The History of Gay Religious Activism in the U.S.

Not unlike the thousands of public parties held this past June during Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month, hundreds of gay San Franciscans gathered on New Year’s Day 1965 for the much anticipated Mardi Gras Ball held at 625 Polk Street in the Tenderloin District. The most interesting aspect of the San Francisco ball was the fact it was held as a fundraiser for pro-gay clergy, according to Jaweed Kaleem’s article Unearthing The Surprising Religious History Of American Gay Rights Activism. Although today Americans for (homophiles or gay right activists) and against gay rights typically use their religious beliefs as the reasons, those who oppose same sex marriage and other rights for LGBT individuals have continued to declare that God is on their side. However, in the mid 1960s, LGBT activists often looked to men of the cloth as allies in the fight for justice and human rights, according to historians. Just months before the event, two dozen Bay Area Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopal and United Church of Christ clergy and gay activists joined together to form the Council on Religion and and Homosexual in order to promote “need for a better understanding of human sexuality” and its “broad variations and manifestations.” Clergy and lawyers had negotiate with the police on behalf of the group to let the dance happen, but according to contemporary new articles, police showed up to take pictures of those attending the ball in order to intimidate them. When cops wanted to come inside, the lawyers blocked them causing six people to end up in jail for interfering with police and disorderly conduct. The clergy fought back with a press conference the next day and mobilized the city’s gay community and the pastors. In addition, the American Civil Liberties Union brought a lawsuit over the arrest making it the first time the ACLU had joined in the fight for gay rights, according to the LGBT Religious Archives Network.

According to Kaleem’s article: “‘That was years before the 1969 Stonewall riots, which is popularly considered the beginning of the gay rights movement,’ said Heather White, a visiting assistant professor of religion at the New College of Florida who has spent years combing through LGBT archives for an upcoming book, tentatively titled Reforming Sodom: Protestants and the Rise of Gay Rights. ‘And that’s just one of the best-known stories. There were Councils on Religion and Homosexuality and similar groups in D.C., Pennsylvania, Ottawa, Hawaii.””

The LGBT Religious Network along with a growing group of scholars such as White have documented hundreds of stories like the San Francisco clergy since it was found 13 years ago at the United Church of Christ-affiliated Chicago Theological Seminary based now in Berkely, California, at the Pacific School of Religion’s Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry. The organization’s website offers a series of profiles of and oral history interviews with Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist and Pagan LGBT clergy and religious activists, living and dead, Kaleem reports.White, part of the network advisory committee, explains that the expectations about how religion would view gay rights changed after the 1960s.

White explains, “What we know of the face of religion and gay rights has been shaped by a shift that occurred in the 1970s with the rise of conservative Christianity. It’s a consolidated political force that wasn’t in place before then. There were certainly conservative people and religious people who were involved in politics, but in the 1950s and 1960s, homophile organizations saw religious leaders as likely allies. That is less of the case today, though things are changing.”

A Pew Research Center survey released last Thursday reported that 62 percent of American believe homosexuality should be accepted rather than frowned upon by society, but there is still a clear division between religious Americans as far as gay rights are concerned especially same sex marriages. Recent polls show that white evangelicals strongly oppose gay marriage, while the nation’s largest churches do not support same sex marriage e.g. the Roman Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the United Methodist Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, Catholic American individuals tend to support gay marriage with several additional denomintaions allowing clergy to perform same sex marriages or blessings e.g.  the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, and both Reform and Conservative Jews. According to Bernard Schlager, executive director of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry and an associate professor of cultural and historical studies at the Pacific School of Religion, “Some of the biggest gay rights activists and organizations started their work in churches.” Additionally, Schalger believes the inaccurate and widespread perception of religion firmly opposing gay right has changed as well, Kaleem reports. He explains, “It’s come to the point that sometimes people today say it’s more difficult to come out as a person of faith than it is to come out as LGBT in religious circles.” Melissa Wilcox, who also sits on the LGBT Religious Archives Network’s advisory committee and is an associate professor of religion and gender studies at Whitman College, has this to say: “With the increasing visibility of the marriage rights movement, we have started to see LGBT-supportive groups [within religious communities] being able to get their message out more clearly. That’s a battle for them, but many have been there all along.”

After decades of church activism, the Presbyterian Church General Assembly in the Unites States last week voted to allow pastors to officiate gay marriages in states where it is legal. An additional vote will take place to determine if the definition of marriage should be changed to cover two people not just a man and woman. Wilcox sums it up best by saying,”A lot of people are still wary of anything you’d call religion. A lot of people have been burned. But there’s a rich history out there of gay religious activism for us to appreciate and uphold.”

Equality in America: Ding, Dong, DOMA’s Dead? Maybe…

While the debate inside the High Court continues, things heated up outside the court and across the nation. Of course no event would be complete without the Westboro Baptist Church. The Supreme Court is considering the constitutional challenge to the Federal Defense of Marriage Act on Wednesday and the debate has drawn protestors for the second day in a row even members of the fringe anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church who flanked two couples with their offensive, homophobic signs but kudos to couples for not letting their hate filled rants effect their public display of affection. Bravo! The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments today on whether Congress can withhold federal benefits from legally wed gay couples by defining marriage as a man and woman. Even former President Bill Clinton has called for the Supreme Court to overturn the law he signed as he believes that the Defense of Marriage Act is incompatible with the Constitution according to the Associated Press. He signed the law in 1996 to avoid legislation that would have been worse. In a Washington Post op-ed, Clinton writes society has changed and realizes that the law discriminates against gays and provides an excuse for other to do so too. The Obama administration stopped defending it as well as the Supreme Court will be the final say on what happens to the bill as well as California’s ban on gay marriage.

As the tensions rise outside the High Court, the U.S. Supreme Court justices on Wednesday morning questioned the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as between a man and woman. and whether the decision is really up to them or not. This is the second day the High Court heard arguments with the main issue on Wednesday dealing with the United States v. Windsor and whether it was constitutional for the government not to recognize same sex marriages that have been recognized by the states. Justice Antohony Kennedy said Tuesday that children of same sex coupes “want their parents to have full recognition and legal status” had a hard time accepting that DOMA refuses to recognize those same sex unions recognized by the state according to Huff Post. Kennedy believes that DOMA does cause injury to these couples whose marriages are not recognized by the federal government but the state. Seciton 3 of DOMA, at issue on Wednesday reports Huff Post states “the word marriage means only a legal union between a man and woman as husband and wife” for the purpose of “any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States.”

The Plaintiff, Edie Windsor, 83, brought suit against the federal government after the IRS cited DOMA to deny her a refund for the $363,000 in federal estate taxes paid following the death of Thea Spyer in 2009 who was her partner for 40 years reports Huff Post. Windsor and Spyer married in 2007 in Canada and lived in New York. Windsor argues that she would have been eligible for the estate tax exemption had Spyer been a man therefore DOMA’s Section 3 violates her equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment. Two of the justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Kennedy, seem to side with Windsor with Ginsburg stating that DOMA creates two types of marriages likening same sex marriage to the skim milk version of straight marriage while Kennedy struggled to determine whether or not the federal government can regulate marriage. Solicitor Genral Donald Verrilli, representing the Obama administration ont he merits of the case chose to emphasize COngress’ discriminatory purposes in 1996 stating the law “is not called Federal Uniform Definition of Marriage Act. It’s called the Defense of Marriage Act.” Justice Elena Kegan shared simliar sentiments as she told Clement, defending DOMA on behalf of the House of Representatives’ Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, “that maybe Congress had something different in mind than uniformity” in the definition of marriage reading from the House Report which said DOMA was a reflection of Congress’ “collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.”

Therefore, the key to this case may lie in whether the law singles out gays and lesbians through “heightened scrutiny” where a measure singles out politically disfavored and less powerful groups. Chief Justice Roberts along this line focused on the change in public opinion regarding gay marriage and how it happened unless gay and lesbian Americans had significant political power as it seems politicians are falling over themselves to support it. The main question on his mind was why did President Barack Obama enforce it for so long if he thought it was unconstitutional. Clement commented that 10 years from now the nine states don’t have gay marriage will be force by federal government to recognize these unions. According to Huff Post, after Wednesday’s oral arguments the case may be about whether or not the justices have the power to hear the case at all. In United States v. Windsor, the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit declared DOMA unconstitutional while the Obama administration agree Roberts asked Deputy Solicitor General Sri Srinivasan, arguing for the Obama administration, whether there was any cases where all parties agreed with the decision below, but the court upheld its ability to hear it. Clement on Wednesday faced some serious questioned from the Supreme Court’s liberal wing on why the House had any legal interest in represent the position that has been abandoned by everyone involved with DOMA especially the executive branch. As Justice Stephen Breyer commented, ” How is this case any different from enforcing general powers of the United States.” The fight will continue as so many things remain uncertain.

The Calm before the Storm: Same Sex Marriage Uncharted Waters for the Supreme Court

For photos and updates on the latest controversy click here.

The U.S. Supreme Court has begun to hear oral arguments on both sides of the Prop 8 ban after the proposition passed in November of 2008 thereby reversing by popular vote the state Supreme Court’s decision to recognize marriage equality just months earlier. As Justice Anthony Kennedy on Tuesday commented, the prospect of same sex marriage is “uncharted waters.” According to Huff Post, Kennedy commented, “And you can play with that metaphor,” and  continuing that in that consideration, “There’s a wonderful destination” or “a cliff.” Kennedy acknowledged that the issue of same sex marriage is fairly new, but the immediate legal harm to those same sex couples who cannot marry is apparent as the voices of thousands of children of same sex couples is an important aspect of the case. Kennedy went so far as to tell Charles J. Cooper, representing supporters of Prop 8, that: “They [the children] want their parents to have full recognition and legal status.  The voice of those children is considerable in this case, don’t you think?” Kennedy also casts doubts on Prop 8 and same sex marriage bans in general believing that it discriminates against gays and lesbians. Before the justices can discuss the merits of the constitutional case, Chief Justice John Robers told both advocates to argue whether the parties had legal standing to defend Prop 8 as the liberal bloc — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan –believe Prop 8 supporters could not represent the state of California after the Governor and Attorney General refused to defense the law where the Republican appointed  members — Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito — agree with the California Supreme Court which ruled Cooper’s clients could represent the state’s interest.

When the arguments reached the constitutional merits, the ideological alliances switched according to Huff Post. As Sotomayor asked Cooper, “Can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other rational decision-making that the government could make? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?” And when Cooper responded with “responsible procreation”, Kagan commented, “If you are over the age of 55, you don’t help us serve the government’s interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?” The debate became interesting when Scalia asked Ted Olson, the lawyer for the two same sex couples challenging Prop 8, “When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791 [when the Bill of Rights was ratified]? 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted?” Olson responded with, “When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages?” Scalia responded with, “At the time that the Equal Protection Clause was adopted. That’s absolutely true. But don’t give me a question to my question.” Olson untimaly answeres that the argument of same sex marriage is on an evolutionary cycle. Alito’s issue with Olson’s argument was, “You want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the Internet,” Alito said. “On a question like that, of such fundamental importance, why should it not be left for the people, either acting through initiatives and referendums or through their elected public officials?” Ginsburg has issues with Coopers argument which relies on a case from 1971, Baker v. Nelson, where the Supreme Court dismissed a Minnesota man’s attempt to marry his male partner lacking a substantial federal question at a time when same sex intimate conduct was considered criminal.

Kennedy, who is consider the tie breaker vote on the panel, was trying to determine whether a same sex marriage ban could be viewed as gender based and determined by the end of the arguments that both sides had legitimate reasons to sue. On one hand Kennedy sees that Prop 8 supporters have standing to sue, but the right to marry especially the federal constitutional right that would extend to all states compelled him to dig a little deeper. Kennedy asked Cooper, “Why [do] you think we should take and decide this case?” After hearing the answer, Kennedy sided with his conservative colleagues that Cooper’s clients had the right to be in court, while siding with his four liberal colleagues who believe the Constitution mandates marriage equality. That leaves Kennedy who is the fifth vote in the case to man these uncharted waters and according to Huff Post if his history is any indication he just might take the plunge. The final decision is expected by July in the case, Hollingsworth v. Perry.

A New Era in the Catholic Church?

With the approach of holy week and the inaugural Mass of Pope Francis fast approaching, let’s watch the highlight and low-light reels for this week as big decision are coming for the Catholic church.

Pope Francis and GLAAD: Oh you knew it was coming. The surprising fact many may not be aware of is the fact the pope at one point supported civil unions for gay couples. The focus though for the LGBT communities had been his public stance on gay marriage, mainly that it’s a “destructive attack on God’s plan”, and his opposition to gay adoption that it discriminates against children. However according to Huff Post as recently as 2010 then Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio suggested the church support civil unions as a compromise of sorts as at the time they were legal in parts before the gay marriage bill was passed in his home of Argentina. Although the bishops rejected his suggestion, Argentina passed the law making it the first South American country to do so. While some are optimistic about the new pope, some who knew him before are less. As Esteban Paulon, president of the Argentine Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transexuals, told the Times, “The reality, beyond what he may have said in private meetings, was that he said some terrible things in public…He took a role, in public, that was determinedly combative.” GLAAD President Herndon Gradick shared the same sentiment in a statement to Huff Post, explaining, “For decades the Catholic hierarchy has been in need of desperate reform. In his life, Jesus condemned gays zero times. In Pope Benedict’s short time in the papacy, he made a priority of condemning gay people routinely.” Oh by the way GLAAD the Pope does not only answer to God he has to answer to his congregation and the Curia so anyone in his position has an uphill battle ahead…give him some time cut the man some slack he has been pope for 2 minutes.

Pope Francis and Mislead Flock: As we all know or have seen, the pope traditionally holds Mass of the Lord’s Supper in St. Peter’s Basilica or the Basilica of St. John Latern reports Catholic News Service. This year, Pope Francis decided to do things his way and break with tradition by celebrating Holy Thursday of next week washing and kissing the feet of juvenile prisoners in Rome’s Casal del Marmo. The service typically includes washing and kissing the feet of 12 people commemorating Jesus’ humility towards his twelve apostles. The service is not atypical for the pope as in his former life as Argentine’s Cardinal Bergoglio he often held Holy Thursday ceremony in jails, hospitals or other locations associated with the poor and infirm according to Huff Post. According to Agence France-Presse, Pope Francis wants to narrow the gap between the laypeople and the Church.

Pope Francis and The Incredibly Shrinking Priesthood: As the congregation around the world becomes bigger even in the U.S., the problem of no one to lead these congregation has become increasingly apparent. In order to deal with the priest shortage, the Catholic Church has decided to look to former Anglican leaders to fill the void reports Huff Post. The number of men entering the priesthood in the U.S. has dropped about 20,000 since 1975 while the number of the faithful has increased by 17 million according to CBS. Allowing Anglican priests to convert was a way to solve the problem as seen by former Pope Benedict XVI who issued an edict in 2009 to create “a new structure to welcome some disenchanted Anglicans into the Roman Catholic fold,” Time notes. At a Vatican news conference last October, Cardinal William J. Levada, prefect for the Congregation of Doctrine of the Faith, according to the New York Times, commented that Anglicans who wish to convert would now be able “to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony.” The New York Times of course in an article about married Catholic priests raised some interesting questions as married priest were banned in 1123 by the First Lateran Council however married converts have been allowed since 1980:

First, are they doing as good a job as other priests? If the church has decided that celibacy confers certain gifts on priests, does it follow that married priests are worse at serving their congregations? Second, wouldn’t celibate priests be a little resentful of colleagues who get to serve the church and have sex too? And third, if the married priests are doing a good job and not provoking envy, why keep the celibacy rule for priests in general?

Still the transition has been smooth for many of the priest and even entire congregations to convert to Catholicism. Lewis, a converted Catholic priest who leads St. luke’s now Cathloci pareish in Bladensburg, MD., told PBS: “We left the Episcopal Church not because we were running away from the issues of the Episcopal Church. We left the Episcopal Church because we were running to the Catholic Church … The theology of Rome, the authority of Rome, the unity in the Holy See and in the bishops: that was appealing to us.”

Nike, Apple, Facebook Among U.S. Companies That Intend To Back Gay Marriage In Coming Supreme Court Cases

Nike, Apple, Facebook Among U.S. Companies That Intend To Back Gay Marriage In Coming Supreme Court Cases.

The fight for equal rights for all groups continues to rage as the right to marry has made more headline not just in the United States but around the world. As many other countries come to accept the idea and other struggles to come to terms, the United States as always is struggling to unite on the issue. While others struggle, some U.S. business interests are showing their support for gay marriage by lending their signatures to two briefs that will be filed this week with the U.S. Supreme Court, according to lawyers who argue that gay rights is good for business. Various companies will be joining separate friends of the court briefs one on Wednesday challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act and one on Thursday that questions the California ban on gay marriage. The companies are asking that the court invalidate Prop 8 in California and strike down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. According to Reuters, the Prop 8 brief filed has some major players joining the fight including Apple, Nike, Facebook, Morgan Stanley, Intel Corp, Xerox, AIG, and Cisco Systems. The cases will be argued on March 26 and 27. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has not taken a position on the issue, while business interests have no previously been represents in briefs already filed in support. More names could be added to the brief that will be filed on Thursday according to the lawyers handling the Prop 8 brief. Similar brief for the DOMA case has more than 250 signatures that will be filed Wednesday. The Prop 8 brief claims that the companies feel the ban and other laws inflict real and unnecessary injury on business and can impede the efforts to recruit the best workers because of the social stigma imparted by Prop 8 and similar laws. It seems to be more about business than actually being concerned with equal rights?

Seattle’s Mars Hill Church Moves Close To Gay Neighborhood To Preach To Those ‘Infected By AIDS’

Seattle’s Mars Hill Church Moves Close To Gay Neighborhood To Preach To Those ‘Infected By AIDS’.

Wow this will leave you speechless for a moment. Why people feel the need to save everyone? Let people live their life and if they aren’t bugging you then don’t bother them. Mega church Mars Hill has moved to downtown Seattle which is southwest of Capital Hill a gay neighborhood, but the move has been called into question after a press release to KOMO news by the lead pastor, Tim Gaydos.

“This is an incredible opportunity to be a ministry hub for downtown Seattle as it will allow us to better serve the business men and women in our city, as well as the homeless and marginalized, as we’re closer to one of our ministry partners, Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission. Also, being closer to Capitol Hill is a blessing as we are serving and ministering to those who are infected with AIDS on the hill.” (source Huffpost Gay Voice)

 

According to ThinkProgress an LGBT blog and news site, Mars Hill has always believed that homosexuality is a sin and that they can “save sinners” through the love of Jesus — has not indicated that it’s partnered with Lifelong AIDS Alliance, the Seattle-based advocacy group that serves people with HIV/AIDS, a red flag that the church’s only means of ministering to those “infected by AIDS” is to “pray the gay away.”

Whether their intention was good or bad, the Mars Hill church has already stated its feelings about homosexuality so its clear they are trying to save this neighborhood literally. The problem I have is the church was not there before the neighborhood and saying that they are going to target those infected by AIDS is assuming that homosexuality and AIDS go hand in hand. It would be helpful if church groups inform themselves on the topic before assuming that AIDS is a homosexual disease which it is clearly not. I just find the pray the gay away concept which there are actually church funded programs that do have pray the gay away camps is funny, sad, and childish.