Dear Senator Obama by a lesbian Christian

Obama's quote from the Chicago Tribune, Mar. 25, 2007:

I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.

In response, Ann Canas, lesbian, writer, producer/actor, media host and member of the Metropolitan Community Church of LA, wrote an open letter to Sen. Barack Obama at The Advocate on why his speech "sends a subtle message that being gay and being Christian are mutually exclusive." A few excerpts:

Your and Senator Clinton’s voting and legislative records are for the most part identical on gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender issues and are generally supportive of basic GLBT civil, social, and legal rights and protections. Although both you and Senator Clinton decline to support gay marriage per se, it is your statements on this issue that seem alienating, divisive, and uninformed and that subtly contribute to the persistence of one of this country’s worst forms of religious persecution and social bigotry. Even the possibility that you and your platform -- wittingly or unwittingly -- may contribute to the perpetuation of bigotry and prejudice in any way against anyone is, to our sensibilities, unthinkable.

While you are careful to appear to uphold and defend the GLBT community’s basic safety and legal rights, in a March 25, 2007, Chicago Tribune story that referenced comments you made during your 2004 run for the U.S. Senate, you led off your objections to gay marriage with the statement “I'm a Christian” [Ed: see above quote]. On its own as a part of your personal profile or in answer to a query about your personal beliefs, this statement is both appropriate and informative. But linked to your objections about gay marriage and by extension the gay lifestyle, it serves to entrench modern attitudes of religion-based bigotry and persecution and effectively implies that “gay” and “Christian” are mutually exclusive. This is not only wrong and uninformed but also flies in the face of the most basic Christian values and beliefs of unconditional love and acceptance. There are over 500,000 GLBT Christians attending over 200 churches like my church, Metropolitan Community Church Los Angeles, as well as hundreds of similar open and affirming churches all over America and around the world. We do not believe that you or anyone in thought, word, belief, or action can separate us from our religion, our faith, and our rightful place within the heart and love of Jesus Christ.

And while we recognize the sensibilities of many of our fellow Americans concerning the traditional configuration of the institution of marriage, our loving and lifetime commitments to our partners, our families, and our children cannot be diminished in heart and spirit and are fully as valuable and sacred as your own. Regardless of convention and interpretation of the word marriage, your brave new American Dream must embrace us and our loved ones as sincerely and unconditionally as you have extended it to all other segments of our society.

Considering that you represent and are clearly the preferred candidate for a majority of African-Americans, we are also concerned about the quiet but pervasive problem of homophobia among blacks -- a problem that is deeply rooted in the Christian fundamentalist context of many black churches and denominations. This undercurrent of belief-sanctioned fear and ignorance continues to divide families, separate loved ones, break hearts, and exacerbate the pathology of rejection and social alienation within the black community....

...You of all people cannot forget that once upon a time not so long ago, many of those who made the case against civil rights for blacks and who condemned interracial marriage also cited religious beliefs as their justification for separation and conditional treatment.

You and your presidential campaign are living proof of an evolution in the consciousness of a nation. We are living proof of an evolution unfolding in human consciousness: namely, the awareness that love transcends gender as surely as race and that spirit is not contained by black or white or male or female or any other characteristic of human condition or appearance....

Mr. Obama, you have clearly stated your reluctance to allow your private religious beliefs to shape your public policy. This is wise in theory but difficult in practice, because while you are free to interpret your personal religious beliefs in any way you choose, as a talented orator you realize that words are powerful and can also crucially shape both public policy and public opinion. This letter is not an attempt to change your personal opinions or religious beliefs on this or any other issue, but it is an invitation for you to reexamine your spoken expressions and public statements toward a segment of Americans about whom you clearly evidence a lack of knowledge and experience.... [Emphasis added in bold.]

Well said and beautifully written.

The subject of being LGBT and the bigotry of Biblical literalist interpretations at odds with what Jesus taught has been my mission as an artist, to expose hypocrisy and contradictions, reintroduce the sacred feminine that's been edited out of the Bible, and offer a more inclusive, unconditionally loving deity in my artistic narratives. And I am not alone.

Many LGBT folk have spiritual leanings as do I. As Ann Canas does. Some of us express artistic visions that incorporate queer theology--painters, sculptors, and photographers--as can be seen in the illustrated book nominated for a LAMBDA Literary Award, Art That Dares, written by Kittredge Cherry. And Cherry as author has written two ground-breaking novels about a queer Christ, Jesus In Love and Jesus In Love: At The Cross.

There's a teeming spiritual LGBT community that's risen up to say Jesus embodied unconditional love and never did he condemn LGBTs for being LGBT. Why does the traditional church? We have formed our own churches or gravitated toward those that delivered a more universal belief than a strictly Christian one. Or abandoned religion all together. Individuals and orgs like Mel White and Gary Nixon of Soulforce, the CLOUT sisters, Rev. Irene Monroe, Bishop Gene Robinson on the LGBT side, and John Shelby Spong, Rabbi Michael Lerner of the Spiritual Progressive Network on the non-LGBT side--to name only a few, there are many--minister to us through their work and their words. There are also a few LGBT-inclusive churches that have embraced us realizing that sexual minorities are part of the natural tapestry of life.

I hope that Sen. Obama will reverse his beliefs--for they underpin his words--and awaken from what I have perceived as his own religious-based homophobia. But I'm not optimistic. He turned his back on us over the objections of the LGBT community when he invited Donnie McClurkin to fundraise for him. And he has behaved in other ways that have been disappointing (see related below). IMO, I think he values winning more than risking the alienation of a portion of the African American community and people of all colors who judge us LGBT people as against God's will and living in sin. I would love to be proven wrong about Obama by Obama.

The subject of Obama and the LGBT community causes me a bit of grief in remembering how much I miss Coretta Scott King. I truly wish she were still alive to show Obama the way. She understood completely that unconditional love, courage, and justice are intertwined as the beautiful soul who graced us with her mighty presence here on earth.

In the meantime, let me say, thank you, Ann Canas.

RELATED:

• 13 essays on Christian mythology and taboos
• Back to the crossroads
• Hillary for gays, lesbians--Obama not so much
• The Advocate: Obama's interview
• A campaign of hate
• Gays love Hillary now Chelsea

In support of Kittredge Cherry

Ha! A dear friend and colleague, Kittredge Cherry, made the Outrageous Quotes of the Week on a conservative think tank's website, the Institute on Religion and Democracy, for June 4–10. Kitt's quote:

"Who was Jesus' mystery lover? Maybe it was Mary Magdalene, like the [The DaVinci Code] movie says. But pioneering scholars say that Jesus had a male lover. . . .

"Let's take back Jesus. The success of The Da Vinci Code shows that Jesus belongs to the people, not just to sex-negative churches. In particular, the gay Jesus empowers gays and lesbians who turned away from spirituality because of the Religious Right."

- Kittredge Cherry, lesbian author and founder of JesusInLove.org, "the first website to focus on the queer Christ."

Why, Ms. Cherry... to take back Jesus? How so democratic and Jeffersonian of you to exercise freedom of religion in America! Now why would the Institute on Religion and Democracy find Kitt's quote outrageous? Democracy is in the organization's name and the First Amendment hasn't been rescinded, so why? One clue: IRD opposed the consecration of gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire so I'm unsurprised by the org's characterization of Kitt's words. James Tonkowich heads IRD and was ordained in the Presbyterian Church in America, a right-wing religious splinter group that "broke with mainstream Presbyterianism in 1973 over the ordination of women and membership in the National Council of Churches," and described at Daily Kos as the new head of "a small, schismatic evangelical denomination whose best-known figures [D. James Kennedy, Lou Sheldon, et al] epitomize the Christian Right." If Kitt will forgive my indulgence in embellishing on her quote, I'd like to examine the gay marriage issue that's tied to the Religious Right's anti-gay political rhetoric.

When I read the IRD's mission statement, I realize its social conservative agenda and its implicit persecution complex isn't all that truthful:

Never has there been a greater need for strong churches, as a crucial component of civil society. America and the world require a fresh impetus of Christian evangelization, transforming both individuals and cultures. Yet tragically, important segments of the American church are spiraling into deep decline as they retreat from this task. Particularly in the historic “mainline” Protestant denominations, but also in other churches, many leaders and institutions have lost their focus on the Gospel, the basis of their existence.

Anybody heard of a Christian denomination kicking the Gospels to the curb? Nah, me neither. IRD must desire their interpretation of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John to act as the "basis" for the existence of "mainline" churches. And, yes, there has been a decline in traditional Christian churches but maybe their failure is more about touting fear than love, too much hell and not enough heaven, more divisiveness than the all-loving inclusive power of Jesus' teaching. Thank, God, there is a rejection underway in some quarters of the fundamentalist's viewpoint of the Gospels. Transforming into a religion of love and standing for inspired thought, instead of investing so much energy on opponents, IMO, would help attract a congregation interested in healing their lot in life, their families, and their communities--a subject worthy of a book so I won't digress further.

But here's the crux of what I'd like to challenge primarily. Tonkowich writes in his President's Greeting an often-hyped anti-gay canard (with emphasis):

Because marriage between a man and a woman is God's plan for the human family and the breakdown of the family is a major threat to sustaining our own democracy, we believe that defending marriage is a social justice issue. The IRD will be working to see that the churches fulfill their proper role in defending marriage and the family.

Picking up from the IRD's mission statement (with emphasis):

They have turned toward political agendas mandated neither by Scripture nor by Christian tradition. They have thrown themselves into multiple, often leftist crusades – radical forms of feminism, environmentalism, pacifism, multi-culturalism, revolutionary socialism, sexual liberation and so forth.

Ha! Liberals are destroying the fabric of society, aren't we? Such silliness and specious claims of Godless as evidenced with Ann Coulter's new ad hominem screed pervades American discourse. For now (in a subsequent post I'll address), I'll put aside the blind thinking that Scripture is inerrant because the Bible isn't. Some 100s of 1,000s of errors remain in the New Testament that a learned scholar of the Bible and textual criticism, Bart Ehrman, documented in his Misquoting Jesus book. And trust me. I want to point out some of the errant texts, such as the erroneous ones on women's roles in the church (pages 178-186 of Bart's book) that subvert feminism, revised by scribes in order to advance a particular theological anti-female viewpoint. I wonder if IRD found an ally in those scribes.

Between the President's Greeting and mission statement, and anti-liberal sentiment on its website, I find no argument with IRD's freedom of expression in a democracy that values its First Amendment. But, "God's plan for the human marriage," is a debatable and contentious religious topic--not one for government to undertake. Freedom of religion and free speech entitles all of us, including Kitt, to believe as we do or don't, according to the First Amendment. One can read Kevin Phillips to realize the right-wing theocon agenda underpinning some of IRD's pet peeves and its audacity to scorn leftists promoting "radical forms" on important issues we face as a nation. Projection entails the action of blaming the other for one's faults in disowning a trait that's feared--in IRD's case, a radical bent--rich with a language of victimhood and Orwellian doublespeak. What could be more brazen than trotting out a gay, feminist, liberal boogeyman to deflect the facts about what's actually destroying families and marriage. To be true to its name, IRD needs to remove "Democracy." Let me suggest substitutes. Republicanism. Radicalism. Anti-freedom. Propaganda. Or perhaps... Outrageous.

Specifically, to support Kitt Cherry's queer Christ belief, and the idea that gay lesbian relationships deserve legal recognition and protection as does hetero marriage, let me focus on what is the effective political role of Christians in defense of marriage. If IRD wants to support marriage, then address the major stressors that significantly impact the reasons marriages fall apart.

First, what doesn't hurt marriage. Its downfall isn't about gay American citizens legalizing their unions if they so commit. Hetero marriages won't end. And the hysteria over polygamists rushing to the altar if gay marriage passes ignores that being gay, brown-skinned, or left-handed is a birthright--polygamy is a choice. At the same time, the right to religious freedom, a democratic ideal--for Kitt or like-minded types--to embrace a queer Christ or the philosophy of church-affirming queer relationships won't hurt marriage either. Ah, but isn't it touching that Washington politicians and right-wing social conservatives have placed saving marriage from home-wrecking, family-destroying gays and lesbians at the top of an advocacy agenda?

Funny thing. Together, both of my evangelical parents--who grew up in Christian fundamentalist two-parent families--racked up six divorces. Not one of their break-ups transpired because of gays. To be sure, there are rare cases where divorce occurs because a wife or husband determined she or he were gay and couldn't suffer in the closet any longer, for example, Gov. McGreevey of New Jersey. But the facts don't support the argument that the traditional marriage of a man and a woman defense will save the institution from further decay with or without gay marriage.

I can't find any statistical data to support the flimsy strawman that same-sex unons will bring about the demise of hetero marriage. Anywhere. Silly me, I always thought financial problems were the leading contender for busting up marriages. So does CNN (with emphasis):

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Ask any divorce lawyer and they will say there are many reasons marriages fail. At the top of that list, financial problems and a lack of communication about those problems.

JARED BERNSTEIN, ECONOMIC POLICY INST.: If you look at divorce rates, they are highly associated with bankruptcies, with loss of job, with some kind of negative shock to the income. So it seems to me that if we want to strengthen families, we ought to be looking at a whole set of policies that this administration has been more undermining than strengthening.

TUCKER: Millions of jobs sent by corporations to lower-cost labor markets, real wages depressed, the costs of education soaring, energy costs climbing. But neither Congress nor the administration is taking up those issues, nor the rising cost of health care insurance.

NANCY ZIRKIN, LEADERSHIP CONF. ON CIVIL RIGHTS: They are spending a lot of time on the House and Senate floor debating this very divisive amendment when we have 43 million uninsured Americans, and they are one serious illness away from poverty.

According to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics (PDF), significant factors that disrupt a first marriage are age, education, family income, religion, and a host of other reasons that women cite and they don't include gays or lesbians. So why don't politicians, the IRD, and social conservatives just ban divorce or make it harder to get married if they want to save the sanctity of marriage? Too simple? Nah, more like too unconstitutional and non-effective in attacking the real killer that's financial. However, that didn't stop our current Republican-dominated Congress from attempting to pass (and a huge majority of red states from enacting) a bad law that codifies discrimination aimed at gay and lesbian relationships. Heck, if not for the third branch of the government, the judiciary (thank God!), a few southern states might still have an interracial marriage ban along with their Confederate "Stars and Bars" flags. How many non-interracial marriages were dissolved when the interracial marriage ban was struck down by the Supreme Court? The 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision didn't change the divorce rate, did it?

C'mon, we all know that the gay marriage ban entails pure political chicanery, pandering to the darkest of human nature, its phobia, its irrational tongue-flicking reptilian brain. Banning gays from marrying won't save one hetero marriage. Not one. Furthermore, the Federal Marriage Amendment didn't have the slenderest chance of passing in Congress because most Americans resist codifying discrimination into the U.S. Constitution. The gay thang is a stunt, a political pepper-upper, a fund-raising ploy for theocons who exploit the strawman that gay marriage will undermine traditional marriage.

The problem is, eating away subconsciously particularly in the "you reap what you sow" anti-gay crowd, the anti-same-sex marriage phalanx lead by Dobson, the American Taliban, and IRD/PCA types harms the marriages they espouse to protect. Yup, you read me right. What you beget, you get. The great equalizing force of Karma, Cause and Effect, or in Biblical jargon, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," comes around with what the giver dispenses. Thou canst not avoid the cosmic boomerang. Proof? May have no direct corollary to my constitutionally-protected spiritual beliefs but I'm fascinated that the highest divorce rates at 50% above the national average are in the conservative Bible Belt. And what states tally the lowest divorce rates? Yup, the blue states of the Northeast, including pro-gay marriage Massachusetts, a state that has the lowest divorce rate in America. Ah, those good ol' liberal family values--keeping marriages together. Too bad social conservatives aren't so liberal. Some of us gay folks aren't the only people who have noticed the peculiar irony of states that have chosen the extreme measure to ban same-sex marriage. Again, from CNN:

TUCKER: ...Only one state currently allows same-sex marriage, Massachusetts, while Vermont and Connecticut allow civil unions. Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, New Mexico, and the District of Columbia have no laws explicitly banning members of the same sex from marrying.

None of those states appear in the top 10 states with the highest percentage of failed marriages. They are all at the bottom of the list. Currently, 40 states have legally restricted marriage to being between a man and a woman.

(END VIDEOTAPE) TUCKER: Which begs the question, what does the president mean when he says an amendment to the Constitution is necessary because the states are having trouble defining marriage in a way that's acceptable to him -- Lou.

DOBBS: ...The idea that the states that are permitting gay unions or gay marriage have the lowest divorce rates, or among those with the lowest divorce rates, and those traditional states are among those with the highest, median family income declining in this country, real wages declining, finances and communication about those finances the principal reason for divorce in this country, half the people in this country, half the families with two income earners in them, those who are lucky enough to have both parents in the same household, single family, single- parent families, on the rise, and we're talking about an amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage.

Yeah, Lou. Wrong direction. Wrong track. Wrong issue.

People like Tonkowich and the American Taliban don't have reality-based solutions for saving marriage. If they did, they would focus on what matters--poverty, raising the minimum wage, health care for families, a fair tax system--to itemize a few policy issues that would significantly impact finances and the longevity of marriage. You'll find more effective plans emanating from the left side of religion and politics.

Now I'm going to have a jolly good belly laugh at the anti-gay marriage freak show and the trumped-up danger of pink mushroom clouds billowing up from exploded marriages across red-state America. And toast the democratic right of an American such as Kitt Cherry to believe in a gay Jesus. Later, I'll post the uncropped painting from the above picture that accompanied Ms. Cherry's words, my Last Supper, and further commentary to celebrate my freedom of religion. Cheers and happy Sunday!

UPDATE: You can read the narrative behind The Last Supper painting at the aforementioned link and the uncropped version of the acrylic is available at my artist website here.

Say NO to bigotry and get America back on track

The Human Rights Campaign alerted me today to take action on the June 5 vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment. Republicans fearing losses during the midterm elections have resurrected one of their favorite boogey-men and a divisive issue--gay marriage--to distract the nation from more important congressional business--the Iraq War, immigration, energy costs, health care, and the economy.

Examine the most important issues facing Americans and you won't find gay marriage on the current list.



Only one poll back in 2004--the last time the GOP used gay-baiting to mobilize social conservatives--listed gay marriage at all and it was a low priority compared to the economy, terrorism, Iraq, and health care.


To the Time Poll's discredit, they lumped the gay marriage topic into "moral values issues," a specious attempt to frame the civil rights of a sexual minority as a "moral issue"--ugly political chicanery--which completely ignores the immorality of discrimination against a legit minority. Shame on Time.

Dishonest GOP politics and the outrageous, undocumented falsehood that allowing gays to legalize their unions will destroy the marriages of hetero people is a dubious claim. The divorce rate won't alter one bit for married hetero couples if gays can marry or legalize their relationships with civil unions. The Right's assertion that the sanctity of marriage is under assault is red herring, a diversion away from the truth, and an underhanded way to exploit the fear of conservatives to react with an emotional knee-jerk. Gay unions won't change how, when, or why heteros marry or divorce. Not. At. All.

But why bring gay marriage into the national debate and to a vote in Congress? Why now? With Bush's job disapproval at an all-time high and division within the GOP, putting FMA on the front-burner will rally the homophobic contingent of the conservative base and distract attention from Republican failures. Don't take the bait.

Do Americans truly want to codify discrimination into the U.S. Constitution? I don't think so and polls demonstrate that Americans oppose a federal amendment that takes away citizen rights. As Americans--and religious leaders--denounce the actions of right-wing efforts to keep gay U.S. citizens at the back of the bus, consider the words of the late civil rights advocate, Coretta Scott King. She didn't agree with anti-gay bigotry and her words powerfully speak the truth:

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."

...Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood," she said in a speech in Chicago in April 1998, just days before the 30th anniversary of her late husband's assassination. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy."

But out-of-touch floundering Republicans want to hype an issue that won't affect the vast majority of Americans in the least to avert scrutiny from their abject failures in leading the nation to more prosperous and peaceful times. Republicans will do most anything to avoid accountability:

Rather than defend Bush, Rove will seek to rally the Republicans’ conservative grass roots by painting Democrats as the party of tax increases, gay marriage, secularism and military weakness. That’s where the national message money is going to be spent.

Take action and stop the insanity of Republicans off-track, heading us in the wrong direction and ignoring America's priorities. Say NO to the Federal Marriage Amendment and YES to no longer being manipulated politically. Voice your dissent and get Congress back on track and on the main issues affecting us all. Don't fall for gay-baiting and the GOP tactic to change the subject as they did in 2004. Look at what that got us.