MyOutSpirit.com Gay Spirituality Blog

The universal value of marriage

Hugo Schwyzer, the Episcopalian pro-feminist blogger, married dad, and gender studies professor (hope I got all that right), adds his 2 cents to the Carnival of Feminists with a post defending the institution of marriage. His argument is one that I would characterize as quintessentially "integral," though Hugo only describes himself as having a "passion for reconciling contradictions."

His thoughts on marriage hint at complex, post-liberal and post-conservative solutions, pro-feminist and pro-male and pro-human activism, and respectful of a wide variety of dissenting perspectives. Plus, I just think it's totally right.

But you can read Hugo and judge for yourself. Here's a quote:

I am a cheerleader for marriage because I see the tremendous possibilities the institution still has to serve, as I’ve said again and again, as a vehicle for mutual personal growth. Actually, to be fair, my attachment is less to marriage itself and more to the idea of enduring monogamous commitment. Whether that commitment is formalized or not is less important than whether it is made in the first place, and whether the two people making that commitment are willing to challenge each other and sacrifice together.

But as passionate as I am about marriage, I dislike the conservative embrace of the institution as a solution for serious social problems. The conservative formula, made clear by everyone from Maggie Gallagher to Wade Horn to Warren Farrell to Mona Charen, is this: with the decline in marriage, the obligation of the state to care for its most vulnerable citizens has increased...

Read the whole post: "Another post on marriage, social policy, choice and necessity."

The Right and Sex

by Dwight Welch

One of the things that strikes me about conservative arguments on homosexuality is that they tend to focus almost exclusively on the biological aspects of sex.

Here's another piece bashing the idea of gays having children. It all revolves around biology: sex is about producing babies, gays can't do that through "natural" means, so this must be immoral. The idea of basing the morality of an act on this premise is odd.

Because there's nothing moral involved with biology. If there were, animals that produce an infinite number of offspring would be the most moral of creatures. The whole point of the Christian tradition is that there is something in us which is not simply animal, biological.

Rather we're created in the image of God, blessed (and sometimes cursed) with the possibilities of self transcendence, such that sexuality if it takes on any moral character will be more than simple biology. It ought to be a reflection of certain ideals and values that are choice worthy.

Biological Parents Living Together? What about all the concubines?

 

By John G.

There are some topics that I don’t like to post on – mainly ones that involve the private lives of individuals. Mary Cheney has always proved a difficult figure for me as a blogger, because I want to respect the privacy of her personal life, but at the same time, her father’s Vice President-ship gives her a certain level of prominence that attracts a lot of media attention. Whether it’s the much discussed Dear Mary campaign during the last election, or the current brouhaha over her pregnancy, she is a figure that liberals and progressives can’t help pointing out as a stain in the Republican party’s claims to moral superiority. And while conservative voices have seemed to mostly bite their tongues in the past, they’re not pulling any punches now.

What I really want to think about in this post isn’t Mary or her pregnancy, but the reaction from many conservatives and Evangelicals to her and her pregnancy. Specifically, I am trying to think through Biblical examples of parenthood and family life, to determine what the Bible says about how to raise children. I think its an important exercise, because while I would not advocate Biblical parenting techniques unless psychology upheld them, Biblical dialogue seems to be missing from the religious Right’s critiques of families that eschew the “biological father and biological mother who are living together” model. Why is that? Maybe because Biblical examples of parenthood show that God doesn’t mind parenting models that the religious Right bends over backwards to condemn. Moral of the story: it would appear that one can embrace so-called alternative parenting and family models and still be a good Christian.

Because it has been well discussed by others and because I’m not attempting to advance any theory of parenting techniques, I’m not going to take the time to dive into actual scientific work on parenting. Rather I’d like to point out why the Right is holding up pseudo-science and not the Bible in their discussion of family structure. Additionally, I’d like to show how those of us who are convinced by peer-reviewed, credited scientific research can use the Bible to support parenting by not only same-sex partners, but many other living arrangements as well. (I will throw out there, for reference, one of the better discreditings of the religious Right’s pseudo-science, which was on Slate: Lesbians of Mass Destruction: The Empty Case Against Mary Cheney.)

When GetReligion attacks

By Joe Perez

Can you'all stand two posts in one week that point out the bizarre carping of Mollie, contributor to GetReligion? For those of you who don't know, GetReligion is the blog on "religion and the media" by conservative religionists. Their schtick is usually to show how virtually all stories in the "mainstream media" have an anti-religious bias of one sort or another.

Mollie Ziegler's thing seems to be to find stories that raise topics related to gay people and our lives and then she oh-so-politely attacks the journalists who wrote them for not interjecting enough venom and hate towards gay people. Oh yes, she says "objectivity" where I say "venom and hate." It's a tiny area of disagreement that I call a cross-altitude misunderstanding.

Gay marriage is wrong, says alt-weekly editor

Rod Dreher says he agrees with Julie Lyons, the editor of the alt-weekly Dallas Observer. Hey, two great minds agree: gay marriage is bad, very bad. What's surprising is that Lyons' job as the head honcho of a progressive newspaper obviously hasn't won her enlightenment. You can read a clip from her anti-gay editorial here.

My own two cents' worth: Lyons' argument suffers from a bone chilling self-contradiction. The root reason for her opposition to gay marriage? Why, it's because gay marriage epitomizes the "stinking self-absorption of this age." So what does she do? She looks to her OWN, SELF-DEFINED heterosexuality ("It's all about Me, Me, Me!") and posts that as normative for all.

Defiant church won't marry straight couples

At a time when the shameless pope has renewed his attack on gay relationships and famiies -- at Eastertime, no less! -- it's a tonic to understand that other church leaders show great courage in supporting GLBT people.  From Planet Out:

A Minneapolis church has voted to stop performing civil marriages for heterosexuals because civil marriage isn't offered to same-gender couples.

"I will officiate at only religious marriages for same- and opposite-gender couples alike," said the Rev. Don Portwood of the Lyndale United Church of Christ. "I will no longer sign marriage licenses as an agent of the state of Minnesota, until the state of Minnesota recognizes the loving commitment of all couples."

Read the whole story here.  Hat tip to my pastor, Bradley Schmeling.

Polygamy and same-sex relationships

I have to say, polygamy doesn't bother me much.  I know people who like polyamorous relationships, and my internal response is usually, "sounds appealing in some ways, but also like way too much work."  Dyads are tough enough.  I don't see why polygamists should be felons, but I don't particularly think they have a claim on the legal sanction of their relationship, either.

Thoughts on Love Won Out

Today's vigil (or protest, depending upon what you'd like to call it) was surprisingly well organized and, thankfully, positive in tone.

At this point, I don't have a final count of attendees.  The plan was to have a presence in the morning during registration and the afternoon, when the conference concluded.  I would estimate around 400 people (though the local news put the figure at "dozens", since they covered the evening presence).  The picture doesn't show it, but the building is very large, and the line of people wrapped around the perimeter.  As promised, some thoughts.

Laurel Hester's last request

It's typical to hear a lot of speeches on MLK Day; some eloquent, some less so. It's rarer to hear one that speaks in a simple and powerful way to the principles that Dr. King stood for; so that anyone with ears can't help but hear.

Few will do that today more effectively than the message to Laurel Hester is sending to the Freeholders of Ocean County, NJ. Too weak to attend their meetings anymore, and struggling for breath, Hester implores the Freeholders to "make a change for good, a change for righteousness," and on a day when we honor one who lived and died fighting for equality and dignity.

Endings

I've been thinking a lot about endings recently.  Part of it is the season--one year is making way for another.  Part of it is the news that a friend's 4 and a half year partnership has ended.  I've also had a few chance meetings with people who belong to my "prior life"--the two years I spent in a Christian seminary, struggling to fight off lesbian temptations.  And, on a more abstract level, I've been reading Process Theology, which describes the essence of life as flux, and past moments as being incarnate in the present.  For Process, it seems like endings are a mirage.

But what are endings for the spiritual life?  And as gay and lesbians move towards marriage equality, what ethic will we develop for ending relationships?