Is He, Isn't He ... And Is It Our Right to Say?

Now that I've finished my sermon for next week, as well as a few other things, I can catch up on some writing...

Michele Bachmann and her husband Marcus have been getting considerable coverage lately regarding their shared views about homosexuality, and his clinic's use of questionable practices to "cure" people of same-sex attraction. At first, Marcus denied that he and his staff were engaging in "ex-gay therapy"; then when someone who went undercover revealed that they were indeed trying to "pray away the gay," Marcus attempted some flimsy damage control by saying they would only engage in such practices "at the client's discretion."

It's also been revealed that Bachmann's clinic, which presents itself as "distinctly Christian" and includes prayer as part of "therapy," was accepting Medicaid and other government funds to pay for the treatment of several clients. This from the husband of a Tea Party favorite who frequently denounces waste of taxpayer money -- and let's not forget how this violates the separation of church and state.

And then there's the question of how Marcus Bachmann got into this business in the first place. He claims to have a doctorate in clinical psychology from Union Graduate School -- except that the only Ph.D. that school offered was in interdisciplinary studies, before it was investigated by the Ohio Board of Regents and subsequently reorganized as The Union Institute and University, which did not offer a doctorate in psychology until 2001. Of course, that doesn't matter too much in Minnesota, one of three states where you don't need a license to practice in mental health services. Sure enough, none of Minnesota's three state boards dealing with mental health have Marcus registered with them.

It's perfectly justifiable to question the anti-gay views of Michele and Marcus, to uncover their lies and hypocrisy over how their clinic is run, and even to question Marcus Bachmann's credentials as a counselor. But what bothers me is how many LGBTQ and liberal/progressive activists pose the question of whether Marcus might be a self-loathing closeted gay man. Listen to his voice! Look at the way he moves! He must be! Right?

Hold on a second, folks. For years, advocates for the LGBTQ community have been pointing out that we shouldn't judge a person's sexual identity by stereotypes -- and now people are basing speculation about this man's orientation on those very same stereotypes. When right-wingers have tried to discredit certain progressive politicians as being gay, we've decried such smear tactics -- and now progressives are trying to do the same thing.

Now I'm all for revealing a person's hypocrisy, but you have to do so with clear evidence. Show me that Marcus has led a double life around his sexuality, and you've got something. But until you do, let the matter rest.

Even if someone had such evidence, I'd be hesitant to just throw it out there. I'm grateful to Virginia Ramey Mollenkott's insights into this topic, and I believe that more advocates for the LGBTQ community should take heed of her proposals. She believes that any person discovered to be hiding their sexual orientation, while acting publicly in a way which did harm to lesbigay people, should first be approached in private and given the chance to come clean. Only after a sincere and compassionate attempt to offer a path of reconciliation should that person's hypocrisy be revealed.

When I started this blog, I took Mollenkott's guidance to heart, as well as the loving spirit behind it. Early on, a rather mean-spirited fellow posted a comment alleging that a particular UU minister was kinky. His "evidence" was ludicrous, and his sole intent was to smear that minister as part of a personal vendetta, so I had no problem with deleting it. Even if he had clear evidence, and more lofty motivations, I still would not have outed a minister who had never done any harm to kinksters like myself.

So I'm not going to join in that part of the chorus. Lambaste him for misleading people, for taking taxpayer money in contradiction to his wife's ideology, and for referring to gay kids as "barbarians" -- but even if you have proof that he is actually gay, go to him first and give him fair warning. Whenever we condemn hypocrisy, let's not become hypocrites ourselves.

To Jim Wallis and Sojourners: Welcoming Gays Is a Social Justice Issue

You've probably read on the news that Believe Out Loud, a project of Intersections International, attempted to purchase ad space on the Sojourners website for a short video. The ad's message was elegantly simple -- see for yourself:



Sojourners decided to turn them down. In a statement posted on the group's site, Sojourners founder Jim Wallis said that, while the group does support civil rights for GLBTQ people, and calls for churches "to be loving and welcoming to all people," the issues raised by the ad "have not been at the core of our calling." Sojourners has always been recognized as a social justice ministry, and has never shied from being controversial before. If this video showed an interracial family, or an obviously impoverished family walking into an affluent church, would this ministry have remained silent? So why now?

I'm thinking -- and hoping -- that the reason for this decision is that the folks at Sojourners have yet to wrestle with the issue themselves. Yes, as many have pointed out, this ad isn't about same-sex marriage or the ordination of openly gay clergy. But it's also been raised that raising one issue inevitably leads to the other, and that's very true. The real question that the folks at Sojourners needs to ask is whether it's consistent with their faith and calling to avoid having that discussion.

When Paul affirmed that Gentile converts should not require circumcision, the early church did not avoid the issue. They heard him out, debated the matter, and made a decision. Perhaps they considered when Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman, or commended the faith of a Roman centurion. Or Phillip's baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch. Perhaps Peter recounted the vision he had before a group of Gentiles was introduced to him, eager to hear the Gospel message.

Margaret Chase Smith pointed out that the right way is not always the easy way. For Jim Wallis and Sojourners, having this discussion is not going to be easy. But it is a discussion that Christian communities across the country are already having, because it's the right thing to do. And it's time for Sojourners to join in.

Why I'm Signing Change.org's Petition to iPhone

Recently, Exodus International has released an iPhone app which makes it easier for people to send "help" to young folks questioning their sexuality. Translation: If you want to scare and shame a teenager you know into a so-called ex-gay ministry, there's an app for that.

Now if any group wants to offer an app, that's their right. But for Apple to rate such a feature as having "no objectionable content"? I beg to differ.

At best, the claims of these groups to "cure" homosexuality through prayer and/or "reparative therapy" is incredibly dubious. Many of these ministries don't even do long-term follow-up studies on the effectiveness of their programs.

And that's the best you can say about them. From what many men and women who have endured those programs have reported, the potential for psychological harm is very high and very real.

From a spiritual perspective, it seems to me that the whole basis of ex-gay ministries is a legalistic dogma -- that being gay and being "right with God" are mutually exclusive, based on a biased reading of six Bible passages. Now we can debate the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek, and the context of those passages, but instead I'll just pose one simple question:

If you believe that all things are possible with God, then why not the possibility that there's nothing inherently wrong with same-gender love?

The Exodus app is at the very least false advertising, and at worst it is selling poison as medicine. Please join me in signing Change.org's petition, and demand that Apple stop supporting the Exodus app.

An Apology (Sort of) To the Family Research Council

Dear Tony Perkins:

I recently read your announcement demanding an apology from the Southern Policy Law Center for including your organization, the Family Research Council, in its latest list of "hate groups."

Granted, I'm not affiliated with them, so I cannot speak for them. But since I do support them, and since you would very likely include me as someone on "the Left" -- and, perhaps worse, the Religious Left -- then I might as well respond.

I'm sorry the SPLC saw fit to label your organization as a hate group. I'm sorry that they saw so much vitriol in your official publications, and so much effort made towards demonizing an entire group of Americans, that they were afraid for those Americans.

I'm sorry that they were alarmed about your opposition to efforts at ending bullying in public schools, solely because those programs merely mentioned that some people feel attraction and romantic love towards people of the same gender, or identify with a gender which doesn't fit with their biological sex.

I'm sorry that they are worried about the FRC advocating "criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior" being enshrined into law and enforced by police and prosecutors across the country. Forget the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, or the very idea that government shouldn't be intruding into people's private lives. Such basic rights shouldn't apply to those people, right?

I'm sorry that your view of morality is so narrow. You claim to root your positions in the "Judeo-Christian worldview." All well and good, but didn't the prophets call for justice and mercy? And didn't Jesus command that we should love our neighbor, and even our enemies? Didn't he also warn against casting judgment on others, and called on his disciples to serve the poor?

I'm sorry that you are so obsessed with other people's sexuality that you feel the need to raise and spend millions of dollars towards scapegoating them, when those millions could have been used towards, let's see, feeding the hungry.

I'm sorry that you feel the need to appeal to fear and and ignorance, instead of encouraging Christians and gays to come and reason together (Isaiah 1:18). I'm sorry that you feel so threatened by the pluralism of our society -- the very same pluralism which has allowed the religious liberty you enjoy -- that you believe you need to target outsiders for blame and shame, rather than make an effort to understand them.

I'm sorry the Family Research Council has been labeled a hate group. Perhaps now you could do something about it?

We Can Make It Better

I’ve lost count of the stories of GLBTQ youth who, subject to so much bullying and abuse, chose to end their pain by ending their very lives. I’ve seen folks posting and cross-posting videos and blogs telling other victims of bullying to keep living, to hang on, because eventually it will get better. I’ve heard others rightly complain about holding the bullies to account for their actions, or the adults who failed to act.

Here is my story…

I was a skinny and awkward kid – the perfect target for bullies. And, sure enough, they came after me. When I would come home from school angry and in pain, my parents did not just comfort me and tell me to hang in there. My mother marched into the principal’s office and told him she would not put up with it. And when he replied that he could only do so much, she then said: “I’ll help you.” She signed up to be a recess monitor, showing up for school each day, intervening whenever she saw any kid being hit or harassed.

My father joined in. A leader with our town’s Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts, he made it clear that bullying would not be tolerated. He reminded the boys in his charge that the principles of the Scout Oath and Scout Law called on them not only to refrain from bullying themselves, but to speak out and step in whenever they saw it. And when a man who is six feet five and two hundred fifty pounds tells you something like that, you listen!

My parents didn’t just tell us, in word and deed, that violence and harassment were unacceptable. They reminded us that we each have the power to do something about it – maybe not the whole world all at once, but one kid at a time, one school at a time, one community at a time. It is what my parents did for me, and for other kids like me, which would empower me to speak up and step in for GLBTQ rights as a hetero ally. It is the example of my parents which led me to Unitarian Universalism, a faith tradition which at its core summons the power in each of us not just to believe that things will get better, but to do what we can to make the world a better place.

Now it’s time to pay it forward…

If you’re a young person reading this, and you know someone in your school or town who is being bullied, speak up and step in. That could be you, or your sister or brother. It can be scary, even painful, but think of the fear and pain that kid is going through. Tell your parents, your teachers, your principal, your Scouting leaders, someone at your religious community – anyone who will listen. Tell other kids about what’s going on, and do what you can to support those who are being bullied, and stand up against those who bully.

If you’re a parent, and you hear about a kid being bullied, speak up and step in. Even if it’s not your kid, it could be. Talk to that kid’s parents. Talk to the parents of the bullies. Talk to any parents who will listen. Tell the school board what’s going on, and remind them just how serious the consequences could be. Step in through the PTA, your community of faith, your local Scouting or youth group. Set an example, and encourage your kids to do the same.

If you’re a teacher, counselor, school administrator, youth advisor, speak up and step in. These kids – all of them – are under your care. If you allow one to bully another, then you give approval for it to get worse. Stop it before it gets worse. Let every kid who bullies another kid know that you will not put up with it. Let every kid who tells you about bullying that you’re proud of them. And let every kid who is bullied know that you’re there for them.

It can get better. It will get better. It must get better. And it can happen a lot quicker if each of us, working together, resolve to do what we can to make it better.

Are you with me?

Who Says It's Private?

The right to privacy has long been treasured in American political culture. We don’t want government to interfere in our personal lives, especially regarding sexuality, and we tend to be skeptical of other busybodies as well. It is a cornerstone for many of the advances in sexual justice and freedom, from reproductive rights to GLBT equality.

Privacy has also been invoked in a negative sense as well – to silence and constrain already marginalized groups. Because our culture deems sex “a private matter,” not only do we proscribe sexually explicit media to ridiculous extremes, but we still debate whether couples should be allowed to hold hands or exchange a kiss in public. More often than not, however, privacy is invoked as a reason for upholding double standards upon those less powerful. A woman can put up a picture of her beloved on her desk at work – but if that beloved is another woman, don’t be surprised if someone accuses her of being “militant” or “flaunting” about her sexuality. A spiritual community will encourage folks to come to events with their partners – but no more than one at a time. And no problem saying where you and your partner met – unless you happened to meet at a fetish-themed nightclub.

Granted, some people are just not ready to hear all of that. But there’s a big difference between admitting personal discomfort, and using it to declare an objective moral rule that certain “private” realities are permanently off limits. Many people see this as a form of rationalization, but I wonder if there’s something deeper at work. Western culture, and American culture especially, is one which discourages folks from admitting to weakness. Admitting personal discomfort with something can sound very much like a personal failing, as opposed to creating a moral proscription based on that discomfort.

Nor is it confined to outright conservatives. Many folks who are comfortable with GLBT friends, or who are queer themselves, may bristle at discussions of polyamory or kink. Often they make the distinction between “orientation” and “behavior” – who you’re drawn to, or what gender with which you identify, versus how many partners or what you choose to do with them. Are they forgetting that holding your beloved’s hand on the street, or displaying their picture in your cubicle or office, is also considered behavior – and also likely to be declared “off limits” by someone who takes offense? Should we not ask ourselves whether it is the behavior itself which makes us uncomfortable, or the reality which it represents?

The very meaning of privacy is the power of the individual to discern and decide which aspects of their lives should be free from intrusion, and from whom – to set a boundary, if you will, between what others can and cannot know about you. Respecting privacy is not merely about staying on your side of the boundary, but letting the other person determine who or what belongs on which side. Should the comfort level of others be a part of that decision? Of course - but not the only part, and certainly not when it threatens one's integrity, or otherwise damages souls or relationships. Boundaries ultimately need to be negotiated, in good faith among equals who are willing to learn and grow together.

Compassion for the Closeted - And the Real Hypocrisy Behind It

Recently someone on my Facebook list posted a link to a scandalous story. In it, the president of a prominent Catholic high school in the Midwest had been caught in a sex sting, groping an undercover police officer in a park notorious for anonymous gay sex.

You'll notice I've refused to give any personal details here. It's bad enough this fellow has been forced out of the closet in his home town. Does he really need a kinky heretic like me adding to his misery?

There are different reasons different people keep their sexual identity away from public view. Whatever that reason, we should lean towards respecting them. If the person in question is a public figure renowned for "promoting family values", then exposing such hypocrisy seems more important than privacy.

In this case, however, we're dealing with a private individual with no record of espousing anti-GLBT propaganda. Yet he's also caught in the dilemma of having to deny his desires for intimacy and pleasure out of obedience to church doctrine. Well, you can only do that for so long. Is it any wonder, then, that he resorted to such risky action?

So I feel compassion for this fellow, and I hope he can find a way to come to grips with his sexuality, and to reconcile it with his faith. I feel that way for so many who feel they are caught between competing desires - the erotic and spiritual - and hope that they and their families and communities will come to see that these need not be mutually exclusive.

What really bothers me is the real hypocrisy behind all of this. Men like this school administrator can confess their sins, do their penance, and be forgiven for what is seen as a temporary lapse in moral judgement. If, however, they chose to live in a committed loving relationship, then all bets are off. Thus the churches which continually condemn anything outside of "traditonal marriage" wind up showing greater tolerance for behavior which is furthest away from that ideal.

This is the problem with a sexual moralism which fixates on form instead of being concerned with content. The forms are so many, contradictions and conundrums are inevitable. And in all of this, where is the value of love - not just for those who repent and obey church doctrine, but those who are willing to question bravely how those doctrines do more harm than good?

Now This is a Protest I Can Get Into!

You may have read news reports of gays being strong-armed for daring to kiss, not once but twice -- in El Paso and Salt Lake City.

Well, in response to that and other efforts to trample GLBT equality and civil rights -- such as passage of California's Proposition 8 -- activists organized a nationwide "kiss-in".

Right on!

Better yet, it wasn't just gays who participated, but heteros as well. More fitting to show people's hypocritical attitude and moralistic double standards towards.

Opposing marriage equality is one of the biggest. So many churches like the Mormons insist that sex should be confined to marriage, and marriage done for love -- then deny loving same-sex couples access to marriage, even outside of their own churches.

How strange that so many profess love as one of the strongest values of their faith, yet forget love's power to transcend so many boundaries. But maybe, just maybe, someone will see one of these demonstrations of love and be reminded of that.

DOMA and Obama ... Oh, Boy!

During the 2008 Presidential race, I did a low-level tongue-in-cheek write-in campaign, complete with a running mate and a platform rooted in sexual freedom. The reason? Because even with all of Obama's rhetoric about LGBT equality and such, both his own words and my own experience made me skeptical. It was also a snub at the limits of our two-party system, where we are all told to hold our noses and vote for the lesser of two evils.

Sound extreme?

Well, judge for yourself. On the plus side, Obama has shifted Federal money and priorities from "abstinence-only" to comprehensive programs; supported reproductive choice and removed the gag rule to US funding of health programs overseas, and proclaimed June "LGBT Pride Month". On the reverse, Obama stripped family planning funding from his stimulus package, has yet to do anything about "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (see my earlier post) and now the Department of Justice has filed a brief supporting DOMA.

Oh, boy.

Many folks have made a comparison between Obama and John F. Kennedy. Given that JFK tended to pay lip service to racial equality and civil rights, looks like we have another parallel ... just not the kind we wanted.

UUs and Sexuality: The Glass Half Full, Half Empty

For the past two years, I've had the privilege of knowing Dan, our ministerial intern here at Arlington Street Church. I wasn't the least bit surprised that he received high marks from the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee. Dan is someone who is both compassionate and wise, pastoral and prophetic, drawing from both academic learning and personal experience to serve our faith.

When he finishes his internship here, he will be serving a UU congregation on the West Coast. So I couldn't help checking out their website.

And, once again, I read what's there with mixed feelings. When it comes to how many UU congregations address sexuality issues, I have a tendency to see a glass half full and half empty.

On the half-full side: They are a welcoming congregation for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender folks. Their social justice work includes a commitment to marriage equality and reproductive rights. They provide Our Whole Lives comprehensive sexuality education for teens. Looking at their sermon archives, I can find some sermons touching on sexuality issues. Like many UU congregations.

Then, on the half-empty side: You have to dig a bit on the website to find out that they are a welcoming congregation. Two of the three sexuality sermons were from way back in 2005. And no sign of a Safe Congregations Program, teaching Our Whole Lives to adults or other age groups, working for other sexual justice issues or learning about other sexual and gender minorities. Like many UU congregations.

I know, it sounds like I'm being picky. Then again, I've also seen the consequences of the "half-empty" side. Sure, it's great to have an inclusive church where all kinds of love are celebrated ... but when you have some particular issue involving sexuality, and need someone to talk to, and you're not quite sure how your church will deal with it because, well, they don't really talk about it ...

Get the idea?

My own theory is that too many religious liberals, UU and otherwise, take their liberalism for granted. A woman from another church related to me how someone in her congregation wanted them to say simply that they welcomed "all people" -- period, no labels or limits. As wonderful an idea as that may be, there is something to be said for reaching out to members of an excluded minority and saying specifically to them: "You are welcome here." Likewise, it is one thing for a minister or religious educator to tell her parishioners that they can talk to her about anything, and another to specifically offer a listening ear and open heart for those very issues which make people uneasy.

Unitarian Universalists have done so much work in this area, compared to other faith communities. But there's also a great deal more we can and should do. This is something that Dan and I have talked about, and see eye to eye on. So, as he goes off to his new ministry, here are my hopes for him:
~ I hope that he finds the time to preach at least one sexuality sermon from the pulpit, and to start more dialogue about it as a result.
~ I hope that he can encourage the RE Council there to consider expanding their offering of OWL to more age groups, espcially adults.
~ I hope that he can talk to the congregation's board about the UUA's Safe Congregations Program, so that they can feel more confident about the spiritual home they provide for their children and youth.
~ I hope that he can do more sexual justice work in the wider community, from reproductive rights to reaching out to the full range of sexual and gender minorities.

May seem like a lot, but I'm also not expecting him to transform the congregation overnight. Just help them to get started on transforming themselves.

Time to Lift the Ban: An Open Letter to President Barack Obama

[Yes, I did send this to the White House, via their website...]

Dear Mr. President:

During your campaign, you made a promise to rescind the current policy regarding military service known as "Don't Ask Don't Tell". To date, that promise has yet to be kept.

This Sunday morning at my church, we honored the brave men and women who have served in our armed forces. We do so three times every year -- on Memorial Day, on Veterans Day in November, and during a special service commemorating GLBT Pride here in Boston, Massachusetts. During the first two services, we ask those veterans to stand. During the Pride service, however, we feel compelled to advise them to remain seated, so that they have no fear of being "outed". It breaks my heart every time we need to do this.

Studies from the Navy, the Defense Department and the General Accounting Office have determined that there is no rational basis for any prohibition on gay, lesbian or bisexual people from serving openly in our military, and that efforts to restrict or bar them from military service are in fact more costly than letting them serve.

A Zogby International poll showed that 63 percent of current military personnel either supported lifting the ban, or were unopposed or indifferent to it, and that 67 percent of those who had experience with gay, lesbian or bisexual people in their military units said that their presence did not undermine unit morale.

Several retired flag officers, including former Joint Chiefs chairman John Shalikashvili, have called for the ban to be lifted, as well as other current and former members of our armed forces, citing the thousands of gays, lesbians and bisexuals who have served our country in uniform and with distinction.

While I am aware that you have suggested that it is up to Congress to change this policy, experts in military law have also determined that it within the authority of the executive branch to replace the current policy with one of inclusion and nondiscrimination. Even if Congressional action is required, it does not explain your administration's silence on this issue.

It is high time that the United States joined the majority of our NATO allies, who allow all qualified individuals to serve in defense of their countries regardless of sexual orientation. It is high time that we judge our soliders, sailors and Air Force personnel by their level of service and character, not by whom they may be attracted to. It is high time that you keep your promise to the American people.

On June 13th, Arlington Street Church will honor those who have fought for equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. We will honor those who serve in uniform as well. I would like very much if they could stand to be recognized at that time, or at least know that they do not have long to wait for that day. You have the power to make this so. Please move forward on this, so that our uniformed services can indeed reflect more fully the best that is America.

Sincerely,
Desmond Ravenstone