LGBTQ+

Gay people getting married is a threat to my marriage!

Some of you may know, tomorrow is a Big Voting Day in North Carolina as people prepare to weigh in on Amendment 1.

I’ve had this conversation [yes, really]. I’ll bet some of you have, too.

Other Person: Gay people getting married is a threat to my marriage.

Me: Oh, I’m so sorry. I didn’t realize you were getting a divorce.

OP: Wait . . . what? No! I’m not getting a divorce!

Me: Sorry, I thought you meant that literally. That your marriage was threatened.

OP: No, I just meant that regular marriage is threatened.

Me: What do you mean, “regular marriage”?

OP: You know, traditional marriage.

Me: Traditional? Like, old-fashioned?

OP: Like in the Bible. Man, woman. They fall in love, they get married.

Me: That doesn’t sound very traditional or Biblical. I was thinking you meant, like, arranged marriages. Or maybe concubines.

OP: Concu…what? Never mind. No, like the way God designed it in the beginning. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve and all that jazz.

Me: You know, that sounds a lot like arranged marriage, actually. Adam and Eve didn’t have much choice, did they? I mean, being the first two people and all.

OP: Whatever. See, it’s those gay people and their agenda. They want to force churches to marry them.

Me: Wow, did something like that happen at your church?

OP: No.

Me: Your friend’s church?

OP: Uh, no.

Me: A church you read about in the paper?

OP: Not exactly.

Me: I’m confused. I thought you said churches were being forced to marry people.

OP: Well, it could happen. You watch, that’s next. First they ruin marriage, then they take away our religious freedom.

Me: I’m still not aware of this happening anywhere. Can you provide an example?

OP: . . .

See, here’s the thing. “Traditional” American marriage is, at least in a certain sense, “threatened.” But what’s being threatened is not your right to marry or stay married. It’s your exclusive version of marriage, where you get your rights and someone else doesn’t because you’ve voted to keep it that way.

Will allowing two men or two women to marry each other lead to having multiple spouses or being able to wed a biological relative? Who knows? I don’t have a crystal ball, and neither does anyone else. The slippery slope is not a reason to deny people their rights. It’s entirely possible that all sorts of things we don’t like might be allowed into the definition of marriage. But this is only in the legal sense. How you, or I, or anyone else wants to define it in the religious or spiritual sense isn’t going anywhere.

I urge those of you who have a vote tomorrow not to use it out of fear. Don’t cast your vote because you’re worried that your rights might be in danger or because you think something else might come up in the future. I understand voting with your conscience and your moral values. However, be sure that it’s those values and not the fear of the future that drives you.

And even if you believe that two men or two women getting married is immoral, try to understand that not everyone shares this opinion. Not even all Christians agree. Agreeing to “live and let live” is not an endorsement of something you find sinful. That’s part of finding the balance between living your convictions and letting others do the same.

As I’ve said before, learn what it’s like in someone else’s life. Find out what it means to people you know personally. Even if you don’t come away agreeing with the other person, you will still have learned something important. I can sit here and type out words and urge you to see things my way, but my rights are not at stake. You need to hear it from someone who can tell you what it’s like for him or her personally.

Don’t let the conversation end here.

Your Rights: Disappointingly Not in Danger

LGBTQ+

I would have liked to believe that the idea that our rights are diminished when the rights of others are increase was a thing of the past. Sadly, that is not the case. It doesn’t make any sense to me. I mean, when women won the right to vote, it’s not like anyone stopped men from continuing to do so:

[Mr. Jones enters the polling place.]

Ms. Smith: Hold on there, mister.

Mr. Jones: Huh?

Ms. Smith: Is it true that you are, in fact, a man?

Mr. Jones: Uh…wha?

Ms. Smith: That is to say, you’re of the male gender?

Mr. Jones: Well, uh, yeah, last time I checked.

Ms. Smith: You might want to check again, just to be sure.

[Mr. Jones steps away to check.]

Mr. Jones: Yup, still a man.

Ms. Smith: And is it also true that your wife, Mrs. Jones, is a woman?

Mr. Jones: Last I che…uh, I mean, yes.

Ms. Smith: Well, according to this paper here, now that she has the right to vote, you are no longer allowed to do so.

Mr. Jones: Why?

Ms. Smith: Well, you see, when one person gets the right to vote, it means we have to take it away from someone else. You have now given your vote to your wife.

Mr. Jones: . . .

Ms. Smith: I just need you to sign right here that you understand your new lack of rights. [holds out a paper and pen]

[Mr. Jones signs the paper.]

Right. Last election, both my husband and I were allowed to vote. Funny how that works, you know, that whole “women’s suffrage” thing.

Same thing with marriage equality. The fact that the two men the next street over can now legally marry each other didn’t somehow negate my marriage. I believe the certificate is still filed away in our attic, and so far, no one has come knocking on our door to reclaim it.

And before anyone gets his or her undies in a bunch, here are a couple of things to consider:

Yes, your church will be able to say “no” to a same-sex couple. Churches deny people marriage ceremonies all the time. Divorced people, people living together, partners of different religions, non-members. Chances are, if a same-sex couple isn’t already attending your church, they’re probably not going to go there just to get married.
No, this isn’t ruining “traditional” marriage. There are a lot of other things that have already taken their toll. Stop grousing about this one. Don’t like same-sex marriage? Fine, don’t marry someone of the same sex. Don’t like divorce or adultery? Don’t do those either.
No, this isn’t going to lead to people being able to marry their dogs or small children. I’m pretty sure a good case can be made that the dog and the child can’t consent.
Yes, there’s a chance that some things may change in public school curricula so that all types of families (including ones with two moms or two dads) are represented. But guess what? Your kid, whether you know it or not, is already exposed to these things. Don’t like it? Homeschool, send your kid to private school, or tell your kid you don’t agree. It’s not all that different from having evolution taught in high schools. Not to mention the fact that no one is telling your kid to be gay, merely pointing out the existence of gay people.

I’m not telling you that you have to support marriage equality. But I am asking you not to prevent it, particularly not on the grounds that you are somehow losing your own rights. You’re not. You still have every right to get married. You still have the right to all the privileges and benefits of marriage. Giving someone else the same thing does not in any way change that. Stop using that as your argument.

Score: Girl Scouts 1, Uptight People 0

LGBTQ+, Parenting

By now it’s old news that Girl Scouts U.S.A. allowed a transgender child to join a troop in Colorado. The reason this is resurfacing is that there are still people protesting about it. Some of my friends and I are still seeing messages on Facebook. I have at least one acquaintance who sends me frequent messages about why my daughter should not be part of such an “immoral” organization. And just a few days ago, a friend whose daughter wants to join Girl Scouts had her post removed on Facebook because someone reported it as “abusive.”

Having already dispelled the myth that Girl Scouts donates part of their proceeds to Planned Parenthood or that they’re giving out how-to sex tracts to 8-year-old girls, protestors have moved on to the next Big Bad Evil. Unfortunately, this one won’t go away, because it’s true. Girl Scouts states that if a child is living as a girl and her parents present her as such, she may join a troop. Right this minute, unbeknownst to anyone, there may be any number of transgirls in troops across the U.S.

I think I understand the fear behind the protests, ridiculous though it may be. The fear is that we’re sending our girls out into the world, under someone else’s care. We want to know that they are safe. The mistaken belief that a transgirl is really just a boy in disguise muddies our sense of security. There’s a fear that a “boy” amongst a group of girls will try to take advantage of them. Maybe not at age 7, but certainly by the time puberty hits.

Already, from an early age, we are teaching our children two falsehoods: That boys and men are to be feared, and that transpeople are just pretending to be something they are not. This fosters a sense of impending victimization in young girls. It also fails to understand the truth about transpeople. And when we then refuse to allow our daughters to participate in Girl Scouts, they miss out on having a safe place to learn healthier interactions.

Anyone has the right to refuse his or her daughter participation in Girl Scouts. No one is being forced to support the organization by purchasing cookies. And even if the issue is not wanting to have a daughter in the same troop with a transgirl, then parents are welcome to look for another troop or leave their daughter as a Juliet (a scout without a troop). But protesting the organization and demanding that they change their policies to one that becomes less inclusive is not appropriate, especially given that Girl Scouts is a non-religious organization. And reporting someone’s Facebook status because you don’t like the fact that another girl might join, that another parent is making a different choice than you would have, is downright cowardly.

You know what I say to that? Right on, Girl Scouts. You’ve now assured that I will be continuing to allow my child to participate and that for the rest of my life, I will make sure that I continue to support your organization.

Why I Don’t Need a Gay Bestie

LGBTQ+, Relationships, Women

Note to my wonderful gay friends and family: I am not ranting about you personally. I love you, and you have done nothing wrong. But media’s version of what our relationship should be is wrong, and that’s what I’m talking about here.

Note to women who have a gay best friend: If this works for you, that’s awesome. I’m not here to tell you your friendships are all wrong. You should have the kind of friendships that you value and enjoy.

About a year ago, I read a book on female friendships. To be blunt, it sucked. Nothing in it resembled any kind of friendship I’ve ever had. I don’t engage in “girl crushes” with shiny, new friends. If I spend time with you, it’s because I like you and want to know you better, not because you represent something I lack in my own life. I have no frienemies because I choose my friends carefully. If you act like an ass, you won’t be my friend very long. And I don’t have a gay friend who advises every aspect of my life, from relationships to fashion to personal health.

If I were to take books like that seriously, or if I were to watch too much television, I would get the impression that every woman is secretly in need of a gay dude to be her life coach. Don’t get me wrong, I love my gay friends. But I don’t have that kind of relationship with any of them. In fact, I don’t have that kind of relationship with any one person.

The Hollywood romanticized notion of the Gay Best Friend is terrible on several levels. First, this is not good for women. There is a secret message in there for us: He may be a swishy gay guy, but he’s still anatomically male. We all still need someone with copious amounts of free testosterone to tell us what to do. Sure, it elevates us from being pushed around by our husbands and boyfriends. But it never gives us real power over our own lives. We can’t tell what looks good on us, we need a man (who, ironically, isn’t all that interested in what we look like anyway) to inform us. We make poor relationship decisions because we just don’t understand men, so we need a guy who can tell us what we need to know without trying to get up our skirts himself.

Second, it’s bad for women’s relationships with each other. Apparently, if I want to know if my butt looks fat in those jeans, I need a gay guy along for the ride. You know what? I have two sisters, both of whom are happy to tell me exactly what those jeans do to my butt. I trust the women in my life. But in this gay bestie scenario, I’m not supposed to be able to do that.

Third, it’s bad for gay men. I have nothing against gay guys who like fashion and like giving advice. But I know more than an average number of gay men, and you will be shocked to discover that they are all very different from each other. (Amazing, isn’t it?) This version of gay men reduces them to fashion-conscious dispensers of wisdom for women, as though that is what they live for. Not to mention the fact that this takes friendships between women and gay men and turns it from mutual love and respect into the kind of relationship one might have with her handbag.

Finally, this is generally a bad concept for friendship. I am not the Big Name Star of my own action flick, with my friends taking the role of Robin to my Batman. Every person in my life has a consciousness of his or her own. They don’t live to play the supporting parts. Unfortunately, far too many films and television shows make it appear that this self-centered approach to relationships is the real, true way the world works (or should work). The end result is friendships wrecked over the me-first attitude that our gal-pals and our buddies are our personal satellites. (Not to mention that any friend who constantly told me my ass looked fat and my relationships were crap would very quickly find him- or herself no longer my friend.)

We need to foster healthier ideas about relationships between friends. I cherish my friends. Whatever I have with them, I wish I could bottle it and sell it. I have just about the best friends any woman could ask for. I never feel disadvantaged among them; I hope they feel the same.

How will you honor the women friends in your life today?

Silence or Dialogue? Or Both?

Gender Identity, LGBTQ+

I’m all for respectful dialogue. I really am. It may not seem like it, since I spend a good part of my time blogging about the unfortunate ways the Church behaves. But in “real life,” I do engage in regular conversations wherein I don’t necessarily agree with the other people. Believe it or not, as progressive as I am, this occurs on both sides of the aisle.

But there are times when I think it’s necessary for Christians to just plain shut the hell up. When we have a different view of whether or not something is moral, and the other party is not a Christian, we need to leave well enough alone. In fact, this is what the Bible tells us to do.

Next Friday, April 20, is GLSEN’s Day of Silence. This is an opportunity for people to come together in solidarity against anti-LGBT bullying. Please keep that in mind: This is not the “Day of Yay! Let’s All Be Gay!” or the “Day of Making Those Religious Jerks Pay for What They’ve Done to Us” or the “Day of Teaching Our Kids How Gay Sex Works.” It’s about standing up against hate crimes. (Please read the GLSEN site. Trust me.)

Unfortunately, Focus on the Family seems to believe that this is a great opportunity to make sure that everyone knows what Christians think about sexuality and gender issues, with their own uninformed beliefs at the forefront. (Please don’t get me started on what I think of Focus on the Family. Just…no. Because then I might tell you, and believe me, it won’t be pretty.)

On April 19, FoF is calling for a Day of Dialogue. I suppose (grudgingly) that on the surface, this doesn’t sound like a horrible idea. But there are multiple problems with it.

First, from the web site:

The bad news is that the need for God’s hope has never been greater—especially in our public schools, many of which have increasingly delved into promoting controversial sexual topics to students, such as homosexuality, transgenderism and gay marriage. All too often, this occurs in a way that is extremely disrespectful of parental rights and students’ religious freedoms. Many times it creates a pressure-cooker situation for Christian students since this promotion often occurs without parental knowledge or permission—and only one point of view is allowed, while others are disparaged.

I want to scream and rip my hair out at the roots every time I hear someone complain that our “rights” as Christians are being taken away. Not only that, this is the most uninformed garbage I’ve seen in a long time. So what if schools are (finally) addressing these taboo topics? It’s about freakin’ time. No one is “promoting” anything. No one is telling you or your kids to stop believing whatever you want about what the Bible says. What schools are, and should be, saying is that your kids can’t bully LGBT classmates. They’re also saying that even though your religious sensibilities view it as sin, not everyone feels that way, and your religious views do not have a place in the classroom curriculum.

Second, FoF appears not to understand the real purpose of the Day of Silence. Someone should inform them. There is no “gay agenda” being promoted here, other than the desire to be viewed as a person and not as a “condition.” Let me repeat, this is about bullying.

Third, FoF certainly does have an agenda. Specific religious beliefs do not belong in public school, period. That includes promotion of limited ideas about gender identity and expression. I am not in any way saying that male and female are equivalent or interchangeable. But FoF seems to be confused about what it really means to be transgendered. (Which is an entire post of its own, so I won’t get into that here.) The material provided by FoF is limited to a very narrow set of beliefs, leaving out subsets even of Evangelical Christians who might tend to agree otherwise, if the definitions weren’t so specific.

Fourth, this is not Biblical. When non-Christians don’t agree with our morality, we need to leave them alone. This isn’t the way to bring people to Christ. FoF’s idea that Jesus made it his mission to speak the truth fails to note that he was speaking the truth to his own people. He wasn’t going around telling the Roman Gentiles the “truth.” In the same way, we need to save sharing the finer points for after someone has become a believer. If Christians want to dialogue with other Christians about their views on the Day of Silence or LGBT issues generally, no problem. But it’s not appropriate for a non-Christian audience. That means it’s not appropriate at school, as religious debate among people of the same faith really has no place there.

Finally, I am ready to pummel the next person to make it sound like the LGBT community is ruining morality for our country. Seriously, that’s being done quite nicely by non-LGBT folks. Honestly, why pick on this one thing? How come we don’t have a Day of Dialogue for Christians to express Biblical views on divorce or greed or racism (three issues addressed by Jesus himself)? Those are far more important issues with far more dire consequences for everyone.

If you or your kids want to participate in this Day of Dialogue, that’s your right. You do, in fact, still have free speech, last I checked. But I would encourage you to take a different approach. Rather than taking this conversation into the school and unleashing your views on non-Christians, why not make space for it in and among our churches? I don’t mean standing up and announcing your views and correlating Bible texts, then sitting down feeling satisfied that you’ve cleared things up. I mean that churches with different views on the issue ought to talk about it. We ought to discuss how we read the text and why, and what the consequences of our interpretation might be (on both sides). If we are truly mature people of faith, we should be able to do this respectfully. Keeping our doctrinal differences internal is not only the Biblical way to handle it, it’s also much more grace-filled.

What do you think—are we ready to move forward and “reason together”?

_________________________________________________________________________________________

If you can handle commenting here while honoring the dignity of the other readers, feel free to share your thoughts. Due to the controversial nature of the topic, I reserve the right to remove posts that are inflammatory or bullying in nature.

“We heard about your church and decided to check it out…”

Doctrine, LGBTQ+, Outreach

The other day, I played a game with myself called “what if.”

What if a married couple came to your church because they’d heard about it via postcard in the mail or through a web search? Imagine they come in, two small children in tow. They worship among the other people in attendance. They bring their kids to the children’s ministry or Sunday school or junior church. Suppose they like what they hear: the Sunday sermon is meaningful, the praise music is uplifting, and the people seem genuinely friendly. Their kids love their class and begin to make new friends. This family decides to settle in, remaining in attendance for six months. They decide the time has come to join as members.

Pretty common experience in many churches, especially those on a steady trend of growth. I know that at most churches, people would be thrilled with a new family becoming a permanent part of the congregation. It would mean more people attending, the possibility that this family might reach out to their friends, family, and neighbors. It would mean the chance to see their kids grow up and hopefully integrate into the life of the church. It would mean more people to pitch in and help out in the ministries of the church. It would mean a chance to make new friends. Everyone wins, right?

Just not if the couple happens to be two women or two men.

I live in a place where marriage equality is the law. So a married same-sex couple might actually be legally joined. For that reason, we need to start asking ourselves what we might do as a church in a situation like the one I described above. It’s possible that a couple might attend a church unaware of that church’s position on homosexuality, even if the church appears conservative in other ways. I attended a church for ten years, and never once heard the pastor give a sermon on the subject.

In a church that holds to a certain reading of Scripture, there are usually prohibitions (written or not) against membership when a person is actively engaged in something the church specifically teaches as sin. That means that an unpartnered gay person would likely be allowed membership, provided he or she remained celibate. A gay couple would probably be allowed to continue to attend church, but would not be offered membership. In some churches, membership might be extended to one or both if they were to end their relationship and commit to celibacy. So that brings up the question of what to do if the couple I described seeks membership.

There are a number of possibilities, all of them fairly grim and not particularly loving:

Refuse to allow the couple membership, but let them know they are welcome to continue attending. That might be an option, but it would severely restrict the ways in which that family could serve in the church. Many churches have policies prohibiting people from participating in certain ministries unless they are members. Besides, would you want to keep going to a church that wouldn’t let you join officially? You might as well just…
Ask them to leave. Pretty rude, considering they’ve been with you several months. Still, at least it’s honest. But unless you are giving them the name and address of a local affirming community, you have no assurance that these people will ever set foot in a church again. And if you choose not to do so (because you’re kind of self-righteous?), are you saying God has given up on them? If you’re in the business of helping people find Jesus, that misses the mark. Besides, we’re talking about people who have a six-month history at the church. Kicking them out would really hurt. So maybe you…
Tell them they can be members if they break up. I suppose there are people who might have considered that to be some bizarre sort of solution before same-sex couples could legally marry. Nowadays, that couple can’t just split up. They would literally have to divorce, which introduces issues such as alimony, child support, and custody. And seriously, what kind of heartless jerk does that to a family with children anyway? Plus there’s the problem that we don’t do that with other couples who are not married under “Biblical” circumstances. I’ve never heard of anyone being asked to divorce a spouse because they had had an affair and then married each other. Well, as a last resort I suppose you could…
Shun the family or refuse to serve them in any way unless they “renounce” their sin. What part of “love” wasn’t clear? I’ve never seen ignoring anyone work as a means to salvation. This ends up in the same place as bullet point number two.

So what are we going to do in that situation?

See, the problem here is that whole “live the sinner, hate the sin” thing. It allows us to separate people from their behavior, but it denies the fact that there is more to people than their behavior. It allows us to imagine being gay as something people do as opposed to someone they are. It lets us think “those gay people” are doing yucky things with each other that we don’t like, and keeps us from seeing two people who have built a relationship, a marriage, a family, and a life together. It prevents us from understanding that there are children who could be hurt, not by their parents’ “sinful lifestyle” but by our condemnation.

It could happen. A church web site proclaiming the congregation to be “Bible-believing” or “conservative” or “traditional” might say something about whether or not a married same-sex couple would be welcome (probably not). On the other hand, many mainline churches could be described with those words, yet are in fact affirming. A warm welcome on their first visit might indicate the future of the relationship with that church. But a lot of people would be reluctant to openly reject anyone right away, even if they felt uncomfortable. Would it work if someone were to simply pull the family aside, explain things to them, and turn them loose? I don’t know. I suppose it might ease the conscience of the people at that church, knowing they were honest right away.

Real life, real people, are complicated. We can’t just wait for a situation to occur before we know what we’re going to do about it. That leads to panic and ends up with too many people being hurt. I think it’s time to face the facts that even though an awful lot of churches might like it to, marriage equality is not going away. Any church that isn’t affirming needs to decide what will happen when the inevitable occurs and a family walks through the doors looking for a church to call home.

Gay people getting married is a threat to my marriage!

Your Rights: Disappointingly Not in Danger

Score: Girl Scouts 1, Uptight People 0

Why I Don’t Need a Gay Bestie

Silence or Dialogue? Or Both?

“We heard about your church and decided to check it out…”

Let's Be Friends

Sharing

Tip Jar

Shopping Cart

Your Shopping Cart

Supposed Crimes Publishing

Beaten Track Publishing

More Content