Like it, love it, or hate it, Referendum 74 is now the official law of Washington State. Adults may marry whom they please, be they heterosexual or homosexual. Ministers will still be allowed to follow their conscience, and have the right to refuse marriage. Dire predictions have been made, but my prediction is: Just like other areas where gay marriage is allowed, life will be pretty normal from now on.
I’m welcoming the normality. For me, passage of R74 brings with it relief from the anxiety that it won’t pass, being able to read the usual (non-equality-related) banal chatter on Facebook, and celebrating the relationships of my gay friends quietly and peacefully. (Okay, I’ll be honest. I’ll enjoy — just a little bit — the election night tears of the National Organization for Marriage. So tasty.)
It was a knock-down, drag-out fight in the Christian world. I’ve been pretty feisty on this site, on Facebook, and at public gatherings in support of R74 in the last year, and it’s left me with two sets of friends: Ones who are unhappy that I’ve slugged it out with them over gay marriage, and ones who are happy I slugged it out on their behalf. The most frequent (though not only) complaint I’ve heard from my more conservative friends is that I should be setting about defending R74 is a more sedate, respectful, and collegial way. What I’ve chosen to do is point out what I think are major inconsistencies, hypocrisies, and — to call it for what I think it is — bigotry. I’ve slugged it out with them, where they would have me hug it out.
It’s left me, a left-leaning, but affectionate, Christian, with a dilemma. How hard, and how toe-to-toe, do you go for something — someone — you believe in? Like every Christian, I strive to love my neighbor, including all my Christian siblings in faith. Many of those siblings in faith have chosen what I believe to be a sinful position (denying equal rights to gays) and sinful action on it by donating money, voting, or both, to that cause.
My Christian theology has no place in it where gay people are not children of God as much as I am, entitled to the same fulfilling life that I enjoy. Marriage and sexual identity are big parts of a happy life, and I don’t believe that gay Christians are generally called to celibacy. While I don’t wish to engage the theology here, I will simply say that I believe there has been a long history of mistranslation and mistaken teaching on homosexuality in the church for several hundred years. In my reading of the Bible (which I’ve read several times cover to cover, casually and in academic research) I believe it is simply bad theology. As much as opponents of R74 defended their faith, I have defended mine.
As R74 passed the ballot, the joy, gratefulness, and hope of my gay friends, Christian and non-Christian, brought tears to my eyes. This is what I was fighting for. I was thanked many times by these dear and wonderful people for slugging it out in the public forum, day after day, with other people of faith. They were appreciative that a straight Christian would go to bat for them, consistently and without compromise. Gays are a small percentage of the population, and they readily acknowledge that it’s not without the aid of straight people across the state that marriage equality would prevail. Being one of those allies is one of the most satisfying and fulfilling things I’ve ever done.
So, to my conservative friends: I’ve called you out on the carpet for sinning against the gay children of God. It might make you uncomfortable to hear that from another Christian, but there’s another side of the coin too. People, just like you, who go to work, have hopes and dreams, sinfulness and saintliness, quirks, memories, and traits. Real human beings who peer out at the world from behind two eyes, and pick up the scars and bruises of life just like you. Some of them want to know their creator, just like you. Some of them are clergy who devote hours upon hours in service to God and their communities. These are good people. Just like you. You might not agree with me, but I’d like for you to at least understand that I’m doing this out of a sense of duty to the oppressed, the minorities, and the voiceless.
But also know that I value you as siblings in Christ, members of one universal Church, and I’m learning — more so through the conversation and engagement around R74 than ever before — to value your viewpoints, to value you as people, and to benefit from where you point out my wrong doings and imperfections. I have to admit that I’ve learned a lot from each of you, and many of you I have grown to respect even more. I think you’re due a few hugs — and a few beers — from me, and thanks for putting up with me. I am realizing, challenging as it is, that we can disagree on some really big things and still find a way to affirm the sacredness and humanity of each one of us. (It’s really, really tough but I’m working on it!)
And lastly, I’m realizing you’ve shown remarkable restraint in dealing with me. I’ve attacked your beliefs, your traditions, and your political opinions in public. I’ve questioned your faith, and called your faith traditions sin, oppression, and bigotry as it relates to gays. It’s amazing you’re still listening, or speaking. I’m a prickly and aggressive person to argue with, so, um… a sheepish thanks is in order to you.
To my gay friends: I didn’t really know it till election night, but it was worth it. I’d do it again in a heartbeat. What I’ve learned from it is, even if you do choose to take up the bat for someone else, there needs to be mixed in charity, and there needs to be mixed in genuine affection, hospitality, and respect. I’ll the first to admit that the passion and anxiety of this battle for gay rights left me feeling a bit, uh, savage, by the end. It was out of fear that I would be letting you down. I’m afraid that in that process, I might have let you down anyway, simply by looking like a jerk, and making our movement look like it’s full of jerks like me. For that, I’m sorry.
So what do I do? Gay rights still has a long way to go, and I’d like to be a part of the fight. If I hug it out with conservatives, I risk what my conscience tells me is compromise, leaving me giving less help to those in need of a defender. If I slug it out, I risk friendships that I value, yet come away feeling like what must be said, gets said, to people whom I believe are committing a wrong against other people. It’s a tricky place to navigate. I’m feeling my way forward on it, and hope to use my mistakes in this process, as well as my successes, as a learning experience for better relationships with both sides.
Ah the challenge of just being prickly and…not a prick. It’s tough, each of us have to figure out how to balance Paul’s: ‘Be angry but do not sin” and Jame’s: “The anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.”
I tell you where I find the issue most potentially and evidently for some, hypocritical with libs and progressives when you charge into battle lopping off the heads of friend or foe all for:
“A sense of duty to the oppressed, the minorities, and the voiceless.”
And yet support abortion and war.
I find the silence on these world wide acts of death and blood shed to be painfully, painfully, painfully undermining to the cry of being a voice for the voicless.
I long for a passionate defense and aggressive stand on a ethic of “LIFE” as wel as liberty and happiness.
I hope that all the vitriol of the left will now turn upon the President, who hours into his second term Bombed Yemen. People are dying in mass because of many people’s inability to see past themselves and their politics.
That’s the change I hope to see and the change I could believe in, anything less, feels and looks self-serving.
You are absolutely right to tag those issues and I think it’s a perfect example of where we need each other to build up a right theology and ethic.
I’ll be honest with you: The most of the left isn’t anxious to start attacking Obama on his diplomacy tactics. He’s the savior of the democratic party and problems like that are probably not going to be addressed. Hopefully, the right will be there to bring it up, and I think we need a (stable, non-rapey, reality-grounded) conservative party for exactly this purpose.
I keep hearing my view being scolded for my insensitivity, etc, etc, that things will be just fine, quit freaking out. Well I heard a report Friday that made me angry and I don’t usually get that far. There is a 46 yr old anatomic male who believes he/she is “gender female”. He/she prefers to shower and walk around naked in the women’s locker room at Evergreen college here in Washington state. It is used by many groups in the community and he/she has exposed himself to young girls as young as six years old. One of the mothers called the police who responded. He/she responded that he had the legal right to be there because of Washington law, and it proved to be right. The best they could do was to provide panels for the little girls to hide behind when he/she paraded by. Don’t tell me that everything will be fine!
@Dennis:
Okay, first of all, what part of your comment has anything to do with Ref 74? I mean that literally.
“It is used by many groups in the community and he/she has exposed himself to young girls as young as six years old. One of the mothers called the police who responded. He/she responded that he had the legal right to be there because of Washington law, and it proved to be right.”
Okay, clearly this happened before Ref 74 passed, right? So how is this a consequence of Ref 74?
The problem I, and MANY other people have with anti-Ref 74 folk, is that the arguments against it are like this. What I mean is that they aren’t logical. They have weird, vague, catastrophic potential outcomes, but no logic as to how they’re connected, or how they’re going to get there.
I get there because the LGBT movement is one movement. They are all banded together as pushing an agenda. They come from a mindset that says anything anyone thinks is OK, is. I believe that if incidents like this weren’t suppressed more people would have a fuller viewpoint on what the outcomes are going to look like and wouldn’t allow it to grow.
“I get there because the LGBT movement is one movement.”
I’m sorry, but that’s simply flawed and reductionist thinking. That would literally be like me saying that you fundamentalist conservatives are all one movement. Therefore when gun toting bigot goes out and shoots someone for being black, it’s an example of why we should be actively suppressing YOUR beliefs. That’s just stupid. I’m sorry, but there’s no other word for it. The LGBT community is a complex and multifaceted thing, like any other group of human beings. They have things in common, and causes in common, and they have many differences. They’re not a horde of mindless zombies out to cause the apocalypse.
So what do you think about the man/woman incident? Should he/she be allowed to strut in the women’s locker room in front of 6 year olds?
And if they’re not together why is the acronym continually used in the media? And by the way I believe my beliefs and millions of those who agree with me are being suppressed in every area of society already.
I didn’t say they weren’t together. I challenged your assertion that they’re all the same, pushing the same “agenda” as if they’re all mindless copies. Are conservatives like that? Does everything that every conservative does reflect YOUR “agenda”? Are you all banded together mindlessly pushing the same thing? So when someone like Akin talks about “legitimate” rape, do I get to hold you accountable for it? Of course not. THAT is what I was challenging, not the fact that the LGBT community is a group.
From Eric:
“Here is a conservative trying to debate foreign policy matters on Bill Maher, the result is pandemonium by the liberals:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/watch-s-e-cupp-reduce-bill-mahers-panel-to-obscenities-over-obamas-foreign-policy/
Aaron, what about the he/she exposure incident? Ok for a six year old?
Dennis, I’ll try to address that, leaving Aaron to do so also if he wishes to contribute his opinion.
I think this is an issue that has to be handled with sensitivity and care for all parties. You didn’t link to a story, but here is one of many reports about the incident for other readers: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/11/transgender-student-in-womens-locker-room-raises-uproar/
I would first ask, Dennis: Do you know any transgendered people? I think this is particularly important. I do know a number of them, and from my observation, going through the process of gender reassignment is a painful experience, emotionally, physically, and psychically. It’s not something that people tread into lightly, and transgendered persons are a very big target of violence and discrimination in our culture. I don’t believe that it’s something people do out of some kind of sexual fetish. It’s about trying to be happy when your mental gender doesn’t match your physical gender. You can argue with me on that, but I have the facts on my side. I think if you reached out in true Christian love to meet and talk with people going through, or those who have gone through the process, your views might change.
That said, there are a number of different issues at play. There’s 1) the right of ALL the public to use public facilities. There’s 2) the issue of children being present in one of the few places in America where public nudity is accepted. There’s 3) the issue of whether or not seeing the human form is, in fact, damaging. Each one of those issues could consume pages and pages in themselves, and if we were really to engage in productive, thoughtful discussion about any one of those topics, we’d be here all night.
If you’ve done even an introductory study into anthropology at some point, you’d know that men and women who feel that they have the wrong gender at birth is a very old phenomenon — as old as humanity itself. But it’s been only recently that we’ve had the technology to let people do something about it, however imperfect the process might be at this point (though the latest procedures can accomplish some amazing work). With such newness, seeing someone who looks like a female undress to reveal a penis can definitely be shocking. This is, however, the new face of humanity, and it’s not going to reverse soon.
Public access for diverse individuals, however, has been established as the law of the land. Theologically speaking, Paul does advise us to respect the rulers and rules of land — they are put there by God. Speaking of civil rights, businesses open to the public (and most especially those receiving federal funding, such as Evergreen) do not have the right to not serve individuals at whim. This was a huge sticking point of the civil rights era: Do hotels, public pools, and businesses have a right to refuse service to black people? The answer was a clear and resounding No, and those rules protect all of us.
Here’s a thought experiment: Can you imagine a world in which Christians could be refused service in public places? Unlikely, but still possible. If so, the rights that protect the transgendered also protect *you*. You may not like the individuals, but the law protects us all.
Now, about children and exposure: Besides the novelty, was harm really done? This is the new face of humanity. At what point should children be allowed to know about the real world? It’s a very tricky question and up to each parent. The avenue many parents choose (such as my parents, who raised me in a rather reclusive, homeschooled, fundamentalist upbringing) is increasingly to separate and shield children from reality until adulthood. While I personally have issues with this, it is within the right of parents to do this. Could the offended parents possibly choose to just not patronize the Evergreen sauna? This is a valid option, just as valid as parents taking their children out of school so as to not expose them to Darwinism.
In my view, for what it’s worth, seeing what the human form looks like, in all its varied ways, isn’t harmful. Nudity is not sex. There is a clear line between what is the human body, and what is pornographic. But again, this is an area where you are absolutely free to disagree.
In your disagreement, though, I’d ask you and other conservatives to not become authoritarian. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.”
That’s the best I can explain it, anyway. If there are trans people reading this, PLEASE feel free to correct me!
Firstly…trans* legal access to bathrooms and showers have 0 to do with Ref 74. LGBT people have varied needs and legal issues. Simply because the “LGBT community” has reuqested legal access to marriage has nothing to do with trans* people’s access to facilities.
Now…to the issue of this woman and her access to public showers. *In general* trans* people have a great deal of shame around their bodies. That’s why we work so hard to change them via transition!!!! Self harm, suicide, and depression are rampant and high among the trans* community and it stems almost entirely from the body not matching up with the mind’s view of what self should look like. So the idea that she was exposing herself on purpose is rare and frankly unlikely. While of course, this is possible…I believe it to be transphobia spurred and taken to fear extremes.
In the state of WA transgender people are protected on the basis of both their gender identity and their gender expression. This is because of the high rate of violence trans* people face around the world.
The school said that they installed privacy curtains and I believe this should be sufficient to respect *ALL* people’s rights to use public space.
However…none of this has anything to do with Ref 74 and the legal ramifications of *this initiative* (which actually doesn’t mention transgender people at all in one way or another.)
Thanks for the response, Sevan! Entirely agreed (I think I’m the third person in this thread to do so) that this incident doesn’t have anything to do with R74.
I do think it’s worth discussing though, and I do think that all Christians would benefit themselves to be part of the healing process after so many centuries of discrimination against all kinds of people. Is God sending gay and trans* prophets to warn us against discrimination?
Another illustration came to mind, the frog in the pot of water. If you put a frog in a pot of lukewarm water he will stay in it as the heat is slowly turned up until he boils to death. Events like the locker room desensitize people who don’t know better into accepting things that will eventually kill our society. If I remember right it still takes a male and a female to perpetuate the human race.
Hey, ya’ll.
Dennis: I think the transgendered individual you speak of should have used the other locker room or remained covered. I think this because, despite whatever turmoil or pain he/she feels as a result of being transgender, the needs of the child/children come first. I believe that as a Christian.
However, permitting same sex couples the right to marry is a separate matter. I support R74 as a Christian as well.
Public accountability, however, does pertain to both situations. It is this that the Body of Christ supplies to married couples. We recognize the union of two people, and we pledge to help maintain it as part of a community.
If the health of the community is the rubric for our behavior, then the choice about a locker room or where to shower will be made with the needs of the most vulnerable in mind.
And just FYI: the frog-in-pot scenario was proven wrong. Frogs totally jump out when the heat goes up. It’s us lazy humans who love inertia and resist making a move.
For the record: hugs over slugs.
@Liv, hadn’t heard that but as an illustration it fits the reality. TV has done it to us too, think of what we were watching in the 60’s vs. now. The skin, the language, the situations, the nudity. We don’t even blink an eye now, but to show most of our average dramas now would have been considered at least R rated then, or worse.
I appreciate your tone too Liv, but I still disagree that the actual definition of marriage should be changed. It wasn’t about any rights, but to fundamentally change God’s definition. He made it that way not church or government. Not ours to change.
It’s okay Dennis. Fundamentalists leave me shaking my head at least once a day.
Well said, Susan! I think fundamentalists are far, far too likely to believe in hearsay and conspiracy theory, and it damages our ability to have real discourse.