Responding to Archbishop Dolan on Marriage

With all the hoopla about marriage equality finally getting close to a vote in the New York State Senate, New York Roman Catholic Archbishop Timothy Dolan writes (or rather, lies) in his blog about “The True Meaning of Marriage” as a last-ditch effort to try to stop the law from being enacted – and as has been typical and usual with Roman Catholic hierarchs in the United States, he advocates for moral injustice, using lies and misrepresentations as his methodology.
http://blog.archny.org/?p=1247

He commences his diatribe with:

“The stampede is on. Our elected senators who have stood courageous in their refusal to capitulate on the state’s presumption to redefine marriage are reporting unrelenting pressure to cave-in.”

Hmmm. “Redefine Marriage” is a stock phrase used by the opponents of the New York marriage bill. The impression is that marriage has lasted for thousands of years without change, and now some people want to “redefine” it so that men and women can’t marry each other.

The fact is that passing the marriage bill will not change a single thing about opposite-sex marriages and the families of people in opposite-sex marriages. Their marriages will not be redefined.

Not only that, but civil marriage gets “redefined” all the time. In ancient Rome, there were several different forms of marriage, and marriage has historically included various forms of polygamy, including both polygyny and (sometimes) polyandry. The Bible indicates that polygyny was one of the earlier forms of marriage – one husband with more than one wife. Indeed, even same-sex marriage was allowed, in some cases. In 1 Samuel 18:3 we see King Saul’s son Jonathan marrying the future King David, and then later in the chapter we see David also marryins Saul’s daughter Michal, thus becoming Saul’s “son-in-law a second time.” (See Darby or ASV, not the Vulgate or translations based on the Vulgate, because Jerome intentionally fudged the applicable verse). In Rome, the Emperor Nero, after killing his pregnant wife Poppaea, later married Sporus, a young man who resembled his dead wife.

In the early Christian Church, as Boswell points out, same-sex unions were actually blessed by Christians. (Indeed, in Christ Jesus, according to Paul, we are “neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.”)


Also, according to Paul, marriage for Christians has nothing to do with procreation, but is for the sole purpose of allowing those with a strong libido an opportunity to have licit sex. See 1 Cor. 7:8-9.

But let’s look at the law as it evolved in New York – not an unchanging tradition spanning thousands of years – but a matter of civil law that has evolved over time.

After the English took over from the Dutch, New York was subject to the English common law, which developed over centuries. Marriage under the common law created a single legal person – “the two shall become one” – and then, as Blackstone (or Lord Coke) notes in a corollary, the married woman essentially suffers from a disability that is the equivalent of civil death for a prison inmate – “and that one is the husband.”

This was the barbaric traditional form of marriage for enough hundreds of years to be part of the common law that was the common law of New York State as well.

In 1836, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Ernestine Rose started petitioning for a “Married Women’s Property Act” that would allow married women the right to inheritances – until then, being that “the two are one, and that one is the husband,” the husband had control of inheritances – and would often enough spend it on liquor in taverns while leaving his wife and children destitute.

The religious leaders of the day, like Archbishop Dolan, were appalled – to change the civil law relating to marriage would destroy the institution! And the state senate took 12 years, until 1848, to actually pass the law – and then only because some senators realized that the inheritances that should go to their daughters and grandchildren were likely to end up in a tavernkeeper’s hands if they did not pass the bill.

It took another twelve years to push a bill through the legislature in 1860 “redefining marriage” again, to allow working women the right to their own wages – until then, husbands had control over those as well, and they were just as likely to spend their wife’s wages on strong drink as they were to spend their inheritances.

So many other changes have been made in the years since 1848 and 1860 – “redefining” marriage again and again . . .and again.

So, what’s all the ruckus from Archbishop Dolan about this particular proposed change?

The answer is a combination of moral error and conflict in the Church’s catechism that leads to a nearly schizophrenic response whenever the idea of “gay” is broached.

Archbishop Dolan continues:

“The media, mainly sympathetic to this rush to tamper with a definition as old as human reason and ordered good, reports annoyance on the part of some senators that those in defense of traditional marriage just don’t see the light, as we persist in opposing this enlightened, progressive, cause.”

Tamper? No. The arc of history bends toward justice, and the proposed amendment to make marriage laws gender-neutral is just, fair, and right. Tamperis a loaded word – improve would be better and more accurate.

As we have already noted, the “definition as old as human reason” is a fiction invented by Archbishop Dolan to cover his apparent ignorance of the fact that the definition of marriage has been amended many times in the past couple hundred years, and has changed over time as humanity has become more civilized.

Those “in defense of traditional marriage” should be honored to vote for the marriage bill – it makes no changes whatsoever to traditional marriage. All it does is expand the definition to include marriages that are gender neutral as well as those between opposite-sex individuals.

Dolan continues:

“But, really, shouldn’t we be more upset – and worried – about this perilous presumption of the state to re-invent the very definition of an undeniable truth – one man, one woman, united in lifelong love and fidelity, hoping for children – that has served as the very cornerstone of civilization and culture from the start?”

The archbishop apparently has little knowledge or understanding of civil law – and even of the law of his own Church. My own Roman Catholic marriage was ended by civil divorce more than 10 years ago (I didn’t start the proceedings), and then annulled by a Church tribunal of his diocese (though I admit it precedes his elevation to the archbishopric in New York). Is Dolan even aware that New York “tampered” with the whole “lifelong” thing a long time ago? That the grounds for civil divorce have changed many times, most recently when New York began allowing “no-fault” divorce? Isn’t he aware that his own Church’s Canon Law has changed many times with regard to marriage and annulment – with the most recent annulment rules being so liberalized that one prominent canon lawyer was quoted as stating that there was not a Catholic marriage in America that could not be annulled under the current rules?

Does the archbishop realize that procreation is not the sole reason for marriage – sure, the Roman idea of “matrimonium” involves procreation, but “connubium” does not. Perhaps he should brush up on his Latin.

Then the Archbishop gets cutesy:

“Last time I consulted an atlas, it is clear we are living in New York, in the United States of America – not in China or North Korea. In those countries, government presumes daily to “redefine” rights, relationships, values, and natural law. There, communiqués from the government can dictate the size of families, who lives and who dies, and what the very definition of “family” and “marriage” means.”

“But, please, not here! Our country’s founding principles speak of rights given by God, not invented by government, and certain noble values – life, home, family, marriage, children, faith – that are protected, not re-defined, by a state presuming omnipotence.”

Um – with his geographical references, Archbishop Dolan seems to imply that changing the law is something that only happens under “godless communism.”

But the Archbishop is just being silly here and making false analogies.

Indeed, he is so wrong that it would actually be funny if he weren’t attempting to be so serious.

In the United States, we have representative government, legislative bodies that are charged with making and amending laws and administrative bodies making and interpreting regulations, and courts watching over it all – on the federal, state and local levels. For most purposes, marriage is viewed as being among the laws that is defined at the state level, except to the extent that the state presumes to violate an individual federal constitutional right.

To that end, the United States Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia is most instructive, and the Archbishop should consider reading it one of these days.

And then you notice, he sneaks in something in the list of things godless Communists like to redefine – “natural law.” I can’t help but laugh at his ineptitude. It is the Catholic Church whose ideas and concepts of “natural law” have nothing at all to do with nature, and everything to do with Aristotle’s interpretation of nature. We’re lucky that the Church got as far as Aristotle – but Dolan is as wrong here as some of his predecessors in the hierarchy were when they condemned Galileo.

Let’s move on just a little. We know that in the United States, rights, relationships, laws, regulations, etc. are constantly being changed, interpreted and reinterpreted, by legislative and administrative bodies and courts. Yes, there are constitutional limits, but in many ways, the laws and regulations change as the society changes. This is how democratically elected republican government works, unlike the way the Vatican works, which is strictly top-down, and woe to the priest of bishop who steps out of line - so, which is more like North Korea – the Roman Catholic Church, or the New York State legislature?

Continuing with his misstatements, the Archbishop writes: “Please, not here! We cherish true freedom, not as the license to do whatever we want, but the liberty to do what we ought; we acknowledge that not every desire, urge, want, or chic cause is automatically a “right.” And, what about other rights, like that of a child to be raised in a family with a mom and a dad?”

I understand the difference between freedom and licentious behavior, having spent some time in a Roman Catholic seminary in my pre-transition youth. However, Archbishop Dolan is misusing the concept here. He might make sense if he was describing sexual promiscuity as licentious behavior – but even that, if engaged among consenting adults is legally permitted, regardless of whether it is moral liberty or licentiousness. Lawrence v. Texas clarified the unconstitutionality of laws prohibiting adult consensual sexual behavior other than heterosexual penile-vaginal intercourse. These laws were generally enforced only against gay people, even though a great deal of heterosexual sexual activity, within and outside of marriage, involves activity other than penile-vaginal intercourse. Morality is an individual matter, while legality is based on constitutional grounds. Like Hebrew National hot dogs, we answer to the higher authority – of the Constitution, and not on the laws of a Church imposed on the basis of arbitrary and capricious interpretations of ancient religious writings.

Incredibly, Dolan continues:

“Our beliefs should not be viewed as discrimination against homosexual people.”

That is a bald-faced lie, told with a straight face. Discrimination against the LGBT community is found in nearly everything the Roman Catholic hierarchy writes about marriage, or about transgender human rights. It is as if we are all less than human in the eyes of the Church hierarchy.

Dolan continues:

“The Church affirms the basic human rights of gay men and women, and the state has rightly changed many laws to offer these men and women hospital visitation rights, bereavement leave, death benefits, insurance benefits, and the like. This is not about denying rights.”

It is *all* about denying rights, Archbishop. And denying it is futile.

He continues:

“It is about upholding a truth about the human condition. Marriage is not simply a mechanism for delivering benefits: It is the union of a man and a woman in a loving, permanent, life-giving union to pro-create children. Please don’t vote to change that. If you do, you are claiming the power to change what is not into what is, simply because you say so. This is false, it is wrong, and it defies logic and common sense.”

Marriage as the union of a man and a woman will not change, by the amendment of the law- it will also mean the union of a man and a man, and a woman with a woman, and of a transgender or intersex person with a man, woman or other transgender or intersex person. The Church will still allow infertile octogenarians to marry despite the lack of any possibility of creating children. The church will bless the marriage of a man to a woman who has had a complete hysterectomy.

For that matter, the Church will not be forced to marry any non-Catholics, or even Catholics who want a same-sex wedding. The right to discriminate on that level will be preserved – just as a church that would not sanctify an interracial marriage can licitly deny the right to such a wedding in its sanctuary.

Dolan begins his conclusion:

“Yes, I admit, I come at this as a believer, who, along with other citizens of a diversity of creeds believe that God, not Albany, has settled the definition of marriage a long time ago.”

Again, Dolan does not seem to understand that there is a huge difference between civil marriage and the Roman Catholic sacrament of Holy Matrimony. To the extent that Dolan is referring to Holy Matrimony as a sacrament – “an outward sign, instituted by God, to give grace” – he is on solid Catholic theological ground, right from the Baltimore Catechism – but once he presumes to step into the legislative process for civil marriage, his particular religious prejudices should hold no sway.

He wraps up with:

“We believers worry not only about what this new intrusion will do to our common good, but also that we will be coerced to violate our deepest beliefs to accommodate the newest state decree. (If you think this paranoia, just ask believers in Canada and England what’s going on there to justify our apprehensions.) But I also come at this as an American citizen, who reads our formative principles as limiting government, not unleashing it to tamper with life’s most basic values.”

Canada and England do not have the constitutional protection of not having established churches, and do not have a constitutional guarantee of freedom of religious expression. So yes, Archbishop, it’s paranoia – you’re not a “state religion” like the Church of England, and the U.S. has a strong aversion to establishing a religion, and a strong constitutional provision in favor of “free exercise” of religion.

If by “violating our deepest beliefs” he means that providing spousal benefits to married gay employees is somehow wrong, then he’s likely to have his deepest beliefs violated, just as the courts will require a blood transfusion for a Jehovah Witness’ baby over the objections of parents, or a court would convict someone who decides that their “deepest” religious beliefs require them to kill Wiccans, or stone gays to death, or otherwise not respect the rights of others.

This is where we should have a discussion about the difference between “freedom” and “license” – your freedom to exercise a Catholic faith does not give you the license to prevent women from exercising their constitutionally guaranteed reproductive rights. Your freedom to be Catholic does not give you the license to disrespect my Unitarian marriage, or to treat my marriage in any way under the law as different from any other marriage. Just because the Catholic Church teaches that transsexual people cannot marry anyone, male, female, or other, does not give the Church the right to deny me any civil benefit, even though the Church does not have to provide me with a sacrament.

Dolan violates my deepest beliefs with every word he has written in this blog essay – but that does not give me the right to censor him – he has the right of free speech even if he is lying, as long as he’s not committing defamation. His calumnious column is evidence of his deep official and possibly personal bigotry – I had hoped that he would at least try to keep himself to Church business rather than meddling – but they haven’t given him his cardinal’s hat yet, so he must feel that he has to cater to the irrational ravings from the Vatican on the subject. Would that he were brave enough to stand up and speak truth to power and risk his position. But he’s typical of the corporate middle-management about to break into the upper echelon – don’t rock the boat.

There is no intrusion, just a fairer, more decent law that will provide legal protection to families in need. Poor black and latina lesbians with children,( often children from prior relationships in which they tried to maintain a straight marriage against their natures because of societal expectations) are likely to have the biggest benefit from the broadening of the marriage law. They and their children will benefit.

Society will benefit from the New York legislature’s enactment of marriage equality – and I sincerely hope the legislature does do the right thing, despite pressure from Dolan and the other foes of freedom.
-

Carl Paladino APOLOGIZES!

After first trying to deny his words, or some of them (the ones he had in his written speech but didn't read), Carl Paladino has done something unusual - he has actually apologized.

The actual and unedited text of his apology is below. While I still disagree with him on a large number of issues and I still support his Democratic opponent in the New York gubernatorial election, the issuance of an actual apology that has a minimum of weasel wording is worth noting. As a reward, I am editing my earlier post to remove the caricature of Mr. Paladino's head with the Charlie Chaplin moustache photoshopped onto a picture of one A. Hitler, former Fuehrer of the Third Reich.

Here is the text of the apology, followed by my comments:

I am Carl Paladino, a father, a husband, a builder and a business owner. I am neither perfect, nor a career politician. I have made mistakes in this campaign - I have made mistakes all my life- as we all have. I am what I am - a simple man who works hard, trusts others, and loves his family and fears for the future of our State.

Yesterday I was handed a script. I redacted some contents that were unacceptable. I did also say some things for which I should have chosen better words. I said other things that the press misinterpreted and misstated. I sincerely apologize for any comment that may have offended the Gay and Lesbian Community or their family members. Any reference to branding an entire community based on a small representation of them is wrong. My personal beliefs are:

1) I am a live and let live person.

2) I am 100% against discrimination of any group. I oppose discrimination of any kind in housing, credit, insurance benefits or visitation.

3) I am 100% against hate crimes in any form.

4) I am in support of civil agreements and equal rights for all citizens.

5) My position on marriage is based on my personal views. I have the same position on this issue as President Barrack Obama. I have previously stated I would support a referendum by New York voters. I have proposed Initiative and Referendum so New Yorkers can decide important issues like this.

6) The portrayal of me as anti-gay is inconsistent with my lifelong beliefs and actions and my prior history as an father, employer and friend to many in the gay and lesbian community.

I am concerned with the future for all our citizens, gay, straight, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Muslim and Agnostic. Although I am not perfect I do admit my mistakes. I will reach out to leaders of the gay community to educate me on how to better represent my support for the rights of all citizens. If elected as your governor I will stand and fight for all gay New Yorkers rights. I ask you for forgiveness on my poorly chosen words and the publication by others not involved with our campaign of unredacted script that did not reflect my oral statement or match my personal feelings. Please go to my website www.paladinoforthepeople.com to learn more detail about the issues including my staunch support for civil rights for all New Yorkers.

The only weasely words?

I did also say some things for which I should have chosen better words. I said other things that the press misinterpreted and misstated.

The "should have chosen better words" part requires some amplification, as does the "misinterpreted and misstated."

It's really hard to misinterpret and misstate an unaltered video.

Essentially, what Carl biggest mistake was to read someone else's words as his own, slightly edited. That someone was most probably the ultra-conservative right wing "Rabbi" Yehuda Levin, the leader of a tiny ultra-Orthodox but not Hasidic Jewish sect.

Carl was trying to garner support from these people by telling them pretty much what their leader wanted them to hear. So, if he doesn't believe what he told them, he was lying to them to get their vote, possibly not thinking that the terribly nasty things he was saying to pander to this small group was going to be spread to the rest of the world by way of the news media and the blogosphere.

This is the sort of campaign trick that used to work fairly well - a candidate would tell a small group what they wanted to hear without fearing that the words would be recorded and broadcast, and then promising something else to some other group.

In this case, Mr. Paladino got caught.

His hiding behind Barack Obama's skirts as if the President is his mommy, on the issue of marriage equality, is rather disingenuous. President Obama is wrong on this issue, and he is another example of a lying politician who has told many different stories to many different groups on many different issues, though President Obama's actual record is mixed.

If Carl really believes in "live and let live," he would be willing to put the Constitution above his religious prejudices - why should the Catholic Church decide whether gay Unitarians should be able to get legally married?

The fact remains that no one who places the immoral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church ahead of the Constitution of the United States or that of the State of New York, is and remains unqualified to be Governor.

The addition of "Initiative" and "Referendum" like they have in California, particularly if not limited so that individual rights are unaffected, is likely to result in what Alexis de Tocqueville referred to as "the tyranny of the majority." Popular votes taken to limit the rights of people who are different that they don't like, can result in injustice - the majority is not always right.

Carl - if your apology was genuine and sincerely intended:

- Will you openly sponsor a civil marriage bill as a Governor's program bill? (It has to be civil marriage, because "live and let live" does not work any other way unless you abolish civil marriage for everyone in New York and leave it up to the churches and individuals to decide for themselves on the basis of their own personal beliefs). It is okay for you to be personally against marrying a man yourself - you already have a wife, and a female concubine (well, how else am I supposed to describe the mother of your daughter . . .) - you don;t have to choose to marry a man - so that's where your personal beliefs are appropriate.

- Will you make GENDA a Governor's program bill? It would extend human rights and hate crimes protections to the trans community.

- Will you direct insurance companies and Medicaid to provide for medically appropriate care for all, including transgender New Yorkers?

- Will you pledge to let the federal government deal with immigration issues and leave the State out of it?

- Will you support abolishing city, town and village governments (excepting New York City) and provide for consolidation of services (including school districts) at the county level?

- Will you support making Medicaid costs the sole responsibility of the State without passing the cost off to the counties?

- Will you support the abolition of "member items?"

- Will you support the elimination of all loopholes in the mortgage recording tax?

- Will you support the adoption of the ACRIS recording system on a statewide basis, with local recording officers acting only as agents of the state? Will you provide for free online public access to land records (as they do in the State of Florida?)

I have much longer laundry list, but something along these lines would be a start.

Taking the Medicaid burden off county governments and consolidating local municipalities and districts to the county government level would go much farther toward reducing the real property tax burden than the things you're foolishly promising already.

But Carl, I do thank you for the apology - it's not something that a Ruben Diaz or a Sally Kern would ever do. It may be that all you need is a little education.

If you don't follow through on your apology, would you prefer I find a photo of Benito Mussolini to use as the basis for a caricature?

A brief Epistle to Totustuos

Totustuos (nice Latin pun of a name/handle! Is he or she really "totally mine?" "All yours," literally - though perhaps short for JPII's motto) commented on my Blog essay: “Responding to the Manhattan Declaration” with the following:

“Robert George is truly a brilliant Philosophical icon of the 21st century. No liberals have ever challenge and won against his natural law argument. To all liberal gays, transgender, and other morphed humans, go straight and be save.”

I can certainly agree with Totustuos that Robby George is “brilliant” and is seen as a “philosophical icon” to his many followers, including many members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

However, with regard to any successes to a challenge to Robby’s “Natural Law Argument,” I would disagree. Robby usually sets up a straw man “liberal” who may be arguing philosophically in accord with utilitarianism or hedonism as a basis, rather than a “natural law” or “social contract” theory. In so setting up a liberal “straw man” as a hedonist or utilitarian, Robby proceeds to beat the imaginary "liberal" opponent thoroughly (but figuratively) senseless.

Robby doesn’t normally face challenges on his own natural law turf, against his concepts of “practical reason.” But that is exactly what he gets from me - and I don't think our correspondent Totustuos quite gets that.

Robby’s “practical reason” (his version of “natural law”) arguments fail, first because his idea of natural law is not derived from nature (but from nature, at best, viewed through a set of unwarrantedly-constraining blinders to eliminate natural diversity).

Second, his arguments fail because his reasoning, or rather, rationalization on the basis of false premises, goes further astray. This may be done blindly, because his rationalization process is flawed by virtue of prejudice that is sufficiently internalized and institutionalized so he truly believes that he is arguing from Reason, or malevolently, where he knows he is arguing from a grounding ind eep-seated prejudice, but either does not care or is working knowingly for an evil cause. I will presume the former ignorant blindness rather than the latter indifference or malevolence, since such a presumption is more charitable and collegial, but I will not rule out the latter motivations.

Augustine of Hippo brought both Platonic philosophy and a corrupt Manichean view of nature into Christian thinking. Sadly, Christianity was diminished by the concepts of Original Sin and the view that the natural world is somehow less than the spiritual one.

Aquinas made Aristotle safe for Christianity, and almost single-handedly ushered in a Christian respect for science (notwithstanding those "Galileo moments"), and the budding of the Renaissance and Industrial eras.

Robby George and his views represent a dead end, a turning away from right reason and a descent into barbarism – and he even knows it. When confronted by a reporter for the New York Times Magazine with possible criticism based on Martin Luther’s insistence that “reason was so corrupted that faith in the divine was humanity’s only hope of salvation,” Robby is quoted as acknowledging “This is a serious issue, and if I am wrong, this is where I am wrong.”

This is indeed exactly where Robby’s rationalizations are wrong. Beginning with a warped and unscientific understanding of the nature of nature, he builds his rationalized castles in the sand without foundation, convinced that his “practical reason” rationalizations are correct despite being blinded by and presumably not cosnsciously aware of his deeply-rooted prejudices.

To Totustuos, who refers to “. . . transgender, and other morphed humans,” it is likely that I may not get through with this message, because of the presence of the same sort of deeply ingrained, institutionalized, institutionally approved and authorized prejudice that warps the perception of reality to conform it to the already-warped principles on which the prejudice is built. Castles built in the same sand into which heads are hidden, waiting to be washed away by the waters of right reason.

Perhaps it is true that Robby George is brilliant, but brilliance alone is insufficient – one must also be correct. Brilliance was traditionally known to be the mark of the Archangel Lucifer – and tradition tells us what he did, and who he is – one reason I referred to Robby as Father of Lies in my earlier essay. Brilliant, but corrupted by his hubris as was his “brilliant” predecessor luminary, he and his flawed rationalizations continue unjustly persecuting me and my people.

Totustuos, to be saved, you may yet have to hug me, at least spiritually.

In pacem et iustitiam,

Joann Prinzivalli
Serva Servarum Deae

Marriage Equality in the Year of St. Paul

Until June 29, 2009, the Roman Catholic Church is celebrating a special jubilee year dedicated to commemorate the approximate 2000 years since the birth of St. Paul the Apostle.

In honor of St. Paul, let’s start this essay as a meditation on his writings on the issue of the purpose of marriage, expressed in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9:

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.

9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

In addition to this passage from St. Paul, let’s take a look at the recent reports coming from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh, North Carolina, reported in an article in The Raleigh News and Observer on Sunday, February 15, 2009, entitled Push is on for same-sex celibacy: Raleigh diocese directs ministry at gays, lesbians

I learned about this from a blog essay written by Pam Spaulding, the proprietress of the Pam’s House Blend blog (a blog I highly endorse for its well-written essays), entitled Raleigh, Charlotte dioceses pushing same-sex celibacy, NC marriage amendment

Now that I’ve identified the sources of the reportage, let’s get to meat of the reports.

It seems that the Diocese of Raleigh is embarking on two initiatives related to marriage:

First, the Raleigh diocese is organizing a diocesan chapter of Courage, a group that encourages gay Catholics toward a celibate life, and

Second, the Bishop of Raleigh is planning on joining with the Bishop of Charlotte (also in North Carolina) on February 24, 2009 to endorse a proposed amendment to the North Carolina state constitution to define marriage solely as the union of one man and one woman, to enshrine in the state constitution a ban against equal marriage rights for non-heterosexual people.

I actually don’t object to the bishop starting up a Courage chapter – but I believe that Courage itself is too limited in its scope. It should be aimed at all unmarried Catholics, and not just those with a homosexual orientation. The reason is very much associated with 1 Corinthians 7:8-9.

While I would welcome an expanded Courage aimed at all sexual orientations, I strongly object to the bishops in North Carolina on the one hand trying to discourage promiscuity only for gays by pushing celibacy on them (which works only for those few actually called to a celibate life), and at the same time encouraging the adoption of a constitutional anti-marriage amendment that would serve the opposite purpose, as a secular encouragement of promiscuity in the gay population.

I also disagree with the Roman Catholic hierarchy on its objection to the idea of marriage as a sacramental covenant that is not open to non-heterosexual people. Holy Matrimony as a sacrament should be open to non-heterosexual couples on the basis of the sacred marriage covenant entered into between David and Saul’s son Jonathan (see 1 Samuel 18).

Why do I take these points of view?

Simply because anyone who reads and understands the Bible properly must know that the Church (and all Christian leaders) should, like St. Paul, be teaching that the highest calling for all Christians is to celibacy, while marriage, even though a sacremant as well as a civil right, should be seen only as the last resort for those Christians whose libidos are such that they cannot remain celibate.

By closing the option of sacramental marriage to gays and lesbians, the Roman Catholic hierarchy sets up those of them who cannot live a celibate life, and who, being unmarried *and* without an option to marry, cannot contain their sexual libidos, to a life the Church can in its gross immorality gleefully condemn as sinful.

(A preferable alternative and truly moral point of view is to understand that God does not require the impossible. If marriage is not a sacramental or secular possibility for gays and lesbians, any actions they take to assuage their libidinal feelings outside of marriage cannot be sinful – they have no option to marry, God does not require the impossible, and thus the Church cannot reasonably expect all gays and lesbians to be called to celibacy.)

By closing the option of sacramental marriage to gays and lesbians, the Roman Catholic hierarchy also actually encourages them to enter into lives of promiscuity – by providing no moral alternative. It is a wonder that so many gays and lesbians are able to find a way to live non-promiscuous lives with long-term partners in informal or even legally recognized domestic partnerships, civil unions, and civil marriages. And wise governments, seeking societal stability, will find ways to encourage marriage as a choice for all. The Church, however, ignores this phenomenon and paints a picture of a “homosexual lifestyle” that is purely sybaritic, self-indulgent, decadent and promiscuous. It is this “lifestyle” that the Church creates as a straw man – as if the only alternative for the gay population is celibacy.

On the Raleigh diocese website, this promiscuous “gay lifestyle” is the main reason for the creation of Courage. The diocesan webpage starts with a quote from “Mark,” a Courage member:

“I thought I had the homosexuality under control. I'd been a Catholic for five years, went to daily Mass, prayed the rosary daily, went on one or two retreats a year, and volunteered at my parish. Yet, after a series of crises occurred, I once again became involved in addictive, homosexual behavior. So what happened?”

“Addictive homosexual behavior” is a code word for that straw man “promiscuous gay lifestyle.” I’m not about to deny that such a lifestyle actually exists – but I will deny that it is the only path taken by gay people.

The diocese goes on:

In a recent interview, Fr. Check talked about his experience in counseling those with SSA. “The problem of same-sex attraction does not reduce well to a few words,” he said. “It is certainly no place for slogans or hastily formed conclusions. Most importantly, it calls for abundant and genuine charity, something that in my opinion tends to be conspicuous in its absence from much of the discussion of the topic.”

NCC spoke with a Raleigh woman active in Encourage. Her son was 23 when he announced defiantly – by email -- that he was gay. “I was devastated,” she says. “My son was sinning, alienating himself from me and from God, and I didn’t know how to parent him. All I could say to him was, ‘I love you with all my heart. Stay close to God.’” In her search for compassion and support, she learned about Courage/Encourage in 2004, and became an advocate for the establishment of a chapter in the Diocese of Raleigh.

The perception that people with SSA are happy is a myth, she says: “When my son is ‘acting out’ the SSA lifestyle, his whole personality changes. He becomes distant, cruel and defensive. When he’s not living it, he’s just the opposite, compassionate and empathetic.”

“The problem of same sex attraction is often vexing to those who struggle with it,” Fr. Check concurs. “Shame, loneliness, and a sense of hopelessness are the enemies. Often people with SSA also struggle with sexual addiction, drug or alcohol abuse, depression, anxiety or other mental illness. This remains true even in the places where sexual promiscuity is widely tolerated.”

This whole line of reasoning is specious. That mother would have done herself and her son a lot more good had she gotten involved with her local P-FLAG ghapter. This whole straw man “SSA lifestyle” (SSA = same sex attraction) is not any different from an OSA lifestyle (where OSA means “opposite sex attraction.” Let’s see how much sense the foregoing makes if we make the substitution (and also, as the Church seems to do with SSA, make the same assumption about OSA, that it involves lots of wild promiscuous sex parties):

In a recent interview, Fr. Check talked about his experience in counseling those with OSA. “The problem of opposite-sex attraction does not reduce well to a few words,” he said. “It is certainly no place for slogans or hastily formed conclusions. Most importantly, it calls for abundant and genuine charity, something that in my opinion tends to be conspicuous in its absence from much of the discussion of the topic.”

NCC spoke with a Raleigh woman active in Encourage. Her son was 23 when he announced defiantly – by email -- that he was straight. “I was devastated,” she says. “My son was sinning, alienating himself from me and from God, and I didn’t know how to parent him. All I could say to him was, ‘I love you with all my heart. Stay close to God.’” In her search for compassion and support, she learned about Courage/Encourage in 2004, and became an advocate for the establishment of a chapter in the Diocese of Raleigh.

The perception that people with OSA are happy is a myth, she says: “When my son is ‘acting out’ the OSA lifestyle, his whole personality changes. He becomes distant, cruel and defensive. When he’s not living it, he’s just the opposite, compassionate and empathetic.”

Of course, if a person living a real promiscuous OSA lifestyle then turns to God, the Church might encourage that individual to settle down into a marriage, if he or she can’t remain celibate.

The Church presents no moral alternative to gays and lesbians – only the (impossible for most) idea of living a celibate life. And the treatment of “internalized homophobia” blames the homosexuality itself for the effects of what one might fairly refer to as a “culturally-induced stress disorder.”

Let’s take another look at the last of the originally-quoted paragraphs:

“The problem of same sex attraction is often vexing to those who struggle with it,” Fr. Check concurs. “Shame, loneliness, and a sense of hopelessness are the enemies. Often people with SSA also struggle with sexual addiction, drug or alcohol abuse, depression, anxiety or other mental illness. This remains true even in the places where sexual promiscuity is widely tolerated.”

This is turning the whole problem upside-down! The side effects come from the lack of self-acceptance found in those who feel conflicted between the false teachings they have been exposed to about their natural orientation, and their experience of the orientation itself. The struggles cease when the individual comes to the realization that the Church is wrong, and that the individual can be good and moral and loved by God even if they are gay and having a chaste gay relationship.

The Church finds itself in this conundrum, and is itself the cause of so much of the grief (though secular society and parents and family members must also share some of the blame), because its moral theology starts with false premises about natural law. When the Roman Catholic hierarchy insists that "homosexual acts" are sinful for those with a "homosexual inclination," the hierarchy relies on a false understanding of Natural Law. Homosexual acts are only sinful for those with a heterosexual inclination (they should read and understand Romans 1 with the insight that an "act in accordance with (one's) nature" is not an "act against Nature").

The Roman Catholic Church insists on celibacy as a test for a priestly vocation - to insist that all whose sexual orientation is not heterosexual must be celibate or sinful is a perversion of the message of scripture.

The hierarchy should take a closer look at St. Paul – and to the story of David and Jonathan.

It’s about time that the Roman Catholic Church re-examined its schizophrenic teachings about homosexuality – on the one hand, that gays be treated with respect, and on the other hand, that homosexual activity cannot be condoned.

Such a teaching flies in the face of St. Paul’s teaching – sure, in context, Paul was writing directly about heterosexual people – but the point is extendable to non-heterosexual people as well.

God does not expect the impossible. For those of any sexual orientation who are called to celibacy, God will provide sufficient (and efficacious, if they exercise their free will to do so) grace for them to be celibate. For those who cannot remain celibate because they burn with libidinous passion, regardless of their orientation, a legal, moral and sacramental path must be made available for them to be able to live chaste lives within a marital bond.

To that end, an organization like Courage should be open to all unmarried Catholics – who, straight or gay, should be strongly encouraged to remain virginal, chaste and celibate as their primary goal – and that only those Catholics (and all other Christians) whose souls burn with sexual desire that they cannot completely control should be allowed to marry. (Of course, for those who are not Christian at all, there would be no need for the secular law to address the idea of celibacy as a calling – secular law should permit equal marriage rights for all as a matter of providing a level playing field.

To St. Paul, it’s clear that marriage for the Christian is not for procreation – that was a value suitable solely for those who lived before Christ came as the Redeemer, and for pagans and unbelievers. For those who have accepted Christ, and are not already married at the time they are baptized as Christians, the primary calling is clearly to celibacy. . . if they can handle it. Celibacy should not be the expectation only for priests, gays and lesbians.

Oh, and if I didn’t mention it earlier in this essay (I didn’t), the Church has painted itself into the same sort of moral corner with the trans population. We are not allowed to marry the same sex (or the opposite sex). We, too, are all expected by the Church to achieve the impossible (impossible except for a few) that God does not expect.

God does not expect the impossible - why should the Roman Catholic Church?

Start a Dialogue? Yes, we CAN!

Now that Rev. Rick Warren has delivered his invocation at the Obama inauguration, perhaps we can start to focus on how we’re going to be advancing the cause of gaining recognition of equal civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people under federal law.

For those who don’t think we should be ready to move forward, ready, let’s recap the situation:

Rick Warren is the pastor of the Saddleback Church, an evangelical mega-congregation in Lake Forest, California, and is the author of a best-selling book, The Purpose Driven Life.

His notoriety in LGBT circles peaked when, after having equated same-sex marriage with incest, pedophilia and polygamy (though it’s pretty obvious to me that the equivalency of these things in his mind may charitably be limited to “these are things Rick doesn’t equate with marriage”), he was invited by the Obama people to deliver the invocation at the Inaugural.

Here is what he said at the time, in an interview:

Rick Warren: But the issue to me is, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

Steven Waldman: Do you think, though, that they are equivalent to having gays getting married?

Rick Warren: Oh I do.

If it was merely a matter of drawing a line from Point A to Point B, it might have been what Joe Solmonese of HRC hysterically called “a punch in the gut.” Or it might not.


There was was more to it – there was a point in the presidential campaign at which Barack Obama and John McCain appeared to speak at the Saddleback Church, and Rick Warren endured much criticism from hard core Right Wing Christianists for allowing Obama to speak.

I’ll let singer-songwriter Melissa Etheridge have the floor now – I’ve said and written from a similar viewpoint, but I think I’ll give the platform to her. She actually had a chance to talk to Warren. Here is what she says about her meeting:

"On the day of the [Muslim Public Affairs Council ] conference [at which Rick Warren was the guest speaker] I received a call from Pastor Rick, and before I could say anything, he told me what a fan he was. He had most of my albums from the very first one. What? This didn’t sound like a gay hater, much less a preacher. He explained in very thoughtful words that as a Christian he believed in equal rights for everyone. He believed every loving relationship should have equal protection. He struggled with Proposition 8 because he didn’t want to see marriage redefined as anything other than between a man and a woman. He said he regretted his choice of words in his video message to his congregation about proposition 8 when he mentioned pedophiles and those who commit incest. He said that in no way, is that how he thought about gays. He invited me to his church, I invited him to my home to meet my wife and kids. He told me of his wife’s struggle with breast cancer just a year before mine. When we met later that night, he entered the room with open arms and an open heart. We agreed to build bridges to the future.”

After her meeting, Melissa Etheridge bravely went forth with her message of peace and reconciliation:

"I believe I understand Obama's choice here. I believe that Barack Obama wants to be the President of the entire United States. Pastor Rick Warren reached out to him, brought him into his church during the campaign, which outraged many members of his church. Yet he reaches across and I think this is Obama reaching back and going, 'I think we can disagree on things, yet we can still all move forward. We need to get past our differences.' And I just want to make sure that as the liberals and progressives and Democrats or whatever you want to call us are moving into this new time with this new president do not say that they, the Evangelicals who say such horrible things about gays, they have to stay over here and we're not going to let them in. That makes us no better than the last administration."

After hearing the actual words Warren used, Melissa continues:

"Just because he (compares gays to incest or polygamy) does not mean I have to not speak to him, or don't ever want to be in his company. We had a crazy experience at the Muslim Public Affairs Council conference...We met, we spoke. He's a fine person...He said he was trying to make the definition of marriage not change, not necessarily saying that gays are pedophiles or any of that stuff. One can draw whatever they want from that. This is what he told me."

Now, I am going to reproduce the Rick Warren invocation here, highlighting what may be words of conciliation:

Let us pray.

Almighty God, our father, everything we see and everything we can't see exists because of you alone. It all comes from you, it all belongs to you. It all exists for your glory. History is your story.

The Scripture tells us Hear, oh Israel, the Lord is our God; the Lord is one. And you are the compassionate and merciful one. And you are loving to everyone you have made.

Now today we rejoice not only in America's peaceful transfer of power for the 44th time. We celebrate a hinge-point of history with the inauguration of our first African-American president of the United States.

We are so grateful to live in this land, a land of unequaled possibility, where the son of an African immigrant can rise to the highest level of our leadership.

And we know today that Dr. King and a great cloud of witnesses are shouting in Heaven.

Give to our new president, Barack Obama, the wisdom to lead us with humility, the courage to lead us with integrity, the compassion to lead us with generosity. Bless and protect him, his family, Vice President Biden, the Cabinet, and every one of our freely elected leaders.

Help us, oh God, to remember that we are Americans, united not by race or religion or blood, but to our commitment to freedom and justice for all.

When we focus on ourselves, when we fight each other, when we forget you, forgive us. When we presume that our greatness and our prosperity is ours alone, forgive us. When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the Earth with the respect that they deserve, forgive us.

And as we face these difficult days ahead, may we have a new birth of clarity in our aims, responsibility in our actions, humility in our approaches, and civility in our attitudes, even when we differ.

Help us to share, to serve and to seek the common good of all.

May all people of good will today join together to work for a more just, a more healthy and a more prosperous nation and a peaceful planet. And may we never forget that one day all nations and all people will stand accountable before you.

We now commit our new president and his wife, Michelle, and his daughters, Malia and Sasha, into your loving care.

I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life, Yeshua, Isa, Jesus, Jesus (hay-SOOS), who taught us to pray, Our Father who art in heaven hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.

Amen.

I underlined the parts of the prayer that seem to be showing a conciliatoty attitude. Certainly invoking the idea of a loving God who loves all his creation (even gay and trans people) is a good start.

Invoking the idea that as Americans, we must be dedicated and committed to "freedom and justice for all" doesn't seem to close the door on civil marriage for same-sex couples.

And if I want to be charitable (and why shouldn’t I be?), I would put a very positive spin on his “When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the Earth with the respect that they deserve, forgive us.”

Of course, this last sentiment might be in accord with one of the schizophrenic sections of the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church with respect to the treatment of gay people:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,[140] tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."[141] They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Now, aside from the catechism being totally incorrect about Sacred Scripture and natural law in relation to “homosexual acts” in Paragraph 2357, leading to the false conclusion that such “acts” cannot be approved, the next section, with regard to the treatment of gay people, says “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

Now, I know Rick Warren isn’t Catholic, but perhaps he’s suffering from the same sort of schizophrenic “I want to treat gay people with compassion, but I can’t condone gay marriage or human rights laws” theology that grips the Catholic hierarchy.

I think that unlike those evangelicals who believe that “homosexuality is a choice” Warren may be reachable on the theological side. (Alas, with the Catholic hierarchy, the encrustations of mistaken “tradition” keep the Church on a wrong course.)

Let’s look at Warren’s prayer asking for forgiveness for failing to treat “our fellow human beings and all the earth” with the respect we deserve as a start.

On the other hand, it may not be so far removed from the Pope’s 2008 Christmas Greeting to the Curia and Prelature referred to in my last post. The key is to discern what Pastor Warren might mean, regarding the LGBT community, to be the respect that we “deserve.”


I think that Pastor Warren, despite being “on the other side” on the marriage issue, may have a more open mind on the subject than he gets credit for when things are painted in pure black-white, good-evil terms. And he isn’t encrusted with as many barnacles of “tradition” as the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

We have to remember, too, that President Barack Obama, while certainly better on LGBT issues than anyone who has ever been President of the United States, still himself falls short of endorsing full equal civil rights for our community. There is a need for dialogue with the Administration as much as there is a need to dialogue with those with whom we have a fundamental disagreement.

The immediate and marked change on the White House website, including us under Civil Rights in the Administration’s agenda, is a huge step. The inclusion of “gender identity and expression” for the first time in the anti-discrimination hiring policy of this administration, in addition to the inclusion of sexual orientation (first added by President Clinton), is also monumental.

We have hope. With this Administration, we have a chance to change minds – and the opportunity is also clear that we must engage those who oppose the recognition of our rights with clearly articulated arguments from all perspectives. We do have the Judaeo-Christian ideological high ground, as well as the constitutional high ground, as well as the critical underpinning of the basic underlying rational philosophy under which the United States was created. It is only a matter of articulating these things in a way in which reasonable opponents can understand.

There may well be a basic disconnect between our understanding and that of our opponents. We can look at the same constitution, and the same sacred scripture, and the same philosophical writing, and come to such an amazingly and diametrically opposed conclusion.

If we can come to the point where we can resolve this underlying disconnection, I believe that we will find much more support in unanticipated places – support we can never find if we do not engage in the conversation. We may not have to convince, we may only have to go so far as to get the opposition to realize that “reasonable minds may differ” in order to defuse the opposition. After all, America is founded on the idea of respect, tolerance and free exercise for the religious beliefs of others as well as ourselves. If we can convince Christianists that their beliefs are not the only valid Judaeo-Christian understanding on our issues, they might well be willing to go the distance with regard to civil marriage – especially when they come to the realization that there would be no infringement of their right to refuse to sanctify a marriage that does not follow their interpretation of scripture.

Yes, we CAN!

Another “Galileo Moment” from the Vatican?

Benedict XVI’s 2008 Christmas greeting message to the Roman Curia and Prelature, given on December 22, 2008, is finally available in an official English text from the Vatican website. Not having an official English translation previously made it more difficult to divine the exact meaning of the Pope’s words.

There is a controversial part of the address which was interpreted in the press as being a condemnation of transsexuality, homosexuality, or both, depending on how the translation was made into English from the previously available Italian or German versions. While I am aware of (and disagree with) the Vatican position on transsexual people from the 2003 Catholic News Service news report of a leaked Year 2000 “sub secretum” document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, after reviewing the official English translation, I am not entirely sure that the Pope’s statement really constitutes a condemnation of my people. But the Pope’s talk can be interpreted as an attack on feminism, gay marriage, and “gender” that isn’t based on birth-genital-essentialism.

Here is the relevant portion:

“Since faith in the Creator is an essential part of the Christian creed, the Church cannot and must not limit herself to passing on to the faithful the message of salvation alone. She has a responsibility towards creation, and must also publicly assert this responsibility. In so doing, she must not only defend earth, water and air as gifts of creation belonging to all. She must also protect man from self-destruction. What is needed is something like a human ecology, correctly understood.

If the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and woman, and demands that this order of creation be respected, this is not some antiquated metaphysics. What is involved here is faith in the Creator and a readiness to listen to the “language” of creation. To disregard this would be the self-destruction of man himself, and hence the destruction of God’s own work.

What is often expressed and understood by the term “gender” ultimately ends up being man’s attempt at self-emancipation from creation and the Creator. Man wants to be his own master, and alone – always and exclusively – to determine everything that concerns him. Yet in this way he lives in opposition to the truth, in opposition to the Creator Spirit.

Rain forests deserve indeed to be protected, but no less so does man, as a creature having an innate “message” which does not contradict our freedom, but is instead its very premise.

The great scholastic theologians described marriage, understood as the life-long bond between a man and a woman, as a sacrament of creation, which the Creator himself instituted and which Christ – without modifying the “message” of creation – then made part of the history of his covenant with humanity.

An integral part of the Church proclamation must be a witness to the Creator Spirit present in nature as a whole, and, in a special way, in the human person, created in God’s image.

From this perspective, we should go back to the Encyclical Humanae Vitae: the intention of Pope Paul VI was to defend love against sex as a consumer good, the future against the exclusive claims of the present, and human nature against its manipulation.”

Time Magazine’s brief commentary, based on earlier unofficial translations indicated:

“Without actually using the word [transsexual], Benedict took a subtle swipe at those who might undergo sex-change operations or otherwise attempt to alter their God-given gender. Defend "the nature of man against its manipulation," Benedict told the priests, bishops and cardinals gathered Monday in the ornate Clementine hall. "The Church speaks of the human being as man and woman, and asks that this order is respected." The Pope again denounced the contemporary idea that gender is a malleable definition. That path, he said, leads to a "self-emancipation of man from creation and the Creator."”

I think it may be a stretch to call this a “subtle” swipe at transsexuals, without looking at the background that leads ti this conclusion. It would require a misunderstanding of the nature of transsexuality to come to this conclusion. Of course, there is every indication of serious error in the Roman Catholic Church’s approach to transsexual people that involves just such a misunderstanding.

There is very little in the way of official and available doctrinal material published by the Church on the subject of transsexuals. The most prominent item is a “sub secretum” document sent by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to papal nuncios in the year 2000, and then distributed to bishops in 2002 (and then leaked to Catholic News Service in February 2003). My only source for the test is the tantalizingly brief CNS report – I have never seen the actual document.

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- After years of study, the Vatican's doctrinal congregation has sent church leaders a confidential document concluding that "sex-change" procedures do not change a person's gender in the eyes of the church. Consequently, the document instructs bishops never to alter the sex listed in parish baptismal records and says Catholics who have undergone "sex-change" procedures are not eligible to marry, be ordained to the priesthood or enter religious life, according to a source familiar with the text. The document was completed in 2000 and sent "sub secretum" (under secrecy) to the papal representatives in each country to provide guidance on a case-by-case basis to bishops. But when it became clear that many bishops were still unaware of its existence, in 2002 the congregation sent it to the presidents of bishops' conferences as well. "The key point is that the (transsexual) surgical operation is so superficial and external that it does not change the personality. If the person was male, he remains male. If she was female, she remains female," said the source.

From what I can glean from the news reports, the position announced secretly by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith appears to be a “birth-genital- essentialist” view, that gender identity is determined by the physiology of one’s genitalia at the time of birth. Genitalia develop along one of two duct systems wolffian and mullerian, both of which are present during fetal development. The duct system that remains undeveloped eventually withers away after birth. The result of the Church’s genital-based essentialism is the belief that there are only two possible sex assignments, each based on genital shape at birth.

This genital essentialism fails to take into account the physiological development of the entire fetus. Focus solely on genitals, though, and in better than 99.9% of all people, the other physiological developments, particularly in the brain, are consistent with genital development, and thus, for those people, the Church’s genital-based essentialism actually seems to work.

However, the Church ignores the scientific evidence of different physiological development in the makeup of transsexual brains that leads to a gender identity that is opposite that which is expected based on genital expectations. This leads to an erroneous understanding of te nature of that one-in-a-thousand who does not fit into the societal and Church expectation of gender.

The psychological factor of gender identity has a physiological basis in brain structure, according to the most recent scientific authority. This was first identified in a Dutch study made in 1994. While in most people the brain structures are in accord with the external genitalia, which is not true with transsexuals and transgender individuals.

The physiological situation with genital formation is also not clear-cut in all cases. In addition to male and female, there are intersexed individuals. Intersex is the current term that covers persons formerly identified as hermaphrodites, that is persons with genital structures that contain some of the elements commonly attributable to “male” and some elements commonly attributable to “female” sex assignments. It also includes those individuals with chromosomal variations that vary from standard XX and XY in the 46th chromosome. In addition, there are persons with XY chromosomes who have an insensitivity to androgens, whose chromosomes are technically “male” but whose bodies develop into a “female” form because of an inability of their cells to process testosterone.

The social issues relating to transgender, transsexual and intersexed individuals are not easily dismissed. We are not some sort of new phenomenon, we have been around since the dawn of human history. Scientists, no longer blinded by ancient Aristotelian pronouncements or Victorian Darwinian theory regarding “sexual selection” have begun to observe that binary gender is not the universal rule, even in the animal kingdom, often used as a rationale for observations of natural law.

It is easy for the Church hierarchy to dismiss a tiny minority of people who are different as being “disordered,” rather than recognizing the serious error the Chuch itself has made in its birth-genital-essentialist assumptions.

The Church hierarchy uses a very selective interpretation of sacred scripture to come to the conclusion that humanity is divided into male *or* female.

If we refer to the Bible and other ancient sources, it is clear that intersexed, transgender and transsexual people existed in biblical times. There are over twenty references in biblical texts to “eunuchs.” This is a catchall for a number of different sexual minorities not classified in accordance with the binary in accordance with external genitalia.

The clearest recognition of this comes in Matthew 19:12, in which Jesus is quoted describing different sorts of eunuchs. Some are born eunuchs, some are made eunuchs by human intervention, and some become eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus was careful as to the last, stating that only those who can accept this should accept it.

If we look at the Pope’s 2008 Christmas greeting message to the Curia and Prelature on one level, it would seem to be first an attack on feminist philosophy that stresses equal human rights and dignity. Just in March 2008, The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a ruling against “gender-neutral” references to God, such as “The Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier” and reaffirmed the patriarchal formulation of “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Cardinal Urbano Navarrete (a Jesuit priest recently elevated to the rank of Cardinal in a rare case of receiving the rank without being ordained a bishop, who is also one of the Vatican’s “experts” on transsexuals) penned the official commentary of the ruling. Any baptism using a gender-neutral inclusive formulation has been ruled to be invalid.

On another level, the Pope’s Christmas greeting to the Curia and Prelature is yet another of the Church’s attacks on gender-neutral marriage. The Church can only legitimately speak to sacramental marriage for members of the Church, and not to the secular civil recognition of marriage and marriage rights. For the Church to go beyond the sacramental issue and to widen the scope to insist that its official prejudice be inscribed into secular law, is an outrage, especially in nations such as the United States that recognize the free exercise of religion, and prohibit the government from imposing a religious belief on the people as a matter of law.

If the Pope’s statement Is to be construed as an attack on the transgender community, it requires an acceptance of the prerequisite genital-based “gender essentialism” which is the first fallacy in the Church’s gender identity structure. And we know from what little material there is that is available, that this is the Church position – so I must conclude that even if the language may make it seem a bit less clear, the Pope’s message may fairly be construed as yet another demeaning of the transgender community.

The scriptural reading on which we should meditate when we read the Pope’s message is Matthew 7:15-27 (Douay-Rheims translation):

15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.

21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

24 Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock,

25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.

26 And every one that heareth these my words, and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand,

27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof.

Benedict XVI is one of these false prophets – he wears the mantle of the shepherd of the flock, but by showing that he has little concern for different sheep, he reveals his ravening wolf nature. By basing his, and the Church’s, arguments on false premises that are against scientific wisdom, he is like the tree that bears evil fruit, or the man who builds his house on a foundation of shallow sand without deeply-rooted pilings.

The message as against feminism? The Catholic Church bears the evil fruit of patriarchal domination. One need only read German Theologian Uta Ranke Heinemann’s work “Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven” to get a grasp of the sexist misogyny that has gripped the Roman Church from the time of the Church Fathers in the fourth century.

The message as against gender-neutral marriage? Many of the documents issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the issue of homosexuality are based on false interpretation of sacred scripture.

The message as against transsexual and transgender people? The foundation of the Church’s “sub secretum” teaching is founded on the shallow sand of an ill-conceived understanding of natural law, based more on Aristotle and “Scholastic theologians” than on the observations of modern science. It is a teaching that, like the condemnation of Galileo, will not stand up to the rain, the flood, and the wind of rational scientific inquiry.

When God created human beings, we were created “male and female” in the image and likeness of God – this means that God is “male and female” for us to be created in God’s image. And each of us, individually, is not only male or only female, but is “male and female,” just as God is. Indeed, some may be “mostly male” and others “mostly female” and still others may have distinct parts that developed ion different directions. But we are all children of God.

Benedict’s word’s are truly based on “antiquated metaphysics” and are not rooted in science or natural law. When the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as “man and woman,” Benedict means rather “man *or* woman” – and he disregards the “language of Creation” found in his own Sacred Scripture.

In the past year, a Reform Rabbi from Pleasantville, New York, reported on his discovery of a hidden Name of God found in the Tetragrammaton (the four letters that represent “the Name of God” – usually rendered in English as YHWH). The Rabbi realized that if the Tetragrammaton were to be read and pronounced *backward* it would result in the Name of God working out as Hebrew (hu/hee) for “He/She” – which correlates directly with the clue found in Genesis 1:27 – that “male and female” is the image and likeness of God.

Rabbi Mark Sameth writes in his article, after thirteen years of research, “If we read the text as a mystic might, paying extremely close attention, assuming that the text conceals more than it reveals, we may find hints regarding God’s androgynous nature, so to speak, peeking out through the surface level of the Torah.” He comes to the conclusion, correctly I think, that the God of the Israelites was not a masculine, patriarchal deity, but a he/she bi-gendered God. This is a far cry from the sexist, misogynistic, homophobic and transphobic utterances of Benedict XVI – stated in soft tones and with great apparent concern for the welfare of humanity, but with the sharp teeth and fangs showing beneath the mantle.

Against this backdrop of an all-inclusive God, the Roman Catholic Church’s ruling clinging to masculine-gendered terminology for the Trinity even more “antiquated” and illogical. Of course, recognizing a bi-gendered God might mean that the Vatican would have to revisit the idea of the eligibility of women for the priesthood, and the eligibility of transgender people for any kind of religious vocation.

The Roman Catholic Church eventually “got it” when it came to Galileo, even if it took nearly 400 years for Benedict XVI’s predecessor John Paul II, to get around to apologizing for the Inquisition’s actions under Urban VIII, and rehabilitating Galileo, previously found to have been a heretic.

Perhaps Benedict XVI could learn from this quote from Galileo “The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach how to go to heaven and not how to go to the heavens.”

Maybe Benedict might work on helping Roman Catholics make their own marriages work better, rather than imposing on a secular world the narrow, ill-conceived antiquated, outdated and and unscientific views of the Church on the rights of women, gays and trans people. When the Church meddles with Caesar, it is as bad as Caesar meddling with the Church.

Why Governor David Paterson "gets it" (and an afterthought as to how he doesn't)

Ever since I met New York Governor David Paterson some years ago when he was the New York State Senate minority leader, I knew that he "got it" about the need for legal recognition of transgender rights under the state human rights laws.

Just yesterday (Thursday, July 17, 2008), Governor Paterson gave a speech to attendees at the national convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (N.A.A.C.P.) held in Cincinnati, Ohio. In an interview given after the speech, he indirectly explained the context of how he came to this understanding, as he is quoted in the New York Times article cited above:

Governor Paterson’s views on discrimination have been shaped by the fact that he is both black and legally blind. He said one of the most painful experiences he had with discrimination came from a black businessman who refused to hire him because of his blindness.

"That’s when I realized this is kind of a universal problem that exists, this fear of the unknown, fear of others displaying difference," he said.

[citation: Paterson, at N.A.A.C.P., Warns of Racism’s Power, by Jeremy W. Peters, New York Times, published Friday July 18, 2008]

The impact of this insight is precisely the reason Governor Paterson has embraced and supported the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA), the Dignity for All Students Act (DASA) and the Dignity for All Youth Act (DAYA), as well as the bill to make New York’s Marriage laws completely gender-neutral.

People who are transgendered, or gay, experience discrimination for the same reason that African-Americans still experience discrimination – it’s this, as he put it, "fear of the unknown, fear of others displaying difference."

It’s the reason a major title insurance company fired me as its chief underwriting counsel in January 2000. Just before Thanksgiving 1999, on my own time and after work, I testified at a public hearing, imploring Westchester County legislators to restore language that would have better clarified coverage for transgender people to the then-proposed county human rights bill. My testimony was televised on local and regional news, some lawyer in Long Island realized exactly who I was and called the company headquarters in Texas and asked "what kind of pervert do you have working for you?"

It took two board meetings, one for the national company and one for the New York subsidiary, but despite an excellent history of job performance, I became persona non grata at that company because by being "different" I sparked that visceral and instinctual "fear of the unknown" in the hearts of the company’s management – the same management that only a few months earlier was effusively praising my work.

In the meantime, I am hoping Governor Paterson issues an Executive Order some time soon that provides employment protection to transgender people in state employment - this is something the governor can do without waiting for the legislature. It's something trans community activists and allies were working on obtaining from former governor Eliot Spitzer's administration before he resigned. Now that the legislative session is over, perhaps Governor Paterson will be able to turn his attention to this bit of work.

Afterthought: During his N.A.A.C.P. convention speech, Governor Paterson took the time to condemn the recent satirical cover illustration from The New Yorker magazine, that depicted Senator and presidential Candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle, as militant radicals seeking to destroy the United States. He called it "one of the most malignant, vicious covers of a magazine I have ever seen."

I wouldn’t condemn the magazine for running the cover – I know the magazine’s purpose was to show just how malignant and vicious the lies, innuendoes and false rumors some conservative Republicans have been spreading about Senator Obama and his wife – things like how he is supposedly a Muslim extremist, or that their "fist bump" is some kind of black radical secret handshake, or that the Senator was educated in a "madrassas" school (depicted as a fundamentalist Muslim school the teaches radical Islamost "Jihad against America" propaganda as part of its interpretation of the Holy Qu’ran, its only textbook).

By printing the cover, the magazine exposed the vicious lies to the light of day as exactly how ridiculous these are – and the reaction the cover has inspired is exactly the reaction intended by The New Yorker – except I think The New Yorker editors expected more sophisticated readers to understand that the cover itself, by being so "over the top" was intended as satire.

Governor Paterson is not alone in his condemnation of the magazine cover.

The reaction to the New Yorker cover is reminiscent of the reaction of abhorrence that another famous satire, a 1729 essay by Jonathan Swift, entitled A Modest Proposal, once evoked.

As with the cartoon cover, Swift had the experience of having some, including some rather sophisticated and intelligent people, take his satire seriously and react with abhorrence.

So in this instance, I’ll part with Governor Paterson, but only slightly, and condemn the malicious and repugnant lies that were satirized by the magazine cover, rather than the cover itself.

The Coverage of the Protest

Click here to go to a site where you can see the televised coverage of the protest.

The television coverage, on local Cablevision Newschannel 12 also includes clips from the county legislators' bad drag performance of You Gotta Have a Gimmick from the musical Gypsy.

There were three (and after the cameras left, a fourth arrived) protestors. The response was not bad for an action that was planned only 2-1/2 hours earlier.

There was also coverage in the local newspaper, The New York Journal News.

Responses on the http://www.lohud.com/ website ranged from supportive to clueless.

There has been internet coverage of the protest and the reasoning for it.

Click here for Autumn Sandeen's article that explains it all.

And for an interesting criticism by Monica Roberts of my analogy of the county legislators' performances to a "blackface minstrel show," click here.

As a note aimed at Monica Roberts commentary, I entirely agree with her about the performance of the performer "Shirley Q. Liquor" who actually combines bad blackface with bad drag, but I do think she may have missed my point - that the county legislators who were involved in the particular "dragface" show were criticized not because they are cissexual and straight, though those factors make it just a tad bit more offensive, but because they are all on the Westchester County Board of Legislators (and not only that, are on one of the committees that the bill has to get through before a vote) that has "dragged" its feet for more than eight years to get a simple technical amendment to the county human rights law passed, to clarify that the coverage afforded under the law does in fact cover transgender people.

Race v. Gender? Some thoughts on an e-mail supporting Hillary

On February 13, 2008, I received a very interesting e-mail from Marilyn Fitterman, NOW's Northeast Regional Director, indicating her support of Hillary Clinton's candidacy. In trying to find it via Google, I did not see it in any NOW website, but did find two references that quote it in full (and then there are added comments, not related to my own).

The first place is on a Blogger blog called XpatriatedTexan: A blog on faith and politics, by Thurman Hart:

"More Idiocy from NOW"

Mr. Hart's blog is subtitled: A Christian Liberal is NOT an oxymoron.

The other is at Message 194 on page 13 in a thread entitled Hillary for President -- Part VI, in forum on the "Big Soccer" website (the message itself is at):

Yet another e-mail from New York State NOW

So I really don't have to repeat Ms. Fitterman's entire message here.

Her message, when I received it, moved me to respond - especially because the examples she gave as her rationale for supporting Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy resonated so well with me. I have used those very same examples (and others) from the experience of the civil rights struggles of women and African-Americans in my own advocacy work for LGBT issues. I often think of these as lessons of history.

So here is the text of my response to the message:

From: Joann Prinzivalli ((EML ADDRESS REDACTED)
Sent: Wed 2/13/08 12:13 PM
To: Marilyn Fittrerman, NOW NE Regional Director & Pas (EML ADDRESS REDACTED)

Thank you, Marilyn. I have myself on numerous occasions used the same historical perspectives you so eloquently set out in your message in different contexts.

In the case of the Married Women's Property Acts (in New York, 1848 for inheritance and 1860 for wages - Ernestine Rose and Elizabeth Cady Stanton and others started to work on the first bill in 1836), I often point out the reaction of conservative religious leaders of the time that enacting these laws would destroy the institution of marriage, when advocating for a gender-neutral marriage law.

The 50 year gap between the 15th Amendment and the 19th Amendment, and the fact that women had to wait so long (as well as the nearly accidental last-minute inclusion of women in the Civil Rights Act of 1964) is something I hope doesn't get repeated in another context, though it seems to be doing so - in December 2002, when the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act (SONDA) was enacted, the transgender community was left behind by the legislature, and by the gay and lesbian community. The analogous bill, GENDA (Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act) is still struggling to gain passage in the allegedly "friendly" Democratically-controlled New York Assembly. Last year's shameful theatrics in the House of Representatives over the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (originally HR 2015, but severely weakened and then passed by the House as HR 3685) seemed to be a reverse of what happened with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I agree that Senator Clinton is the better choice for President, despite her poorly nuanced position on the repeal of the federal Defense Against Marriage Act (one point where Senator Obama's position is superior) - she supports only the repeal of the provision of 1 USC §7, pursuant to which the federal government is prohibited from recognizing certain marriages that may be legal in any of the states, but would leave intact 28 USC §1738C, which permits each state to refuse full faith and credit to certain marriages legal in other states. In addition, she does not appear to support an affirmative federal recognition of the same-sex marriages currently prohibited from recognition.

Senator Clinton got my vote in the New York primary on February 5th - but while my support is genuine, it is less than completely enthusiastic, considering that even in Hillary's view, I am only entitled to a third class status without all the rights enjoyed by other citizens.

Joann Prinzivalli
State Director, New York Transgender Rights Organization (NYTRO)

PS: We really need to be doing more about (New York) Governor's Program Bill #16 - the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act. Like GENDA, it hasn't moved anywhere in either the State Assembly or the State Senate. I understand that Assembly leadership is the current key bottleneck (though the bill has little chance in a Republican-controlled Senate with Senator Bruno having become recalcitrant on anything progressive since former State Senator Nick Spano lost his seat.)

J.

And I received a very nice response from her.

In this primary season, I am currently supporting Senator Clinton's candidacy, despite the reservations I expressed as to her poorly-nuanced view on the repeal of the Defense Against Marriage Act.

It isn't because she is a woman, or because Senator Obama is black. It's because I really do think she would ultimately do a better job in the presidency. However, If Senator Obama becomes the Democratic candidate for president, he will get my support in the general election. I may have some personal respect for Senator McCain but he would not get my vote - I have too many issues with his positions. That respect was also eroded a bit by at least one sexist-seeming statement during the campaign where he didn't properly address a reference to Senator Clinton from a questioner as "that bitch" and laughed at the reference as if it was something funny. Surely, he would have received greater condemnation had he similarly laughingly sidestepped a racist reference to Senator Obama. (And I note, the McCain gaffe is something that wasn't even mentioned in Ms. Fitterman's e-mail message.)

I do have one last thought: I always thought is was a kind of institutionalized racism to think of "white" as if it has to mean somewhat with completely caucasian ancestry, while "black" includes people of mixed-race ancestry where one not-terribly-remote ancestor is negroid, though apparently having some known "Native American" ancestry seems to trump "black." Senator Obama's mom is "white," and pro golfer Tiger Woods'" mom is "asian." Both Senator Obama and Mr. Woods are usually thought of as being "black," but that is an identity that is placed on them by the lingering residue of white supremacist institutionalized racism. On the other hand, both men appear to identify that way themselves - and I don't think it is necessarily a matter of incorporating and internalizing the racism. The strangest thing is that it seems, from mitochondrial evidence, that every person in the world is descended from a single woman who lived 75,000 years ago in Africa.

Of course, I would prefer to be race-neutral as well as gender-neutral, and even the exclusionary racism of the "purity of whiteness" might be a little better than the sort of racial hierarchy that one finds in old, unenforceable real estate restrictive covenants, which are illegal and unenforceable under New York State and federal law (and perhaps the laws of most states). It's even illegal to reprint the words of the covenants in a title insurance commitment - references to racial covenants are limited to noting that they exist but are not enforceable. A copy of an instrument with the racial covenant has to be redacted to make the racial covenant unreadable.

One covenant I once ran into, regarding a subdivision in New Rochelle, New York, from the 1930's, prohibited any "negro, mullato, quadroon or octaroon," except domestic servants, from residing in homes built at the subdivision. While I had run into mulatto before, I surmised (correctly, as it turned out) that a "quadroon" would be an individual with a single black grandparent (or maybe two mulatto grandparents?), and an octaroon would have a single black great-grandparent (though if one is counting blood percentages, perhaps two black great-great grandparents might do, even if they weren't married to each other). This sort of racial slicing and dicing is reminiscent of the way Jewish ancestry was parsed by the agents of the Third Reich's "Final Solution."

I don't see the Democratic primary season as being a matter of race v. gender. That may be the spin some sophisticated pundits have tried to impose - and their best shot at that may have come when former President Clinton made some comments, or when Senator Clinton made a reference to the need for an LBJ as well as an MLK to get the civil rights act of 1964 passed. (The attempt at seeing that latter comment as racially divisive required a real stretch of the imagination).

Ingrid E. Barnes - 1960-2008 - Requiescat in Pacem

Ingrid Barnes
May 22, 1960 – February 4, 2008
Requiescat in Pacem

Ingrid E. Barnes, Associate Director of Adult Services at Pace University, former co-President of The LOFT: The Lesbian and Gay Community Services Center, Inc., former director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, passed away from colon cancer at age 47 on February 4, 2008. Ingrid was a friend of mine (though we were not particularly close), even though she and I didn’t agree on a lot of issues, particularly the trans community and how it relates to gays and lesbians.

In living her life, Ingrid was one of the most iconoclastic people I knew – a black lesbian Republican conservative – yet she really never “got it” when it came to transgender issues and the commonalities transpeople have with the lesbian and gay community. Here are excerpts from her Bloggger blog “Not Your Typical Negro” that relate to the trans community, and my responses to them(what I might have written had I seen them during her life) – I did not find her blog until after she passed away, and I regret not having had the opportunity to engage her in a conversation on the issues.

Friday, November 16, 2007

A Watershed Moment

Last week, the House of Representatives voted on and passed HR 3685. The final vote was 235 to 184. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act or ENDA was introduced by Barney Frank in September of this year and excluded gender identity. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is a bill that would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The bill was originally introduced in 1974 under a different name - the Gay Rights Bill, HR 14752. Currently, there are 13 states that prohibit discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Frank's argument for excluding gender identity was that the bill would not garner the votes necessary for passage which has created a firestorm in the gay, lesbian and transgender communities. The crux of the argument is that we should not exclude transgender folks from the bill simply to win legislation because they will be forever forgotten. On the other side are those, including myself, that believe that after all these years, we'll take the bill without gender expression. Some see this as unfair to the transgender community but others, whom I agree with, see it as an incredible win for gays and lesbians. One such group is United ENDA which includes gay, lesbian and transgender groups. One of my favorite writers says it best here.

I have always argued that the T is not a part of the gay and lesbian community and I'm very happy to see that I'm not alone. Of course once you make such a statement you are automatically labeled a transphobe but as a black lesbian Republican I've heard worse. This is what the Washington Post had to say about the vote. The key lines there are: "Transgender people must channel the activism this action sparked into a long-term effort to educate the public and lawmakers about the discrimination they face." After all, gays and lesbians have been doing just that for years.

My Response: Ingrid argues that “the T is not a part of the gay and lesbian community.” This is a straw man. Some trans people are gay or lesbian, and, depending on how one views how to base the definition of a sexual orientation, the idea of sexual orientation can get reversed, with some who think of themselves as straight being seen as gay, and vice versa, based on original genitals, current genitals, chromosomes, or some other factor.

But Ingrid’s error is in not realizing that real commonality is not that the T is part of LGB, but that the gay and lesbian community is a part of the same non-heteronormative, non-cissexual community as trans people. The majority in society expects everyone to be masculine male men attrected-to-women, or feminine female women attracted-to-men. Trans people, LGB people, and some intersexed people, all fall outside that heteronormative cissexual binary

The worst part of it is that most of the discrimination faced by lesbians and gays is often based on the idea of “gender identity.” Little boys perceived to be sissy, are perceived as not masculine enough. Little girls who are too butch, are perceived as not feminine enough. Adult gays who look too nelly, and lesbians who look too butch, areb’t discriminated against because of who they love or sleep with, it’s because of their gender expression.

And the opposite happens with trans people – the single most common expletive used to slur trans women is to call us “faggot.”

Like it or not, LGBs and Ts all really do belong together when it comes to human rights protections – if only because we all get associated with each other by the binary created and enforced by heteronormative cissexuals.

When it comes to “education about the discrimination we face,” trans people have been doing it as long as gays and lesbians – and the discrimination and societal marginalization faced by the trans community is often profoundly deeper and more pervasive than that experienced by LGBs.The Stonewall Riots were as much about us as it was about LGBs.

If one really looks at the conservative Republican rhetoric from the ENDA discussion on the floor of the House, the only human rights bill they were willing to consider was a “gay-only” and seriously weakened *employment* non-discrimination bill – nothing like the sort of comprehensive civil rights package that is urgently needed.


It’s inappropriate to leave out the most vulnerable members of the community to gain some temporary and hollow “vic ory” (victory without the T)

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

The Clock is Ticking

For some weeks now there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the impending passage of the Employment Non-discrimination Act or ENDA. The controversy, and reason for a second bill, is over the inclusion of gender identity. The inclusion of gender identity would protect members of the transgender community. The main bill, H.R. 2015 was introduced in April of this year and is very close to a vote in the House. The bill in its current form was first introduced in 1996 and under another name in 1974. The bill, if passed, would protect gays and lesbians from being fired from their jobs simply because they are gay and lesbian. Currently, there are 31 states in which gays can be terminated based on their sexual orientation. The bill's main sponsors are Representatives Barney Frank, Chris Shays and Tammy Baldwin.

The controversy started when Representative Frank declared that the bill has a better chance of passage if it did not include gender identity. This faux pau, the opinion of many LGBT organizations, is one that they will not tolerate and according to many the LGBT community is in an uproar. Two weeks ago there were 113 groups who signed a pledge opposing the bill if it did not include gender identity. One of the most vocal has been the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Matt Foreman and of course members of the transgender community. The Human Rights Campaign, forever playing it safe so that they can keep the donations coming said they would not oppose the bill but they wouldn't support it either. What else could they say when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was the recipient of HRC's National Equality Award.

So here is the problem as I see it. Many have said and will say that if we move ahead with H.R. 2015 without gender identity we are essentially kicking transgendered folks off the bus. Now, that would be true if: 1) trans folks were on the bus to begin with and 2) gender identity were analogous to sexual orientation. Neither of these two things are true. Gender identity is as different from sexual orientation as night is from day. Gays and lesbians still consider themselves men and women who love the same sex. And for the last 30 years gays and lesbians have been doing to work to get ENDA passed. So, from a pragmatic point of view why not support the bill in its current form and do the education to include and pass another bill in the future? Of course the 113 groups and others feel that we are abandoning our trans family. Well I got news for those people, they don't consider themselves one of us. In reading the literature, a very high percentage of transgendered folks consider themselves straight. And the number that consider themselves gay and lesbian are very, very small. Am I transphobic? I guess to a lot of people I am but life goes on.

We cannot and should not stop passage of this important bill because a few people are upset. Dale Carpenter says it best when he says in this article, "Passage of ENDA is possible only because gay people have organized politically to educate Americans about homosexuality and to elect sympathetic representatives." This is the true issue surrounding this controversy. The work has been done and to simply throw it away because some feel we are dissing the transgender community is at best, stupid.

My response: The work was never done. ENDA was not only weakened by the removal of “gender identity” (which could have been used to show congressional intent to disapprove of the Supreme Court’s 1987 ruling in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) , which involved “gender stereotyping” (which is the same as “gender expression” in different terms) – a part of the definition of “gender identity” in the HR 2015 bill that was abandoned in favor of HR 3685.

In addition, the religious exemption was broadened to the extent that any business that calls itself “Christian” can justify discrimination. If the owners want to discriminate, all they have to do is style their business a Christian” business, and they could legally bar gays and lesbians. A Christian boookstore was the primary example given by conservative Republican Congressmembers like Souder of Ohio. But why not a “Christian” car dealer, or a “Christian” suermarket? In parts of the country, putting “Christian” in front of a business name would increase business.

Gay people haven’t educated Christianist conservative Republicans, judging from the rhetoric, and the head count on transgender inclusion is only a few votes shorter than that for a “gay-only” ENDA with real teeth. Without gutting the bill for a hollow “vic ory” that wouldn’t even protect gays and lesbians, the non-inclusive bill would not have passed, either – and then where is the full civil rights bill? Where is the immigration reform? Where is marriage? Where is the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? And where is the Matthew Shepard Act? There are at least 180 conservative Republicans who will not vote for anything that has “gay” in it, and most of the rest of them would not consider more than the weak bill that did get through the House.

I give Ingrid credit for having been willing to be have been a Republican. There are too many Democrats who are not really willing to push hard for justice for LGBT people – they take us for granted. At least the Republicans are honest about hating us.

August 22, 2006

My Case for Excluding the T

In 1996, I attended a Creating Change Conference in Chicago. I attended the conference as the co-president of a local gay and lesbian community center. The conference was organized and hosted by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF). NGLTF is a gay and lesbian advocacy group that had its beginnings in New York City in the 1970’s. In 1985, the organization changed its name from NGTF to NGLTF to include lesbians: “To make clear gender parity and lesbian issues.” It was in 1996, by my observations, that the organization was once again about to make a change. During the four day conference, as I was taking a break between sessions, I happened upon a protest of sorts. It seems that the transgender contingent was protesting the organization because they were not being heard. They wanted the "T" for transgender to be added to the acronym that was NGLTF. And by including the "T" there was an implicit request to start including transgender issues. I was rather dismayed at the protest and suggested to one of the organizers that educating gays and lesbians about transgender issues was a far more effective strategy than simply adding another letter to an already crowded acronym. My suggestion, however, was met with blank stares and annoyance at being asked to educate rather than harangue. How dare I ask for pragmatism rather than brute action? That was my introduction to the trans community. In that same year, Kerry Lobel, executive director, said the following: “NGLTF strongly supports civil rights protections and affordable health care for transgender [people]. We loathe discrimination and violence perpetuated against transgender people and stand in solidarity with transgender people in their struggle for respect, inclusion, equality and justice.” Thus began the love affair between gay and lesbian organizations with the transgender community.

Years later, I share comments about the transgender community with trepidation as they may be viewed as discriminatory by many. However, I have very strong opinions on this issue and cannot control the comments or feelings of my readers. In the Sunday New York Times styles section the following article appeared on its front cover. My take on gender reassignment is very similar to those of the lesbians interviewed for the article with some additional comments. The history of the gay movement has shown the gradual inclusion of lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people to the fold. Over the years organizations like NGLTF have broaden their definition of gay by including bisexual and transgender. But the problem is that bisexuality and transgender people cannot be automatically classified as gay. Bisexuals, in my limited experience with them, do not necessarily consider themselves gay nor do transgender people. So why are community centers, gay rights organizations etc., extending the acronym and confusing the issue? I have several reasons for this lumping of all that claim discrimination.

First, in politics and to politicians numbers play a crucil role hence the lumping of bisexuals and transgender numbers. So, show me the numbers and I'll show you my support. For this I blame the gay organizations. Second, gender identity is light years away from being the same thing as sexual orientation. As one interviewee stated in the article, “I am a lesbian because I am attracted to women and not men.” I continue to say this when groups keep insisting that the T be added to the l&g. Third, and I think this most important, gender reassignment does not mean that the person will then remain "gay or lesbian" as is obvious in the article.

When a man transitions from male to female and continues to date women he cannot be considered a lesbian because by definition he is a man. Lesbians don't date men. And when a woman transitions from female to male "she" cannot consider herself a lesbian - simple end of story. Fourth, none of these people can consider themselves truly the opposite sex because they have not changed their x & y chromosones. Fifth, the confusion that this causes children will make the g&l struggle even harder. Sixth, the struggle for transgender rights is not my fight and I will not take it up. In 2000 when the sexual orientation non-discrimination act - SONDA was about to pass Senator Tom Duane (D-NY) almost derailed it by his 11th hour plea to include transgender rights. Thank goodness it was not included and the votes went forward to enact SONDA. So, my point here is simply this, the "T" should not be added to l&g because it is completely different than that of sexual orientation. I do not deny equality to transgender folks I just don't want gender rights lumped with my rights as a lesbian who has no wish to become a man.

My response: Where the premises are wrong in the first place, the argument fails. And in this case, just as with the later blog entries we have seen already, Ingrid does not understand that it isn’t the divisive idea that “T (or B!) people aren’t L&G” – we know we are not all the same. But the fact is that LGBT and some I (intersexed people) don’t fit into the heteronormative cissexual binary.

Ingrid also showed a remarkable lack of understanding about transgender people.

She wrote: “When a man transitions from male to female and continues to date women he cannot be considered a lesbian because by definition he is a man. Lesbians don't date men.”

Ingrid didn’t realize that “male-to-female” (MTF) and “female-to-male” (FTM) only really relates to genital shape. Transsexual women are “women born transsexual" (WBT), and transexual men are "men born Transsexual (MBT)." We never really belonged to our originally-assigned sexes - otherwise why on earth would we feel the need for correction? Our identities belong to the sex not assigned to us at birth.

So I really am a lesbian (and not a heterosexual man, or ex-man), and my sweetie would disagree with Ingrid’s assessment that being with me would make her heterosexual. There are *some* lesbians who agree with Ingrid about “who we are” – and way too many transsexual separatists seem to think that only trans people ever read Professor Janis Raymond’s ill-conceived thesis, The Transsexual Empire. My friend Ingrid Barnes was clearly informed by Raymondite conservative lesbian feminist separatism.

Ingrid’s use of junk genetics (a blind reliance on the shape of the 23rd chromosome pair) is predictable – blind reliance on chromosome shape is as bad as blind reliance on genital shape. I wonder what Ingrid might have made of women assigned female at birth, who grow up, look like and identify as women, who, because of the way their SRY gene expresses, have Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) – these women are born with XY in their 23rd chromosome pair – are these women also men? Ingrid might think so. But whatever it is that causes an individual to be trans (we only know of some effects, like the neuronal density in the central area of the basal stria terminalis in the hypothalamus, that could point to a physiological, genetic, or developmental cause for transsexuality), Ingrid’s understanding, or lack of it, seems to be much the same as the understanding of those people who still call sexual orientation “sexual preference” and believe that everyone is born straight, and intentionally choose to live sinful lives by choosing to be homosexual.

Ingrid makes other factual errors, but I am sure she was blogging "off the top of her head" and not The proposed amendment to the non-inclusive New York Sexual Onientation Non-Discrimination Act (SONDA) was made by Democratic State Senator Tom Duane in December 2002, on the floor of the New York State Senate. It was a symbolic thing, and there never was any possibility that the SONDA bill would have been derailed. Senator Duane had introduced an inclusive SONDA bill himself, but at the time, no one in the Assembly had done so - and it would ahve been surprising to have had the Republican-controlled State Senate passing an inclusive SONDA without the Democratically-controlled Assembly having passed it first. The non-inclusive SONDA bill had to be carried by a Republican in the Senate, as Democrat-sponsored bills do not get to a vote in that house of New York's sadly schizophrenic state legislature.

If we look at the non-inclusive ENDA bill that Ingrid liked, it wouldn’t have protected Ingrid herself had it become law. During the time I knew her, she always had close-cropped hair and looked rather butch. She may not have wanted to be a man, but her “gender identity” (as defined in HR 2015 – really “gender expression”) never really qualified as heteronormative.

I don’t want to paint a thoroughly negative picture of Ingrid. Readers here might wonder how I could consider this person my friend. As is the case with most people, she was more complicated than she would appear just from her writing.

She worked at Pace University - where a few years ago, she arranged to have me speak on trans isues to their diversity committee. She may not have understood trans people, and may not have wanted to work for our rights as well as her own, but ultimately, she wasn’t really against us having our rights recognized. She just wanted to make sure that L&G people came first.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Two from Column A and Three from Column B

I find it interesting that there is already a call for rights beyond same-sex marriage. Did I miss the memo that said that same-sex couples had the right to marry? So you can undertsand my surprise when I read this article.

Here I'll say it, I'm in favor of same-sex marriage but there is a caveat to that statemnet. And that is, that I would be perfectly fine with civil unions if they came with the same rights and priveledges of marriage. Now let me share my concerns after reading this article.

Number 1: Like all "movements" the gay and lesbian movemement has decided that inclusivity works better than exclusivity even though an argument could be made against such inclusivity. The inclusion of the B&T is a perfect example of such inclusivity. It is also an example of ramping up your numbers so that politicians take you more seriously and the people get to hear your story. The clout in numbers phenomena is not new and depending on you ask - can be quite beneficial.

Number 2: When the B&T were added someone forgot to ask the following questions: A) Could you share with us examples of overt discrimination based on your being bisexaul, i.e. fired from your job, refused an apartment etc.? and B) Are transgendered individuals gay? I would guess that it would have been politically incorrect to pose those questions.

Number 3: How does inlcuding all the groups presented in the article help the gay and lesbian movement?

It is my humble opinion that this group is not helping matters but hurting same-sex advocacy. My number one issue with the group is that it confuses the argument by adding all these different goups. The group's argument detracts from the important conversation surrounding same-sex equality to one of derision.
My response: This was the frst of Ingrid’s posts relating to the trans community. Including the T doesn’t add a lot of numbers. It’s more important to the T to be included, than it is for L&Gs who are much more visible and less woodworked or stealth or closeted.

So, this was Ingrid's first relevant post - and the first shall be the last discussed.

As to her Number 1, we have Ben Franklin’s adage” We must all hang together, or we will assuredly hang, separately.” Sure, there is much to be said for separatism, but most of it is negative. Ingrid never seems to have seen the commonality that we share by being non-heteronormative non-cissexual.

As to Number 2, Ingrid asked the wrong questions. Bi is a sexual orientation, so lesbians and gays really do have to include them, as well as asexual people, for “sexual orientation” to be a protected class. People who are "bi" oriented do get discriminated against for being perceived as gay, particularly if their current relationship is a same-sex one. Some people who are trans identify as gay and lesbian (and were perceived by Ingrid to be “straight”) – and the rest are either bi, or identify as straight and still get perceived by some people as being gay or lesbian.

With Number 3, I have explained in responses to later blogs abovem that lesbian and gat people often experience discrimination, not for being gay or lesbian, but because of their gender expression. And many trans people are perceived as being gay – even iof they don’t identiofy that way. It makes no sense to enact bills into law that protect only a part of the equation. Gays and lesbians are covered better when “gender identity and expression” as well as “sexual orientation” are included as protected classes in human rights laws.

--

In finis, I dedicate this post to the memory of Ingrid E. Barnes, who was always controversial in her thoughts, words, deeds, and her general comportment. She was well-educated, well-read, and while we did not often agree on abstruse philosophical issues relating to the LGBT community, she was always personally respectful – she may have intellectually thought of me as a “man” but always managed to deal with me personally with dignity and respect, and with the use of the proper pronouns.

I am sorry I never got to see her blog while she was alive - and the responses here aree intended as part of a onversation that never did take place. I would only wish I could have had the opportunity to perhaps make her think a bit about her assumptions. . .