambled on way to long again:love:

[Vanessa White]

They are all valid points. The part that many of those that oppose us don't fully, actively consider, is how granting us the right of marriage, and therefore, other civil rights, so that so many children would not be lingering in foster care or waiting to be adopted, because that many more married couples could be available for them; that a sense of stability could be enhanced in the idea of marriage in general. I guess what has bothered me about the idea/concept/institution of marriage for many years now, and I am not just talking gay marriage, but marriage itself, is that it seems to have lost the meaning of what, spiritually, it is supposed to be. To me, it almost seems like it has been reduced to a fanfare of guests and beautiful dresses and fancy meals. Believe me, I want to wear the beautiful dress and have all of my family and closest ones with me when I say the I do's, I want all the fanfare. But, more importantly, I want all of the commitment, symbolism, LOVE LOVE LOVE that brings me to that altar in the first place. The saddest part about all of the opposition to me is, these persons won't, or can't, acknowledge the trouble that marriage in general is in. And, if we do get granted further marriage rights in the future, I think that will only further piss off our opposers, so it will be even a bigger challenge to not be seen as a big threat to them, and to be able to be taken seriously. If it occurs against their will, they may have to grant us other rights, but it does nothing at the base level of trying to reach understanding and compassion, rather than just doing it because the law says we have to. Does any of that make sense? Now, Jen, that is a true ramble, what you have all just been exposed to........:rolleyes: :love:

[Dash]

...and raise you one rambling sermon!!:p

Another thing I’ve noticed, and correct me if I’m wrong, but for those of us who see this theocratic agenda mentality, we see it clearly, and that pretty much sums up liberals. We’re united, perspective-wise. Their side will continue to fragment.

Even on CARM, those Christians who still feel that homosexuality is a sin but express that in a genuinely loving way and defend us when impertinent studies are used or the Bible is used to condemn us unfairly get lambasted by the others for coddling us and supporting our “sin.”

Well, at least we have the security of knowing that any way you look at it it's going to get worse before it gets better...

They must have homosexuality be sin. Somehow it has become inextricably woven into their paradigm of salvation. That thread, if pulled, unravels their knot; that peg, if drawn, brings their leaning Jenga tower rattling down. They have loved the Law, but not the Spirit, nor the people for whom the law was given.

I don't know about CARM. I went there once, and it baffled me--both in structure and content...couldn't make heads or tails of it. But at the UMC forums, I was astounded by the violent reaction to my little postings about animals observed in homosexual behavior. It is too difficult to face a truth that makes the world seem alien to them.

They think their worldview is based on the Bible, and they think that God walked the Bible downstairs from His big diamond temple in heaven. It is the result of heinous misinterpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 in my opinion, which makes the Bible more useful for judging than teaching. When reality reveals a little crack in their artificial universe, you'd think that California was falling into the ocean for all the screaming and fleeing. Unable to accept that homosexual behavior may be perfectly natural, I watched them prefer to destroy the entire world. All the world was evil in their sight and filled with God's wrath, therefore any homosexuality in nature was merely a symptom of that evil and that wrath. I, in contrast, was always taught to see the beauty of nature, and that everything God made was good. My father, a man after the psalmist's heart, would walk with me on the farm teaching me to honor nature and the goodness of the Divine, which it reflects:

How many are your works, O LORD!
In wisdom you made them all;
the earth is full of your creatures.

In Psalm 104, the singer's observations of nature cause him to worship and praise the creator--not attack creation! My good father said many times, "To those who are evil, everything is evil; but to the good, all things are good." Their reaction to a simple statement of observed, unprejudiced truth was to prefer the lie. Shall I repeat the words of Jesus that they belong to their father the Devil? Shall I say that they want to carry out their father's desire, who was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him; who when lying, speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies? I genuinely don't believe the authority is given me to say such things. I am not Jesus, and although he did say these words (John 8:44-45) I can only use them as a warning, that when I see the truth to cling to it tenaciously and humbly recognize my own Divine parentage.

C.S. Lewis had an idea that the opposing positions were thinning and sharpening into fine points--an ever more polarizing clarity to distinguish the truth from the lie. Their anger, hatred and inhumanity will shatter upon the equal blade of peace, love and human kindness.

And, yes, I've enough cynic in me to agree that things might get worse before they get better, but I also think we have seen the rosy fingertips of dawn grasping at the horizon. Looking toward Massachusetts we have seen the eastern light. Yes, it seems fragile and tenuous while so much of the world lies in darkness and clouds. Nonetheless, the undaunted morning comes, and it will not be stayed by any thunder they roll against it.

[Steven E. Webster]

Folks,
The back lash is not just over the Mass. Supreme Court decision. The U.S. Supreme Courts decision to throw out all "sodomy" laws in the recent Lawrence v. Texas case is also very threatening to the Religious Right. In one swoop the Supreme Court threw out every state law that branded us criminals for being "sodomites." Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent that "gay marriage" would be the next step. In a way, the Federal and State Marriage Amendments are an attempt to re-write discrimination into the law in retaliation for Lawrence v. Texas.

The marriage amendment movement is not only driven by LGBT people (rich or otherwise) it has been driven by our adversaries who believed they had a "winning" issue. Curiously, as time passes statistical support is moving in our direction. If we can survive these current attacks, we will come out stronger in the end.

STeven E. Webster

[BruceChris]

Somehow this whole discussion reminds me of the Republican national convention that nominated Dubya. I tried watching this, back in 1999 I think it was. I expected to see large numbers of people wallowing in nostalgia. Instead, what I saw was large numbers of people wallowing in Denial. Ike was still president, we were on top of the world, nothing bad could happen, and either there were no homosexuals, or there were a few, hiding out there in San Francisco somewhere. No inkling that we would ever go the way of the British Empire.

If you challenge the reality of someone who is in denial, all you do usually is drive them deeper into denial. I do have a certain fear that gays, as loved children of God, will be as difficult to sell as evolution. Just how did we ever get anybody to believe that the Earth revolved around the sun, and not vice versa?

Well, we seem to be committed, now. All that we can really is to show the world our best side, treat people with Christian charity, and resist any disrespect that we encounter. That. and just keep moving ahead.

Peace and Love, BruceChris

[Jennifer5]

Dash incerdible 'sermon'!

I swear if I heard all these things in church I would actually go... I'm always so delighted and a little shocked to hear such incredible and inspiring things here!:love:

[Daniel]

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=654

I'm probably woefully behind the curve in posting this, but I recently received word about this 'convention' in late March by anti-gay forces

But nothing available at the conference was more homophobic than the now hard-to-find 1993 video, "The Gay Agenda," which actually coined that phrase. (The film was produced by "The Report," a now defunct TV ministry affiliated with the Springs of Life Ministries in Lancaster, Calif.). The video became national news after it was released -- the same year President Clinton was considering allowing gays serve openly in the military -- when it was reported that the commandant of the Marine Corps had arranged a screening of it for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It was also distributed widely on Capitol Hill. The video is filled with bogus statistics about the evils of the "gay lifestyle" and graphic footage intended to make the viewer believe that all homosexuals are obsessed with sex. Embarrassingly, it also features a long interview with John Paulk, who at the time was working for the "ex-gay" outfit Love In Action, an organization he said had cured him of his homosexuality. Seven years later, Paulk was discovered patronizing a gay bar in Washington, D.C.

Perhaps Tom Crouse, a preacher from Holland, Mass., who is irate at his state's decision to allow gay marriages and who claims homosexuals have threatened to kill him, best summed up the tone of the event -- and also brought the audience back to the Christianity that it was officially tasked with saving from secular assault. "I am here to proclaim that God made us heterosexual," Crouse said to wild applause on the first day. "Jesus was not a pot-smoking hippie," he added. "Jesus Christ was one of the most intolerant people in the world!"

Anti-gay and anti-gay marriage efforts are alive and kicking. And their view of Jesus says...well....everything.

[dewdrop_world]

How do we see their humanity and respond compassionately? Sure, they're "wrong" but is it helpful to focus on their "wrongness" in making a creative response?

We're hashing out some of the right ideas here but, as I've been arguing on UMC, the right ideas are not sufficient in themselves for a genuinely religious response.

James

[Daniel]

How do we see their humanity and respond compassionately? Sure, they're "wrong" but is it helpful to focus on their "wrongness" in making a creative response?

We're hashing out some of the right ideas here but, as I've been arguing on UMC, the right ideas are not sufficient in themselves for a genuinely religious response.

James

James- How does one respond 'religiously' in the face of such unadulterated hate? That's a good question. My first thought is that this would depend on whom is doing the responding, the 'individual' or the 'organization'.

As such, the Fundies have been great about organizing and Soulforce, to my understanding, is the only organiztion which has been set up to address this issue in religious terms. It's a bit like David against Goliath, isn't it? One organization pitted against a whole army of fundies and 'giants' like Dobson, Fallwel and Robertson. Though I hesitate to frame the matter in terms of battle. My take is that our love for one another needs to keep refusing to 'shut up' whatever the circumstances.

The Right clearly wants us all to slink away in shame and defeat, but that we must not do, no matter what DOMA's they pass.

Like David, I think we need to start thinking about what we are aiming at. I really do think Mel White is on to something re "The Debate is Over': this seems to get to the head and heart of the matter.

I saw this in "New York Home" (yes- a gay guy into interior esthetics lol) which caught my eye- written on the lid of a sliver box.

"You cannot force someone to think as you do,
Or feel as you do.
But you can teach them to think a little better,
To think a little more...
To listen to what they are really doing,
Not to what they think they are doing"

Issac (someone or other...the last name was cut off....perhaps Newton?)

Dash- on another thread- has brought this to full 'flower'.

We aren't right about these issues as much as we want equal rights, a very different thing to my mind.

[Vanessa White]

Dewdrop, you and Daniel have me thinking about the possibilities of this. I do know clearly that, by committing to be nonviolent, and live up to the basic premise of Soulforce, albeit difficult because we are only human after all, in the face of outright intolerance and hatred, I admit, it is very difficult to respond in a loving way at times. However, is one way to respond to our haters lovingly, is by fully expressing our self-love to them? If we cannot love them, at that moment anyway, in spite of their hate and intolerance, can it be just as effective and productive for us to show our love of self and selves in an unwavering manner? I don't want this to sound like I am dismissing the need to be loving toward these persons and groups directly, I know that is called for as well. But, what has helped me individually when I am faced with a person who has no understanding, or doesn't want to, of who I am as a lesbian, I respond with such pride and self-love, it seems hard for them, in that moment at least, to find something "wrong" with me. It also helps me to respond to the intolerance in a way that doesn't leave me feeling bitter and resentful, because I am being my true self. Thanks for listening all.......:love: :love: :love: :love:

[Dash]

But, what has helped me individually when I am faced with a person who has no understanding, or doesn't want to, of who I am as a lesbian, I respond with such pride and self-love, it seems hard for them, in that moment at least, to find something "wrong" with me. It also helps me to respond to the intolerance in a way that doesn't leave me feeling bitter and resentful, because I am being my true self.

I think what you've said is brilliant. They'll call you debauched, depraved, sinful, wicked, demon-possessed, sick, wounded and Satan...

...but you are none of these things. You are strong and whole. You are filled with truth and poise...serene and self-possessed. All their lies shatter upon the unbreakable reality in which you stand. And, yes...knowing yourself to be all this gives you a confidence that cannot yield to bitterness or resentment.

A child's taunting will not wound a mature spirit, and the blows of the weak will not bruise the strong.

[Emproph]

Maybe this is part of the confusing point I’m trying to get to.

We’ve established (many times) that there are those who for all practical purposes are as resistant to change as we homosexuals are to becoming heterosexuals.

In John W. Dean’s “Conservatives Without Conscience,” it’s about 23% unchangeable authoritarian mindset. Essentially closed minds. Re: Vanessa’s statement and perennial Dash’s..A child's taunting will not wound a mature spirit, and the blows of the weak will not bruise the strong.And that’s what infuriates them.

We’re supposed to feel bad about ourselves and they can’t stand it that we don’t. Not just from a pride “I’m better than you” perspective but also from the confusion standpoint, “how is that possible, don’t they know how gross they are?” So they got two things going on.

Not only are we swimming in a sea of “sin,” but we are also INCAPABLE of seeing it AS sin. It is our inability to recognize our own “sin” that prevents them from hating us to the full extent of their “law.”

So it comes back to superiority. Without the capability of recognizing our own sin we are incapable of recognizing our inferiority, and thus incapable of recognizing them as superior. We’re stealing their pride, their most prized possession.A child's taunting will not wound a mature spirit, and the blows of the weak will not bruise the strong.
What’s further infuriating is that it’s our “sin” itself that is the very cause of our not recognizing our “sin,” and thus their superiority.

Our recognition of our own inferiority is what prevents them from fully actualizing their superior status.

It's not our attempt to be equal that bothers them, it's our resistence to being inferior that infuriates them. There's a difference. Maybe that's what we're not seeing.

A bug, a pet, a child can think and claim that they are equal, but when a heterosexual male defines the gender of God itself, we better cower.

It’s like that comedy gag where one person insults another but the person being insulted doesn’t recognize it as an insult, or worse takes the insult as a compliment.
__

The need for a definition of sin beyond the Golden Rule is the lack of its understanding.

[revtj]

Our recognition of our own inferiority is what prevents them from fully actualizing their superior status.

It's not our attempt to be equal that bothers them, it's our resistence to being inferior that infuriates them. There's a difference. Maybe that's what we're not seeing.


I wholeheartedly agree with this! We have so much internalized self-hatred as individuals and as a community (communities...) that we are often our own worst enemy.

[PHP]Originally Posted by dewdrop_world
How do we see their humanity and respond compassionately? Sure, they're "wrong" but is it helpful to focus on their "wrongness" in making a creative response?PHP]

If we say we love God but hate our neighbor (including the neighbor who hates us and lies about us) then the truth is not in us.

This is the spiritual conundrum of our people and I am commited to the answer Soulforce works with...somehow we've got to love ourselves & one another as well as love them in a way so powerful (satyagraya) that we are all changed.

Easier said than done of course but time & circumstance will intersect one day (or maybe cumulatively over many days & many actions) as we relentlessly practice nonviolent love in speaking truth to power and change will happen.

This is what keeps me getting up in the morning to face another day in homophobiaville. :love: