I have made clear my support for marriage equality. But this is not a post making the argument for legal recognition of same-sex marriages. This is simply a report on the state of the struggle as of November of 2009.
Hawai’i. In 1993, the Hawai’ian State Supreme Court rules that the state law limiting civil marriage to heterosexual couples is unconstitutional unless the state can show (1) compelling state interests for the discrimination of same-sex couples and (2) that the limitation is narrowly drawn so that other rights are not impacted. This case causes such panic that the U.S. Congress passes the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which forbids federal law from recognizing same-sex marriages–and any couples married in states which do recognize such from receiving any of the federal benefits which are given heterosexual married couples. This “preemptive strike” was designed by the Republican controlled Congress to cause problems for Pres. Bill Clinton (D)’s reelection campaign against Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS), since it was presumed that Clinton would veto the legislation. Instead, on 21 Sept. 1996, Pres. Clinton signed DOMA into law and went on to defeat Dole in November. On 03 November 1998, Hawai’i voters amend their state consitution to allow the Hawai’i state legislature to limit marriage to heterosexual couples. In light of this, the Hawai’ian Supreme Court dismissed the suit challenging that law on 06 December 1998–so it was never decided whether the law would have been unconstitutional or not. As of this writing, there have been no further efforts by marriage equality advocates to change the laws in Hawai’i in their favor and marriage remains reserved for opposite sex couples in the Aloha State. Hawai’i has recognited “Reciprocal Benefits” for same-sex couples, having some of the legal recognitions of marriage, since 1997.
Massachussetts. On 18 November 2003, the MA State Supreme Court ruled that banning same-sex mar riage violated the state constitution. On 17 May 2004 same-sex marriage became legal in MA. There was an abortive attempt in February 2004 to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, but it was never completed and there have been no further attempts. The experience in MA seems to show that acceptance of marriage equality by a majority of the general public takes about two (2) years.
California. California began recognizing same-sex Domestic Partnerships in 2000. At first these Domestic Partnerships had only a fraction of the legal rights of civil marriage, but they were expanded over time. The mayor of San Francisco began offering same-sex marriage licenses in 2003 until the courts stopped him and ruled those marriages invalid. 29 September 2005, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) vetoes a legislative bill to legalize same-sex marriage. He vetoed a second such bill on 12 October 2007. 15 May 2008, the Supreme Court of CA rules that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Gay and lesbian couples begin to get married on 16 June 2008. 04 November 2008, CA voters pass Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that amends the state Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage–it takes effect 05 November 2008 and marriage licenses to same-sex couples cease that day. A legal challenge to the law, claiming that this is more than an amendment, but a major revision of the Constitution (and thus cannot be enacted by simply ballot measure) is rejected by the CA Supreme Court (26 May 2009)–but the Court says that those marriages performed in the few months that same-sex marriage was equal will continue to be valid. 11 October 2009, CA Gov. Schwarzenegger signs into law the recognition in CA of same-sex marriages performed in other states. Currently, marriage equality advocates are debating whether to try to repeal Proposition 8 in 2010 or wait until 2012 when electoral turnout will be greater because of the presidential election. The 2012 date would give both advocates and opponents of same-sex marriage more time to mobilize supporters and try to change minds.
Connecticut. Connecticut passed a Civil Unions law in 2005. On 10 October 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that discriminating against same-sex couples in civil marriage violated the state constitution. The court ordered the legislature to legalize same-sex marriage. 12 November 2008, same-sex marriages began in CT. 23 April 2009, Gov. Jodi Rell (R-CT) signed into law the statutory recognition of same-sex marriages previously recognized only by court order. On the same day, Gov. Rell signed a law that would convert existing same-sex civil unions into marriages beginning 01 October 2010.
Vermont. On 20 December 1999, the VT State Supreme Court rules that denial of benefits and rights “incidental to marriage” to same-sex couples violates the states “common benefits” clause. In response, the VT legislature created a same-sex “civil unions” law in 2000 which grants same-sex couples the legal and civil rights and benefits of marriage, but without the name “marriage.” This civil unions law is signed by then-Gov. Howard Dean(D-VT)–who later wishes he had pushed the legislature for full marriage equality. The experience of VT with civil unions–and of many residents going to nearby MA for marriage ceremonies–over a 5 year period, leads for a strong push for same-sex marriage recognition, but this is opposed by Gov. Jim Douglas (R-V). On 06 April 2009, the Vermont General Assembly passed legislation recognizing same sex marriages, but this was vetoed the same day by Gov. Douglas. On 07 April 2009, the Vermont General Assembly overrode the governor’s veto with a two-thirds majority. On 1 Sept. 2009, same-sex marriages began in Vermont.
Iowa. On 03 April 2009, the Iowa State Supreme Court declared that civil marriage could not be restricted to heterosexual couples and, thus, recognized the legality of same-sex marriage. An attempt to repeal this decision is underway, but amending the state constitution is not easy in IA. An amendment must pass both houses of the state legislature two consecutive years running and then be confirmed by popular ballot. Democrats currently control both houses of the state legislatur and the leadership has vowed to prevent any such legislation from reaching the floor. If the Republicans were to win back both houses of the state legislature in 2010, they could not introduce legislation to amend the constitution to ban same-sex marriage until January 2011. It would have to pass both chambers in 2011 and 2o12 and then be sent for ballot ratification. So, the earliest a repeal of marriage equality in IA could occur would be 2013 and marriage equality advocates are hopeful that state residents will be “used to” same-sex marriage by then and not go along with repeal. The longer the law is on the book, the greater its chances for permanence. As of 27 April 2009, same-sex marriages have been legally performed in IA.
Maine. In 2004, Maine adopted a Domestic Parnerships law that granted same-sex couples some of the rights and benefits of marriage. 06 May 2009, Maine Gov. Baldacci signed the Marriage Equality Bill which would have allowed same sex marriages to begin on 11 September 2009. However, Maine law allows for a People’s Veto by ballot initiative. That initiative, called Question 1, hired the same firms that successfully repealed CA’s marriage equality through Proposition 8. But marriage equality advocates were confident that they could defeat Q 1–and, initially, on election night 03 November, it looked like Marriage Equality won, but as the night wore on, the People’s Veto won 53-47%. Thus, same-sex marriage was repealed without ever taking effect in ME on 03 November 2009. Marriage Equality advocates are not sure where to start next in ME.
New Hampshire. Same sex civil unions are legalized in 2008. On 23 March 2009, the NH House of Representatives passes legislation recognizing same-sex marriage. 29 April, the NH Senate passes same-sex marriage with minor amendments designed to protect the religious liberty of churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. which have religious objections to same-sex marriage. 06 May, the NH House concurs with the amendments of the senate and the bill is sent to Gov. John Lynch (R-NH). Lynch had previously said he would veto such legislation and there are not enough votes to override, but the amendments lead him to reconsider. Lynch says he will sign the bill with a few further protections for religious liberty and outlines them. On 03 June 2009, Lynch signs same-sex marriage into law–effective 01 January 2010. There is an attempt at repeal in NH both by legislature and by ballot–they cannot start until 01 January 2010. Because the law was passed so narrowly, nothing should be taken for granted. Whether NH’s marriage equality law stays past January 2010 is yet to be decided.
New York. New York passed legislation in 05 that recognized same-sex Domestic Partnerships with limited rights. In 2007, New York’s State Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriages performed elsewhere must be recognized by New York. On 12 May 2009, the New York State Assembly (lower House) passed a law allowing same-sex marriages in New York and sent it to the New York Senate. The New York Senate has 32 Democrats and 30 Republicans and it would take 32 votes to pass same-sex marriage. The Senate has vowed a vote on the bill before the end of the year–presumably the delay is because they are currently 2 votes short. If the law passes the Senate, Gov. David Paterson has promised to sign it–has, in fact, been a strong champion of marriage equality. Gov. Paterson faces a tough re-election fight in 2010 and it is not clear if any successor would sign the bill, so marriage equality advocates are pushing hard for passage this year. Ballot initiatives are illegal in New York, so repeal would be more difficult–and the fact that NY already recognizes same-sex marriages performed out of state argues for the staying power of marriage equality if it can clear the senate this year.
New Jersey. New Jersey legally recognized same-sex civil unions beginning in 2007 after the NJ Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples were entitled to all the legal benefits of marriage. Momentum has been growing for full marriage equality, but, originally advocates had not planned to initiate legislation until early 2010. However, the defeat of incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) by Atty. Gen. Bob Christie (R-NJ) on 03 Nov. ’09 has led to a hurried run at the legislature. Corzine is a GLBT advocate, whereas Christie has already promised to veto any such legislation. NJ opinion is about evenly split. If NJ passes same-sex marriage this year, Corzine will sign the law. If not, they either have to wait until Christie is defeated, or build up enough support to override his veto.
Washington, D.C. In 1992, Domestic Partnerships for same-sex couples were recognized in the District of Columbia. Over the years these have been expanded ever closer to those of heterosexual marriage. D.C. recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. A bill to legally perform same-sex marriages in the nation’s capital cleared a key committee 4-1 this past Tues. ’10 Nov. 2009. It is due to be voted on by the full city council on 01 Dec. and 10 of the 13 council members are co-sponsors of the bill, so passage is assured. However, there may be a ballot initiative for repeal here as in ME.
Washington (state). Domestic partnerships were approved in 2007 and expanded step-by-step until they now are civil marriage in all but name. On 03 November, Washington residents voted by ballot initiative to keep this “all but marriage” law. If the pattern of acceptance holds, Washington state will be ready to recognize same-sex marriages by 2012–especially if the legislature votes before then to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
In 2004, as part of the effort to “re”-elect Pres. George W. Bush (R), who was in a very tight race with Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA), Republicans pushed to drive up the conservatives at the polls by placing ballot initiatives in key states that would ban same-sex marriage constitutionally. Between ’04 and ’08, over 20 states adopted amendments banning same-sex marriage. Now, 2 of the states that banned same-sex marriage by constitutional amendment in ’04, are reconsidering.
Oregon. Oregon was one of many states in ’04 which voted to amend its constitution to ban same-sex marriage, but, unlike some other states (e.g., Kentucky), OR did not ban civil unions or domestic partnerships, too. In 2007, the OR state legislature passed legislation banning discrimination against LGBT persons and also allowed same-sex couples to register as domestic partners with limited benefits. Marriage equality advocates are building on this base and are working for consciousness raising throughout the state in advance of plans to attempt to amend the state constitution, again, granting marriage equality in 2012.
Michigan. Michigan was another of the many states which used ballot referenda to amend their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage in ’04. But Speaker of the House Pro Tem (State Rep.) Pam Byrnes made good on a campaign promise last year and in June 2009 introduced an amendment to repeal the ban on same-sex marriage. If the bill receives 2/3 support from both the state house and state senate, then it will go to voters for repeal in 2010. I expect it to be a very close vote.
There are also civil unions or domestic partnerships in Nevada, Maryland, Colorado, and Wisconsin–which makes each of these states likely to be the next frontiers in the struggle for marriage equality.
In June, the Respect Marriage Act was introduced into both chambers of the U.S. Congress. If approved, the Respect Marriage Act would repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and allow the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages performed in the states that have them.
With the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court, I understand why marriage equality advocates are reluctant to challenge DOMA or state laws banning same-sex marriage in federal court. I would like to see a friendlier Supreme Court makeup, first. But it seems to me (a non-lawyer) that a good legal case can be made for ruling that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. 1) Loving v. Virginia (1967) struck down state bans on interracial marriage–bans which, at that time, still existed in 13 states and the District of Columbia. Loving v. Virginia established that marriage is a natural right and that customs and prejudices cannot restrict the liberties of two people seeking the bonds of marriage. Now, to date, that has only been applied to heterosexual couples. 2) Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that same-sex couples have never been recognized as marriage. They compare it to other cases in which the courts have forbidden the relationships to be recognized as valid marriages: cases of incest, or of an adult marrying a minor, or of bestiality. But in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court struck down the so-called “sodomy laws” of the various states–private homosexual acts between consenting adults cannot be made illegal. Yes, there is far more to marriage than sexuality, much less sex acts, but this decision suggests that the Court already recognizes a difference between same-sex adult couples and the illegitimate relationships which opponents would use as an analogy: incestuous couples, liasons between an adult and a minor, liasons between a human and an animal, etc. If the law already distinguishes between same-sex couples (whose liberties to be a couple cannot be infringed) and other non-heterosexual couples (whose liasons can be declared illegal), then it seems that the argument made in Loving v. Virginia for heterosexual interracial marriages should apply to same-sex marriages. 3) The argument that marriage must entail the possibility of progeny fails on several counts–a. We would not marry any couple where the woman was past menopause or the man had any reasons to be infertile if the possibility of children were definitive of marriage. b. Just as heterosexual married couples can adopt children or (now) use hi-tech means to become pregnant or hire a surrogate, so those options are also open to the same-sex couple, so that even if we consider children to be a usual component of marriage, same-sex couples are not thereby prohibited. 4) The argument that heterosexuality is a traditional component of the definition of civil marriage is irrelevant since definitions of marriage have changed over time. Once marriages had to be arranged–and girls were married at ages we would now consider to be child sexual abuse. Once interracial marriages or marriages between persons of different religious persuasions were considered null and void, but now they are not. There is no reason that marriage cannot now evolve to include same-sex marriage.
If the Supreme Court were to rule in such a fashion, all the current state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage would be struck down. Depending on how fast the makeup of the court changes, and who is confirmed (and how quickly) in judicial openings, I would think that such a ruling might occur sometime in the next decade–prior to 2020. That’s my best guess. In the meantime, the state-by-state struggles continue.
As expected (and dreaded by GLBT folks and allies), the California Supreme Court rejected arguments that ballot initiative “Proposition 8” passed last Nov. was more than an amendement, but a revision of the California Constitution. If that argument had prevailed, Prop. 8., which bans same-sex marriage, would have been struck down since revisions cannot be made by ballot initiative alone, but must go through the state legislature. The CA Supreme Court Judges, even those voting originally that the state constitution guaranteed marital equality, had indicated back in January during oral arguments that they were not open to the “revision” vs. “amendment” distinction. The really bad news is that they relied on the argument of Prop. 8 litigator Ken Starr (of Monica-gate infamy!) that because the rights of convicted felons to vote can be stripped, so also can previously recognized rights of gay and lesbians be stripped from them. Great. In effect, the court has just criminalized gayness.
However, the justices also ruled that the 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place in CA during the few short months of its legality (May-Nov. 2008) would remain valid. As a gay friend (a pastor and fellow member of the Baptist Peace Fellowship) from CA emailed me: This now creates a system in which some 18,000 gay couples in CA are in a situation analogous to that of free blacks in slave states before the U.S. Civil War–having rights denied to others “of their kind.”
This is not the last word. Prop 8. supporters will work to get the marriages undone, too. But polling since last Nov. shows that Prop. 8 would probably fail (narrowly) if it were re-voted. Marriage equality has gained ground since last Nov. So, supporters of marriage equality will seek to undo Prop. 8 legislatively. I think they will succeed, but if this is to stop going back and forth, I think CA may need a major constitutional overhaul which strengthens equal protections and makes it harder to strip rights from people.
This is one of the enduring tensions in the American form of government: a democratic republic ordinarily means “majority rule.” But the Framers of the Constitution also sought to protect the rights of minorities–to defend human rights and civil liberties against “majorities of the moment,” and “mob rule.” Who and what is protected has been a debate for nearly 200 years, now.
In case you are one of the few people (at least in the U.S.) who hasn’t heard, mega-church pastor Rick Warren will deliver the invocation at the presidential inauguration of Barack Obama. It’s hard to tell who is angrier at the news: For weeks a bored U.S. media has tried to claim that liberals and progressives (especially “the liberal blogosphere”) are angry over Obama’s cabinet choices. The truth is that, while some of those choices have not made progressives happy (Gates as Sec. of Defense, Geithner as Treasury Secretary), the mood among liberals has not been one of anger, but of anxiety. Progressives are nervous that Obama’s movements for change could be far less progressive than he seemed to claim in his campaign and far less than we would like to see. But most of us are taking a wait and see attitude: He hasn’t even officially become president, yet. If his policies are even reasonably progressive and successful, we’ll be happy. And none of us expects to get everything we want–and we know that the Bush years cannot be cleaned up overnight. So, the media story of “angry liberals” is mostly fiction–until now.
Rick Warren, pastor of the huge mega-church, Saddleback Church, in Orange County, CA (and, nominally, at least, a Southern Baptist) has been a rising star of the Religious Right. In ’04, he campaigned vigorously against Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), saying that Christians should not care about the Iraq war (!). The only “values” for Christian voters should be opposition to legal abortion, opposition to gay rights, especially same-sex marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships and other “marriage like arrangements,” (which Warren compared to incest, bestiality, and child molestation), support for low taxes (??), and support for home schooling. After the ’04 election, under his wife’s influence, Warren seemed to broaden his moral concerns to include preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS (Obama came to his church and spoke on this–with Warren receiving criticism for inviting a pro-choice politician to speak), the environment, racism, and stopping genocide in places like the Congo and, especially, Darfur (Warren wanted U.S. military intervention–though where we were to get the troops while stuck in Afghanistan and Iraq, he never said!).
Because of his broadening agenda, people like my friend, ethicist Dave Gushee, began to list Warren as an “evangelical centrist,” rather than part of the evangelical right or left. But Warren continued to prioritize making abortion illegal (even in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother) and opposition to equal rights for LGBT persons. He used his “Saddleback Forum” this past summer, asking both presidential candidates identical questions on live TV, in a way that–temporarily, at least–helped John McCain by biased phrasing designed to restart the culture wars and shore up the Religious Right’s support for McCain. (He also showed almost as little sensitivity as McCain to the plight of poor and working class people, suggesting that $250,000 annually did not make one rich!) That failed, but Saddleback and Warren were also major contributors to the successful campaign to pass California’s “Proposition 8” which rolled back the recent right to same-sex marriage in CA. GLBT folks lost everywhere on November 4, the night that Obama won, and have been struggling to not feel excluded ever since–especially when Obama, who in other ways is the most gay-friendly president, yet, publicly shares Warren’s opposition to same-sex marriage (though not to civil unions or domestic partnerships).
So, the GLBT community (and allies like myself) are among those who are furious with Obama for inviting Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration–despite the fact that the Rev. Joseph E. Lowery, an African-American United Methodist minister who was one of the leaders of the civil rights movement, is a progressive icon, and long a champion of gay rights in both society and church, is giving the benediction. The aging Lowery is not as well known in recent years as Warren and many people tune out by the time of the benediction. If the two prayers were reversed, many pro-gay folk might be willing to applaud Obama’s inclusivism rather than feel slapped in the face by the prominence of Warren in the program.
Progressive faith leaders are also hacked off. Many of them risked much to help Obama get elected (I disapprove of campaigning by clergy for anyone!) or, at least, risked much in countering the many spurious smears of the Right toward Obama during the campaign. They see Warren as a “friendlier James Dobson” and feel very slighted.
But not all the criticism of this move comes from the Left. Pro-life groups are furious with Warren for ACCEPTING Obama’s invitation. They believe Warren, in broadening his moral agenda, has been too lukewarm in his pro-life work recently. “Pallin’ around with pro-abortionists” (as the governor of Alaska might phrase it) makes them furious. Many in the Religious Right see Obama’s election as a moral disaster and for one of their own to pray at the inauguration is infuriating–a reaction similar to the one Billy Graham received in January of ’93 for participating in the inauguration of Pres. Bill Clinton.
What to make of all this? Count me among those on the left who are angry at this choice–with some reservations. On the one hand, I love the way Obama reaches out to his adversaries. It is part of following Jesus’ command to love one’s enemies. Throughout his public life, Obama has sought to engage those with whom he disagrees–and has pushed for progressives and Democrats to engage even conservative evangelicals, not glossing over differences, but seeking common ground. Bravo, Barack.
On the other hand, I understand those who say that Obama does better in reaching out to adversaries than to longtime friends and allies. In the wake of the Proposition 8 (and similar measures in other states) triumph of anti-gay forces, Obama needed a strong symbolic move that told GLBT folk and allies that he had not forgotten them and still planned on advancing much of their agenda (if not pushing for marriage equality). He has appointed one openly-gay cabinet member and it is widely believed that another, William White (a retired officer who is currently head of the Intrepid Museum), leads consideration for Secretary of the Navy. (Never believe these things until they are official, however. Like many environmentalists, I was thrilled in finding that Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) was the leading pick for Secretary of the Interior–and, then, yesterday it went to Sen. Salazar (D-CO), who HAS been an environmental lawyer and has done some strong green moves, but whose record is far more mixed than Grijalva’s!)
There were lots of ways to reach out to Rick Warren without inviting him to give the invocation. And Obama could have even selected another white evangelical equally opposed to same-sex marriage (but, like Obama himself, more liberal on other gay rights) who does not send the same “slap in the face” signal to GLBT folks that Warren does: e.g. Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis, Richard Mouw, or recently-fired NAE publicly policy chief, Richard Cizik, who now supports civil unions and is reconsidering same sex marriage. Obama could have chosen David P. Gushee, who is very traditional on gay rights (but for whom this is not a major issue), but, who is the head of Evangelicals for Human Rights, a major part of the National Religious Coalition to Abolish Torture–which would send a very different signal than having Rick Warren deliver the invocation.
Like most progressives, I’ll get over this. Obama can hardly take back the invitation, now. If he quickly reverses “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on gays serving openly in the military ( a move now supported by most military leaders), sends Congress legislation to abolish the federal “Defense of Marriage Act,” etc., he’ll have the warm support of most GLBT folks and their allies like me. But just as the victories for anti-gay legislation on November 4th introduced a sour note into the celebratory triumph of election night, the prominence of Rick Warren in the inauguration ceremonies dims the luster of a day that was supposed to usher in a new era of change.
I hope Obama learns how to continue to reach out to his adversaries, opponent, even enemies while, at the same time, doing better at not alienating friends and allies. Yes, I am glad that Obama wants to get beyond the petty politics of revenge–the Bush years held far too much of that! And, yes, I am glad that he has no plans to pander to the Left base of the Democratic Party the way that Bush (and the recent version of McCain) pandered to the Right base of the GOP. But I just wish that it didn’t feel like progressives taken for granted by the incoming administration. Say it isn’t so, Barack.
UPDATE: Well, now the United Nations has just created a global treaty decriminalizing homosexuality, BUT THE U. S. HAS REFUSED TO SIGN! This, despite the fact that our very conservative Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that all “sodomy laws” (mostly outlawing same-sex acts, though some of those laws applied to heterosexuals–and even married couples) were unconstitutional. So, Obama should act quickly to sign this in the new year. It will be his actions rather than his symbols that define his presidency–but I still think inviting Warren was a mistake.
As I try to avoid worrying about Republicans allowing the Big Three automakers to die (probably leading to a global depression!) or what happens next in the Illinois scandal, I found this interesting piece of news.
Richard Cizik, for decades the Public Policy head of the U.S. National Association of Evangelicals, has resigned after an interview in which he admitted “shifting” on same-sex marriage. Cizik now says that he supports same-sex civil unions and is reconsidering civil marriage equality! A recent study by Pew showed that younger evangelicals are also becoming more open to gay rights. Cizik was previously the target of the Religious Right because of his push for U.S. evangelicals to become concerned about the environment (“creation care”), taking on those Religious Right leaders who believe either that the Second Coming removes all Christian concern for the environment or that global warming is a hoax or both. Here, again, Cizik seems more representative of younger white evangelicals than most leaders of his generation. Wow!
I’m sad that Cizik’s voice of sanity will be lost at NAE and hope that he continues to find ways to speak out to his fellow conservative Christians about these vital matters.
- Alan and Steven: Please try to indicate in a clearer way when you are talking to each other and when to me. That hasn’t always been clear.
- The rules for commenting on this blog are posted to the right. Please follow them. Alan, I did not remove any of your comments. I don’t know what happened and I can’t seem to reply to your email. I am not all that tech-savvy.
- In the time I have held this blog, I have found it necessary to ban only one commenter–someone who kept up vicious attacks and tried to hijack every conversation, plus emailed me constantly under numerous different email addresses so that I had to keep finding new blocks for him. No one else has been like that.
- I welcome criticism. I learn from my critics. It’s no secret that I find D.R. Randle to be annoying, but he sometimes brings up good points that I need to address. For instance, in one of the recent GLBT posts, he pointed to a possible inconsistency in the way that I appeal to tradition: I appeal to the witness of the early church to support my view that Jesus demands all Christians to be nonviolent. But, says D.R., I ignore the witness of the early church on “homosexuality.” This is true and I need to say why the difference.
- 1) My ultimate authority in matters of both doctrine and ethics is neither the letter of Scripture, nor church tradition, but Jesus Christ. In the words of the Barmen Confession (when something is right, I’ll quote it), “Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death.” Holy Scripture bears witness to Jesus Christ and mediates that Living Word. Tradition is useful as a guide to interpretation, but can always be wrong.
- 2) Nonviolence is the WAY for Christians throughout the New Testament as well as throughout the early church. There are only 3 texts in the NT, two of them fragments of verses that have translation issues, that have negative judgments on (at least) some same-sex actions. In the only developed passage with a theological context (Rom. 1), no command is given and the main point is the sinfulness of everyone and the inability of any to boast in themselves. Either Jesus gave an ambiguously positive word for gays and lesbians (Matt 19) or said nothing on the topic at all. Either way, unlike nonviolence, this is not a central concern of Christian discipleship, never mind a unified witness of the New Testament.
- 3) I am suspicious of the approach to sexuality taken by the early church altogether because, influenced by Platonic philosophy and Gnostic asceticism, the post-Apostolic church soon developed very anti-body and anti-sex views that contrast with the testimony of Scripture, the goodness of creation, and the full, embodied humanity of Jesus Christ as the Incarnate Word of God. Thus, I approach the early church testimony on “homosexuality” with far more suspicion than I do it’s testimony on war. This could be bias on my part.
- D. R. Randle also asks a good question about the data on violence against GLBT persons. For the stats on the violence and persecution suffered by gay youth in U.S. schools, see this report by Human Rights Watch from May 2001 entitled “Hatred in the Hallways.” In 2006 (the most recent year for which there is data), the FBI reported that hate crimes against gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, and transgendered persons made up 16% of all hate crimes in the U.S.–up from 14% in ’05. More data on hate crimes against GLBT persons can be found here. Despite gains in some states, legal discrimination in many areas (employment, housing, marriage, adoption, healthcare benefits, etc.) is still widespread throughout the U.S. The suicide rate for GLBT teens is 33%, 4 times that of heterosexual youth (which is already too high)–and it is higher for youth who come from conservative religious homes and churches. I don’t have documentation on the churches or clergy who are picketed, but it is more than Westboro BC of Topeka. I know that when Belmont Baptist Church in Nashville called an out lesbian as pastor, they faced daily pickets and stone throwing for weeks on end. I also know that when students attempted to form a gay-straight alliance in a local highschool in Bowling Green, KY 2 years back, the pastor of a local church led protests and one of the deacons was quoted in the paper as threatening to burn the school “when only the queer group is inside.” So, D.R., I stand by my claim that solidarity with GLBT persons is NOT conformity to the dominant culture.
- A final good point made by Randle: The Scripture calls us not only to be in solidarity with the marginalized, but to proclaim/demonstrate God’s holiness. True enough, but I have been at pains to show that Jesus transforms the meaning of “holiness” from concern about purity matters to compassionate justice. Holiness as “taste not, touch not” was the way championed by the Pharisee party. The Jesus community, instead, practiced compassionate justice for the outcast.
- If I don’t reply to your comments, I still read them. But all conversations must come to an end. The post on a single sexual ethic for everyone will be posted before the end of this weekend and bring this series to a close.
- In the end, some will never be convinced. I do not expect the Body of Christ to be unified on this subject in my lifetime. So, how can we be faithful to the gospel as we understand it, follow Jesus’ Johannine prayer that we may be one “as I and the Father are one,” instead of splitting every major denomination, and respect as sisters and brothers those with whom we strongly disagree?
A Bibliography for Further Study:
There are far too many books on this subject to read them all. I highlight ones that have been helpful to me. In an attempt at fairness, I will include a list of the best “NOT affirming” books at the end of this post.
I. Anthologies that Cover Diverse Views:
Jeffrey S. Siker, ed., Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate (Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994).
Sally B. Geis & Donald E. Musser, eds., Caught in the Crossfire: Helping Christians Debate Homosexuality. (Abingdon Press, 1994). (Most of those in this book are participants in the debate within the United Methodist Church.)
Michael A. King, ed., Stumbling Toward a Genuine Conversation on Homosexuality (Cascadia Publishing House, 200&). Participants represent the debate within the Mennonite Church, USA.
Timothy Bradshaw,ed., The Way Forward? Christian Voices on Homosexuality and the Church. (Eerdmans, 2003).
Dan O. Via and Robert A. J. Gagnon, Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views. (Augsburg-Fortress, 2003). A debate between two well-known NT profs, with Via arguing for the revisionist/inclusive view and Gagnon arguing for the traditionalist/exclusivist view.
II. Revisionist Views:
A. Biblical Arguments:
Alice Ogden Bells and Terry Hufford, Science, Scripture, and Homosexuality (Pilgrim Press, 2002). A collaborative effort between a biologist and a biblical scholar.
Jack B. Rogers, Jr., Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church. (Westminster/John Knox Press, 2006). Rogers is an evangelical theologian (formerly prof. of theology at Fuller Theological Seminary; later president of San Francisco Theological Seminary; still later, Moderator of the Presbyterian Church, USA) who describes his journey from the traditional to a revisionist view.
Walter Wink, ed., Homosexuality and Christian Faith: Questions of Conscience for Christian Churches (Augsburg-Fortress, 1999). More than most revisionist collections, this anthology contains several essays by prominent evangelicals including Ken Sehested, Lewis B. Smedes, Peggy Campolo, and others.
Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality. (Augsburg-Fortress, 1983). Although, I now see that Scroggs overstated his case on Romans 1, this was the first book on this topic to be a major help to me. Scroggs’ basic argument is that the NT condemnations of same-sex behavior have a different focus than our current debate and, thus, are being misused in most of the debates. I think that broad argument still stands.
Letha Dawson Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? A Positive Christian Response, revised and updated edition. (HarperOne, 1994). Significantly stronger than the first edition. When the first edition was published in 1978, it was almost the only revisionist book from a Christian perspective, and definitely the first written by evangelicals. (Later, Mollenkott herself came out as lesbian, terrified that her friend, Letha would reject her as her home congregation had.) The original edition was written before the dominance of the Religious Right in North American evangelicalism–the book got a somewhat positive review in Christianity Today. (The CT review did not accept the thesis, but recommended it as a conversation starter in all churches!)
John J. McNeill, The Church and the Homosexual, 4th edition. (Beacon Press, 1993). When published in 1976, this was one of the first studies of its kind–possibly the first revisionist study in English by a Catholic priest. This was the book that converted one of my heroes (and a deeply biblical Christian), Fr. Daniel Berrigan, S. J., to a revisionist view. In 1987, Fr. McNeill was thrown out of the Society of Jesus for refusing to stop ministering to gays and lesbians. Later, he was thrown out of the priesthood, despite having remained faithful to his vows of celibacy.
B. Testimonies from GLBT Christians:
Mel White, Stranger at the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America. (Plume Books, 1995). Mel White began as a member of the Religious Right. A ghostwriter and film maker for Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell (his “autobiography”), Pat Robertson, and a speechwriter for Oliver North! He worked for years to be “cured” of his gayness (and save his marriage), but eventually had to admit he was always going to be gay. He also came to a different view of Christianity. Today, White is the founder of Soulforce, an organization which uses nonviolent direct action to confront Religious Right and evangelical churches and leaders with the harm they do to gay and lesbian Christians. (In recommending the book, I am not necessarily agreeing with all of the tactics of Soulforce.)
Michael Glaser, Uncommon Calling: A Gay Christian’s Struggle to Serve the Church. (Westminster/John Knox, 1994).
Gary David Comstock, A Whosoever Church: Welcoming Lesbians and Gay Men into African-American Congregations. (Westminster/John Knox, 2001).
III. Best Books from the “Not Affirming” Perspective
Stanley Grenz, Welcoming but NOT Affirming: An Evangelical Response to Homosexuality. (Westminster/John Knox Press, 1998). Written by a Canadian Baptist theologian and ethicist who died unexpectedly. The hardest part for me with this book is that I support Grenz’ wider views on sexual ethics–which are so much more Christian than much of what is sold as “orthodoxy.”
Thomas B. Schmidt, Straight & Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate. (InterVarsity Press, 1995).
Marion L. Soards, Scripture and Homosexuality: Biblical Authority and the Church Today. (Westminster/John Knox Press, 1995). Written by a former Southern Baptist who became a Presbyterian to escape fundamentalism, but still sees the revisionist/inclusivist view as a threat to the health of the church.
Paul A. Mickey, Of Sacred Worth. (Abingdon Press, 1991). Argues against the Religious Right’s singling out of gays and lesbians for persecution, but also against revisionism on ordination or same-sex marriage.
More could be added from all perspectives. This is the tip of the iceberg where this literature is concerned.
See also the books recommended or cited in earlier posts in this series.
I have mentioned the late H. Richard Niebuhr’s dictum for moral discernment that, before asking the question, “What must I/we do?” we should ask “What is going on?” In my mentor, Glen Stassen’s lectures on ethical method (and, no, I am not saying that Glen agrees with my conclusions on “homosexuality;” When last we discussed this issue, which is not a frequent topic between us, he held to a “welcoming, but NOT affirming” position and may do so still. But it was Stassen who alerted me to the Manchester U. dissertation on Matt. 19:11-12 and he SEEMED to be reconsidering based on this–or at least open to doing so), he draws attention to the perception of the situation that precedes and informs our moral reasoning (biblical interpretation, etc.). Certain “critical variables” (like variables in an algebra problem) have major influences as to how we perceive any given moral situation. We have already talked about the variable of differing loyalties and interests that we bring to bear: Richard B. Hays’ loyalty to his deceased gay friend and that friend’s rejection of pro-gay Christian arguments; loyalties to certain understandings of biblical authority or certain approaches to biblical texts; others have loyalties to gay relatives or friends or interests for or against changes in the church’s moral stance.
Another critical variable in perceiving the situation we face with “the issue” of “homosexuality,” (and, once more, I understand why gay or lesbian people don’t want to be treated as an abstract “issue” and apologize) is the threat that is posed or that people perceive. For example, if we were talking about capital punishment/the death penalty, one could easily see that if someone were threatened by the idea that innocent people might accidentally be executed, such a person would perceive the issue very differently than someone who is threatened by the rate of violent crime.
In the case of sexual ethics and the church (with special reference to GLBT persons), some see a threat to the (heterosexual and nuclear) family. Any redefinition of “family” by either church or society, we are told by many, will weaken the family, lead to more divorces and children raised by one parent only with a knock-on series of ills for society. It may surprise some of my more conservative critics, but I also see the nuclear family as threatened in our culture: I just don’t think gay or lesbian couples have much to do with the real threats. What are some of the real threats to (heterosexual, nuclear) family life? How about the fact that we live in a culture which teaches us to commodify everything and treat all people and values as “market values,” and thus to use even our intimate loved ones in a utilitarian fashion? All day long our consumer culture teaches us to ask, “What’s in it for me?” and far too often this carries over, usually unconsciously, to our home lives.
Or take the threat that economic strains in a globalized capitalism place on families: Even in middle or upper-middle class families, there is the threat of having one’s job outsourced at any time to cheaper labor elsewhere in the world. To keep that from happening, the 40 hour work week has been replaced by 50-60 hours, with work brought home and less time with spouses and kids–and more stress when interacting with them. If one is poor or working in a job without health benefits and has a sick kid, the strains become worse. In periods of heavy unemployment or economic insecurity, the divorce rate soars–as do the rates of spouse and child abuse. (Country music, as the music of the white working classes, is filled with songs of cheating and broken homes–because these songs reflect the strains that impact the working classes first!)
Or take the “Hollywood” obsession with “celebrities” who cannot seem to commit to any relationship for more than 20 minutes. The glamorization of their empty lives of self-indulgence is a huge threat to the nuclear family.
Others see the threat concerning GLBT inclusion to be a threat to the church’s faithful discipleship. I can understand this: Throughout most of its history the church has been profoundly unfaithful to Christ in one dimension or another–with some periods shockingly so. I know that one of the reasons it took me 10 years to come to a welcoming and affirming view of GLBT persons in the church was that I didn’t want to jump on any faddish bandwagons.
There are real risks here. But I think the greater threat to the church’s integrity is its failure to look with compassion and identify with the outcast and the marginalized. If we place concerns about purity ahead of matters of compassion for the outcast and ahead of dignity for all people, we will be far more unfaithful than if we risk changing the church’s sexual ethic in this area and turn out to mistake God’s will. When I stand before the Last Judge, I would rather be able to say that I erred (if I did) on the side of standing with the marginalized than that I erred on the side of purity.
The loyalties and interests and threat dimensions are joined by the critical variable of one’s attitude toward social change. During the Civil Rights era, some people who were theoretically strong for racial justice were nevertheless strongly opposed to the Movement–because they believed social change should be slow and ordered and come through calm deliberation of laws or customs, not from the agitation of a mass movement. They did not share Martin Luther King’s “fierce urgency of the now.” One can easily make the analogy regarding current attempts to change laws allowing same-sex civil marriages in the U.S.–and the way this spills over into electoral contests where the main issues seem to be other matters.
(After this series is over, I need to blog more extensively about ethical method.)
As I stated at the outset of this series, the term “homosexuality” is coined in German in the 1860s and comes into English a few years later. So, the idea of someone with a sexual orientation that is primarily directed to their own sex (as opposed to same-sex acts) is a modern concept.
Freud believed it was a neurosis caused by an overprotective or dominant mother and/or an absent or abusive father. In the 1950s, especially, psychologists blamed mothers if their children were gay or lesbian. Psychologists and psychiatrists regularly used electro-shock therapy to “cure” gays and lesbians. They also used lobotomies and “aversion therapy,” all of which would now be considered torture. In 1973, the American Psychological Association dropped homosexuality from its lists of neuroses and psychosis and the American Psychiatric Association followed soon after.
What changed? Not the political culture. The gay rights movement had not yet emerged until a little later in the decade of the 1970s (immediately leading to the anti-gay “crusade” of former Mouseketeer and orange-juice saleswoman, Anita Bryant!). What changed was the groundbreaking study of human sexuality by Alfred Kinsey and the institute he founded. Kinsey discovered that few of us are completely heterosexual (ONLY attracted to the opposite sex) or completely homosexual (ONLY attracted to our own sex). Rather, most of us are dominantly heterosexual or homosexual. Kinsey also discovered that, although the persecution of homosexuals by church and society often leads to attendant neuroses, there is no neurosis or psychosis in the condition itself. That is still the conclusion of almost all psychologists and psychiatrists, and is reflected in their Diagnostic and Statistics Manual.
UPDATE: In the comments, Daniel Schweissing (Haitianministries), corrects this statement slightly. I accept it as a friendly correction and, since some readers never read the comments, reproduce it here:
While Kinsey’s groundbreaking study was undoubtedly influential in the decision of the APA, et al. to change their views on homosexuality, politics also played an important role. Gay theologian Robert Goss, in his book _Jesus Acted Up_ (Harper San Francisco, 1993 –pp.44-45), documents how gay and lesbian activists demonstrated at and disrupted a number of psychiatric and medical conferences, beginning as early as 1968 in attempt to convince them to change their views. This, in part, is one of the reasons why many conservative Christians continue to reject the professional opinions of such groups in regards to homosexuality. A better reading of this change in thinking might be that the political pressure from gay and lesbian activists forced the APA, et al. to take studies such as Kinsey’s more seriously.
One often hears conservative preachers claim that “homosexuality is only found in human beings,” and that it’s claimed non-appearance in animals is proof that it is unnatural and sinful. The claim is false as anyone who has spent time around animals will tell you. In some species, like dolphins and dogs, the majority of the males will mount anything that holds still! (Also, see what penguins are up to here!)In species that mate for life, a small percentage form same-sex pairings. I have personally observed this in red-shouldered hawks–with two male hawks actually building a nest together! This is always a small minority or the species in question would not survive. But it happens. Human sexuality is enough different from animal sexuality that this point is of limited value, but I had to refute an oft-made, but false, claim.
Among humans, approximately 90% of us are dominantly heterosexual in orientation. About 5% are dominantly homosexual in orientation. 5% or less are bi-sexual or nearly equally attracted to members of both sexes.
Studies of the causes of homosexuality have been few and inconclusive. Several of the studies have either been poorly designed or given inconclusive evidence or used too small a sampling, etc.
There have been studies of monozygotic male twins which have shown that if one twin is gay, the other is gay 50% of the time. This has proven to be the case even when the twins were separated at birth and raised in very different environments. This does not answer the question of causation, but it does indicate something not-chosen and not environmental.
There have been studies in brain size and chemistry which purport to show differences in the brains of gay men and straight men.
In the mid-’90s, studies of birth order found that the more male children a woman had, the more likely that her last male child would be gay. The hypothesis is that her body treated the male child as a foreign object and that, over time and with many children, the mother’s body introduced chemicals to change the sex to female–and sometimes got a gay male child, instead. The study was suggestive, but far from conclusive.
The most profitable field of research for causes is genetic. However, many gay and lesbian people fear research in this area, because they fear that parents will either abort or attempt genetic manipulation in utero to prevent having gay children. (The fundamentalist president of my once-great alma mater, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., opined on his radio show that if geneticist discovered a “gay gene,” it would be a Christian responsibility to be screened and to have corrective procedures in utero. Way to channel the Nazi doctors there, Al!)
No “gay gene” has been isolated, but the human genome mapping project has suggested promising areas of research. The general “consensus” (to the extent there is one) in the field is that homosexual orientation is probably caused by a variety of genetic and hormonal causes prior to birth and to some environmental factors shortly after birth. The only real consensus is that dominant sexual orientation is set by age 5 and not really alterable after that.
The scientific evidence (including recent studies on rats!) is found here.
Note on transgendered persons: Transgendered persons have a different gender identity than their outward biology at birth. Whereas gay men identify as male and lesbian women identify as female, but are just oriented to their own sex, transgendered persons feel “trapped in the wrong body.” We don’t know the causes of this, either, although they may be partly biological. A rare medical phenomenon is someone who is born with both male and female genitalia. They are arbitrarily assigned one sex or the other and “corrective” surgery is usually performed shortly after birth. This suggests that transgendered persons also have some biochemical reason or genetic reason for identify with the other sex, no matter their outward primary and secondary sex characteristics. Sometimes such persons choose sex reassignment surgery to finally find peace by no longer feeling “trapped in the wrong body.”
For more information on transgendered persons and the church, by the only Christian transgendered person I know, see here. That is the website of Rev. Elise Elrod (formerly Ronnie Elrod), who speaks on bias, one-thing thinking (reducing people to one feature), and acceptance.
Now, why this interest in causes? Because moral responsibility usually implies choice; ought implies can. But, this is not always the case. Many like to compare same-sex sexual orientation to alcoholism or to violence. I may have a predisposition to violence–it does not justify my hitting anyone when I am angry. I may be predisposed to alcoholism, but the conclusion would be that I should not drink (or if already addicted, seek help), not that alcoholism is “right for me” and I should pursue it.
This is what I meant above by saying that science itself provides no moral guidelines. However, the relevant question to ask those who argue that “homosexual orientation is not chosen, but the behavior and can be changed,” is whether or not same-sex sexual orientation is really analogous to alcoholism or violence. It seems to me that the conclusion of psychologists and psychiatrists that “homosexuality” is not itself a neurosis or psychosis rules out too close a similarity with alcoholism or violence.
Given the constraints in which most gays or lesbians live in our society, persecuted and outcast, subject to job loss or housing discrimination, often rejected by church and family, one would be very surprised NOT to find many gays and lesbians who have accompanying psycho-social problems. But we find such problems in heterosexuals, too. And the amazing thing is that we also find gay and lesbian Christians who lead lives of deep holiness. The ones I know personally are much better Christians than I am.
These things lead me to believe that same-sex sexual orientation is not a flaw, but simply a variation in nature, in God’s created order–like left-handedness. By itself, it is no more or less sinful than heterosexuality.
Some “cleaning up” matters on these posts before going to the next stage. I am rushing through some things in order to try to finish this series and be done with it. The series is tiring for me and I don’t want to neglect it again.
At any rate, there are some loose ends on the biblical survey to date that need to be cleared up.
- Would the biblical writers, especially the Apostle Paul, have known of long-term, same sex, partnerships based on love? I have followed the likes of Robin Scroggs and Victor Paul Furnish in saying, “No.” However, several classicists have pointed out that such pairings were well-known in the Greco-Roman world–something I did not know when I began this series. (Randle and others repeatedly cited Plato’s Symposium. The thrust of that discussion still seems to me to be Plato’s condemnation of pederasty in “mentoring,” but there are mentions of longterm male/male lovers. Ergo, Scroggs’ original claim, and mine by extension, was too strong.) However, this does not settle the question of whether Paul would have known them or had them in mind in his condemnations. It is certain that he is condemning exploitive relationships like pederasty and temple prostitution. If, in Rom. 1, he is also including non-exploitive same-sex pairings more like marriage (which is possible), it is not because he knows the concept of sexual orientation, but because he considers such acts to be evidence of idolatry and “unnatural” behavior.
- In 1 Cor. 11:14, Paul asks rhetorically, “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him. . .?” Here “nature” clearly means “custom,” because what is “unnatural” is cutting one’s hair. So, it is possible (by no means certain) that Paul has the same meaning in mind in Romans 1 when he calls same sex pairings “unnatural.” What is clear is that Paul is not a reliable guide to “nature” or to natural law arguments.
- I have said that Romans 1 is the only place where lesbian acts, not just male same-sex actions, are under review. What I didn’t know until quite recently is that lesbianism may not even be mentioned in Romans 1. The early church, up to and including St. Augustine, interpreted “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones,” NOT as referring to female-to-female sex acts (i.e., lesbian behavior), but to male-female anal intercourse. It is only beginning with St. John Chrysostom that the early church starts interpreting this verse as referring to lesbian actions.
- If the earlier tradition is the correct exegesis, then nowhere in the Bible are lesbian acts discussed. The focus is entirely on male/male acts and the concerns are purity/holiness concerns and concerns about men being treated “as women,” like conquering armies did in raping those conquered. Note the strong connection between condemnation of male homosexuality and patriarchy.
In my next post, I will briefly turn from the biblical texts to discuss the (little) we know scientifically about the causes of homosexual orientation. Science does not give moral guidance on its own. But, as H. Richard Niebuhr constantly reminded his students in Christian ethics, the first question to be asked is not, “What should I/we do?” but, “What is going on?” This post will also include a brief discussion of the related-but-different issues surrounding transgendered persons.
From there, I will make some comments on ethical method and on hermeneutics (as it applies to our discussion). My concluding posts will present a theological case for fully welcoming and affirming GLBT persons in the church: Defending their civil rights in society (something I would expect even of “welcoming, but NOT affirming” folks since public justice matters are distinct from purity issues or moral issues for religious communities); blessing same-sex covenantal unions (whether or not the law grants them the status of “marriage,”); and ordaining those called to ministry with same standards of chastity used for heterosexuals (not restricting all gay or lesbian ministers to celibacy unless the same standard is required for heterosexual ministers). I will conclude with a brief outline of a “single standard sexual ethic” for the church today–one which is open-ended and welcomes additions and corrections by my readers.
I will then update the index of all these posts and create a new page of indexed series.
I hope to post the science post this afternoon/evening.
It is commonly said by those on all sides of this debate that Jesus said nothing whatsoever pertaining to “homosexuality.” Traditionalists conclude that Jesus simply accepted the Levitical prohibitions (and the negative view of 1st C. Judaism) without question. Revisionists conclude that Jesus was unconcerned about same-sex issues and that contemporary Christians are free to take Jesus’ overall liberating views on the dignity and equality of all persons as our guide.
But there is one ambiguous passage in the Gospels in which Jesus MAY have indicated an openess to same-sex covenantal love. I want to be very cautious here. I have been told about a Norwegian woman (a Baptist pastor, actually) who completed a Ph.D. in New Testament at the University of Manchester in the U.K. She investigated this pericope rather thoroughly. But the dissertation has not yet been published and so I have not seen the evidence for her conclusions. So, what follows, is a possibility that bears further investigation–but without that further investigation would be (in Lee’s words about how Richard Hays treats Rom. 1 on the other side of this debate) “too thin a reed on which to build a case one way or the other.”
In Matthew 19, Jesus condemns divorce (except for porneia, indicating some kind of sexual sin, usually thought to be adultery), using God’s created intentions to overturn Mosaic law (which allowed men to seek divorce). The disciples, blown away by the idea that they may have learn conflict resolution with their wives, mutter that it may be better not to marry at all.
Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; others have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. The one who can accept this word, should do so.” Matt. 19:11-12.
Now, traditionally, this passage has been interpreted to mean that Jesus was advocating celibacy, but that is not clear.
- The word “eunuchs” is not really an English translation of the Greek ενουκοι. Rather, it is simply a transliteration.
- Because of the influence of the KJV, modern English uses the term “eunuch” to mean a castrated male. But did the term have that meaning in the ancient world?
- In the dissertation to which I have referred (but I have seen only a summary, not the evidence), a broad range of materials is consulted and it seems that “eunuch” had a much wider meaning in the 1st C. Mediterranean world–referring to any male who deviated from the cultural norm of marrying and begetting children. It was even used to refer to men who married and did not beget children. It was also used, I am given to understand, to refer to men who had longterm male lovers–NOT to pederasts or to temple prostitutes, etc.
- Now, traditionally, this passage has been used to endorse celibacy, but the topic under discussion is marriage.
- Jesus says that some are eunuchs (that is, men who do not marry and beget children) because they were made that way by men. These are probably castrated males such as many cultures used for herem guards.
- Jesus says that some make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. In the early church, Origen took this to mean that some should castrate themselves and he did so. Fortunately, most of the church did not follow this pattern. Those who would be “eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom” have been voluntarily celibate–as apparently Jesus and Paul were. (In light of his belief that Jesus would return any minute, Paul wished all Christians were “as I am”–apparently meaning celibate, but recognized that it took a special gift of the Spirit. 1 Cor. 7:7–a chapter in which Paul also indicates that an acceptable basis for Christian (heterosexual) marriage is to control one’s otherwise uncontrollable lust! Nice.)
- Jesus says some eunuchs “were born that way.” Is he talking only of males born with some genital defect? Or is referring also to men who do not marry and have children because they were born with desires for their own sex?
Caution: Even if Jesus has people we would call “gay” or “lesbian,” those with homosexual orientation, in mind as part of the category of “born eunuchs,” the passage does not indicate what Jesus would have them do–except that it is clear that, contrary to his own Jewish culture, he does not order them to marry or condemn them for not marrying. “Family” takes on broader than biological meaning in Christianity. But Jesus does not say, “all born eunuchs must remain celibate,” either.
Is this a veiled positive word for gay and lesbian Christians? I don’t think it is clear, but I do think it is a possibility worth further investigation.
Let those accept this who can.
Next, I will wind up this series by moving beyond reading of the few texts in Scripture relating to this topic to giving a theological rationale for welcoming and affirming GLBT Christians fully into the life of the church, including blessing same-sex unions analagous to heterosexual marriage.
I promised to write the next installment on my GLBT series, tonight. I will, but it won’t be the post I hoped to get to, my second on Romans 1. That’s because I just saw the film, For The Bible Tells Me So and my reactions are too personal to simply engage in exegesis at this time–maybe tomorrow.
To recap: I am arguing that the traditional teaching of the church(es) that ALL same-sex relationships are sinful has been mistaken–a misuse of a handful of biblical passages taken out of literary and historical context. I hope to argue for a single standard of sexual morality for all people–either voluntary celibacy (which Scripture specifically describes as a spiritual gift not given to all people) or monogamy. This would replace the double-standard currently held by most churches which allows celibacy or monogamy for heterosexuals, but demands that gay people either be celibate (whether or not they have the gift necessary) or to be “changed” into heterosexuals and hide themselves in heterosexual marriages–with devastating effects on their spouses, children, and themselves. I have wanted to argue for this in a careful, step-by-step fashion.
As always, I urge new readers to this discussion to read the previous installments before commenting on the latest installment. To date, there have been seven (7) major posts and an addendum. See: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, addendum on pro-GLBT “over reading,” 6, & 7. This is addenum 2: Reaction to For the Bible Tells Me So.
For the Bible Tells Me So is a 2007 documentary about Christian families, raised with the traditional teaching that all same-sex genital intimacy is sinful (in many cases being taught that it is the MOST sinful act possible), dealing with family members who are gay or lesbian and their struggles with their children “coming out.” It is directed from a pro-inclusion viewpoint, but not all of the families come to a fully accepting perspective–some are stuck in a “love the sinner, hate the sin” viewpoint. The biblical passages which are used to justify the traditional perspective are examined by a number of biblical scholars and theologians, most, but not all, of whom have come to a perspective of full inclusion. Those who disagree with full inclusion are mostly treated with respect. (For instance, I thought the section interviewing Dr. Richard Mouw, Christian philosopher and President of Fuller Theological Seminary [and, thus, briefly, a former boss of mine when I was Visiting Professor at Fuller in 1999 and 2000], who adopts a “welcoming but NOT affirming position” based on his reading of Romans 1, was done very well. I do not think Mouw would consider himself distorted or parodied at all.)
The only ministers who are treated more negatively in the film are those who actively promote hate and/or legal discrimination against GLBT persons. For instance, televangelist Jimmy Swaggert (who has frequented prostitutes!), does not come across well. Nor does Focus on the Family founder, James Dobson, Ph.D., a child psychologist and leader of the Religious Right–and one of the major leaders of both conservative Christian activism for anti-gay legislation and a leader in so-called “ex-gay” ministries of “reparative therapy.” Yet, Dobson was treated with more respect in the film than I could have managed. Even Dr. Mel White, a former member of the Religious Right (ghost writing books and films for the likes of the late Jerry Falwell) and, since coming out of the closet, an ordained minister in the pro-gay Metropolitan Community Churches and founder of the pro-GLBT activist group, Soulforce, gives Dobson more credit than I think I could. Because White and others basically claim that when Dobson stuck to his roots of giving Christian families advice on parenting, he was a positive force for good. I disagree. I think much of his parenting advice is very harmful, and was even before he became obsessed with the supposed evils of “the gay agenda.”
The film synopsis gives this description of For the Bible Tells Me So:
Can the love between two people ever be an abomination? Is the chasm separating gays and lesbians and Christianity too wide to cross? Is the Bible an excuse to hate?
Winner of the Audience Award for Best Documentary at the Seattle International Film Festival, Dan Karslake’s provocative, entertaining documentary brilliantly reconciles homosexuality and Biblical scripture, and in the process reveals that Church-sanctioned anti-gay bias is based almost solely upon a significant (and often malicious) misinterpretation of the Bible. As the film notes, most Christians live their lives today without feeling obliged to kill anyone who works on the Sabbath or eats shrimp (as a literal reading of scripture dictates).
Through the experiences of five very normal, very Christian, very American families — including those of former House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt and Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson — we discover how insightful people of faith handle the realization of having a gay child. Informed by such respected voices as Bishop Desmond Tutu, Harvard’s Peter Gomes, Orthodox Rabbi Steve Greenberg and Reverend Jimmy Creech, FOR THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO offers healing, clarity and understanding to anyone caught in the crosshairs of scripture and sexual identity.
I think this is a powerful film for introducing this topic into churches or contexts where either the subject is never discussed (the “don’t ask, don’t tell” de facto policy that rules so many congregations, silently ignoring the barely-closeted individuals and couples in their midst) or where ONLY the traditional teaching has been heard and no serious airing of other perspectives has been given. The film, by itself, will probably change few minds. But it could begin some true dialogue.
The most powerful piece of the film for me was the testimony of one elderly woman who, when her daughter came out as lesbian in college (by writing a letter home), reacted very negatively. She eventually came to an inclusive viewpoint–but only after her daughter committed suicide. (Because of family, church, and social rejection, GLBT persons attempt suicide at much higher rates than the national average–especially LGBT teens). All I could think was, “Thank God, I went through her journey BEFORE any child of mine came out and contemplated suicide. Thank God, it did not take such a horror to begin my journey to full inclusion.”
This is not an area where I feel proud of myself. On no other matter of controversy have I hesitated to wade into things. But here I was a moral coward. I waited until I was married (not until 28!) before I even went into a library and checked out materials on the subject–other than the standard, pre-approved evangelical books with the standard, pre-packaged answers. (I flashed my wedding ring around at the check out desk so that anyone noticing the books I was checking out did not think I was gay!) And I have said and written so little about this because I know that championing an inclusive position could prevent my ever getting another church-related position or a teaching position in a church-related institution. As Peggy Campolo says, there is more than one closet in the church and more of us than gays and lesbians need to decide to come out of our closets.
But I am glad that people like Rich Mouw were treated so well in this film. Because I know that not all traditionalists in this matter are ignorant or filled with hatred or biblically or theologically illiterate, etc. I know that from the inside, too. I am sure that part of the reason it took me so long to come to a welcoming and affirming position of LGBT folk is residual homophobia from church and society (not family–my parents were inclusive before I was and wondered what took me so long!), but those weren’t the ONLY reasons.
I am a Christian social activist. But I have a deep loyalty to Scripture as the Word of God in and through human words, the living witness to the Word Made Flesh in Jesus Christ. My usual complaint about American fundamentalism is how unbiblical it is. So, I know I came to this “issue” (and GLBT persons hate being an “issue” as one might well imagine) not wanting to jump on some politically correct bandwagon. I think that is a strong feature of such welcoming-but-not-affirming Christian leaders as Rich Mouw, Tony Campolo, the late Stanley Grenz (taken from us all too soon), N.T. scholar, Dr. Richard B. Hays, theologian Marva Dawn, the evangelical feminist Catherine Clark Kroeger, my friend and former colleague, Dr. David P. Gushee, and others. I think it is a strong component in the way some of my readers who reject my conclusions do so. I understand because I was once where you are–and my having changed my mind does NOT make you wrong or me right. After all, I have met many who were pacifists but changed their minds after 9/11–and I think they were right before and are now wrong. Being willing to change one’s mind is a sign of maturity–but no particular change of mind is guaranteed to be a change for the better. That applies to me as well.
So, seeing this film should open discussion, not close it. It does not “make the case” for full inclusion of GLBT persons–but only exposes folk to that viewpoint in a powerful way.
I would hope that everyone viewing this film would come away agreeing that gay bashing is wrong, that holding up signs saying “God hates fags” is wrong, that people who give death threats to gay people or inclusive churches (as they have to Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson) are sick and need treatment, and that civil laws which discriminate should be ended. Beyond that, the film itself only raises the issues about full inclusion in the church–it does not and cannot answer them definitively.
But the “issues” are placed in the right context–in the midst of discussions in families and churches about how best to love children, aunts, uncles, parents, etc. who are gay. If, in viewing the film, the option of hate is ruled out and the only remaining debate is over whether love is best expressed in welcoming but NOT affirming, or in welcoming AND affirming (as my church teaches and I have concluded), then it will have accomplished a great good. I hope many of my Gentle Readers will order For the Bible Tells Me So at the link and watch it in churches and homes with friends and begin open and honest–even painful and tearful–discussions.