NOM: Lying with Pictures

So yesterday, June 19, 2014, The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and some other anti-LGBT folks threw a "March for Marriage Discrimination". Er, sorry, just a "March for Marriage", where various speakers extolled the virtues of treating LGBT citizens and their families and children like second-class citizens.

As one might expect, they tweeted a picture of the group of "brave marriage defenders" on the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol Building. It appears to be taken at the back of a large crowd, as the Capitol Building is some distance away. But it took only a moment's study of the zoomed-in image to realise it has been photo-manipulated.

First, I'll note how conveniently white the sky is around the Capitol Building. There are quite dramatic clouds off to the side, but the center of the picture is oddly devoid of any detail. This in and of itself isn't evidence of photo-manipulation.

However, the following details aren't quite so innocent.

This is actually the first detail that caught my eye. What in the world is wrong with this man? His elbow and his bicep are both individually larger than his head. His right wrist, hand, and thumb are also quite odd.

Here, some sort of stretching has resulted in the evenly-spaced pillars on this part of the building to come out uneven. There's also a cloning artefact in the tree.

Look at the woman (At least, I think it's a woman) in the green top and black pants standing in front of the man in blue. Where is the rest of her left leg? I'm also not quite certain she has a whole head.

Last, let's look at a couple of other pictures of the rally taken by other folks and compare the relative sizes of the tall black speakers and the Capitol Building. The NOM picture would appear to have been taken much closer to the speakers, and yet the Capitol Building appears to have retreated, as it is significantly smaller in the NOM image. I note as well that when the Capitol Building retreated, it appears to have left one of its stair-flanking trees behind with the crowd!

I can only conclude from this brief review of the images of the event that NOM has intentionally combined a close-up view of the crowd (or, perhaps, more than one image of the crowd) with a more distant image of the Capitol Building to suggest that the crowd was much larger and took up much more space on the lawn than it really did.

Lying with pictures is still lying, folks. Why is it that the anti-LGBT crowd needs to lie to support their cause? Is it because it is otherwise insupportable?

To Those Who Feel Entitled to Comment on or Legislate People's Lives

Photo: SFWheelchair
Used under Creative Commons
Share Alike 3.0 License

If you're not sure this letter is to you, let me be more specific. If you...

• have ever commented on a stranger's weight (either to say they were too thin or too fat),
• have ever supported government intrusion into a woman's reproductive health decisions,
• have ever suggested what a rape victim was wearing contributed to her victimisation,
• have ever proposed that a person's consensual sexual behaviour should limit their human rights,
• have ever stated that a bullying victim's behaviour led to their being bullied,
• have ever compared being transgender to when you were five and decided for about a week that you wanted to be a cat,
• have ever opined a woman owes a man sex if they have dated for a long time or he has spent a lot of money on her,
• have ever slut-shamed a woman for having had more than one sexual partner or having had sex outside of marriage,
• have ever wimp-shamed a man for being a virgin,
• have ever acted offended when someone asked you not to touch them,
• have ever given unsolicited advice to a pregnant woman,
• have ever touched a pregnant woman's belly without her permission,
• have ever told a breast-feeding mom to cover up,
• have ever told a bottle-feeding mom that she should be breast-feeding,
• have ever yelled at a person for parking in the disabled section when they did not look disabled,
• have ever found stories, pictures, or videos of non-disabled people showing basic human decency to disabled people "inspirational",
• have ever done the above "inspirational" tactic, but for non-LGBT/LGBT, non-POC/POC, young/old, etc.,
• have ever negatively commented on someone's piercings, tattoos, haircut, hair colour, or makeup or lack thereof,
• have told a stranger they should smile so they'd look nicer,
• have ever told a woman in a bikini she should be more modest,
• have ever told a woman in a burkha, hijab, chador, or other Muslim head covering that she shouldn't wear it,
• have ever refused service to a person because of their apparent race, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation, or
• have ever supported political candidates or causes that stood for the limiting of rights to women, minorities, or LGBT people,

... then, yes, this letter is to you. This letter isn't just from me, but represents all those who have found themselves the victims of the above situations.

Hi. This is my body. I own it. In fact, it is the only thing I 100% without-a-doubt own. It is me. It houses my very thoughts, it carries me through the world, it brings to me through my senses all the information I know.

You do not own it. You are not entitled to control it, either through physical, legal, or social means. You are not entitled to tell me what to do with my genitalia, reproductive organs, face, hair, eating, and so on.

You are not entitled to have sex with me. Even if I am dressed immodestly, even if I am drunk, even if I am out alone after dark, even if I have a sexual history with multiple men, even if I have had sex with you before. Nor can you earn entitlement to sex with me. Yes, even if you are a gentleman, even if you spend a lot of money on a date with me, even if we are in a long-term relationship. I choose to whom I give that gift, because my body is mine.

You are not entitled to tell me I cannot have sex with another consenting adult. Yes, even if that adult is the same gender as me, even if we are having non-vaginal sex, even if it involves gags and handcuffs and whips, even if it involves more than two adults. I choose to whom I give that gift, because my body is mine.

Unless you are my doctor, you don't get to decide if I am disabled enough to qualify as disabled. You are not entitled to demand I explain my disability.

You are not entitled to touch my hair or any part of my body or clothing without my permission. My body is not here to decorate your world. It doesn't exist to inspire or please you. You are not entitled to demand I smile or wear make-up or pretty clothing or certain shoes or certain hairstyles.

You are not entitled to tell me what to wear because you cannot control your own sexual thoughts. You are not entitled to tell me who I can and cannot marry because seeing two men or two women together makes you uncomfortable or because you are obsessed with thoughts of gay sex.

The only exception to all this is if I use my body to control or harm someone else, because I am not entitled to anyone else's body.

Willingly giving of ourselves to others-- whether that's mowing a neighbour's lawn, preparing our families' dinners, making love, or even running into a burning building to rescue someone-- is the basis for all expressions of love.

Taking what is not given, claiming what is not yours, is the basis of all human evil. At its heart, this is what oppression is-- a sense of ownership of someone else's body, a belief that you are entitled to control someone else's very physical self.

It is of this sense of entitlement that we need to rid ourselves. In this way, we can learn to appreciate a smile, a friendship, or a task willingly done for what it is-- a gift.

To All the Spiritually Orphaned Children

"Broken Heart" by Samael Kreutz,
used under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License

Dear kids and kids at heart,

If you've got parents, or grandparents, or siblings, or other family members who have rejected you because you are somewhere on the LGBTQIA spectrum (or because your religious beliefs, politics, interests, or life plans differ from theirs, or just because they didn't particularly want kids but they got you anyway), it can feel like you are a failure. You aren't.

If you are certain you would be rejected if they really knew you, it can feel like you are dishonest and untrustworthy. You aren't.

Your worth isn't defined by your parents or family. It isn't determined by whether people who share your DNA love or accept you.

If you are your authentic self, you are commendable. If you haven't come out to your family because you are still sorting out your identity, you are worthy. If you have had to be less than authentic in order to survive until you can live independently, you are admirable.

Don't ever let the failure of others to love unselfishly define who you are and what you are worth. Love isn't something that's earned. It's a gift that is given freely. If someone hasn't given you that gift, that's sad, but it says more about them than it does about you.

To the best of your ability, considering your circumstances, be your authentic self, extend love and compassion to others, even when it isn't extended to you, and don't give up hope.

There are people out in the world waiting to be your family-- your true family, not by blood or upbringing, but by the deeper DNA of heart. You will find us everywhere. Some, like you, are spiritual orphans. They need you to survive and thrive.

We love you. We can't wait to meet.

Abandoning Dead Faith

It has been noted by many that most world religions contain an ethic of reciprocity or Golden Rule. These come in two basic forms-- the negative rule, sometimes referred to as the Silver Rule, "Don't do to other people what you wouldn't want done to you," and the positive rule, "Do to others as you would want done to you."

The negative or silver rule is a passive rule that doesn't take as much effort. As long as you're not hurting someone, you can do what you want.

The positive rule such as the Christian golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," is much harder because it is an active ethical position. It's not good enough to not harm people. We are actively called to help. This is the underlying principle of loving your neighbour as yourself and, therefore, the basis for all Christian morality.

The problem with much of the modern church is we've forgotten that our call is to an active faith.

For many Christians-- conservative, moderate, or liberal-- not doing the things the people we demonise do makes us good, or at least good enough.

"I'm not a homosexual. They are terrible, lust-filled, perverse, and un-self-controlled people. I am not. My beliefs are better than those other people. I'm a good, true Christian."

"I have gay friends and relatives, and I tell them I love them all the time, even though I won't condone their sinful lifestyle. I would never hurt a person for being gay, though. I'm not like those bullies who beat up gay people. My beliefs are better than those other people. I'm a good, true Christian."

"I'm not sure if the Bible condemns gay people or not. People should just live their lives and stay out of it. For me this is just a political issue, and Christians shouldn't be involved in an issue that's so divisive. I would never deny a person housing or a job or service for being gay. I'm not like those jerks. My beliefs are better than those other people. I'm a good, true Christian."

"I'm sure the Bible doesn't condemn gay people. I'm not one of those crazy Westboro loonies with their hurtful signs. They are terrible, hate-filled people. I am not. My beliefs are better than those other people. I'm a good, true Christian."

"I'm not a pro-abortion activist. They are terrible, baby-killing people. I am not. My beliefs are better than those other people. I'm a good, true Christian."

"I think there are some times when abortion is okay. For me this is just a political issue, and Christians shouldn't be involved in an issue that's so divisive. I would never deny a woman access to abortion or birth control. I'm not like those people who want to control women. My beliefs are better than those other people. I'm a good, true Christian."

"I'm not an anti-choice activist. They are terrible, anti-women people. I am not. My beliefs are better than those other people. I'm a good, true Christian."

And the list goes on. We get to be holy while sitting on our keisters doing nothing but congratulating ourselves on how our beliefs are more righteous than the other guy's.

But Christians aren't to be measured by their right beliefs, but by their loving actions. Do we feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the unclothed, welcome the stranger, care for the sick, visit the imprisoned, seek justice for the oppressed, care for widows and orphans, and otherwise act with lovingkindness toward all, whether they "deserve" it or not? At those times, we are acting as true Christians.

Everything else is empty posturing.

Worship, which derives from "worth-ship", isn't about sitting in a church, singing a few songs, and listening to a sermon on a Sunday morning, but putting into practice the command to love our neighbour. Only in this way do we show the true value we hold for the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Let us all lay aside measuring ourselves against the imperfections of others, and instead seek to reflect the perfect grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Two Sons: A Parable

Once upon a time, there was a mother who had to travel out of the country for some time. She had two children, a college-aged daughter and a son who was several years younger. She left each of her kids as well as her husband notes on what things she usually did that they each needed to do while she was gone. Among the tasks, the husband was to give the dog his nighttime food. The daughter, whose college classes ended before her brother's, was to make sure he did his homework as soon as he got home, cook the evening meal, for which she had detailed menus, and feed and water the dog in the morning.

The son was tasked with setting and clearing the table, washing all the dishes, and sweeping the kitchen floor. In his note, the mother had also left her son some personal reminders and instructions. She reminded him that until their dad got home in the evening, his sister was in charge and that he needed to help her out with getting dinner ready if asked. She explained that he shouldn't be feeding the dog unless his dad or sister forgot because that would result in it overeating. She told him not to spend all his evenings playing video games and to not get into the food in the cabinet next to the stove, as that's where the food on the menu for the week was located. "Make sure you brush your teeth, comb your hair, and take your Adderall every morning," she reminded. "Be sure to spend extra time on your English. Get that grade up, and maybe we'll see about that iPod you wanted."

Each of the notes also expressed her love for them, reminding them that she would love them forever.

After the mother made it back home after her trip, the daughter and husband discarded their notes, but the son kept his, not wanting to throw away his mother's expression of love and pride in him.

A few months later, the family adopted another son, a couple years younger than their first son. The mother poured a lot of love and care into their adopted son, making sure he knew that he, too, would be loved forever.

The following year, a family emergency caused the mother to need to travel out of state. She didn't have time to write each of them notes, so she instead talked to them while she was packing, leaving the daughter once again in charge of the household in the afternoons before dad got home. "Be sure to do what your sister asks," she told the two boys. "I'm counting on you."

The kids and dad divided up the tasks between them-- cooking, cleaning, dishes, dog.

The day after their mother left, the older son pulled out the note his mother had left him the year before. While the situation was different and his tasks weren't quite the same, it served as a useful reminder. The younger son found the note and read it as well.

The next day, the dad found the younger son trying to take the older son's Adderall. "Mom said I should," he defended.

That afternoon, the sister noted that no one had fed the dog, which they had all agreed would be the younger son's job. "I'm not supposed to feed the dog. You and Dad are," he declared.

The following day, a note came home from the school saying he hadn't turned in his math homework. "I spent too much time on my English homework," he explained at dinner.

"But that isn't due till next Monday," the daughter pointed out.

"I need to get my English grade up."

"But you've got a B+ in it and a C- in math," the dad said, bewildered.

"Mom said. If I get my grade up, she might buy me an iPod," the younger son answered, then left the room.

That Friday, the older son had a friend stop by with a new video game. They played for quite some time while enjoying some crackers from the cabinet next to the stove. The younger son yelled at his older brother for disobeying their Mom by playing video games and getting into "that cabinet."

And so a week passed in confusion until someone discovered the younger son consulting the letter written the year before to the older son. The dad sat his son down and explained that the note was written to his older brother and was intended as advice and instructions only for him, and only for that particular time and situation.

"But it says it's to her son and that she'll love him forever. Mom is always saying she'll love me forever, and I'm her son, so the note is for me, too, and not just him. I'm just obeying what Mom wrote."

---

Once upon a time, inspired by God, prophets and rulers wrote down advice and instructions for the people of Israel in various situations. Once upon a time, Jesus gave advice and instructions to his disciples for their time and place. Once upon a time, various early Christian writers penned letters to specific congregations full of teachings, advice, and instructions for their situations.

Many of these writing have universal advice, good guidelines for our behaviour. But just because we Christians are God's adopted children, just because he loves us, does not give us ownership over the promises or rules he set up for his older chosen children. Just because we are followers of Christ doesn't mean the advice given to a group of Christ-followers will apply as well to us. Just like the younger, adopted son, we must be discerning of which rules and instructions are universal to all God's children and which were intended for specific people, at specific times, or in specific situations.

An Open Response to Indiana Rep. Mike Delph

Mike Delph wrote in an editorial in the Indianapolis Star entitled "Opponents of Christian values don’t fight fair":

'With the flurry of federal litigation regarding Indiana’s marriage statute, a law that has been on the books since 1986, it appears that our Hoosier society is on the verge of walking through a door never negotiated. Homosexuality is probably the most discussed sin in a sea of hundreds.'

Really? Because the Bible never mentions it at all. The Bible has hundreds of passages on caring for the poor, standing for the oppressed, and loving your neighbour. Why is the sin of apathy toward the others not discussed and why are we making up sins to justify oppression?

'You see principles of self-government were always predicated on a strong moral foundation usually anchored by our value system based in large part on the Bible. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Back then, it’s hard to imagine these rights included gay marriage or civil unions. Especially when the Creator referenced is the same Creator from the Bible, the same Bible that references homosexuality as “an abomination in the sight of God.”'

1) Thomas Jefferson was a deist and had a number of disagreements with the Bible. To suggest that "the Creator" mentioned in the Declaration was the God of the Bible is in conflict with much of the writings and thoughts of the Founding Fathers, including Jefferson. 2) Our principle of governance is not based on a moral foundation, but the idea of EQUALITY for ALL PEOPLE. When you promote laws that oppress a group of people, you are directly opposing the very basis of our law. 3) Back then it's also hard to imagine those rights included interracial marriages or women being able to sue for divorce. 4) The Bible doesn't reference homosexuality as an abomination in the sight of God. First, homosexuality is never mentioned in the Bible because the concept was NOT KNOWN at the time. Period. Second, the term translated "abomination" in the Bible, to'ebah, was an indication that something rendered you ritually unclean. Abominations included cutting the corners of your hair, having a tattoo, planting a field with two crops, wearing mixed fabrics, and remarrying a woman you had previously divorced. None of those are sins. None of those apply to anyone but covenant Jews. None of those are things we would legislate against.

'Rights come from God and are inalienable, meaning they cannot be taken away by man, or more important, by government.'

Indeed, not even by government-sanctioned oppression, such as the 1986 law.

'Governments are instituted among men to protect those rights. Not even courts have the power to create or remove rights. So how can a right exist that does not come from our Creator and what modern rights do we honestly believe are divinely inspired as opposed to invented and imposed by a left-wing orthodoxy?'

Courts aren't creating rights, but recognising that the right already exists. Just liek straight people, LGBT people have the right to life-- to live without fear of being murdered for who they are or denied critical needs such as medical treatment and housing-- and to liberty-- to live as equals in all areas including employment, harassment-free education, and legal protections of their families in all matters including medical decision-making, inheritance, and co-parenting-- and the pursuit of happiness-- including the right to make their own decisions based on their own belief system, rather than yours. What other "sin" do you propose to use to justify withholding rights from a portion of society? Maybe you'd like to suggest that Muslim marriages, since they aren't Christian and are, therefore "sinful" should also not be recognised and protected in the state of Indiana? Or how about atheists? Or Christians who marry non-Christians? Divorcees?

'Probably the biggest mess of all was when the government started involving itself in marriage. Tax benefits, estate planning benefits, societal legitimacy are all things traditional marriage brings participants. Even so the stability of society from traditional two parent families has served our state and nation well for years. This is what we are walking away from in our unquenchable thirst for political correctness and false tolerance.'

Shedding oppressive laws isn't false tolerance or political correctness.

'Now there is evidence that not only will businesses be sued for operating according to their own faith traditions, but churches themselves can be sued if they refuse to ordain a union their God rejects.'

This is patently untrue. You are fear-mongering, sir, and should be ashamed of yourself. True love casts out all fear. It is obvious you do not practice Christ's call to love or you wouldn't be bearing false witness in such a craven manner.

'Social order has been inverted and no one knows the impact, not even the staunchest advocates for this hard turn to the left. I recall a lecture in Bloomington when I was in college by William F. Buckley. He was answering a question regarding the legalization of marijuana, something to which he seemed sympathetic. He said that until societies truly understand the social costs and benefits of public policy and know that the benefit outweighs the cost, they should tread carefully.'

We are not speaking about public policy. We are talking about justice and equality. Human dignity cannot be placed on scales. The costs of oppression are manifold and terrible. How dare you compare the degradation and pain meted out to LGBT members of our society every day to a recreational drug.

'No one knows the end of the path we now walk.'

That was also true when we as a society decided that people of colour deserved equal rights, when we decided women deserved equal rights, when we decided that interracial marriages deserved equal protections. That's no excuse to forego justice.

'Perhaps we should consider this in the case of opening the floodgates to traditional marriage. No one with a soul wants someone harmed or discriminated against for being gay. But they also don’t want more than 200 years of social norms flushed down the drain without knowing the impact on the world. This is our dilemma.'

It's only a dilemma if you consider people's lives as less important than a harmful and oppressive social tradition.

'We are becoming a society and world without boundaries. Anything goes if it has a market.'

So you are suggesting that LGBT people should have boundaries imposed on them that straight, cisgender people do not? How is this anything but injustice and bigotry? This isn't a matter of a "market". People are not property. Their lives are not for sale.

'The liberal indoctrination is endless as we watch cultural elitists attack traditional values and bedrock American social norms.'

Oppression is not a value. If injustice is a bedrock American social norm, we should all be ashamed, not proud, and certainly not working to uphold it.

'Mickey Maurer, owner of the Indianapolis Business Journal, and John Krull, journalism director at Franklin College and publisher of The Statehouse File (and former head of the ICLU), have used their positions and media outlets to promote intolerance of traditional social norms, including long held Judeo-Christian views.'

Opposing intolerance is not intolerance. Telling a bully to stop bullying is not bullying. You are not being oppressed when someone tells you you can't oppress someone else just because you can justify it with a few verses taken out of all context. That was true of equal rights for women. It was true of equal rights for people of colour. It was true of legal protections for interracial marriage. And it is true now in recognising the equality of LGBT people.

'Political reporters Brian Howey and Jim Shella reinvent the chic diet of false entitlement, false rights and false fairness while attacking proponents of traditional values suggesting a seemliness and dirtiness for those who cling to their guns and Bibles.'

Oh, dear sir, we do not need to suggest anything. All we have to do is point to your "traditional values" of oppression and injustice, and everyone can see the score. Your "values" are unseemly and dirty. Open your eyes.

'And they are all supposed to be friends of the American experience, friends of freedom when it agrees with their perverted worldview.'

Your worldview is that all are not created equal and that the government should not extend to all equal rights based on your faith. It is your worldview that is perverted, not the view of those who oppose your injustice.

'It’s past time that we consider removing marriage completely from the confines of government, and let the church and other faith-based institutions marry according to their own belief systems and traditions.'

So, are you okay with your in-laws having the right to make medical decisions for your wife? Are you okay with them banning you from your wife's hospital room if they feel like it? Are you okay with having no say on funeral decisions, obituaries, etc. if your wife dies? Are you okay with your wife paying crushing inheritance taxes on your property upon your death as if you were legally strangers, potentially leaving her unable to remain in your home? Are you okay with only one of you being able to legally adopt a child? Are you okay with no one being able to get any sort of accommodation for their foreign spouse to enter, remain in, or seek citizenship in the US? Are you okay with the US military stopping paying any sort of benefits to the spouses of our brave men and women who serve?

'If I have learned anything over the last months in the HJR-3 debate, opponents of traditional Judeo-Christian values don’t fight fair or with honor.'

Injustice is not a traditional Judeo-Christian value, for it does not fit with the greatest commandment to love, the commands to treat our neighbours as we wish to be treated, the commands to love everyone, even our worst enemies, and to do good to all, even those who we believe would do us harm. When you propose that oppression, bigotry, injustice, and cold-heartedness are "traditional Judeo-Christian values," you reveal that you do not understand or practice The Way of Jesus Christ.

'They fight to win, and to date have been very successful.'

Of course they fight to win. They are fighting for justice, for peace, for liberty, for equality, for love.

'I have to give the devil his due. But the issue is still unresolved and thinking members of faith still have time to engage.'

Thinking members of faith have engaged. And they have concluded that this matter of justice and equality means they should stand for the rights of LGBT people. Those opposed to it are those harbouring bigotry or a financial or political agenda.

'There is hope for an outcome where we all can win.'

Indeed. That would be equality for all. For, you see, when some are not free, none are truly free. Your opposition to marriage equality threatens my quite traditional marriage and my religious freedom.

'By then we may have a better understanding of the net social cost or benefit from the path we march down.'

If one more LGBT child is kicked out on the street by "Christian" parents to make their way by petty crime and prostitution, the price is too high. If one more LGBT person is beaten, stabbed, run over, shot, or doused with gasoline and burned to death, the price is too high. If one more LGBT husband or wife is unwelcome at their spouse's hospital bed or funeral, the price is too high. If one more LGBT child is driven to despair by bullying and your bigoted rhetoric into killing themselves, the price is too high. If one more LGBT widow or widower and their children lose their home to inheritance taxes, the price is too high. If one more LGBT person cannot be a proper and legally-recognised parent to their spouse's children, the price is too high. If one more LGBT child drops out of school because of the intolerance of fellow students, teachers, and staff, the price is too high. That's my cost/benefit analysis to the question of whether we should treat some of our citizens as second-class and undeserving of equality. We have seen the social cost of oppression. We will not tolerate it any more. If you are truly a man of Christ, you would not tolerate it either.

'Delph, R-Carmel, represents Indiana Senate District 29.'

I am not in your district, or I would be voting you out of office for your cold-heartedness and mockery of Christian faith.

Religious Freedom and Marriage

A lot of folks who oppose same-sex marriage claim they are protecting their religious freedom in doing so. We are told they aren't opposing rights for LGB people, but are protecting traditional marriage.

I'll admit that logic mystifies me. Opposing marriage equality for LGB people to protect your own traditional marriage seems like protecting your children's education by opposing equal education for other children. It doesn't help your own children and it harms others.

Furthermore, establishing a legal precedent that gives state-sanctioned preferential treatment for one religion or set of religious traditions-- even if that religious tradition is yours-- endangers all religious freedoms. This is because it places in the hands of the state a power it should not have-- the power to dictate religious belief, to sanction some faiths and oppose others.

One needs only look at the history of the shifting oppression of Catholics, then Protestants, then Catholics again in England, as well as the Colonial American religious persecution of Quakers and those of differing Christian beliefs by the Puritans, to see that belonging to some branch of Christianity does not guarantee freedom for Christians within Christian states. Go look at the online comments of Christians to any contentious issue within the modern-day church and how often they accuse those of a different opinion of not being "true Christians." Then imagine giving the power to decide whether your beliefs are orthodox to a government official.

One of the most contentious issues today is the definition of marriage. Marriage, by its nature, is an expression of a person's most profoundly-held beliefs. Atheists do not seek a full Catholic wedding mass. Catholics do not find a Muslim imam to marry them. Muslims don't find a Pagan high priestess to perform a hand-fasting. Those who marry outside their faith believe such unions are acceptable. Those marrying a person of another race or nation sincerely believe interracial and/or international marriages are not immoral. Likewise, anyone marrying a person of the same gender holds to a faith or belief that recognises such unions.

When we insist the state should only recognise some marriages, but not others, we are asking the state to dictate religious belief. We are trying to hand the state power which it cannot and should not wield if we wish to remain free to exercise our own religious beliefs. We are asking the equivalent of that stranger on the internet to decide if we are a "true Christian."

I'd much rather protect my traditional marriage by defending the rights of LGB people to marry according to their own beliefs, and not mine or anyone else's.

A Gay Couple Walks into a Christian-Owned Bakery: The Problem of Refusing Service on Religious Grounds

In the news is yet another Christian-owned bakery that has refused service to a gay couple for their same-sex commitment ceremony, claiming, "As artist [sic] we must find the inspiration to create something special for our clients. When asked to do a cake for an occasion or with a theme (alcohol explicit in nature) that is in opposition to our faith, that inspiration is not found."

This happens with sickening regularity with bakeries, inns, restaurants, and other businesses. For those Christian owners of businesses who would consider doing this to a client, let me tell you in no uncertain terms that this is not what Jesus would do.

Jesus was very clear on how we are to behave toward everyone. We are to love our fellow Christians. We are to love our neighbours (and that includes everyone-- not just those of our faith or nation). We are to love our enemies. In fact, we are to go above and beyond for our enemies and those who force us to do things we do not want! We are told to give more than is demanded, to go the extra mile. (Didn't know that was from the Bible? Look it up.) While most of us would hesitate to label someone with whom we disagree on some religious matter an enemy, this still sets a model of Christian love, compassion, and humility.

We are called to do for others as we would want done for us. If you were to go into a bakery run by someone who had been hurt by Christians so much that he or she believed that Christianity was immoral, and if you asked for a cake to celebrate your child's baptism or first communion or confirmation, would you want to be told that the baker didn't bake cakes for Christian events because he or she didn't agree with our beliefs or lifestyle? How would you feel?

Would it be right for a bed and breakfast to refuse to honor the reservation of a honeymooning interracial couple because they sincerely believed the Bible says that mixing races is a sin?

Many Middle Eastern Christians shop in grocery stores run by Muslims because it is the cuisine they know how to prepare. Should the Muslim store owner refuse to sell to Christians because he does not agree with their beliefs?

Our Christian witness is so very badly damaged when we act loving only to those who share our beliefs and discriminate against those who don't. We are seen as hateful and prideful and hypocritical in ignoring certain sins and only refusing service based on others to which we are not subject.

Jesus said, "I was hungry and you gave me something to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you invited me in. I needed clothes and you clothed me. I was sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you came to visit me." In Romans, Paul instructs us, "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone."

Our efforts on behalf of people with whom we disagree should be exemplary, our absolute best.

Let it be said of us all, on the judgement day, "I needed a wedding cake, and you baked the very best one you could. I needed a place to stay, and you welcomed me so warmly. I needed a pleasant meal and time spent with my beloved, and you made sure my evening was perfect."

Stop Comparing Homosexuality to Rape

It seems like every time some news item comes out about LGB people, either as individuals or as a group trying to secure their equality, people claiming to be Christians pop out of the woodwork and compaire being LGB to practicing pedophilia or bestiality, or they quote the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

If you think this makes you look like you're taking the moral high ground, I have news for you. It doesn't. In fact, it makes you look so immoral that you can't even tell the difference between consensual sex and rape. It makes you look like a monster.

There's consensual sex-- two adults in full control of their faculties and without coercion agree to have sex and do so. Then there's non-consensual sex, AKA rape. This includes one or more people coercing another person to have sex through force, threat, drugs, or power differential. This also includes taking advantage of a situation where the other person cannot consent to sex because they are under the influence of drugs, or are injured, unconscious, disabled in such a way as to not understand what they are consenting to, or are too young to understand what they are consenting to.

Pedophilia is rape. Children do not have the capacity to consent to sex. The adult is using a power differential to coerce sex.

Bestiality is rape. Animals do not have the capacity to consent to sex with a human. The human is using a power differential to coerce sex.

Sodom and Gomorrah is about rape. The men of Sodom were using their greater number and their hometown advantage to "know" the strangers. The common argument here is that this is meant sexually. It's an attempted gang rape, and a rape of non-humans at that. (There are other non-sexual interpretations of this passage, but they don't come up in discussions of LGBT people, so we'll go with the sexual interpretation here.)

Two same-sex-attracted adults who both consent to a sexual liaison without coercion is not rape. When you compare homosexuality to bestiality, pedophilia, or the attempted gang rape in Sodom, you're demonstrating that you don't understand consent.

If you can't distinguish consensual sex and rape, why would anyone trust you on any moral matter? Why should we trust you preaching our sermons, teaching our children, leading our nation or communities, hearing court cases, or extending aid to the vulnerable members of our communities?

If you want to present yourselves as the moral guardians of our children and our nation, stop making arguments that paint yourselves as immoral monsters.

Regarding Indiana HJR-6

Indiana's HJR-6 proposes to amend the state constitution to add the following: "Only a marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized."

I have a few questions.

1) It is my understanding that this is already a law in the state of Indiana and has been since 2004, so this merely cements the law to be beyond the reach of the simple democratic process such that a laborious process would have to be undergone to modify this law in any way. This strikes me as unwise. On what grounds would you support placing modification of Indiana's marriage laws outside of simple democratic process?

2) Approximately 1 in 200 people are intersex-- having characteristics of both male and female. Given the census data of 6,483,802 people in Indiana in 2010, this would indicate that Indiana has over 32,000 intersex individuals living here. Are these individuals barred from getting married in Indiana, or having their out-of-state marriages recognized and protected in Indiana, because they are neither fully male or female?

3) A female-to-male transsexual married while he was still legally female. Now that he is male, would his marriage be invalid and unrecognized because it consists of two men? Or, since he entered the marriage when he was legally female, would his marriage be recognized in this state? I have friends who were both assigned female at birth, but one considers himself to be male, though he has not transitioned. They are planning to get married soon in a state that allows same-sex marriages. If he were to later transition to male, would his marriage become recognized in the state of Indiana? How would the state then handle the period of time where his marriage was not recognized as valid in Indiana? Was it still not valid for that period of time?

4) If a same-sex couple married in another state were to seek a divorce, could they do so through the Indiana court system? Are children born to same-sex couples married out-of-state considered to be born out-of-wedlock? If the state refuses to recognize same-sex marriages, does this remove parental rights from one of the parents of children of these marriages? How do you determine which parent loses parental rights? Can schools recognize the parental rights of both parents, or is that recognizing a legal status substantially similar to marriage? How about hospitals?

5) If a person in a same-sex marriage is hospitalized and unable to make medical decisions, is the hospital prevented from recognizing their spouse's right to make medical decisions for them due to this law?

6) Would corporations who offer same-sex partner benefits be unable to do so in Indiana because it is a violation of the state constitution? Would state-funded universities who offer same-sex partner benefits be stopped from offering them? Corporations or hospitals who take state funds?

7) If a man and woman in a common-law marriage were to get into a domestic dispute, could they seek relationship counseling and mediation from a state-run agency or would their relationship-- unmarried but identical or substantially similar to marriage-- disqualify them? If the dispute were to turn violent or abusive, will state agencies proffer help to the abused partner-- police and courts treat the case as a domestic abuse case and shelters for victims of domestic abuse recognize it as such-- or are they regarded as strangers in the eyes of the law due to this amendment?

8) The same questions as number 7, but for a same-sex couple legally married out-of-state but residing in Indiana.

9) Are you okay with losing employment opportunities for Hoosiers if corporations choose to leave the state or not move factories or offices to the state due to this constitutional amendment? Are you okay with losing tourism and university students and staff? Are you okay with a brain drain of artists, musicians, scientists, engineers, doctors, and other highly educated professionals who may choose to leave Indiana or not move here in the first place because it negatively impacts their family or personally offends their ethics of legal equality?

10) A native American two-spirit enters into a same-sex marriage in a state that legally recognizes them and then later moves to Indiana. Would the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion outweigh the law such that his marriage-- legal in his state and recognized by his religion-- would be recognized and valid in Indiana? What about a person legally recognized as a Hijra in India who now resides in Indiana? Because India recognizes her as a third sex and neither male nor female, is she unable to marry in Indiana? Or is she regarded as a woman for purposes of this law because of the female pronouns and social roles? Or is she male because her birth sex is male? A same-sex couple, legally married in their home nation, enters Indiana as tourists. Is their status as a married couple protected or does the state offer no protections to them? Does this status change if they remain as legal immigrants?

11) Can you give me a non-religious reason (as our constitution guarantees freedom of religion) for this amendment? Please, note, I do not consider a state interest in procreation as a valid reason for this restriction unless the state also restricts non-fertile couples from marriage. Please, explain why a prohibition of some sects of the Abrahamic religions is preferred over the beliefs of other religions which recognize and embrace same-sex couples.

Please, keep in mind I am a straight, cisgender Christian who has been married for 26 years. I consider this legislation to be a threat to both my religious freedom and my marriage as it establishes a legal precedence for preferring the religious tenets of one religion above another and of the state empowering itself to invalidate or not recognize the status of legal marriages. If you stand for the religious freedoms and protections of the marriages of your constituents, you must oppose this amendment. Sincerely, Lynette R. F. Cowper

Responsible Comsumerism and Understanding Your Impact

Let's play a game of pretend. Let's say there's a huge, multinational fast food restaurant named Beef-pat-T. Now, Beef-pat-T is a family-owned business and these owners are Christians. They're so Christian in fact that Beef-pat-T stores the world over are not open on Sundays so that their employees can enjoy a day of spiritual rest and worship.

If you are a Christian, you probably think that's awesome. If you aren't a Christian, you probably think it's a little weird, but, hey, it's none of your business.

Now, at some point in time, you see an interview with the current big kahuna of Beef-pat-T that one of their guiding principles is that Christians should be free to worship.

Sounds pretty noble, doesn't it? Unless you're a raving, foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Christian, you're probably pretty okay with plopping your $10 bill down on the counter in exchange for some delicious Beef-pat-T fare.

Then you find out that Beef-pat-T has a charitable giving arm that donates to Christian groups that defend Christian religious freedom. Still awesome, right? Even if you're not a Christian, you're probably pretty down with them having the same freedoms you enjoy.

Then you see somewhere where in an interview with a Christian magazine, the big kahuna said he believed non-Christians are going to hell and are less moral than Christians. Now, that's a little discomfiting if you're not a Christian, but lots of Christians believe that. For most folks, the beliefs of the company head aren't relevant to whether they're going to buy his product, though some folks might decide to take their business elsewhere.

You then learn that this corporation doesn't mention religious belief in their non-discrimination policy. Sure, in the US, an employer can't fire someone for religious beliefs, but that doesn't apply worldwide. Are you more iffy about giving this group your cash?

But what if you found out some of these groups they support are associated with hate groups? Well, you might be curious what that means. Is it just because they share the belief that non-Christians are going to hell? So you go and look up why these are hate groups and you find out that some of these groups claim there's a non-Christian agenda to destroy Christianity in America. They claim that Hitler was a Wiccan and the worst Nazis were all pagans who created the Holocaust. They claim that Jews and Moslems are pedophiles who have an agenda to get their religions accepted in America so that they can target your children. They're actively campaigning to support employers' rights to fire non-Christians, to allow bullying of non-Christians by Christians due to the bullying being due to Christian religious belief. They use flawed and long-dismissed research or misrepresent good research to "prove" that non-Christians are bad parents who should not have custody of their children. Some of the groups have even actively campaigned in other nations to have various non-Christian religions criminalized so that non-Christians would be rounded up, imprisoned, even executed. These groups, you learn, are not considered hate groups because they hold that non-Christians are going to hell, but because they actively defame non-Christians. They aren't so much supporting Christian religious rights as they are opposing non-Christian religious rights.

And Beef-pat-T gives a portion of its profits to these groups. This is what the big kahuna cheerily admitted in his interview with that Christian magazine and claimed to be just supporting Christian religious rights.

Is it really a responsible choice to give Beef-pat-T your money?

This is the situation with Chick-Fil-A, traditional marriage, and anti-LGBT hate groups. No one is trying to force Mr. Cathy to stop believing that homosexuality is condemned in scriptures. No is asking him to compromise his beliefs. No one is asking him to not give his money to groups that support and strengthen traditional marriage.

What they are asking is that he stop giving his money to hate groups that use lies and deceit to harm LGBT people, who use fear to incite hatred toward LGBT people, who use malice as a money-raising scheme.

It is your choice whether to support Chick-Fil-A, but make no mistake, this isn't about freedom of belief, traditional marriage, or whether homosexuality is immoral or not. This is about whether it's responsible to give money to a corporation who is going to turn around and give part of that money to a group lobbying vis deceit to allow children to be beaten up in school without consequences, to have men and women executed by their government, and to tear children from their parents.

This isn't a matter of Christians vs. the LGBT lobby. This is a matter of groups using a Christian image to justify anti-Christian behavior.

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. -- Matthew 7:15-20

Edit: Some people will use the excuse that other companies are just as bad or worse than Chick-Fil-A. They are quite right that corporations are often quite immoral or amoral. The consumer needs to be aware of his or her impact and choose wisely. You will make mistakes and end up supporting corporations that do not follow your values all the time. This doesn't excuse someone from knowingly supporting a corporation that is funding hate groups. And it certainly doesn't excuse people who are claiming those who are choosing not to eat at Chick-Fil-A are being anti-Christian or opposed to Mr. Cathy's freedom of speech and religion.

An Open Letter to Christian Parents of LGBT Children

I'm addressing this letter to parents whose children have come out to them or have otherwise been discovered by them to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, transgender, transsexual, genderqueer, questioning, or otherwise "queer". I'm especially addressing those parents who are struggling with the interaction of their faith and their duties as parents to their kids of LGBT identity.

For many parents, this can be a difficult time, one that challenges their faith. After all, doesn't the Bible promise "Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it"? How then can your child abandon the clear teachings of scripture for such an identity? It seems the only clear choices are either that the Bible promise is untrue or that you did something wrong as a parent.

First, you need to know that God chose you to be the parent of your LGBT child. It was a relationship He chose to work for your benefit, for your child's well-being, and for His glory. Trust Him to know what He's doing and open your heart to His leading.

Second, please keep in mind that what your child is telling you is about his or her attractions, not his or her sex life. Think back to when you were young and you had your first crush-- how tongue-tied and breathless and heart-pounding it was to be in the presence of your crush; how you thought about them, talked about them, may have doodled their name. It wasn't about sex. Indeed, you were probably too young at the time to even think about more than possibly holding hands. Just being in their presence seemed like enough for an eternity. Think about the first time you fell in love. You didn't choose who you fell in love with. It just happened. This is the same experience your gay or lesbian child has had-- only his or her first crush, his or her first love was someone of the same sex. Even though this information is new to you, keep in mind that this is the same child as before he or she came out to you. He or she has always been LGBT. You just didn't know it. He was gay when he was 8. She was bi when she was 6. Sie was genderqueer at age 11. Put aside the idea that this is only or even primarily about sex.

Third, allow me to assure you that your child's LGBT identity is not in any way your fault. Many ministries will claim that LGBT identity is due to something the parents did-- their marriage was poor, they were too clingy or too distant, too permissive or too strict, and so on. They are wrong. Your child is LGBT for the simple reason that they were born neurologically different than the majority. While there have been some studies indicating genetic and fetal development has a part, the simple fact is that human sexuality is complex and we don't fully know what causes a person to be LGBT. What we do know is that it is inborn and unchosen.

But what of Proverbs 22:6? Regardless of what science says, doesn't scripture say that this is somehow your fault?

The book Old Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors By Douglas K. Stuart has this to say about this particular verse:

This verse is usually translated about as follows: "Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." But when you analyze the words' meaning ranges closely, you find no Hebrew equivalent for the English "should." ...

(Remember: The more well known a wording in the Bible is, the more hesitant modern professional translations are to depart from it, even when they dislike it, for fear that people will not buy a Bible that has changed the wording of one of their "favorite verses.") ...

Thus with regard to Proverbs 22:6, what you can easily determine by patiently consulting a lexicon is that [al-piy] means "according to" and that [derek] means simply "way," so that [darko] means either "his way" or "his own way." The first half of this poetic couplet actually says, then, "Train a child according to his (own) way." You still find nothing about "should" here. The real point of the verse, you conclude rightly, is that a child who is allowed selfishly to do what he or she wants when young will have the same selfish tendencies as an adult.

In other words, this verse isn't a promise, but a warning similar to many others in Proverbs. So, no, dear parents, you are not at fault for your child's LGBT identity. You have not trained up your child wrong. Rest easy and do not let others heap blame on you.

I want to take a moment here to specifically address parents of trans* children. Many people accuse trans* folks of going against God's obvious will for their lives if they seek to inhabit the gender with which they identify by in any way changing their body, or adopting the dress, habits, and name of their identified gender. These people argue "God made you male/female and you shouldn't mess with that." These arguments ignore two factors. One, scientific studies have shown that trans* people are neurologically similar to those of the gender they identify with, rather than those of their genital sex. It is simplistic to claim that God's will for a person's life rests only in the genitalia he or she was born with but not in his or her brain. Second, we correct many abnormalities and birth defects without giving a second thought to whether correcting them violates God's will. Deaf children are given cochlear implants. Those with cleft palates and cleft lips have those deformities repaired. Children with holes in their hearts have those closed. We fix a myriad of issues. Now, I'm not claiming that gender dysphoria is a birth defect or a deformity, but for many trans* people, keeping the sex they were born with is not optimal in much the same way as leaving a birth defect as-is is often not optimal, though in many cases it is survivable. We seek to relieve these children's suffering. We should do no less for trans* people.

But now let us return to that parenthetical statement up there. "Remember: The more well known a wording in the Bible is, the more hesitant modern professional translations are to depart from it, even when they dislike it, for fear that people will not buy a Bible that has changed the wording of one of their 'favorite verses.'"

I want you to think about that. I want you to consider that maybe the clear teachings of scripture aren't what you think they are. The simple fact of the matter is that Bible translators are human. They come to their task with biases, both personal and cultural. And they are also swayed by the need to have their translation accepted by eventual users and purchasers. Anything that deviates too far from previous understandings and cultural norms is likely to be rejected, and their translation job with it.

Before you speak to your child about the clear teachings of scriptures, I encourage you to study the passages in question. Consider their contexts-- both the people to whom they were written, the culture they were written within, and the original textual meanings. Don't automatically accept that the English translations are correct. Please, dear parents, don't drive your child from his or her faith, from your love, or from your home by rejecting them based on a handful of scriptures. I have included a few resources below.

I believe when you have studied God's word, that you will find there is no shame in your child's LGBT identity. It's no more sinful than dark skin or blue eyes or left-handedness or being ADHD.

So what should you say to your child?

First, you need to assure him or her of your unconditional love. God's love is unchanging, regardless of what we have done or not done. As much as you are able, your love for your child should be likewise. Do not withhold your love out of some sense that your child can or will change their sexual orientation to win it back. If you have already spoken hurtful or unloving things, honestly seek your child's forgiveness.

Second, you need to make sure your child knows that you appreciate the honesty and trust he or she has shown you and that you are willing to do more listening and less talking. This is not about you. This is not about what the church or the neighbours or your maiden auntie will think. This is about your child learning to live inside the body they were created to inhabit. For any person, this can be a hard journey. For a child who is somehow different, it can be even more difficult. Suicide statistics for LGBT teens are frightening, but the one bright spot among them is that LGBT teens with supportive families are far less likely to give in to despair than those whose families reject them. Be that family. Allow him or her to share struggles and joys and hopes and dreams. Allow this to be something that brings you together, rather than separating you.

Third, reassure him or her that you are on this spiritual journey together to understand God's will for your family. This is not a time to preach, but a time to seek. Seek together and remember to listen more than you speak. I know there's a temptation to rush here, to either completely reject the idea that same-sex relationships could be moral or to abandon those scripture passages altogether for the sake of your child. Please, don't feel pressured to rush. Make sure your child understands that this may take time, but that you will not abandon your love for him or her. Your support for your child is important, but so is your faith. Take the time to nurture both.

Fourth, as a parent, you can and should hold your LGBT child to the same standards to which you would hold a cisgendered (that is to say, someone whose physical sex and neurological gender match up) and straight child. By remaining open and honest as a parent, you can uphold values of love and respect in romantic relationships, regardless of whether those relationships are opposite sex or same sex. But! This should not be the focus of your parenting any more than it is the focus of your relationship with your straight children. Sexual orientation and gender identity should not be cause for mistrust.

Fifth and last, it is understandable that you might experience a period of grieving for the lost dreams and hopes you had for your child, for an imagined future that will never be. Just simply by virtue of being a gender or sexual minority, your child is going to face more difficulties in life. But in truth, none of us have ever led a "normal life" because there is no such thing. Now is the time to give those dreams a good, hard look, grieve them for a while, and then set them aside to embrace a hope for the future based in your child's newly disclosed truth. The dreams may change in ways large and small, but if you are there for your child, they are more likely to be realised.

Some reading or watching you can do:
What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality by Daniel Helminiak
The Best Case for the Bible NOT Condemning Homosexuality by John Shore
Ron Goetz on the Clobber Passages
Ron Goetz on Translator Bias
ReligiousTolerance.org's Review of the Views on the Bible and Homosexuality
Homosexuality and the Bible, a review of two perspectives by Loren L. Johns, Professor of New Testament at Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary
The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality video-- long, but worthwhile.
Two movies I highly recommend are For the Bible Tells Me So and Fish Out of Water, which were both available on Netflix streaming at the time of this writing.

Godless Sodomites: Apostolic Truth Tabernacle of Greensburg, IN

This is the first of my series of posts on people who qualify as Godless Sodomites (see that post for a definition). This one is close to home for me, being in my home state.

The Apostolic Truth Tabernacle of Greensburg, Indiana, is now infamous for a video of a 4- or 5-year-old kid singing "Ain't No Homos Gonna Make It to Heaven" during a church service while the congregation claps and cheers. After this hate-filled performance, the church's pastor, Jeff Sangl, praised the boy as well.

Here's a link to the RTV Channel 6 story about it.

Further news stories reveal that the pastor and church members have claimed they're getting death threats, but the County Sheriff, who was dealing with Sangl over church security after the video went viral, before Sangl up and decided to hightail it out of town for a while, says that's news to him. During this entire thing, Sangl never bothered to mention the death threats, even though he was dealing with the Sheriff for the purpose of making sure the church was safe. I'm not going to say that the claims of death threats are lies, but seriously who doesn't mention a little thing like death threats to the nice law enforcement officer who is trying to assure that you and your church members are safe?

Also of note is that this community is not ignorant of the devastation that is caused by this kind of rhetoric. In September of 2010, 15-year-old Billy Lucas committed suicide after being relentlessly bullied at Greensburg High School because he was perceived as being gay. These people know the heartbreak this sort of thing can lead to.

And yet, they're remorselessly sticking to their guns. Here's the statement from the church website:

5/30/12 - The Pastor and members of Apostolic Truth Tabernacle do not condone, teach, or practice hate of any person for any reason. We believe and hope that every person can find true Bible salvation and the mercy and grace of God in their lives. We are a strong advocate of the family unit according to the teachings and precepts found in the Holy Bible. We believe the Holy Bible is the Divinely-inspired Word of God and we will continue to uphold and preach that which is found in scripture.

That's right, folks! Telling an entire segment of the population that they absolutely will not make it into heaven, that they're inherently too sinful to be covered by Christ's sacrifice on the cross, is not at all hateful and is scriptural.

Here's a quote from Dillen Swango, a fellow student of Billy Lucas', following Billy's suicide: "They said stuff like 'You're like a piece of crap' and 'You don't deserve to live.' Different things like that. Talked about how he was gay or whatever." I'm sure by the standards of the Apostolic Truth Tabernacle, those statements are also scriptural and not hateful.

To Pastor Sangl and members of the Apostolic Truth Tabernacle I have this to say: You have committed the sins of Soddom by being prideful and holier-than-thou and have lied by claiming to love God while hating your neighbors. You are Godless Sodomites.

To those who are incensed at this church and pastor, protest by going and donating in the name of this church or its pastor to any of the following organisations:

Indiana LGBT Organisations

Indiana Youth Group

Indiana Equality

Quarryland Men's Chorus

Pride of Indy Bands

Indy PFLAG

The Damien Center

National LGBT Organisations

American Veterans For Equal Rights

Born this Way Foundation

GLAAD - Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation

GLSEN – Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network

Harvey Milk Foundation

Human Rights Campaign

Lambda Legal

National Center for Lesbian Rights

NGL Task Force - National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

PFLAG National

Renaissance Education Association

Sylvia Rivera Law Project

TGI Justice Project

Transgender American Veterans Association

TransYouth Family Allies

The Trevor Project

Believe Out Loud

Canyonwalker Connections

Empowering Spirits Foundation

Faith in America

The Gay Christian Network

Horizons Foundation

Rising Sun Ministries

Soul Force

Truth Wins Out

Make these donations, if you can, in the name of
Apostolic Truth Tabernacle
Attn: Pastor Jeff Sangl
Mailing Address:  P.O. Box 644, Greensburg, IN 47240
Church Phone: (812) 662-8224
Email: pastorsangl@apostolictruthtabernacle.net

Please, do not call the church and harass them. The number above is provided in case the donation form asks for one. Also, be sure to make a significant donation. One that is too small will not cover the cost of postage!

Be sure to drop the church a line to let them know you donated to a good cause in their name!

Godless Sodomites

I think it’s well past time to call out the Godless Sodomites of our day and age.

Oh, I'm not talking about LGBT people. The Bible is very clear on what the sin of Sodom really is-- Ezekiel 16:49 says "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.”

In every nation on this globe, but perhaps moreso in the US today, there are people who commit the sins of Sodom, who look down on the poor and needy and only strengthen the already-strong hand of the wealthy and powerful. They let schools crumble, children go hungry, families go without needed medical care, and the number of the homeless grow unchecked while refusing to lift a finger to do any good. And they elect public officials who will continue to let the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. All the while, the poor are painted as lazy people who just need to get a job and be more responsible with their money.

These prideful, haughty people are the Sodomites of our day.

Many of these people claim to love God and to uphold His commands, and yet they are also Godless. 1 John 4:20 says, “If anyone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.”

Make no mistake-- people who promote hate and intolerance in the name of God are liars. And liars are doing the work of their master, the Father of Lies, not the work of God. In today's world, we see hatred aimed at certain groups more than others-- non-Christians, LGBT people, women who wish to exercise stewardship of their own reproductive health, and the poor and needy.

People who behave in ways that are prideful, disdainful of the poor and needy, and hateful to others “in the name of God” are being called out more and more, but it is often secular organizations and media doing the calling out. It's time for Christians to stand up and oppose the true Godless Sodomites of our time.

More than that, it's time for action. Whenever we see someone calling for creating concentration camps for or the outright extermination of LGBT people, denying funds for poor women to access basic health services, or criminalize homelessness, we need to frame a response full of grace and generosity. Don't just oppose these people with your words, but help organizations that are aiding the targets of these Godless Sodomites' hatred. Even better is to find the address of the particular offensive person and donate in his or her name.

As a start, here's an article with links to various LGBT-oriented charities you can donate to in the name of Pastor Charles Worley and others of his ilk-- The God Article's Wickedly Beautiful Response.

I'd like to start collecting the names and addresses of various Godless Sodomites and organizations appropriate to each so that we can do something positive in response to these folks.

Up first on our list of Godless Sodomites, the Apostolic Truth Tabernacle of Greensburg, Indiana.

Struggling with Homosexuality

There's this phrase that gets used in religious circles when someone comes out as gay-- "struggling with homosexuality". It's always struck me as a really stupid phrase.

Most gay people, once they've come out, aren't struggling with homosexuality. They've accepted it as part of who they are. They may be struggling to understand how that impacts their life now, how to go forward in honesty and integrity as a gay man or lesbian. They may be struggling a lot with rejection and condemnation piled on them because of who they are. They struggle to find a place in a society that assumes heterosexuality. But they aren't struggling with their sexuality.

What people are actually implying with the phrase is that they believe the person is struggling with the consequences of some unwise choices they are assumed to have made in their actual sex lives. The assumption is that anyone who comes out as a homosexual has had sex because, hey, the word "sex" is right there in the word. Sometimes we give them the benefit of the doubt and figure they've come out as a sort of early warning of impending sexual relations, a sort of "I'm telling you this now because I'm planning to go out and get a boyfriend/girlfriend and have lots of sex" thing. Given that teens and even children are coming out younger and younger as gay, lesbian, or bisexual (one blogger on Huffington Post has been sharing her adventures as the mother of a boy who at the age of 7 announced that he was gay), those kinds of assumptions just aren't appropriate. Gay people are gay regardless of whether they are or have ever had or ever intend to have same-sex sex.

Now, sometimes gay people have made unwise sexual choices and have to deal with the consequences, or are trying to decide if it's okay to start a same-sex sexual relationship. But, you know, if a woman gets pregnant outside of marriage and has to make difficult choices for what to do, we don't say she's "struggling with heterosexuality." A man who is facing a divorce because of an affair with a woman not his wife isn't "struggling with heterosexuality." A girl trying to decide if she should cave to pressure from her boyfriend to have sex (or vice-versa-- girls aren't innocent of putting pressure on boys for sex) isn't "struggling with heterosexuality." We call those things what they are. We don't wrap the blame up in the person's sexual identity.

The truth is, it's us straight people who struggle with homosexuality. We don't understand the attractions they feel. We're not sure where our religious convictions should lie. Sometimes it makes us uncomfortable. We don't know how to explain those two men kissing to our kids. Sometimes our assumptions of heterosexual orientation in another person get quite flattened and we are caught off-guard and feeling a bit foolish that we didn't know or hurt that we weren't told earlier. We struggle with homosexuality.

But gay people? Not so much.

On the Claim of Gay-as-Choice

Lately I've been hanging out a lot on progressive Christian blogger John Shore's blog at johnshore.com as well as on several Facebook pages by progressive Christian groups such as Thru-Way Christians and The Christian Left. I also have a lot of LGBTQIA friends on Facebook who post various things of interest to LGBTQIA rights and issues.

In all these places, you will encounter people who are opposed to GLBTQIA equality based on various arguments about its sinfulness, always accompanied by the claim that GLB orientation is a choice and the assumption that GLB orientation is accompanied by non-heterosexual sexual activity. If anyone takes the time to address these folks instead of simply calling them names, they usually point to either scientific studies or their own personal experience that this orientation was not a choice. I don't think I've ever seen anyone convinced by these arguments.

I think the problem is, these people are also arguing from personal experience, and their personal experience doesn't align with the scientific studies or the experiences of GLB persons. I also think it comes from a confusion of terms.

Let me unfold this a bit.

Somewhere I ran across the statistic that one study had polled a bunch of men who identified as heterosexual and found that 50% of them admitted to homosexual behaviors. Now, I'm not saying a straight man couldn't go and have gay sex with another man, but a truly heterosexual man generally wouldn't unless placed in a longterm situation where that was his only choice (like, say, prison). That 50% of these straight men admitted to homosexual sexual behaviors tells me that they're using a definition of "heterosexual" that isn't the scientific one.

For most people, your sexuality means what you do sexually most of the time. To the scientific community, sexuality has to do with your attractions, not your behaviors. Someone who has practiced lifelong celibacy, for instance, still has a sexuality. Someone like ex-ex-gay leader John Smid, who is in a heterosexual marriage with children, is still gay, despite his sexual behavior.

And that's where the disconnect comes in.

Many people are some level of bisexual in orientation, even if it's extremely slight. For those who define their sexuality by what they've done with it, rather than by their attractions, and who believe that same-sex sexual activity is morally wrong, their heterosexuality is a choice. No, they didn't wake up one day and say, "I think I'll be straight," but they have avoided by choice same-sex behaviors with people they are attracted to, quite possibly on a regular basis.

For those who define sexuality as what-you-do and not what-you-are and are further hampered by the narcissistic worldview that everyone's experiences are similar to their own, a homosexual is one who engages in same-sex sex by choice because from these people's points of view, everyone is attracted to both sexes and, therefore, chooses their sexual behavior. The thought that there are people who are mono-sexual-- only attracted to one sex or the other and not both, and therefore incapable of choosing sexual attraction to or behavior with the non-preferred sex-- is completely, profoundly incomprehensible.

I am a straight mono-sexual woman. The thought of having sex with a woman isn't so much repugnant as simply unimaginable. It isn't a choice. I don't actively avoid attractions to the same sex. I simply don't have any. For me, the thought that there are people in the world who have the same mono-sexual attractions, but to the same sex, isn't that much of a reach.

But for the vast majority of people sitting somewhere in the middle who misunderstand the nature and definition of sexuality, it seems like a choice-- a choice they've rejected.

I understand the anger GLBTQIA people have and why they don't want to engage people who have systematically oppressed them. They shouldn't have to deal with these folks if they don't want to. Their energies are better spent focusing on surviving and thriving in a world that is so often hostile to them.

So maybe it's time for us allies to step up and have a discussion with the misguided. I'm open to thoughts on how to open this dialogue, given what I think is often at the heart of the misunderstanding.

Romanesco

This is one of the coolest veggies ever! It's sort of a cross between cauliflower and broccoli, but with fractal florets (follow any of the links below to see what I mean). I've been looking at seed suppliers, and the following ones carry seeds for broccoli/cauliflower romanesco:

Cherry Gal:
Packet (25 seeds): $1.25

D. Landreth seed company:
Packet (no size given): $2.00
1/4 lb: $26.20 (larger sizes as well)

Baker Creek Heirloom Seeds:
Packet (300! seeds): $2.50

Seed Savers Exchange:
Packet (50 seeds): $2.75

Jung Seeds:
Packet (20 seeds): $2.75
500 seeds: $24.95

Johnny's Seeds:
Packet (30 seeds): $2.95
250 Seeds: $11.50

Park Seeds:
Packet (20 seeds): $2.95

The Cook's Garden:
Packet (125 seeds): $3.25

Thompson & Morgan:
Packet (15 seeds): $3.95 (but currently on sale for $.99)

Stokes Seeds:
Packet (25 seeds): $4.95

Microgreens

So I've started growing some microgreens to see how they do for adding a bit of garden freshness over the cold months. Planted a few things Saturday before last. Radishes appear to take only 8 days to harvest. I'm anxious to see how the cilantro does. It takes a while to germinate, so I'm just now seeing the first sprouts. I also have very old cilantro seeds, so I may not get a very good germination rate.