Saturday, May 28, 2011

Intrinsically Sexual


Sexuality is crucial to God’s design that [we] do not dwell in isolation and loneliness but in communion and community. Through the incarnation, God not only participates in human sexual experiences but God is intrinsically sexual.

– Ng Chin-pang


Taken from Courage To Love: Liturgies for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Community (compiled by Geoffrey Duncan, Pilgrim Press, 2002) and dedicated to my friend Anthony.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
It Is Not Good to Be Alone
Making Love, Giving Life
The Many Manifestations of God’s Loving Embrace
Dew[y]-Kissed
Trusting God’s Generous Invitation
Song of Songs: The Bible’s Gay Love Poem
The “Ratzinger Letter” of 1986 as “Theological Pornography”
God is Love
Cherish
Just Now and Then
Getting It Right
Dreaming a Little Dream (on the Dangerous and Delightful Edge)
Lover of Us All
Our Memory of Eden
One Fearless Kiss
Liberated to Be Together
Charis
It Happens All the Time in Heaven
Love is Love
And Love is Lord of All


Image: Subjects and photographer unknown.

Thursday, May 26, 2011

In the Struggle for Marriage Equality, MN Catholics are Making a Difference by Changing Hearts and Minds


Although the Minnesota House recently voted 70-62 to allow the citizens of Minnesota to decide whether to limit civil marriage to heterosexual couples, I take hope in a number of events that took place in the lead-up to and during the House vote.

I've previously highlighted, for instance, the wonderful spirit of hope and solidarity that was shared by marriage equality supporters who rallied at the Capitol (see here and here). I've also highlighted the inspiring anti-amendment speech by Republican Rep. John Kriesel.

Yes, we made a difference, of that there's no doubt. A number of representatives changed their votes as a result of our presence and our witnessing for justice and equality for all. This bodes well for the months ahead as we turn now to encourage and inspire our fellow Minnesotans to vote "No" on the discriminatory and mean-spirited marriage amendment.


Local Catholics played (and will continue to play) an important role in changing people's hearts and minds around the amendment. As you know, of all the Christian denominations, Catholics are the most supportive of civil rights – including civil marriage rights – for gay people. One "success story" I'd like to share involves Catholic Democratic Representative Patti Fritz (left).

In the lead-up to the House vote it looked as though Rep. Fritz would vote for the amendment. After all, she did vote in 2005 for a similar amendment that later "died in committee." Yet thanks, in part, to a number of pro-equality Catholics who contacted her, Rep. Fritz did not vote for the amendment this time around. I'm happy to say that Catholics for Marriage Equality MN played a crucial role in mobilizing Catholics to contact Fritz (and other representatives) and share their stories and perspective as Catholics.

My friends Brent and Lisa are founding members of Catholics for Marriage Equality MN. They are also the parents of a gay son. Recently they were interviewed for the "video project" of Catholics for Marriage Equality MN (opening image and right). This particular initiative is modeled on the It Gets Better Project and will involve the establishment of a YouTube channel on which a number of short but powerful "video vignettes" will be available for viewing. These videos will feature Catholic gay couples and parents of gay people sharing their stories and explaining why as Catholics they support marriage equality.

Filming of the videos took place on May 1. Along with Brent and Lisa, another Catholic couple interviewed was MN Sen. Scott Dibble and his husband Richard (left).

Members of Catholics for Marriage Equality MN will be viewing "rough-cuts" of the videos for the first time this Friday. We're very excited about this as we believe that these videos will change hearts and minds – in the same way that the following letter to Rep. Fritz from Brent and Lisa helped change her heart and mind.


Thank you Brent and Lisa. And thank you Rep. Fritz!

________________________________


Dear Representative Fritz,

My husband and I and our friend Rose came to the Capitol tonight to discuss the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage with you. We were informed that you have been receiving a lot of emails from Catholic voters urging you to support the bill that would put this amendment on the ballot, and we wanted to share our viewpoint with you, as Catholic parents of a gay son.

Unfortunately, the timing did not work out for us to meet with you. However, we did have a chance to discuss this issue briefly with Representative Tara Mack, who is our representative in Apple Valley where we live. And although she seems to support the bill, at least we were able to offer some viewpoints that she may not have considered before. And we followed up with an email to her requesting that she at least support referring this bill back to committee for more consideration.

We also told her that many Minnesotans are suffering through severe economic hardship right now, and most are very worried about the stability of their jobs, their home values, and budget-busting gasoline prices. Now is not the time to impose a costly and divisive debate on this State, for a law that is already on the books – same-sex marriage is currently not legal in Minnesota. Why add salt to the wounds of our gay and lesbian friends and family members by further shutting the door on their hopes for equal marriage rights?

But we mostly want to tell you what this issue means to us as Catholic parents of a gay son. We firmly believe in the Church's stance on abortion and social justice. We have worked closely with homeless people and lived as volunteer staff members at a Catholic Worker House we founded and ran in Cedar Rapids, Iowa for several years. We also believe that our gay son was created in the image and likeness of God, as his brothers were. He is not "intrinsically disordered" as the Church hierarchy says he is, and he is not less worthy of equal marriage rights than his brothers or friends who are not gay.

Our gay son is not a second class citizen. He is good and kind and intelligent and compassionate. He composes music, he is a National Merit finalist, and he is a freshman at Northwestern University in Evanston, IL. He knew early on that he was different from society's expectations of boys, and he realized at age 10 that he was gay. He came out to us and his brothers at age 13. It took a lot of courage in his part, but we have loved him and supported him every step of the way! Our parish priest told us that we should never have to choose between our son and our Church, but if it came to that, we must support our son. We are lucky to have a caring, compassionate and understanding priest!

My husband and my mother both have cousins who were gay and we know many people who are gay who also have a gay relative. There is a great deal of scientific evidence that people are born gay. Why would we punish someone for being what God created them to be, or tell them that they are wrong for loving who God created them to love?

I know many gay and lesbian Catholics who are wonderful parents and would get married in a heartbeat if the State would allow them to do so. I strongly recommend that you read, Are There Closets in Heaven?, which is a beautiful story of a Catholic father (an Iowa farmer) and his lesbian daughter.

Please realize what kind of message this debate and amendment sends to our son and other gay and lesbian people. It tells them that they are not worthy of important rights that the rest of Minnesotans enjoy. The Constitution is meant to protect the civil rights of all Minnesotans. Please help us protect our son's rights by not supporting this bill!

Thank you for considering our viewpoint.

Sincerely,

Brent and Lisa


Above: Brent and Lisa, one of a number of Catholic couples
interviewed for Catholics for Marriage Equality MN's video project.


Above: Standing center with (at left) Tom and Darlene White,
and (at right) Scott Dibble and his husband Richard – May 1, 2011.


Above: Catholics for Marriage Equality MN hosted an educational
and organizing event on the evening of Monday, May 2, 2011.

Entitled "A Catholic Case in Support of Same-Sex Civil Marriage," the event featured three speakers addressing the legal, psycho-social and theological meaning and implications of same-sex marriage. Time was also spent discussing, strategizing and launching the MN Catholic Campaign for Marriage Equality. This campaign aims to:

1) Oppose (in a respectful and informed way) the proposed constitutional amendment banning marriage for same-sex couples.

2) Advocate for marriage equality for all, regardless of sexual orientation.

3) Challenge the bishops' anti-gay marriage efforts and let Minnesota legislators and voters know that the bishops do not speak for the majority of Catholics on this issue.

For the 5-Step Action Plan of this campaign, click here.


Left: I was honored to be one of the three speakers at Catholics for Marriage Equality MN's May 2 event. As Executive Coordinator of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM), co-chair of the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform (CCCR), and co-convener of Catholics for Marriage Equality MN, I spoke on how we can support same-sex marriage from an alternative philosophical/theological perspective to that promulgated by the Minnesota Catholic Conference of Bishops.

Candace Mainville, MA (above center), a Hennepin County social worker, spoke from her professional experience and with references from psycho-social scientific studies about the qualifications and competencies of same-sex couples raising children as compared with opposite-sex couples. She also shared her professional perceptions and knowledge of the psycho-social adjustment of children raised by gay and lesbian parents in comparison with those raised by opposite-sex parents.

Phil Duran, JD (above at right), who has served as OutFront Minnesota's Legal Director since 2000, shared the legal implications and potential impact on LGBT families of any constitutional amendment banning civil marriage rights for same-sex couples.


Right: Our May 2 event also featured the "Loves Makes a Family" Photographic Exhibit. The bringing to the Twin Cities of this exhibit was organized by Brent and Lisa.



Recommended Off-site Link:
Five DFLers You Should Call or Email to Thank for Voting Against Marriage Discrimination – Eric Austin (OutstatePolitics.com, May 22, 2011).


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Catholic Attitudes on Gay and Lesbian Issues: An Overview
A Catholic Statement of Support for Same-Sex Marriage
Tips on Speaking as a Catholic in Support of Marriage Equality
Responding to Bishop Tobin's Remarks on Gay Marriage
"Fervently Catholic, Proudly Gay and Happily Married"
A Cradle Catholic's Case for Same-Sex Marriage
Catholic Theologian: "Heterosexism, Not Homosexuality, is the Problem"
Marianne Duddy-Burke on Religious Liberty vs. Same-Sex Marriage
At UST, a Rousing and Very Catholic Show of Support for Marriage Equality
Day One of the Campaign to Defeat the Anti-Family Marriage Ban


Wednesday, May 25, 2011

The Political Intrigue (and Money) Behind the MN Marriage Amendment

Why did the Minnesota House and Senate vote in this session on the controversial marriage amendment and not in 2012, closer to the time when it could appear on the actual November 2012 ballot and be voted on by Minnesota citizens?

In a recent PoliticsInMinnesota.com article, Briana Bierschbach attempts to answer this question and, in doing so, identifies some of the Minnesota funders of the amendment push.

Following, with added images and links, are excerpts from Bierschbach's article.

___________________________



. . . Several House Republicans believed the timing [of the marriage amendment] was dubious in view of the pending end of the session and the lack of progress in negotiations over the state’s $5 billion budget deficit. Rumors circulated that [House Speaker Kurt] Zellers [left] and Majority Leader Matt Dean were struggling to shore up the votes for its passage. The vote had the potential to be a political and public relations disaster, many sources said at the time: If it didn’t pass, the House looked weak behind a strong passage in the Senate less than two weeks before. If it did pass, Republicans risked looking like they lacked focus on the budget.

But sources say that pressures from longtime House GOP caucus donors and a widespread wish by amendment backers to launch their fundraising campaign early caused GOP leaders to push the dicey vote in 2011, a move that could imperil new members in swing districts who were dragooned into voting yes.

“Votes are taken when the votes are there,” one source observed. “But in this case, they really threw the suburban Republicans under the bus.”


‘A giant step backwards’

The mood was solemn on the floor. While the House chamber is usually a bustling place where members shuffle paper, cruise up and down the aisles, and engage in side conversations, everyone sat quietly and listened during the debate Saturday evening. House DFLers dominated the debate with personal stories of bullying and discrimination as the amendment’s backers remained silent. But two Republicans spoke ardently against the issue.

Freshman GOP Rep. John Kriesel [right], who has been vehemently opposed to the amendment from the get-go, stood and spoke about his time serving in Iraq, where he lost both his legs after a roadside bomb blew up the vehicle in which he was riding. “It woke me up; it changed me,” Kriesel said. “And as bad as that day sucked, I’ve learned a lot from it…This amendment doesn’t represent what I went to fight for.”

But perhaps the most powerful speech of the night came from two-term Red Wing Republican Rep. Tim Kelly [left], who said if the House had taken the vote Friday after the prayer incident, it would not have passed. “I cannot help but feel this is an assault on personal freedom and choice,” Kelly said. “If we put this amendment on the Constitution, we’re taking a giant step backwards.”

One DFL legislator, standing outside the House chamber during the debate, said the litany of DFL speeches was “not going to change anyone’s mind.”

“We should have voted after Kelly spoke,” the Democrat said. “We are just cementing their beliefs right now.”

Another longtime GOP operative echoed that sentiment, stating confidently that it would not have passed if they had voted right after Kelly’s speech. “It became an ‘us versus them’ thing as the Democrats went on and on,” the Republican said.

After five hours of heartfelt speeches delivered over the roar of protesters shouting and singing outside the chamber, the House passed the long-sought constitutional amendment on a 70-62 vote, with only four Republicans crossing over to vote against the legislation and two Democrats (Reps. Denise Dittrich and Lyle Koenen) casting votes in favor of the ballot initiative. Freshman Rep. Rich Murray of Albert Lea and longtime Mound Rep. Steve Smith joined Kelly and Kriesel as no votes on the GOP side.


Donors pressured Dean, Dean pressured members

After leaving the floor, Kelly said he had offered to step down from the House GOP Executive Committee for his stance, but Zellers declined his offer. “There was no arm-twisting, and nothing behind closed doors,” he added.

But other reports say plenty of arm-twisting was done, principally by Dean [right] and his executive assistant, Bill Walsh. The efforts continued even as the debate proceeded. Another GOP operative said former legislators were using their influence to push for the amendment on Saturday evening, including former GOP House Rep. and 2012 U.S. Senate candidate Dan Severson, and even U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, who authored the amendment during her time in the state Senate. Longtime former House GOP operative Gregg Peppin, who now runs his own strategy and lobbying shop, was signed to a one-week contract to lobby members to support the amendment.

The Dean-Walsh faction reportedly spent hours talking to members to persuade them to vote for the measure, especially what the source called the “soft” GOP members, a group said to include Reps. Rod Hamilton, Jenifer Loon, King Banaian, Andrea Kieffer and Denny McNamara.

“I don’t believe it was the right time to do it,” McNamara said on Monday. “We need to work on our budget issues. Granted, we had sent budget proposals to the governor, but they’re not resolved yet. You also have to question if we really should put something in the Constitution that is already in statute. I just don’t know that it was necessary to do, and I would rather [we had] not brought it up for a vote.”

McNamara ultimately voted for it, he said, because he respects the process. In their caucus meeting last Friday, he said there was a decision made not to bring it up following that morning’s prayer gaffe.

By Peppin’s account, the fact that the Senate had already passed the amendment put pressure on the House to do so, too. “Frankly, it’s probably best for both sides that the issue at the legislative level is settled this year, and the campaigns can begin,” he said.

He added that there was a lot of discussion internally about whether it should happen in 2011 or 2012, especially as the leadership started out the year touting a budget-first agenda. But ultimately the prospect of wealthy donors on the pro-gay marriage side persuaded them to go for this session, Peppin said. “[Pro-gay marriage campaigns] typically have many well-to-do donors nationwide,” he noted, “and while there are some wealthy anti-gay-marriage supporters, there are more $5 and $10 donors on that side, and that money will take time to gather.”

Donations played into the calculus of the amendment vote in another way, according to one source who monitored the amendment effort. House Republican caucus uber-funder Robert Cummins, the chief executive officer of Primera Technology, is a fervid backer of the amendment and a past donor to anti-gay-marriage initiatives. Since 2004, Cummins has contributed more than $408,000 to groups like Minnesota Citizens in Defense of Marriage — now Minnesota Majority — and the Minnesota Family Council, and has thrown hundreds of thousands of dollars at the House GOP caucus campaign chest. In a June 2010 Capitol Report story, then-caucus treasurer Matt Dean said Cummins is much more involved than the average donor. He works directly with House leaders to recruit Republican candidates to run in each district. “He understands the importance of winning elections,” Dean said at the time.

“Promises must have been made to outside sources,” the source said, adding that the caucus was reportedly promised several million dollars for the 2012 elections from various groups if the amendment passed this session. . . .

– Briana Bierschbach
"House GOP Vote on Marriage Amendment
was Defining Issue of Session’s Last Days"
PoliticsInMinnesota.com
May 25, 2011



Recommended Off-site Links:
Meet the Six House Members Who Bucked Their Parties on the Marriage Amendment Vote – Doug Grow (MinnPost.com, May 25, 2011).
Dayton Issues Symbolic Veto of Gay Marriage Amendment Star Tribune (May 25, 2011).
As Expected, Anti-Gay Groups Preparing Propaganda Blitz In Minnesota – Carlos Maza (EqualityMatters.org, May 25, 2011).
The Documents the Minnesota Family Council Doesn't Want You to See GoodAsYou.org (May 25, 2011).
Minnesota Family Council Defends Documents Linking Gays to Bestiality, Pedophilia – Andy Birkey (The Minnesota Independent, May 25, 2011).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Doug Grow n Republican Rep. John Kriesel's Anti-Amendment Speech
What a Man! – John Kriesal
Day One of the Campaign to Defeat the Anti-Family Marriage Ban
At MN Capitol, Protests Against Proposed Marriage Amendment Continue
An Eventful Day at the Capitol
MN Marriage Amendment Headed for House Vote
At the Minnesota Capitol, Signs of the Times
The Real Losers at the MN State Capitol Today
Opposition to Marriage Amendment Grows
Tips on Speaking as a Catholic in Support of Marriage Equality
Winona Daily News Calls Proposed Marriage Amendment "Bigoted" and "Malicious"
Law Professor: Marriage Amendment is Divisive and Mean-Spirited
Rep. Steve Simon on Gay Marriage and the Arc of History
Disappointing but Not Unexpected: "Marriage Amendment" Bill Passes MN Senate Judiciary Committee
Governor Mark Dayton to LGBT Advocates: "I Stand with You"


Tuesday, May 24, 2011

"Fervently Catholic, Proudly Gay and Happily Married"

Writes Karen Doherty on her blog, Nihil Obstat:

. . . I [met] one or two ex-Courage members at Dignity/New York meetings in the early 1980s. Like Dignity, Courage was 98% men. From talking to them briefly it seemed they tried to abstain from gay sex, but the continual messages they received, that homosexuals are immoral and sick, drove them away.

The Archdiocese of New York, under Terence Cardinal Cooke, issued “The Rights of Homosexuals vs. Parental Rights” on January 11, 1978. The gist of this document is . . . “Catholics maintain unequivocally that homosexual activity is immoral and patterns of life that encourage homosexuality are gravely wrong. Without encouraging unkindness towards homosexuals, the Catholic moral position strongly reinforces parents’ and their surrogates’ determination to keep all children in their formative years free of any persons or influences that could draw them into homosexual practice.”

The sentiments behind that statement are the reason Courage has failed to attract most homosexual Catholics: be ashamed of who you are. Your longing and desire is dirty, immoral, disgusting. Hide it, or risk being expelled from the community. Stay in the closet.

Dignity in comparison was like a rush of fresh air: God made you who you are, and loves you as you are. Little wonder gay and lesbian Catholics flocked to Dignity instead.

About two years ago, I received an email from a woman member of the Courage group meeting at St. John the Baptist Church on West 31st Street in New York. She encouraged me to give up my lifestyle and come to the group’s meetings. I can’t recall if I replied or not, but after another note or two she gave up trying to recruit me.

The experience recalled an admonishment my mother gave to me as a little girl: “People who feel bad about something they’ve done want other people to do the same thing so they don’t feel alone and feel better about it.” Although that bit of wisdom was intended to deter me from mischief, it came to mind reading the insistent note from the lady Courage member.

. . . I am fervently Catholic, proudly gay and happily married . . . to a wonderful woman. I stopped struggling to be straight many years ago when I came out. And I believe, with my whole heart, God made me who I am. I was not created to suffer through involuntary chastity. Nor was I made to label and think of myself as “disordered.”

– Karen Doherty
God Made
Nihil Obstat
February 12, 2011



See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
LGBT Catholics Celebrate Being "Wonderfully Made"
Notes from the "Laughable but Tragic" World of Courage
John Townsend Responds to His Critics
Quote of the Day – January 22, 2011
John Harvey, Founder of the Courage Apostolate, 1918-2010
Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Courage
Gay Catholics, the Courage Apostolate and Reparative Therapy
Beyond Courage
The Many Forms of Courage (Part I)
The Many Forms of Courage (Part II)
The Many Forms of Courage (Part III)
The Many Manifestations of God's Loving Embrace
Celebrating Our Sanctifying Truth
Catholic Attitudes on Gay and Lesbian Issues: An Overview


Recommended Off-site Links:
DignityUSA
Fortunate Families
New Ways Ministry
Equally Blessed
Catholics for Equality
Catholics for Marriage Equality USA
Catholics for Marriage Equality MN
The Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities
Catholic Rainbow Parents
Catholic Lesbians


Photo of the Day


Image: "Charlie" by Michael J. Bayly.

Monday, May 23, 2011

Quote of the Day

The President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples or to take such rights away. While he believes this is an issue best addressed by the states, he also believes that committed gay couples should have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country.

– A White House Statement in response to the proposed measure in Minnesota
that would make a ban on same-sex marriage part of the state constitution.



Note: White House spokesperson Shin Inouye provided this statement to the Washington Blade via e-mail in response to a question on President Obama’s position on the marriage amendment, which will come before Minnesota voters in 2012. For the Washington Blade's story on this statement, click here.

Thanks to my friend Phil Attey of Catholics for Equality for bringing this White House statement to my attention.


Recommended Off-site Links:
Obama, Franken Speak Out Against Minnesota Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment – Andy Birkey (Minnesota Independent, May 24, 2011).
Senator Al Franken Comes Out Against Minnesota Marriage Amendment – Chris Johnson (Washington Blade, May 23, 2011).
Poll Sixth to Find Majority Support for Same-Sex Marriage – Chris Johnson (Washington Blade, May 20, 2011).
NOM Pledges to Give "Resources" in Minnesota Anti-Gay Marriage Vote – A. McEwen (Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters, May 23, 2011).
Now the Real Gay Marriage Fight is On – Curt Brown (Star Tribune, May 23, 2011).


Doug Grow on Republican Rep. John Kriesel's Anti-Amendment Speech

Writes Doug Grow in his latest MinnPost.com op-ed:

. . . The moment that most won't forget is when Rep. John Kriesel [right], R-Cottage Grove, rose late Saturday night to speak against the marriage amendment.

Kriesel, whose legs were badly mangled in Iraq, was described by [House Speaker Kurt] Zellers at the beginning of this session as "a rock star" of the Republican freshman class.

And now, here he was, speaking out passionately against a key Republican action.

"If this was five or six years ago," Kriesel said as he began his talk, "I probably would have voted 'yes' without really thinking about it."

Then, Kriesel told a silent House about suffering his wounds, laying in the dirt, legs mangled, thinking of his wife and kids and doubting that he'd ever see them again.

The thoughts of the people he loved, he said, made him fight for life.

"As bad as that day sucked," he said, "it's changed my life in good ways. What would I do without my wife?"

He talked of how it's a hard world and "that happiness is so hard to find." Why, he wondered, would legislators vote for something that would deny people who love each other the chance to marry?

"This amendment doesn't represent what I went to fight for," he said.

Before he spoke, Kriesel had made sure each legislator had received an 8 ½-by-11-inch copy of a photo of Army Spc. Andrew Wilfahrt in combat gear. The Minnesota man was killed in Afghanistan during the winter. He was gay.

Kriesel asked his colleagues to look at the picture and think about the young man's death.

"Good enough to give his life for his country, but not good enough to marry the person he loved?" Kriesel asked.

The speech will not be forgotten by members of either party, although Republicans give off the feeling they'd like to forget it — and the marriage amendment. But they didn't have the strength to turn down the most socially conservative portion of their base.

The Republicans "won" the vote 70-62. Two DFLers , Lyle Koener of Clara City and Denise Ditrrich of Champlin, voted with the Republican majority. Four Republicans voted against the amendment: Kriesel, Tim Kelly of Red Wing, Steve Smith of Mound and Rich Murray of Albert Lea.

And none of the [other] Republicans seemed eager to talk about their action. . . .




Despite the impassioned speech of Rep. John Kriesel and many other powerful testimonies, the Minnesota House voted 70-62 to allow voters to decide whether to limit civil marriage to heterosexual couples – a prohibition that already exists in state law.

Following is video footage of Rep. John Kriesel's entire speech. It really is essential viewing.






See also the previous Wild Reed post:
What a Man! – John Kriesel


A Hopeful (and Humorous) Look to the Future


I have to say that after Saturday night's
disappointing Minnesota House vote on the marriage amendment, the following piece from The Onion is just what I need!

I hope it gives you a chuckle, too – along with a reminder that, despite the current setbacks, the tide of change around marriage equality can't and won't be stopped: We will one day see marriage equality for all – regardless of sexual orientation. Of this I'm sure.

(Thanks to my friend Mark for sharing this article on Facebook!)


_____________________



Future U.S. History Students:
"It's Pretty Embarrassing How Long You Guys Took
to Legalize Gay Marriage"


The Onion
February 8, 2011



DECATUR, IL, THE YEAR 2083 — According to students in Mr. Bernard's fourth-period U.S. history class, it's "really pathetic" how long it took for early-21st-century Americans to finally legalize gay marriage.

The classroom of 15-year-olds at MacArthur High School — all of whom were born in the late 2060s and grew up never questioning the obvious fact that homosexual couples deserve the right to get married — were reportedly "amazed" to learn in their Modern U.S. History: 2081 Edition textbooks that as late as the 2020s, gays and lesbians actually had to fight for the constitutional right to wed.

"Wow, that is nuts," said student Jeremy Golliver, who claimed he knew gay rights was a struggle "like, a hundred years ago" but didn't realize it lasted so long. "It's really embarrassing, when you think about it. Just the fact that people in this century were actually saying things like, 'No, gays should not be allowed to marry,' and were getting all up in arms about it, as if homosexuals weren't full citizens or something. It's insane."

"I mean, was everybody just a huge bigot back then or what?" Golliver added.

The late-21st-century high schoolers told reporters that while many of them had seen depictions of the struggle for gay rights in "old movies" such as Milk, it was "bizarre" to read about how, just 70 or so years ago in the 2010s, many Americans truly thought that gay marriage would somehow destroy the fabric of the country.

"There were apparently these really important senators named John McCain and John Kerry who said that marriage should only be between a man and a woman," said a visually baffled Kevin Wu-Picarsic, adding that he couldn't imagine people like that actually being in charge of the country. "I guess in the end I feel really bad for gay people back then who loved each other and wanted to get married. What a sucky time to live."

After breaking into study groups to examine chapter 21 of their textbooks — covering the period from the financial collapse of 2019 to the end of the war in Afghanistan — Mr. Bernard's students spent much of the class period discussing, in disbelief, how even supposedly liberal U.S. presidents of the era were "too afraid, apparently" to publicly endorse gay marriage.

"If they thought it was the right thing to do, why didn't President Clinton or Obama or whoever just say, 'Hey, discriminating against gay people is wrong, so let's let them get married'?" said Pete Merriam, 15, who was born in an age with no death penalty and with nationwide approval of a woman's right to choose. "I get that they wanted to be reelected or whatever, but come on. That is so stupid."

"And look, our textbooks say civil rights legislation was passed in the 1960s, but then it somehow took another three generations to legalize gay marriage?" added classmate Jennifer Goldberg, laughing. "How does that even make sense? Oh my God, and those civil union things were ridiculous, too. Just let gay people get married already!"

Upon learning that gay marriage actually had to go to the Supreme Court, where it barely passed in a controversial 5-to-4 decision, students from the class of 2086 speculated that "maybe people were just dumber [in the early 2000s]," at which point student Eminem Robertson began to loudly impersonate a bumbling Supreme Court justice from the turn of the century, eliciting loud laughs of approval from classmates.

Mr. Bernard, 58, told the class that he himself could remember how in the 2030s gay marriage was still a somewhat touchy subject in certain parts of the country.

"It's true," said Mr. Bernard, gesturing to a holographic projection of late-20th/early-21st-century antigay preacher Fred Phelps on the classroom's V-screen. "Most people had come around by the time I was your age, of course, but you would still read and hear things about how certain people in New Washington were trying to overturn the court's ruling. Hard to imagine anyone being that adamant about gays not marrying, but those were different times."

"In fact, I remember President Romney even gave this speech once calling gay marriage 'an issue that continues to divide many in our nation, including myself,'" Mr. Bernard continued. "Of course, that was before his openly gay son, Craig, served four terms as president a couple decades later."

While the future students, roughly one in eight of whom were raised by gay or lesbian parents, are scheduled to write essays debating the different viewpoints on gay marriage in the 2010s, a number of them told reporters it was hard to conceive of arguments against something as clearly justified as gay marriage "as though it were some big controversial issue, like marrying your clone."

After concluding the week's examination of the history of gay marriage rights, classroom sources in the year 2083 said they would be moving on to the topic of how their grandparents' generation was too late to do anything about global warming.


Recommended Off-site Link:
Minneapolis Residents Turn Out in Opposition to Marriage Amendment – James Sanna (SouthwestMinneapolisPatch.com, May 23, 2011).


For more laughs at The Wild Reed, see:
A Moment of Levity
Boardies, Budgie Smugglers and Euro-Togs
No, Really . . .
When It Comes to the Anti-Muslim Sentiment of Some Americans, The Onion Nails It!
You Don't Say!
Oh! What's This, Then?
Quote of the Day – July 11, 2010
LaBottomy
Now Here's a Canny Idea . . .
This is Too Funny
Why Gay Marriage is Wrong
"Render Unto Caesar, Bitches!"
Let's Hear a Big "Woo" for The Saturday Show
"A Simple Matter of Logic, Really"
A Car Ad with a Difference
Oops!
One Out of Ten
Did Ya Hear About Our John?
A Humorous Look at Internalized Homophobia


Sunday, May 22, 2011

The Soul of a Dancer


A Homily by Michael J. Bayly

Spirit of St. Stephen's Catholic Community

May 22, 2011


(Note: I shared the following homily this morning at Spirit of St. Stephen's Catholic Community in Minneapolis. Regular Wild Reed readers will recognize that it contains thoughts and ideas from previous posts in my ongoing series, The Dancer and the Dance. I'm happy to report that members of the community were quite moved by my words – literally. Yes, dancing accompanied the closing hymn!)


Readings for the Fifth Sunday of Easter
Acts 6:1-7
1 Peter 2:4-9
John 14:1-12

Good morning! My name is Michael Bayly and I’m happy to say that I’ve been a part of this community since 1997. I’m honored to have been invited to offer some reflections upon today’s readings. I’d like to start by sharing something about myself that, at first, may seem unrelated to our readings and perhaps even to faith and spirituality.

And that observation is this: I sometimes like to imagine, fantasize, if you like, that in some parallel universe I’m a dancer – and a famous dancer, at that!

Of course, what this says about me is that: 1) I’m drawn to the art of dance, contemporary dance in particular, and some ballet, but that 2) in this universe, the opportunities have never really presented themselves for me to explore or pursue this particular form of artistic expression. Truth be told, I doubt I possess the necessary grit and determination to develop the physical strength, flexibility, and stamina of a dancer. I mean, I have a hard enough time maintaining the most basic type of exercise routine!


I share all of this because I actually think that dance – any style of dance – can serve as an appropriate and powerful metaphor for the spiritual life and thus for much of what is at the heart of today’s readings. Now, some might say that it’s a bit of a stretch – pardon the pun – to make such an analogy. Yet I think most artists – dancers included – understand and describe their art in ways that recognize and reflect deeply human and thus spiritual realities.

Ruth St. Denis, for instance, one of the great pioneers of modern dance saw dance as a means of communication between souls, a communication that expresses what is “too deep and too fine for words.” Dance, for St. Denis, revealed the soul and was always a spiritual experience.

“The infant begins to dance at its mother’s knee,’ she wrote, “and old age should have no less its gestures to express love and serenity. Each period of life has its own activity, its own beauty.” Dance she insisted, enlarges the horizons, gives meaning to many things now hidden, new power to the self, and a new value to existence.

Decades later, Martha Graham noted that dance demands dedication and is an act, not of escape, but of affirmation. These words and ideas, like those of Ruth St. Denis, can just as readily describe a healthy spiritual life or practice.

And then there’s contemporary writer Jamake Highwater’s observation that the premise of all forms of dance is to “awaken imagery within us, to compound mystery with more mystery, and to illuminate the unknown without reducing it to the commonplace.” These are words and concepts that speak of things spiritual. As do our readings of today.

Our first reading (Acts 6:1-7) speaks of the need to take pro-active steps, to expand our thinking as individuals and as community, in order to grow and flourish. Such concrete plans and actions, when in the service of justice and compassion, are spiritual acts.

Our second reading (1 Peter 2:4-9) offers us the evocative image of a “living stone.” This could, it seems to me, serve as a beautiful description of the sculptured body of a dancer, toned and rock-hard yet supple and capable of graceful and amazing movements and actions. It’s clearly also a powerful metaphor for the spiritual life, one grounded as solid as a rock in God and thus capable of empowering us to do remarkable actions of justice and compassion. They are actions of a fully conscious life or, in the words of Peter, of a life lived in the “wonderful light” of God.

And our gospel reading today (John 14:1-12) instructs us to know and experience the sacred in our lives, and tells us that, in doing so, we will do the works of Jesus, and even “greater ones than these.” That’s radical good news.

Yet, perhaps like me, you found all the patriarchal “Father”-talk in our gospel reading a bit off-putting. I’ve come to deal with this by developing my own formula for the Trinity – one that I use in my prayer life. It goes like this: “All praise and honor to the Love that Creates, the Love that Liberates, and the Love that Makes Whole.”

And as Jesus says, if we know one of these “Loves,” one of these dimensions of the Sacred, then we know the others. The way of liberation and truth, the way of Jesus, connects us to that creative and transforming presence that Jesus images as a loving parent. Living in this sacred presence – individually and communally – makes manifest a Spirit, a Love, which leads us to wholeness and flourishment. I believe this creative and transforming presence is at our very core, and that we’re called to live our lives from this sacred core.

Interestingly enough, the strength of a dancer is centered not in his/her arms, legs or shoulders but in his/her core – those muscles that we all have in the middle of our bodies.

Novelist and playwright Margaret Stephens discovered this when, at age 50, she decided to take up ballet. She wrote about the experience in an article for The National Catholic Reporter entitled “Living from the Core.

“Dancers appear ethereal,” she writes “because they hold themselves from their core.”

In those moments when she was able to dance from this same space, Stephens sensed what grace might feel like. Physical grace. Yet she’s certain that it’s the same with God’s grace: “Always within us, but not always felt, unless we learn to live from our spiritual core, the true powerhouse of our being.”




Reflecting further, Stephens writes that in our hectic day-to-day lives we often “forget what it feels like to let God hold us up,” to let yourselves live, in other words, from that spiritual core that we all possess. The result of this forgetting, she says, and I find myself in total agreement, is that life becomes “ever more frenzied, stressful, outwardly graceless, as [we] metaphorically strain and clutch and claw to stay upright.”

“If I can train myself to seek the strength of my true core,” she writes, ‘[if I can] discipline myself to quit gripping with the wrong muscles, my life might feel, if only for a few precious moments, as effortless as that ballerina wafting across the stage. I might feel the grace I already have.”

Speaking of bodies “wafting” across stages, I must admit that a friend once suggested that one reason I like dance was because I like the sight of physically-fit and often scantily-clad men leaping and cavorting on stage. I must admit that this bothered me. But after careful thought and reflection, my response was, “Well, yeah!” I mean, of course I appreciate and admire the physical beauty of a male dancer. And I do so, in large part, because like all forms and expressions of beauty it inspires me.

This is because in and through dance I experience that energy of transformation that calls us all to enter more fully into the dance of life. It’s an energy that is, at its core, sacred, and one that inspires me to grow and be more flexible, graceful and creative in my thinking, my loving, my being in the world. This sacred energy inspires me to be the best I can be in all areas of my life: my physical life, my prayer life, my relational life.

In other words, I may not have, and may never have, the body and the moves of a dancer. But I can have, I do have, the soul of one.

And I think I know all of you well enough to say that this community has the soul of a dancer too. We are graceful dancers of compassion, justice, insight, and reconciliation; dancers that seek to communicate, connect, and transform ourselves and our world. We are dancers that do all of these things “and greater ones than these” because we know and we live from our core wherein dwells and from which radiates that transforming spirit that our brother dancer Jesus so courageously and beautifully embodied.

I am honored to share the stage, so to speak, with you all; to be partners with you in the dance; to share with you the soul of a dancer.

– Michael J. Bayly
May 22, 2011


Previous Homilies:
Liberated to Be Together
– Spirit of St. Stephen's Catholic Community, October 4, 2009.
"More Lovely Than the Dawn": God as Divine Lover
– Spirit of the Lakes United Church of Christ, August 30, 2009.
Dispatches from the Periphery
– Spirit of St. Stephen's Catholic Community, October 5, 2008.
Somewhere In Between
– St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church, January 15, 2006).
The Harvest Within the Heart
– Spirit of the Lakes United Church of Christ, July 17, 2005.
Disarming the Weapons Within
– Spirit of the Lakes United Church of Christ, November 29, 2004.
Soul Deep
– Spirit of the Lakes United Church of Christ, June 20, 2004.
Something We Dare Call Hope
– Spirit of the Lakes United Church of Christ, November 9, 2003.
On the Road with Punk Rockers and Homeless Mothers
– Spirit of the Lakes United Church of Christ, October 19, 2003.
What We Learn from the Story of the Magi
– St. Stephen's Catholic Church, January 2, 2000.


See also the related Wild Reed posts:
The Church and Dance
The Trouble with the Male Dancer (Part 1)
The Trouble with the Male Dancer (Part 2)
The Trouble with the Male Dancer (Part 3)
Reclaiming the Queer Artistic Heritage
The Dancer and the Dance

Image 1: Federico Bonelli photographed by Jason Bell in San Giorgio, Venice, Italy for the Royal Ballet (2008).
Image 2: George Zoritch.
Image 3: Ruth St. Denis.
Image 4: Martha Graham.
Image 5: Roberto Bolle.
Image 6: Alvin Ailey, Jr.
Image 7: Vaslav Nijinsky.
Image 8: Subject and photographer unknown.
Image 9: "Behold the Joy of Jesus" by Lindena Robb (from the Jesus Laughing Exhibition).
Image 10: Eddie Oroyan.
Image 1i (below): Dancers of the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater.