What Scares Me This Halloween....

....is crazy rhetoric like this out of California! From a Yes on 8 rally in Sacremento, we get the ultimate insult...and signs of how truly delusional and fiendish those who oppose equal rights for LGBT people really are.

Gee, he looks so normal in this picture, but watch the video and listen to the hate that comes off his tongue and you'll realize Brad Dacus is one scary dude.

The Collapse of Homophobia...or at least one building

I have been waiting for this day for many years, and it has arrived:

The Johns Building on Brounough Street is meeting its demise!

Yes, folks: this building, which once housed the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, is getting torn down to make way for a new Performing Arts Center. How perfectly ironic that the arts will replace a building named after one of Florida's most infamous homophobes.

State Senator, and one-time Governor, Charley Johns of Starke was a powerful man back in the 1950s legislature. Part of what was called "The Porkchop Gang", Johns chaired the Senate's Appropriations Committee vesting him with the ability to make-or break-budgets of state agencies and universities. And while that gave him great authority to reign supreme over bureaucrats, his real legacy rests with his chairmanship of the Florida Legislative Investigation Committee which went on a McCarthy-esque witch hunt for communists in the NAACP, and then quickly turned its focus on a much more vulnerable population: the state's gay and lesbian employees.

From 1956-1965, the "Johns Committee", as it came to be known, would work with local law enforcement to use sting operations to entrap gay men and then grill them for hours until they gave up the names of their friends. At Florida State University, which had just gone co-ed, President Doak Campbell and the FSU police chief were silent partners in this crime. Students, who fell into traps set for those seeking anonymous sex, were threatened with expulsion and exposure to their parents if they didn't rat out their friends. Faculty members at all the state universities were also suspect, and if "found out", could choose to comply with the committee...and get fired....or get put on trial and be publicly-humiliated. And, just in case the public wasn't fully aware of the dangers of homosexuality, the Committee produced what became known as "The Purple Pamphlet", a document with pictures of half-naked men in positions that today look more like a JC Penney's underwear ad.

What eventually caused this committee to collapse was the population shift in Florida, as well as the political mindset of the state. More people living in the southern end of the peninsula meant district lines needed to be re-drawn, and more seats needed to go to the delegations from Tampa and points south. North Florida's influence, including Johns, started to lessen. Add to that the fledgling campus of the University of South Florida, where Johns' threats against this new institution were not welcome, made the Starke Senator an increasingly unpopular man with the growing South Florida delegations. And then there was the really bad misstep where Johns tried to frame a newspaper reporter who had been critical of his committee's work. It backfired, and like McCarthy at the national level, his committee's work was laid to rest. But not without having done significant psychological and social damage on a number of lives.

So, to have a wrecking ball smash away at the walls of a building bearing his name is another sign of the times changing.

And I look forward to the art that will take its place!

Fear

I attended a forum recently on Florida's six constitutional amendments on the ballot. The ones from the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission were good to hear about...as was Amendment One which the state legislature is putting before us in an effort to erase some WW II-era discriminatory language aimed at "them Japanese".

But the question that drew the most attention was the measure that seeks to add discrimination into the state Constitution: Amendment Two, with its definition of marriage "or the substantial equivalent thereof" to be for "one man and one woman". This is the current language in FOUR places in statute. So even if Amendment Two fails on November 4th, there still will be no gay marriage laws in the state of Florida.

Nothing to fear, frightened people. Right? Read on...

Fear is the biggest factor in all discussions about Amendment Two, and the forum was no exception. Our side talked about the fears of senior citizens in domestic partnerships losing their benefits. The guys on the other side spoke of fear of...well....everything. In fact, I find it hard to pinpoint anything that does not make them afraid:

They fear an infiltration of a "national" movement to make marriage available to LGBT people in Florida (I sure hope they'll let me know when the lavendar calvary arrives!);
They fear the courts in Florida some day overturning the current multiple statutes defining marriage;
They fear our side campaigning to convince the senior population to vote No;
They fear clergy getting thrown in jail for preaching against homosexuality or refusing to marry gay people;
They fear children learning that Heather can have two mommies...and that would be considered OK, too.
They fear the Dutch aren't getting married any more (seriously, they have this obsessive concern that the marriage rate in the Netherlands has been declining).

But mostly I heard these two guys for the Yes on Two side saying, "I live in fear of unknowns, and I must control those unknowns."

Perfect illustration: Rev. Larry Perry of Freedom Church, an Assembly of God congregation, was speaking for the amendment. At least, I think he was trying to do that. He spent several minutes, talking in circles, until he finally looked out into the room, and made a bold pronouncement:

"I'm white. I can not be black. But I was born in iniquity. I am a murderer. I am an adulterer. I am a fornicator. But I do not choose to act on that evil."

His point was that homosexuality is a "choice" (it's not...at least not for me) and that gay people can choose not to "act" on their "sin".

Let me say it again: my sexual orientation as a lesbian is not a sin. It is how God made me, and God has reasons only God knows for why some of us will be gay and some of us straight and some of us bisexual and some of us transgendered or intersexed or any other variation in the sexuality scheme of life. But whatever the reason, I'm a lesbian and it's OK and I'm part of the plan. Period.

But I wonder why Rev. Perry is saying of himself: "I am a sinner who does not act on my sin." Good, 'cuz murder is bad. But what I never heard him say was that all those "sins" that seem to plague him have been redeemed by the death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I don't know enough about the Assembly of God faith to understand why such a beautiful event as Easter is not internalized and believed. To quote my mentor, Mtr. Lee Shafer, "It is Good News!" The Holy Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John contains messages that say over and over, "I like you! Heck, I luv ya! I really, really luv ya!" Even in scriptural passages where it sounds as if Jesus is condemning and judging, the condemnation is not punitive. The constant invite is to be in relationship with God.

Is there no hope in Rev. Perry's view of himself in relation to God? Is there no love? Does the "good shepherd" wield a big stick of judgment, ready to smack it across the head of anyone who doesn't "do right"? Somehow, I think a shepherd knows better than to smack his sheep over the head, when a gentle nudging of the rod in one direction or another suffices to keep the flock moving.

How very sad to live life in that much fear. I much prefer the God who is merciful and slow to anger when we do stupid stuff because at least there's a chance for me to not be an idiot. I hope Rev. Perry discovers the God of infinite love. Probably won't happen in time for him to have an epiphany about Amendment Two.

Let's here it for the Diocese of SE Florida!

As some of my readers know, I have been waiting patiently for someone....anyone...in the Episcopal Church here in Florida to say that Amendment Two is a really bad idea.

And tonight....my prayer has been answered by Bishop Frade of the Diocese of SE Florida...which includes Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade Counties...and, of course, Monroe County with Key West. Here's his statement:

October 27, 2008
Dear Sisters and Brothers,
After prayerful consideration, I have decided that it is my duty as a Christian, and as your bishop, to urge the defeat of the proposed Amendment 2 to our Florida Constitution, which would define marriage as only between a man and a woman. It seems to me that if we are to be faithful to our Lord's commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves, we should not be enshrining in our state's constitution this discriminatory and potentially harmful language.
Not only would the passage of Amendment 2 infringe upon our religious liberty by imposing a single religious definition of marriage on all Floridians, regardless of their beliefs; but because of its wording, this amendment could also deny many important benefits to all unmarried Floridians.
While the amendment is clearly aimed at same-sex relationships, we know that among our state's large population of retired persons there are also heterosexual couples who have not married for fear of losing a portion of their individual Social Security or pension benefits. In recent years these persons, as well as partners in committed same-sex relationships, have been able to receive protection for their rights under domestic partnership laws.I cannot see how we can say we love our neighbors if we pass an amendment that could put at risk for these couples such rights as the ability to visitor to participate in medical choices for each other in illness or at the point of death.
Faithful people have a wide range of opinions on the matter of same-sex unions. Like our own Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion,many other branches of Christianity, as well other faiths, are currently engaged in challenging conversations about their own doctrines and policies concerning marriage.
Despite this ongoing disagreement among people of good conscience, Florida has already passed a law that defines marriage as the proposed amendment would. However, some supporters of Amendment 2 have argued that a constitutional amendment is necessary to protect clergy from being forced to perform or recognize marriages that are contrary to their doctrine. I believe this fear is unfounded: Because of the religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, no religious group can be forced to recognize all forms of marriage sanctioned by the civil authorities. (For example, the State allows for and recognizes marriage after divorce; the Roman Catholic Church does not. No Roman Catholic priestis obligated by law to officiate at the marriage of any divorced person.)
Along with clergy from a broad spectrum of religious traditions, with diverse views regarding marriage, I have added my signature to a statement opposing Amendment 2. This statement can be found at www.flclergyforfairness.org.
I believe that Amendment 2 is unnecessary, potentially hurtful, and a threat to our cherished freedom of religion, and I urge you to vote against it on November 4.
Faithfully,
+Leo Frade
Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Southeast Florida

Amen, and thank you +Leo!!

But Think of the Clergy!

Among the many fallacies about Amendment Two is that if it fails, then church pastors, ministers, priests…or rabbis or imams…will be forced to marry gay and lesbian couples.

I don’t know how that can be possible when marriage between two people of the same gender is already illegal in Florida. But again, that seems to be that nagging factoid that just gets in the way of a good red herring fishing story such as this amendment.

What one might ponder is what makes any of the clergy who support Amendment Two think that a gay or lesbian couple would come to them for any sort of spiritual direction…let alone a blessing of their union? Do they really believe we’re that stupid?

Another question one might want to ask is: how does this Amendment, and the discriminatory laws it seeks to enshrine in our state constitution, hamper the ministerial duties or desires of clergy members who support full equality for gay and lesbian people? Most mainline religious groups tend to conform to state laws when it comes to the sacrament of marriage. This makes sense since the actual legality of the marriage is through the state, not the church or synagogue. The religious institution’s primary role in marriage is the blessing bestowed by God on this union. And, for some couples, that is a very important and meaningful moment. But two people need not seek out a priest or rabbi to get married when a Justice of the Peace will suffice for the purposes of getting a marriage certificate signed, dated and witnessed.

But let’s say that a gay man or a lesbian has grown up in a particular church, has been baptized and maybe confirmed and has a connection to this church community. And let’s say there is a clergy person at this church who is inclined, and believes that it is OK, for this gay or lesbian to marry their partner. In Florida today, that is prohibited by law. And Amendment Two would only make it “Super Duper Illegal”.

What’s that clergy person to do when faced with this situation? Right now, some agree to go with a couple to a jurisdiction where marriage IS legal for LGBT couples. But many others have to shrug their shoulders, offer sympathy, and hope for a day when such prohibitions are lifted…not only in the state laws but in their own church governing statutes.

Interesting to note that in Canada, a country where gay marriage is legal, the Anglican Church is in a struggle over how to deal with marrying gay people. There are those who do not want to do it, fearing this will continue to strain relations with other parts of the Anglican Communion. But the Bishop of Ottawa recently released a statement, where he is asking his brothers and sisters in Christ to consider approving the practice of gay marriage in the church. Bishop Chapman says:

"It is my intention to place before the Canadian House of Bishops, next week, my prayerful hope regarding the issue of 'blessings'. It is important that I honour the collegiality of the Canadian House; we are, after all, an episcopally led and synodically governed church. It is my intention at this meeting to discuss my hope which includes my desire to make the following statement: 'That we, in Ottawa, begin to explore experientially, the blessing of duly solemnized and registered civil marriages between same-sex couples, where at least one party is baptized; to charge the Doctrine and Worship Committee with the responsibility to develop an appropriate rite for this blessing. Upon the authorization of a rite, I will give my permission for one parish within the Diocese to offer the blessing of civil marriages between same-sex couples. Discernment continues!'

The closing line, “Discernment continues” is an important period to that proposal. As is the case in the Episcopal Church, nothing will happen overnight, and yet the desire remains to keep all doors open so that everyone may come in to make their feelings known. Keep talking, keep exploring, and move at a pace that will allow people to process and respond. But keep moving!

Again, Florida is still years away from having a discussion akin to the one in Canada. But Amendment Two attempts to end the discussion before it has even had a chance to begin. And that just doesn’t seem like something God would do.

Protecting Marriage...with a Holy Howitzer

Mat Staver of the far-to-the-right-wing legal rights group, the Liberty Counsel, was encouraging Florida Baptist preachers to climb into their pulpits last Sunday and impress upon their captive Christian audience to Vote Yes on Amendment Two. This was the fearful's big push to convince large gatherings of people that those "scary queers" are about to come parading down the aisle and demanding a Baptist wedding...right now! The only way to stop this abomination would be to get to the polls for early voting, and hurl that first stone at those uppity gays and lesbians.

Hearing that this was the clarion call to all Florida Baptist Convention churches, I inquired with my neighbor if her preacher had said anything that Sunday.

"Oh, no! And he wouldn't. He doesn't do that sort of thing."

Whew! OK, so at least First Baptist Church in Tallahassee remained officially neutral on the question...although parishoners are greeted with those "Yes On Two" signs outside the Florida Catholic Conference offices across the street from their house of worship. And while Dr. Doug Dortsch choose not to speak on the issue, it's likely that at some of the other mega-Baptist churches in town, there was all kinds of fire and brimstone gnashing and wailing at the thought of a wedding with a man and a man or woman and a woman.

Oddly, and annoyingly, the proponents of Amendment Two are failing to tell their fearful constituency that Florida law not once, not twice...but in FOUR places in statute defines marriage as "One man and One woman". So, if Amendment Two fails, there won't be a mad rush for marriage licenses by members of the gay community.

Another bizarre notion is that somehow by amending the state constitution, and putting it there that marriage "or the substantial equivalent thereof" should be for one man and one woman, straight marriages will suddenly be protected. How? What are they being protected from? How in the world does defining marriage address the problems plaguing relationships right now? Y'know...things like drug and alcohol abuse, lying to your partner, domestic violence, a rotten economy that strains purse strings? Or what about those people who are so invested in this institution that they get married on a whim, and then call it off days later? How does that relationship build a strong married community?

Finally, there is this idea of quoting the Genesis creation stories of how God made male and female to procreate and populate the world and have dominion over the other creations. Nowhere in those stories do either the "P" or the "J" writer talk about marriage. And, really folks, if you start reading Genesis....as I have....you're going to uncover some stuff that would test the whole "Family Values" crowd: Sarah telling her husband Abraham to sleep with Hagar and getting angry when Hagar and Abraham have a son...Isaac's son, Jacob, steals his brother's blessing and is having sex with two sisters...Judah is sleeping with his daughter-in-law because he mistakes her for a temple prostitute...and Dinah gets raped by a man who desires her......it's actually a pretty good read! But woe on the fundementalist Christian who would actually talk about "those" parts of the Bible. Perhaps they forgot that these stories also all happened under God's watch!

My Baptist neighbor noted something important, and immediately apparent, to her in the Amendment Two debate. She could not help wondering how Amendment Two would have prevented one of the straight couples in our neighborhood from getting divorced. And then there's me and Isabelle...and our friends, Terry and Donna: lesbians in relationships for 17 and 23 years.

Perhaps what is really needed to protect marriage is to honor the ones currently left outside the legal gates. Amendment Two won't do that. And we are still a sea change in Supreme Court membership from seeing such recognition in the Sunshine State.

It's About Fairness and Equality. Period.

Watch for the opportune time, and beware of evil, and do not be ashamed to be yourself. For there is a shame that leads to sin, and there is a shame that is glory and favour. Do not show partiality, to your own harm, or deference, to your downfall. Do not refrain from speaking at the proper moment,* and do not hide your wisdom.*
For wisdom becomes known through speech, and education through the words of the tongue.
Do not subject yourself to a fool, or show partiality to a ruler. Fight to the death for truth, and the Lord God will fight for you.
--Sirach 4: 20-24, 27-28

These were the words of the reading assigned today in the Episcopal Daily Lectionary and how perfect they are for what I have to say.

Florida voters, listen to me: Vote NO on Amendment Two. It is unfair, it will enshrine discrimination into our state constitution, and it is totally unnecessary and unneeded.

That’s the short version. To be in keeping with my Biblical quotation, let me give you a few more details that I hope will educate you on my position.

First, Amendment Two has been called the “Marriage Protection Amendment”. However, I refer to it as the “Anti-gay marriage amendment”. This is an attempt to crucify gay people through the state constitution. And I believe the majority of people in Florida do not want that.

I am a lesbian who has been with my partner for 17 years. We own our home. We have chosen not to have children and have instead opted for raising a cat who, for the record, is extremely heterosexual as she adores flirting with our male friends. In the eyes of our friends and loved ones, we are a family. However, in the eyes of the state, we are merely roommates cohabitating in our home. Under current Florida law, we are not allowed to get married (thanks Sen. John Grant…and the late Gov. Lawton Chiles for that Defense of Marriage Act!) Could that law be overturned? Well, maybe. But then, somebody please show me where we have a majority of justices on our state Supreme Court that would be willing to take such a political risk?!

For reasons I don’t really understand, our side has tried to wage a campaign to defeat this amendment by telling everyone it will hurt the senior citizens, some of whom have opted for domestic partnerships instead of marriage. Supporters of this amendment have claimed that it is necessary to protect the children.

I guess one could argue that gay people are both seniors and children….as well as teen-agers, and adults. But let’s get real here: the amendment’s target is the state’s LGBT population. And this is an attempt to give the majority the right to vote on the lives of the minority. Where is the fairness in that? And what about respecting the dignity of every human being?

Taken from the perspective of a Christian, this amendment flies in the face of the words of the apostle Paul in Romans:

Why do you pass judgment on your brother or sister? Or you, why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. For it is written,
“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall give praise to God.”
So then, each of us will be accountable to God.
Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another.
—Romans 14: 10-13

Amendments such as this, promoted by “Christians”, create animosity, and serve to place a barrier between gay and lesbian people, and the people of faith who do NOT despise them. It also creates the real problem of making it harder for LGBT couples to establish the transfer of benefits and inheritance in the case of the death of a partner. Or then there's the stumbling block created for legally-married LGBT couples with biological or adopted children ...and then once this family moves to Florida and (God forbid) breaks up....the child and parents are left in legal limbo as they try to figure out custody. Furthermore, Paul in the next chapter of Romans discusses the need for the strong to “put up with the failings of the weak”, so that both can live in harmony with one another. I take that statement to mean that we are bound to each other to support one another, whether we are gay or straight, in our strengths and weaknesses. We have a responsibility to each other as members of the human race to keep each other on a path toward the love and the light rather than darkness and eternal death. Lies, such as claiming this amendment will have no effect on state and municipal entities that have adopted domestic partnership benefits for their unmarried employees, are shameful and deceptive.

And as for my side, please quit trying to hide the gay people. It’s time for Florida to show its true colors: is it a state for fairness and equality for all people, or is it a place where “certain people” are considered “lesser than”?

Here endeth the posting. I anticipate I’ll have more to say on this topic between now and Election Day.