What I Did Instead of Going to Church Sunday

[revtj]

A PROGRESSIVE ANSWERS CHRIS CRAIN

Editors note: This letter is in response to Windows Media/Washington Blade Executive Editor Chris Crain's Editorial, 'Revenge of the anti-conjugalists' http://sovo.com/2006/7-28/view/editorial/ in the July 28th issues of Southern Voice and The Washington Blade. Mr. Crain was gaybashed in Amsterdam about a year ago while walking down the street holding hands with his male partner.

Dear Mr. Crain:

Your view of human freedom and gay civil rights seems like an exercise in intellectual shallowness the likes of which I would never expect to find in a gay-friendly publication. Specifically, I do not understand how you can be beaten nearly to death in a gaybashing in one of the most gay-friendly cities on the planet, and recover only to use your editorial influence to argue for assimilation, asking LGBT people to continue to strive to be like straight people instead of demanding change. What aspect of the status quo political philosophy of heterosexual relationships do you think LGBT people should just shut up and imitate? Is that not what you were doing when you were attacked?

Monogamous marriage between heterosexuals is historically a relatively new arrangement. It makes sense to assume the institution will continue to evolve to reflect the changes and challenges of the 21st century. The signers of the "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage Manifesto" http://www.beyondmarriage.org/ have chosen to look at the subject from a broader and wider scope than simply legalizing marriage for same-gender partners. Yes, this is progressive, in that it assumes status quo marriage in western culture is not a fixed or final entity, but could use some improving itself for the benefit of the entire human family.

One of the paradoxes addressed by liberation thought is the historical rising up of some oppressed who join with their oppressor in working against their own people. It seems you are begging to be accepted by imitating the civil persona of the same people who beat the hell out of you for holding hands with your partner in public. That makes you an Uncle Tom of sorts in your own community. We progressives support you and at the same time feel sorry for you because we think you're getting used by the right, and that history shows they will only reject you in the end. Then nothing will change for you or us because they succeeded in making a monkey out of you and so many others.

Here's a challenge for you: When you produce the hard-earned academic, artistic and socially sustainable credentials of Amber Hollibaugh, Chai Feldblum, Nancy Polikoff, Michael Bronski, Mandy Carter, Kathleen DeBold, Holly Near, Susie Bright, Terrance McNally, Armistead Maupin, or Betsy Reed, all of whom you dismiss with one penstroke of the pejorative label "gay left," then you will have grounds to disavow their positions on human rights. Until then, you appear to be more than ill-informed and unprepared, with nothing to offer but a hasty, fishwrapper attack on a social philosophy you do not understand but wish to use to elevate yourself to their level of social engagement.

Study the works of these brilliant people instead of dismissing them so quickly. If you do, I believe you will find, as Tony Kushner put it, "the world only spins forward." The Progressive Movement extends far beyond the "gay left," and offers a pansexual, multicultural vision of a world transformed by deeply reasoned values of human dignity, worth, and freedom. We want to hold hands with whomever we choose and we believe you should be free to do that also.

Sincerely,
Rev. T J McGiffert
Atlanta, GA

ps - To my Soulforce Friends : I'm beginning to feel activism as a form of worship!

[NathanATX]

wow... great letter...

[LGBT FLIGHT ATTENDANT]

Brilliant letter !!!! And all I did was fly back from Asia on Sunday!!!!!

[revtj]

Here is Crain's response to me:<ouch>

Let me just say how wonderful it feels to see a religious leader throw my own gay bashing in my face because I dared to disagree with what even its authors admit is a radical suggestion for change in our movement! So because I got beat up I should shut up, and let these 250 speak without offering my own voice? I will put my intellectual and “movement” credentials up against these folks any day of the week. Do you even know anything about me? I suppose the long list of movement veterans who have written to me to thank for me for my editorial are traitors to the cause as well. I have always welcomed debate, which is why I jumped at the chance to respond to the manifesto’s challenge. It’s just disappointing when folks like you — a reverend! -- choose to attack the person rather than the ideas.
Chris Crain
--
Chris Crain
Co-Founder, Exec. V.P. of Editorial/Production
Window Media LLC
1408 U St., NW, 2nd Floor
Washington, DC 20009
202-797-7000 ext. 250

Needless to say, I responded & apologized for hurting his feelings. I pointed out that I too have been gaybashed and this is why I am impatient with his editorials.

You may recall the post I temporarily put up inquiring as to who owns Windows Media. I did some online research to learn more about Crain. While I can find nothing to verify his education or previous journalistic experience, here is what I discovered:

http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2006_0...s_archive.html

I want to make the point again that those who oppose us politically and personally, and they are legion, are the true benefators of the kind of infighting Crains' editorializing sets up. If King could sit down with Malcolm X, then surely the LGBT community can accept the new wave of Log Cabin Republicans in dialogue with the old guard of gay liberationists.

I covet your prayers, advice and support.
revtj

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by revtj

I want to make the point again that those who oppose us politically and personally, and they are legion, are the true benefators of the kind of infighting Crains' editorializing sets up. If King could sit down with Malcolm X, then surely the LGBT community can accept the new wave of Log Cabin Republicans in dialogue with the old guard of gay liberationists.

I covet your prayers, advice and support.
revtj

Revtj- Thanks for the link re Cain. It seems he is up to his armpit in legal matters et al in trying to bring about his own media 'empire'. That he is an editor as well is interesting. I don't begrudge him that, but it would be as if the new owner of the New York Observer became chief editor of the paper (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/bu...observer.html). A conflict of interest perhaps?

Interests aside, I have been thinking about the issues you've raised re Cains editorial and fear, like you, that in the wake of substantial legal defeats the old guard, internal fighting may be taking place. (I'm not sure the latter is made up of Long Cabin Republicans though. As a demographic, GLBT folks still tend to vote on the democratic side of the political spectrum.) I know in discussions here in NY that the Manifesto was taken by some as a rebuke to marriage equality efforts- and was reported as such in the NYTimes a few days ago (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/fa...MARRIAGE.html).

What disturbed me about the article was this:

Originally Posted by NYTtimes

Yet dissenters like Sarah Schulman, a playwright, novelist and English professor at the City University of New York, College of Staten Island, see a more subtle form of regression coming out of the movement, a return to the values of the 1950’s. As a teacher, she said, she sees a lot of younger gay people, especially women adopting the heterosexual fantasy that even Barbie has distanced herself from — “that someday they will meet the right person and they will get married and they will have children.” She fears that lesbian mothers are embracing a “poverty model” and taking themselves out of the running to be the next George Sand or Emma Goldman.

This is the same kind of criticism that was leveled against SF in an article in The Gay and Lesbian Review (July-August 2006- this issue in not posted online yet unfortunately) where the writer, Stephanie Fairyington, attended the April 25th FS event here in NY as I did. She likens the efforts and aims of SF thus:

Originally Posted by The Gay and Lesbian Review-July/August 06

(an excerpt)

While I am in awe of their ambitious agenda and find their collective attempt to dissolve the us-them dichotomy brave and admirable, I can't quite convince my legs to make the leap iont their bandwagon. My first thought is that in style and rthetoric they resemble the Mattichine Society of the 1950's, whose stategy was to suppress of conceal their queer differences by blending into mainstream society. but then Stonewall came along and the Sexual Revolution and everything that's happened since then, which is what makes it odd that it's still necessary to affect the styles of the 50's to get through to some people. Indeed I find their politics a little frightening for what they reveal about just how far-reaching the Christian Right's cultural influence is."

"In their appeal to conservative Christian colleges, I see how thoroughly the religious Right has infiltrated queer politics and sensibilities. The best the Equality Riders could hope for at these instiutions would be nothing akin to the vision of the gay liberationists who preceeded us, who imagined a multicolored world that embraced and celebrated difference. Doubtless that world of acceptance and equality has made real progress over the decades; yet always there is the ravenous conservatism, what Alfred Kinsey called, "the forces of chastity," that was to paint over our rainbow of differences at the behest of their simplistic and monochromatic world view."

(and at the end of the piece)

"Who will be the new queer outcasts once the fundamentalists have embraced these tame, domesticated gays of Christ? The problem is not that religion and Christianity don't embrace gays and lesbians; the problem is that Christianity and religion have this self-proclaimed power to say what's good and righteous and to use words like "evil" and "sin" to castigate people they don't happen to like. Until that power is gone, there will always be scapegoats and outcasts and queers."

From the two scources quoted here, what stands out is the notion that the drive for marriage equality and the efforts of SF are, according the those on the far left, a product of the failed thinking of the 50's. And while I thought I was being rather pradical in wanting to take care of my partner by marrying him, it seems I am participating in my own oppression.

I can see and appreciate that there are those who desire the financial benefits (and it does seem to be about money to a large degree in case anyone is wondering- the orgin of marriage is in the joining of and maintaining of alliances- not 'love' per se- which came much later) which marriage affords, yet the nature of their relationship falls outside the societal norm (two together with an implied romantic component). I make no judgement about that. I, along with the writers of the Manifesto, would like to see a world where we are all able to take care of one another, regardless of our orientation, familial status, or, as the writers note, conjugal status (I don't see the point of making judgments about other peoples adult relationships. I know there are those here who have a dim view of any relationship that is not monogamous, and while I am monogamous myself, do not think casting dispersions on those who aren't either helpful or illuminating.) The impulse to take care of those who need taking care of, both emotionally, psychologically and financially, is, in my mind, borne out of compassion and the desire for the highest good.

The Left, as much as the Right, seems to want the 'opposing' side to conform to the way it views the world. (Oh that it were so simple.) Both sides are going to have to change (and like the current Mid-East conflict, there must be a desire for peace). And perhaps the change is happening already under our noses: the very things that both sides decry- gay marriage and the methods of SF- may be a sign of that. Revolution from within perhaps? I don'ts see SF being influenced by Right Wing Christians as one author claims. She is asserting guilt by association, which throws little light on the matter (you'd think since she was a fact checker she'd do a little more digging: http://www.friendster.com/user.php?uid=5521024.) And I don't see us trying to fit into the 'norm' so that we can dissappear into the fabric of the staus quo, as much as I see us fighting for equality so that everyone can be who they are in the open without fear and have the opportunity to engage in the much lauded "pursuit of happineness".

We have the same goals, but different ways to get there perhaps.

[revtj]

Daniel,

Thank you so much for your carefully researched and well-reasoned response. IF ONLY YOU were editor of Southern Voice!

You pointed out aspects of the issue I had no idea about (i.e. NYT and G&LR articles) such that I see the discussion in context. Thank you for that.

Prior to your post, all I had was the link to the document itself (posted earlier) and Crain's rant. Now I am able to see that there is actually a reasonable conservative response to this issue, and I feel more informed and up to speed with my own community.

The difference is 1)you sourced your argument and 2) you represented both sides of the issue without sniping.

I respect you tremendously for your depth of thought. Will you be surprised to learn, however, that I completely agree with the "left" argument as cited in your post?
(One note: I am not sure the one poster represents the Mattachine Society well. And of course, I respect Soulforce Equality Riders!)

I do believe as a christian, a gay man, and a human being that it is our idolization of marriage that is really the problem, not whether gays should be allowed legal marriage. But I see room for both views in a healthy Queerdom as well as America.

And I think we are all sick & tired of the Bill O'Reilly-version of b&w truth, persistent and deliberate oversimplification & straw-man arguments, that have led to so much political gain for the far right and left the moderates and left-wingers wondering what just happened.

I do not want an O'Reilly gay press. I am totally suspicious of the 'venture capitalists' who put Crain on board. I can't stand the thought that LGBT youth are going to get propaganda for breakfast. So I speak out. God help me.

peace and open-ended truth for breakfast,
revtj

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by revtj

I do believe as a christian, a gay man, and a human being that it is our idolization of marriage that is really the problem, not whether gays should be allowed legal marriage. But I see room for both views in a healthy Queerdom as well as America.

And I think we are all sick & tired of the Bill O'Reilly-version of b&w truth, persistent and deliberate oversimplification & straw-man arguments, that have led to so much political gain for the far right and left the moderates and left-wingers wondering what just happened.

I do not want an O'Reilly gay press. I am totally suspicious of the 'venture capitalists' who put Crain on board. I can't stand the thought that LGBT youth are going to get propaganda for breakfast. So I speak out. God help me.

Revtj,

Thanks for your words.

I do not want to be rude to the 'fairer sex', but it seems to me that women- at least in the media- have the idolization of marriage all sewn up. One only has to go to B & N and look at the wedding mags on the shelf. And I have read that lesbian couples marry (where they can) in greater numbers that men.

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=21219

"Although Spain's first "gay marriage" involved two men, statistics show that the majority of "weddings" there likely will involve lesbians. In Massachusetts, approximately two-thirds of "gay marriages" have involved females, according to statistics published in The Boston Globe. The stats included more than 6,100 "weddings" performed between May 2004 and February of this year."

As such, women certainly express the desire to formalize their relationships more than men do. This may simply be a matter of the differences in the sexes and nothing more, but to 'go the other way'- so to speak- one has only to note the observation expressed thus: "If you want to know what male sexuality is like, you only have to look at gay men." The implication is the expression of sexuality without limitations.

Marriage, for the Far Left, is itself a limitation. Is it any wonder that the authors of the Manifesto are childen of the 60's- the age of the Sexual Revolution? I can only wonder if, even in same-sex relationships, there is a 'natural' impulse towards balance between the forces of exclusivity and no-limitations. And the recent efforts re gay marriage may be, oddly enough, a step in that direction. Maybe we're all in a 30 year cycle. Maybe we'll be having another sexual revolution in 2030! lol

I find its interesting that I am monogamous but simultaneoulsy recongnize within myself the impulse to 'play the field' (It's like reading the menu: you get to look, but ordering and paying for it is another matter). And I think I am not the only gay man in a relationship to feel this. And I don't think this is a 'gay' issue per se, but an issue of being a man. That said, it may be age or the nature of commitment itself, but I feel that adultery takes a hell of a lot of effort. It's a long train with many cars that doesn't start moving by itself. it may seem like 'play' to some, but I cannot glibly engage myself so easily. But that is my pyschology.

I agree whole heartedly with you: Conservatives have mastered the art of commandeering the argument. Yet paradoxically, Clinton himself has been credited with using this tactic. Effective in the short run perhaps, but destructive non-the-less. It's not about truth or anything resembling it, but simply a tactic engaged in to WIN. The ground that it fights for gets smaller and smaller until there is nothing left. (pun pun pun!)

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Daniel

I find its interesting that I am monogamous but simultaneoulsy recongnize within myself the impulse to 'play the field' (It's like reading the menu: you get to look, but ordering and paying for it is another matter). And I think I am not the only gay man in a relationship to feel this. And I don't think this is a 'gay' issue per se, but an issue of being a man.

. (!)

That's an issue of being human. Women have that experience, too.

As for the far right style of competing and winning, yeah they DO have that down. A big problem the "left" has is that our very nature as free-thinkers and progressives gets us bogged down in detailed theoretical arguments amongst OURSELVES, rather than all going forth with the same message for a win. It's like the progressive grassroots meeting hubby & I attended that never got to it's agenda because we spent the whole meeting voting about how to get started. The right follows a few leaders who decide and delegate, and the foot soldiers do as they say. But we discuss, discuss, discuss, disagree, disagree, re-think, re-tool, and meanwhile, another election cycle has come and gone, and we lost again.

Rather than arguing about what marriage equality MEANS philosophically, or whether or not it oppresses queers by striving for conformity with heterosexist norms (God I feel like I'm back in undergrad again), we need to find something we CAN agree on and work together on it. Ok, wanna work for marriage equality? Great, let's ALL work for it, even you radical queers who don't "buy into" that tradition because we can all agree (we can, can't we?) that the couple next door deserve to make the choice for themselves.

WE are never all going to agree on the details. But if we don't agree on the big picture, we have nothing to work with, and nothing to work TOWARD.

[tdogg]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

That's an issue of being human. Women have that experience, too.

I agree with Zerbie on this one. Once in a while have to nudge myself and remind myself I am committed to someone I love dearly - think this is just human nature.

I also think women (gay or straight)are more into the actual act of getting married than perhaps men. One gal at my office got married last month, she spent months planning and towards the end was very stressed about the wedding particulars. She decided to whine to me (wrong person) about her fears of the wedding going wrong, etc. I told her the wedding is insignificant and no matter what goes wrong or doesn't, she will look back on it as good. It's the union of her and her husband that matters, what happens after the wedding and honeymoon, that they really need to make sure they are prepared to live together and get through disagreements and crises together. She wasn't too happy at my lack of sympathy towards her wedding worries.

People sometimes put far too much consideration into the day of getting married and far too less of the lifetime that follows.

[Zerbie]

[QUOTE=tdogg

I also think women (gay or straight)are more into the actual act of getting married than perhaps men. One gal at my office got married last month, she spent months planning and towards the end was very stressed about the wedding particulars. She decided to whine to me (wrong person) about her fears of the wedding going wrong, etc. I told her the wedding is insignificant and no matter what goes wrong or doesn't, she will look back on it as good. It's the union of her and her husband that matters, what happens after the wedding and honeymoon, that they really need to make sure they are prepared to live together and get through disagreements and crises together. She wasn't too happy at my lack of sympathy towards her wedding worries.

People sometimes put far too much consideration into the day of getting married and far too less of the lifetime that follows.[/QUOTE]

Omigosh Tdogg!!! Are you my long lost sister? (Along with Jen5 of course ). We see completely eye to eye on this one! You are so right!!!

Hubby & I took that approach. We just wanted to be married. Actually, I think it was more what he wanted than what I wanted. I had been accustomed to the idea that I might not be able to legally marry my partner so when he came along and suggested it, it was like 'Oh, well, alright, let's get married.' And it's the best thing I've ever done.

but oh my - the silliness about the wedding procedure going perfectly? How funny I've always found that to be! It's not about Bridezilla. It's the little details that go out of place on that day that you remember, that and the expression on your beloved's face when you recite your vows.

We planned our wedding in a few quick months long-distance and I was always saying "Oh, whatever. . ." to questions about what the wedding party should wear or what flowers there should be. My MOTHER took over the planning herself, and I had to restrain her to keep it from becoming all pomp and circumstance.

[tdogg]

Zerbie, maybe I am your long lost sister, but definitely OLDER sister!!

My ex and I had a decent but frugal marriage and received help from a lot of people. I was never worried about any detail (he was) for the reason we both agree on! The marriage is WAY more important. Anyway, the wedding was fine but of course the marriage wasn't for a lot of reasons. I just never got all the fuss and bother about the WEDDING plans! All the magazines???

As unpleasant as the marriage may have been, what I remember are all my friends and family that showed up, being there with him (we were pretty much best friends if not best lovers), and the fun everyone had partying after, espcially the youngsters (lots of kids!). And my precious niece the little flower girl who is now a bright and beautiful lady of 22!

If and when my current partner and I decide to have a ceremony, I want it to be on the beach somewhere, barefoot in loose flowing casual comfy clothes, we write our own vows, a kind spiritual older woman marrying us with our most loved ones surrounding us and ready to party right after the vows. Hey I'm even ok with a potlock and BYOB reception!

So Z, you and your hubby did long distance for a bit? How did you decide on Arizona for your residence? That is way cool! I love stories about how mates met each other!!!

[revtj]

Isn't it because women are socialized that way since childhood? I mean, surely you are not saying it is a superior instinct, are you?

I am a bit confused as to what difference it makes which gender tends to prefer monogamous marriage anyway?...

If I could return to the original point(s) being made by Crain and by me...

Crain: Left-wingers helped defeat gay marriage equality legislation by signing a petetion to reconstruct our entire notion of marriage & family in America.

revtj: Point 1: Marriage itself is a dysfuctional institution whether LGBT folks are legally wed or not. Point 2: Left wingers had nothing to do with why it was defeated, homophobia is why it was defeated, AND to blame a subset of the gay community is to create unneccessary division within our community making it difficult for us to ever get ANYTHING accomplished.

[Zerbie]

We were just following a tangent, TJ. No one is suggesting it matters or placing a value judgment on who wants weddings or marriage to go a certain way.

I agree with your points that homophobia is the reason marriage = has been defeated. I'm not sure I agree with Crain saying that the left wing of the gay community CAUSED the defeat. But it's an interesting debate because it IS nevertheless true that one of the opposition's favorite arguments AGAINST marriage = is the Slippery Slope argument. As I understand Crain's point, he finds it a mistake to hand any ammunition over to the opponents to support that Slippery Slope argument. But. . .otoh again, our opponents would use that argument ANYWAY. . .so I dunno.

What's basic here? Can we all agree that LGBT people deserve to make the CHOICE whether or not to marry their partner? If so, then we need to work together towards that goal, and let the arguments about whether or not marriage is "dysfuctional" AS an institution subside a little while we concern ourselves with accomplishing the goal (equality). Every individual and couple is going to come up with a different viewpoint regarding the value and relevance of "marriage" to their own lives, therefore, if we wait to concur on the MEANING of it all before we march on, we will never get started.

[tdogg]

My partner and I have this discussion now and then:

Her opinion is, why would we LGBTs want marriage when it doesn't work all that well for heteros, and that yes, we are different in ways so we are we fighting to get the same thing they have? We should strive for something different.

My opinion - it doesn't matter whether or not legal marriage works all that well. If a certain classification of citizens has the right to it, then all classifications of citizens should have the right to it. To exclude anyone goes against what this country is SUPPOSED to stand for. We should have the CHOICE to have the same thing to go find something different that works for us.

It's not marriage - it's the CHOICE whether or not to engage in the same rightful activity that a select group of the population enjoy.

[revtj]

As a chaplain, I marry same-gender couples on a regular basis and I don't see that many more women interested than men. What I see is people longing for social support & a spiritual blessing of their relationship and it is more than a privilege to be a part of that.

Really, I think what I hear left and right (and moderates, too) crying out for is a renewal of the deeper spiritual values that lie beneath 'marriage' veneer. That is something I support in as many ways as I possibly can, but it is not something the courts can grant str8s or gays.

Moving back to the origins of this thread, my letter to the editor appears in today's SoVo, redacted and somewhat different than posted here earlier. Meanwhile I have done some more investigating and I am finding that the string-pullers behind the papers are probably not the least bit commited to gay equality.

We know that Rove and Murdoch, et. al, set out to overhaul the free press. I guess I am just surprised the scheme reached gay media. But you know what talk$ and what walk$!!

So, I just want to post this link again for anyone who may have missed it the first go 'round:

http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2006_0...s_archive.html

Finally, let me say, the Beyond Marriage document need not work against our quest for equality under the law UNLESS that is how someone chooses to use it. I think it is more than a little strange that the executive editor of a gay paper tried to use it that way.

Please keep me in your prayers. Thanks for your support & reflection, it has been a tremendous comfort.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by revtj

Crain: Left-wingers helped defeat gay marriage equality legislation by signing a petition to reconstruct our entire notion of marriage & family in America.

revtj: Point 1: Marriage itself is a dysfuctional institution whether LGBT folks are legally wed or not. Point 2: Left wingers had nothing to do with why it was defeated, homophobia is why it was defeated, AND to blame a subset of the gay community is to create unneccessary division within our community making it difficult for us to ever get ANYTHING accomplished.

Revtj- I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "Marriage itself is a dyfunctional institution whether LGBT folks are legally wed or not", though I agree with you that homophobia accounts for the many legal defeats these last few months. I am confused by your statement for the simple reason that I see marriage as as a legal matter as well as a spiritual one- having availed myself of both avenues: a Buddhist wedding ceremony and legal marriage in Canada. Both were moving in their own way, but one accorded my spouse and I legal rights (if we lived in Canada), a very different matter indeed: it gives the spiritual/emotional/pyschological commitment unfettered access to those rights which further the interest of the relationship (if you live in Canada).

If you mean to say that those in relationship are dysfuntional, well, the joke goes that if you are part of a family- that is the very definition of dysfunction!

Cain may indeed be taking a swipe at the "Beyond Sam-Sex Marriage" Manifesto for all the wrong reasons. However, after seeing two authors of the document represent it on GAYUSA (one can view last Thursday's broadcast at GayUSAPodCast), one could say that one of the goals of the Manifesto is to not only re-frame marriage equality efforts, but take the canvas out of that frame and replace it with something else. Would that be a good thing? Perhaps. Do I think that this 'something else' will gain us all of our rights? No. I find it hard to believe that anything less than marriage will achieve the same degree of rights- that is- all 1500 of them.

Two things stood out in the discussion. Bill Dobbs, one of the authors, said emphatically: "The demand for (marriage) equality is holding us back!" When pressed on HOW the Manifesto's stated goals might be realized in real time (ie a strategy), Mr. Dobbs became angry and had nothing much to say. What I take from this is that the Manifesto, as such, is a criticism of marriage equality efforts and not simply a 'new vision'. It is backseat driving at its best: It proclaims to know where it wants to go but does not have a vehicle with an engine and a driver to get there. How this will gain GLBT persons equal rights as citizens is hard for me to grasp (I agree with Liberal Crozier: anything less than full marriage rights and we will be looking at codified second class status for generations to come. The Right takes no prisoners! Everything is in danger of being rolled back.) In this sense, the Manifesto is an 'end run'. Why? It doesn't face the matter of religious intolerance though it recognizes its power.

Originally Posted by BeyondMarriage.org

Right-wing strategists do not merely oppose same-sex marriage as a stand-alone issue. The entire legal framework of civil rights for all people is under assault by the Right, coded not only in terms of sexuality, but also in terms of race, gender, class, and citizenship status. The Right’s anti-LGBT position is only a small part of a much broader conservative agenda of coercive, patriarchal marriage promotion that plays out in any number of civic arenas in a variety of ways – all of which disproportionately impact poor, immigrant, and people-of-color communities. The purpose is not only to enforce narrow, heterosexist definitions of marriage and coerce conformity, but also to slash to the bone governmental funding for a wide array of family programs, including childcare, healthcare and reproductive services, and nutrition, and transfer responsibility for financial survival to families themselves.

In pycho-dynamic terms, this amounts to trying to solve a problem by changing the subject. This does nothing but perpetuate the problem. Though I can honestly appreciate its aims, I fail to see how this Manifesto can succeed in the context in which it engages the participants. It must be noted, however, the SF seeks to address religious intolerance head on.

The second outstanding matter was the so-to-subtile suggestion by both representatives that equal marriage rights would somehow SHAME and STIGMATIZE them further. And this argument strikes me as regressive as those on the Right who say that gay marriage somehow takes away or lessens their marriage. Both perspectives stem from self-perceptions of self-worth and have little to do with the legal rights involved.

If the authors of the Manifesto simply want to have legal recognition of their relationships, I have no qualm with that. But I fail to see how doing away with marriage will obtain that end. What am I not getting here?

[Liberal Crozier]

When I read this thread to Liberal Crozier, he told me that he wanted to spend the little time up today after chemo to respond to this VERY important thread which he considers SEMINAL to the USA struggle and its outcomes if these individuals succeed in their programme to re-direct their focused agenda on same-sex marriage.

Daniel - Liberal thinks that you always get it.....in spades !!!!!

[Liberal Crozier]

My brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus,

We consider it a moral imperative to teach and to insist upon full equal civil and human rights. We consider any dilution or compromise with injustice, bigotry and hatred to be immoral and a clear and concise denial of same-sex marriage as the basis from which all civil and spiritual rights emanate.

In Canada, the convergence was theological, political and activist. Led by the United Church of Canada, MCC - assisted in part by liberals in other denominations, and supported by the majority of the Liberal Party, the Bloc Quebecois, and the NDP, it was clear that our secular legal activists could focus like a laser upon full and equal rights for all LGBT persons on this planet without prejudice.

It was important to note the theocon alliance of these sociological elements as they have converged in the United States with little or no opposition. There is a difference, to be sure. I have in other threads expounded upon this subject at length. I only reference it here for clarity. Your "leftist" party has abandoned its political and philosophical roots in favour of a pragmatic centrism that speaks the language of compromise and betrayal. You have quiet and acquiescent progressive denominations who say or do little in defence of a gay-affirming sexual theological apologetic. They are either silent or worse, negotiating with the theocons out of fear of rejection and schism.

We however, are greatly saddened by those secular activists who have decided to seek third and fourth tier rights and privileges in order to assuage their "supporters" and antagonists alike. Many of these individuals are either Log Cabin Republican activists or Democratic Leadership Council and Progressive Policy Institute types who believe that the gentrified LGBT groups must give the DLC candidates from presidential to congressional to gubernatorial the needed political cover in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

We realise that our Canadian struggles in the past, and our vigilance during this minority government aside, we will probably have several generations who will live their lives in total egalitarian freedom and spiritual sustenance and gay-affirming belief, before your new leaders lead you to wander in the desert for the proverbial fourty years. Your moderate LCR and DLC friends may want to provide you with a modicum of rights, but their opponents....the theocons want nothing less than your spiritual and secular destruction....as these zealots truly believe that the LGBT person chooses to live a life of evil and perdition.

While praying for the Holy Spirit to enlighten their souls and minds and hearts, please know that you must be aware and informed about the strategies and outcomes being suggested by your "friends and allies" as well.