Stop the ReRoute Documentary Premieres in Minneapolis

Last night I attended the premiere of the documentary film, Stop the ReRoute: Taking a Stand on Sacred Land, at the Riverview Theater in South Minneapolis.

The film tells the story of the unique coalition of neighborhood groups, environmentalists, and Native Americans that came together in the late 1990s to oppose the rerouting of Highway 55 through an area of South Minneapolis containing both parkland and the last remnant of bur oak savannah in the Twin Cities. Situated between Minnehaha Falls and Coldwater Spring, this area of land is not only of historic significance to the the State of Minnesota, but of special sacred significance to the Mendota Mdewakanton Dakota.

I was involved in the struggle to prevent the reroute, and documented through photography the period of resistance from the establishment of Camp Two Pines in August 1998 to the destruction of the four sacred oaks in December 1999. A number of my photographs are featured in Stop the ReRoute: Taking a Stand on Sacred Land.

These and many other photos can be viewed in Gallery 7 of my online photographic exhibit, Faces of Resistance. This particular gallery is dedicated to the coalition that came together to stop the reroute - a coalition that Jon Lurie of the Southside Pride newspaper described in April 1999 as “the kind of coalition that had rarely been seen in America: the joining of indigenous and non-native people whose shared vision and complementary talents could combine to create a better future for all.”

Above: The producers of Stop the Reroute: Taking a Stand on Sacred Land.
From left: Jim Gambone, Annie Follet, Scott Cramer, and Jon Carlson.

Sadly, the rerouting of Highway 55 was not stopped. As a result, a large area of green space was paved over, ensuring that a grove of four oak trees, considered especially sacred to the Mendota Mdewakanton Dakota, was destroyed. Coldwater Spring, however, was saved - though efforts continue to this day to ensure its continued preservation.

Almost a decade after the events depicted in the film took place, here’s how the makers of Stop the ReRoute describe their work:

This inspiring film bears witness to the commitment of citizen activists to live lightly on Grandmother Earth, preserve precious natural resources, and resist car culture at the end of the Petroleum Age, as neighborhood and environmental champions, Native American activists, and young people coalesce in nonviolent civil disobedience.

It was quite something to gather last night with folks involved in the efforts to stop the rerouting of Highway 55. I hadn’t seen some of these folks in years. Members of the Mendota Mdewakanton Dakota provided spirited drumming and singing before the screening of the film, and afterwards people gathered in the theater lobby to share and discuss their thoughts on the documentary that’s been nearly nine years in the making.

Overall, I thought the film was a powerful retelling of the efforts to stop the reroute. It was difficult to watch the footage of the destruction of the four sacred oaks, yet inspiring to hear the testimonies of the Earth First activists and native people who joined with others to take a stand. I found my friend Lynn Levine’s testimony particularly moving.

Also, the footage of Earth First activist, Solstice, dangerously high up in the branches of a tree and courageously resisting a chain-saw welding city worker in a cherry-picker, was quite compelling. I’d forgotten just how much the young Earth First activists were willing to sacrifice in order to protect and save our threatened environment. Solstice, who unfortunately wasn’t able to be present at last night’s screening, also provides much of the music on the film’s soundtrack. His closing song, in particular, serves as both an elegy and a call to action.

I do feel, however, that the film would benefit greatly from a narrator - a single unifying voice that would help keep track of people and events for the benefit of those who didn’t live through all that’s being shown and discussed. Actually, what we saw last night wasn’t the final version of the film, and one of the producers did tell me that Bonnie Raitt may be approached to narrate the final version. (I think Buffy Sainte-Marie would be another good potential narrator.)

I also think the film needs further editing. In its current form, it’s way too long and, at times, veers dangerously close to being a disjointed collection of home video clips put together for the sole benefit of those who were part of the events being depicted. I can well imagine a wider audience feeling left out and potentially unconcerned with the unfolding on-screen events. This would be a great pity, as the film has a compelling story to share and an important message to impart. Any culled footage could, of course, be included as bonus material on the DVD version of the film.



Recommended Off-site Links:
Oak Folk Films - the production company for Stop the ReRoute: Taking a Stand on Sacred Land.
Gallery 7: Highway 55 - on my online photographic exhibit, Faces of Resistance.
Preserve Camp Coldwater Coalition
Friends of Coldwater

Digging Deeper on Brokeback Mountain

In this second installment of Frank D. Myers’ “long hard look” at the award-winning film Brokeback Mountain, three aspects of gay life that the film either passes over briefly or bypasses altogether are explored: Vietnam, AIDS, and religion.

_____________

If fiction were life, one or the other or both of the main characters in the film would have ended up in Vietnam. I guarantee it. Neither being a kid nor old rodeo injuries were barriers back then. I’m blind in one eye as well as queer – and Uncle Sam still wanted me. And, no, I don’t remember being asked if I had “homosexual tendencies,” and if I was asked, I surely would not have told.

Over the years, I probably have fussed more about Vietnam than I have about being queer; and that’s a photo of my high school hero and friend Richard Cesar, who died over there in ’69, on my desk at the office – not a photo of a veteran of the gender wars. That photo of Richard reminds me of how lucky I am to be alive, of certain responsibilities I have to him because of it, and of how proud I am of the company I kept during that miserable war. Looking back, more than 30 years later, I would not have been any place else or have done anything differently.

Gay men, lesbians, and transgender people have always served in the military in significant numbers, and still do – beginning in my lifetime with Vietnam and continuing now, during the War on Terrorism. Damned if I know why, other than the fact we’re just like everyone else. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” makes it especially galling now, however. How dare our government insult us this way – implying that people who are gay are unfit for service and that our straight friends are incapable of behaving like adults and merely asking, “So what?” if they were to find out.

AIDS would have also been a factor in the lives of Ennis and Jack as they grew older – especially if Jack fulfilled some of the expectations of the promiscuous gay male stereotype he was cast in. Unprotected sex, careless and casual sex, was deadly then, and remains so now for us all. And we need to remember that.

Religion is the big one, for me at least. Ennis, the movie tells us, was raised Methodist; Jack, Pentecostal. I do not believe that those boys would have been in the deadly trap that they were if not for an institutionalized Christian church that for most of its history has consistently practiced and preached hate for anyone who differed, all in the name of a guy who taught love, grace, and forgiveness for all, and who cautioned against casting the first stone.

Collectively, calling ourselves Christians, we have burned heretics; instituted and enthusiastically practiced anti-Semitism, capping our efforts with the Holocaust; enslaved and denigrated the black race; and tried darned hard to wipe out this continent’s native American peoples and their cultures.

Although there have been many advances quite recently in the relationship between Christians and those we’ve loved to hate, the church has quite a ways to go in its approach to us. We remain for many who call themselves Christians the final clearly-defined group that it’s OK to hate and vilify.

Listen to how Ted Haggard described what presumably is his own gay nature when apologizing to his congregation in Colorado Springs: “There is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it all of my adult life,” he wrote; and “Then, from time to time, the dirt that I thought was gone would resurface, and I would find myself thinking thoughts and experiencing desires that were contrary to everything I believe and teach.”

He’s talking about us, boys and girls.

That is the legacy of a morally and spiritually bankrupt so-called Christianity in that poor tormented man’s life as it still grasps him with dirty and blood-stained fingers.

Having said that, it must be added that a good percentage of Christians no longer hold those old dark and hateful views or are moving away of them. And, astonishingly, many of us who are unapologetically queer, including myself, identify as Christians.

We have managed this through the grace of God and by bypassing the institutional church, in some cases at considerable personal cost; going directly to the source of our faith, then coming back to forge a new kind of relationship with the flawed institution that claims Christ’s name.


Next: The Shadow of the Closet on Brokeback Mountain – Frank Myers explores the “principal lesson” he sees in Brokeback Mountain: “the toll that the closet, no matter how it is imposed, has taken and continues to take in the lives of queer people.”

For Part 1 of this series, click here.


Opening Image: Heath Ledger as Ennis Del Mar and Jake Gyllenhaal as Jack Twist in Brokeback Mountain.

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Frank Myers’ “Long Hard Look” at Brokeback Mountain
Christian Draz’s Critique of Brokeback Mountain
Heath Ledger (1979-2008)
The “Real Gay Cowboy” Remembers His Friend, Heath Ledger

A Springtime Visitor

As you can see, I had a little visitor in my backyard this morning!



See also the previous Wild Reed post:
A Rabbit’s Tale

Recommended Off-site Link:
The Leveret

Update on Yesterday's Post

In yesterday’s post on Archbishop Nienstedt, I mentioned Fr. Michael O’Connell being interviewed Monday on Minnesota Public Radio.

Families Like Mine author Abigail Garner has contacted me to let me know that she has posted on her blogsite, Damn Straight, the LGBT segment of this interview. It’s definitely worth taking a look at, and I appreciate Abigail’s commentary on the wider issues at stake for LGBT people.

Writes Abigail:

I recognize that Father O’Connell is limited in what he can say, and I doubt he would think it some great revelation to hear me say that the key to “dignity” is not that tricky. Stop the spiritual violence. Stop the conditional love that hangs over the heads of LGBT people when they step into a sanctuary.

Sadly, the Basilica’s website has removed specific references to “Boulevards” (the LGBT outreach/support/social group) and only has a phone number for you to call for help to meet with someone to “grow in knowledge and understanding.”

At some point, even the most patient and faithful LGBT people grow weary of “dialog.” At some point, LGBT people want communities of faith that will move beyond the presumed “pain” and re-frame their faith community as a place where everyone can bring their joy, too.

Also worth reading is Mary Lynn Murphy’s article “The Fear Factor”, over at The Progressive Catholic Voice.

Thoughts on Archbishop Nienstedt

About a week ago I was quoted in a lengthy story in the Minneapolis Star Tribune about John Nienstedt (pictured at right), who on May 2 commenced his duties as Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. Paul/Minneapolis.

Written by Jeff Strickler, the article was misleadingly entitled: “Archbishop Nienstedt: His Own Man.” Why misleading? Well, on more than one occasion, the archbishop has made it clear that his controversial statements are not just his personal opinions but the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. This is troubling, especially given that the archbishop is obligated to do more than just parrot the Catechism on such clearly unresolved issues in the church such as homosexuality. He’s called to listen and learn, to be open to new discoveries and to growth. In short, he’s called to be more than a gatekeeper for orthodoxy. He is called to be a profound spiritual leader, and such leaders must be open and responsive to God’s presence in the world and the people around them. That’s how anyone in a position of leadership can best inspire and lead others.

Below are excerpts from Strickler’s article (accompanied, in bold, by more of my thoughts).

___________________________


Archbishop John Nienstedt: His Own Man

Those who have worked with the new leader
of the Catholic Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis
say he defies easy labeling.

By Jeff Strickler
Star Tribune
May 11, 2008

John Nienstedt was greeted at the Chancery door by high hopes and no small measure of trepidation.

The man who on May 2 started his tenure as archbishop of the 650,000 Roman Catholics in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis arrived with a moving van of preconceptions about him.

He was described as “rigid,” “ultra-conservative” and a “hard-liner.” Progressive parishes grew edgy as bloggers spread the word that he was out to “get them” and already was making a hit list of potential targets. Gay Catholic activists worried that hard-won programs would disappear.

[Actually, these “programs” have been disappearing for some time. (See David McCaffrey’s February 2008 article in The Progressive Catholic Voice, here.) Nevertheless, there is an increased chilling effect throughout the archdiocese since news of John Nienstedt’s appointment. Sadly, parishes are self-censoring themselves with regards to the gay issue. Such self-censorship may, in part, be in response to the chancery’s crackdown on St. Frances Cabrini parish, which was told last October that it could not host a CPCSM-sponsored talk by an 82-year-old cradle Catholic and his lesbian daughter. The two had just written a book entitled Are There Closets in Heaven? A Catholic Father and His Lesbian Daughter Share Their Story.

Also, when Paula Ruddy and I submitted material to The Catholic Spirit, the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of St. Paul/Minneapolis, in response to an editorial on homosexuality, we were told that the paper could not serve as a forum for dialogue on church teaching. There may not be closets in heaven, but it would seem that the new archbishop wants closets in the archdiocese – not just for gay people, but for anyone who talks about gay issues in ways that suggest support of gay folks and/or questioning of official church teaching about them.

For instance, just yesterday the Rev. Michael O’Connell, formerly of the Basilica of St. Mary, Minneapolis, was interviewed on Minnesota Public Radio. At one point he was asked about the future of gay people in the church. He acknowledged that given the conservative shift in the church, it will be more difficult for gay people. Yet he insisted that the Basilica and his new parish will remain places where all are welcome. When asked about gay marriage, O’Connell said he couldn’t comment about such things in the forum of a public radio interview. He did acknowledge, however, that the question of gay marriage was one with which all religions are grappling.

Toward the end of the interview, O’Connell was asked if he felt free to say what he really feels about the gay issue. He responded that he does, but that he’s learned to choose his battles. He basically stepped inside a closet. Of course, he’s not the only church leader to do this. Sadly, it would seem that for many in positions of leadership, gay people are not worth “the battle.” And I say this with the utmost respect for all the good work that O’Connell and others have done in the church around a range of important issues – including gay issues. Yet without doubt, when push comes to shove, or in other words, when there’s an opportunity to go public and declare solidarity with and/or support for gay people, many balk. And the message that gay people get from this? We’re expendable.]

For Nienstedt, 61, who was used to a different pace and level of scrutiny as bishop in New Ulm, such an onslaught before he even figured out how to work the phone in his new office is frustrating. An avid hockey fan – he grew up in Detroit during the Gordie Howe era – Nienstedt feels as though he has been checked from behind.

He waited in the wings during a 10-month transition that ended nine days ago in the retirement of the gregarious Archbishop Harry Flynn. Now, as he ascends to the peak of his career so far and moves into a new office at the summit of Summit Avenue in St. Paul, Nienstedt has a simple request:

“All I’m asking is that people have an open mind. At least they should get to know me and see for themselves.” [A number of people have told me that they find this statement disingenuous. In relation to Nienstedt’s stance on gay issues, for instance, I and others have seen (and heard) more than enough. In April 2004, for example, Nienstedt (as Bishop of New Ulm) spearheaded the efforts of the Minnesota Catholic hierarchy to actively support the “marriage amendment” to the State Constitution. This amendment would not only have banned same-gender civil marriage but domestic partnerships and civil unions. Thankfully it was defeated.

And then there was Nienstedt’s October 2007 statement about how those who “actively encourage or promote” the “homosexual lifestyle” are themselves cooperating in a “grave evil.” Many parents and friends of gay people find such thinking and such words deeply hurtful and offensive. In light of all of this, I think the question for the new archbishop from gay Catholics and their families is: How much more do we need to know about you when it comes to your views and actions on an issue that greatly impacts us and those we love?]

He recalls his first taste of how different this job would be, on the day when Flynn introduced him as his coadjutor – an assistant and heir apparent. “The first morning I was here there was a press conference, and I thought everything went fine,” Nienstedt said. “But by the time I got back to New Ulm, people were digging through every talk I’d given looking for any little thing they could pick out.” [The new archbishop actually seems surprised by this! Which is itself surprising as it’s a legitimate way for people to “get to know” him, something he claims he wants them to do.]

The fact is, Nienstedt has taken some controversial positions and he’s not retreating from anything. Transcripts of his pastoral letters, homilies and speeches are still posted on the Diocese of New Ulm website – including those that brought a hue and cry from some quarters. He’s not shy about expressing his opinion on everything from same-sex unions to stem-cell research to later bar-closing times. (He’s opposed to all three.) [Of course, in relation to stem-cell research and same-sex unions, the archbishop would say (and has said) that it’s not his opinion so much as the church’s teaching on these issues that he’s expressing.

For instance, in his December 6, 2007 column in The Catholic Spirit, Nienstedt (then coadjutor archbishop) stated: “My duty before God as a priest and as a bishop is to set forth, with clarity and conviction, the truth as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and as it has been handed down throughout the church’s history . . . I know that my eternal salvation as well as that of those whom I serve depends on how well and with what clarity I preach and teach the truth. I ought never do so without forethought. But I also ought not do so by way of compromise, no matter how difficult the truth may be perceived by the hearer.”

To which the editorial team of The Progressive Catholic Voice responded:

“We are not asking you, as you fear, to compromise truth. Truth is discovered through time. Tradition evolves. The Church is currently teaching in Section 2358 of the Catechism, that homosexuals should be treated with compassion and sensitivity. That represents evolution of the tradition. There is no reason that the moral teaching on this matter of ‘intrinsic disorder’ should not evolve further, and there is plenty of scientific evidence and moral/pastoral reasoning that it should evolve quickly.

“Your duty as a bishop to be a stand-in for Christ, which you have quoted from Lumen Gentium, is an awesome responsibility. Doesn’t it stand to reason that a duty of such magnitude requires from you more than insisting on a formulation of moral teaching that is widely questioned by faithful people who are earnestly seeking to live moral lives? Doesn’t a duty of such magnitude include having the imagination and sensitivity to discuss, at least, a moral teaching that many clearly see as being out of line with Christ’s admonition to love one another?

“Our duty to listen to you is also an awesome one. We think it requires more than just being ‘yes’ persons. We take our duty seriously in trying to reason with you about this teaching that impacts so many lives. These GLBT people are our loved ones, our children. We rejoice with them in their finding partners to support them in living good lives. We believe we also stand as Christ through our baptism and our Christian life. We believe that on every moral issue we have to study the pertinent facts, reason about their implications, and consult the experience of those who are most impacted by the teaching. Do you agree with this method of arriving at moral positions? And if not, why?”]

[T]hose who know Nienstedt best say he will confound anyone who tries to pigeonhole him.

“This is not a man you can put into a box,” said Mark Kemmeter, his chief of staff in New Ulm. “He’s much too complex for that. I suppose that you could say that he’s theologically conservative and pastorally progressive, but Archbishop Nienstedt ultimately will defy any label you try to put on him.”

. . . No shortage of leadership challenges face any new archbishop. But Nienstedt assumes the role at a time when American archbishops often are caught in the middle of an increasingly conservative Vatican hierarchy and a sometimes rebellious American Catholic Church.

When Flynn ordered an end to lay preaching at mass this year, it was Nienstedt who was publicly rebuked. Among the most vocal: members of St. Stephen’s Catholic Church in Minneapolis, who recanted their statements about him when they learned other churches in other dioceses received the same edict.

Asked why he never defended himself, Nienstedt shrugged his shoulders. “Change can be very difficult for some people,” he said. [Yes, especially when it’s forced upon a community without this community’s input. See here.]

Although he has not met Nienstedt, Michael Bayly, executive coordinator for the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities, predicts that the archbishop will provoke more vocal dissent.

“I think his [forceful] approach is going to make all Catholics take a stand,” said Bayly, who also publishes the online Progressive Catholic Voice and runs The Wild Reed blog. “I think more people will be willing to stand up and say, ‘No, you’re wrong.’” [In saying this I was thinking in particular of the 300+ people who attended last December’s “Vigil of Solidarity for LGBT Catholics” on the steps of the Cathedral of St. Paul. They were there to express their disagreement with the archbishop’s statements on homosexuality. More recently, I’ve heard that when Archbishop Nienstedt has celebrated Mass at local Catholic high schools, there have been some students who have taken it upon themselves to either refuse to attend or attend wearing rainbow ribbons as a sign of solidarity with LGBT persons. And in yet another example of Catholics standing up and saying, “No!,” a parish has opted to withhold a certain percent of its money from the archdiocese until it is allowed to resume lay preaching. This practice, both popular and meaningful in a number of parishes was recently banned by Nienstedt’s predecessor - a ban that Nienstedt supports and, who knows, perhaps encouraged during his tenure as coadjutor archbishop.]

Reacting to Nienstedt’s opposition to gay relationships, Catholic Rainbow Parents said his stance “gives license to hatred and violence against all of us.”

None of this has sent Nienstedt into hiding. Just the opposite: He has been on a mission to visit as many parishes, schools and retirement homes as he can.

“I’m on the road a lot. I want to meet the priests and pastoral leaders. A diocese is only as strong as its parishes.”

During his time in New Ulm, he preferred to lead by consensus[!], Kemmeter said. When that diocese, like many, needed to close parishes, he insisted that the people affected make the decisions. “He got all the priests together and discussed it,” he said. More discussion ensued before they worked through 15 drafts of a report. [There are many others who have very different experiences of John Nienstedt’s leadership style, so much so that I question Kemmeter’s contention that Nienstedt “preferred to lead by consensus” when in New Ulm.]

“You can have a disagreement with him and still enjoy a meal together afterwards,” said the Rev. Douglas Grams, Nienstedt’s vicar general in New Ulm who has been filling in there. He said Nienstedt will tell you what he thinks, not what he thinks you want to hear.

Nienstedt will face plenty of difficult issues. Part of the tension between the Vatican and U.S. Roman Catholics is because many Americans want to expand involvement by women and give laity more input into decision-making. Last year’s reinstatement of the Latin mass revived complaints of anti-Semitism. There are lingering concerns from the clergy sex abuse scandal.

Closer to home, Nienstedt sees three core challenges: establishing trust with the priests in the archdiocese, restructuring a downsized staff at the chancery and reducing the archdiocese’s debt level. The annual Catholic Appeal remains $1 million short of its $9 million goal. [I predict that the amount of this shortfall will only increase.]

Although some observers have opined that Nienstedt might end up back in Rome – speculation based mostly on the fact he studied there – Nienstedt insists that he’s in the Twin Cities for the long haul. [I find the archbishop’s naivety with regards his future rather embarrassing. Of course he’ll end up somewhere else. He’s the quintessential “company man” and is, I’m sure, destined for a place higher up on the company ladder.]

“I plan to retire here,” he said. “I plan to be buried here. I made the mistake of telling that to my mother, who was upset that I wasn’t going to be buried in the family plot. But I truly believe that a bishop’s place is with his parishioners, in death as well as life.”

To read Jeff Strickler’s article in its entirety, click here.

____________________________________

Following is a May 17 letter to the editor of the Star Tribune from Brian Willette, president of Call to Action Minnesota, in response to Jeff Strickler’s article on Archbishop Nienstedt:

On May 2, Archbishop John Nienstedt became the official archbishop of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis. He does not come from the local faith community here. The local faith community had little, if any say in his coming. He was selected and sent here by the institutional part of the Catholic Church – the Roman Curia with Pope Benedict’s approval.

With the new archbishop’s arrival, there is a crucial question in the air. This crucial question directly affects Catholics living here, but it also less directly affects others who call Metro Minnesota home – other Christians, people of other faith’s traditions and even non-believers.

The question is this: Will Archbishop Nienstedt be a servant leader supporting the local faith community as it strives to live fuller lives in the Christ Spirit, or will he primarily function like a Roman governor sent to impose man-made institutional laws?

We pray for the former. Regarding the latter, we watch with concern.

Brian Willette
Minneapolis

_________________________________

Update: Abigail Garner of the blogsite Damn Straight has posted the LGBT segment of Michael O’Connell’s interview on MPR. It’s definitely worth taking a look at, and I appreciate Abigail’s commentary on the wider issues at stake for LGBT people.

Writes Abigail:

I recognize that Father O’Connell is limited in what he can say, and I doubt he would think it some great revelation to hear me say that the key to “dignity” is not that tricky. Stop the spiritual violence. Stop the conditional love that hangs over the heads of LGBT people when they step into a sanctuary.

Sadly, the Basilica’s website has removed specific references to “Boulevards” (the LGBT outreach/support/social group) [an example of the self-censorship I mentioned above!] and only has a phone number for you to call for help to meet with someone to “grow in knowledge and understanding.”

At some point, even the most patient and faithful LGBT people grow weary of “dialog.” At some point, LGBT people want communities of faith that will move beyond the presumed “pain” and re-frame their faith community as a place where everyone can bring their joy, too.


Also worth reading is Mary Lynn Murphy’s article, The Fear Factor, in the May 2008 issue of The Progressive Catholic Voice.


Image 1: Official portrait of John C. Nienstedt from the Diocese of New Ulm website.
Image 2: Archbishop John C. Nienstedt speaking during a sermon at John the Baptist Catholic Church in New Brighton, Wednesday, May 6, 2008. (Renee Jones Schneider, Star Tribune)

See also the previous Wild Reed posts
Archbishop Nienstedt’s “Learning Curve”: A Suggested Trajectory
No Place for Dialogue in Archdiocesan Newspaper
When Quackery Goes Mainstream
Interesting Times Ahead
Monitoring Nienstedt
An Open Letter to Archbishop Nienstedt
Nienstedt’s “Trauma of His Own”
300+ People Vigil at the Cathedral in Solidarity with LGBT Catholics
Why We Gathered
NCR’s Coverage of December 2 “Vigil for Solidarity”
Local Media Coverage of December 2 Vigil Falls Short
Far from Innocuous
My Advent Prayer for the Church
The Talk of the Archdiocese

The Light Within

Part 1 of In the Footsteps of Spring, an exploration of the coming out process as a spiritual journey.


“The Light Within” is an attempt to depict my experience of the first phase of the coming out journey. For me, this phase can best be described as an interior movement of the soul, a conversion. It’s about moving from the closet of ignorance and denial into the light of self-acceptance.

“The Light Within” is also an attempt to give voice to something that’s very difficult to comprehend and explain: what it was that I experienced that motivated this movement, this conversion. I believe it was the breaking through of what theologian Joan Timmerman describes as the “hidden-from-the senses transcendent divine reality.” It’s a reality that I can distinctly recall infusing my frightened, 14-year-old self on more than one occasion during an especially fearful and anxious period of my adolescence.

I now look back and talk about the life-saving “calm from both beyond and within” that I experienced as a boy as God’s transforming love – a love that calls each one of us to accept, embody, and express the gift of our sexuality (the “Light within”) in loving and life-giving ways; a love that calls us out from all of our various closets of fear and denial. In retrospect, this experience marked the beginning of my long journey of self-acceptance as a gay man.

The quotations I share, and which were especially meaningful to me during my experience of this particular time in my life, are from Psalm 40.

________________________

The Light Within
By Michael J. Bayly

There is a Light within me,
deep at my core.
In relating to others
it lights my way.
A part of me, holy,
this Light
deep within.

As a child
I celebrated the Light
– as a child does,
trustingly, spontaneously,
without shame.
Too soon I realized
that my light was different.
They had names for the Light I possessed,
they who did not possess it.
Like great dark clouds
these names gathered around me.
They clung to me.

In time
I myself began to fear the Light,
began to perceive it as something
destructive and distorted.
The years passed.
I had not the words
nor the courage
to hold forth my Light.
I feared what it would reveal
about myself,
about my life.

I built a wall, a façade.
The flow of my energies was fragmented.
I turned inwards
and declared my Light
darkness.


For years one can slumber
but the Light remains.

A boy of fourteen,
plagued by fear and doubt.
At night I roamed the darkened house,
the silent garden – lost.
A stranger in the midst
of family and friends.

Alone but for the fear
which like a wild beast,
a coiling serpent within,
dragged me deeper
into darkness.

Each night I would pray
to the God of the psalmist
who likewise had prayed:

Troubles surround me;
my sins have overtaken me;
I cannot see my way.
They outnumber the hairs on my head,
and my heart fails me.

Be pleased, Yahweh, to rescue me.
Yahweh, come quickly and help me!

. . . Poor and needy as I am,
God has me in mind.
You my helper, my savior,
my God, do not delay.

And then came the calm.

It was a gift
from both beyond
and within.
It rose like a tide
and quelled
the fiery beast of fear.
It allowed me to walk
upon the sacred ground
of my own true Self.

Here I cultivated a garden,
a resting place
wherein I drew strength.
And the calm became
a splashing fountain
that resounded my name.


In time
I came to look upon the Light
that I had so greatly feared,
to approach its flame.
And to perceive the source of both
the calm and the Light,
the fountain and the flame,
as being one and the same.

I waited, I waited for Yahweh.
Then he stooped to me
and heard my cry for help.

He pulled me up
from the seething chasm,
from the mud of the mire.
He set my feet on rock,
and made my footsteps firm.

NEXT: Part 2 – Shards of Summer


See also the previous Wild Reed post:
• Introduction to In the Footsteps of Spring

Image 1: “A Differing Light” by Celelia.
Image 2: “Despair” by James McPherson.
Image 3: “Youth of Fountain” by Sindala.

Making My Consociate Commitment

“I, Michael Bayly, commit myself to live the mission of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet and Consociates, St. Paul Province, moving always toward profound love of God and the dear neighbor without distinction. I pledge myself to live the vision and values of the community as a consociate within the context of my life and responsibilities.”

Yesterday I joined with six others in committing to being a consociate member of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet (CSJ). One young woman was also received into the novitiate of the CSJ community during yesterday’s ritual of welcome and commitment at the Presentation of Our Lady Chapel in the Carondelet Center in St. Paul.

In the photograph above I’m pictured with the two inspiring women who served as my companions during my two-year consociate candidancy - Rita McDonald, CSJ and Marguerite Corcoran, CSJ.

Following is the full text of my commitment statement.

________________________________

Friends, for as long as I can remember I’ve always been drawn to the idea and the actual experience of journeying. In my youth in Australia I’d love nothing more than to embark on a quest to scale some deserted rocky outcrop. And as a young adult, I made the journey from Australia to the U.S. so as to study theology at the College of St. Catherine. It was here that I was first introduced to the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet. And in one way or another, I’ve been journeying with them ever since.

Our Christian tradition is filled with journeying stories. One of my favorites is the story of the wandering magi, those three wise strangers from the East, who went in search of the Christ child. I’ve come to see this story as a powerful metaphor for the journey that each one of us is called to take so as to seek and embody a Christ-centered way of relating to our deepest selves, to others, and to God. It’s a way of relating that’s characterized by an openness to mystery; a willingness to search and question, to grapple with the complexities of human life. It’s also a way of relating that’s characterized by trust rather than fear.

I see and experience in the CSJ community the embodiment of this way of relating. CSJ sisters and consociates model it in their interactions with one another, with the “dear neighbor,” and with creation itself. Furthermore, as their inspiring history attests, the CSJs are not afraid to journey – geographically or spiritually – so as to embody this profoundly relational way of being present in and to the world.

As I mentioned, my journey with the CSJ community began in 1994 when I commenced my studies at the College of St. Catherine. In 1997, after an invitation from CSJ Sister Brigid McDonald, I became involved with the Twin Cities justice and peace community – in particular, the weekly vigil at the corporate headquarters of Alliant TechSystems, Minnesota’s largest military contractor. Through such justice and peace work I have come to forge lasting friendships with many CSJ sisters and consociates.

I’ve also built lasting friendships with a number of CSJs through my work with the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities, the organization to which I serve as executive coordinator. The Sisters have, over the years, been very supportive of the ministry of CPCSM. Our dear friend and CPCSM co-founder Bill Kummer completed the consociate program in the last years of his life. I learned a lot about the CSJs as I observed their loving support of Bill as he prepared for his death.

In addition, and perhaps in part because of my convict heritage [an attempt at humor!], I’ve always been greatly inspired by the CSJ’s efforts to build and sustain a community of equals within the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church – no mean feat! I’m also inspired by the many ways the CSJ sisters and conscociates bring hope and build community within our wider society. I resonate with how Irene O’Neill, CSJ talks about community. She observes that: “Community is never static; it unfolds and changes. It is about real face-to-face settings in which people can learn how to relate to each other – with trust, shared values, responsibility, caring, and mutual obligation. We need community because it provides connections for [all who are] disconnected . . . forgotten . . . lonely . . . estranged.”

The CSJs embody this understanding of community in their ongoing development of numerous pastoral and spiritual ministries, their proactive response to a range of societal needs, and their challenging of unjust systems of power and economics. All such endeavors provide experiences of connection and belonging for which so many in our world hunger.

The prospect of journeying with the CSJ/consociate community, learning and growing from such a shared pilgrimage, and being able to share my gifts and talents along the way, is the main reason why I feel called to be a CSJ consociate. A personal goal is to be always growing in awareness and compassion, in that way of relating that I spoke of earlier and which our brother Jesus embodied - and continues to embody through communities like this one.

I greatly appreciate being welcomed as a fellow pilgrim within the CSJ community, and am honored to be able to walk with such wise and justice-making women and men. I therefore commit myself to live the mission of the Sister of St. Joseph of Carondelet and Consociates, St. Paul Province, moving always toward profound love of God and the dear neighbor without distinction. I pledge myself to live the vision and values of the community as a consociate within the context of my life and responsibilities.

Thank you.


Note: The beautiful candle that each new consociate was given upon making their commitment was handcrafted by Gerrie Lane, CSJ.

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Beginning the Process
Reflections on Associate/Consociate Programs by Joan Chittister

Frank D. Myers' Long Hard Look at Brokeback Mountain

In February, Frank D. Myers contacted me via e-mail and, in sharing his thoughts about my writings on The Wild Reed, generously said: “You’ve ordered my thoughts, stretched my mind, exercised my spirit, and given me many new things to think about. . . . You are a wise and eloquent man . . . Heck, for many I’ll bet you’ve been and continue to be answered prayer.”

It was while looking for “intelligent commentary” about the late Heath Ledger that Frank found my Wild Reed post on the young actor who died in January. In his e-mail, Frank shared his thoughts about Ledger and the film for which he is perhaps most well known, Brokeback Mountain (2005). Described as an “epic American love story,” Brokeback Mountain features Ledger as Wyoming ranch hand Ennis Del Mar, who, from 1963 to the early 1980s, has a clandestine relationship with an aspiring rodeo rider named Jack Twist (played by Jake Gyllenhaal).

Wrote Frank:

To my mind, Ledger’s performance was the transcendent aspect of “Brokeback Mountain,” and awe keeps me working to figure out how and why and with what assistance he did it. Another expression of grace, I sometimes think.

I’m just old enough to be your father – and that means my epiphany summer spent in and around Wyoming’s Big Horns, mostly on my great-uncle’s ranch and his allotments above it, with my “Jack,” paralleled fiction in time and place. So the film knocked me flat at first and when I’d gotten up the first time, it knocked me down again.

Frank shared with me how he wrote a piece for the Globe Gazette, entitled, “Brokeback Fever,” in which he told his story, “framing some of the best and happiest days” of his life with commentary on Brokeback Mountain.

He notes that many who read his commentary saw it as a “coming out” piece. “And that’s fine,” he says. “But if there is such a thing as an ‘official’ coming out,” he continues, then “that happened a good many years ago now, not long after that guy I called ‘my Jack’ walked out into a field in Golden, Colorado, stuck the barrel of a pistol in his mouth and pulled the trigger – not because he was gay, conflicted or guilt-ridden, but because he was dying of AIDS.”

The way Mervin Elmer Gibbany (Frank’s “Jack”) died in 1992 reflected, says Frank, the way he lived - “bravely and decisively.”

In November 2006, Frank made a presentation to the Mason City, Iowa, P-FLAG chapter, sharing with his audience “a little of what I’ve learned while taking a long hard look at a short story and a movie, both called Brokeback Mountain; trying to find lessons in fiction that we might apply to our non-fiction lives.”

Recently, Frank shared with me the text of this presentation, entitled “Brokeback Fever, Too,” and gave me permission to reprint excerpts from it on The Wild Reed. I’m honored to do so in a series of posts, starting with this first installment today.

__________________________________

I want to get one thing straight at the beginning, so that there will be no misunderstanding. I believe as firmly as I believe anything in this life that sexual orientation is original equipment, that those of us who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or straight are as we were created. And that the Creator does bot make mistakes. This means there is a purpose for each of us and that purpose cannot be separated from who we are.

The good Lord is not, however, a babysitter. So I also believe that it is up to each of us, with grace and a little help from our friends and families, to sort out the implications of who we are and to live everything – including what sometimes appear to be contradictions – bravely; to do what has to be done. That’s a fairly simple concept, but it took a good while for me, as it does for most of us, to grasp.

My friend and colleague, Deb Nicklay, enjoys bringing me back to earth sometimes, and she did just that that at the office one evening several months ago when I was going on and on about Brokeback Mountain and what it meant to those of us who are queer.

“Calm down, Frank,” I believe she said. “It’s just a love story.”

She was right, of course, and isn’t that remarkable in itself? Who would have thought that in my lifetime a big-budget Hollywood film produced by highly-acclaimed writers and starring mainstream actors would do its best to present our lives objectively, without stereotypes, smirks and smears; and that it would be shown in public theaters almost everywhere, including Mason City, Iowa?

And that an eminently sensible heterosexual reporter, United Methodist lay speaker, wife and mother from Osage would go see the movie, like it, and conclude that it was, more than anything else, a simple love story.

That all of this was possible may be the most obvious lesson from Brokeback: Times really have changed and the scales are tipping.

But if you are queer, or love someone who is, it doesn’t stop there. That film, to one degree or another, is our story. That makes it to us considerably more than a simple love story.

I was struck first of all by the scenery: Canada pretending to be rural Wyoming, a state whose landscape I used to know fairly well and still love. And then I was struck by who the principal characters were – blue collar boys, farm boys, rural boys – just like me – and poor. That is not the gay stereotype.

Old queers like me know that gay men have been playing with that cowboy/farm-boy/blue-collar image forever – sometime nice, sometimes naughty. But I’m not sure we’ve taken it seriously. Somehow we fell into a trap many years ago of believing with a majority of our straight brethren that every queer who could, should and had moved to San Francisco, Minneapolis, Des Moines, or another city; and that only a few shadowy unfortunates remained out here in the boondocks. That’s misled a lot of folks – our neighbors who assume we’re not here; ourselves, if we somehow feel inadequate because we still are here.

The fact that Brokeback began and was played entirely within rural and small-town settings by characters exclusively rural and small-town contains a lesson about who we are and where we are and why we’re here.

There are queer folks on farms or ranches, in small towns and working-class neighborhoods of larger towns everywhere in this country. And for the most part, I think we’re here because we want to be.

Take me, for example. I consider Mason City dangerously large and really don’t like living inside it; never have – although it’s much more convenient to walk a block to work than drive 80 miles round-trip every day, as I did for a good many years. I’m far more comfortable three hours south in Chariton; which I can walk out of in five minutes or less, if I get the urge, and be in the country. Add to that the fact I think southern Iowa is heaven on earth and you’ll begin to understand why I’d rather be there.

But wherever we are in this great country, we should never feel apologetic or inadequate because we are gay and rural. We should celebrate it.


NEXT: Digging Deeper on Brokeback Mountain – Frank Myers talks about three aspects of gay American life that Brokeback Mountain either passes over quickly or bypasses entirely: Vietnam, AIDS, and religion.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Christian Draz’s Critique of Brokeback Mountain
Heath Ledger (1979-2008)
The “Real Gay Cowboy” Remembers His Friend, Heath Ledger

Image 1: Theatrical release poster for Brokeback Mountain.
Image 2: Heath Ledger as Ennis Del Mar in Brokeback Mountain.

Good News from the Golden State

Civil marriage for same-gender couples has been legalized in California - at least for now - with the historic decision by the California Supreme Court to overturn a voter-approved ban on gay marriage.

The court’s decision paves the way for California to become the second state in the U.S. where gay and lesbian residents can marry. The justices released the 4-3 decision this morning, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

In response to the court’s decision that same-sex couples have equal protection under the law as it pertains to marriage, OutFront Minnesota Staff Attorney Phil Duran declared that a “victory” had been secured for “everyone who cherishes fairness and opportunity.”

“Two people in a committed, trusting and loving relationship deserve the dignity and support that come with marriage,” Duran said in a media release.

Following is an Associated Press article on this latest development in the same-sex marriage debate in the U.S., followed by some thoughts of my own (and others) on the issue of gay marriage and so-called activist judges.

__________________________

California’s Top Court Legalizes Gay Marriage
By Lisa Leff
Associated Press
May 15, 2008

California’s Supreme Court declared gay couples in the nation’s biggest state can marry — a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the gay rights movement Thursday that was greeted with tears, hugs, kisses and at least one instant proposal of matrimony.

Same-sex couples could tie the knot in as little as a month. But the window could close soon after — religious and social conservatives are pressing to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November that would undo the Supreme Court ruling and ban gay marriage.

“Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law,” declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case along with her partner. She added: “We’re going to get married. No Tupperware, please.”

Above: Lesbian couple Robin Tyler, left, and Diane Olson,

pose for a photo at the law office of their attorney Gloria Allred
on Thursday, May 15, 2008, during a news conference.
(AP Photo/Nick Ut)

A crowd of people raised their fists in triumph inside City Hall, and people wrapped themselves in the rainbow-colored gay-pride flag outside the courthouse. In the Castro, the historic center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt wept as he watched the news on TV.

“I've been waiting for this all my life. This is a life-affirming moment,” he said.

By the afternoon, gay and lesbian couples had already started lining up at San Francisco City Hall to make appointments to get marriage licenses.

In its 4-3 ruling, the Republican-dominated high court struck down state laws against same-sex marriage and said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough.

“In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation,” Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority in ringing language that delighted gay rights activists.

Massachusetts is the only other state to legalize gay marriage, something it did in 2004. The California ruling is considered monumental by virtue of the state’s size — 38 million out of a U.S. population of 302 million — and its historic role in the vanguard of the many social and cultural changes that have swept the country since World War II.

California has an estimated 92,000 same-sex couples.

“It's about human dignity. It’s about human rights. It’s about time in California,” San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom,* pumping his fist in the air, told a roaring crowd at City Hall. “As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It’s inevitable. This door’s wide open now. It’s going to happen, whether you like it or not.”

Above: San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom reacts to the news

that the California Supreme Court has overturned a ban
on gay marriages, in his office in San Francisco,
Thursday, May 15, 2008. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)

Unlike Massachusetts, California has no residency requirement for obtaining a marriage license, meaning gays from around the country are likely to flock to the state to be wed, said Jennifer Pizer, a gay-rights attorney who worked on the case. The ultimate reach of the ruling could be limited, however, since most states do not recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. Nor does the federal government.

The conservative Alliance Defense Fund said it would ask the justices for a stay of the decision until after the fall election in hopes of adding California to the list of 26 states that have approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.

“We’re obviously very disappointed in the decision. The remedy is a constitutional amendment. The constitution defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman,” said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the organization.

Opponents of gay marriage could also ask the high court to reconsider. If the court rejects such a request, same-sex couples could start getting married in 30 days, the time it typically takes for the justices’ opinions to become final.

Above: Same-sex couple Shelly Bailes and Ellen Pontac kiss
in response to a California Supreme Court decision to overturn
the ban on same-sex marriage at the California Supreme Court
in San Francisco, California. (AFP/Getty Images/Justin Sullivan)

The justices said they would direct state officials “to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling,” including requiring county marriage clerks to carry out their duties “in a manner consistent with the decision of this court.”

The case was set in motion in 2004 when the mayor of San Francisco — the unofficial capital of gay America — threw City Hall open to gay couples to get married in a calculated challenge to California law. Four thousand gay couples wed before the Supreme Court put a halt to the practice after a month. Two dozen gay couples then sued, along with the city and gay rights organizations.

Thursday’s ruling could alter the dynamics of the presidential race and state and congressional contests in California and beyond by causing a backlash among conservatives and drawing them to the polls in large numbers.

A spokesman for Republican John McCain, who opposes gay marriage, said the Arizona senator “doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions.” The campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton said they believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states.

Ten states now offer some form of legal recognition to same-sex couples — in most cases, domestic partnerships or civil unions. In the past few years, the courts in New York, New Jersey and Washington state have refused to allow gay marriage.

Outside the San Francisco courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision. Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, via cell phone and asked, “Pali, will you marry me?”

Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights said same-sex marriage advocates could not have hoped for a more favorable ruling by the Republican-dominated court. “It’s a total victory,” Minter said.

Above: From left, gay couple, Phillip DeBlieck and Rev. Troy Perry,

their attorney Gloria Allred, and lesbian couple Robin Tyler and
Diane Olson, hold a sign during a news conference at Allred's office
on Thursday, May 15, 2008. (AP Photo/Nick Ut)

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners many of the legal rights and responsibilities afforded to married couples, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.

Citing a 1948 California Supreme Court decision that overturned a ban on interracial marriages, the justices struck down the state’s 1977 one-man, one-woman marriage law, as well as a similar, voter-approved law that passed with 61 percent in 2000.

The chief justice was joined by Justices Joyce Kennard and Kathryn Werdegar, all three of whom were appointed by Republican governors, and Justice Carlos Moreno, the only member of the court appointed by a Democrat.

In a dissent, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said that the court overstepped its authority and that changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.

California’s secretary of state is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to put the gay-marriage amendment on the ballot.

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would have granted marriage to same-sex couples, said in a statement that he respected the court’s decision and “will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”

Associated Press writers Terence Chea, Jason Dearen, Juliana Barbassa and Evelyn Nieves in San Francisco and Liz Sidoti in Washington contributed to this report.

________________________________________

In the wake of the California Supreme Court decision you can be sure that we’ll be hearing a lot of hollering from gay marriage opponents about “activist judges.” According to such folks, liberal activist judges make law, as opposed to interpreting it; they ignore the plain meaning of texts to invent new rights; and they superimpose their moral views onto their legal reasoning, thus brazenly advancing the cause of the fringe liberal elites in the culture wars. Sound familiar?

I appreciate what Kung Fu Monkey has to say about so-called activist judges. He writes:

The phrase ‘activist judge’ will pop up in [the] gay marriage discussion. People will insist that this judge is circumventing the will of the people, the will represented by the legislature in passing certain laws, or backing certain legal definitions over others.

I’m sorry – I’m really sorry – but if you use the term ‘activist judge’, then frankly you know absolutely nothing about how the U.S. works. . . . I’m going to say this slowly. Judges. Are. Supposed. To. Overturn. Laws. Not all of them. But, yeah, some of them. Then there are appeals, or new laws are passed, and the process starts all over again. That’s how it works. That’s how it’s supposed to work.

You can disagree with a judge overturning a law you like, fine, that’s democracy. But implying the judge has no right to overturn a law because said law represents the will of the majority, and therefore that judge is an ‘activist’ judge, well, sadly, that reveals a depth of ignorance about the Constitution and the writings of the Founding Fathers which automatically disqualifies you from the discussion.

No, seriously. If you say you disagree with gay marriage, fine – I disagree with you, but you’re entitled to whatever opinion you have in your skull. But as soon as you use the phrase ‘activist judge’, you take yourself out of the game. Not according to me. I like you. No, you’re an idiot according to Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Adams, Ben Franklin, et al. So, go read the Federalist Papers, and preferably leaf through Fareed Zakaria’s The Future of Freedom, and come back when you have a basic understanding of civics.

Also worth pondering is the perspective of Mariah Wojdacz who, in her online commentary, “Activist Judges: What’s In a Name?”, notes:

We all evidently believe that you’re either for the liberal activist judges or against them. Folks on the left say they protect minorities from majority tyranny, as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did last year in the gay marriage decision. Folks on the right say they act as unelected superlegislators. Folks on the left say they are interpreting a living Constitution. Folks on the right say they are unmoored from any fixed point, save, perhaps, the Harvard Law School.

Yet, says Lithwick, what about inventing “a new term . . . for judges or judicial nominees on the right, who claim to be merely ‘interpreting’ the Constitution, even when they are refusing to impose settled law; law they deem unsettled because it was invented by ‘liberal activist judges.’”

Writes Lithwick:

Re-activist judges are able to present themselves as ‘strict constructionists’ or ‘originalists’ by arguing, as does Justice Clarence Thomas, that any case decided wrongly (i.e., not in accordance with the framers of the Constitution) should simply be erased, as though erasure is somehow a passive act. And while there is an urgent normative debate underlying this issue – over whether the Constitution should evolve or stay static – no one ought to be allowed to claim that the act of clubbing a live Constitution to death isn’t activism. So, judicial re-activism. It doesn't exactly trip off the tongue, I know. But let’s put it out there anyhow, and attempt to level the rhetorical playing field.

I’m all for that!

Then there’s this quote by judicial analyst and former superior court judge Andrew Napolitano that’s definitely worth thinking about:

There is no such thing as an activist judge. An activist judge is one whose ruling you disagree with. And if you agree with what the judge has done, you call them heroic and honest. . . . To conservatives, activist judges are those who permit or compel activity in which the opinion of conservatives can only be done in the legislative branch. To liberals, activist judges are judges who prevent the government from doing the things the Legislature wants to do.

(These quotes by Napolitano can be found in Mariah Wojdacz’s LegalZoom.com commentary, “Activist Judges: Why Are They Creating Such a Stir?”)


Of course, there are also those who maintain that gay marriage will undermine the common good of society. In the February 16, 2004 edition of Christianity Today, for instance, Drs. Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott of Roanoke College published an editorial entitled “Speaking Out: Why Gay Marriage Would Be Harmful”. One of their arguments against gay marriage is as follows:

We believe that gay marriage can only be imposed by activist judges, not by the democratic will of the people. The vast majority of people define marriage as the life-long union of a man and a woman. They will strongly resist definition.

I appreciate Jim Burroway’s response to this particular line of argument. In his online article, “Refuting Benne and McDermott”, Burroway notes:

Many surveys certainly do show that varying margins of a majority (slim to wide, depending on how the polls were worded) oppose gay marriage. Some thirty years ago, nearly two-thirds of all Americans opposed interracial marriage. But times change, and so do attitudes. Those today who disapprove of racially-mixed marriages are in the distinct minority. But those numbers didn’t start to decline until the “activist judges” on the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state laws restricting such marriages when legislatures failed to act. If we had waited until legislatures got around to changing the laws in many of these states, justice for many interracial couples would have been delayed for at least another generation. This generation of gay men and women is no longer willing to wait.

I also like to recall how if the broader issue of racial segregation had been put “on the ballot” for “the people” to decide, it would not have been abolished when it was in the U.S. – especially in a number of Southern states. And I’m sure those who oppose gay marriage are not against the various court decisions that helped abolish segregation and other forms of racial discrimination. Yet, clearly, protecting and granting civil rights to gay people is a different story for them.

But what about this idea that allowing same-sex marriage will lead to society’s downfall? Is it worth worrying about? I for one don’t believe it is, and my reasons for thinking this way can, in large part, be found in the following excerpts from an article entitled “EU Countries Divided on Same-Sex Marriage” in the March/April 2007 issue of The Gay and Lesbian Review. I think this particular article provides both insight and hope in our deliberations on the issue of same-sex marriage in the US. It may also help explain why some are so rabidly opposed to any legal recognition of same-sex marriage taking hold here.

Another striking pattern to emerge [from the survey] is the extent to which public opinion reflects the actual legal situation in these countries. Acceptance of same-sex marriage is highest in countries where marriage or its legal equivalent is currently on the books, which is the case in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Sweden, and the UK. Most of the other countries of Western Europe – France, Germany, Ireland, the Czech Republic, among others – also recognize same-sex couples as eligible for many benefits of marriage. Presumably the legal situation reflects public opinion in these countries to a large extent; but it may also be the case that the existence of same-sex marriage as a legal reality has a liberalizing effect on public opinion. [Basically, people come to realize that same-sex marriage doesn’t herald the end of the world!]

One thing is clear: countries that have had an active gay rights movement for the longest are the ones most likely to have both legal protections and favorable public opinion on these issues. From a baseline of nearly universal rejection in the mid-20th century, an atmosphere of tolerance has evolved only slowly and painstakingly as a GLBT rights movement has taken hold in Europe and the reality of gay people has been acknowledged and embraced.

Above: John Lewis (right) and his partner of 21 years, Stuart Gaffney, hold hands while waiting for a decision by California’s Supreme Court in San Francisco, California, May 15, 2008. The California Supreme Court ruled on Thursday the state cannot bar same-sex marriages, marking a major victory for gay rights advocates that may have national implications. (REUTERS/Kimberly White)

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:

The Changing Face of “Traditional Marriage”
The Real Gay Agenda
Naming and Confronting Bigotry
Love is Love
On Civil Unions and Christian Tradition
Separate is Not Equal
Mainstream Voice of “Dear Abby” Supports Gay Marriage
New Studies: Gay Couples as Committed as Straight Couples
Grandma Knows Best
Truth Telling: The Greatest of Sins in a Dysfunctional Church
Just Love
The Many Manifestations of God’s Loving Embrace
Good News from Minnesota

Recommended Off-site Links:
California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage - Adam Liptak (New York Times, May 15, 2008).
California Chief Justice Says Same-sex Marriage Ruling Was One of His Toughest- Maura Dolan (Los Angeles Times, May 18, 2008).
Many Gay Couples Find Lasting Love - Heather Cassell (Bay Area Reporter, February 8, 2007).

Opening image: John Lewis, right, hugs his partner, Stuart Gaffney, left, outside of the California State Supreme Court building in San Francisco, Thursday, May 15, 2008. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)

* Here’s an interesting aside: San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (pictured at right with his fiancée Jennifer Siebel during a rally this morning inside City Hall in San Francisco) was baptized and raised Roman Catholic. He describes himself as an “Irish-Catholic rebel...in some respects, but one that still has tremendous admiration for the Church and very strong faith.” When asked about the current state of the Catholic Church in an interview, he said the church was in crisis. Newsom said he stays with the church because of his “strong connection to a greater purpose, and . . . higher being.” He attends church infrequently but said he has a “strong sense of faith that is perennial: day in and day out.”