From the NAACP Legal Defense Fund's online journal:I am celebrating Barack Obama’s election as president. I also rejoice because people of every race and every ethnicity and every socio-economic class and every sexual orientation came together to make his presidency possible. But here in California the promise and vision of President–elect Obama’s campaign has been marred by the passage of Proposition 8.
Sadly, the lies and vitriol of the “Yes on 8” campaign held sway over California voters. The “Yes on 8” campaign made it seem as if this was election was about religious beliefs and about schools. But nothing could be further from the truth.
The big lie told to the voters of California is that churches would have to officiate at marriages for gay men and lesbians and that they would lose their tax-exempt status. NOT TRUE. In fact, the California Supreme Court, on page 117 of its historic ruling last May, affirmed the right of religious organizations to follow and uphold their religious beliefs. In California, as long as we still must get a license to marry, then we all must be treated fairly and equally under the law. There must be a separation of church and state.
Yet a majority has voted away the rights of the minority. This is always problematic. What would have happened if the voters had voted on whether people of color could marry whites in this country?
I have been particularly pained by the instant analysis that claims that African-Americans are responsible for the passage of Proposition 8. Again, another big lie repeated and repeated often by the “Yes on 8” campaign in a continuous effort to divide minority groups. The vote for Proposition 8 came from many different segments of the population and in truth the “No on 8” campaign wasn’t able to combat their lies.
I have been deeply saddened by the racism that has emerged from the GLBT community. For this I am deeply sorry, and I am working diligently to expose those who would spread such calumnies.
The truth about the GLBT community is that it is not just a white world. It is very diverse—black and brown, Asian Pacific Islander, Christian and Jew, Buddhist and Muslim, rich, middle class and those who live deep in poverty, old and young, couples, singles and families with children. We have so many issues of concern in common with the African-Americans and other minority groups.
I hope in the days and months ahead that the example set by President-elect Obama’s campaign—a great coming together—will be one that the GLBT and African-American communities can work towards so that we can know each other, and know each other’s hearts.
It will take work, but I hope we can work together. Then, this Thanksgiving can be the beginning of a new era in which all can reap a bountiful harvest in a new America.
=========
Rabbi Denise L. Eger is the founding rabbi of Congregation Kol Ami in West Hollywood, CA. She has been a leader in the battle against Proposition 8. She is Vice-President of the Board of Rabbis of Southern California that opposed Proposition 8.
Rabbi Denise L. Eger is the founding rabbi of Congregation Kol Ami in West Hollywood, CA. She has been a leader in the battle against Proposition 8. She is Vice-President of the Board of Rabbis of Southern California that opposed Proposition 8.
5 comments:
It's about fear, and defending oneself against the other. To undo this, we have two tasks.
First, we must be a stronger, smarter, more effective campaign. It was run badly, was out-maneuvered by the liars, and the sooner we admit it and professionalize, the better.
Second, we have to regain those on the other side who are redeemable, and Defeat their fear.
IT
Susan - of course the lie in this article which has gone unchallenged is that homosexuals ever had a "right" to "marry" a person of the same gender. Marriage is by Biblical definition only between a man and a woman, according to both Moses (inspired by God) and Jesus (God incarnate). Homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry a person of the opposite gender, and are still free to do so. The homosexual lobby has never adequately addressed this fundamental issue from a Biblical theological perspective.
The analogy of the rights of blacks marrying whites is a fallacy, since there was never any Biblical endorsement of such a wicked policy which would prevent a black person marrying a white person of the opposite gender.
There is a valid concern expressed about the likely compulsion of clergy to "marry" persons of the same gender, when you consider the legal action that has been taken in the past against a wedding photographer for example who have refused to provide photographic services for a same sex ceremony, and for Christian adoption agencies to offer adoption services for same sex couples. Just have a look at what has happened elsewhere in the world to understand the valid concerns your opponents hold. It is only a matter of time before clergy come into the target frame. Do you really expect us to believe that the homosexual lobby will be satisfied unless it has full access to any Christian clergy or facility to provide what it wants, using any legal and political power at its disposal?
I have read that there are moves afoot to remove the right of any medical person to refuse to assist in any abortion, completely disregarding the conscience of the medical person involved in favour of the "rights" of the expectant mother to execute her baby. If that is true and comes to pass, then how long before clergy are subject to the same pressures to perform same sex "marriages" against their consciences?
Before any of your respondents accuse me of being homophobic or hateful towards homosexuals or of promoting lies, please address the arguments I have put forth in my comments, and not resort to personal attacks. As IT has urged above, be smarter.
Brian ...
Thanks for taking time to comment.
I could point out that it can be argued there is also a Biblical definition of marriage as between a man and as many women as he could afford, but for the purposes of the Prop 8 debate (the subject of this post) Biblical definitions of ANYTHING are not germane.
The right to the equal protection afforded by civil marriage is the issue here and the fact that those intent on continuing to discriminate against LGBT families continue to resort to the "fear factor" arguments (clergy will be forced to marry queers; tax exempt status will be in danger; next they'll want to marry their dogs ... we've heard them all!) is indicative of how shallow their case actually is.
Help me understand this: Why would a couple who find each other, fall in love and decide to commit themselves to love and to cherish til death do them part in the sight of God and their friends and family browbeat some poor clergy schmuck who thinks their relationship is an abomination into presiding over their nuptials on the happiest day of their lives?
Think about it for just a minute.
No, take two.
Put yourself -- if you can muster that much imagination -- into their moccasins and then run the fear based scenarios you paint in your comment and see if they ring true.
Finally, just a couple more points.
#1 -- I can hook you up with folks who heard preached from their pulpits that "God is a segregationist God" with chapter and verse to prove that interracial marriage was "against the natural God-given order" and
#2 -- Re-read the First Amendment (it's in the Constitution) and note the part about "the free exercise of religion." That's what protects clergy from having to preside at any marriage whatsoever against their religious beliefs.
#3 -- Finally, guess why fear-based arguments like the ones you offer are persuasive? It's called "homophobia" -- a phobia being "an irrational fear." Odds are there's no reasoning one out of an irrational fear, but thanks for checking in and giving it a shot.
Susan - you keep on using the term "fear based" in relation to either arguments or scenarios, thus projecting onto myself, whom you do not know, an emotion which I do not experience in relation to homosexuals or their lifestyles. It is not helpful to your argument to do so, but rather, demonstrates a tendency on your part to develop arguments based on emotion rather than rational thinking.
It is entirely appropriate to use Biblical definitions and standards to present a position on public policy, and I can't believe that you being an ordained minister in the church actually said what you did in par 1 of your response. If you truly believe this then any position you might adopt on social welfare or justice based on God's love and justice has just gone out the window. If only there was more reference to biblical standards by our public policy makers.
There is no argument in the Bible which supports the concept of multiple wives as you suggest there may be. Just because some of the Biblical heroes have multiple wives does not mean that this ought to become normative or is approved by God. It more readily demonstrates the paradigm of sinner/saint – that we are justified by faith, not by performance. While Abraham, David et al were considered righteous by God through faith, they were not made righteous. Many sins are written about in the Bible, are simply presenting a starkly honest account of the depravity of the human condition, generally with a negative assessment of this from God. This serves to emphasize God’s grace in the face of human depravity.
I can't imagine why a same sex couple would really want to force a clergy person to perform their wedding, unless it was to make a political point, or if they were in a town such as I have lived where there is only one local marriage celebrant who is the local Anglican minister. Why would a same sex couple choose a wedding photographer for their happy occasion who they knew was opposed to their ceremony and insist on him being the one to do the job rather than simply respecting his conscience and find someone else? Rather, they prefer to drive him out of business. I’m not sure that the First Amendment is an adequate protection for ministers – perhaps it may be in the USA, but other clergy in Europe are beginning to find themselves in hot water over this matter. It does not seem to be helpful for Catholic adoption agencies to give them freedom to limit adoption services to only heterosexual married couples.
I've heard a bit of preaching from the pulpit including coming from so called evangelicals in North America on radio and internet broadcasts, which has very suspect Biblical exegesis. The fact that there are some preachers who preach against mixed race marriages does not make them theologically correct, nor a sound example to refute my objection to same sex marriages on a Biblical basis. Some of this preaching is more akin to modern pop-psychology rather than Christian expository preaching.
I am trying to avoid any "fear based arguments" since I personally do not fear homosexuals. IT (above) has not correctly diagnosed the source of opposition to the homosexual’s case – it is not based on fear of you but on endeavouring to be faithful to God’s word, or at least to the orthodox and traditional interpretation of such. I repeat again, the homosexual lobby has not been successful in convincing the vast multitude of Christians that their new interpretation of the Bible in this matter is a reasonable one, and maybe it needs to work harder in this area, and not rely on emotional, or experiential arguments. My objection to homosexuals living out a same sex attraction is based on loving them, my own brother included, from a desire to see him live a life pleasing to God and out of concern that he is living a lifestyle proven to harm his physical, emotional, and spiritual health and will reduce his life expectancy. Do I really need to cite some of the multitude of studies done in this area? The Bible urges us to exercise self control and offers the strength and grace to live according to God's will by the transforming power of the Holy Spirit.
It is entirely appropriate to use Biblical definitions and standards to present a position on public policy, and I can't believe that you being an ordained minister in the church actually said what you did in par 1 of your response. If you truly believe this then any position you might adopt on social welfare or justice based on God's love and justice has just gone out the window. If only there was more reference to biblical standards by our public policy makers.
Only if you can defend them without relying on the Bible. The Bible is a mythology in the purest sense, and not independently verifiable as a factual account.
If your entire social philosophy is founded on "the Bible says . . . " alone, that's fine for you personally. For the rest, you must come up with something better.
I am trying to avoid any "fear based arguments" since I personally do not fear homosexuals. IT (above) has not correctly diagnosed the source of opposition to the homosexual’s case – it is not based on fear of you but on endeavouring to be faithful to God’s word, or at least to the orthodox and traditional interpretation of such. I repeat again, the homosexual lobby has not been successful in convincing the vast multitude of Christians that their new interpretation of the Bible in this matter is a reasonable one, and maybe it needs to work harder in this area, and not rely on emotional, or experiential arguments. My objection to homosexuals living out a same sex attraction is based on loving them, my own brother included, from a desire to see him live a life pleasing to God and out of concern that he is living a lifestyle proven to harm his physical, emotional, and spiritual health and will reduce his life expectancy. Do I really need to cite some of the multitude of studies done in this area? The Bible urges us to exercise self control and offers the strength and grace to live according to God's will by the transforming power of the Holy Spirit.
You may not realize it's fear, but it is. Fear of Hell, fear of being wrong, fear of adjusting your worldview. It is fear-based. You fear for your brother, you fear for society, fear, fear, fear and with no rational basis.
IT was entirely accurate.
You "love" because you are afraid not to, and lack the insight - surprising in a minister - to realize that that it is fear that motivates you. Even if you were in the U.S., it would make you a shaky decision-maker.
Finally, you have not convince us that the "god" you present has anything to offer. It is a miserable, cold, vicious picture you present to us. You have failed in this respect, and there is no love reflected in the God you purport.
If you would truly like to know what reduces your brother's and other gays' life expectancies, look at suicide statistics and ask yourself how many of them were driven to it by self-righteous religious family members. Look at drug use and ask if - just perhaps - the declaration of homosexuality as innately disordered, an affront to God, an abomination from navel-gazing religionists has made any escape seem good. Look at promiscuity, STD's and ask if the expectation that gays are all sex-mad perverts isn't at least partially to blame.
You created the culture that drives so many to desperation, then accuse them for being desperate. You bear great responsibility, Brian.
And don't lecture us on self-control, Brian. Marriage, St. Paul tells us, is only for those who "burn" so they can't control themselves -- how's the wife and kids? How dare you presume to know so much about us?
Post a Comment