So unless you have been living under a rock these past couple of weeks you will know that the Supreme Court in the US is deciding on whether to rule for or against the right for same-sex couples to get married. Now hopefully if you have read my past blog posts you will realise I am probably for gay marriage and you would be correct! 

I find it strange that we even have to have this debate because if there is even a doubt in your mind that same-sex couples who want to get married, shouldn’t then we are just repeating history. We are stopping people from having the freedom to choose to live how they want even though it doesn’t affect us (and for those of you that think it does- please feel free to comment and tell me exactly how…). I wholeheartedly believe that gay rights is for our generation, what civil rights was in the 1950s and 1960s. 

I generally am of the assumption that the majority of those around my age are for gay marriage/rights but I was shocked to find that a number of those studying with me at university don’t believe gay couples should be allowed to get married or have children, with many of them using the religion card as an excuse. First of all, this is not an adequate reason in mind. In pretty much every religion (we won’t speak of those Westboro Baptists kids!) people are told to be kind, respectful and loving towards others and by denying people their rights..well.. you aren’t really doing that are you? Also something a bit controversial but also quite true in the Bible is that Jesus had two dads and he turned out alright didn’t he? And I’m sure back in the day people used God and the Bible to argue their reasoning for enslaving black people and that wasn’t exactly a smooth move either! I’m not sure if the law is the same in the US but over here in the UK, Scotland has been voting on gay marriage and a few people are moaning about how their rights are going to be taken away but the law isn’t saying ministers etc have to initiated same-sex marriages, it’s saying that if they want to they can. So again if there’s anyone reading this who disagrees with that then please feel free to comment and once again enlighten me on why you think so. 

The reason I feel so strongly about same-sex couples being able to get married is that I don’t want to live in a society where we say to heterosexual couples who have known each other for a few days or who have been married two, three, four times that “Hey yeah sure of course you guys can get married!” but then say to same-sex couples who have been together monogamously for years “Nope sorry we can’t allow this!” It.is.such.absurd. 

Now I understand those who are against it also feel very strongly and conversations can get quite heated (as I found out during a class at uni!) but all I would ask is that you think of it on a personal level because I think that’s when people can really get to understand others. So think about how you would feel if your son or daughter or another family member fell in love with someone of the same sex and they were persecuted and had their rights violated because of who they were and the fact that they wanted to make a commitment to someone they loved? 

Just so I don’t leave you on such a heavy note, here’s a quote from one of the signs from the protest outside the Supreme Court. Also my personal favourite!

“If I like then I should be able to put a ring on it.” 

Be warned that there are some offensive and discriminative views ahead. They are my own and you can feel free to disagree with them. It is a free world, but please respect my free opinion and do so on your own blog. I welcome all open minded people to join my thoughts and continue reading.

We all know that a week ago (or so) Americans were fighting for Equal Marriage Rights (if I am not mistaken). I assume it was about LGBTQ marriage. It was fascinating for me to read, listen and watch all the debates, opinions, voices and acts regarding to this issue. It came to my realization that I do follow and read a lot of piece work of people with LGBTQ statuses. And they were marvelous. Hence, I started to build my own opinion in this brain lobe of mine.

I am a christian. So I have to say that the idea of LGBTQ is not biblical. If you directly ask me, whether I agree or disagree with equal marriage, I can only answer with one answer, it is not biblical so it is not right hence I disagree with the idea of equal marriage.

I am also a human. I know that we, human beings, are fallen creatures. This world has became so corrupted and polluted that there is no clear boundaries between right or wrong and opinion or fact. The fact is when I point at someone for not being  so-called “not-biblical” I am actually pointing at myself. When I address that being gay is sin, I also address myself that talking behind other people’s back is sin, as gossiping is. So who are we deciding other people when we cannot even decide our own? Who am I?

I am a teacher as well. I currently teaching in a school that holds up Biblical value. So, if one of my students addresses this issue to me, I will give answers accordingly. This is not being hypocrite. And this is not self-justification. This is me being a professional educator at a Christian institution. Parents of these children had agreed and signed letter of agreement that their children will be educated with Biblical values.

I am a hopeless gleek. And I long for Klaine’s wedding. I shed tears when they broke up. I leaped to joy hearing the word wedding. It’s not hypocrite, it is called being human. It’s celebrating love. Even when it is a forbidden one, a wrong one. People should watch this TV series before they decide their stand on equal marriage.

All you LGTBQ out there, you are welcomed in the house of the Lord, in the fellowship of His children. You are loved. And Jesus died and rose up for you too because He created you. And me as your sister in Christ will love you and embrace you for what you are.

Klaine’s wedding?  Bring it on!!!!

Equal marriage? Wish you all the best…

Well, okay, there are a number of things bothering me about it, but I’ve already ranted here at length about how it’s still being referred to by the media and politicians and other people with various vested interests as “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage”, which between them exclude a whole load of people who are not gay, or are intersex, or are non-binary in gender.

But the thing that’s bothering me at the moment is about sex and love – and I’m writing this as someone who’s more or less asexual, so I don’t have the same perspective as people who are sexual, I’m sort of a disinterested party.

It seems to me that in some way, Equal Marriage is being marketed as a way of “making queer people more acceptable” – because some of the general public are squeamish about the idea of non-het* people having sex. So all the Equal Marriage rhetoric is about loving, committed relationships, which is in itself perfectly valid (given that the discussion is about marriage), but there’s this undertone of “you can like queer people more if you think of them as being loving, rather than as people who shag differently from you.” This squeamishness, by the way, naturally extends itself towards trans* people, whom many cis-het people insist on not seeing as being their true gender/sex.

I’ve got mixed feelings about being bothered by this. I’m bothered on behalf of people who do not wish to be judged-and-condemned for enjoying non-het sex, and yet whose acceptability, it seems, is being made to be dependent on the more “respectable” face of romantic commitment. On the other hand, I’m glad to see a recognition of queer connectedness as being not just about sex, too, since there’s something of an over-focus in the community and in the media on that aspect, i.e. the assumption that if you’re not het, then your sexuality is all about sex, and not about, for example, whom you fall in love with.

But there’s something a bit smug in the “we’re just like you, we want to settle down and be domestic” sort of message, which contains more than a pinch of theistic “marriage sanctifies sex.” And that’s probably what is really behind most of the discomfort of people who want to “keep marriage traditional”, because they can’t bring themselves to imagine sex receiving any kind of blessing at all if it’s not going to be het sex.

To my mind, Equal Marriage is not about Marriage, it’s about equality. Citizens should have equal rights regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. As I’ve said before, I think that if a relationship is legal, it should be legal to solemnise it if the people in it want to – marriage, for those who want it, should simply be gender-neutral, sexuality-neutral, and not limited to couples.

I’m still piecing together why this all bothers me so. In the end, it’s something like the het world trying to absorb us like grit in an oyster, instead of taking on the challenge of accepting diversity in its many, many forms. And it’s also a celebration of the insularity of coupledom, worshipping it as the pinnacle of an imagined hierarchy of kinds of love. Humour me, this is the best I can do at the moment.

[*I'm using het as a shorthand for heterosexual because that's too long a word, and I don't like the word straight, and I think being het doesn't deserve more syllables than being gay or bi or pan or ace, it's just one of the possible orientations.

The bottom image is of skeins of recycled silk – I just thought it was a good image for an ideal intertwining of diversities. The top image is, um... just me wanting to mess with the apparent paradigm of "Equal Marriage is about passion, therefore scarlet." Sometimes you just follow your nose and in my case, I often end up somewhere emerald.]

QUESTION:
I know the vast majority of Christian churches teach that homosexuality is a sin. There are a few verses in the Old Testament that seem to point to this, but I cannot find anything from Jesus regarding this subject. So, if Jesus never preached against it, are we certain that homosexuality is a sin?

Update: let’s add a few more questions…

2) How do you feel about homosexual couples joining your church?

3) If you are OK with homosexual couples in the church, what about using them in a teaching capacity, or in the nursery?

4) Is homosexuality different from other issues Christians face? If so, why?

5) Are you a homosexual Christian? Will you share your story? Your experiences with “church people”?

If you’d like to respond but wish to remain anonymous, email me at iamsteveaustin@me.com

Again…PLAY NICE!

I look forward to your responses!

With all of the talk these days about “equal marriage”, I usually end up scratching my head.

I have heard people argue that marriage is meant for a man and woman to come together under God to create life.

And nothing else.

They argue that since this is the true purpose of marriage, then true marriage cannot be for same-sex couples….marriage is for making babies.

Okaaaaaaaaaay.

So let me get this straight -

(pun intended)

Marriage isn’t really about love, respect and a life long commitment to another adult….it is all about making babies.

And apparently, God doesn’t want it any other way?

What about heterosexual couples who discover they are infertile?  Should they never have gotten married?

If someone knows they cannot have biological children, should they be forbidden from getting married in the first place?

Should married couples only be permitted to have sex when they are actively trying to get pregnant?

And once a couple decides they do not wish to have more children…or the woman goes through menopause, are they forbidden from ever having sex again?  EVER?

I doubt that many of the people opposing same-sex marriage would agree to that rule for their own lives.

But if you asked them WHY NOT, they would probably say something about sex being a valuable part of marriage, a sacred and intimate bond, expression of their love, blah blah blah.

You see, they would probably NEVER agree to never have sex again.

But that is where the argument becomes confusing, because it states that sex and love do have a place in a marriage, even if pregnancy is not the goal.

And if that is true,

and if you allow heterosexual couples who cannot (or do not wish to) have children to get married,

and if there are committed, loving, stable, respectful same-sex couples out there who DO wish to bring children into this world and raise them,

then you cannot oppose same-sex marriage.

That’s just what I think.

As ever, I ask that we take the time to consider the issue of same-sex marriage through the prism of critical thinking as opposed to the filter of ideology and modern socialization.  The inability to consider and internalize an issue as well as understand it from more than one perspective limits our ability to lean into positive conflict, generate amicable solutions, and close the ideological divide, bringing us closer together as opposed to separating us further.

In order to elevate our politics and evolve our society we must endeavor to disavow ourselves of preconceived notions, suppositions, and base assumptions.  We must learn to move from hate and prejudice to tolerance, acceptance, and love.  And I must stress love, for it is absolutely essential that we merge critical cognition with our best selves, which is unrestrained love, deep and abiding.

With that understanding I look at the issue of same-sex marriage and consider it with regard to how I was raised, my religion, what society teaches us, what history teaches us, and what we must grow to become.

My religion taught me that homosexuality is evil.  However, as I’ve lived my life I have had the pleasure of meeting and befriending many homosexuals.  They have been honest, trustworthy, hard-working, caring, supportive, family oriented, and, yes, even faithful.  I have known them to live their lives fully when not hiding who they are, sharing stories of heart-felt suffering while living in the closet.  I have known them to love life and love God, if that is what they believed.

Society taught me to call homosexuals derogatory names and reject them as strange anachronisms, mutants, deviants to be shunned because they do things bestial and abnormal, far from the norm.  Society taught me to view them as outsiders, and to treat them as such.  However, my father and mother taught me to reach out to people, to get to know people, to seek to understand people, and by doing that I learned that what society was teaching me was the great and immoral wrong.  I dismissed my socialization and in that realization I fully understood that the castigation I subjected them to was the true evil, the evil that I must and most robustly did disavow.

History teaches us that society and religion have wound us up, torn us down, clarified our beliefs and elevated us at our best, destroyed us at our worst.  I have learned that clearly before Judeo-Christian beliefs, in its many forms, took precedent over how we lived our lives sexual relations and who we loved was more egalitarian.  In other words you could be a bit more free to be gay.  However, as Rome faded into oblivion in the euro-centric world, and men used religion to hold power, such freedoms vanished.  This remained the state of affairs … until today.

Now, more than ever people are not only stepping out of the closet, they are jumping out of the closet and declaring their true selves, demanding they be recognized for who they are, with the same rights as everyone else.  Good for them, and in truth good for us. Denying people the right to live and love as they see fit is detrimental not only to homosexuals, but to us heterosexuals as well.  Critical consideration is required to understand this fundamental truth, we erode our society and ourselves when we expend energy denying freedom to others.

I and my wife took the time to critically consider the matter of homosexual marriage.  We looked at the facts, and understood from a legal perspective how straight people were doing gay people harm by denying them the same legal protections we enjoy under the law.

Then, we considered critically what having a gay married couple next door would mean to us.  The answer was simple.  We would have a gay couple living next door to us.  That’s it.  That’s all.  It would not harm our marriage one whit. The sanctity of our union was a function of us, not the gay couple next door.  With that understanding why would we deny them the same acknowledgement of love both by whatever faith they practice, and the societal government under which we all live our lives?  Through the application of the critical thinking filter the answer was abundantly clear, we could not even begin to support denying gay couples the right to live and love each other as they see fit, in harmony with the rest of society.

We support gay rights.  We support gay couples getting married.  We support the emergence of gays in society.  We support the elimination of the closet, the abandonment of the undercover brother, the pride of a people who want no more than what the rest of us enjoy, the freedom to be.

The time is now, Proposition 8 is the wrong side of history, DOMA is the wrong side of history.  Many so-called conservatives are on the wrong side of history.  Many Republicans are on the wrong side of history.  Even a few democrats and more than a small number of liberals are on the wrong side of history.

However, history is a rising tide and the rolling thunder of truth is gaining in volume, louder and louder from one sea to the other.  Republican Senators are coming out in support of gay marriage.  Vitriolic pundits and naysayers that poison critical thought are even saying the times have changed, and one might as well not fight the inevitable.

Our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, are gaining and growing.  They have always been here, afraid, hiding, living their lives in turmoil, living their lives in tortured denial.  Who are we to stand in their way … and more importantly, why?  The truth is clear.  The time for gay marriage is now.

The Aspiring Critical Thinker,
D.S. Brown

“At least I’m not the baby-eating bishop of Bath & Wells.”

I quote him in full and respond as appropriate.

“I like David Cameron and believe he is genuinely sincere in his desire to make Britain a generous nation where we care for one another and where people of faith may exercise their beliefs fully.

But it was a bit rich to hear that the Prime Minister has told religious leaders that they should ‘stand up and oppose aggressive secularisation’ when it seems that his government is aiding and abetting this aggression every step of the way.

At his pre-Easter Downing Street reception for faith leaders, he said that he supported Christians’ right to practise their faith. Yet many Christians doubt his sincerity. According to a new ComRes poll more than two-thirds of Christians feel that they are part of a ‘persecuted minority’.

Much as I want to, it would be a bit rich to say ‘Christians are wrong to say they feel persecuted’. If they feel it, fine.

They are not, however, a minority. By the 2011 Census* they are 59.3% of the country. So if this (admittedly small) sample can err here, perhaps it also errs in its wider feeling of persecution.

Their fears may be exaggerated because few in the UK are actually persecuted, but the Prime Minister has done more than any other recent political leader to feed these anxieties.

The first clause is a very agreeable admission, well done Carey.

He seems to have forgotten in spite of his oft-repeated support for the right of Christians to wear the cross, that lawyers acting for the Coalition argued only months ago in the Strasbourg court that those sacked for wearing a cross against their employer’s wishes should simply get another job.

The bish refers to Eweida v British Airways plc [2010]. I’d suggest he errs a little in his Straw Man. If his account was true, then I’d agree Ms Eweida (a check-in clerk) was treated with discrimination. However, the summary glosses numerous important points:
- BA initially asked her to wear her crucifix on the inside of her clothes since it contravened their longstanding jewellery policy. It was not a religious issue. They allow employees to wear religious non-jewellery.
- BA offered to compromise, and allow Ms Eweida to wear a crucifix on her lapel, just not as a necklace, due to health concerns (getting caught as she moved baggage.)
- BA offered Ms Eweida a job off the front-line, where she could wear the crucifix openly.
- After losing numerous court cases, and having repeatedly rejected BA’s settlement offers (up to £8,500), Ms Eweida did indeed take the Government to the ECHR in Strasbourg. Since she was prosecuting the Government for not protecting her rights, the Government had to mount some defence.
- Most saliently to Carey’s argument, Eweida (and three others) won at the ECHR, was awarded £26,600 (costs and damages) AND David Cameron commented that he was “delighted” that the “principle of wearing religious symbols at work has been upheld”. I am not delighted, but DC felt people “shouldn’t suffer discrimination due to religious beliefs”.

More shockingly, the Equalities Minister, Helen Grant, recently gave her support to the Labour MP Chris Bryant’s campaign to turn the 700-year-old Parliamentary chapel of St Mary Undercroft into a multi-faith prayer room so that gay couples can get married there. The Speaker of the House of Commons is reported to be supportive of the move.

This is not persecution, because Christians aren’t being stopped from doing anything. This is entirely what the equalities minsiter should be doing. This is letting other people also use a room, dressed up in an Argument From Tradition (invalid) and a snide nod at John Bercow MP, who famously resigned the Tory front bench due to his support for homosexual adoption rights.

Now, there are many questions that we need to ask. If this means the removal of Christian symbols from the chapel to accommodate all faiths and even humanist ceremonies this would amount to changing the chapel fundamentally, even to banishing the Christian faith from the seat of political power. This would have implications for Her Majesty, the Queen, and could place her in a very difficult position as the chapel is a Royal Peculiar under her direct patronage.

 The Christian faith isn’t being banished because Christians can still worship there. Moreover, there are loads of Christian rituals, art, symbology and impedimenta festooning the Palace of Westminster.
Of course, I would like all of them removed, and still would not say that was persecuting Christianity so much as advancing the cleavage between religion and state.
It doesn’t really place HM in a difficult situation since she can do nothing about it. She has plenty of other churches to preside over. Ones that aren’t in Parliament.

As David Cameron knows, I am very suspicious that behind the plans to change the nature of marriage, which come before the House of Lords soon, there lurks an aggressive secularist and relativist approach towards an institution that has glued society together for time immemorial.

Yes. Quite. We dirty secularists see all faiths as having equal validity as regards the law, so do not want one faith given undue precedence. That is not persecution.

I’d like to discuss the ‘glued society…immemorial’ claim but it’s so wide-reaching and subjective that there isn’t much point.

By dividing marriage into religious and civil the Government threatens the church and state link which they purport to support. But they also threaten to empty marriage of its fundamental religious and civic meaning as an institution orientated towards the upbringing of children.

1.)    There is no conclusive proof that one man and one woman raise children any better than homosexual or group arrangements. History is littered with examples of the latter, where the children did not all grow up damaged.

2.)    Since 1688 the justification of Parliamentary Supremacy has been the support of the population through elections, not God. Whether the Tories support a church-state link or not, this ‘persecution’ isn’t a problem.

3.)    Religious meaning is typically understood as only felt by believers in that religion. Since the Bill currently makes it impossible for the C of E to allow gay marriage, then Carey’s ex-flock are not threatened by this ‘emptiness’, any more than they are by the manifold number of things other faiths or non-faiths do with which the C of E disagrees. He might as well rail against circumcision for emptying the foreskin of its fundamental role as part of the body that is created in God’s image and therefore sacred (an argument usually applied against abortion.)

If this is not enough, the legislation fails to provide any protection for religious believers in employment who cannot subscribe to the new meaning of marriage. There will be no exemptions for believers who are registrars. They can expect to be sacked if they cannot, in all conscience, support same-sex marriage.

It’s impossible to comment on this until the law has been passed and there has been a test case. As I understand it, registrars effectively work on a freelance basis so could avoid this?
If not, I’m afraid that’s just how the law works. Registrar A would be like Jewish Foodtaster B, who found himself in a pickle when his employer wanted him to try the salted pork. If religious convictions get in the way of doing your job, it’s a pretty bad job. Like pacifists in the army.

Strong legal opinion also suggests that Christian teachers, who are required to teach about marriage, may face disciplinary action if they cannot express agreement with the new politically-correct orthodoxy.

I’m not sure where this is coming from. Surely it won’t be hard for a Christian RS teacher to admit the fact that the law will recognise homosexual marriage, that Religious groups A-F agree and perform ceremonies while religious groups G-Z do not and do not? If a teacher point-blank refuses to teach what the current law of the land is, see the discussion immediately above.

The danger I believe that the Government is courting with its approach both to marriage and religious freedom, is the alienation of a large minority of people who only a few years ago would have been considered pillars of society.

Today’s ComRes poll suggests that more than three-quarters of Christians believe that the Government is not listening. More than half of Christians who backed the Conservatives in 2010 say they will ‘definitely not’ vote for the party in 2015.

This looks decidedly like Carey is just giving DC election advice. I’d quite like him out (for reasons unrelated) so this all seems fine to me.

On a wider principle, I’m rather happy the Coalition government is not legislating purely on the whims of the Christian population. That would be jolly daunting.

This continues the breakdown in trust between politicians and the people they serve.

Among these people are very many volunteers, school governors and public servants. In their churches they provide soup kitchens and advice centres, and many other valuable initiatives. They are the ‘big society’ which David Cameron was advocating until recently.

Good for them. Wholly unrelated.

The Government risks entrenching a very damaging division in British society by driving law-abiding Christians into the ranks of the malcontents and alienated – of whom there are already far too many.

I do hope that Christians are not alienated by this move. I hope they feel alienated by all the other Tory policies which are ill-guided and damaging to the poor, to children, to the disabled, to the elderly, to future generations, ad nauseum.

*Scotland and Northern Ireland aren’t included in the Census, although I imagine they would bump it up a little.

The legal questions surrounding the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8, which restricted marriage in California to heterosexual couples, is one of the most politically charged issues in American life.  Whatever the decision handed down by the Court, it will be considered bold—and one side will consider it wrong, and we will likely hear about judicial overreach.

The Supreme Court is not likely to be reading Facebook to make their decision.  Let’s face it, it’s unlikely Justices Roberts, Kennedy, or Sotomayor are saying “let’s visit Facebook to see how we should answer this one”.  So why does the public feel inclined to communicate to one another and gather together rather than just wait for the legal decision?

The answer can perhaps be found by looking across the Atlantic to the UK.  Recently, journalist Brendan O’Neill testified to the Commons Public Bill Committee that gay marriage is an “elitist campaign that doesn’t have any traction with the public”.  It was constituent visits that allowed a member of the committee to rebut the remark.  And it’s consistent constituent action that means it’s a charge that couldn’t be leveled in the US.  With more then 2.7 grassroots campaigners online and on the street, there is visible constituent pressure for any political decision that could come to bear and provides public relations cover for any pro-marriage decision from the Court.

Constituent voices are always powerful, but even when there is no political solution at play—when it’s a court decision—communicating around the issue to condition the environment can be smart, if strategic.  It gives individuals the opportunity to stay engaged and have some “skin in the game” and can debunk opposition claims that a court decision is not the public will.

The good Lord (Carey) is obsessed by Equal Marriage. It rather a shame he is not obsessed about the incidental stuff of life, like homelessness, poverty, and unemployment.

Honestly I am not reassured by the Church at all, well its very vocal minority, I am not assured that a Cardinal of the Catholic Church who was so prejudiced against queers and deviants that he had to resign over allegations over inappropriate behaviour with Priests, or how the Priests were bullied into silence, and even now have their motivations questioned. More than anything else I am not reassured that the Church has got a grip on what the Easter message is, or should be about.

Giles Fraser in an article last week ruffled quite a few feathers in his article “I bang my head against the wall when evangelicals turn Jesus into Cheesus” (well worth a read on Sunday Morning)

I couldn’t help but see the article, that was largely seen as an attack on the evangelical wing of the Church, with a lot of ‘huffing and puffing’ from the disgruntled ‘Jesus lite’, as call to get back to basics in the Church.

Having attended an evangelical and more traditional Anglican Church in Southampton, and prior to that a Pentecostal Church, I couldn’t help but see his point. The evangelical church has a tendency to gloss over reality, preaching some kind of nirvana, which ultimately spawned the ‘get rich quick’ TV evangelism. There are a lot of sincere and caring people in the evangelical wing of the Church, but the cheesy Blairite tone of the charismatic movement glosses over the ugliness of the Gospel.

As Giles Fraser points out “

No PR agency in the world could sell the disturbing message of a broken man on the cross. That’s why we get Jesus-lite”

The Easter story is a disaster story, this is because it is presented from the human standpoint. The saviour of Israel stands at the door of Jerusalem, expectations are high, the occupying Roman forces will be defeated, and he goes and gets crucified. Not only does he get crucified his followers who have been with him for three years flee in panic.

Men who have travelled Israel with Jesus, the Son of God, scatter, tell lies, deny him and deny themselves.

As usual it is the women who are left to pick up the pieces.

How can you sell that story? The central character of your revolution is not only dies, Che Guevara died but remained an inspiration, but is not crucified, and at least led a revolt.

The sell is not an easy one, well its impossible.

That is why we have Easter Sunday, these abject failures of followers galvanized and empowered by God go on and change history.

The narrative that the Church chooses is the victory on Sunday, not the dismay on Saturday, but the lives of many are of the dismay of hope. How do you remain faithful to the faith when you are persecuted, tortured and imprisoned, or homeless? It is a story that the evangelicals cannot tell. The suffering of Christ and Christians is as important as the jubilation.

Christianity is lived in the hope of a better things, it is not having an easy time, it is about how ‘learn to dance in the rain’.

The problem that I think Giles Fraser was trying to address was put like this in an essay from the left-wing Frankfurter Schuler

“Religion was, for them, not only the opium of the people, but also a repository of hope that had become unintelligible to itself”

To me the hope of the Easter message is that failure is not the end of the story, we have tomorrow.

Like a lot of people, I was skeptical of the impact of changing one’s Facebook profile image to show support of a cause.

Yesterday I read this article about the latest George Takei-led Facebook thing of changing your profile image to the Human Rights Commission‘s equal-sign logo to show your support of marriage equality while the US Supreme Court talks about it.

While it acknowledges that ‘[u]ltimately, we all know that Antonin Scalia gives zero craps what your avatar is’, it also quotes a young woman saying this:

There is something so incredibly moving and overwhelming when you open your FB page, and you see friends from all over the country, indeed the world — straight, gay, left, right — taking the time to swap out their mugs for the HRC symbol in solidarity, so that your entire newsfeed is one big same-sex marriage rally.

So I changed mine purely in the hope of giving my non-straight friends and family that lovely feeling you get when something important inside you relaxes because someone else stands up and says they care about who you really are.

It’s really fun seeing the different ways people are playing with the image to make it theirs. Check out some of the ones I’ve come across. My personal favourite is Lady Liberty and Lady Justice getting it on.

Activism can be fun and playful!

I haven’t really been following what’s going on with the whole marriage equality. Partly, for lack of news television and partly, because it infuriates me, but mostly because I don’t have the time. I believe wholeheartedly in marriage equality, for EVERYONE. I’m not sure what the argument from the opposite side is, but I have a feeling that it’s not very solid to begin with.

I have been hearing the arguments among people who want to argue that this is the same a slavery. It’s not quite the same as slavery, I do agree. But, those who argue that, also have to remember that there was “separate but equal” laws for a long time. The civil rights movement was similar in the sense that everyone is fighting for equal rights. Whether that be for race or marriage. These same people also have to remember that until not that long ago, marriage between races was illegal. Why should some people be allowed to marry, but not others? In my personal opinion, it’s all very similar. The civil rights movement, the women’s rights movement- all of these are similar and all of these helped to build our society into what it is now.

If you don’t believe that the marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is right, that’s fine. But it’s not really up to you. No one forced you to get married to a man or a woman and no one is going to. What gives anyone else the right to say who one can and cannot love?
I’ve heard the argument, “if gays are allowed to marry it will ruin the sanctity of marriage.” What about the celebrities that have 36 hour marriages “just for fun?” Or the marriage that is in shambles because of adultery? What about DIVORCE? Or those people that marry animals or STATUES?! How is all of that NOT ruining the sanctity of a marriage. I’ve heard the God argument. Well, guess what? You want to get married in the church, then that church has a right to say no but the LAW shouldn’t? What happened to separation Church and State? Does that not exist anymore? I know that we are “One Nation Under God,” but the Churches can regulate what they allow they don’t need the Government to step in and say anything.

There are tons of other arguments that I could go on disputing, but I’m not.

Me, personally, I want to marry a man, but if my best friend (who is a guy) falls in love with a guy and wants to marry one too, then he should be able to with all of the same benefits as me and my future husband.

In the end all someone wants is to love who they want without discrimination. <3

via Gay People Should Have The Right to Burn Down Their Homes (And Then Have Their Husbands Or Wives Forgive Them).

Equal Marriage. You’ll have noticed that many profiles on Facebook and elsewhere have turned red in support of equal marriage which is currently being discussed by the US Supreme Court. As with any viral activity, plenty of variations on the original image from the Human Rights Campaign have also appeared: http://www.flickr.com/photos/humanrightscampaign/sets/72157633101425657/

ColaLife. How do you get life-saving medical supplies to the most remote places on Earth? Piggyback on the existing distribution that Coca Cola has created, that’s how.

Athy Is The ‘Hood, Man. “During the St.Patrick’s Day Parade in Dublin 2012, radio producer Derek O’Halloran, noticed a group of African-Irish teenagers in the crowd…Tough enough being a teenager but what if you have to negotiate two different cultures too?” Athy is a fairly small town in Ireland; it’s quite fascinating to hear it described as “the ‘hood”.

And finally, I have to welcome the latest Mrs Guinan, who owned her bridal footwear…

See you in seven.

_____

Enda Guinan is a consultant and trainer offering advice on social media strategy and product delivery for individuals and small businesses. Get in touch to see how you can make the best use of your time and energy as you put together your social media plans.

Firstly I want to explain that I use the term equal marriage when discussing this topic because that is what this is all about. It is about same sex couples being seen on a equal level to heterosexual couples. That is what people who are for same sex marriage being legalized want. That is what I want. Being a lesbian I am of course very pro equal marriage as if I ever find love I wasnt my relationship  to be recognized with the same legitimacy as any heterosexual couples relationship and respected in the same way. Legalizing same sex marriage would also in my eyes take away some of the stigma surrounding same sex relationships. If they are seen as the same thing by the law and have the same title as each other then it is being recognized that the love between a same sex couple is no different than the love between  a heterosexual couple.

In the UK civil partnerships have been legalized since 2004. Now in many ways a civil partnership  is legally much the same as a normal marriage.This fact is often pointed out in arguments against same sex marriage being legalized. The basic idea is why do same sex couples need marriage if they already have something that is much the same? To be honest as I’m not religious this is one of the arguments I find most insulting. To me this argument just sounds rather similar to the kind of argument that would have went around during the time of   racial segregation. These arguments just promoter inequality and in this situation make it seem like a same sex couple’s love is lesser than a heterosexual couple’s love.

Then there is also the one huge difference between a civil partnership and a marriage. A marriage can have religion involved a civil partnership can not. So for many religious same sex couples not being able to get married is cheating them out of having their partnership recognized by their God. For many the whole point of getting married is having their relationship  recognized by God in some way. Now at this point a civil partnership can be blessed but that is in no way the same thing as it does not involve much of the ceremony that is involved in a religious marriage. Many religious groups argue that the fact that a marriage is a religious ceremony is why same sex marriage should not be legalized as to some they interpret their religion in a way that states homosexuality as a sin. However there is many religious groups who disagree and many churches and other places of worship are more than willing to preform same sex marriages.

I think the fear that many religious groups have is that if it is legalized all churches/ places of worship will have to preform these ceremonies even though it has been made clear that rules will be put in place so a church can deiced not to preform same sex marriage ceremonies.I personally disagree with their reasoning for not wanting to preform these ceremonies however I would always stand up for their right to say no to being involved in a same sex marriage if they don’t wish to be. Also I highly doubt that any same sex couples will want their marriage to take place in a place that is not accepting of their love. I think suggesting that legalizing same sex marriage will force everyone to take part and accept them is just a slippery slop argument, which is in no way a valid way of reasoning.

The next thing that people often argue is think about the children. Now when I hear this I cringe slightly as the reasoning just sounds crazy to me. These people argue that the whole point of a marriage is to make a stable home for children. So by this reasoning shouldn’t people who can’t have children must not be allowed to get marriage? They also think that children can only be brought up well if they are in a traditional house hold where they have a mother and a father. So by that reasoning are single parents not raising their children correctly? Of course the answer for both of these questions is no and that points to the suggestion that many people who do argue against equal marriage are only really arguing against it because their prejudices disagree with it .

To be honest I would probably take them a bit more seriously if they would just come out and admit that they don’t want equal marriage because they don’t think same sex couples are equal to heterosexual couples.Now I am in no way suggesting that everyone who is against same sex marriage are against it for this reason and I also think everyone is entitled to their opinions.However why does it matter to them? Will same sex marriage being legalized effect straight couples in any way? No. So in the wise words of Wanda Sykes:

“if you don’t believe in same sex marriage. Then don’t marry someone of the same sex.”

This is just the basics of my views on equal marriage. There is some ares I didn’t get into such as the fact that if Prop 8 and DOMA are seen as unconstitutional in America then it will have a number of positive financials effects for  American same sex couples.If you have any questions about my opinions on this subject that I didn’t cover here feel free to ask.

Here is some links to do with this issue:

1. Wanda Sykes on gay marriage

2. Some information about what a civil partnership is

3. How will Repealing Doma help Americans

A member of the Grand Canyon Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a queer nun group, holds a candle in support of marriage equality, in Phoenix, Saturday, March 23, 2013 (Annika Cline)

Perhaps the most surprising attendees were various religious leaders and members of Phoenix. This is the angle I took in my radio story of the event for the Downtown Devil. The clerical collars stood in stark contrast to the rainbow flags. But as dark fell on the Sandra Day O’Connor United States Courthouse and the candles created small pinpoints of uniform light, the alliance became clear.

The religious leaders I spoke with were quick to discharge the stereotypes against them, explaining that there is actually ample religious support for the LGBT community; the opposition is simply what stands out, what shouts the loudest. They were also quick to tell me that it is wrong for those opposed to same-sex marriage to use religion as their justification.

“I’m just sad that people will have to stand behind a religion to promote their bigotry,” said Father Andrew of the San Martin De Porres Reformed Catholic Church.

And that’s what was so intriguing about the general consensus among these religious allies that night; religion should not be a part of the discussion and debate regarding equal rights for the LGBT community, they said. As allies, they were separating themselves from the church and the many interpretations of scripture, and simply standing in solidarity as community members.

In the Supreme Court hearings to come, if they last without being halted prematurely, religion will likely play a big role; especially on the steps of the court on both sides of the picket line. As one Huffington Post reporter noted in an article on the matter, “The battle over same-sex marriage is often framed in terms of faith,” and this case is perhaps leading people to realize just how much. This begs the question of how much room religion deserves in this debate, as well as whose side religion is on, in its most basic sense. How will justices across the country interpret the religious arguments for or against same-sex marriage in years to come?

During Light the Way to Justice, it was clear the alliance of Phoenix churches with this cause challenged the formalistic split between LGBT and religious communities, shining light on an illusion of us versus them.

You might have seen this logo appear a lot lately!! It is a special ‘red’ equality symbol signifying same sex marriages and that marriage equality really is all about love. Please show your support by sharing the logo on your page or wearing some red from your closets!

It seems so obvious and simple to me that this is what needs to be done because California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) are so clearly discriminatory against a certain group of people on no legally defensible grounds. But apparently that view is both naïve and excessively optimistic at this time.

A friend of mine who is well-versed on the matter pointed out to me that although the Court may, someday (say, 20 or 30—or more—years from now) find DOMA and Prop 8 and other laws like them to be unconstitutional, they are not going to do so now because the tide of public opinion on same-sex marriage, while it may be running from one pole to the other more swiftly on this issue than any other in recent memory, has not yet reached the tipping point at which the court must affirm the will of the people.

My feeling is, if these laws will be deemed unconstitutional at some point in the future, why wait for public opinion to provide the push? Why not get ahead of it and do the right thing for the right reasons—not just for the sake of the law, but for the sake of all the human beings in this country who are being hurt every single day by the bad laws now in place? Why should same-sex couples in blue states be able to enjoy the benefits of marriage while those in the red states remain second-class citizens? Is this one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, or not?

The answers to these questions are, like everything involving human sexuality, complicated.

Jonathan Rauch gives a good explanation of the legal issues and likely outcomes in an article called Gay Marriage Hits the Supreme Court for the Brookings Institution. As simple as the issue seems to me (i.e., discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is both wrong and unlawful), to the Court, the issue is anything but simple. And the most likely outcome, according to people with far more knowledge of the case and the law than I have, is that nothing much will come of this in terms of sweeping change to federal laws, state laws or society in general.

Some people say the Supreme Court justices are cowards for not tackling this issue head-on once and for all while they have the chance. My well-informed friend calls the Court “a political body of people with lifetime appointments and axes to grind” that has swung so far to the right in recent years that it is unlikely to take any action on this issue before at least a few of the hardest-right members are replaced with people of a slightly more liberal frame of mind. That could be a long, long time from now.

I remain stubbornly optimistic on this one, though. As Winston Churchill once said, ”Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing … after they have exhausted all other possibilities.” If not this year, perhaps next year.

It’s amazing that we are entitled to our opinions in this country, I’m very grateful for it, but the way people act about them is quite, grotesque. I have an opinion on everything, just like you and your family, and your friends, and your neighbors. We all have an opinion, but should we shun and bad mouth someone who shares a different opinion?

Let’s discuss something that we are all seeing at this moment: the red equal sign for gay marriage equality. I, personally, am for gay marriage. I believe we all deserve to be treated equally and fairly and living in America, have the right to the pursuit of happiness. It’s stated in our constitution, but I’m not going to call you a moron or insult you if you disagree. I will listen to your opposing argument with respect, but at the end of your speech, I will still be for equality. 

I’ve also realized that everyone is different and Facebook has really reminded me of that these past few days. People are bad mouthing each other and arguing back and forth about who is right and who is wrong. Neither party is right nor wrong. These are our opinions. If you wanted it to really matter and really do something, then start a group or a march or a petition. Do something proactive instead of just posting Facebook statuses and pictures about it. 

If gay marriage is made legal, great, and if it’s not, then that’s fine too. It will continued to be argued until the day that it is. That is a fact, but is it worth getting all hot and bothered and yelling at people via cyberspace? I really don’t believe so. Respect and value everyone’s opinion. Open your ears and expand your mind into the lives of others and how they feel. It may just change your life. 

“Flexibility requires an open mind and a welcoming of new alternatives.” –Deborah Day

“I stood in line for days to get tickets to the first one,” one observer noted. “But I felt like they were just doing the second one for the money, so I didn’t bother checking it out.”

Although everyone agreed that yesterday’s hearing was much better, opinions as to why varied widely.

“Even though it had a bigger budget and more special effects, I found it pretty repetitive,” said Alice Johnson, who has been casually following the cases deciding whether the government should or should not continue being a dick to gay people. “If they were just going to do and say the same things, they should have left the original alone. They’re cheapening what I thought was a heartfelt and entertaining hearing.”

Others had the exact opposite criticism.

“It strayed too far from the original, eye em oh,” said Jeff Albertson, who insisted his pronunciation of an abbreviation be spelled out phonetically. “They introduced a whole new character, that Edith Windsor, and gave her far too much importance. Furthermore, it was lacking the original creative team helmed by Charles Cooper and Theodore Olsen, the dynamic duo of gay rights debates. In short, I’d say it was the worst. Court case. Ever.”

Despite the universal disapproval, the box office return on Windsor v. United States has been good enough for the Supreme Court to greenlight a third installment in what will become the “Gay Marriage Trilogy.” The ‘threequel’ is due out early next year.

Mehdi Hasan’s recent blog entry titled, “The Sorry Truth Is That the Virus of Anti-Semitism Has Infected the British Muslim Community”, written as a response to Lord Ahmed’s comments where he blamed the reprocussions of his actions upon the Jewish people, has left me feeling cautious about his sweeping generalisations of ‘The British Muslim Community.’
On the one hand, I can completely sympathise where Mehdi is coming from. As I currently live and have grown up in an ethnically diverse area of Coventry, where a strong Muslim community is prevalent and have previously attended a school where whites were the minority. I am certain there is a very vocal voice of Anti-Semitism within the second-generation of Muslim youths which have been “born and bred within a multi-cultural Britain.” But would I go to say that it is “our dirty little secret?” Perhaps I should ask the “brothers” if they thought it was a secret when they were handing out flyers after Friday prayers detailing a list of consumer shops or commercial brands which supposedly supported the state of Israel and thus were “funding the rockets fired into Gaza.” Or perhaps I should ask the Mosque teachers and how they used to teach me that in the “end of days”, the final fight would be between the “Muslims and the Jews.” So in this respect, where cultural communities are engaged in discussions which have not been developed since the 60′s when the first wave of immigrants came to Britain, discourse concerning Anti-Semitism is enevitably prevalent, making Lord Ahmed’s comments understandable (though not tolerable). As they were infront of a Pakistani orientated audience which share similar views. But for Mehdi to say that Anti-Semitism is prevalent within the Muslim communitiy in general is to cast a very wide net for many British Muslims who wish to distance themselves with Anti-Semitic views.

One example of this is the response blog posted by Myriam Francois Cerrah. Though she highlights a very current viewpoint, acting as a voice for many Muslims (myself included), I cannot help but feel as though she underestimates how Anti-Semitic some British Muslims are. Although many British Muslims, who have educated themselves and have not adopted stereotypical views of society around them will come to agree with more progressive ideas and are more accustomed to not tolerate Anti-Semitism, there is still voices heard from “Islamic figures” which are not inclusive of society and are discriminatory against people. Though Baroness Warsi stated that Islamaphobia had passed the dinner-table test, to me Anti-Semitism had passed the dinner-table test for quite some time in some Muslim communities. By having such a privilege to live in a multicultural society, where multi-faiths and cultures are easily accessible, it comes as a deep sigh to me that intolerance is still prevalent. It is unprogressive views on contemporary issues which have not been developed through the years which are still being applied to a more secular and liberal environment. Take the current issue on equal marriage. Though the majority of society are in accordance with there being marriage laws accessible to all regardless of sexual orientation, there are still voices being heard quoting religious texts prohibiting people to their social right. Islam stands up for social justice and does not promote discrimination or inequality to anyone regardless of race, gender or orientation. Furthermore, an article concerning how “Islamic” courts are promoting gender discrimination and again depromoting equality as Muslim women have to pay double the amount for an Islamic divorce than men in a Sharia court. If a more progressive view on both issues were taken and a view more in accordance with Islamic texts, both Islamic and secular views would coincide and promote social equality and non-discrimination.

Although there is the ongoing notation of progressiveness within the Muslim community, this is coming at an alarmingly slow rate especially when society is moving so rapidly. Though many contemporary Muslims are more progressive than the teachers we grew up with; it is still these traditional advisors who are currently advocating on behalf of Muslims and who are still in top postions amongst courts, legislating in “accordance with Islamic Law.”
Though Myriam correctly stated that Mehdi’s argument could potentially be used to fuel a far-right agenda and to give them further ways to promote Islam as intolerant. There are still real issues which are still prevalent within within the Muslim community which still need to be addressed and people need to be re-educated in order for more liberal and inclusive voices are heard. Despite this, the fact that there are progressive voices which promote a more truthful interpretation of religion, shows that a path is being paved for the near future; I just hope that future is now.

“Editorial Board: Supreme Court must strike down #Prop8 and #DOMA wapo.st/14r0u6j” People should be free to marry who they love.—
Stephanie McMahon (@StephMcMahon) March 26, 2013

Does this mean I can be free to marry you, Steph?

But even in the happy solidarity of equal signs flying back and forth on Facebook, and for one blissful minute feeling the togetherness of all of our names sharing the same face, there is something in it all that turns my stomach.  Not the love, not the togetherness, but the fact that it’s contrived by a unique set of circumstances.  Some day, maybe tomorrow, or the next day, or the next day, we’ll all go back to being ourselves.

This tenuous feeling of togetherness, of shared love and shared rejection, of spreading the hurt across a thousand faces that for one moment choose to share the same mask; this tenuous thread will break, and I’ll go back to being just another face in the crowd. But my friends?  They’ll still be holding hands with their lovers in the grocery store.

Let me tell you a story.  Last night, I was commenting on a friend’s page, and one of his friends asked me if we could private message.  I (willingly) subjected myself to a protracted conversation where I was interrogated while this very well-meaning soul tried to catch me in a logic trap to teach me the error of my theology.  I can’t judge the guy, because I’ve been that kind of person myself and I’m sure that people who think that gays are a threat feel the same queasiness that I felt while being subjected to my own Biblical exegesis.  But it made me wonder, what did I do?  What did I do to convince this guy that I needed him to explain salvation to me?  Why does he think that I need to be drilled on faith and works?  Why does he think that I haven’t heard this argument a thousand times before?

Oh, I get it. I’m a pink equality symbol, so I must be broken.  I must need somebody’s help to understand scripture.  But tomorrow, or the day after that, or the day after that, I won’t be a threat anymore.  I’ll just be a smiling strawberry blonde who disagrees.  I won’t be marked.

You may be wondering where I’m going with this.  That’s okay, I wonder where I’m going with it too.  Here’s the thing:  It’s easy to forget, in the love and solidarity, what it’s all about.  It’s about a world in which people are told, tacitly and constantly, that they are flawed.  Where people who are subjected to judgement and criticism, where well-meaning people feel it’s their moral obligation to offer correction and condemnation at every turn.  A world in which it must at times be hard as Hell to accept the fact that there is a Creator out there who loves and needs you, and wants you to experience His love and blessing.  A world that straight people may or may not be assimilated into.  But we must never, ever, ever forget:  for some people, that world is just life.  I don’t believe at the end of the day that I have a choice in whether or not I choose to align myself with my gay friends, my single mom friends, my pot smoking friends, my Buddhist an Atheist and Agnostic and Just Plain Confused friends.  I don’t feel that it’s optional that when one of them asks me to show solidarity I do it immediately and without thinking.  Why?  Because how can I minister any love to them if I am not willing to be a part of their world.  How could I ever in good conscience ask them to enter MY world, MY faith, MY belief if I am not willing to bring it into theirs?

So, yeah, on Facebook I’m a pink equality sign.  All I can do is hope that in the real world the compassion I feel for the people I rub shoulders worth marks me as clearly as that avatar does.  And for my friends, my dear friends for whom I mark myself:  you are loved.  I don’t want to leave your world.  It’s rocky and engulfed in flames from time to time as the random hateful visitor passes through, but by God you are here.  You are here, and you make it worth every second.