May 31, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

I just had an interesting conversation this evening, at a Lutherans Concerned/Los Angeles reception/happy hour with a young woman enrolled in seminary. The subject we stayed on for a few minutes was “coming out.”

I don’t get around to this very often in this blog any more, even though I identified it two years ago as a subject worth blogging about —especially for Christians who are sometimes deeply conflicted about being lesbian/gay and Christian. Most of my conversations are with people who are already out, or at least partially out ~ somewhat open about their sexuality even if they’re selective about how they’ve shared it with. It kind of spooks me when I meet someone new who is only recently coming out to self or others. It’s hard to imagine any more that closeted people are still, well, in their closets. As time goes by, kids come out at earlier and earlier ages, so that a completely open gay boy of 13 or 14 is not unheard of. In contrast, when I was that age, it was homosexuality that seemed to be unheard of, and I was into my college years before I had the freedom and furtiveness to search the campus library for any information about it.

The young woman told me that she had come to her local Lutheran church directly from another church. She had been highly regarded there, apparently, and about to be elected or appointed as an officer of that congregation when (it sounded almost like an afterthought) she felt that full disclosure would be important. So she met with key people and said something like, “I just thought you should know,” that is, that she has a female partner of a number of years, etc.

They apparently didn’t take it well, hadn’t imagined it, and told her immediately that she couldn’t be an officer of their congregation, and in fact couldn’t even serve on a committee. But she could still come to church. That lasted about two weeks before she left and found a welcoming, LGBT-positive Lutheran church in the same neighborhood.

As in the church she left behind, there are hundreds—thousands of churches that still have closeted lesbian/gay members (some young, some not young at all) who must watch their backs and whose pastors and fellow parishioners probably don’t suspect they are lesbian, gay, etc. How can this be? I wonder if it happens because the self-righteous and un-welcoming churches must somehow assume that the general public has heard their zero-tolerance policy clearly enough not to attempt to come in or try to infiltrate. They must be shocked, shocked, to discover a Lesbian has sneaked past the gates. But what about the very young teenager who was born into a Christian congregation, only to discover their true inner sexuality 13 or 14 years later.

What was remarkable to me was that we had this conversation now, in 2009, rather than 1989 or 1979. Is this kind of secrecy/fear or rejection/exclusion really still going on in 2009?

You bet it is. The young woman reminded me of a Lutheran parish, I think in Minnesota, that after being a Reconciling in Christ (welcoming) congregation for a time, voted to bail out of the program: they actually decided to become unwelcoming. And to my mind the only reason that can still happen in this century is because the kids growing up there are afraid to come out.

How can I talk to kids, for example, who are14 or 15 years old about being Christian and lesbian or gay, or bisexual/transgender, etc., when they probably don’t know how to talk about it, or how to meet anybody like themselves to talk to? The internet of course—places like this blog—is a door that is wide open for kids who may be uncertain, intimidated, scared or, God forbid, already abused or severely punished because they tried to come out or to get truthful information.

Twenty years ago, Lutherans Concerned periodically sent out mailings to every Lutheran congregation in our region. Sometimes we included a simple poster, with our phone number in very big type.

665-LCLA

We imagined a scared kid who didn’t dare let on to anybody that s/he wanted to know more about being lesbian or gay. Maybe the secretary of the church would allow the poster to be put up on a bulletin board. And maybe these kids would see it, and without revealing even a nonchalant interest in it, could see the number from across the room and memorize the phone number.

Yes, we did get a few calls like that, but the young person on the other end of the phone line was too scared to give us a full name or an address to send more information or a monthly newsletter.

Enter the internet, and the information is all here and nobody has to give names at all if you don’t want to, and even a 14 year-old Christian kid knows how to surf the web and then delete your browsing history so other users of the computer won’t have a clue where you’ve been cruising. Of course, getting good information and advice on coming out doesn’t take away the frustrating, painful, risky work of actually coming out.

If you are that kid, remember: (1) God loves you as you are (2) don’t panic; (3) the love and truth of the Gospel is much bigger and more powerful than all the little narrow minds in your local church; (4) you’re only a teenager for a short time, so you will have greater and greater freedom to explore and express your real self as you grow; (5) Google for help, for answers, for advice and for trustworthy counsel (and I don’t mean Twitter or Craig’s List or chat rooms!); (6) if necessary, delete your browser’s history; (7) trust your own inner feelings and experiences because the Holy Spirit may be speaking to your heart and guiding you to do the right thing for your life.

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in "The Closet", Gay Catechism, LGBT Christian, Coming Out, ELCA | Print | 1 Comment »

May 30, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

As I write, the big Meet in the Middle rally is going on at Fresno City Hall in the middle of the San Joaquin Valley. It is probably an ocean of LGBT/Allies faces, which must overwhelm this farming town at the heart of California’s agriculture. Fresno has been aptly described as the “raisin capital” of the world/US/California, but it does have some class. And from what we were told, the chamber of commerce was looking forward to this event.

Since we are prevented from being there today, I am reflecting back on Tuesday nights rally in West Hollywood, one of dozens around the state, against the California Supreme Court decision posted that morning. Since I am an out member of the clergy, I was near the stage in the middle of San Vincente Blvd., waiting for our 15 seconds of fame or coverage by Fox news, whichever came first. Probably some 20 clergy packed the stage for our brief appearance, after numerous speeches and appearances that included West Hollywood Mayor Abbie Land, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Plaintiff Robin Tyler, attorney Gloria Allred, Army National Guard Officer Daniel Choi, Drew Barrymore, George Takei.

Of all the them, the only one I approached to thank was Daniel Choi, and I hope his fight to stay in the service gets all the way to President Obama. (I congratulated Mr. Takai last June 17 when he and his spouse Brad Altman were the first couple in WeHo to pull a marriage license, which was then legal. They wed in September.)

The bittersweet here is that Carl and I are still legally married, thanks to the same Supreme Court that has now made legal marriage for new same-sex couples a legal impossibility. The people of California have spoken, after all. They may have spoken ignorantly, stupidly, vindictively, but this Court’s majority has decided that the initiative process may validly be used to ram a constitutional amendment through, with a 50% + one vote majority, to deprive an entire class of people of fundamental civil rights.

We will continue to argue whether it is a fundamental civil right. The presence of officer Dan Choi adds to the credibility of this, because he represents a parallel struggle to continue to serve in the armed forces (not a fundamental civil right, but a right nonetheless). So do the tens of thousands of LGBT people and their allies who turned out in many cities to protest the taking away of the right to marry.

Like many of us I’m puzzled by this sudden out-of-the-blue federal lawsuit to overturn Proposition 8, filed by two attorneys that I’m not inclined to trust (Theodore Olson and David Boies) with plaintiffs we’ve never heard of. Are they trying to throw the game by purposely losing in federal court and thereby foreclose on our ability to mount the right test case at the right moment?

But at the same time, it is likely that the Repeal of Proposition 8 will hit the ballot box before this mystery lawsuit will get its day in court. Along with other vital organizations, Love Honor Cherish was out in full force on Tuesday night in our town, taking the names of those who pledge to gather signatures this fall to put this matter back on the 2010 ballot. According to the Bay Area Reporter this week, a Courage Campaign survey finds that 83 percent of the respondents support a ballot measure in 2010, not 2012.

I think it has more than half a chance of passing, if we continue to put our faces on the issue as ordinary citizens who are next-door neighbors to people everywhere in California, even in Fresno.

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, History, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

May 27, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

Along with my colleagues in the Interfaith Gay and Lesbian Clergy of Los Angeles, I am deeply grieved that the California Supreme Court’s decision published yesterday sustains Proposition 8. Many of our members were on the street last night, May 26, with an estimated crowd of 14,000 including many allies, to protest the Court’s decision.

With many others, I support the efforts of groups such as California Faith for Equality, Courage Campaign, Love Honor Cherish, and White Knot for Equality to repeal Proposition 8, and commend to all people of faith, and especially to clergy, to become involved in the efforts to overturn this proposition which diminishes our equal rights before the law.

The first California-wide event in response to the Court’s decision will be this Saturday in Fresno, California: Meet in the Middle for Equality. Below is a partial list of endorsing organizations:

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Christian, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs, Coming Out | Print | No Comments »

May 26, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

[Full disclosure: I am a married gay man, and I remain legally married to my husband in spite of Proposition 8 and today’s California Supreme Court decision.]

Yes, the news is discouraging. And yes, the paperwork handed down by the Court is really daunting. You can read the Court’s 7- page news release (more thorough than the sound-byte journalism you will get on TV). If you’re really up to it, read the Decision, concurring and dissenting opinions, 185 pages total. I have only begun to slog through this, so my thoughts are provisional even to my mind.

It seems the key to the Court’s decision is that it finds that Proposition 8 was narrowly constructed to limit the designation of civil marriage to heterosexual couples.

It is disappointing, at one level, that the Court therefore finds that the “No on 8″ side of the argument is not correct in its legal argument that Proposition 8 was really a wholesale revision of the state constitution rather than a mere amendment. Amendments may be added by a simple majority of voters, but revisions face a more difficult uphill battle.

But in its analysis and explanation of its reasoning the Court emphasizes that only the designation of marriage— the label, the word “marriage” itself—is made off limits to same-sex couples by Proposition 8. In its reasoning, it expressly explains that virtually all the rights which are available to same-sex couples, as explained in its May 2008 decision called In re Marriage Cases, remain intact. Here are two brief quotes from pp. 6–8 of the decision.

[T]he provision added to the California Constitution by Proposition 8, . . . properly must be understood as having a considerably narrower scope and more limited effect than suggested by petitions in the cases before us. Contrary to petitioners’ assertion, Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in [last year’s Court decision] — that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage.” . . .

[I]t is crucial that we accurately identify the actual effect of Proposition 8 on same-sex couples’ state constitutional rights, as those rights existed prior to adoption of the proposition, in order to be able to assess properly the constitutional challenges [in this present case] . . . . We emphasize only that among the various constitutional protections recognized in the Marriage Cases as available to same-sex couples, it is only the designation of marriage—albeit significant—that has been removed by this initiative measure.

So the Court finds that Proposition 8 is a mere amendment, not a wholesale revision, and therefore was permissible under the initiative process by which it was adopted. So Proposition 8 stands.But the Court’s language indicating that Proposition 8 was narrowly focused reveals the true weakness of the Proposition. Its drafters and supporters, among them the Mormon church and the Catholic church, achieved a very narrow and small victory by depriving the unmarried of the designation “marriage.”

Here are my observations:

• Proposition 8 did not obliterate Domestic Partnership, which has most if not all of the rights of civil marriage. Domestic Partnership is not changed by the decision of this Court.
• Proposition 8 did not tie the hands of the California legislature to add to Domestic Partnership legislation any and all remaining marital rights in order to make Domestic Partnerships virtually identical (separate but equal).
• Proposition 8 did not erase the estimated 18,000+ same-sex marriages which were contracted in 2008‘ unlike the court’s decision to void the 4,000+ same-sex marriages performed in San Francisco in February–March 2004. So California continues to have more legally-married same-sex couples than any other state.
• By upholding the legality of these 18,000+ marriages and by finding that all rights available to same-sex couples are still intact with the exception of the designation of “marriage,” the Court has essentially weakened the intent of the supporters that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

You may remember the decision of California Attorney General Jerry Brown last summer to change the wording for the November ballot. In his July 3, 2008 ballot title and summary, the wording was changed to read: “Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry.” In light of today’s decision, it seems more accurate to say that Proposition 8 “Eliminates right of same-sex couples to use the word ‘marriage.’”

What, after all, does it mean that a marriage is “recognized”? The intent of the Proposition 8 supporters was probably that there would be no “legal recognition” of a same-sex marriage. If that was their intent, they failed on November 4, 2008 because there are 18,000+ marriages which are valid and have legal recognition, as the Court affirmed today. That recognition will have to extend to any aspect of California law in which a person’s marital status is involved. In short, Proposition 8 was toothless to chew up the rights of same-sex couples already married, even if it has the power to prevent more couples from using the word marriage.

Because of this decision, the very idea of “recognized” has been hampered for the homophobic and conservative citizen. They will continue to see married lesbian and gay couples in public places, and can do little else except not “recognize” them.. Like, turn their heads and pretend not to see the reality.

So, is this the end? Does this decision in the Supreme Court of California put the whole matter to rest once and for all? Well of course: not! As many groups have been stressing more loudly in recent weeks, Article I, Section 7.5 will be back on the ballot, as soon as 2010. For example:

• Love Honor Cherish has been working on the repeal initiative for many months, and will be at the public rally tonight in West Hollywood.
• California Faith for Equality is the faith community’s response to Proposition 8.
• Let California Ring is a coalition of about 50 organizations.
• InvalidateProp8.org will have to re-message itself as Overturn Prop 8

• WhiteKnot.org is one of several groups working on the Meet in the Middle event this coming Saturday in Fresno, California, to build bridges up and down the state.

The bottom line for me is that because Proposition 8 has allowed 18,000+ exceptions and therefore failed to prevent gay/lesbian marriage in California, and because it also failed to convince the Court that marital rights should be taken away from same-sex couples, it will be easier to persuade the voters that trying to take away fundamental rights is futile, and that Section 7.5 has to go.

And unlike last summer and fall, the campaign to overturn Section 7.5 will have to involve and feature lesbian and gay couples rather than to hide us from the public view. We have to start recognizing our own marriages before we can expect the electorate to recognize them. 

— Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

May 24, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

We are some of the people who voted No on Proposition 8, and raised thousands of dollars to try to block this appalling piece of legislation. The number may change, but it looks more and more like there will be a 2010 ballot proposition to repeal Proposition 8 and remove it from the California Constitution.

(I didn’t think I’d be thinking about this until after the California Supreme Court speaks on Tuesday, but I can’t get this off my mind.)

I believe it is not simply a matter of majority rule when it comes to basic, inalienable civil rights. The right to marry the person of your choice should never be up for a vote (it never should have been on the 2008 ballot to start with). America established that once and for all when the U.S. Supreme Court brought in its decision on Loving vs. Virginia, which removed the legal hurdles for interracial couples to marry.

There is nothing sacred about civil marriage. Marriage is honorable and good. It is part of the fabric of our society. It creates stability in culture, community, households and individuals. It bestows rights and accepts responsibilities.

But the word “sacred” is a religious concept that should be left out of the civil marriage equation. Different religious groups think of marriage differently, and they practice different rituals to solemnize or seal a marriage. They assign their own beliefs, requirements and privileges to marriage as they define it.

We need to stress the separation of church, state and marriage. Millions of people marry every year who are not interested in any religion, and that is their right. And many religious people marry who do not contract a civil marriage yet still receive a ritual blessing which creates relationships in their religious community.

My reasoning is entirely empirical. I am certain—this does not take a Ph.D.— that what my church teaches and practices about marriage is not the same as what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and practices or what the Mormon churches teach or practice.

Mormons believe that a heterosexual couple who marry are sealed for eternity. This is not the same as what Jesus says in the Bible (in heaven they neither marry nor are given in marriage, Matthew 22). They call marriage an “ordinance” and have their own cosmology and beliefs which are not shared by many Christian churches. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, as they prefer to call their faith, may try to look respectable by supporting only heterosexual marriage, but the history of the matter, which lingers in the back country of America, is that Mormons started by permitting—really advocating—polygamy. Polygamy is not only not legal in any U.S. state, it is not supported by any Christian church organization.

In the Roman Catholic church marriage is a “sacrament.” Lutherans do not, because we have a strict and narrow definition of what a sacrament is (specifically instituted by Christ, for one thing, and so marriage fails the test right there.) And the Catholic church has not budged on the indissolubility of marriage. That church absolutely forbids re-marriage after a civil divorce. Most Protestants and many Lutherans do not look at divorce as a block against re-marriage, and we do not forbid ministers from marrying, as Catholics do.

(On the site above, the explanation of marriage from a Catholic viewpoint is a real stretch, but save that for another time.)

The ELCA tries to focus:  on sexuality. Where did they get this picture?

The bottom line is that one person’s sacred beliefs are another person’s blasphemy. Even while the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America wrestles with human sexuality and homosexuality, its new draft “social statement” on human sexuality does not forbid the blessing of same-gender couples in a Christian liturgical ceremony.

Obviously, people of faith are not all people of the same faith. And not all Christians are opposed to same-sex marriage.  Using faith and religious rites as a monkey wrench on civil marriage rights is unjust, plain and simple.  America was founded on freedom of religion, and that primarily meant that we are free to practice our own religious beliefs and to therefore avoid coercion by means of another’s religious beliefs. That is why civil marriage is not sacred, because if it were, who’s version of “sacred” couple it possibly reflect?

So I’m keeping my sign up, if necessary, until Proposition 8 is revoked, invalidated or repealed.

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Bible & Interpretation, Sex, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, Catholic matters, Ecumenical Issues, LGBT Christian, Public Affairs, Faith, LGBT Rights, ELCA | Print | No Comments »

May 23, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

 Two frogs are sitting in a pot half full of water on the stove. There are bubbles all around them. “You know, it just doesn’t get any better than this,” said the first one.

“What do you mean? Are you crazy?” said the other. “This water is getting hot. I think we should get outta here.”

“Why are you always so negative?” said the first. “It’s not boiling, after all. It’s only simmering.”

“I can’t believe it! I suppose now you’re going to tell me the pot is half full, not half empty.”

I read an interesting piece yesterday in Instinct magazine, which surprised me. It’s a pretty-boy fashion magazine that catches our eyes but seldom gets read.

Joel Perry’s article”Is There Still a Closet?” is a relatively sympathetic look at those (how few? how many?) sexual minority persons out there who are still hiding. His article is not edgy—he doesn’t contemplate anything as exotic as transgender politician or a bisexual bishop—but he talks about his friend Davis from small town North Carolina who still sings in the church choir and says, “You try not to live a lie; however, you have to cover your tacks well.”

Perry is probably more sympathetic than I might be. Maybe a transgender politician must hide, but a 42-year old medical assistant can get work almost anywhere. Why would he stay where he can’t breathe, can’t move, can’t live? Why would he try to hold his breath for a lifetime because there is no air in the closet? Or maybe in North Carolina?

Or is it that he just doesn’t know how to come out gracefully, or where to begin?

My friend, most of us didn’t start out to be radical activists. But there came a moment when we finally realized that the pain of inaction outweighed the risks of action.

The truth is that coming out is a multi-part test of one’s own inner integrity. You don’t come out only once, but many times to different audiences. The outcome of any of these will vary, depending on how well prepared you are, and what kind of people you trust with your integrity. It can be painful, and it can be relatively easy and enjoyable. depending on how each coming out event unfolds. Typically, my friends report that at least for some —family especially—they already know and were just waiting for them to talk about it.

Another important thing to remember is that the risk and pain are temporary. Once the coming out process is behind you, your life takes different turns. If doors slam shut, others will open. If some friends shun you, you will make other, more genuine friends. If you grow in the process of deciding you must breathe free, you may discover that other people are also able to grow and change their views and opinions. The family, friend or co-worker who is often overheard telling homophobic jokes may actually change his or her tune just because you were honest about yourself.

And the most important thing to remember, if you are a person of faith, is that God already knows your secret. The thunderbolt has not hit you, no matter how long you’ve been hiding your little secret, so many it’s time to reconsider how damning your sexuality really is. Could it be that God knows, and God still loves you? That the all-wise and omniscient God, the one who knows the heart, fully understands and does not condemn you? That grace outweighs condemnation, and love is more important than sin?

Could it be that you’ve been avoiding thinking about God for fear of the consequences, only to realize that God’s Spirit may be your best friend and advocate as you go through the coming out process?

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Gay Catechism, "The Closet", Homophobia, LGBT Christian, Living by Grace, Coming Out | Print | No Comments »

May 22, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

Finally, the California Supremes announced today that their Proposition 8 decision will come down Tuesday, May 26 at 10:00 a.m. At that time, this is your link to the decision: www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/.

This has been like “waiting for the other shoe to drop” since November 4.

Tuesday night, there will be public demonstrations (celebrating or mourning or riot or …?) in many cities in California. This comes close to, but not directly on the 30^th anniversary of the White Night Riots in San Francisco.

So now we know the state-wide rally, Meet in the Middle, will occur on Saturday, May 30 (gathering at 1:00 p.m. at Fresno’s City Hall), rather than on this Memorial Day weekend.

Depending on the outcome of the Court’s decision, of course, wheels will begin to turn about our recourse as a community. Most responsible commentators foresee two major outcomes:

First, that the 18,000 + same-sex marriages contracted between June 17 and November 4 last year will be held to be legally valid. My marriage and its legal protections and obligations, is one of those 18,000.

Second, that Proposition 8, which California voters approved on the November ballot 52 to 48 percent, will also be held to be legally valid, thus foreclosing on any further same-sex marriages for now. As with the original federal Prohibition amendment, we know that marriage prohibition cannot last.

There are a limited number of weeks for Equality California, Love Honor Cherish and others to make their final decision whether to attempt to overturn Proposition 8 on the 2010 or 2012 ballot. The way things have been going elsewhere in the country, 2010 seems the most likely, because there is momentum right now over the marriage issue.

But all of us are waiting for an unknown number of other points which may be part of the Supreme Court’s decision ~ whether for example, it makes any comments about California’s domestic partnership as being equivalent to civil marriage in all aspects but name; or whether it speaks to the issue of separating the authority to officiate at civil marriages from religious ones, and thereby stripping the right of clergy to sign civil marriage licenses.

In effect, the commentators who think they can “call” this decision in advance may only be chipping at the tip of an iceberg. We know that Proposition 8 attempts to give the voters veto-power of basic matters of equal protection before the law, etc. It is possible that if the Court has found, as was voiced during the oral arguments March 6, that the people do indeed have the right to make very bad decisions about civil rights, it may also speak in such a way to lift up, protect, equalize or prod the voters and legislators to protect our inalienable rights.

Both camps in the marriage battles know that Tuesday’s decision will not end the war once and for all, not even in California. We will continue to build momentum, and our opponents will continue to build resistance. Can we sustain the momentum that the 2008 favorable court decision, the Iowa court decision, and the recent actions in Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire set in motion? Or can the religious right’s resistance, which raised vats full of cash to push Proposition 8 last summer, be multiplied over and over, and again? Can they by sheer force of moralizing will reverse the decisions of lawmakers and courts in six other states?

Or— if the outcome of Tuesday’s California decision sets other actions in motion or charts a course for redress of the standing injustice against LGBT people—will the resistance begin to crumble? Remember, the marriage battles are only one, high visibility part of the religious right’s resistance to LGBT rights: they don’t want us to have rights in housing, in the military, in employment, in adoptions or protection from hate crimes.

Pray, my friends. And if you want to connect with more of the groups working on these issues, check the Links at No on 8 Church.

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

May 21, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

At least that’s the official picture re: whether the Supreme Court will post its final decision on Proposition 8 and the estimated 18,000 same-gender marriages in California.

On Tuesday, the “Joe.My.God.” blog posted this photo supposedly from San Francisco’s Castro District that shows Police barricades being readied … for ? Was a Supreme Court decision about to be announced? This posting comes up slowly, by the way = it’s getting a lot of hits = there are a lot of people interested in the “rumor” that the Court is about to speak and/or a riot is about to erupt.

But on Wednesday, the California Supreme Court’s own web site posted notice that no decisions would be coming down on Thursday, May 21. This screen has been corrected at least once during Wednesday. So it look as if we might know tomorrow that a ruling is coming down on Tuesday. If not Tuesday, then there are theoretically only two more dates left before June 5 for the Court to publish its opinion. (This is based on the Court’s own internal rules, so who knows if it might instead announce a delay?)

Late yesterday, Towleroad blog as suggesting that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom asked the Supremes to delay the decision so that it would not coincide with the 3oth anniversary of the White Night Riot. On May 21, 1979, gay San Franciscans became violent over the wimpy sentence given to Dan White for the cold-blooded murder of then-Mayor George Moscone and gay Supervisor Harvey Milk. God, has it been more than 30 years we’ve been publicly struggling for our civil rights?

In the meantime, New Hampshire Governor John Lynch’s monkey wrench in the legislation, same-gender marriage in that state is delayed. The Senate took action to cave in to the Governor’s demands to make the bill ultra-safe for religious bigots to be exempted. The House demurred on Wednesday afternoon. According to the 365Gay.com story:

The revisions approved earlier Wednesday in the Senate by a 14-10 vote would have made it clear that churches, church organizations and staff are protected from lawsuits if they refuse to permit same-sex marriages.

But when it went to the House in the afternoon, it was defeated by only two votes —188-186.

The House then voted 207-168 to ask the Senate to negotiate a compromise with the governor instead of killing the bill.

How long, O Lord? Any day now, but not today.

And in a separate story also filed yesterday, it is speculated that the Obama administration’s campaign opposition to DOMA may be evaporating. The back story is that the Justice Department, under pressure to make sure Obama’s campaign pledge is upheld, has not weighed in yet on a federal lawsuit filed last March challenging DOMA (Caution: this site is out of date, so don’t rely on it for anything but the most general information). It has until June 22 to respond either way. (As with the California Attorney General, the federal Justice Department is supposed to defend legislation, so Attorney General Eric Holder should be defending DOMA in the lawsuit.

I am, as they say, conflicted.  Torn between anger and worry, anguish and depression.  Auto-pilot activism and total nihilism. What to do, what to do? Justice delayed in justice denied, they say. Any day now, but not today.

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

May 21, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life posted a Q & A-type article yesterday, “A Clash of Rights? Gay Marriage and the Free Exercise of Religion.” 

“With New Hampshire poised to become the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage, could religious individuals and institutions that oppose gay marriage be required to recognize or even solemnize these unions? Although churches and other religious organizations, including charities and schools, have typically been exempt from state and local laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, it remains unclear how these religious institutions might be affected by new laws that require equal treatment for same-sex marriages.”

I don’t think they’re talking to each other.

They also have a separate Issue Page on Gay Marriage. 

The Forum tries to analyze and discuss the issues fairly and accurately.  A disinterested party who works through their material might conclude that religious organizations want “wiggle room” to permit them to be prejudicial and rejective without interference by law or public policy.  In other words, to remain internally homophobic and to be left alone.

Frankly, I am more than willing to leave anti-gay religious groups alone.  My spouse and I are not inclined to walk into the local Mormon stake or Catholic mass, and make a scene demanding recognition of our legal marriage (just to name those two large organization that strongly backed Proposition 8 in California).

But such analysis is worthless, in one sense, because the conservative position (”opponents of gay marriage”) have an underlying motive beyond being left alone to discrimnate against LGBT people internally.  Beyond the prejudicial and rejective motives is the punitive motive. 

Although the most outrageous (perhaps!) is Rev. Fred Phelps of Topeka Kansas, he is not alone in his constant vitriol of hatred and threatened punishment.  There are hundreds of web sites which say similar stuff, and thousands of blogs which publish the opinions of those who talk openly of physical harm and death for LGBT people.  This is routine, folks.  Gay marriage is only the immediate flash point for this kind of hatred.

So when it comes to law and public policy, the truthful issue for us is this:  are hatred, homophobia, death threats, and punitive political organizing  things which deserve to be exempt under the law, or protected as freedom of speech or freedom of religion?  Or are these homophobic entities simply hiding behind the facade of religion?

Then Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who were selling and buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves.  He said to them, “It is written,  ’My house shall be called a house of prayer’;  but you are making it a den of robbers.”  — Matthew 21:12-13

Jesus, of course, did not go to Pilate or the Roman courts and file a lawsuit. He sought no political solution against those who use their religion as a “den”–a hiding place where thieves go after committing their crimes.   (The implication of this scriptural passage is that the robbery, thievery and dishonesty, etc. is in the public venue, and religion is simply the retreat house for those who are dishonest in public.)

But in his zealous driving out of the thieves, he tells us that religion itself, God’s temple, should be no refuge for such scoundrels.  With or without a marriage license, I am not inclined to enter a Mormon or Catholic church and attempt to drive out anybody, either.  Change will come only when people who belong there already have the zeal and courage to cleanse their own houses of worship, and to convince their co-religionists that working to steal our civil rights in public and then retreating to God’s house is immoral.

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Lesbian/Gay Marriage, Homophobia, Bible & Interpretation, LGBT Christian, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

May 20, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

I had a brief conversation last night at a Love Honor Cherish event with Father Geoff Farrow, the courageous priest who came out last fall and was expelled from his parish because he would not, in conscience, echo the bishop’s order that the faithful all vote in favor of Proposition 8.

When is the right time to speak up, or to remain silent? This is one of the eternal questions of human integrity, and no matter what generation or century you live in, there are things over which some people will trip and fall headlong away from their own inner sense of who they are and what is important in life. Our culture doesn’t provide opportunities for people to lift up their own values, or speak about them easily. Our culture itself has little integrity left, when it comes to values (unless you count right-wing flag waving which I don’t).

Integrity is perhaps the tap root of genuine ministry as well, as Father Geoff fully knows. When we counsel people —and many times the counsel is quite informal, rather than scheduled and deliberate behind closed doors— what people are listening for in a priest or pastor is not necessarily the religious or doctrinal “party line.” They are listening for our integrity: to hear how we inwardly weigh and process the decisions that we all face as human beings in a dehumanizing culture.

Fr. Geoff mentioned those priests who left the ministry but never moved out of the rectory. Their genuine ministry ends when they loose their integrity. (Fr. Geoff had started packing up his personal effects in the rectory before he came out and spoke to the media about being gay.)

I had an opposite experience years ago. I was outed in my previous parish—but secretly so that the rumor was going around but nobody would tell me what they were being told. I was forced to resign over other petty complaints. So I left the professional ministry, the paycheck side of the equation, but was not finished with my inner sense of vocation or calling to be in ministry. So for many years I kept teaching, writing and preaching whenever I could while I worked in an ordinary office job.

From the day I left that parish, I determined I would never go back into the closet, even if I never went back into the professional Lutheran ministry. It was how I preserved my sense of integrity. And in the years since, I am convinced that coming out as a Lesbian/gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or whatever sexual minority and telling one’s story, is the most important thing we can do to preserve our sanity and integrity, and to change the world. In fact, in a society where personal integrity is not highly valued (we left countless politicians do as they please and weasel out of it any way they can just to get their names off the front page quickly), the one bright spot or the moral high ground for humanity and personal integrity is our movement to come out and tell our stories honestly even at high personal cost.

Without your integrity, said Father Geoff last night, “it’s like your death, on a lay-away plan.” Your humanity, your life, is being given up a little bit at a time. But coming out and choosing to have integrity, if you ask me, is kind of like being born again.

(Father Geoff blogs at www.FatherGeoff.com.)

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Catholic matters, "The Closet", Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Christian, Coming Out, LGBT Rights, Ministry | Print | No Comments »

May 19, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

Every Spring the jacaranda trees have their magical moment in Los Angeles. People say the flowers are purple, but in the bright sunshine, let’s be real: they turn lavender. What makes them quite spectacular among flowering trees is that most of the blossoms come on mature trees when they are bare of leaves during a brief deciduous period. And when the blossoms begin to drop, the remain quite lavender on the ground—or on grass, sidewalks, windshields, everywhere. The flowers are also slightly sticky, so they stick around a long time.

Some people hate them for the lavender mess they make. Probably homophobic types who resent the springtime spree of unregulated color. I love the jacarandas. In fact I’m about to plant another one in my backyard.

Most years, the jacarandas are in full form by Mother’s Day, and have pretty much spent their blooms by early June, the season for Pride parade in Los Angeles. But this year, for whatever reason, the blooms are late by several weeks, and only now are beginning to come to peak. So I suspect that this year’s Pride parade will be surrounded with a riot of color.

Hopefully, when the California Supreme Court decision comes down this week or next (possibly sustaining Proposition 8 and therefore bad news for us), a riot of color will be the only riot we experience.

The jacarandas are good reminders of our need for patience and also for coming out. The jacaranda, after all, pretty much look like an ordinary tree for the rest of the year. And in the Spring they just come out.

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Public Affairs, Coming Out | Print | No Comments »

May 18, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

Washington state is a curious thing. Home to Starbucks, whom we love, and to Microsoft, whom we love to hate, it falls in the blue state category, at least in the last three presidential elections. Yet it has a “defense of marriage” law that keeps gay marriage at bay.

But in reaction to that act being upheld in the courts, a couple of years ago the Washington legislature created a domestic partnership act very similar to what California did, and largely for the same reason – to even the score a bit for lesbian and gay couples (and heterosexual couples over 62).

Today, according to 365Gay.Com, Governor Chris Gregoire signed into law a bill which expanded the rights and responsibilities of domestic partnership in Washington —again very similar to what California has done.

Domestic partnership is “separate and therefore not equal” from civil marriage. But it is movement in the direction of equality and justice. It offers legal protections for lesbian and gay families which are far stronger than they were in 2006.

And like California, Washington might be stuck with this two-status system for awhile and again for the same reasons. The Washington Values Alliance filed papers two weeks ago to deprive lesbian and gay couples of even these rights (”Washington Values Alliance seeks to overturn ‘Everything But Marriage legislation“). (Here are their flimsy and mean-spirited reasons to defeat marriage equality.) If WAVA (”God Family Country”) gathers enough signatures in the next 70 days, voters in Washington will be able to knock down the new rights.

So here the similarity with California ends. Washington did not have legal same-sex civil marriage by order of the state Supreme Court. And the drafters of California’s Proposition 8 smartly did not try to erase or roll back the almost-as-good-as-marriage rights of domestic partners here. The Values Alliance is likely betting on backlash to take away even similar rights (less than equal), not marriage rights, so Washington voters would have to really be motivated to do so by, well, bigotry.

If they fail, of course, by July 25 or in November, this small step for Washington is another step toward the tipping point on same-gender marriage.

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

May 17, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

Once a month, I typically preach twice—in the morning before the congregation, and in the afternoon for Lutherans Concerned/Los Angeles. Most of the time, I prepare different things for each, and that was the case today. And because today’s appointed Bible readings from the Common Lectionary were all meaty and substantial, I had a lot of homework to do.

It’s all a matter of interpretation, isn’t it? Different people look at the same Bible and they interpret it differently.

As Christians, we read the words of comfort and encouragement, and interpret them in favor of ourselves. We read the words of warning and judgment, and interpret them as pointing to someone else.

For nearly 35 years we’ve been active in the reconciling work of Lutherans Concerned, and among other things we have said over and over that the “clobber passages” of the Bible are not really talking about gay and lesbian people as understood today. They are talking about inhospitality, cultic prostitution, masculine privilege and idolatry. But straight people—especially straight judgmental people on the religious right look at the same texts and they say, “Aha, it says right here that Adam and Steve are going to hell.”

The translators of the so-called Living Bible looked at Leviticus 18 and 20, and they interpreted the words there to say “homosexuality” is a terrible sin. Look at the liberties they have taken interpreting these passages:

“Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin.” (Lev. 18:22)

“The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. they have brought it on themselves.” (Lev. 20:13)

Even knowing full well that the idea and the word “homosexuality” didn’t exist in ancient times, these fast-and-loose interpreters used the word “homosexuality.” They interpret the passage to fit people they don’t like, in our times, and disregard the actual issues and behavior of people in ancient times. Of course, it sells Bibles, and for years this kind of interpretation helped to raised a lot of money for political PACS and ballot measures–more than by ranting about the male cult prostitutes in the ancient Near East.

On the positive side, we interpret the message of acceptance and hope in our own favor. We claim, for example, the grace offered to Gentiles without the sticky commandments and rules of obedience which had been laid upon the Jews. When we give greater weight to the words of Jesus (”You have heard it said, … but I say to you…”), we are interpreting the word of God.

In the First Reading today (Sixth Sunday of Easter), Acts 10:44–48 (New Revised Standard Verison), the “circumcised believers” were astonished that the Gospel was getting results with the Gentiles, and that the Holy Spirit fell upon (was bestowed upon) Gentiles—the despised outsiders and foreigners. In other words, the insiders were astonished that God was showing favor to the outsiders. And the outsiders interpreted the message of the Gospel as belonging to them equally.

To build their case, the apostles looked to the only Bible they had—the Hebrew Scriptures, and they found all sorts of passages, which they interpreted as breaking down the barriers of insider/outsider, chosen/not chosen, righteous/unrighteous peoples, and admitting the Gentiles to God’s grace. But the Jews of the apostles’ generation did not interpret those passages in the same way. And they remained exclusive ever since, strictly defining what it means to be a Jew, or not a Jew.  Not accepting Jesus as Messiah. And not budging on what it means to be in God’s good graces.

In the appointed Gospel, John 15:9–17, Jesus is interpreting the Scripture, too. He is interpreting the Commandments by redefining the Ten as a single commandment — the commandment that we love one another. And he interprets the people of God not as the children of Abraham but as all those who obey this commandment.

The apostle Paul broadened this to mean neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, and not male-and-female (Acts 3:28–29). Paul could interpret things this way because he experienced the ever-widening grace of God to all people. So today we interpret this to mean God inclusive love to all—not gay nor straight, bisexual or transgender, but all human beings. When we interpret Scripture, we claim their promises with authority, knowing that God has given the people of God such authority (Matthew 16:19; 18:18).

If Christians have greatly universalized the passages which tell us that God is love (for example: John 3:16, 1 Corinthians 13:1–13; 1 Thess. 1:4–5; Hebrews 6:10; James 1:5; 1 Peter 4:8; 1 John 3:1–24; 4:7–12, 16–21) we have not universalized passages which seem to judge or condemn. Most if not all of them are highly specific—from God’s judgment of Cain (Genesis 4:10–11) to the judgment of the angel of Thyatria (Revelation 2:18–23).

Legitimate biblical interpretation means knowing when the shoe fits and when it does not. Martin Luther once remarked that the Bible is God’s Word, but in it there are passages where God is not speaking to us, but speaking to someone else. That is probably the best way to be faithful but discerning — to continue to say with the whole church that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but when others try to universalize something they think can be used to condemn us, to faithfully and firmly correct their misinterpretation. It may be God’s Word, and it may be true. But not every word is applicable to every human being. When it come to LGBT Christians, this is probably the most important lesson we must learn for ourselves and faithfully explain to others.

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Gay Catechism, Doctrine, Bible & Interpretation, Fundamentalism, LGBT Christian | Print | No Comments »

May 15, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

In 1998, in an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times, Dr. Martin Marty commented that “religion inspires the homosexuality wars.” Among other things, he was bemused that in the then-Republican dominated Congress “sin” had become a political word, that evangelical preachers who have themselves divorced (a sin in the New Testament) and remarried continue to rant about a subject seldom condemned in scripture. Even more prescient, Marty assessed the battles ahead.

“Wars of attrition eventually wind down. But the immediate future on this front is not bright.” He goes on to rehearse the inner-denominational battles over the presence of LGBT people—this was 1998! I almost forget how long the Presbyterians, for example, have been saying no to gay pastors, and how long the Methodists have been defrocking pastors for blessing lesbian couples.

A war of attrition is simply meant to wear down your opponents if you can’t defeat them. And eleven years later, probably both the fundagelicals and the pro-gay civil rights groups are feeling more than a little worn down. Recent commentators believe that evangelical leaders are deserting “the gay issue” for greener territory because fighting homosexuals no longer generates the huge sums of cash it once did.

Are we locked in an eternal push-and-shove struggle between religious people and sexual minorities? The most worn down of all are those of us who are people of faith and also a sexual minority, caught in the middle—something like a freed slave living too close to the Mason Dixon Line in the middle of the Civil War, we continue to get shot at from both sides.

Today’s morning’s breaking news (Associated Press) is that New Hampshire’s Governor John Lynch said he will sign the gay marriage bill if additional safeguards for religious beliefs are added, so that the bill more resembles those in Connecticut and Vermont.

Gov. will sign gay marriage provided religious safeguards are added

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch says he’ll sign a bill legalizing gay marriage, but only if it’s changed to give churches and people affiliated with them more protections.

As passed, the bill would allow churches to decide whether they will conduct religious marriages for same-sex couples. But Lynch says he wants clearer language to ensure that people wouldn’t be forced to violate their religious principles. He says laws in Connecticut and Vermont do that.

Gay marriage supporters say they’ll accept the proposed changes.The only other New England state not committed to recognizing same-sex marriage is Rhode Island. Iowa is the other state to legalize gay marriage.

Why does religion need more protection? There is no religious group anywhere in America that can be required or coerced into performing, authorizing, blessing, attending, or paying attention to civil marriages for anyone, period. If people have religious principles that are offended by the thought of gay and lesbian people marrying, why don’t they try to stop paying attention to us?

But the real question is, what is driving the fear of the religious right? I came across an insight in an old New Yorker magazine from last fall. Nicholas Lemann writes of the Obama/McCain foreign policy views in “Worlds Apart” (The New Yorker, October 13, 2008). He quotes retired Air Force major general Scott Gration on conflicts: “People are more alike than their cultures and religions. . . . You see, religion and culture—they’re the way people communicate their values. They want stability, order, education. This is just humanness. Then you add on your religion, your culture—that’s how you execute it.”

If that be true, then the hysteria about gay marriage—or gay anything—that has driven the so-called culture wars for the better part of two decades, is out of proportion to the underlying values which religion and culture reflect. The hysteria isn’t about the idea that two women might share some legal rights to make decisions about their life together; it’s about having to make a place for them in the conservative’s world, on the conservative’s street, or in his/her church pew. They are fighting against our rights because their underlying values are fearful and reaction of our existence. On that front, in this homosexuality war of attrition, we are wearing them down simply because we are here.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Bible & Interpretation, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, Ecumenical Issues, LGBT Christian, History, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

May 14, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

According to the Sexual Orientation and the Law Blog, with some help from KITV in Sioux City, Iowa, the two legal sticks rubbing against each other at the Federal level could help both burst into flame. The two pieces of dry tinder are the Defense of Marriage Act and the military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, both of which were laid on us during the Clinton era.

“An interesting report from a local Iowa TV station points up one dimension of the looming federalism clash between the federal government, which continues to maintain generally hostile policies toward gays, and the rights of states to perform and recognize same-sex marriages. This isn’t about the Defense of Marriage Act, though, it’s about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

“As station KITV in Sioux City reports, “if a homosexual member of the military gets married in any one of the now 5 states that have legalized gay marriage, they can be involuntarily removed from their [military] service.” The reason is that “marrying or attempt to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex” constitutes “telling,” which in turn can get you discharged under the policy begun under President Clinton and still being continued under President Obama.”

According to Aaron Belkin, in a Huffington Post article May 8, with the spark-throwing title “Obama to Fire His First Gay Arabic Linguist,” the President could at least stop the automatic discharge of Dan Choi under DADT by Executive Order.

“A new study, about to be published by a group of experts in military law, shows that President Obama does, in fact, have statutory, stroke-of-the-pen authority to suspend gay discharges. Obama could simply invoke his authority under federal law (10 U.S.C. §12305) to retain any member of the military he believes is essential to national security.

“Or he could take advantage of a legal loophole. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” law requires the military to fire anyone found to be gay or lesbian. But there is nothing requiring the military to make such a finding. The president can order the military to stop investigating service members’ sexuality.”

The whole article is worth a read.

DADT looks more and more foolish on its own merits, and Choi’s story is illustrative. Interviewed last week by Rachel Maddow, Choi said his unit was insulted when the discharge letter expressly said he had to go because coming out had destroyed unit cohesion. Both DADT and DOMA look even more ridiculous when not one, not two but ten percent of the United States is legalizing same-gender marriages. How long will it be before someone successfully mounts a lawsuit to force the federal government to recognize his/her gay marriage, and to terminate Don’t Ask Don’t Tell because it is depriving our women and men in uniform from enjoying their civil right to marry and to have equal protection under the law?

— Dan Hooper

Posted in Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »