Western Methodist Social Action Committee Opposes Proposition 8

The California-Nevada Chapter Steering Committee of the Methodist Federation for Social Action voted unanimously on Saturday, August 9, 2008 to oppose Proposition 8 on the November California ballot.

Religion and Gay Marriage

"What if this whole crusade's a charade, and behind it all there's a price to be paid for the blood on which we dine, justified in the name of the holy and the divine?"

By: DaniDe

I'll never fully understand religion. The topic itself fascinates me because it is one that so many people get worked up over. Although I was raised Catholic, I currently am at a stage in my life where I don't know if I believe in the existence of a higher being nor do I truly care. At one point in my life I probably would have said that death was my greatest fear because of my wavering faith in Christianity and the overall uncertainty that comes from it. But now I have come to realize that death isn't something to be feared and that my energy and worries are must better wasted on issues relevant to the present situations that I live in. I simply do not feel that I need to have the looming threat of eternal damnation in order to force me to be a good person. To me, it seems inherently hypocritical to one who practices a religion to say that they require a religious backing in order to create or even reinforce a desire to do good. I have never felt that I should be a good person because it is what was expected of me by a higher power. Nor have I ever felt that I need a super-empirical safety net to give my life value. I guess what I have come to realize is that the reason I am not religious is because I have no purpose for being so. I am able to obtain ethics and value out of my daily life without a need or desire for religion or spirituality.

However, even though I personally do not need religion in my life to be a happy and fulfilled person, I wish to clarify that I do not condemn those who do. Furthermore, I find nothing wrong with having a strong religious identity and I do not belittle those with a solid faith or spirituality by labeling them as weak-minded. I do, however, have a huge issue with religion when it becomes appallingly misinterpreted and abused. Too many times throughout history (and even in modern day) religion has been used as a justification for actions that are in no way, shape, or form truly representative of the intentions of religious practice. To further elaborate this point, I call upon an example that illustrates how modern misinterpretation of the Bible can cause religion to be vilely misconstrued and used as a weapon of intolerance and injustice.

But, before I do so, I would like to say that despite the fact that I am not religious, that does not mean I do not think that the Bible is not an excellent source for values and morality. Although I may not believe in some of the Church's teachings about the divine nature of Jesus of Nazareth, that does not mean that I do not think the message that Jesus preached does not have any value. In fact, I truly think that the message and values Jesus taught are ones that all people should live by so long as they actually put into practice his message and values and do not corrupt them to their own benefit. What I mean by this is that many modern interpretations of the Bible are not truly interpreted in the spirit of the message of Jesus of Nazareth.

This becomes clearly evident with the issue of homosexuality. If I could only count how many times that I have heard someone say homosexuality is wrong and that sodomy is a sin. While the Catholic church has recently slightly changed their position on homosexuality (they now preach that being a homosexual is not a sin so long as homosexuals do not engage in sexual behavior) many fundamentalist Christian denominations believe that homosexuality is not only inherently wrong but that it is sinful and disgusting. To this, they back their arguments by quoting scripture and different biblical verses. Apparently, after doing so, they find that their arguments have sound proof and that their stance on the issue is thus completely justified.

How very foolish this approach really is.

I am not sure how many people have ever heard of the idea of "context" reading but if anyone has ever taken an SAT they probably recall coming across the reading section of the SAT and encountering a question that in one form or another asked, "What is the main idea of this paragraph?" Following this question, there would be four options. Usually a couple of them would be direct quotes from the passage that, although they were mentioned within the passage, are really just diminutive details that really are not representative of the overall purpose or intention of the passage. Then there will be a couple answers that don't quote the text, but offer a summary of it—one correct, the other wrong. One answer will have clearly nothing to do with the topic and offer a summary to some text completely foreign to the passage on the page before it. The final answer may not have any words directly from the text but after deductions and analytical connections are made, it is evident that it truly gives the best representation of what the intention of the passage was. This answer is the correct answer.

I call upon this example to show how one quote or one scripture citing can rarely truly represent the main idea of a text. So when people use Old Testament passages to justify their anti-homosexual stances, I become upset by their method of biblical interpretation. First off, most Christians argue the Old Testament in itself is outdated and whereas the Old Testament was a document of the covenant of the Jewish people with God, the New Testament is a document of the new covenant of all people with God. Since this is the approach taken by most Christians, I find it in bad taste to turn to the Old Testament to justify a teaching of anti-homosexuality. But even then, my biggest issue goes back to saying the Bible justifies anti-homosexuality by quoting single biblical passages. It is at this point that I say people need to learn how to "context" read, that is, look for the main idea of the Bible as a whole—and, if you are a Christian, specifically emphasize the main idea of the New Testament. To those who think they can justify any interpretation of the Bible as being anti-homosexual after doing so I must say to them--Think again. I've read the bible in its entirety and I've been educated on it thoroughly (13 years of Catholic Schooling!). I know I am capable of quoting more scripture verses and showing more knowledge of biblical history, authorship, themes, and purposes than most Christians or Catholics who swear by the Bible as their book of salvation. In other words, I know a bit about the bible so I truly despise when religious folk argue with me that I am uninformed of the purposes behind Christian texts and doctrine just because I do not practice them. So, when you tell me that the Bible is anti-homosexual I simply cannot do anything but tell you that you have been utterly misinformed. The Bible I know shows Jesus as a healer, forgiver of sins, and a friend to societal outcasts. Jesus was a friend of the prostitutes, the beggars, the tax collectors, the Samaritans—all groups of people that were considered the outcasts of society in his time and day. So, if you, by any capability are able to apply situational factors from the past to the present, you would realize that, had Jesus been around today he would have befriended society's outcasts--who better to fall in that category than the homosexual community which so many continue to condemn today. To those Christians who condemn homosexuals, I say to you, who are you to condemn, when your own God told you "Let he without sin cast the first stone." The God of the New Testament, the God of the Christians, is a loving and forgiving God who extends his welcome to all people. And, as Jesus himself told his disciples, the final and greatest commandment of all is "To love your neighbor as yourself." If this truly is the commandment above all other commandments, laws, and teachings, it seems that any teaching that could even begin to appear anti-homosexual would be overridden by the ultimate commandment that Jesus established. As Jesus told us, all people are our neighbors (a category that includes homosexuals) so his commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves meant that we must love all people as we do ourselves. So I must ask then, how can one even begin to love a homosexual if they condemn their very being? I just don't see how that is possible. To me it seems that any person who is homophobic on the basis of religious belief is actually in violation of their own biblical doctrine, for they are, above all things, breaking the greatest commandment of them all.

It is with this interpretation in mind, that I believe society has wronged the homosexual community. Many religious people do not support gay marriage today because they either believe that 1. Homosexuality in itself in wrong or that 2. Marriage is a holy institution established by God between a Man and a woman. To any person who finds themselves falling into either of these categories, I would like to point-out that marriage was an institution separate of religion long before the time of Jesus. It wasn't even viewed to be a ceremony in which God intervened until a Church council if 300AD decided to make it a sacrament. So, marriage was an institution originally established by mankind that mankind later transformed to be a covenant between two people and the Lord. In this sense, the intolerance that arises from not allowing homosexuals to marry does not come from a biblical standpoint or even an accurately interpreted religious viewpoint, it really comes from the prejudice of those who attempt to justify their intolerance by basis of their faith even when their faith, in essence, does not truly allow for it.

It is for these reason that I do not believe that the anti-homosexual base in America is rooted in the proper practice of religious doctrine. I truly believe, and do so with biblical evidentiary support, that anyone who attempts to use scripture to justify injustice, intolerance, and prejudice does so out of their own selfish bigotry and contempt. For, as Shakespeare once wrote, "Even the devil can quote scripture for his own purposes."

As Shakespeare believed, at the end of the day, any religious book--be it the Bible, the Tanakh, or the Qu'ran--can be used to justify evil actions that contradict the original intentions of the text from which they are derived. It is these contradictions that lead to problems when they are grossly misconstrued. And it is these problems that have become a significant issue at the heart of religious intolerance and misunderstanding in the world that we live in today.

Against God's law?

I was on a radio show this weekend to discuss "Should society recognize gay marriage?" Well, I assumed we would be discussing the legality of the subject, problems some people have with the general idea, and of course the "gay people do not deserve special rights" argument.

To my dismay, the show focused on "Is it against God's law?"

Homosexuality is not unique in its status as an issue some people use to justify their hatred and/or repression of others. Throughout the history of this country, the world, and the church there have been other issues that were divisive in nature: anti-Semitism, slavery, and female clergy to name a few.

The person kept arguing "being homosexual is a choice." Being gay isn't a choice; it is something you are born with.

After the show I posted a blog on the radio shows website. Click here to view it.

Pacific Gas & Electric enters fight to defeat California's Proposition 8

As it now stands, California's November ballot will introduce Proposition 8 with these words: "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." On Tuesday, proponents of the proposition went to court to change that "inflammatory" language, saying it will unfairly influence voters to reject the measure.

The legal challenge came hours after same-sex-marriage advocates welcomed a corporate powerhouse to their campaign efforts - Pacific Gas & Electric, which donated $250,000 to a California gay rights group. The utility said it wanted to support a "fundamental right" for its gay and lesbian employees.

Regardless of how it ends up being worded, the result will be the same if the law is passed; same-sex couples will be unable to marry.

Massachusetts lawmakers repeal residency requirement for marriage

By a vote of 118 to 35, the Massachusetts House passed legislation repealing a 1913 law, which prevents out-of-state same-sex couples from marrying if they could not marry in their home state. The legislation was passed by the Senate earlier this month and is expected to be signed by Governor Patrick in short order.

Gunman opens fire at LGBT affirming church; 2 dead, 5 in critial condition

Church services were disrupted Sunday at a gay-affirming church in Knoxville when a lone gunman opened fire. Seven people have been injured. Two have died. Two were treated and released and five remain in critical or serious condition at UT Medical Center. Police found a multi-page, handwritten letter in the vehicle of the suspect.

The Knoxville News Sentinel reports that Chief Owen said the letter stated his "hatred of the liberal movement," Owen said. "Liberals in general, as well as gays." (more)

LGBT influence increases at the United Nations

With the ongoing fights in Arizona, California, and Florida to make same-sex marriage illegal, some good news for LGBT people worldwide; the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) has granted consultative status to two groups that work on sexual orientation and gender identity. The two groups approved on July 21 and 22, 2008 are COC Netherlands and the State Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Transsexuals and Bisexuals of Spain (FELGTB), national organizations representing lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the Netherlands and Spain.

Consultative status is a key means for civil society to access the United Nations. It allows nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to deliver oral and written reports at UN meetings, and to organize events on UN premises worldwide. With it, these groups can share their information and analysis of the abuses and discrimination LGBT people confront around the world.

“States from all five regions voted to overturn the negative recommendation from the NGO Committee in regards to FELGTB Spain,” said Philipp Braun, co-secretary general of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA). “We would like the committee to acknowledge the repeated message sent by ECOSOC that it should recommend LGBT groups. We also congratulate our members COC and FELGTB on their victory.”

Marriage is currently available to same-sex couples in six countries. The Netherlands was the first country to allow same-sex marriage in 2001. Same-sex marriages are also legal in Belgium, Canada, Norway, South Africa and Spain, along with two states in the United States, Massachusetts and recently California.

In 2005, Spain became the first country in the world to recognize same-sex marriage on equal terms while at the same time allowing gays to adopt and receive artificial insemination on the same terms as heterosexuals.

California Supreme Court Denies Gay Marriage Ban Challenge

The California Supreme Court today rejected a bid to remove a measure from the November ballot that would restore the state's ban on gay marriage.

Without any comments from Chief Justice Ronald M. George, the court unanimously refused to hear the legal challenge, filed last month by civil rights groups. The organizations argued that the ballot measure was legally flawed and should not be put before the voters.

This means Proposition 8 will stay on the ballot. It also clears the way for the California Secretary of State to print voter information pamphlets on the issue.

The latest legal salvo ensures that voters will consider the measure, which would amend the California Constitution to confine marriage to a union between a man and a woman.

Unlike most states, one Chief Justice and six associate justices are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. The appointments are confirmed by the public at the next general election; justices also come before voters at the end of their 12-year terms.