One Priest's perspective

I thought this was a very thoughtful and well-considered piece:

What our parish does about gay relationships

Pope Francis has asked our bishops to report to Rome on what is actually happening in the parishes in regard to marriage and family life. Among the many topics to be discussed are "same-sex unions between persons who are, not infrequently, permitted to adopt children."

I think that our parish is a fairly typical middle-class, mostly white, English-speaking, American parish. I also think it would be fair to say that our approach to same-sex couples, including marriage and adoption, is evolving. One might characterize our approach as public silence and private acceptance.

In public, we are silent about the fact that some of our fellow parishioners are gay, even though some people are aware of their relationships.

In private, we are accepting their relationships so long as we don't have to acknowledge them.

Such a modus vivendi is not really an ethical resolution to the question. In fact, it is merely a strategy for avoidance.

There seem to be two great divides in my parish over issues facing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. One divide is generational. The other divide is personal.

The generational divide is the most obvious and clear-cut, but not absolute. Older people are less accepting of LGBT relationships. Younger people see no problem. In fact, younger people often think the church should move beyond mere acceptance to affirmation. The dividing line seems to be about age 50.

This generational divide is radical and serious. For some young people, it determines whether or not they will remain Catholics. One young man left our church over the issue. As the older Catholics die off, the church will find very little acceptance of its current negative position on gay relationships. We will find ourselves culturally marginalized in countries like the United States.

The personal divide is more subtle and harder to quantify. People who know someone in their family or circle of friends who is publicly gay are much more accepting of LGBT people than people who claim they don't know anyone who is gay. Of course, the fact is, everyone actually does know someone who is gay. They just know that their friend or family member is gay but does not admit it.

Personal experience is important. More and more people are coming out as gay. More and more people will have to accept their relationships. Our younger people nearly always know someone who is out as gay and find it very easy to accept. This is a sea change from a generation ago.

More and more gay relationships are being discussed, even in a conservative community like ours. In the past few years, at least a dozen parents have come to me to tell me that their children are gay. They are supportive of their children. They want to know how I will respond. I always encourage them to accept and love their child.

Two of my friends who go to other parishes left the Catholic church when their children came out. They simply could not accept a church that judged their children to be "intrinsically disordered." If someone is put in the position of choosing between his or her child and the church, they will obviously and quite rightly choose their child.

The hyperbolic and harsh language of the church will have to change. It is not accurate, and it is not charitable. [...]

It's worth reading the whole thing. He chooses his words carefully, and explains his reasoning well. The story he told at the end left me a bit teary.

I thought it was a great response to what the Pope was asking about. But judging by some of the comments left after the article, it would seem that there are still plenty of people who don't want the "hyperbolic and harsh language" to change at all, and they are willing to give away free samples too.

     

The inevitability of Gay Marriage

Here is the "why":

A gay marriage backlash? Not likely

[...] Four factors often predict whether judicial decisions will generate backlash: public opinion, relative intensity of preference, geographical segmentation of opinion, and ease of circumvention/defiance.

Unsurprisingly, only rulings that contravene public opinion tend to generate backlash. In 2003, Americans opposed gay marriage by roughly 2 to 1. Today, supporters outnumber opponents by 5 or 10 percentage points. A ruling in favor of marriage equality would generate far less backlash today than previously. Still, the nation was divided nearly down the middle when the Brown and Roe cases were decided, yet both rulings generated massive political resistance.

Backlash is more likely when opponents of a ruling care more than supporters do. In 1954, Southern whites overwhelmingly disagreed with Brown, and 40% of them regarded civil rights as the nation's most pressing issue. Most Northern whites agreed with Brown, but only 5% of them deemed civil rights equally important. Similarly, by 2004, among the one-third of Americans who supported gay marriage, only 6% said the issue would influence their choice of political candidates. Among the two-thirds who opposed gay marriage, 34% deemed it a voting issue.

That large disparity in intensity of preference between the two sides of the issue no longer exists. Perhaps more important, even strong opponents are unlikely to find that a marriage equality ruling will directly affect their lives in the way that Brown and Roe affected opponents. In the 1950s, white Southerners committed to white supremacy thought that sending their children to school with African Americans was the end of the world. Opponents of abortion regard the procedure as murder.

Constitutionalizing gay marriage would have no analogous impact on the lives of opponents. Expanding marriage to include same-sex couples may alter the institution's meaning for religious conservatives who believe that God created marriage to propagate the species. But that effect is abstract and long-term. The immediate effect of a marriage equality ruling would be that the gay couple already living down the street would become eligible for a marriage license — and nothing would change in the daily lives of gay-marriage opponents. That is why strong initial support for a state constitutional amendment to overturn the Massachusetts court ruling rapidly dissipated once same-sex couples began to marry. [...]

That explains a lot. Succinctly. And in IMO, makes it inevitable.
     

The "Gaybyboomers" speak up for their parents

Many grown children of gay couples are now speaking out against the criticism directed at their parents:

'Gayby boom': Children of gay couples speak out

CNN -- Jesse Levey is a Republican activist who says he believes in family values, small government and his lesbian mothers' right to marry.

Levey is part of the "gayby boom" generation. The 29-year-old management consultant is the son of a lesbian couple who chose to have a child through artificial insemination. He's their only child.

Critics of same-sex marriage say people such as Levey will grow up shunned and sexually confused. Yet he says he's a "well-adjusted heterosexual" whose upbringing proves that love, not gender, makes a family.

"You can imagine what my parents thought when I was 13 and listening to Rush Limbaugh everyday," Levey says. "But my family had strong family values. I was raised in a loving, caring household that let me be a free thinker."

[...]

While much of the controversy surrounding gay rights today has centered on same-sex marriage, a battle is brewing over another family issue: Is it bad for children to be raised by gay or lesbian parents.

It damages the children, says Dale O'Leary, author of "One Man, One Woman: A Catholics Guide to Defending Marriage." She says that all children have a natural desire for a parent of each gender.

But children of same-sex couples are forced to repress that desire because their parents won't accept it, she says. Their parents won't acknowledge their children's needs because they don't want to admit that they have caused their children to suffer.

"A baby is not a trophy -- the child's welfare has to be considered," she says. "These children are more likely to experiment with same-sex relationships. They're more likely to be confused and hurt."

Children of same-sex couples come out of the closet

O'Leary says she doesn't personally know any same-sex parents or their children. That's the problem, some children of same-sex children say. So many people are talking about them; not enough are talking to them, they say. [...]

I've heard these arguments many times. I've also known gay couples and their kids, and their children turn out much like other kids do.

The people who keep hammering away against gay parents with the same tired old arguments, that have no scientific basis and run contrary to what people actually know from personal experience, will find themselves and their opinions increasingly discredited.

I predict that like gay marriage itself, gays having children will remain controversial in the short term, but will increasingly gain acceptance over time, as people get to know such families, and see the results are statistically much like other families.
     

NOM wants a "Rainbow Coalition"? To stop other people from... having what they have?

Maggie Gallagher's NOM (National Organization for [straight only] Marriage) created this video to promote their cause. I think they're over-stating their case:



While I can be sympathetic to some of their concerns... this is going to be a losing strategy. The Anita Bryant contingent of the religious right is still alive and kicking, and they apparently haven't learned much from Anita's fiasco. Now they want a "rainbow coalition"? Of all the phrases they could have used... the irony is too rich.

Yes, there is a hard core of Leftists who would like to change the definition of marriage. Those folks will use ANY issue to subvert the status quo, to tear down our society so they can replace it with something else. Gay marriage is just one of many issues they are trying to subvert for advancing their agenda.

However, for the majority of gay people who want to be married, they just want to be... married. To enjoy a domestic life similar to that of their married family and friends, with the same legal benefits. Most people understand that.

Life if full of people, places, and all sorts of things that I don't approve of. I can't fight them all, so I tolerate most of them, and chose my battles carefully, like I think, most people do. The people you become most intolerant of, are the most likely to become your enemies. I try to avoid that when possible.

NOM are likely making enemies for themselves, all in the name of a campaign they cannot ultimately win. Even if they win this battle, they will lose the war.

The idea that some same sex couples getting married makes victims out of heterosexuals will likely strike most people as absurd. Just ask the many former Republicans who are now registered as "Independent". Ask the Vanishing Young Republicans. The polls have steadily showed growing tolerance for gay marriage. You can argue with me all you like, but I don't create the polls. That's the reality. You can argue with reality too, but you'll lose.

Do the people who made this creepy advert think it's going to appeal to a majority of Americans? Good luck with that. Anita Bryant, by any other name, is still "The Scary Juice Lady". And she's hardly an example to follow. Unless you want political failure, divorce, and a string of bankruptcies.

When I lived in San Francisco, the leftists would often say "The religious right will self-destruct; just give them enough rope, and they will hang themselves".

This looks like another knot in the noose. I thought Christian's were against suicide? I guess not all of them.


Related Links:

Cal Thomas gets it right once again
He can be brutally honest, and here, he is.

The End of Christian Politics in America?

The "New Humanism"

     

Change is here, whether you like it or not

Across U.S., Big Rallies for Same-Sex Marriage

[...] “It’s not ‘Yes we can,’ ” said Tom Ammiano, a San Francisco city supervisor, referring to President-elect Barack Obama’s campaign mantra. “It’s ‘Yes we will.’ ”

Carrying handmade signs with slogans like “No More Mr. Nice Gay” and “Straights Against Hate,” big crowds filled civic centers and streets in many cities. In New York, some 4,000 people gathered at City Hall, where speakers repeatedly called same-sex marriage “the greatest civil rights battle of our generation.”

“We are not going to rest at night until every citizen in every state in this country can say, ‘This is the person I love,’ and take their hand in marriage,” said Representative Anthony D. Weiner of Brooklyn.

In Los Angeles, where wildfires had temporarily grabbed headlines from continuing protests over Proposition 8, Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa addressed a crowd of about 9,000 people in Spanish and English, and seemed to express confidence that the measure, which is being challenged in California courts, would be overturned.

“I’ve come here from the fires because I feel the wind at my back as well,” said the mayor, who arrived at a downtown rally from the fire zone on a helicopter. “It’s the wind of change that has swept the nation. It is the wind of optimism and hope.” [...]

I understand perfectly well people's concerns about not wanting to change the definition of what a marriage is. But no-fault divorce has already done that. For years I worked for attorneys that dealt with divorce cases, and saw it in action. No-fault divorce has turned marriage, in it's legal definition, into nothing more than a civil contract, to be broken at will.

This is why it's being called a "civil right". As a civil contract, how can it be legally denied to gay people? Arguments against gay marriage as a religious choice will probably still hold up, because no one has to join a religion that they don't like. But that argument does not hold up in the secular sphere, nor does it enjoy popular support there. To continue to try to force it on secular people is only going to create continuing resistance... and resentment.

If conservative Christian churches want to maintain the right to not perform gay marriages in their churches because of their religious beliefs, I believe that is their choice and their right. But secular people also have their right to make their own choices. If the religious right continues to try to control secular civil marriage contracts to reflect their own views, they may find themselves in a very uncomfortable, and losing, position.


Related Link:

The anti-gay marriage votes
     

John McCain is guest on Ellen DeGeneres Show

John McCain lauds Barack Obama's strategy on 'The Ellen DeGeneres Show'

He praises Obama's strategy of trying to link him with Bush, but also rebuffs it. Of course Ellen, a Democrat and a lesbian, does ask the tough question:

[...] DeGeneres, who is planning her own gay wedding this summer, also asks McCain about the recent ruling by the California Supreme Court affirming gay marriage -- a flash point for religious conservatives (the video excerpt is here). DeGeneres lumps laws banning gay marriage with those that denied blacks and women the right to vote, and "Jim Crow" policies. McCain says "people should be able to enter into legal agreements, and I think that that is something that we should encourage, particularly in the case of insurance and other areas." But: "I just believe in the unique status of marriage between man and woman."

DeGeneres has none of that. "It just feels like there is this old way of thinking that we are not all the same," DeGeneres says. "When someone says, 'You can have a contract, and you'll still have insurance, and you'll get all that,' it sounds to me like saying, 'Well, you can sit there; you just can't sit there.'"

How does a politician respond to that? With a compliment preceding a "fuhgeddaboutit." Says McCain: "You articulate that position in a very eloquent fashion. We just have a disagreement. And I, along with many, many others, wish you every happiness." DeGeneres: "Thank you. So you'll walk me down the aisle? Is that what you're saying?" McCain: "Touché."

Obama and Clinton, it should be noted, hold similar views to McCain's on gay marriage. [...]

The politicians answer, pretty much what they all say. Most don't want to touch the issue, with good reason. John McCain is a centrist on many issues, and on this I wouldn't expect anything different. And in a tough election like this one, I think John McCain is the only Republican who would stand a chance to win.

You can see a video clip here of the "tough question" part of the show.

Related Link:

Is John McCain the ultimate centrist?