Romell Weekly on the "Threat to the Family" Argument Against Marriage Equality

Romell Weekly, the “Gay Pastor,” has recently blogged about the “real threat to the family.” And, no, it’s not marriage equality.

Weekly, who drafted the Affirmation Declaration, describes himself as “a Christian, a teacher of Scripture, a pastor, and gay.” He notes that “although I emphasize my sexual orientation for the purposes of ministry, it really doesn’t define who I am. I long for the day when such emphases are unnecessary because the Church openly affirms people across the spectrum of sexual orientations and gender identities.”

Following is an excerpt from his recent post, “The Real Threat to the Family.”

______________________________________

. . . In both the Old and New Testaments, the family unit took multiple forms. There were units with one father and one mother (vis-à-vis the Adam and Eve paradigm), multiple mothers in a single family unit (vis-à-vis the Jacob, Leah, and Rachel paradigm, not to mention the concubines Bilhah and Zilpah), and even single-parent households, like Mary, after the death of her husband, Joseph. Even polygamy is affirmed by the fact that only bishops and deacons were commanded to be the husband of one wife, while nothing whatsoever was ever commanded of the rest of the Christian population!

Obviously, Genesis 1-2 isn’t as indicative of the divine perspective on marriage as our opponents so monotonously claim -- that is, unless you read it in isolation from the rest of the Bible and force commands upon all humankind where none exist in the text. Yet we’re the ones who are accused of twisting Scripture.

And what about the famous argument that children need a mother and a father? On its surface, this argument is an affront to the many families that were forced to endure with a single parent, either as a result of abandonment or widowhood. Should we teach single parents that it is their Christian duty to get remarried as soon as possible, so as to recreate the structure that God requires of all legitimate families; or, on the other hand, is there some measure of grace that extends to people who may not meet the biblical ideal because of the circumstances involved?

And what exactly is this biblical ideal? Anti-gay Christians require a model of one man and one woman; but I’ve already demonstrated that Scripture, itself, doesn’t enforce such a rule. I would argue that the ideal has nothing to do with a person’s sex, and more to do with a person’s support structure. With two parents in the home, the weight of child-rearing and provision doesn’t fall squarely upon one person’s shoulders. Partnership is demonstrated in its best light by two people working together to provide a stable home environment, a stable family structure in which to raise children.

But, isn’t it important for children to have the parental perspective of both a man and a woman? Isn’t that a pertinent part of their childhood development? I don’t believe that it is. The social construct of gender (man and woman) is not universal or enduring. Even since biblical times, the role of the man as provider and head of the household, and of the woman as housekeeper and helper to the husband, has morphed into a more equalized partnership in which both people contribute in all aspects of a healthy family environment. Some may claim that this is unbiblical, but if you ask me, it’s a more accurate representation of the fact that in Christ there is neither male nor female. Truly, society has finally caught up with the perspective that God has always held of the divisions between man and woman -- that there is no division at all! Wasn’t that the pre-Fall intent, after all?

Besides, the argument always circles back to single-parent homes. Is the fact that single-parent homes have a greater chance of producing children who wind up troubled in adolescence and even later in love indicative of a need for a male and a female in the home, or is it, rather, indicative of the need of two adult figures to help share the burden of child-rearing? I argue that it’s the latter -- that the sex of the people don’t matter... It’s a matter of quantity -- is there someone there to help shoulder the burden? Is there someone there to help reinforce the authority of the other parent? Is there someone there to help provide a supervisory presence to children, ensuring that they aren’t required to raise themselves while a single parent works his/her butt off trying to keep a roof over everyone’s head?

Same-sex couples are every bit as capable of providing a stable home environment to children. In fact, one needn’t theorize about it. There are plenty of living examples of such homes right now. We need only consider the development of these children.

It has been my experience that the only downside to such homes is the pressure brought to bear on children in the school system because they come from households with same-sex parents. Some claim that such bullying proves how heartless it is for parents to raise their children in same-sex households. But, it’s interesting how they never consider how heartless it is for bigots to instill their anti-gay sentiments into yet another generation of people. It’s obvious that these bully children got their cruel attitudes from somewhere; yet nobody ever calls their parents on the carpet to account for the fact that they've taught their children -- explicitly or by antipathy -- that it’s okay to treat people in such ways. No, it’s the same-sex parents who are at fault. Unbelievable!

Gay people are not the threat to the family unit. I’ll tell you what the threat is. The threat is the Church’s misguided efforts to oppose same-sex marriage, or same-sex adoptions. The threat is the fact that the Church is expending all of its time, energy, and resources fighting families that don’t look like them, rather than trying to strengthen the crumbling families that already exist in their own local congregations. No, they’re too busy picketing same-sex marriages, rather than divorce courts. They’re too busy stopping families from existing, rather than preventing those that exist from falling apart. They need to focus on building families, rather than focusing on preventing new ones from existing.

Gay people don’t hate the family. Gay people aren’t out to destroy the family. We affirm family every day in the process of coming out so that our loved ones can have the chance to know and love us for who we are, as we know and love them. We affirm family every day in our pleas for the right to have families of our own. We affirm family every day by striving for the right to marry the person of our choosing. We affirm family every day by our desire to have children (via surrogacy) and/or to adopt children into our families, providing them with stable environments in which to be nurtured and to grow.

Oh no, my friends, we aren’t the threat to the family. The anti-gay wing of the Church is!

To read Weekly’s commentary in its entirety, click here.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
John Corvino on the “Always and Everywhere” Argument Against Marriage Equality
Patrick Ryan on the “Defense of Traditional Marriage” Argument Against Marriage Equality
Nathanial Frank on the “Natural Law” Argument Against Marriage Equality

A New Phase

The planning of the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform’s September 18, 2010 Synod of the Baptized entered a new phase recently with the printing and mailing (via both e-mail and snail mail) of an informational and registration brochure to approximately 2,000 people.

Above: The March 7 “mailing party” at my home in St. Paul.
From left: CCCR board members Eileen Rodel, Jane Collova, Bernie Rodel,
Mary Beckfeld and Paula Ruddy.

I have the honor of serving as co-chair of both the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform (CCCR) and its Synod 2010 planning group. One of my tasks in the lead-up to the synod will be to keep tabs on registrations. We’re hoping for 500 attendees.

Entitled “Claiming Our Place at the Table,” CCCR’s 2010 Synod invites Catholics from the local church of St. Paul-Minneapolis to come together and discuss practices that will bring our local church culture more in line with the Gospel message of love. We believe that we are committed by our baptism to our Church tradition, but we see a number of disconnects between our Roman Catholic Church practices and the mission of the Christian Church, which is to proclaim and manifest, as Jesus did, the reign of God. These disconnects and our response to them are matters of conscience to us. Accordingly, we want to be part of a transformed culture within our local church community in response to the Spirit of God and in service of the Church’s mission.

So what can folks expect if they attend CCCR’s 2010 Synod? Well, the day will start with an exploration of the model of Church that will best help us proclaim and manifest the reign of God. To help guide us in such an exploration, we’ll be hearing a keynote address by Paul Lakeland entitled “The Call of the Baptized: Be the Church, Live the Mission.” Dr. Lakeland holds the chair of the Aloysius P. Kelley, SJ Professor of Catholic Studies and is the director of the Center for Catholic Studies at Faitfield University in Fairfield, CT. He is also the author of The Liberation of the Laity (2004) and Catholicism at the Crossroads (2007). His latest book, Church: Living Communion (2009) has been described as “seizing the moment of a church on the brink of change and pointing the direction forward.”

In addition to a no doubt informative and energizing keynote address by Paul Lakeland, CCCR’s 2010 Synod will also provide an opportunity for participants to hear from the ten work/study groups that since CCCR’s April 18, 2009 Prayer Breakfast have been focusing on specific areas of disconnect so as to develop recommendations for best practices that will bring our local church culture more in line with the gospel message of compassion and justice. Those in attendance at the synod will be invited to join in the discussion of these recommendations around such issues as Bishop Selection, Catholic/Christian Identity, Church Authority and Governance, Faith Formation of Children and Youth, Catholic Spirituality, Mandatory Celibacy/Clericalism, Social Justice, Church as a Community of Equals, and Emerging Church. In addition, as I’ve noted previously at The Wild Reed, I’ve been facilitating a CCCR work/study group on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (see here and here).

Finally, participants at the synod will be invited to join the Action Coordinating Team (ACT). This body will be commissioned to plan and facilitate the starting of conversations within our families and parishes about the best practices recommended at the synod.


If you would like to learn more about CCCR’s 2010 Synod of the Baptized – including the synod’s schedule, venue, cost, and registration information, click here.

To register online, click here.

To print a registration form to mail in, click here.



To celebrate this new phase of the planning and implementation of the 2010 Synod, I share the following excerpts from Paul Lakeland’s book Church: Living Communion. These excerpts are from that part of the book that explores an “inductive ecclesiology,” i.e., a way of understanding and speaking about the Church that begins from the Church that actually exists, that is, all the ecclesial groups around the world that claim the name of “church.” Such an ecclesiology, says Lakeland, must reflect the inductive methodology outlined by the great twentieth-century Jesuit philosopher and theologian Bernard Lonergan. Thus this ecclesiology must be attentive (i.e., willing and capable of reading the signs of the times), intelligent (i.e., willing and able to practice discernment), reasonable, loving, and, if necessary, open to change.

_____________________________________

The Church is the communion of the converted and the communion of conversion. While this is not a concrete image, it is a very concrete process that underlies it. For the Church to be the Church most faithfully it always has to be asking itself what the Gospel call to mission demands of us now. Our faithfulness has to be to the Gospel call, not to the forms or practices that were appropriate to that call in times past. This does not mean that we have to jettison the past for the sake of jettisoning it, or out of some predilection for novelty, but it does mean that we cannot be slavishly bound to what worked in the past. When the Church was the driving force of medieval European society, or when the Church was in a struggle with the Protestant reformers, or when the American Church was trying to find a way to be both Catholic and American, these times called for certain historically conditioned courses of action. Today in the United States and in many other places around the world, we are not in anything like these situations. We are a vibrant religious community coexisting with others, Christian and non-Christian alike, in a secular and pluralistic state. As citizens we are shaped by American culture and history. As citizens we are shaped by American culture and history. As Catholic Christians we are also shaped by another related but distinct history and culture. Ongoing conversion call for courageous, Spirit-driven discernment of the changes we need to make in order not only to be attentive, intelligent, and reasonable but also – and above all to be loving. If the Catholic Church is not evidently a loving community of faith, then it is failing. If we are loving – and love must be other-directed – then, imperfect as we will be, we are doing something right. It is the response to the call to dynamic love that make us the same Church the world over; but it is how we incarnate that call in our own particular time and place that finally makes us faithful to the logic of conversion.

. . . If we are committed to the idea of the Church as the communion of the converted and of conversion, then the need for change will come as no surprise. A community of conversion is constantly in process of change; the challenge is to make the right changes, and these are dictated by the aims of conversion. . . . Conversion in the Church is to a more faithful attention to the mission to be an effective sign of the love of God in the world. Fired by the Spirit and shaped by the life of Christ, we are moved to a mission of loving the world for God. While discernment of what is and is not appropriate change in the service of this end is indispensable, ongoing conversion to Christ is “living religion,” as Lonergan would say. Personal and institutional change is of the essence of the community of faith, because the changing times will always require more of us in the service of our mission.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
The Catholic Coalition for Church Reform
Many Voices, One Church
“Something Exciting and Joyous”
Preparing to Take Our Place at the Table
An Exciting Endeavor
Twin Cities-based CCCR Goes Global
Staying On Board
A Time to re-Think the Basis and Repair the Damage

Recommended Off-site Links
The Catholic Coalition for Church Reform
In What Sense Are We Progressive Catholics? – An Offering for Reflection and Discussion - The Progressive Catholic Voice (February 10, 2009).
CCCR’s 2010 Synod: A Progress Report - Michael Bayly (The Progressive Catholic Voice, July 23, 2010).
Chancery Issues Statement on CCCR – The Progressive Catholic Voice (August 12, 2009).
CCCR Responds to Censure from Chancery – The Progressive Catholic Voice (August 13, 2009).
CCCR’s 2010 Synod: A Second Progress Report – Paula Ruddy (The Progressive Catholic Voice (August 13, 2009).
High Praise for Paul Lakeland’s Latest Book – The Progressive Catholic Voice (November 30, 2009).
What is the Church’s Mission and How Are We Doing As Missionaries? – Paula Ruddy (The Progressive Catholic Voice, March 1, 2010).

Istanbul (Part 2)

Continuing with The Wild Reed’s series on Istanbul, I share this evening excerpts from the essay “Earthquake Angst in Istanbul” by Nobel Prize-winning author Orhan Pamuk. This particular essay can be found in the 2007 collection Other Colors: Writings on Life, Art, Books and Cities, and was originally written in the aftermath of the İzmit earthquake of August 17, 1999.

Measuring 7.6 on the Richter Scale, this earthquake is believed to be the most powerful to ever hit Turkey. The official death toll is placed at 17,127 killed and 43,959 injured, but many sources suggest the actual figure may have been closer to 40,000 dead and a similar number injured. The epicenter of the quake was in the northwest of the country between İzmit and Bursa, about 55 miles east of Istanbul.

____________________________________

In the old days, I never stopped to wonder whether the towering minaret I can see from my desk might fall on me. The mosque was built in memory of Suleyman the Magnificent’s son, Prince Cihangir, who died at a young age; since 1559 it has stood with its two high minarets at the top of a steep slope overlooking the Bosphorus, serving as a symbol of continuity.



It was my upstairs neighbor who first broached the subject when he came to share his earthquake angst with me. Half in panic and half in jest, he went out to the balcony to estimate the distance. In the space of four months, there had been two major earthquakes in Istanbul and countless aftershocks; these and the death toll of thirty thousand were still very much on our minds. What’s more (and I could read this in the eyes of my engineer neighbor), we both believed what the scientists were telling us: that in the near future, somewhere in the Sea of Marmara and closer to Istanbul, another major earthquake would kill 100,000 people instantaneously.

The crude measurements of the minarets we made with the naked eye did not reassure us. After perusing a few books and encyclopedias, we were reminded that over the past 450 years, the Chihangir Mosque (that “symbol of continuity”) had twice been destroyed by earthquakes and fires, and there was no trace of the original mosque in the dome or the minarets standing across from us. A bit more research, and we discovered that most of Istanbul’s historic mosques and monuments had been destroyed at least once by earthquakes (including Hagia Sophia, whose dome collapsed in an earthquake that struck the city twenty years after it was built) and that quite a few of them had been destroyed more than once and later rebuilt “to withstand more pressure.”

As for minarets, the story was much worse. In all of the worst earthquakes that had struck the city in the past five hundred years – including the “little day of judgment” that hit the city in 1509 and the great earthquakes of 1766 and 1894 – fallen minarets outnumbered collapsed domes. After the two recent quakes, my friend and I had seen countless fallen minarets, not just on television and in the newspaper but during our visits to the earthquake zone. In most cases, they’d fallen onto neighboring buildings: student hostels where sleepy watchmen were playing backgammon late into the night, houses where mothers had risen from their beds to feed their babies, or (in the case of the second big earthquake in Bolu) families that had gathered around a television to watch on the evening news a discussion of the likelihood of another earthquake, only for a minaret to come down like a cake knife, slicing the room in two.

. . . The tremors from the next earthquake were expected to come from the Bosphorus and the Sea of Marmara, as I’ve said. So my neighbor and I set out to calculate the angle at which our minaret would fall, trying to factor in past mishaps: The section just above the balcony had buckled slightly during the August earthquake; an earlier bolt of lightening had struck the stone just beneath the star and crescent, sending it flying into the courtyard below.

All factors considered, it was clear to us that, if the minaret were indeed to fall at the angle we had divined using our hands and a bit of string, it would not hit us: Our building, which looked out on the Bosphorus, was simply too far from the minaret, further than the height of the structure. “So there’s no chance that the minaret would fall on us,” said my neighbor, as he took his leave. “Actually, it’s far more likely that our building will fall onto the minaret.”

. . . At around the same time, I heard that an old friend who worked in the music business had decided, after passing through Gölçük, the town worst hit by the August earthquake, that he could never again set foot in his Istanbul home; he moved into the Hilton Hotel, which he thought to be of sounder construction, until that place no longer seemed safe enough either and he took to spending his days outside, doing all his business on his mobile phone, racing up and down the street as if he were in a great hurry. It was said that while he hurried along, never stopping, he would mutter, “Why aren’t we leaving this city, why aren’t we leaving?”

When it had been impressed on us all that, though the epicenter of the first earthquake was sixty-two miles outside the city, thousands of İstanbullus had died, there was an exodus from the poorer neighborhoods, and that brought down the rents. But most of Istanbul remains in its mostly unsound buildings, taking no precautions. At this point, everything – the importuning of scientists, the credited rumors, the act of forgetting, the deferment of millennium celebrations, the embrace of lovers, the resignation – everything naturalizes the idea of an earthquake and helps us “live with it,” as people now say. The other day, a fresh-faced, recently married, and very cheerful young woman came to my office to discuss a book cover and with great conviction explained her way of coping.

“You know an earthquake is inevitable, and that makes you fearful,” she said, raising her eyebrows. “But you live through each moment by acting as if it’s not going to happen at that exact moment. If you don’t, you can’t do anything. But these two thoughts contradict each other. For example, we all know by now that it is very dangerous to be on a balcony after an earthquake. Even so, I’m stepping out to the balcony,: she told me in a teacher’s voice, and then, opening the door slowing and with care, she stepped out onto the balcony. I stayed where I was, and she stood there looking at the mosque across the street and the view of the Bosphorus behind it. “As I stand here,” she said more volubly, a few moments later through the open door, “I cannot believe that the earthquake will hit at this precise moment. Because if I did believe this, I would be too frightened to stay here.” A while later, she came in from the balcony, shutting the door behind her. “So that’s what I do,” she said, with the faintest of smiles. “ I go out onto the balcony, and while I’m there I manage to score a small victory against the earthquake in my head. It’s with little victories like these that we’ll defeat that big earthquake still to come.”

After she left I went out to the balcony, to admire the minarets and the beauties of Istanbul and the Bosphorus rising from the mist. I’ve lived in this city my entire life. I’ve asked myself the same question as that man pacing the streets, about why a person might not be able to leave.

It’s because I can’t even imagine not living in Istanbul.

– Orhan Pamuk

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Istanbul (Part 1)
“This Light Breeze That Loves Me”

Oscar Observations

Last night I had some friends over to watch the 82nd Academy Awards. It was a fun night. As usual, I had a ballot for folks to fill out and a prize for the person who picked the most winners. (This year’s prize went to Greg!)

Above: The gang's all here! From left: John, Jairo, Bob, Gail, Kathleen,
Daniel, Freeman, Phil, Joey, Greg, Michael, Joe, Roman, and Greg.

Above: Bob, Jairo, and John complete their Oscar ballots.

Above: The host with the most!

Of the ten films nominated for Best Picture, I’d only seen three (Avatar, Up, and District 9). One thing I always appreciate about the Oscars is that they motivate me to actually go see various films that I’d missed in the past year. I particularly want to see Precious, The Hurt Locker, Crazy Heart, Bright Star, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, The White Ribbon, and The Last Station.

As impressed by Avatar as I was, I was glad it didn’t win Best Picture. From everything I’ve read, it seems that The Hurt Locker was a worthy winner. Avatar certainly deserved the various special effects awards that it won, and I appreciate the important themes and issues that it raises – such as xenophobia, militarism, corporate greed, and environmentalism. But, to be honest, most of these are also present in District 9, but presented and explored with more grit and complexity. Basically, I just found a lot of Avatar to be distractingly simplistic.

Many in attendance at my Oscar Night Gathering were surprised by Sandra Bullock’s win for Best Actress in a Leading Role (for The Blind Side). I think most of us were thinking the award would go to Gabourey Sidibe for Precious. Only one person present had actually seen The Blind Side, and he considered Bullock a worthy winner.

I certainly thought her acceptance speech was one of the better ones of the evening, and especially liked it when she thanked her mother for “reminding her daughters that there’s no race, no religion, no class system, no color, nothing, no sexual orientation that makes us better than anyone else. We are all deserving of love.”

I haven’t much else to say about this year’s Oscars – except that . . .



. . . Neil Patrick Harris’ opening number - complete with dancing girls and boys - was great, and a wonderful surprise. (The guy should’ve hosted the entire show!) As one critic observed: “It wouldn’t be an awards show at this point without NPH (who received rave reviews for his hosting gigs at both the Tonys and the Emmys). He got the Oscar crowd nice and warmed up for [hosts Steve] Martin and [Alec] Baldwin.”

. . . it’s always good to see Helen Mirren (right) and Meryl Streep – such classy women!

. . . oh, and that Jake Gyllenhaal is one beautiful man! Although he wasn’t nominated for anything this year, he did present the award for Best Adapted Screenplay to Geoffrey Fletcher for Precious.

Above: John, Jairo, Bob, Kathleen, and Dale.

Above: With my friend John.

Recommended Off-site Links:
2010 Oscars: Complete List of Winners
The Hurt Locker Earns Best Picture Academy Awards - Associated Press (March 8, 2010).
Out of Obscurity: The Hurt Locker is a Case in Study - Scott Bowles (USA Today, March 8, 2010).
The Story Behind the Oscar’s Weird “Lady Kayne” Moment - Lindsay Robertson (Yahoo News, March 8, 2010).
Top Five Best and Worst Oscar Moments - Mike Ryan (Yahoo News, March 8, 2010).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Oscar Observations (2009)
Five Oscar Highlights (2008)
A Gay Ol’ Time

Love At Love's Brightest

Jason Roush reviews David Plante’s The Pure Lover,
a “cumulative portrait of a long-term gay relationship
that’s as valid a marriage as any other.”

In the latest issue of the always worthwhile Gay and Lesbian Review, Jason Roush reviews David Plante’s The Pure Lover: A Memoir of Grief, which Publisher’s Weekly describes as “a series of disjointed memories” about Plante’s partner of 40 years, the poet Nikos Stangos, who died in 2004.

Does it sound like a downer? Well, not according to Michael Dirda of The Washington Post, who writes:

Grief memoirs have become all too common, largely because of the widespread devastation caused by cancer and complications of AIDS, and further encouraged by our relentlessly confessional culture. But, despite the subtitle . . . The Pure Lover leaves one exalted rather than depressed.

. . . Throughout Stangos’ poetry and Plante’s memoir, the word “pure” gradually comes to designate a fundamental quality of life and of their relationship. What do they mean by it? “You used the word ‘purity,’ but would you have tried to define the idea of purity? No, and certainly not as dogma, which you saw as tyrannical. You used the word this way: he is pure, animals are pure, the scent of lemon blossoms is pure, the taste of lemon is pure, the sunlight is pure, music is pure, and kisses, too, are pure. And this, the most undefined proposition: love at love’s brightest is pure.” It would be going too far to call this evocation of a beloved companion now lost a pure pleasure to read. But out of the fragments, Proustian moments and sharply felt memories of a happy and painful past, David Plante has made a lovely book, joyful, plangent and true.

David Plante (pictured at right) is a renowned author whose novels often examine homosexuality in a variety of contexts, most notably in the milieu of large, working-class, Catholic families of French Canadian background.

Writing in the Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Culture, Thomas Dukes notes:

Plante is most noted for The Family (1978), The Country (1981), and The Woods (1982), his highly acclaimed Francoeur “trilogy.” (The Foreigner and The Catholic have rather specific links to the trilogy but are set “away” from the family of the novels.) While these novels vary in their presentation of overtly gay characters or sex scenes, they do suggest other coming-of-age works by gay writers such as Tennessee Williams, Carson McCullers, and Truman Capote. However, Plante’s novels lack the gothic extravagances often associated with those other writers.

Plante’s low-key approach allows the other family members and characters to emerge as clearly as his narrator, Daniel, who seems sexually ambiguous in the trilogy. Such ambiguity as found in life is a hallmark of Plante’s writing, sexuality included.

. . . Plante focuses not only on the varieties of love and sexuality but on the different expressions love and sexuality may take. For example, some characters engage enthusiastically in a variety of sexual practices, some seem to be bisexual or inclined that way, and some appear to be determining their sexuality or sexualities. Thus, his novels . . . may be said to examine a variety of homosexualities as well as heterosexual ones.

Interesting.

I actually picked up a used copy of The Catholic some time ago, started reading it, but lost interest. Perhaps I should revisit it.

Anyway, the point is I was somewhat familiar with Plante when I spied Roush’s review in the GLR, and so was eager to read it. Plante’s memoir, The Pure Lover, sounds utterly compelling, and Roush’s review is a beautiful piece of writing in and of itself – informative and engaging. It’s reprinted in its entirety below, with added pictures and links.

But first, here is how the Calamus Bookstore Newsletter describes The Pure Lover: A Memoir of Grief.

David Plante met Nikos Stangos in London in 1965. Plante was a young American, an aspiring writer, half in love with the fantasy of Greece, Greeks and their culture. Nikos was Greek, a poet, an aesthete and an intellectual. He was also a leftist, a survivor of the Nazi occupation of his homeland and a man of few pretensions. David and Nikos spent over forty years together. A few years ago, Nikos died of brain cancer. Plante’s The Pure Lover: A Memoir of Grief is a book of fragments, a mosaic of memories of their lives together. It is also a meditation on the nature of grief, how grief has its own passion, its vanity, its willfulness and can be an overwhelming force.

____________________

Now That You’ve Gone

A Review of David Plante’s
The Pure Lover: A Memoir of Grief

By Jason Roush

The Gay and Lesbian Review
March-April 2010

Author David Plante has made a career out of writing critically praised novels that center on family dramas and sexually ambiguous main characters. His latest book, an innovative and incantatory memoir about the family that he formed with his partner of forty years, the poet and publisher Nikos Stangos [pictured at right], couldn’t be any less ambiguous in its portrayal of the couple’s life together, and in its bracingly poignant meditations on Stangos’ death from brain cancer in 2004. In an era when the debate over same-sex marriage seems to be at the very heart of our public discourse, this book offers a cumulative portrait, taken in snapshots, of a long-term gay relationship that’s as valid a marriage as any other.

The most striking and significant aspect of Plante’s memoir is its form. Composed solely of a series of fragments, each no longer than a paragraph, The Pure Lover takes on a pensive and elliptical tone that works well with Plante’s themes and content on several levels. First and foremost, the fragments convey the random spontaneity of memory itself, as Plante sifts through four decades of remembrances from his relationship, and even further back in the book’s earliest fragments, which reconstruct Stangos’ boyhood years in German-occupied Athens, Greece, during the height of World War II. These evocative fragments are similar in effect to those collected in Joe Brainard’s I Remember (1975). Each entry possesses a luminous, self-contained quality of its own, yet as much as these moments stand separately from one another in time, they also combine to create a cohesive and seamless whole.

Also present in the format of Plante’s book is the ancient Greek lesbian poet Sappho, whose works were gradually excavated as incomplete fragments on broken reeds of papyrus. This allusion is no coincidence; in a memory from the early days of his relationship with Stangoes, Plante writes, “The first Greek poem you taught me was one of Sappho’s, in which she sleeps alone.” Many bits of Greek language punctuate the memoir and inform the book’s overarching structure, arranged sequentially in chapters by the letters of the Greek alphabet. While describing the subject of Stangos’ master’s thesis in philosophy, Plante also captures the reiterative, prayer-like, and continually evolving structure of his own book: “Nietzsche’s ‘form’ was cyclical, was repetition revolving on repetition, each repetition an elaboration.”

Throughout the book’s first half, Plante delicately renders the love story that’s at the core of his memoir. From the couple’s initial meeting as twenty-somethings in 1965 in London, where, thereafter, they permanently resided, their relationship has all the alluring, almost legendary qualities of high romance: “Our Saturday afternoon naps, all chores, including shopping, done, we shut off the telephone, closed the curtains of our room, undressed, and got into bed, our arms held out to each other.” And years later: “The time we climbed up to the Acropolis, visitors were allowed to walk among the pillars of the Parthenon in moonlight . . . and there you kissed me, as if all your life in Athens you had wanted to do that.”

But Plante is honest about the realities of longtime companionship as well, chronicling the disagreements, youthful infidelities, and occasional rages that any such relationship must eventually endure. Of the orderly domestic life that the couple shared, Plante recalls, “I tried to be amused by your fastidiousness, but, complaining against your complaints, shouted that I would not have our lives reduced to minutia. You shouted back, ‘I will not live in bedlam.’” This straightforward style becomes most effective in the book’s final chapters, as Plante unflinchingly documents his partner’s last months. Plante’s spare yet moving descriptions of that time are reminiscent of Don Bachardy’s powerful deathbed sketches and line drawings of his lover Christopher Isherwood, who also died of complications from cancer.

In the prologue to his book, Plante mentions how the memories that make up The Pure Lover originally came back to him with no sense of order or chronology, and that much effort went into sequencing the fragments to give the memoir its structural integrity and narrative continuity. The result, as Plante hopes, is something like a Greek amphora, a vessel to contain the memory of his lover and put it on display for posterity.

Jason Roush, author of After Hours, Breezeway, and Crosstown, teaches at Emerson College.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• Don Gorton on the Significance of Maurice
• At Swim, Two Boys - A Beautiful Novel
• Dew[y]-Kissed
• Conversing and Arguing with the Theology of Philip Pullman
• My Travels with Doris
• Doris Lessing Awarded Nobel Prize for Literature
• Song of Songs: The Bible’s Gay Love Song

Opening Image: Hiroko Sakai.

A New-Look Wild Reed

Well, that wasn't so painful!

Mind you, changing from a "classic" blogger template to a layout template did take several hours - what with creating the various html-friendly text blocks over in the sidebar, and experimenting with different font colors and sizes. Plus, I know that the changeover altered the placement of some images in previous posts - the rectifying of which will no doubt take some time.

The change was necessary, however, after Blogger initiated auto pagination. What that meant for blogs like mine was that many posts were now rendered totally inaccessible to visitors. Why? Because auto pagination limits the number of posts on a given page. Thus before I changed over, if one was to click on, say, "November 2007" in the archives, most of the posts from that particular archive page would not be shown. And because the classic template doesn't have the "Previous - Next" page feature, they wouldn't ever be shown!

So now we have a new-look Wild Reed! Overall, I'm very happy with how everything looks - and I especially like the layout of the Archives and the Labels, and the fact that I can see my Followers (who currently number twenty-two!). I do need to acknowledge and thank Roberto and his helpful guide to Upgrading Your Classic Template to a Layouts Template. This clearly laid out resource made my transition from one type of template to another the painless process that it was! Thanks Roberto!

In the Nation's Capital, Another Milestone for Marriage Equality

.

Darlene Garner (left) has a joyful tear wiped from her face
by her partner, Candy Holmes, of Washington, after the couple
obtained their marriage license Wednesday, March 3, 2010,
the first day possible for gay couples since the District of Columbia
legalized gay marriage in the nation’s capital.
(AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Today's New York Times says it well . . .

Gay-rights advocates hailed the day as a milestone for equal rights and a symbolic victory as same-sex marriage became legal in the nation’s capital.

Washington is now the sixth place in the nation where same-sex marriages can take place. Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont also issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Despite failing in court, opponents of the law vowed to fight another day. The law survived Congressional attempts to block it, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Tuesday rejected a request from opponents of gay marriage to have the United States Supreme Court put the new law on hold.

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty signed the measure into law in December, but because Washington is not a state, the law had to undergo Congressional review, which ended Tuesday.

Above: Rocky Galloway (left) and Reggie Stanley
celebrate after applying for their marriage license
at the DC Superior Court in Washington, DC.
(AFP/Mandel Ngan)

And here’s an except from an article in today’s Washington Post.

Couples waited in line for hours Wednesday to apply for marriage licenses on the first day same-sex unions became legal in the nation's capital.

Cheering erupted from the crowd when the first couple signed in at the city's marriage bureau inside the Moultrie courthouse, just blocks from the U.S. Capitol. By the afternoon, more than 100 couples had come to the bureau, and more than 50 had completed their applications. The rest stood in line in the courthouse corridor, checking e-mail, reading newspapers and exchanging stories with other couples.

Because of a mandatory waiting period of three business days, couples won’t be able to marry in the District of Columbia until Tuesday. But the mood Wednesday was still celebratory. Couples got cupcakes from a city councilman who sponsored the gay marriage law, and throughout the morning, people applauded as they exited the marriage bureau with their applications complete.

Sinjoyla Townsend, 41, and her partner of 12 years, Angelisa Young, 47, claimed the first spot in line just after 6 a.m. They are already domestic partners in the city but wanted to become legally married.

“It’s like waking up Christmas morning,” said Young, who teared up when she sat down to process their paperwork. “It’s really like a dream come true.”

To read this article in its entirety, click here.

Above: Sinjoyla Townsend (left) and her partner Angelisa Young,
the first couple at Superior Court to obtain their marriage license
after the District of Columbia legalized gay marriage in Washington,
earlier today. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Recommended Off-Site Links:
Gay Marriage is Legal in U.S. Capital - Ian Urbina (New York Times, March 3, 2010).
Same-Sex Marriage Leads Catholic Charities to Adjust Benefits - William Wan (Washington Post, March 2, 2010).
DC Archbishop Defends Catholic Charities’ Stand on Health Benefits - Michelle Boorstein and William Wan (Washington Post, March 3, 2010).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Mary Hunt on the "Child Neglect" of the Washington, DC Archdiocese
Revisiting a Showdown in Washington, DC
D.C. Council Calls Archdiocese’s Bluff
David R. Weiss: When Charity Becomes the Weapon
“Render Unto Caesar, Bitches!”
America’s New Civil Rights Battle
A Christian Case for Same-Sex Marriage
A Surprising Finding Regarding Catholics and Gay Marriage

Remembering Dusty - Eleven Years On

Today marks the 11th anniversary of the death of legendary pop/soul singer Dusty Springfield.

In honor of Dusty’s life and legacy, I share the following 12-minute BBC video documentary – one that features not only great archival footage of Dusty performing some of her most memorable songs, but insightful commentary and interviews with the likes of Lulu, Burt Bacharach, Tom Jones, Martha Reeves, Kiki Dee, and Madeline Bell. All in all, it’s a compelling documentation and celebration of the important and lasting contribution to music by Dusty Springfield, the “First Queen of British Pop.” Enjoy!





As she struggled with cancer in the last years of her life, Dusty Springfield lived in a house close to the village of Harpsden, just outside the picturesque town of Henley-on-Thames. After Dusty’s death on March 2, 1999, her funeral was held at Henley’s Church of St. Mary the Virgin on March 12, 1999. Dusty’s body was later cremated and a portion of her ashes buried in the cemetery of St. Mary’s. The remainder of her ashes were scattered in the sea by her brother Tom at the cliffs of Moher in Ireland.

In the summer of 2005 I visited my older brother and his family, who were living at that time just outside of London. On Sunday, August 21, 2005, members of my family and I drove to Henley-on-Thames and visited Dusty’s grave in the churchyard of St. Mary’s.






Eight years earlier in August 1997, I established Woman of Repute, a website dedicated to Dusty and her music. To read how I first reported on my website the news of Dusty’s death, click here.

For mainstream media coverage of the death of Dusty Springfield, click here.

For various media tributes to Dusty (including from Rolling Stone magazine, People magazine, and Entertainment Weekly), click here.

Finally, here’s a poem I wrote shortly after Dusty’s death. As you’ll see, Dusty, her journey, and her art, mean a lot to me.

Under London’s damp skies
you heard the call.

Defying the shadows of a predictable life,
you chose to kindle your own inner light.
And in projecting this always fragile, flickering flame,
in your voice and in your songs,
you forged a way of hope and promise
for distant small town girls,
for lonely, “different” boys,
and for all trusting of the possibility
of new life.

Masked woman, bandit queen,
artfully blending pale lipstick and black mascara,
hair of brittleness and gestures of fluidity
into a shamanic whole;
birthing pathways beyond all that
seek to hinder, divide and limit;
and crossing the threshold
with rhythmic flourishes of hand and body
. . . and with spring flowers in your hair.

Yet it was your voice that entranced,
that held tenderly and knowingly
our most cherished hopes and dreams;
your voice that carried us across that threshold
and into the sacred realm of eros,
where dreams of journey and discovery
chart the soul’s trajectory
along serpentine rivers within;
and lead all to Memphis' fertile shores
and to new worlds dawning.

Yet the Quest can ran aground -
with hopes left drowning and
dreams stranded on barren Californian peaks.
Your voice, however, stayed true,
though few sought to listen,
as you sang songs of perception and insight;
of the truth that waves of anguish and pain
can serve to lift to higher, hitherto unknown, ground.
It was across these sacred fields that you walked in solitude -
searching, questioning, growing.
Quests within the Quest, demanding at times silence.

And then, at last, your return!
Like the flowing robe of a Celtic priestess of old,
your voice once more draped and carried
our purest and sweetest dreams
within its warm velvet folds.

You were not though to stay forever within our reach,
for a greater river than the one beside which
you built your sanctuary, would claim and hold you
in its terrifying yet wondrous current.

It takes courage to resist
but a greater, deeper courage to let go
and embrace the ultimate transformation.
You displayed both in their due season,
and revealed once again for us
the noble path to follow;
the trusting, ever hopeful spirit to embody.

Michael J. Bayly
March 7, 1999

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Remembering Dusty
Time and the River
Soul Deep
Classic Dusty
Classic Dusty II
Classic Dusty III
The Sound of Two Decades Colliding . . .
Shelby Lynne Celebrates Dusty Springfield
Remembering a Great Soul Singer

Recommended Off-site Links:
Dusty Springfield: Woman of Repute
A Girl Called Dusty
Dusty Devotedly
Dusty Springfield