A Mother's Request to President Obama: Full Equality for My Gay Son

The Twin Cities GLBT Pride Festival takes place this weekend in Minneapolis - an appropriate time, I’m thinking, for a special “Gay Pride 2009” series of posts here at The Wild Reed. In this initial installment, I share my friend Randi Reitan’s open letter to President Obama, recently published on The Huffington Post.

________________________________________

Dear President Obama,

I watched you preach on Father’s Day and my heart was touched by your words. I listened with a mother’s heart. I have been blessed with four dear children. Not a day goes by that I don’t thank God for the gift my children are to me.

You told the congregation that the family is the most important foundation. You said we must take responsibility for those we love and we must set an example of excellence for our children. We must give our children dreams without limits and we must teach them the importance of having empathy for others. We must teach them to stand in another’s shoes to know another’s pain and their challenges so we can lift them up.

You said when you were younger you thought life was all about yourself and now you realize life is about leaving this world a better place for our children.

Your words touched this mother’s heart but they also made me wonder if you are truly living your words.

I wonder if you are living those words as you listen to the gay community. There isn’t a newspaper across this great nation that has not shared the news of the gay community’s fight for equality. You must have heard their pain when your administration affirmed DOMA with their brief. You must have heard their pain as one after another brave and loyal gay soldier has been kicked out of the military because of DADT. You must have heard their pain as Prop 8 snatched marriage away from gay couples.

My youngest child is gay. As parents we were ignorant about homosexuality when Jacob came out to us as a 16-year-old young man eleven years ago. We embraced him and we told him we loved him that night, but we were clueless about what it meant to be gay.

We had to educate ourselves. Another part of your message on Sunday addressed the importance of education. I ask you now to educate yourself about homosexuality.

When we visited with the medical community on our journey to understanding we learned that homosexuality was simply the sexual orientation our son was given. We learned it was not a choice that Jacob made. We were told it was a given for him and we as his parents should encourage him to embrace his orientation and live his life with dignity and respect.

This began a new chapter in our lives. We learned to live in the empathy you extolled. We met hundreds of young gay people who have had such difficult lives because of the ignorance of our society. We have listened to pastors condemning gays and teaching others to do the same. We have felt the pain of discrimination as our son has been harassed with words and attacks. We have listened to young people with tears in their eyes share that they have been rejected by their own parents. We have watched as our son tried to enlist as a gay man and was instead led away in handcuffs.

We also took responsibility as you asked parents to do on Sunday. We have spoken out, marched and led rallies. We have been arrested numerous times doing civil disobedience to try to bring the issues of injustice to light. We have poured our financial resources into programs and agencies that work to educate the people. We have lobbied at the Capitol in our state of Minnesota and in Washington, DC. We have written hundreds of letters to lawmakers, pastors, teachers, and now to you our President.

Our country needs your voice on this issue. I am impatient to see my dear son live his life with full equality. Can you imagine if one of your daughters had equality and the other did not? That is the reality for every family with a gay child. It is heartbreaking and it is wrong.

You may not be able to lift DADT today. You may not be able to end DOMA today. You may not be able to bring marriage back for the gay community in California today. But, as our president, you can move legislation that would right those wrongs. You can sit down with my son and others and listen to their stories so you can stand in their shoes with empathy. You can address this nation about the terrible discrimination the gay community faces in our country. You can live out your campaign promises on some level.

Your final lesson in your sermon was on the gift of faith and hope. You spoke of a hope that insists that something better is waiting for us. You spoke of your faith and your love of Jesus. The Jesus that I know would not make outcasts of God’s beloved children. The gay community has been made into outcasts by many in our churches. We need to hear from you that no one is less than another. The greatest commandment that Jesus taught was to love one another as He loves us.

You talked about the importance of fathers teaching their children. If you don’t address the issues of equality for the gay community, the discrimination will not end. Your daughters are watching you. They are learning from you and so are all the sons and daughters in this country.

You can be a president who not only embraces equality but who fights to see the day all God’s children actually live it. To be able to bring equality to a group of people should be seen as not only a duty of justice but an honor of the highest level. You must be the one to lead our country by setting an example of excellence in treating all Americans with equality in all areas of life.

I sat on the lawn in front of our nation’s Capitol on that cold day in January when you took the oath of office. My heart filled with hope that day because I believed the words you spoke as you campaigned. Those words seem hollow to me now.

I ask you with tears in my eyes, with pain in my heart, and with a mother’s enduring love for her dear children: please bring equality, true full equality, to my son and to all in the gay community.

- Randi Reitan

Randi and Phil Reitan with their youngest son Jacob – March 7, 2007.
To read an article by Jacob on marriage equality, click here.

For more of the Reitans at The Wild Reed, see here and here.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Gay Discontent in the Age of Obama
Dan Furmansky: “Why We Have Pride”
A Catholic Presence at Gay Pride (2008)
Inclusive Catholics Celebrate Gay Pride (2007)
Our Catholic “Stonewall Moment”
Voices of Parental Authority and Wisdom
The Bishops’ “Guidelines”: A Parent’s Response
Grandma Knows Best
Catholic Rainbow (Australian) Parents
One Catholic Gay Parent Who Isn’t Leaving the Church
The Real Gay Agenda

"We Can Make It Happen"

.

Senator John Marty speaks with LGBT Catholics
and their allies about his commitment and efforts
to achieve marriage equality for all Minnesotans

This past Monday evening, June 22, the Twin Cities-based Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM) hosted its 29th Annual Community Meeting at St. Martin’s Table Restaurant and Bookstore. As executive coordinator of CPCSM I was honored to welcome those in attendance and to introduce our special guest speaker, Minnesota Senator John Marty – who was later awarded CPCSM’s 2009 Bishop Gumbleton Peace and Justice Award.

John Marty, son of Lutheran religious scholar Martin Marty, is a member of the Minnesota Senate, representing Senate District 54. He is also a Minnesota DFL candidate in the upcoming 2010 gubernatorial election. Marty entered politics in 1984 and throughout his successful political life has been a tireless advocate on environmental issues, health care reform, government ethics, and campaign finance reform. As part of his position on the latter, he does not accept soft money contributions or contributions from lobbyists, and he sharply limits the amount of contributions he will accept from any one person. Not surprisingly, Sen. Marty also opposes the public funding of stadiums and professional sports teams. In the area of health care, he is a supporter of the use of medical marijuana, and the chief author of the Minnesota Health Plan, a proposed single, statewide plan that would cover all Minnesotans for all their medical needs.

Of particular interest to the LGBT Catholics and their allies is the fact that in 2008 Sen. Marty co-authored Senate File 3880 (renamed earlier this year Senate File 20), a bill that would provide for gender-neutral marriage laws in Minnesota and thus allow same-gender couples to marry.

At CPCSM’s June 22 Annual Community Meeting, Sen. Marty shared the history and current status of Senate File 20. He also talked about why as a person of faith he supports marriage equality for all.



Sen. Marty began his talk by noting that when he was growing up in the 1960s, he viewed the Catholic Church as a leader of social justice issues. “It was very supportive of anti-war and anti-poverty initiatives and of civil rights for African Americans,” he said. “Unfortunately, somewhere along the line things changed, and it’s difficult to hear today of how Catholics cannot openly talk about sexual orientation or civil rights for LGBT people. It’s almost bizarre when you see what’s happening in the rest of society, where for the first time people are opening up on these issues. People’s attitudes are changing and it’s good to see that happening.”


Moving Forward

Recalling the time in 1983 when the first gay rights legislation was introduced by Rep. Karen Clark, Sen. Marty said that there were people who cheered when Clark observed that some opponents of equal rights for gays like to quote scripture to support their view that she as a lesbian shouldn’t have the right to live. “I found that to be really, really sick,” said Marty, who then provided a helpful overview of the subsequent gains that have been made in relation to gay rights in Minnesota.

He notes that in 2006 he began to notice a marked difference in attitudes around the issue of same-gender marriage – even within many faith communities. Then in 2008 he was approached by a gay partnered man and asked if he would introduce a marriage equality bill. Marty’s response was unequivocal: “I’d be glad to,” he told the man, “I’d be honored.”

Marty is adamant that as a civil society we should not ban people from doing something because some people’s religious beliefs say that it’s wrong. “That’s really offensive to me,” he said, “and so I was pleased to draft a bill for marriage equality.”

Although the passing of Prop 8 last November in California was viewed by many marriage equality advocates as a setback, Marty chose to view it as an opportunity to invigorate the movement. At a rally in Minneapolis shortly after the passage of Prop 8, he told the gathered crowd of his belief that “we’ve got to move forward, and we’ve got to move forward now.”


Words Matter

“Words matter,” Marty insists. “My wife and I have been married for over twenty years. We called our commitment ceremony a wedding; we called it a marriage. If you’ve had a commitment ceremony in a church or elsewhere and you think of it as a marriage, then call it that. Don’t worry about what other people say, you call it what you want and define the term. When people use the terminology that matters most to them, then other people’s attitudes are changed.

“I’m actually not that concerned about whether or not we call all government-sanctioned unions ‘civil unions’,” he says, “but we’ve got to use the same terminology for everyone. If someone wants to change marriage [in the civil arena] to union, well, that’s not a fight I care to get involved in. What I object to is different terminology that implies that some types of marriages are less good than others, that says we can’t use the word ‘marriage’ for them. I find that offensive.”

Marty observed that for a long time a lot of people in the LGBT community were saying that they don’t dare use the word “marriage” because it will incite their opponents and because they felt they didn’t have public support. The term “civil unions,” these folks reasoned, might be palatable and thus garner public support.

“The trouble with that argument,” says Sen. Marty, “is that as we discovered over one hundred years ago ‘separate but equal’ doesn’t work. In fact, there’s no such thing as ‘separate but equal,’ and it took sixty years for the Supreme Court to realize how wrong that was and to undo it. There’s no ‘separate but equal’ in racially segregated schools, and there’s no ‘separate but equal’ in having both marriages and civil unions. If you’re going to call them equal, you have to give them the same name. I don’t care what you call them but they’ve got to called the same thing.”


Changing Attitudes

Sen. Marty noted that OutFront Minnesota, the state’s largest LGBT support and lobbying organization, is supportive of his bill and have implemented a 3-5 year strategy to reach out to people around the state and facilitate dialogue. Faith communities will especially be focused upon, a strategy that Marty stressed was key.

“People’s attitudes around this issue have and are changing significantly,” he said. So much so that he sees marriage equality being achieved in Minnesota within three years. “I don’t think that’s unrealistic,” he said. “It’s no longer the uphill battle it was.”

“People change,” he reminded those in attendance at Monday’s CPCSM gathering. “They wake up, and they grow and they learn. The more we take control of the language, and the more we’re not afraid to speak out, the more attitudes change. And they are changing. They’re not changing by the decade anymore, they’re not changing by the year anymore. They’re changing by the month. We’re seeing a really profound difference in attitude. And it’s largely a generational thing. One of my colleagues told me: ‘My parents would never join a church that would marry a same-sex couple; my kids would never join a church that wouldn’t.’ She’s absolutely right about her kids – and, actually, I doubt she’s right about her parents.”

“Church pronouncements don’t change people’s minds,” Marty insists, “it’s folks figuring out that the two people who sit in the pew in front of them at church every Sunday are not friends but partners. That’s what changes people’s minds. Because they know these two guys, they know that they are nice people, that they’re just like us. They’re taxpayers, they work hard, they take care of their home. And the more people come out, the more we have same-sex marriages happening in other states, left and right, the more minds are changed. So I’m convinced that it’s not too far away, and I think three years is a legitimate goal for us in Minnesota. And we can make it happen.”


A Loving and Christian Thing to Do

Toward the end of his talk at CPCSM’s Annual Community Meeting, Sen. Marty shared how his faith encourages him to advocate and support marriage equality. “The Bible I read says that we’re supposed to love each other; that God loves us and cares about us, and created us in His image,” he said. “Making lifelong commitments is something we’re supposed to be proud of. We’re supposed to make commitments to each other. That’s a loving and Christian thing to do.

Yes, I can read stuff in the ancient Hebrew law, in Leviticus, that I don’t think people should take as a standard for how to live their lives today, unless that is they want to do all that stoning of everybody that’s prescribed, but then most of them would be stoned as well. We know that that’s all ancient stuff, that in its own context and with the knowledge of that time it made sense. But it doesn’t make sense today.”

During the question-and-answer session that followed Sen. Marty’s talk, he stressed that, “as a politician, it’s not my role to figure out where the churches ought to be on this or that issue. Our bill explicitly says that this law does not mean that any church has to marry a same-sex couple. It also says that the government shouldn’t tell a church who they can and cannot marry.

Responding to a question concerning President Obama and the sense of disappointment and betrayal that many in the LGBT community feel about his administration’s lack of action on gay equality issues, Marty shared the view that “Obama is the new generation,” while at the same time acknowledging the “extreme disappointments” about the president efforts at health care reform, his “timidity on gay marriage,” and the fact that “outrageous things” continue to happen with regards to the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Sen. Marty also observed that Obama’s “step forward last week, when he sort of gave some benefits to same-sex partners” leaves him wondering, “Do we cheer the half-way step or lament the fact that he could have but didn’t go a lot further?”

Another audience member asked about the religious right. Sen. Marty acknowledged that this element remains in American politics and its members are going to be outspoken on the issue of marriage equality. “The best thing to do,” he suggested, “is not to vilify them but to say how we think they’re wrong. Let them go into their little clubhouses and do whatever they want, but just let everybody else have their marriages, have their lives, and have their rights.”

“I believe we ought to have marriage equality,” Sen. Marty reiterated, “and I’m working for that and I think attitudes are changing and a lot of people of faith are understanding it – largely because of groups like CPCSM that are initiating and encouraging dialogue from a faith perspective. And regardless of what some leaders of faith communities choose to say and do, the role of government is to treat people equally.”

Above: Senator John Marty being presented with CPCSM's
2009 Bishop Gumbleton Peace and Justice Award - June 22, 2009.

Above & below: Attendees at CPCSM's 29th Annual Community Meeting
- Minneapolis, June 22, 2009.

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Sen. John Marty Recipient of CPCSM’s 2009 Bishop Gumbleton Peace and Justice Award
Sen. John Marty to Speak at CPCSM Event

Dialogue is Key in Moving Beyond Theological Impasses

I find the remarks of Terrence W. Tilley (pictured at right), the outgoing president of the Catholic Theological Society of America, to be both insightful and hopeful. According to a recent Catholic News Service article posted on the website of the National Catholic Reporter, Tilley contends that “unresolved ‘impasses’ in theology and in church life lead to counterproductive stalemates that ‘stunt’ the growth of the church.”

Tilley insists that continued dialogue (which incidentally is the primary goal of the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform’s 2010 Synod that I and others are organizing here in the Twin Cities) is crucial if we are to move beyond the damaging impasses he identifies. “The vices of inertia, expediency, marginalizing the other and changing the subject are deadly,” says Tilley. “Theology is a practice that begins and ends in communication.”

Following are highlights from the Catholic News Service article on Tilley.

_________________________________

In his remarks Tilley identified three current impasses he sees in the U.S. church: “a shrinking, and in some places demoralized, presbyterate that cannot be enlarged significantly under present rules”; “a laity that loves the church but has stopped listening to the bishops”; and “a hardworking and loyal body of religious women who are disgusted and discouraged by repeated investigations of religious life and attempted reversals of self-governance.”

While “some bishops have tried to work through these difficult impasses,” Tilley said, “some have followed the vigilantes of the political and religious right by making noisy attacks on Catholic institutions of higher education. Some have berated politicians – Catholic or not – whose political strategies differ with theirs.”

Tilley also pointed to three ongoing impasses in theological circles.

One impasse is whether one begins with Scripture and tradition, “or does one begin with the current situation?” Tilley asked.

He said Vatican investigations into the writings of U.S. Jesuit Fr. Roger Haight and Jesuit Fr. Jon Sobrino, a Latin American liberation theologian, are the result of such an impasse.

. . . Another theological impasse, according to Tilley, is “how to account for God’s salvific will being effective beyond the community of the baptized.”

“The real shape of the impasse,” Tilley said, “emerges when we consider Judaism. Either Christianity is or is not supersessionist.

"If it is, then the First Covenant (God’s covenant to the Jews) is abrogated, superseded by the salvation wrought in Jesus Christ,” he continued, “and either we should seek to convert Jews, as advocated by the late Avery Cardinal Dulles,” he continued, “and others, or we should co-opt Judaism by inclusivist tactics and theory that render it an incomplete outpost, ignorant of the salvation wrought in Jesus Christ.

“If the First Covenant is not superseded, then that covenant is sufficient, the claims for the universal salvific mediation of Jesus Christ are untenable and, incidentally, the practice of attempting to convert Jews is improper,” he said.

Tilley said the third theological impasse – how Jesus could be both divine and human – has never been fully resolved, and was “papered over” during a turbulent period during the first millennium when “the church’s unity was splintered. The political response to the impasse was to resort to force or divorce – this impasse became a stalemate.”

Various tactics “have been tried and found wanting” to solve the impasses, he said, but “the key failed tactic . . . is stopping the dialogue, often done by silencing theologians.”

One resolution, Tilley suggested, is to see that “the virtues of hope, constancy, fidelity, tenacity and solidarity are crucial,” while “the vices of inertia, expediency, marginalizing the other and changing the subject are deadly. Dare I say that without loving, thoughtful, active patience in solidarity, we can get beyond no impasse, but will be condemned to stalemate?”

Tilley said, “The way through impasse is to keep hope alive.”

He pointed to the case of U.S. Jesuit theologian Fr. John Courtney Murray, who in the 1950s was barred by the Vatican from writing on church-state relations, especially on efforts to reconcile Catholicism with U.S.-style separation of church and state.

The priest eventually was invited to joint the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and “his ideas became the basis” for the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom, written by the agency, Tilley said.

He also urged continued communication. “If we cannot communicate the faith well, then we cannot represent the mystery of Jesus the Christ, the truly divine and truly human one,” he said. “Theology is a practice that begins and ends in communication.”

To read this article in its entirety, click here.

_______________________________________

I agree with the following comments left on the NCR website in response to Tilley’s remarks:

Bob writes: As long as Rome insists on fidelity to non-infallible magisterium, indeed the three legged stool approach, Fr. Tilley’s attempt t o start to work through impasse will fall on deaf ears. See the Holy Father’s instruction to the Austrian Bishops. My guess is the current divisions will get worse before there is any hope of betterment.

Andrew writes: Bob is correct. As long as we continue the doctrine of “creeping infallibility” Father Tilley’s words will fall on deaf ears. Sad to say, it appears that the church has given up on the principle that man is a rational animal, and can reason to the truth. The church seems to believe that the truth is given to an elite few whose job it is to impose it on others. Philosophical truth is as difficult to find as scientific truth, and as Meister Eckhart said truth cannot be attained without a hundred errors on the way. Sad to say, the church no longer has the patience for this, which is why we will no longer produce the great theologians and philosophers of the past. [NOTE: For an example of “creeping infallibility,” see here.]

Shirley writes: It is interesting that Fr. Tilley only mention religious women who are tired of being investigated, etc. What about religious women outside of orders who are married or single and are just simply ignored outside of the parish level -- and all too often there as well. We are the glue that holds the church together, but even glue over time will dry out and lose its sticking power. The inclusion of women into decision making in the church is the fourth impasse.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
The Call to Be Dialogical Catholics
From Rome to Minneapolis, Dialogue is What’s Needed
Dialoguing with the Archbishop on Natural Law
No Place for Dialogue in Archdiocesan Newspaper
Canceling Out Dialogue
Is Dialogue Always Possible?
A Time to Re-Think the Basis and Repair the Damage

Recommended Off-site Links:
Civil Discourse. In Church? - Charles Pilon (Progressive Catholic Voice, January 5, 2009).
One Archdiocesan Community, Two Mindsets - Paula Ruddy (Progressive Catholic Voice, June 1, 2009).

Sen. John Marty Recipient of CPCSM's 2009 Bishop Gumbleton Peace and Justice Award

.

At its 29th Annual Community Meeting last night at St. Martin’s Table Bookstore and Restaurant, the Twin Cities-based Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM) presented its 2009 Bishop Gumbleton Peace and Justice Award to Minnesota Senator John Marty.

The inscription on Sen. Marty’s award reads as follows:

Through your inspiring commitment to justice and your tireless advocacy on behalf of all citizens of Minnesota – including LGBT citizens – you have enriched lives, strengthened communities, and modeled selfless service and authentic leadership. We especially honor your faithful and courageous efforts to ensure civil marriage equality for LGBT Minnesotans.

Accordingly, with deepest respect, friendship, and gratitude, the Board of Directors of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities present you with its Bishop Gumbleton Peace and Justice Award at its Annual Community Meeting, June 22, 2009.

As CPCSM executive coordinator I was honored to present Sen. Marty with his award. Hopefully within the next twenty-four hours I will post excerpts form the talk that Sen. Marty delivered, along with additional images from last night’s gathering in Minneapolis.

CPCSM’s Fr. Henry F. LeMay Pastoral Ministry Award went this year to longtime CPCSM supporter and former Board member Beverly Barrett, who unfortunately was not able to be present at last night’s meeting.

Above: Sen. John Marty converses with attendees
at CPCSM’s Annual Community Meeting, including,
at left, CPCSM president Mary Beckfeld.

See also the previous Wild Reed post:
Sen. John Marty to Speak at CPCSM Event

Preparing to Claim Our Place at the Table

.

In the local church of St. Paul-Minneapolis
an intentional and coordinated effort to initiate dialogue
and discern recommendations for reform is underway

As I reported recently over at the Progressive Catholic Voice, across the Twin Cities metro area small groups of Catholics are currently gathering in “work/study groups” to discuss a range of issues crucial to the local church.

It’s an intentional and coordinated effort set in motion by the April 18 prayer breakfast (left) that heralded the launching of the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform (CCCR), and which began preparing local Catholics to participate in a September 2010 synod entitled “Claiming Our Place at the Table.” In many ways this synod will explore the role of baptized Catholics within the institutional church in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.

The numerous work/study groups that have begun meeting on a regular basis throughout the Twin Cities metro area are a key part of the preparations for CCCR’s 2010 Synod. Their purpose is to gather people together who share a passion for reforming certain areas of church life. These areas are ones that many have long recognized as being at odds with the Gospel message of love proclaimed by Jesus. They include clericalism, the selection of bishops, official teaching on sexuality and gender, and church authority and governance. Other areas are less controversial though still crucial when discussing renewal of the Church – Catholic spirituality; Catholic identity/Christian identity; social justice; and children, youth, and church.

My friend and fellow Coalition member Paula Ruddy (right) explains the rationale for the work/study groups as follows: “We identify with the tradition of baptismal responsibility for creating an institution that supports the human development of all its members. We also believe that grace builds upon nature. Accordingly, when institutional teachings and practices undermine full adult human development they hinder participation in the Church’s mission to bring the Gospel message to the world. Such teachings and practices must be identified and reformed.”

The plan that’s underway is that for the next sixteen months leading up to the 2010 Synod, each work/study group will prepare to present questions and recommendations for the Synod’s input and approval. The questions will be focused on the ways the local church does and does not manifest the Gospel message through its culture and practices. The Synod will then produce concrete recommendations for accentuating the positive and eliminating the negative in the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis.

I’m honored to be serving as the facilitator of the work/study group that’s focusing on sexual orientation and gender identity. There are fourteen people committed to being part of this particular work/study group, and we had our first meeting at my home this past Saturday. Following is how we’ve begun to understand our purpose and direction for the next sixteen months.

Is it consistent with the Gospel message of transforming love and abundant life to construct and promote a theology that justifies denying lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons full expression of their sexuality and the human good of partnering? What might an alternative theology, one informed by the findings of science and the experiences and insights of LGBT people, look like?

The Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Work/Study Group of the 2010 Synod will explore the historical, biological, and psycho/social aspects of human sexuality – with particular emphasis on homosexuality. It will also make recommendations for the adoption of a theology that values and celebrates the lives and relationships of LGBT people.

In light of this purpose and direction, we have four specific goals:

1. To gain a comprehensive overview of the scope of our subject matter (sexual orientation and gender identity) with particular attention to the U.S. church and the specifics of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis.

2. To produce a written report of our study with concrete recommendations for change in the practices and culture of the local church.

3. To present this report at the 2010 Synod, “Claiming Our Place at the Table” (September 18, 2010).

4. To select one or more members to represent our group on a Post Synod Coordinating Council whose job it will be to determine priorities and to communicate the recommendations within the local church for implementation.

Those of us who comprise the work/study group on sexual orientation and gender identity had a very productive and enjoyable gathering on Saturday. We started by sharing what drew us to be part of this particular group. A range of feelings were expressed: frustration and anger at the hierarchical church’s position on issues of sexuality and gender, and its refusal to listen to the Spirit within the experiences and insights of the faithful; sadness at how younger generations view the church as irrelevant; determination to work for reform and renewal; and trust that the Spirit is inspiring and sustaining such efforts.

We also talked about the importance of prayer in our reforming and renewing efforts, and how in many ways we are attempting to work toward establishing a healthy sexual culture within the Church. And as one member of the group noted, in such an endeavor we have reason and the sciences on our side. The hierarchy of the Church, on the other hand, is “fighting biology,” - a fight it can’t win. It must know this, and yet it refuses to lead the way in constructing a sexual theology that is informed and reasonable, let alone acknowledge and support those efforts within and beyond the Roman Catholic Church that are attentive to the Spirit and thus working to develop a responsible sexual theology that, as author Christine E. Gudolf notes, “not only accords with our scientific and experiential insights into sexuality, but which better accords with our understanding of the central revelations of the gospel.”

An initial task we’ve set ourselves is deciding upon the first of no doubt a number of scholarly books that we will study and discuss together in the lead-up to the 2010 Synod. Two possible titles are: The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology by Todd A. Salzman and Michael G. Lawler, and Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics by Margaret Farley.

Does what we’re doing fire-up something within you? It’s certainly not too late to become involved in this or any one of CCCR’s twelve other work/study groups. To find out more information about the groups, click here. To sign-up, call Paula Ruddy at 612-379-1043.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Many Voices, One Church
“Something Exciting and Joyful”
The Catholic Coalition for Church Reform
A Declaration for Reform and Renewal
What It Means to Be Catholic
A Brave Hope
Of Mustard Seeds and Walled Gardens
The Emerging Church
How Times Have Changed
The Call to Be Dialogical Catholics

Gay Discontent in the Age of Obama

Like the vast majority of LGBT people in the U.S., I’m deeply disappointed and often angry at the failure of Barack Obama and his administration to make good on the president’s various election campaign promises concerning lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights, i.e., the full equality for LGBT people under the law.

Jonathan Capehart seeks to temper the LGBT community’s outrage in his op-ed in today’s Washington Post. Entitled “For Obama, a Hit and Miss on Gay Rights,” Capehart’s op-ed is reprinted in its entirety below.

___________________________________

For Obama, a Hit and Miss on Gay Rights

By Jonathan Capehart
Washington Post
June 21, 2009

Let’s face it, the Obama administration bungled the politics surrounding its filing of a brief in a case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages. But the searing criticism that President Obama is getting for it borders on a blind rage that obscures some positive changes for gay men and lesbians from his administration in both style and substance.

Obama has only himself to blame for this. The first substantive comment on gay and lesbian equality since he took office was the Justice Department’s noxious brief in Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer v. United States of America, and it fueled suspicion that the president was backpedaling on his promises. It didn’t have to be that way. The department could have fulfilled its obligation to defend the nation’s laws without repeating ugly reasoning rooted in ignorance.

The Justice Department could have stopped with its sound argument that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs did not “claim to have plans to seek recognition of their . . . California marriage in another state” and they “do not suggest that they have applied for any federal benefits, much less been denied any at this point.” Thus, neither an “imminent injury” nor an “injury in fact” attributable to DOMA has been established. The plaintiffs lack standing. Case closed. That would have been fine with gay rights groups, which viewed Smelt-Hammer as an imperfect vehicle for challenging DOMA’s constitutionality. “We had no problem with DOJ getting rid of this case,” one legal expert told me. “The plaintiffs didn’t tell a good story.”

But Justice went further. It cited a 1961 case involving incest (a marriage of an uncle to a niece that was “valid in Italy under its laws”) to show that states were not bound to honor “certain marriages performed elsewhere.” But more galling (to me, anyway) was the twisted assertion that DOMA didn’t single out gays and lesbians for discrimination. “DOMA is rationally related to legitimate government interests and cannot fairly be described as ‘born of animosity toward the class of persons affected,’” the government argued – making a mockery of Obama’s repeated assertions that DOMA is discriminatory.

The reaction was swift, and the anger hasn’t subsided. Comments on the Web have ranged from disillusionment to disgust. More than a few fumed that the push for equality was being relegated to the back of the bus. And a big Democratic Party fundraiser featuring Vice President Biden scheduled for Thursday has been losing donors since the DOMA brief became public last weekend.

Frustration with the brief and with the administration’s inaction so far on big issues such as overturning DOMA and the ban on gays serving openly in the military is understandable. Making Obama out to be a sworn enemy of gay and lesbian civil rights is not. On Wednesday, he signed a memorandum extending a number of benefits to the partners of gay federal employees. This was the culmination of work that began in December. For the first time, not only did a sitting president utter the acronym “LGBT,” for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, but it was also the first-ever spoken recognition of transgender Americans by their president.

Obama directed all Cabinet secretaries and John Berry [right], director of the Office of Personnel Management and the highest-ranking openly gay person in the administration, to conduct a policy review within 90 days to determine where inequalities for same-sex partners could be eliminated under existing law. He threw his support behind the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, which would make all the benefits that straight couples get available to partners of gay federal employees. Obama acknowledged that his directive was “only one step.” He admitted that “among the steps we have not yet taken is to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. I believe it's discriminatory . . . and we will work with Congress to overturn it.”

Under normal circumstances, all of this would have been big news in the push for gay and lesbian civil rights. Instead, it has been derided as too little, too late. As if any of this would have happened with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the White House. I’m all for holding an ally’s feet to the fire. But to not recognize and celebrate victories, no matter how “small,” is maddeningly shortsighted in the long march to full equality.

If gays and lesbians want big victories, such as the repeal of DOMA and the “don't ask don’t tell” policy, they should focus their fire where it belongs: on Congress. Each bill will take 218 votes in the House and 60 in the Senate to reach the president’s desk, and the votes aren’t there yet. Saying no one is going to hand gay men and lesbians their rights, Berry told me, “We have to get out there and fight and get those votes.” That won’t be easy. But if last week’s announcement is a sign that Obama will be vocal, persistent and public in his support, the fight can be won.


Recommended Off-site Links:
Repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Now. It is Well Past Time – Michael Hamer (Bilerico Project, June 21, 2009).
President Obama Betrays the Gay Community – John Aravosis (Salon, June 17, 2009).
Due Credit to the Obama Administration: Small Rapprochement with Gay Community – William D. Lindsey (Bilgrimage, June 20, 2008).
Promises Are Made of Air - David Link (Gay Independent Forum, June 17, 2009).
Obama Administration to Endorse UN Gay Rights Declaration that Bush Refused to Sign - Matthew Lee (Huffington Post, March 17, 2009).
Gay Man Chosen for Key Post in Obama Administration - Tony Grew (PinkNews.co.uk, March 4, 2009).
Obama, We Hardly Knew Ya - Mick Schommer (OoMick, January 11, 2009).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
The Challenge for Progressives with an Obama Presidency
Obama a Socialist? Hardly
Progressives and Obama (Part 1)
Progressives and Obama (Part 2)
Progressives and Obama (Part 3)
Progressives and Obama (Part 4)
Progressives and Obama (Part 5)
Progressives and Obama (Part 6)
Thoughts on Tomorrow’s Presidential Election
“Change Has Come to America”
A Night of Celebration
Obama, Ayers, the “S” Word, and the “Most Politically Backward Layers in America”
Historic (and Wild!)
One of Those Moments
Reality Check
An American Prayer

Praising All Types of Fathers

In the U.S. today it’s Father’s Day. I’ll call my Dad tonight – even though in Australia, Father’s Day isn’t celebrated until August. Why we have two different dates I’m not sure.

Anyway, at the Spirit of St. Stephen’s Catholic Community this morning the following by Kirk Loadman was shared. As you’ll see, it’s a very beautiful prayer/reflection, and I share it here at The Wild Reed in honor of all fathers and father-figures. Oh, and Happy (American) Father’s Day, Dad!

_________________________________________

Let us praise those fathers who have striven to balance the demands of work, marriage, and children with an honest awareness of both joy and sacrifice. Let us praise those fathers who, lacking a good model for a father, have worked to become a goof father.

Let us praise those fathers who by their own account were not always there for their children, but who continue to offer those children, now grown, their love and support. Let us pray for those fathers who have been wounded by the neglect and hostility of their children.

Let us praise those fathers who, despite divorce, have remained in their children’s lives. Let us praise those fathers whose children are adopted, and who love and support has offered healing.


Let us praise those fathers who, as stepfathers, freely choose the obligation of fatherhood and earned their step children’s love and respect. Let us praise those fathers who have lost a child to death, and continue to hold the child in their heart.

Let us praise those men who have no children, but cherish the next generation as if they were their own.

Let us praise those men who have “fathered” us in their role as mentors and guides.

Let us praise those men who are about to become fathers; may they openly delight in their children.

And let us praise those fathers who have died, but live on in our memory and whose love continues to nurture us.

– Kirk Loadman

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
A Mother’s Day Prayer
Happy Birthday, Dad

Celebrating Bloomsday in St. Paul (& with Kate Bush)

.

. . . And how we wish to live in the sensual world
You don’t need words – just one kiss, then another.

Stepping out of the page into the sensual world
Stepping out, off the page, into the sensual world.

Kate Bush
“The Sensual World”

This past Tuesday evening, a group of friends and I participated in the 24th annual Bloomsday celebration at the University Club in St. Paul.

Founded by lawyer and writer Donal Heffernan and hosted by poet laureate of St. Paul, Carol Connolly, St. Paul’s Bloomsday celebrates all things James Joycean – and Irish! Of course, throughout the world Bloomsday celebrations are held every June 16 – the date Leopold Bloom, the protagonist of Joyce’s Ulysses, sallied forth into Dublin City. June 16 was also the date in 1904 of Joyce’s first outing with his wife-to-be, Nora Barnacle, when they walked to the Dublin urban village of Ringsend.

And as with last year, Bloomsday in St. Paul also celebrated a little something Australian as, once again, my friends Molly Culligan, Brigid McDonald, and Michael Zieghan (who accompanied us on guitar) joined me in a rousing rendition of “The Wild Colonial Boy.”



Brigid also sang beautiful renditions of “The Green Fields of France” and “Little Town In The Old County Down,” while Molly performed her famed Molly Bloom soliloquy.

As well as singing “The Wild Colonial Boy,” I again read an excerpt from Jamie O’Neill’s novel, At Swim, Two Boys. For more about this book (and to read the excerpt I shared), see last year’s post, A Beautiful Novel.




Anyway, to (belatedly) celebrate Bloomsday at The Wild Reed, I share tonight the Kate Bush song, “The Sensual World,” from her 1989 album of the same name. Originally, Kate wanted to put to music Molly Bloom’s soliloquy at the end of James Joyce’s Ulysses. The author’s estate, however, refused to grant permission to quote the novel. Undeterred, Kate wrote a song depicting the joy and wonder of the fictitious character of Molly Bloom “stepping out, off the page, into the sensual world.”

Mmh, yes,
Then I’d taken the kiss of seedcake back from his mouth
Going deep South, go down, mmh, yes,
Took six big wheels and rolled our bodies
Off of Howth Head and into the flesh, mmh, yes,
He said I was a flower of the mountain, yes,
But now I’ve powers o’er a woman’s body, yes,
Stepping out of the page into the sensual world
Stepping out . . .

In a September 1989 interview, Kate noted that: “By them being uncooperative it made the track better in many ways, but it was very difficult to keep the rhythmic sense of the words.” Questioned about the significance of the bells at the beginning of the song, Kate said: “I’ve got a thing about the sound of bells. It’s one of those fantastic sounds: sound of celebration. They’re used to mark points in life – births, weddings, deaths – but they give this tremendous feeling of celebration. In the original speech [Molly Bloom’s] talking of the time when [Leopold] proposed to her, and I just had the image of bells, this image of [Molly and Leopold] sitting on the hillside with the sound of bells in the distance. In hindsight, I also think it’s a lovely way to start an album: a feeling of celebration that puts me on a hillside somewhere on a sunny afternoon and it’s like, mmh. Sounds of celebration get fewer and fewer. We haven’t many left. And yet people complain of the sound of bells in cities.”

. . . Stepping out
To where the water and the earth caress
And the down of a peach says, mmh, yes,
Do I look for those millionaires
Like a Machiavellian girl would
When I could wear a sunset? mmh, yes,
And how we wish to live in the sensual world
You don’t need words – just one kiss, then another.

Stepping out of the page into the sensual world
Stepping out, off the page, into the sensual world.

Following are further excerpts from Len Brown’s September 1989 interview with Kate. It first appeared in the British magazine New Musical Express and was entitled “In the Realm of the Senses.”

_____________________________________

. . . What’s always been remarkable about Kate Bush has been the ability to withdraw from the music world, escape from the machine, and return months or years later with something rejuvenating, original, set apart from chart-fodder disposable pop. Like Bowie in the ’70s, Bush in the ’80s has been one of the true oddities, exceptions to the rules. Always out of step, always unique.

And always, as The Sensual World implies, provocative. Bells ring as you enter her Sensual World, bells of celebration, of sensual joy. “The communication of music is very much like making love,” she once said, so it’s entirely appropriate that she should derive her title track from James Joyce’s Ulysses and, in particular, Molly Bloom’s thoughts on sex, sensuality and oysters at 2/6 per dozen.

“Because I couldn’t get permission to use a piece of Joyce it gradually turned into the song about Molly Bloom the character stepping out of the book, into the real world and the impressions of sensuality,” says Kate, softly, almost childlike. “Rather than being in this two-dimensional world, she’s free, let loose to touch things, feel the ground under her feet, the sunsets, just how incredibly sensual a world it is.

“I originally heard the piece read by Siobhán McKenna years ago, and I thought, ‘My God! This is extraordinary. What a piece of writing!’ It’s a very unusual train of thought – very attractive. First I got the ‘mmh yes,’ and that made me think of Molly Bloom’s speech; and we had this piece of music in the studio already, so it came together really quickly. Then, because I couldn’t get permission to use Joyce, it took another year changing it to what it is now. Typical, innit!”

The result is extraordinarily sensual mouth music, far removed from the cod-pieced crassness that usually passes for physical love songs: “And at first with the charm around him, mmh yes/He loosened it so if it slipped between my breasts/He’d rescue it, mmh yes.”

“In the original piece, it’s just ‘Yes’ – a very interesting way of leading you in. It pulls you into the piece by the continual acceptance of all these sensual things: ‘Ooh wonderful!’ I was thinking I’d never write anything as obviously sensual as the original piece, but when I had to rewrite the words, I was trapped.

“How could you recreate that mood without going into that level of sensuality? So there I was writing stuff that months before I’d said I’d never write,” she laughs. “I have to think of it in terms of pastiche, and not that it’s me so much.”

She claims The Sensual World contains the most “positive female energy” in her work to date, and compositions like “This Woman’s Work” tend to enforce that idea.

“I think it’s to do with me coming to terms with myself on different levels. In some ways, like on [1985’s] Hounds of Love it was important for me to get across the sense of power in the songs that I’d associated with male energy and music. But I didn’t feel that this time, and I was very much wanting to express myself as a woman in my music, rather than as a woman wanting to sound as powerful as a man.

“And definitely “The Sensual World” –the track – was very much a female track for me. I felt it was a really new expression, feeling good about being a woman musically.”

But isn’t it odd that this feminist or feminine perspective should have been inspired by a man, Joyce?

“Yes, in some ways...but it’s also the idea of Molly escaping from the author, out into the real world, being this real human, rather than the character: stepping out of the page into the sensual world.”

So is this concept of sensuality the most important thing to you at the moment? Is it one of the life forces?

“Yes. It’s about contact with humans. It could all come down to the sensual level. Touch? Yes. Even if it’s not physical touch: reaching out and touching people by moving them. I think it’s a very striking part of this planet, the fact that there is so much for us to enjoy. The whole of Nature is really designed for everything to have a good time doing what they should be doing.”

And then our arrows of desire rewrite the speech, mmh, yes,
And then he whispered would I, mmh, yes,
Be safe, mmh, yes, from the mountain flowers?
And at first with the charm around him, mmh, yes,
He loosened it so if it slipped between my breasts
He’d rescue it, mmh, yes.
And his spark took life in my hand and, mmh, yes,
I said, mmh, yes,
But not yet, mmh, yes,
Mmh, yes.

Kate Bush
“The Sensual World”

For more of Kate Bush at The Wild Reed, see:
• Wow!
• The Man I Love
• Oh, Yeah!

Previous artists featured on “Music Night at the Wild Reed”:
The Church, Pet Shop Boys and Dusty Springfield, Wall of Voodoo, Stephen “Tin Tin” Duffy, Pink Floyd, Kate Ceberano, Judith Durham, Wendy Matthews, Buffy Sainte-Marie, 1927, Mavis Staples, Maxwell, Joan Baez, Tee Set, Darren Hayes, Wet, Wet, Wet, Engelbert Humperdinck, The Cruel Sea, Shirley Bassey, Loretta Lynn & Jack White, Foo Fighters, Jenny Morris, Kate Bush, Rufus Wainwright, and Dusty Springfield.

See also the related Wild Reed posts:
• The Inherent Sensuality of Roman Catholicism
• The Catholic Thing
• The Holy Pleasure of Intimacy
• One Fearless Kiss
• Mmm . . . that Sweet Surrender
• In the Garden of Spirituality - Diarmuid Ó Murchú
• Thomas Berry (1914-2009)
• Spring Garden
• A Perfect Day