I'm in Washington, trying to convince myself it's the 7:30 a.m. on the alarm clock rather than the 4:30 on my body clock. My work today will be to take part in the Capitol Hill response to President Bush's pushing for the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment being considered this week by legislators.
From the Integrity press release sent out yesterday:
Integrity President Susan Russell will join other clergy and human rights activists on Capitol Hill on Monday, June 5th, to urge the Senate to resist writing discrimination into the Constitution through the Federal Marriage Amendment—which is due to be voted on Tuesday or Wednesday this week. "As an Episcopal priest I have taken vows to respect the dignity of every human being and as an American citizen I have pledged to uphold liberty and justice for all," Russell said. "The Federal Marriage Amendment violates both of those principles and so I believe it is imperative that people of faith opposed to legislating inequity step up and make their voices heard in this critical debate."
Russell urged all Integrity members and Episcopalians to contact their senators and President Bush to express their opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. Contact information for senators can be found at www.senate.gov. President Bush can be contacted at 202-456-1111 or comments@whitehouse.gov.
Why bother when nobody expects the vote to succeed? Because gay and lesbian families once again being scapegoated on the altar of partisan politics by a president so desperate to rescue his evaporating poll numbers that he'll do or say anything to secure his conservative base needs to be named for what it is: an attack on ALL Americans committed to the equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution. This has nothing to do with defending marriage and everything to do with exploiting it.
Last October I sat in the bleachers in Columbia, South Carolina as my son's graduation from Army boot camp and heard all those brave, young soldiers swear to "defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic." It never occurred to me that a few months later I'd be heading for the steps of the U.S. Capitol to add my voice to those defending the Constitution from a president willing to exploit it for for personal political gain. My son and his colleagues deserve better than that. America deserves better than that. Never mind the vote count on the hill -- THIS is worth bothering with, worth speaking out against, worth getting up at 4:30 a.m.
"Film at eleven" as they say!
5 comments:
Personally, I don't want anyone scapegoated. I would like to see a recognition that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman as Scripture, including our Lord, and natural law teaches.
From a different Anonymous.
Mr. Lee makes some interesting points to which I would like to see an honest response and not just name calling.
Some other things that still bother me about all this. First, I have always been confused about how a bi-sexual person has a monogomous "holy" relationship, since by definition, that person's orientation is directed toward two different people. If a bisexual male has a monogomous relationship with a female, can't they just get married? If he has that relationship with another man, then they can have their "union" blessed. But either way, isn't he denying his true self and not living fully into what he will say God has made him to be, namely bisexual? How long before he demands that the Church bless his three-way relationship? And, what about the other partners' proclivities? It could go on and on.
The next question has to do with "transgendered." What is "transgendered," anyway? You're either x or you're y. Sorry, there isn't anything in between. Also, how can a transgendered person have a committed monogomous relationship with another person when they can't even commit to what they are themselves? Anyone who can't figure out their own "sexual identity," has no business getting involved in a lifetime relationship.
Another point. One argument frequently heard is that the "gay rights" movement should be equated with the struggle of black people for their civil rights. Notwithstanding that few black Baptist preachers will see anything remotely parallel in the two "movements," it brings to mind a photo from a civil rights march in the 1950s, showing a black man in a suit holding a sign that says "I AM A MAN." Contrast this simple and eloquent demand to be treated with dignity and respect to what's on display at a "pride" parade with its Dykes on Bikes, leather fetish crowd and men in their underwear wrapped in pink boas. Not much to dignify or respect there. Is there any wonder this doesn't resonate very well in middle America? By the way, what would the transgendered guy have on his sign?
The gay Christian movement may make some headway in liberal churches like the ECUSA, but before they are going to fit into the mainstream they're going to have to shed some of the baggage described in Mr. Lee's article. Otherwise, it does look like he's right and that this is all just part of an effort to promote an "anything goes" sexual ethic.
Even before the devastating AIDS epidemic broke on the homosexual scene in the early 1980s, gays' life spans were severely truncated by comparison with the national average. In 1977, the largest survey of homosexuals up to that time reported only 0.2 percent of lesbians and 0.8 percent of gay males were age 65 or older. Also, as long ago as the 1930s and '40s, sex researcher and sex-liberation pioneer Alfred Kinsey reported that less than 1 percent of the homosexuals he studied were over age 65.
The reasons for the vastly reduced life expectancy are the large number of life-threatening and debilitating diseases prevalent in the homosexual community and the high rates of transmission through dangerous sexual practices common among gays.
It's good to see where persons such as anonymous come from and what their idea of communication is. It makes for excellent contrasts. :)
Anonymous #2: have you ever studied genetics, even a little bit?
Post a Comment